More politics

After just ranting about the Dem primary a day or so ago, both camps go and do something that makes me want to rant again. I promise, this should not be taken as an indication that I'm getting away from cycling content, I just haven't managed to get on the bike for a little while and I'm bombarded with political news constantly because of work.

First - the Clinton camp. The current line of argument coming from the Clinton team, primarily from Prez Clinton, is that Obama would make a great VP to Hillary's P. There are so many things wrong with this line of thought that I have a hard time getting started. I'll hit the two biggest, and leave it there. First, is the answer that Obama is using, namely that he is ahead in the pledged delegate count, the popular vote and the number of state contests won, so why would he even think about taking the VP slot. There really is no need to get deeper into it. He's winning, not her, so if there is going to be any talk about a combo ticket (which is a BAD idea in my opinion, not a dream) it should be the other way around. The other problem with the "Obama as Veep" argument is that he is too politically ambitious to be Clinton's VP. What does ambition have to do with it? That's easy. Ordinarily the VP is the Number 2, in a Clinton White House the VP will be Number 3. Does anybody really believe that Bill won't be involved in a lot of the traditional VP roles? About all Obama (or anyone else in the Veep job) would have to look forward to is running the Senate.

Now the Obama camp screw-up. This one I just caught because I'm about a day behind in my news reading, but an Obama supporter (I think it was Dodd) is suggesting an even split of the MI/FL delegates. My last political post was on the nightmare that including those voters fairly will be, and this ain't it. An even split of the delegates does nothing to acknowledge the voters of those states. In fact, it essentially ignores them. The whole point of "collecting" delegates is to gain an advantage over your opponent, either in a specific state or in total. Splitting the delegates in half benefits nobody and is a horrible idea. It doesn't benefit the candidates, because the difference between them remains the same. Without MI and FL in the contest, the magic number is reduced and it is possible one might reach it (I don't have the figures in front of me), adding them back in makes it very unlikely that either candidate will win, unless the two states are added in and allowed to vote. It also does nothing to re-enfranchise the voters, because their wishes aren't even being give a token nod. MI and FL either need to be given the opportunity to revote (with the DNC helping to defray the cost) or they need to be decertified, as was the original statement, because the state party bosses chose to violate the will of the DNC.