election non-surprise

[cellio]

I'm kind of sad that John Edwards dropped out of the Democratic race. He wasn't going to win (on first ballot at the convention), I don't think, but he has enough of a following that it seems like he could have influenced the front-runners had he stayed in. On the other hand, he was probably drawing more votes from Obama than from Hillary ("sleaze as usual"), so if it helps Obama win the nomination it won't be all bad. He hasn't made a formal endorsement, but this might count. Still, if the Dems don't slap Hillary down hard and soon, they risk blowing the election, either by nominating a slick divisive candidate or by doing too much dirty campaigning before rejecting her.

(I'm not for Obama, but I'm against Hillary. I really wish we didn't have institutionalized two-party rule in this country; it discourages innovation.)

Did anyone else catch the complaint from the NH chapter of NOW? (It was in the news yesterday or the day before.) They complained that Kennedy "betrayed women" by not endorsing Hillary. Earth to NOW: you are doing harm to your candidate if your entire platform is "she's a she". Not that I mind, but I'm just sayin'.

Comments

[zevabe.livejournal.com]

The media is into simple stories. One on one is a much simpler story than a 9 person free for all. And because the 9 candidates don't all have an equal chance of victory, attention is focused on those that have a higher chance of victory. And yes, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Also, certain candidates who are running to affect only one issue are boring to interview, because they only talk about that one issue. My gf gets a magazine for medical students. It asked candidates their views on improving healthcare in the US. Tom Tancredo's answer was: kicking out illegal immigrants will free up health care money for Americans.