Presidential Health-fulness

From the get-go, my gut was on edge. I was not an early adopter of Obamamania. I had no faith in him. He got my vote because I was terrified of the alternative. My take? He was inexperienced, naive, and a capitulator by nature.

Sometimes, it hurts to be right. Bush had an excuse for his performance -- actually, he had many. Stupidity. A fundamentally distorted value system. Evangelical lunacy. Backing from a Republican machine that had him by the short-hairs.

Obama has none of these excuses. I'm left with the conclusion that he is a poser, captive of his Corporate masters, a coward and utterly inept at leading and governing. This is no better than Bush, and you could conclude he is worse. Obama had sufficient backing to lead with vision and he squandered it.

So, he hasn't been health-ful for the country, its people, or the planet. He has made no meaningful progress on bank regulation, job-losses, health security, climate change, clean energy, de-militarization, or delusional empire-building for the sake of "security". He has accomplished nothing on the foreign policy front other than killing Bin Laden. Big whoop. And if the news reports on the "debt ceiling" debacle are accurate, he is selling out Social Security, Medicare, and damn near anything else to get a deal with the devil.

We are all in terrible jeopardy, far more than most of us realize. An election looms and for the first time in my adult life, I'm not sure whether or not I'll sit it out or support a third party at the presidential level while attempting to secure a Democratic Congress ...though I'm no longer convinced that our corporate-owned government can serve anything other than the narrow interests of the global corporate hegemony.

I took my Obama stickers off my car. I'm ashamed to have voted for him. I will not give a dime to his campaign.

Barack Obama. No, he can't.

I need some new glasses

Systemic glasses. Like 3-D, only better. Something to help me "see the forest for the trees". If I only knew how to invent them, I'd patent them and call them Pandora Glasses, after the planet in Avatar. They would be soooo cool, because for the first time ever, we'd be able to see the connections between things, like the Na'vi do. They could be a handy way to reveal how our individual actions and small projects impact the gargantuan engine at the heart of a system, say for example, the "the food system".

Being a generous person, I'd give the first pair to our president. He could be a beta tester. I'm thinkin' he could really, really use these gizmos. It's clear that he's having a very hard time with the forest-seeing thing. I have to believe that his eyesight is the problem, or I'd have to impute some really ugly qualities to him, and I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. So, operating on the assumption that his vision is poor, maybe my glasses will help.

I'll stop beating around the bush, or in this case, the field. Let's begin with a post I wrote right after the election (the site referenced is dead -- which says something ). This post was part of a national grass-roots effort to get the Obama's to install an organic garden on the White House lawn. Check. Done. Most of us who care about food, were also hoping the USDA would get deep reform. A highly credible Kathleen Merrigan, a veteran of the sustainable agriculture movement, was named deputy secretary. She oversees the National Organic Program at the USDA among other initiatives, and under her guidance the agency is beginning to flex its muscles. Check. Another victory. There are more gains to catalogue, but let's take a moment to put on those sexy new glasses I just invented (mine are purple, in case you're wondering).

Hey, look at that! The Big Picture! The connections, if you will, that are well-laid out in the cover story of the latest issue of The American Prospect -- Slowed Food Revolution. You can read it online here (but you'll need to take off your new glasses). With the help of Heather Rogers, who must have her own cool glasses, you'll see a USDA that is a revolving door for Big Ag, much as Goldman Sachs is for the government's economic advisors and the Interior Department has been for the gas, oil and mining industries. Big surprise, though we voted for "Change We Can Believe In", U.S. ag policy, the engine that drives what food we get and what it costs, is still being deeply influenced by industrial agriculture interests, especially Monsanto. Obama has done almost nothing to change that. If fact, the Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, epitomizes the Big Ag man. So we find him proselytizing for biotech and biofuels. He encourages greater subsidies for commodity crops headed for export while neglecting the needs of small American farmers, who are continuing to go broke. Our policies still encourage farmers to plow land for biofuel crops that earn them less in the long run and yield a fuel that is more polluting. So not only is food/ag policy impacting what we eat, but it's distorting our energy policy too.

