Delegate Math - or, Why It's Just About Over

(If not for Democratic Convention Watch, this post would be nonexistent. A HUGE hat tip to DCW!)

WARNING: The contents of this post may be VERY CONFUSING!

So why do most of the pundits, analysts, etc., agree that the race is over even as Hillary Clinton fights on? It's all in the numbers.

Before we get to those numbers, however, let me first of all state that there are two main types of delegates. Pledged delegates are those who support a certain candidate for President and have pledged to vote for them.

Members of Congress, Governors, members of the Democratic National Committee, and distinguished Democratic leaders (i.e. former Presidents and VPs, etc.) are automatically seated as National Convention delegates. They are called unpledged delegates. Each state Party also gets to select a couple of 'add-on' unpledged delegates.

Anyway, here is the current total delegate count as of Thursday afternoon, May 22, not including Florida or Michigan delegates:

TOTAL DELEGATES: 4,049

• Needed for Majority: 2,025
• Obama’s total: 1,964; 61 from majority (note a)
  
• Clinton’s total: 1,779; 246 from majority
• Edwards: 9 (a)
  
• Pledged delegates in remaining contests: 86
• Undetermined superdelegate votes: 211 (b)
  
• Total undetermined delegate votes: 306 (b, c)
  
• Percent of remaining total delegates Obama needs to clinch: 19.9% (d)
  
• Percent of remaining pledged delegates Obama needs to clinch: 70.9% (e)
  

Notes:
(a) Edwards has received 18 pledged delegates from the states in which he competed. Nine have since said they will support Obama at the Convention; these are included in Obama's total. The other nine are still marked as being for Edwards.
(b) Includes 35 unpledged add-on delegate positions that have yet to be filled.
(c) Includes the 9 Edwards delegates who haven't endorsed Clinton or Obama; the 86 pledged delegate votes in yet-to-be-held contests; and the 211 undetermined superdelegate votes.
(d) This is the number Obama needs to clinch (62) divided by the number of undetermined delegate votes.
(e) Same as (d), excluding superdelegates.

Here's a way to look at it: Imagine it's Election Night, and you hear a network anchor state that "With 92% of the precincts reporting, Candidate A is leading 52% to 48%." By that point, they would probably call Candidate A the winner. Well, more than 92% of the delegates have been allocated to one candidate or the other, and guess what? Obama has won 52% of them. So, in a sense, with 92% reporting, he leads 52-48%.

So, without Florida and Michigan, Obama only needs to win about one in five of the remaining delegates to clinch the nomination. In only three states has Obama won less than 1/3 of the pledged delegates. And superdelegate endorsements have overwhelmingly favored Obama in recent weeks.

The above list includes all pledged and unpledged delegates. The following list includes only pledged delegates. The pledged-delegate count is important since many people, including some superdelegates, have suggested that whoever gets the most pledged delegates ought to win the nomination.

PLEDGED DELEGATES: 3,253

• Needed for majority: 1,627
• Obama: 1,657.5; 30.5 more than needed for majority
• Clinton: 1,500.5
• Undetermined pledged delegates: 95 (a)
  

NOTE:
(a) Includes 86 delegates from remaining contests and the 9 Edwards delegates who haven't picked Clinton or Obama.

So, even if Hillary were to win every single one of those remaining 95 pledged delegates, she would still need 150 (or 71.1%) of the 211 unallocated superdelegates to go her way.

That is all but impossible. In order to get all of the remaining pledged delegates, by party rules she would need to take 85% of the vote in all of the remaining states. That's on top of getting Edwards's 9 remaining delegates to vote against the person their candidate endorsed.

Assuming she doesn't sweep the remaining 95 delegates - and we all know she won't - Hillary will need more than 150 superdelegates to go her way. And that most likely won't happen since Obama has far outpaced her in superdelegate endorsements in recent weeks.

Hillary must instead rely on seeing to it that Michigan's and Florida's delegates are seated at the Convention. Even if they are seated, the math still looks pretty rocky for her.

The proposal the Michigan Democratic Party is putting forward to seat our delegates would give Hillary 69 delegates and Obama 59. This splits the difference between the 73-55 split the Clinton camp wants (based on the results of the January 15 primary) and the 64-64 tie Obama wanted.

The proposal most often mentioned with regards to Florida's delegates would involve cutting that state’s pledged-delegate votes in half, so each delegate would get 1/2 of one vote. Clinton won 105 delegates in the January primary; Obama 69; and Edwards, 11. Cut in half, these figures come out to 52.5-34.5-5.5.

