Barack Clinton, Hillary Obama

The democratic race has never seemed so intriguing or so close, with each election’s results closely watched and delegates tallied, each vote really does seem to count this time around. Numbers of those turning out to the polls have reached new highs for a primary election, and one of the main drivers is the head-to-head race between Obama and Clinton.

After Super Tuesday, Clinton was in the lead and sittin’ pretty. But since then, election after election has turned to Obama’s favor. Some big elections coming up include Texas and Ohio, both of which have Hillary is in the lead.

But how different are these two candidates? People seem passionate about their candidates, but when looking at the two side by side, they are overall very similar. In another post, I’ll try to do some research on the points that they differ on, to try to bring perspective to this.

But in the meantime, I think that there are some who hate Hillary, and would not want her to be President, but I don’t think the same is true for Obama. At the same time, if my candidate of choice wasn’t elected president, I think I wouldn’t be opposed to the other winning the nomination. Which raises the question of a joint ticket between the two.

In the recent California debate Obama and Clinton were asked if they would consider a joint ticket, and both said yes. Seems interesting. They are both strong and successful and wouldn’t back down if the other didn’t see eye-to-eye with them. That’s the kind of relationship I want between my Pres and VP, if you pick a pair who agree on everything, what good does that serve? What if no one is looking at the issue from another angle?

However, I would be worried about the two partnering together with the red states, I think together they can seem too liberal and might not be the winning ticket. I still think a middle of road white male would be the best ticket for both. Although, personally I would be all for a joint ticket.

Could a Barack/Hillary ticket, be the winning ticket?

Democracy, Now?

Is it me, or is our nominating process for the Democratic presidential candidate a giant clusterfuck? (yes, I just wanted to use the word ‘clusterfuck’).

Remember in 2000, when Gore won the popular vote but lost the election, and all of the outrage that followed? Although I have a feeling we would disagree on a lot of issues, this blogger  accurately points out the sheer hypocrisy of it all.

-  Clinton won the popular vote in N.H., but Obama and Clinton got the same number of delegates (the CNN count refered to in the blog above was premature, but is updated here)

- Clinton won the popular vote in Nevada, but Obama got more delegates

- Clinton won the popular vote in Florida, but nobody got ANY delegates.

BUT,

Despite the fact that Barack Obama has more pledged delegates than any other candidate (63 to Clinton’s 48), Hillary Clinton has the superdelegates  on her side. These mysterious super delegates (see the link for some historical context) are party operatives and elected officials who make up about 20% of all democratic delegates, and can vote for whoever they damn well please, people and primary results be dammed. In the superdelegate battle, it’s Clinton:184, Obama:95.

So what is going on here? Will the Democratic nominee win the popular vote but not win a majority of pledged delegates,  only to be saved by the preferences of an elite few. (After all, former President Bill Clinton is a super delegate himself )

I don’t think it should be winner take all (nationally as well as within each state), but a little more transparency would be nice. Certainly we can do better than the clusterfuck that exists today.