On more than one occasion, I have heard the punditry refer to the Democratic as being split into two coalitions: the so-called wine track and beer track voters.  I am not sure this really works--don't try convincing me that people in Wisconsin and North Dakota aren't beer drinkers.  However, I am comfortable saying that there are apparently different territories more friendly to either candidate.  

The reason why Obama is winning this race is because he has proven that he is somewhat acceptable to the voters of Hillary-country.  He loses, but he keeps it within 20 points or so.  Last night, he kept it within 10 in both states.  I'm not saying Obama didn't want to win one or both of those states--he did.  However, given that these were Hillary-friendly areas, he did not get routed in either place.  As a result, the delegate count stays close.

The reason why Hillary is losing this race is because she has not proven even marginally acceptable in Obama-friendly areas.  She loses by  20-40 points in every single race she loses--excepting the 18% loss she took in Maine, and that tight one in Mizzou.

I really do not want nor need to hear claims that the Obama-friendly areas are all red states.  CO, VA, WI, MO, VT, IA, MN, WA, MD, DC, CT, DE....ok enough honestly.

Ok, so I know that most people on this site are not huge fans of Sen. Obama.  Personally I think he's great, and for me, his veepstakes are interesting to me only because I want to see his appeal strengthened.  So let's start the conversation with some of you for whom he is not your first choice.  Who would make an Obama-led ticket more palatable for you?

And please, no need for "He'll only be good if he's #2 on the ticket" or "He needs to change X position or gain more experience."  I'd honestly like to know who he could include to make his ticket acceptable to y'all.

We should not push this story about John McCain for two important reasons.  First, it's hypocritical and wrong.  When Bill Clinton got caught cheating (and then did so again, and again, and...ugh), the Repugs bit down and did not let go until Clinton had been impeached and acquitted.  It rightfully drove all of us crazy.  This country was facing real issues, and we weren't allowed to talk about them, and Pres. Clinton sure as hell wasn't able to focus his full attention on them.  I'd also like to think that it offended our principles, and not only our political goals.  We thought that what Pres. Clinton did should stay between him, his mistress(es) and his family.  It was a private matter and really wasn't hurting anyone else.  The Repugs did what they did because they thought they could destroy him personally, even if his agenda was one that matched what the American people wanted.  

This brings me to my second point.  John McCain's agenda is wrong for America.  We know that our ideas about energy, health care, social issues, and good G-d Iraq are far more in line with the American people than his are.  When our candidate defeats him in November, I want him/her to defeat him based on ideas.  If Johnny Mac goes down in flames long before that because of some stupid little affair that he had, we have not won much of a mandate for our ideas.  We should beat him publicly and clearly on the battlefield of ideas, and not personal destruction.

Finally, I recognize that this lady that he allegedly had an affair with was a lobbyist.  So he may have sweetened up a piece of legislation or two for her.  Honestly, both of our candidates have done at least as bad (and I'm sure so has Johnny Mac).  Let's get breathless over real issues.  When Mac says we might keep troops in Iraq for 7 gazillion years, we should scream it as loudly as possible.  When we find out trifling crap like this, c'mon let's take a pass.

As anyone who has read my previous diaries knows, I am an Obama supporter.  But on this whole MI and FL delegate business, I have to at least partially agree with the Clinton camp--the Democrats and Indies in those two states have been disenfranchised.  Here's the thing though: they were disenfranchised BEFORE the voting took place there.  They were disenfranchised when the DNC told them their votes did not matter, the campaigns--both of them--said as much, and both campaigns agreed to stay out of those states.  Or they were disenfranchised when their retarded state legislatures decided to not go along with the DNC rules.  

They were not given any real choice, they were not nearly as informed or engaged as the rest of the states were--at least not by the campaigns themselves--and the issues of those states were not seriously addressed by the candidates.  No surprise, Hillary won by the amount that pre-campaign polls showed her lead to be in every other state--between 10-20 points.  She neither had the chance to extend her lead--as perhaps she could have, assuming those states really are naturally pro-Hillary--and Obama did not cut into it, probably because he was not allowed to try to.

If Hillary had really had any qualms about disenfranchising those states, as a principle, she would have said so before Iowa.  The principle that Obama has stuck to--that the DNC should be allowed to enforce their own rules--is probably the best thing for the party in the long run.  One can certainly say that Obama chose that principle out of political expediency.  That's certainly part of his calculus. But at least he stuck to it.  Hillary's motivation is only political expediency.  Otherwise, she would have had this principle since day 1.

Obama's plan jives with my notion of personal responsibility.  Children are not responsible for their parents' choices, and should not be punished for them.  Therefore, all children should be guaranteed/mandated/dragged and forced to have healthcare.  Parents should have to buy it for them, or the government should take it out of their taxes.  That makes some sense to me.  

On the other hand, adults should be allowed to make their own decisions.  Certainly health care should be a "right" and not a privilege, as Sen. Clinton likes to say.  But a right is something you are allowed to take advantage of--not something you absolutely are mandated by the government to take advantage of.  A right to free speech does not force us to speak out.  Likewise, healthcare should be made available and affordable to all--which Sen. Obama claims his plan accomplishes.  

I'm an economics major--I see major flaws in both of their plans.  I realize that Sen. Obama's plan lets people game the system.  That being said, I think that political arguments are often best reduced down to moral ones, especially when we are trying to convince the country to buy into it.  While the mandate makes economic sense on some levels, it will go against much of America's sense of personal responsibility and free choice.

Let's look realistically at the states each won.  I keep on hearing that Obama lost, so let's analyze these states.

Obama: MO, AK, AL, NM, UT, CO, KS, ND, IL, CT, MN, ID, DE, GA
Clinton: CA, NY, MA, NJ, TN, OK, AZ, AR

We start with O: 14  C:8
For the sake of analysis, let's eliminate each of the home states of the candidates--taking out IL for Obama, and NY and AR for Hillary.  (No I am not counting KS as Obama's home state, even though his mother is from there.  I don't feel like looking up where the Clintons' parents are from either.)  This brings us to O: 13, C:6.

NJ was deemed a toss-up state, and so Clinton supporters are claiming that as a huge victory.  This is nothing but testament to the amazing campaign Obama has run--NJ is NY's suburb, and she had no business losing there.

While Obama did receive the 3 largest endorsements in MA (Patrick, Kerry, and Kennedy), this is still Clinton's backyard.

CA had tightened a lot, but again, let's remember--this was Clinton's "firewall."  So was NH, but she's still claiming a huge win in a place simply too big for Obama to have had the time to flip it (in a mere week).

I'll grant her AZ, TN, and OK.  Good job Sen. Clinton.

As for the inevitable argument that Obama also won lots of states that border his home state, this is a faulty analogy.  NY, NJ, and MA have similar political cultures.  Anyone who claims that IL and KS or MO are politically similar is simply grasping at straws.  

One final point.  Clinton has a degree of the incumbency advantage.  The Clinton's are the incumbent power in the Democratic party.  She should win states where no one gets to mount much of a campaign.  The fact that 22 states voted yesterday--meaning that neither candidate got to mount a concerted campaign in any particular state--and she lost 14 of them should be a HUGE win for Obama.  

Politically speaking, I consider myself to be pretty darned jaded.  As a result, I have low expectations for anyone running for public office, and particularly POTUS.  Any and all types of private corruption--Whitewater, Monica, Rezko, whatever--simply don't bother me.  

Selling out the national security of my country is below even my bar.  It is treason.