As an Obama supporter, last night kinda sorta sucked. There's really no other way to say it. But even worse, I think that last night was a bad night for the Democratic Party.

Standing in the line for the caucus last night all but confirmed a sinking suspicion I'd been having that Hillary and Barack supporters are going to be highly unsatisfied with the nominee should their candidate not get the nomination.

Last night was the Democratic Party's opportunity to get out of the primary season unscathed. Now, I don't see that happening. If Barack had managed to pull out Texas or Ohio, this thing would be over. But he didn't. And it's not over. Not by a long shot. Pennsylvania is in something like 7 weeks or something. Just to put that in perspective, Iowa was eight weeks ago. Or something like that. (I read that somewhere)

I just don't see how this turns out where one side isn't completely disenfranchised by the other candidate's nomination. And that's the last thing we should want as a party. I guess I should stop saying "we." I think last night officially moved me to "free agent" status as a voter. .

******sigh******

Having now been through the wringer of primary and caucus politics, I feel pretty put off by the whole thing actually. That's what the Clintons do. They mock hope. They spin. They play 50 + 1 games. They beat the other side down into submission, whether that opponent be Republican or Democrat. That's one of the reasons why the Republicans hate them so much. But the Republicans are just as dirty and offensively minded as the Clintons. They're a match made in Stubborn/Pig Headed Heaven. As they always say, we get the candidate we deserve. If hyper partisanship is what we as a country want, then that's what we'll get.

Because for all of his shortcomings, what's really the worst thing that can be said about Barack? That he's "too optimistic?" That's basically what the Clintons' whole argument boils down to, isn't it? That's what she was saying with her "the heavens will open" remark. Well if that's the tone the Democratic Party is going to take, then count me out. I'll vote Nader instead.

I just don't see how this ends well. He's still on track to win the nomination, but right now, he's in a bit of a "playing out the clock" strategy. And that's no way to win a nomination either.

It seems that Hillary's strategy is to win at all costs...to "throw the kitchen sink" at Obama. Because she had such a long string of hard core losses, it's going to be very hard for her to win the nomination since she's so far behind in the popular vote, pledged delegates, and states won. But she's "in it for the long haul." So I guess the question to Hillary is at what cost do you want the nomination?

I think things are bleak, but I do think that there is a way out of this:

- Last night made it abundantly clear that they absolutely MUST hold a revote in Michigan and Florida. The Democratic Party and the two campaigns need to come to an arrangement on how it'll be funded and they need to make it happen. It'll be expensive, but losing the general election in November would be costlier. Full fledged primaries or caucuses in Florida and Michigan will help to sort this thing out...hopefully.

- The loser MUST be offered the Vice Presidency. It's a must, IMO. Whether they take it or not is up to the individual person, but if the loser doesn't take the Veep, then the other must make it their strategy to go out and stump for the candidate as vocally and supportively as possible. They can call it a "mending fences tour."

- The Clintons need to scale back the rhetoric a bit. They need to stop insisting that the states that Barack won are meaningless. If winning California, New York, New Jersey, and Ohio are all that matters for winning the nomination, then we need to have like 10 primaries and call it finished. But that isn't what we do. We have a 50 state primaries and caucuses. To continue this barrage of "she's winning the states that matter" would further increase the divide between the two candidate's supporters.

This hits on a larger theme of the primary season. HRC has a traditional blue state strategy. BO has more of an all states are in play strategy. So in some ways, this hits on a larger theme of "the future soul" of the party itself. Haven't we spent the past 8 years trying to get away from this very thing? One of the reasons we made Howard Dean the head of the party is that he believes in a 50 state strategy. Having a "blue state/red state" strategy hasn't worked out so well, has it?

They also need to scale back the rhetoric of playing on voters' fears. They have NO idea how off putting this is to many voters who have endured 8 years of fear tactics. You can call out his lack of experience, but don't resort to these Rove-like tactics.

That's all I really have for now.

- Matthew