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

[magid.livejournal.com]

I was extremely frustrated listening to NPR the night of the Iowa caucuses, because the results would come in (about a third of the vote to Clinton, Obama, Edwards, with just enough difference to call winner, second, third), they'd announce those, then spend the rest of the time on "analysis." Which meant discussing how Clinton played well with older people, especially women (or something), and Obama did particularly well with young people (isn't it exciting how they came to vote this time). And that would be it, every single time. I kept hearing this huge whole in coverage: Edwards got about a third of the vote: WHO WAS VOTING FOR HIM? And if not a single demographic (for soundbite purposes), then that should at least be mentioned.