as i am sure y'all have to deal with constant media bombardment regarding the democratic primary season, i will make this comment brief. also, i must admit my only sources of information on the campaign are the new york times, the economist, the wall street journal and an occasional article from the washington post. certainly none of these are unbiased. indeed, i should make a whole post about what is happening at the wall street journal where the chief editor has resigned, thereby paving the way for murdoch and his own ¨supereditor¨ to take over the course of the paper, one of the most respected in the country (if not the most respected), and run it toward a more centric, mainstream media fluff line. disappointing, but what can you expect: i doubt anyone actually thought this newscorp takeover would make the paper ¨better¨ but i doubted it would move from its previously business-first slant with often surprising, though always well-funded, tangents found in its investigative articles.

ok, enough about the wsj. so clinton won by about 10%. the media claim that this is enough to keep her in the race (although i doubt the clinton campaign needs or does listen to what most media outlets purport in this area). is this a bad idea? if obama were such a strong candidate would he have not already put her away? she has lost, months ago, the edge in campaign funding and seems mainly to hold the lead with white-male middle to lower class workers. will this win her the presidency?

to flip it, would obama win the presidency with his currents constituents? are both fucked? is mccain in a better position now that they are both concentrating on each other rather than on him? the general sentiment is that as they battle each other, mccain gains support. really? would someone who was going to vote for clinton or obama switch to repub? doubtful. likewise, are there repubs watching the dems and thinking, oh yeah, i want to vote for one of those two instead? slight.

if anything, the battle keeps interest in the election. in years past we have had somewhere around 50% voter turnout. interest seems paramount.

do i think that the dems will be beat the repubs? no. but, i think that the current situation has nothing to do with it. they will lose because of a fracture; this current situation is not the rupture to which i refer. dems have a very wide range of beliefs, and making them all fit into one candidate will ultimately fail. a third candidate is bound to appear and suck up some of those votes. the repubs have a better ability, at least in recent history, to rally around one individual. my ideas on why this is (religion, group-think mentality) are irrelevant as they are simply opinion. however, i do believe a two party system is bound to screw over lots of people. in recent years it has been the dems. i doubt this will change in the near future.