The last pll before voting shows Obama with 39% and Clinton with 30%. The actual results show Obama 36%, Clinton 39%. "Why the difference?" is the question on every news channel this morning. I'll tell you why:
Obama did well in Iowa because it was a public vote. Few people want to be politically incorrect and so, since everyone could see who they were voting for, they had to vote their talk. In New Hampshire, the talk was that Obama was the better candidate, but when it came time to punch out a chad, NH proved it's more racist than sexist, more willing to vote for a woman than a black man. NH showed us what white America will do in November 2008......if Obama wins the nomination.....and that is secretly vote according to race.
America, you suck.
Digg
Delicious
Netscape
Technorati
Teach me to fish and I will eat forever.
Atom feed
I remember recently thinking that the best Democratic ticket would've been Hillary and Obama, with Obama as veep. Recent events have proved me wrong. I think that the two may be beyond reconciliation, which opens again the question of a suitable running mate. Notice that Al Gore has been incredibly quiet about the 2008 race. He's not in it. Or is he? It's looking like a very close primary race when all is said and done. A smart dude with a Nobel Prize as best man might be just enough to pull away from the fray and leave them in the dust. Then the question is who might get him. He's got loyalty with Hillary. But Obama, being a clever dude himself - might offer him some autonomy and a suitable platform for furthering his environmental agenda.
Apologies, it's a wild conjecture - but politics as we know makes for strange bedfellows.