Both proposals call for full votes for superdelegates (i.e. their votes wouldn’t be cut in half). Hillary leads among Florida superdelegates 8-5 with 17 undeclared, and in Michigan she leads 7-5 with 13 undeclared.

These proposals, if passed, would add 220.5 pledged delegates and 55 superdelegates to the mix. The new numbers would be:

TOTAL DELEGATE VOTES: 4,324

• Needed for majority: 2,162.5
• Obama: 2,057.5; 105 from clinching nomination
• Clinton: 1,900.5; 262 from clinching nomination
• Edwards: 14.5
• Uncommitted superdelegates: 241
• Total undetermined delegate votes: 341.5
• Percent of remaining total delegates Obama needs to clinch: 30.8%

PLEDGED DELEGATE VOTES: 3,473.5

• Needed for majority: 1,737
• Obama: 1,751; 14 more than needed for majority
• Clinton: 1,622
• Unallocated pledged delegates: 100.5

Look! Even under this scenario, Obama has already locked up the pledged-delegate lead! So, winning all of the remaining 100.5 pledged delegates would leave Hillary 161.5 superdelegates (66.9% of the remaining delegates) from the nomination.

And again, it bears repeating that Obama will almost certainly get a good share of those remaining pledged delegates, thus padding his pledged-delegate majority and likely garnering more superdelegate support while raising the bar even higher for Hillary.

Thank You, Senator Kennedy!

There have been very few individuals in the history of the United States Senate who have done a more masterful job in their role as a senator than Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts (U.S. Senator, 1962-present.)

Known as the "liberal lion" of the Democratic Party as well as the U.S. Senate, Sen. Kennedy has justly earned this nickname by advocating and supporting, with great energy, liberal issues that he sees as essential to not only his constituents in Massachusetts, but important to the welfare of this nation as well. Not only that, Kennedy has never been afraid to cross the aisle and with a true bipartisan spirit, work on bills with Republican senators that he feels is both important and necessary; despite the unpopularity in some cases of such a move from his Democratic colleagues in the Senate.

He is also known, quite rightly, as the "consciousness" of the Democratic Party. In the party itself, his words and advice are coveted by all sectors of Democrats, from precinct captains to presidential candidates. Also, as a senior member of the US Senate, his advice and counsel carries a lot of weight in many lawmakers' minds on both sides of the political fence, liberal or conservative. His backing and campaigning of Sen. Barack Obama literally sent shock-waves throughout the Democratic Party and the nation; and it goes without saying that his endorsement along with the other endorsements that Obama has garnered has perhaps given him the edge in the 2008 Democratic Presidential primary race over Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY.)

Although marred by personal tragedy and scandal over the course of not only his personal life, but his political career as well, Ted Kennedy has weathered nearly storm and come out of these situations stronger for it. Of course...it goes without saying (especially to history and political buffs) that one cannot overlook perhaps his most controversial moment in his life, that of the situation which took the life of Mary Jo Kopechne in an event that has come down the halls of time by the name of the "Chappaquiddick incident," an incident that perhaps affected his decision not to run for president in 1972 and his run in 1980; an election in which he came close to overturning incumbent President Jimmy Carter's re-election campaign.

Yet, it must be said that as a seasoned political animal, Kennedy perhaps realized that while he would probably never be elected president, he did have the ability to affect both senatorial and national politics for decades to come, something that historically, has rung true. (Consequentially, Senator Kennedy's influence in the senate has been historically prevalent throughout eight presidential administrations, John F. Kennedy through George W. Bush.)

So in your trials and your sufferings as you begin to recover, I would like, on behalf of all members of the Democratic Party and the people of this nation, to wish you a healthy recovery in your fight against cancer. Also, on behalf of the people of this country and the party, I would like to say a heartfelt "thank you" for your service to this nation. You are justly deserving to stand amongst the Senate immortals and, perhaps more personally, stand on the same ground as your vaunted and honored brothers, President John F. and Atty. General-Senator Robert F. Kennedy.

