seething in silence

I knew beforehand that that the 2008 presidential races would get ugly -- guaranteed. With a black guy as a presumptive nominee -- it means all hell is breaking loose. So the latest gaffes come with a surprise or do they ? However, just because it was expected for Americans to show their ass it doesn't mean it's right. I'm offended by name butchery, monkey t-shirts, assasination references, etc. I mean who am i fooling -- Americans don't get high marks for being class acts. But, I did expect decency. Is that too much to ask?

Are folks making assasination attempts on Hillary or John? And for Mike (Huckabee -- of course) to utter the most stupid ass comment in regards to an assisanition attempt on Barack's life is incredulous. A friend of mine in law enforcement continues to remind the security risk associated with Barack is a nightmare. The most unsettling factors for him is Barack's formidable presence in drawing huge crowds -- nerves are beyond fried. Now I will be one to admit, the Hillary Nutcracker madness wasn't right. And neither is her madness to change the play at the last inning.

Figuring out what to do with Florida is Michigan should not be problematic, but if Hillary and her acolytes have her way they can pursue legal loopholes with the DNC (Democratic National Committee) that could uphold or undermine the Democratic candidate until August. Pure madness. Who would have thought shit would have gotten so complicated. Oh, and it was Chris Rock who said No one heard of a superdelegate, until a black guy could actually win. Damn.

cheers,

Bellini

It's March Madness. . . test your mettle

The 2008 Democratic campaign demonstrates the peculiarness of the 2008 presidential campaign. How many times can a Comeback Kid -- Clinton (of course) comeback and not undermine the meaning? Does this demonstrate the tenacity of the Clinton campaign? She's won all the big states except Illinois.

OR

Is it an indication that she is a flawed candidate which means bestowing the Democratic nomination comes with inherent risk?

What does this all mean for Barack?

Nothing -- if you're asking me--last night does not change the dynamics of the race. It's tough.

He is playing his strategy well. No one said this would be a cakewalk, and it shouldn't be. He has accrued the most delegates and is leading in the popular vote -- which is no easy feat - remember Hillary was the presumed candidate a year ago (WOW -- dynamics of a year).

At this point, neither candidate will have met the delegate threshold required to cinch the Democratic nomination. Let's not forget about the superdelegates, either way you slice the pie -- it's a mess. The punditocracy is attempting to make sense of the madness. You can bet, Democratic strategists are trying to find a solution to their party's problem but the math just doesn't add up!

Deja vu - seems more and more like a reality.
And you ask how do I know this stuff -- I just do!

I will give you the foresight needed to adequately analyze what happened yesterday. If the Democratic nomination extends to the summer it does not bode well for the Democratic Party. John McCain cemented his fate as the defacto Republican presidential nominee. From here on out he has 8 months (March - October) to "circle the wagons" collect enormous sums of money, the Political Action Committees (PACs) can fine-tune his message and share with the masses; thereby giving the GOP a strategic advantage. In other words, the Dems don't have time to watch this spectacle -- someone must concede. However, they must also let their democratic process play it self out. And possibly get played in November -- what a shame!

So, I'm going to drop some equations and I want you guys to do math.

1. Since Barack has failed to eclipse Hillary in die-hard blue states outside of his state Illinois, is it plausible to think that if he is chosen as the Democratic nominee he can win California, New York, New Jersey, Texas, and Ohio in the general election?
2. Which of the party bases can the Democratic Party afford to disgruntle and win -- not so fast -- before you answer consider the Democratic Party has never won the general election without the black vote, past victors of presidential elections were victors of the partys' presidential primaries in the Buckeye state (Ohio)?
3. Is the energized Democratic base impartial to Barack's candidacy or does the energy stem from their disaffection with the Bush administration?

Bonus question: Could a combination ticket with both candidates bolster the Democratic Party chances in winning in November?

Superbonus: Who would lead the ticket?

cheers,

Bellini