I know this sounds harsh, but I am beginning to wonder about the Dem. party leadership.
- You have a candidate that is raising records amount of money.
- Creating record voter turnout.
- Who has crossover appeal to Repubs and Inds.
- Has congressional candidates support because of his coattails according to reports from John Harwood on Meet the Press Sunday morning.
- Is more electable than his opponent.
- Oh, by the way, he is leading in the delegate count, popular vote count, MORE STATES won and money?
Why are we debating who should be the nominee?
Moving goal posts, calling caucuses undemocratic, if you are from a red state that voted for Obama, you don't count, or for that matter any state that did not vote for Hillary does not count.
I'm puzzled are you?
I am really beginning to wonder if the Dixiecrats ever left the Democratic party.
Because if Hillary was the one who had all the advantages Obama brings to the table.
She would have the nomination wrapped up and we would be talking about her VP choices.
Oh and if you say that she won the Big States, this is not the United Big States of Anerica,
Honestly do you think the Republicans will win CA, NY, MA, NJ in November?
But with Obama we have a real shot at VA, IA, MO and he would definitely get more votes in the historical Republican voting states which would help his overall popular vote total.
Can someone explain to me what could be the reason other than racism that is creating this "DILEMMA" for the Dem Party leaders?