This week, Senator Clinton had the epitome of a comeback: After Senator Obama had won 11 primaries in a row, Clinton won Texas and Ohio, two of the major states needed to win in the General Election.
Obama appeared visibly more somber the morning of March 5, when he appeared on the Today Show. David Gregory pointed out that Obama hasn't shown that he can win the major states in the General.
The results of March 5 show that not only does Clinton have the ability to win Ohio (according to David Gregory, the White House Correspondent for NBC, no one has won the Presidency without winning their party's primary in Ohio since the 60s). It also shows that people are realizing that Obama is a lot of talk, but a lot of experience and therefore, how much action?
Maybe Obama is upset because his strategy of trying to appeal to Independents and Republicans for crossover votes isn't working well enough to just get him the nomination. For the good of the Democratic party, perhaps he should just concede nicely.
Mostly, I don't think politicians should be elected because they can figure out electoral math. Blogger and founder of MyDD.com Jerome Armstong recently addressed GW's Internet and Politics class, and explained that Obama is winning for just that: his staff has figured out the electoral math.
Because politicians shouldn't be elected because they can figure out electoral math. They should be elected because they are the right leaders for our country.
(For more thoughts from Jerome Armstong, visit GWBlogSpot.