My gripe with caucuses is that you have to want to stick around after you vote and hang out in a room with a bunch of avid fans of one candidate or the other. What I object to is the way Obama and his supporters use winning the caucus as proof that he won the state. He didn't. Clinton bested him by close to 100,000 votes there. So, she won the popular votes, but because her supporters may not have been willing to enter a room of bouncing Obama/Clinton supporters, she didn't win the caucus. You can't say she didn't do well in Texas, 100,000 extra votes is kind of a big deal, but I see your point.
I just feel like neither candidate is either all that qualified or progressive enough to make the changes that need to be made. I guess, because Clinton's my Senator, I tend to sympathize with her more. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I know of people were directly helped by her. At this point, I'm just going to say "buyer beware" to anyone who falls too much in love with the Obama campaign. And trust me, I don't hate you, you're certainly entitled to a differing opinion, if we agreed on everything how boring would the world be?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2008-03-12 11:49 pm (UTC)I just feel like neither candidate is either all that qualified or progressive enough to make the changes that need to be made. I guess, because Clinton's my Senator, I tend to sympathize with her more. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I know of people were directly helped by her. At this point, I'm just going to say "buyer beware" to anyone who falls too much in love with the Obama campaign. And trust me, I don't hate you, you're certainly entitled to a differing opinion, if we agreed on everything how boring would the world be?