If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
Caucus states, the former first lady says, are undemocratic and cater only to party activists. Southern states, like Louisiana, have “a very strong and very proud African-American electorate,” naturally predisposed to favor a black candidate.And so-called “red” states like North Dakota, Idaho and Kansas — all of which Obama won on Super Tuesday — will never choose a Democrat in the general election anyway [source].
The excuses are flowing in thick and fast from the Clinton camp after yesterday’s sweep of the Chesapeake primaries by Barak Obama. By that logic, as the above linked MSNBC article states, the only states that matter are the ones that Clinton has won. If caucuses are undemocratic because they cater only to party activists, isn’t relying on super delegates even more undemocratic as they comprise of the elite of the party? And if black-dominant candidates are predisposed to black candidates, isn’t Hillary Clinton also basking in the support of woman voters? Isn’t she also courting Latino voters more now that black voters seem to vote overwhelmingly for Obama? Don’t get me started on ignoring the red states because Hillary must be told that the country is in fact purple and there are democratic voters inside even the reddest of the states and you can only ignore them at your peril. After all, doesn’t Obama say that we are not fighting for a Democratic America or a Republican America but in fact for a United States of America?
Hillary may win the Democratic nomination still but as they said, adversity doesn’t build character but only reveals it. She might be a highly capable campaigner and leader but she definitely cannot handle setbacks. That doesn’t bode well for a President who must attempt to heal partisanship in today’s America.
Article Tags >> elections | Hillary Clinton | Obama | politics

