DNC

It scares me.

One group of people holding some much power in time with he decision making process should be completely left up to the American people. In a time when our country is in perhaps the greatest need of change since perhaps the times of New Deal Politics, we should have the final say. Not a group of people sitting in a conference of some smatzly DC hotel.

For me, this crosses the Obama, Clinton battle. I feel like the DNC is sort of saying “no” to the American people. Sort of like, your boss broke the rules, and therefore so did. That juxtaposition never works. I don’t care so much about the final decision, but more of the message that the decision is sending to the American (as a side note, I am not sure there is a way to do what they have done that would have not causes) which you can vote, you can vote legally. In the end, the power is still in our hands. It would be interested to know how many times the DNC has had to have these types of discussions?

Right now, we are essentially at the stage of the came we were in the 2006 election. One candidate is ahead in the popular vote while the other is ahead in the “electoral” vote. And the DNC committee has just decided the outcome, much like the supreme court. Just because the outcome has been decided though doesn’t mean that war is over.

Unlike Florida 2000, some of the circumstances are a little different. When we think of the demographics of that races it might have some easy conclusion to come to. One, major metropolitan cities will go for the D over the R , but the more rural areas will go for the R over the D.

Here we have a case though were the candidate that is ahead has done so by winning big-time in the urban vote, and  the one loosing seems to do better with rural vote.

So, wouldn’t it make sense for the candidate that can get the rural vote ( which as of recent history the party has had trouble with) to be the nominee? The urban vote will just tow-the-line. They more than likely continue to vote for the D over the R.

This all make perfect since if the all the DNC cares about is winning. So what other factors do we need to think about?

Image?

History?

Success?

Leadership?

Knowledge?

Experience?

This is where the problem gets SO much harder to understand. We have candidates that essentially split alot of this important traits right down the middle. For example, Clinton has better foreign policy / policy experience than Mr. Obama. Obama though has much better “experience” he knows what it is like to take something from the ground up. Something, Mrs. Clinton has never done or dealt with (at least to my knowledge).

So who do we vote for? How do we decide?

I don’t know.

CO-PRESIDENTS?

I am just saying that I am getting really tired of people trying to call and end to the race. Saying that is bad for America, and that it is bad for the party. Since when is bad to have a discussion? When is it bad to have two candidates that are so strong they can essentially win the election. Is that what FDR’s fireside chats were about? Discussion essentially?

I don’t know, but for me I would like to see Obama and Clinton to have a really dialogue for once. Sit down and talk about what is important to America’s and for Americans. Don’t debate just talk like you do with your co-workers and friends.