let me start by first saying that i don’t currently support, nor subscribe to, either of the remaining democratic presidential campaigns. the candidate i supported was forced to drop out prior to super tuesday and since then i’ve been a man without a candidate. however, given the groundswell of support from progressives countrywide, i do tend to lean ever so slightly toward senator obama.
given that, i still have problems with both candidates and their apparent attitude of ‘do what it takes to win’ whether it might actually be right or fair. there is no doubt that campaign politics are not for the faint of heart.
i read this morning an opinion article from salon titled, why hillary clinton should be winning. if you’ve never visited salon before, let me tell you my impression is they are a open-minded, fair, and progressive news source.
the author raises a question which, having not asked it myself, i thought was interesting. why don’t the democratic primaries function under the principle of ‘winner take all’ as do the general elections? the author lays out his case that, if the democratic primaries functioned more like the general election, it would be hillary, not obama, that would be winning. and not just winning; she’d have a commanding lead and would likely and easily clinch the nomination months prior to the national convention in august.