even winning politial campaigns incur debt. this has been the most expensive presidential primary race in history- you would imagine the loser of that race would have big chunk of debt to show for it. i honestly don't think that this debt will hamper sen. clinton for years- she and her husband have plenty of money, plenty more coming, and plenty of ways to raise that money back. i'm not worried about it, and neither should anyone else.

Posted at June 10, 2008 10:52 AM in response to NYT: Hillary's Debts Could Burden Her For Years

didn't sen. webb mention in an article by the hill that he wasn't interested in the vp slot? could he be lobbying for another position? like secretary of defense?

Posted at June 5, 2008 11:16 AM in response to Jim Webb Auditions As Top Obama Surrogate

i agree with your concept of reducing the influence of the superdelegates. i think that their influence, although bothersome at times, is very important in maintaining party cohesion.

(accidentally posted below)

Posted at June 3, 2008 4:47 PM in response to What if? How the Democratic Party dodged a bullet this week

i agree with your concept of reducing the influence of the superdelegates. i think that their influence, although bothersome at times, is very important in maintaining party cohesion.

Posted at June 3, 2008 4:46 PM in response to What if? How the Democratic Party dodged a bullet this week

i like this article- it has generated a very good discussion on the nomination process.

one thing that i do wonder is, how bad are superdelegates?

i understand the gut feeling that it's not "one person/one vote", but i think numerous people have demonstrated that we do not live in a pure democracy; we are a representative democracy and the one person/one vote, as altruistic it might sound, does not apply in our case.

i also understand the gut feeling about the prospect of superdelegates "overturning the will of the voters". this is a phrase that has been popularized by both the obama camp and the hillary camp. i think we have to remember that superdelegates do not function with one consciousness and that they are all individuals with various impulses and ambitions. according to various metrics (other than the all-important delegate count) a superdelegate would have to overturn the "popular vote" to be considered going against the will of the voters. But with some camps counting the caucus states and others not- what would be a definable number of voters that would be agreed upon? Could you actually imagine a situation in which the superdelegates would come AS A SINGLE GROUP and EN MASSE casts votes for the perceived loser of the popular vote count? Because the concept of "overturning the will of the voters" suggests the overturning the number of people that cast their votes rather than overturning the delegate count (which, as we all know, is the only metric that is counted by the DNC).

Shouldn't party leaders have a strong say in the direction of their party? Hell, that's why we voted them in in the first place.

I think that superdelegates should be considered in the many things to be considered in the retooling of our nomination process. But, I had to play devil's advocate for a moment and consider that this primary season has changed the perception of things (caucuses = bad, superdelegates = evil, GOP voters = mischievous...hmm, that last one might be right) and that we shouldn't jump to conclusions so quickly.

Posted at June 3, 2008 4:42 PM in response to What if? How the Democratic Party dodged a bullet this week

oops

"in which the Democratic nominee" rather than "in which the Democratic".

Posted at May 23, 2008 4:19 PM in response to Here's My Olive Branch

I have voted in many elections in which the Democratic was not my #1 pick.

I have supported Democrats who are currently in Congress who aren't my favorite progressives.

I doubt that I'm the only person who could say those previous things.

This November, I will vote for the Democratic nominee even if my #1 is not on the ballot.

Posted at May 23, 2008 4:18 PM in response to Here's My Olive Branch

I believe that when Blacks vote, they take into consideration all that can be taken into consideration when anyone goes to vote.

My response to your question "Do they even care about the signficant policy differences between Hillary and Obama or are they voting for Obama en masse because he's the first viable African American presidential candidate?" is a fine question for a study by a political scientist, but otherwise it appears that you would suggest that Black voters are voting DESPITE the policy issues instead of because of. I don't necessarily think that is what you're asserting, but if we continue to push this campaign as if some people voting are racist or will only vote for a candidate with the same racial classification as they, then I think that approach will continue to divide this country over superficial differences rather than unite the country with substantial issues that plague us all.

Posted at May 14, 2008 6:50 PM in response to Exit Polls Show Hillary's voters are racist and ignorant.

Well, I certainly don't mean to single you out as the only perpetrator of such crimes. I don't think you should be used as an example, I suppose I thought that after reading your post it was the straw that broke the camel's back. I should've been clearer and I apologize for that.

It's true, if I had more energy and time to give equal grievances to all I thought should do something different I would have no sleep and no friends.

My objection ignores what you consider "the cool factor" because from reading your post it appears that you essentialize the support for Obama as a pop culture fad rather than an actual grassroots movement. Which, again, degrades the work that he and countless others have put in during this campaign.

Since you bring it up, I won't deny that Sen. Obama has been instrumental in gaining the support of young voters by using social networking websites and "Rock the Vote" type rallies. But of course, it behooves any candidate to try to each every eligible voter with the legal means available to them. I know that many of the other candidates on either side has attempted some form of the platform that Sen. Obama has used, but they have not seen the same results.

If Sen. Obama has a lot of young people who are enthusiastic about politics as a part of his campaign, does that mean they are only a part of it because they think he is only cool and hip?

If Sen. Clinton has many elderly supporters who are enthusiastic about politics as a part of her campaign, does that mean they are only a part of it because they have no concept of what is within 18-45 mainstream American culture?

In my personal opinion, the answer to both of those questions are a resounding "NO" and it again essentializes the candidates and the diversity of their support that is usually relegated to the Republican party.

Posted at May 14, 2008 6:41 PM in response to Exit Polls Show Hillary's voters are racist and ignorant.

Just two things:

In past Presidential elections, the Black vote has gone overwhelmingly to the Democratic nominee and not to the Republican nominee when both of the candidates have been White.

The Black vote has been one of the most consistently Democratic votes in Presidential races.

Posted at May 14, 2008 6:22 PM in response to Exit Polls Show Hillary's voters are racist and ignorant.