PS: I would like to express my most heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of former Carter Chief of Staff Hamilton Jordan (1979-80,) who lost his battle with cancer on Tuesday at age 63. Jordan was a key advisor to Jimmy Carter's presidential run in 1976 and, seemingly out of nowhere, helped make a relatively unknown one-term Georgia governor the President of the United States. With the advice and counsel of Jordan, Carter shockingly beat some of the most influential Democrats in 1976 such as Gov. George Wallace (D-AL,) Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson (D-WA,) Rep. Morris Udall (D-AZ,) Gov. Jerry Brown (D-CA,) and my favorite US Senator, Robert Byrd (D-WV,) to garner the Democratic nomination.

He will be sorely missed.

Hate

If there are just a few things my parents, teachers, and priests all had in common, it's that they cared for me and wanted me to care for others. From an early age, they taught me the importance of respect and tolerance toward each other, especially toward people who are different than me.

Now, I'm not part of the LGBT community. But that's not my choice. That's nobody's choice. You are or you aren't, just like you are male or you are female. Thus, any form of hatred toward someone who is LGBT is downright unacceptable.

How sickening that that so many people have a deep-seated resentment of people who just happen to be different than them - in race, gender, sexual orientation, you name it. Even worse is the fact that so many people find it necessary to act on their hatred through violence.

Today the Triangle Foundation released its study of hate crimes in 2007, and probably to no one's surprise, reports of anti-LGBT hate crimes have skyrocketed nationwide, especially in Michigan.

(I received the report via email; quotes and data are from that email.)

As Melissa Pope, Director of Victim Services at the Triangle Foundation, says:

Hate violence is unlike any other crime in America. Most crime is motivated by personal gain, but hate violence is different. Hate violence is purely about victimizing a person because of who they are. It is a form of terrorism that punishes entire communities, even people that were not the target of the violence.

Reports of hate violence against the LGBT community nationwide increased from 1,486 in 2006 to 1,833 in 2007 - a 23% increase.

In Michigan, however, the increase was 133% - from 97 reported incidents in 2006 to 226 in 2007. There were also 72 reports of discrimination, such a being fired from a job or evicted.

And surely there are many other such incidnents that have not gone reported for any of a number of reasons.

What goes through the mind of a hate criminal? What about their innocent fellowman propels a person to harm them? What do they hope to accomplish by committing an act of violence against someone who, goodness knows, they just might have to depend on for something important someday?

And why must the rest of us suffer? (These crimes affect all of us in many ways, whether you realize it or not.)

State Sen. Hansen Clarke is trying to do something about this:

Hate crimes are among the most cowardly, vicious acts committed. I regret to learn that the number of reported hate crimes has more than doubled in the last year. It is not too late to stop the hate and through my legislation the Michigan’s Ethnic Intimidation Act will expand, increasing punishment for hate crimes and adding extra protection to Michigan’s gay and transgender community. To keep Michigan citizens safe, I look to my colleagues to support my bill.

How many of his colleagues will stand up for the safety of our citizens? And how many will stand by idly while our state, her people, and therefore the livelihoods of ten million citizens of Michigan continue to suffer?

Edwards (finally) Supports Obama

Consider it a "foregone conclusion..."

On Wednesday, former Senator and Democratic Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards gave his belated support for presumptive Democratic Presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) in, of all places, Grand Rapids, which according to one blogger is "the heart of conservative West Michigan."

I'm not saying that Edwards' endorsement wasn't necessary for Obama to win the nomination; if anything it practically makes it a done deal as it does, most assuredly, give Barack a needed ally when it comes to grassroots and blue collar voters. The one thing that perplexes me about the whole thing is its timing of his recommendation. Why did he endorse Obama now, why not last month or perhaps after Super Tuesday? What brought about Edwards' sanctioning of Barack in mid-May and not in mid-March or earlier? What took him so long to make his decision anyway?

Was it because of the results of the West Virginia Democratic primary on Tuesday? Obama's opponent, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) beat him in rather Pyrrhic fashion by nearly 40 points. Of course, this win and her projected win in Kentucky next week isn't exactly denting Barack's lead in the delegate totals, but it does show a considerable problem in Obama's run for the White House; his seeming inability to win the hearts and minds of rural voters, white blue collar workers, older Americans, and the like. With Edwards' endorsement of him and his campaign, this goes a long way in bridging the gap in this respect, but its by no means a "cure-all" either.

In an article on Newsweek.com, Andrew Romano had a rather interesting point that resonated with me. He stated that:

"With the primaries essentially over, Edwards is basically stepping into his inevitable general election role—a passionate, respected, credible general-election liaison to blue-collar America who sways skeptics by saying "I'm one of you and here's why I support this guy"—a few weeks early."

