|
|
Unfortunately Obama wasn't able to get a second win by getting New Hampshire, but being only 3% behind in a state that, according to polls during most of 2007, he was supposed to lose by 20%, I say that's a pretty good showing. I find it amusing that Hillary calls her win a comeback when up until a week ago, she was the one who was supposed to win!
There's been a million and a half theories about what happened to Obama's lead in the polls, and I don't think we'll ever know. But I think this article might have it closest. Even I felt bad for the way she was getting treated in the media and the nastiness involved. Though that's also the exact reason why I worry if she does win the nomination, that she will be too polarizing and that too many people just don't like her. I personally don't have much of an issue with her and I would have no problem voting her in, but I think a lot of America does.
Also, even though I'm still a huge Obama fan, I am kinda glad that at least the nominating process gets to be extended beyond 2 states with less than .5% of the nation voting. I doubt my vote will matter by the time the primaries hit Texas, but at least Super Duper Tuesday still counts for something. And I honestly believe that once people start hearing, learning, and paying attention to Obama, they'll vote for him.
Speaking of the unfair primary system, I agree with the principle that it's a good idea to have a few states at the beginning, since having to do a nation-wide primary would be prohibitively expensive for all but the richest of the rich candidates. But instead of always having two of the whitest rural states decide who are presidential nominees are, how about doing a lottery system, and pick out like 4 random states each election cycle to start with. And then slowly work your way up to more states, until there's a "Super Tuesday" of all the leftover states. As others have pointed out, I don't think there'd be so much corn subsidies if the first primary state wasn't Iowa.
|