This is essentially true. Edwards' endorsement of Obama gives the latter some amount of blue collar "street cred" if you will (but, only so much) and it is, ultimately, Obama's use of this "cred" given to Obama by Edwards, which will determine the outcome in areas where they are the predominant factor in the election.

However, Edwards' rather tardy endorsement of Obama could have come sooner rather than now and probably, with his endorsement along with other conditions, we would not be in the presidential candidate "pickle" that we in the Democratic Party are facing now. I'm not saying that his endorsement would have cured all of Obama's Presidential candidate problems, I'm just saying that the timing of it could have been more opportune. Mr. Romano from the Newsweek.com article agrees with me in that, ultimately, Edwards' endorsement probably will not make a dent in the last few primary races left on the schedule. Accordingly, he wrote:

"Will the Edwards endorsement actually change anything? It's unlikely—and the reason is timing. If the former North Carolina senator had taken a real risk and sided with the Illinois senator back when someone not named "Barack Obama" had even the remotest chance of clinching the nomination—say, before Super Tuesday, or Ohio, or even Indiana—he might have helped his blue-collar base overcome its suspicions, vote for his chosen candidate and bring this interminable battle to an end...So from that point on [May 6th's NC and IN primaries,] Edwards endorsing Obama was a foregone conclusion. Edwards is a Democrat. Obama's the Democratic nominee. It had to happen eventually."

As it is, Edwards adds another puzzle piece to the rapidly completing Democratic presidential candidate puzzle. Obama just needs a few more wins (and they do not have to be really convincing ones) will give him the nomination, no matter the delegate or super-delegate count. Yet, it must be said that his seeming inability to garner blue collar voters and the nagging argument that he is somehow "elitist" must be addressed and remedied by November (with the help of Edwards) if the Presidency is to be his.

Otherwise...he will fare badly and lose the general election; thus, there will be yet another pale Republican in the White House screwing things up.

I Was There as Edwards endorsed Obama

Wow! People talk about being "Fired Up and Ready to Go" at Obama rallies, but I must say I never imagined seeing what I just saw in Grand Rapids, in the heart of conservative West Michigan.

An endorsement from John Edwards.

I arrived at Van Andel Arena (named for a conservative cofounder of Amway) around 5:15. The line to get in moved quite rapidly, probably because there were plenty of metal detectors to keep people moving in at an efficient pace. I sat in the upper level of the arena, but I was closer to the stage than many people there. Besides, given who we knew was going to be there, I wasn’t complaining.

A disabled veteran led us in the Pledge of Allegiance. The crowd cheered as they saw the young man in crutches approach the podium. After that, someone from the field office had everyone get out their cell phones and text 'MI' to 62262 to stay involved with the campaign.

A little while later we saw the "Yes We Can" video by will.i.am. A little later, The Wave.

I reflected on the people there. They were diverse in race, age, and surely walk of life. I saw middle-aged white men. I saw black women. I saw kids - plenty of kids! Many of whom won’t be old enough to vote this November. Still, they were witnessing history. Sure, school was out for the day. But these kids were getting a hands-on education, just as I did when I saw Al Gore at Calder Plaza in October 2000.

Around 6:35, a worker at the Lear factory in Walker - which will be closing in a few months - spoke about his struggles to get by as the cost of living increased but his paycheck didn’t.

He had the honor of introducing the man who would be President.

At 6:38 PM, Barack Obama - one of the smartest and most beloved people in modern politics - stepped up to the podium.

He started by telling us he had a treat. And a treat it was as he introduced a young man who has dedicated his life to tackling the many issues ordinary Americans face.

Once Barack uttered the words "John Edwards," the place went nuts. We all knew what Edwards’s presence there meant. I was hopping up and down like I’ve never done at any political function in my 20 ½ years. Hell, I’m not sure I’ve ever been so excited at a sporting event!

Edwards spoke of the major themes of his campaign: Poverty, social justice, healthcare, and of course making the two Americas one. "The Democratic voters of America have made their decision," he added, "and so have I."

In his remarks, Obama made the solemn promise that Edwards would find in President Obama a fierce comrade in the fight against poverty. He then touched on what he has discussed throughout his campaign, including the many important issues we face in this country and the importance of changing the way Washington operates.

There seems to be general agreement that Senator Obama will be our Democratic nominee. He pointed out that both Edwards and, yes, Hillary all stood for a much-needed change in Washington. On more than one occasion, Obama called out McCain as someone who simply offers more of the same. Obama, speaking in a conservative region of battleground Michigan, was in full general-election mode.

At one point during the speech, we got a glimpse of what kind of human being we'll have as our President if this man is elected.

At one point, Barack saw that someone in the crowd had fainted. He interrupted his spiel for a moment to alert the EMTs that someone had fainted. He then took his bottle of water and asked people to send it back to the person who had fainted.

I'm not sure many politicians would interrupt their own speech to do that - much less give up their bottle of water.

When the speech was done, the crowd dispersed, and I made my way to the car. As I got in the car, I looked in the mirror and asked myself: "Did I really just see Edwards endorse Obama?"

Oh, yes, I did.

And I hope that you too have the privilege of being there to see and hear Barack Obama bring out your emotions and move you to action.

West Virginia's Primary is NOT the setting for "Deliverance!"

Before I begin my rant, I would like to wish all mom's, stepmothers, grandmothers, and adoptive mothers out there a Happy Mothers Day; its the toughest job you'll ever love...well, sometimes!

With that being said, let's head to the state of my birth and oddly enough, the next state to hold a Democratic primary, West Virginia.

Vital Stats: food for thought!

Capitol: Charleston
Population: 1,808,344 predominantly blue-collar persons
Governor: Joe Manchin (D)

According to my sources, at stake on Tuesday, May 13, 2008, there are twenty-eight delegates which will be awarded on a proportional basis and eleven "superdelegates;" three of whom have announced support for Sen. Hillary Clinton (DNC members Marie Prezioso, Belinda Biafore, and Pat Maroney,) while two have endorsed Sen. Barack Obama (Sen. Jay Rockefeller and Rep. Nick Rahall.)


At first, I was going to write about how pivotal this contest was and how interesting the race was going to get come crunch time. However, something caught my eye whilst I was reading CNN.com's blog article entitled "Polls show Clinton with big lead in West Virginia," which changed my mind. It was not the title of the article which did the trick...it was the comments made about West Virginia from obviously just plain ignorant people, which set me off.


You know, I am all for competitiveness in political races, presidential or otherwise, yet it must be said that there cannot be no room for political tackiness in this election...except from Sen. John McCrack...but I digress. Maybe its just me, but I feel the time is right to set the facts straight about my birth-state


West Virginians are not the backwoods "Deliverance"-like country music-loving hicks most people like to think they are, (although West Virginians do like country music a lot;) they are honest, hardworking, and flat broke...just like the rest of us. They, like us, hurt from economic depressions and layoffs and, just like us, tend to get ground under foot by corporate bigwigs trying to make a buck. When we suffer, they suffer as well.


Of course, unlike some of us, most West Virginians take the Second Amendment seriously, mostly to hunt...and mostly for sustenance. West Virginians, for the most part, are moderate-to-conservative Democrats and/or Republicans (and there is nothing wrong with that, just because your are conservative does not make you a racist or whatever,) yet Bush carried the state in 2000 and 2004 because of his close ties to the mainstream of WV conservative political thought.


As it happens, I am a moderate Democrat!


I find it interesting that just because the vast majority of people in WV live on or near mountains, that automatically makes them "hillbillies." Looking at WV's geography and the population density (seventy five people per square mile,) how can you, anywhere in West Virginia, not live on or near a mountain; its damn near impossible unless you live in the population centers like Charleston, Wheeling, or Huntington.


What really set me off about the comments made on the blog were by people who state that the WV Democratic primary is completely useless. In the 2008 Democratic primary season, all of the primaries are important! Just because West Virginia isn't California, Michigan, or New York does not make the state any less important politically nor does it qualify to have every stereotype used against it as a result. It is also inappropriate to use the various stereotypes in determining the reasons why Hillary Clinton may win the state by a large amount. Hillary has done far better than Barack in most states where blue-collar workers dominate, its a fact you cannot get around well. Does that mean that the people of Indiana are "hicks?" What about Ohio and Texas? Do people here supposedly exhibit "cousin-marrying" tendencies?

Of course not!


Let me give you an example of this stereotypical ignorance from the blog:

".....West Virginia is, and always will be, backwards. Perhaps she'll hold a victory speech on the back of a pickup at a Klan rally."

"because people in West Virginia are poor and uneducated."

"who cares?? is this really news? we already know she gets the redneck vote!!! most in WV keep all in the family anyway — why wouldn't they all agree on HER??!!!"

I am all for free speech...hell, it was one of the main freedoms I joined the Army for in the first place. Yet, sometimes I wonder if people should have a intelligence test before they can have that freedom. The comments listed above are just a small sample from the CNN.com blog and by no means do they represent anything I believe in. Stereotypes have no place in politics, in life, and/or everything else. To use them in order to explain anything, much less projected primary results, is just asking for the loyal opposition (who have their own army of ignorant stereotypical fire-breathers,) to ramp up their wrong-headed attacks.

In conclusion, the people of the state of West Virginia do not deserve half of the false stereotypes flung at them by ignorant political apes. Their Democratic primary on Tuesday is just as important as the ones we have previously had, perhaps even more so to the Clinton camp. To discount the people of the state would discount from Barack or Hillary five electoral votes come Election Day, 2008, and in this most important election of our generation, five electoral votes could mean the difference between proclaiming President Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton or President McCain.

Like I said in the last blog, do we really need four more years of George W. Bush's policies under John McCain?

I, most assuredly, think not!

"My Candidate or Else..."

One thing that has intrigued me about the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination race is the "my candidate or else" mantra that I hear sometimes from people.

The Republicans this year do not really have this problem, as it appears that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has sown up the party's nomination. Provided, of course, he has no "Manchurian Candidate"-like flashbacks, does not tick off and/or alienate the Christian Right too much; and provided that he is able to place his neck waddle in the overhead compartment of most commercial airliners without incident, he should not have too much of a problem securing the nod at the 2008 Republican National Convention. (Yes, I know he has the votes already, but lets not be too hasty to crown him the Republican nominee for President just yet; things could happen!)

Alas it is we, the Democrats, who have the "my candidate or else" crap seemingly ringing in our ears (yes, crap!) Both of our fine candidates have strong qualities and noble attributes that we can, as Democrats, be proud of. What is more, they can speak for themselves, defend themselves; and, when necessary, clear the air themselves enough without the rank-and-file Democratic party members having to run damage control interference for them. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) is an intelligent, strong, determined, never-say-die candidate with laudable experience (admittedly, not elected experience) on the state, national, and international levels. Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is both a dynamic personality and an excellent speaker, whose youth, idealism, and grand visions for the future, is exactly what the doctor ordered to rejuvinate this party and this nation.

Yet, oddly enough, even with the fantastic choices of candidates we have here, we still have this "my candidate or else" undercurrent flowing through the party. Some Obama people are adamant in saying that "Oh, if Hillary gets the nod, I'm just gonna stay home on Election Day." Consequently, there are people in the Clinton camp who are just as determined to defend their "If he's nominated, I'm not supporting Obama on November 4th" opinion.

This kind of petty in-fighting moose dung is just what "McCan't" is banking on.

Our own dividedness will only serve to sweep "McColostomy" into the White House come January 20, 2009. A "McCorpse" win will mean four more years of George W. "ficus plant-for-brains" Bush's policies, four more years of Bush's hangers-on, and four more years of tarnished, unworkable foreign and domestic policies; depend upon it! The Republicans are still on a sort-of hangover from the 2006 Congressional election losses, however, this does not say that they have become mentally handicapped as a result of their previous losses. They will use every advantage and every tool we give them,and take off with it before we know what the hell is going on.

While even I realize that this drawn-out primary season only intensifies this internal back-biting, it must be said that once this situation is cleared up, we MUST close ranks behind our party's ticket, without fail. There MUST not be any of this "I'm staying home" crap because your candidate didn't get the nod; that's just stubborn childishness. On Election Day, I am assuredly going to support the Democratic Presidential nominee. I am not, on that day, gonna sit in the mud and have my arms crossed pouting about how my candidate didn't win the nomination. I am going to do all I can to give our party's Presidential candidate the best possible chance to win this year, whomever it is.

We have a chance to change this nation of ours for the better. We have it in our hands to have our party finally bring some sense to a sense-lacking White House. It must be imperative to all of the party membership to support to the heights of Elysium, our Presidential candidates and our other Democratic candidates, both here locally and across this nation. If we continue to have in our minds the whole "my candidate or else" mantra, we should just congradulate McCankersore on his win right now and start a-griping about his presidency; so at least we will have more than six months of comedic material to work with come Inaguration Day, 2009.