Yes, there are a few trees here and there that are growing and looking good. But that sickly forest is going to soak up all the resources, leaving nothing of value in the end. If you can't see that forest -- the connections between the policy, the greed, and the absence of resources for real farmers and eaters -- you will continue to congratulate our government for doing too little, too late. Putting on those glasses will at least force you to see what is and not just what you hope for.

As for me, I'm switching from rose-colored glasses to Pandora glasses ...and I'm going to stop accepting cosmetic change as if it matters. What about you?

Economic Blind Faith

Paul Krugman wrote a column today titled, "Financial Policy Despair". Reading it sure didn't cheer me up, though the market was expected to open 'up' today. What does it mean that when my most trusted economist gets depressed, the markets rebound?

Makes sense, when you think about it. Krugman, and some other economists who have zero interest vested in 'the way things are', continue to feel increasing despair over the Obama/Geithner management team. It's clear to me that the market has ceased to reflect anything meaningful regarding the true state of the economy. Translate -- whether or not the majority of Americans are going to hang on through all of this. Instead, it's a barometer of how confident Wall Street is that the Big Boys will recover their gold. And when the Big Boys are happy, a chill starts to trickle through me.

I supported Obama. I had great hope and I'm trying hard to hang on to all those good feelings I had when he won the election. He wasn't my first choice because I believed he didn't have a solid vision nor the requisite personality traits to play hardball. Hillary was my choice, and I'm still convinced she would have provided stronger and more progressive leadership. But I have stood behind Obama because for all our flaws as Democrats, and Obama's flaws in particular, we can't afford Republicans running things any time soon.

But now I'm really, really worried. First, for the economic near- and long-term. Here in Kansas City, local job losses are mounting. It's much worse than I expected -- unemployment at 8.2% and growing. The worst-case scenarios being played out are nearly immobilizing in their implications. Much more stimulus money is going to be needed, but that's at risk as Obama listens to people deeply embedded in the Wall Street mentality.

Secondly, if Obama's policies fail -- and I think the risk of that is growing -- then the Democrats will be in deep difficulty politically at the mid-term elections. That will compromise any other transformative change we need to make in this country. Health care and the environment will be in even greater peril.

I haven't yet figured out how to influence any of this. I feel completely impotent. The best I can do is plan and work towards personal and community-based survival strategies that help us weather the deeper crash that may yet lie ahead. Let's hope our communal creativity won't be tested.

Dig It!

OK, I know ...it's been forever since I posted. Life has gotten away from me. The election, holidays, work ...you know how it is. But I'm home sick so it seemed like a good time to post something that I discovered on Facebook today. Yup, Facebook. I was badgered into getting a page there by one of my sons.

So, I'm checking out "Causes". The younger generation seems to have invented a way to proselytize one another about favorite charitable causes and other activist attention-grabbers. I found one that resonated and signed a petition, which I'd like you all to consider as well. This particular initiative is one that has been pushed by Michael Pollan and Alice Waters, two people I respect immensely.

Here it is: Eat The View!




The goal is to get President Obama to dedicate a portion of the White House grounds to growing an organic garden. It would feed the White House and any leftover produce would go to food pantries in the Washington, D.C. area. Seems that Eleanor Roosevelt insisted on a Victory Garden during WWII ...which became a model for all Americans. Given the current economy, people could certainly save money by growing some of their own food ...and they would likely be healthier as well.

So if you have the time and inclination, please sign the petition and push for this great idea. Spring is nearly here. Let's push for full employment for gardeners!

Lusty Capitulation

Nope, it's not a post about kinky sex. You'll see. Be patient. Read on.

You haven't heard from me in a while. You can count that as a blessing or a loss -- you choose. I've been out here digesting political reality, mourning the dream of President Hillary, seething over the Palin pick, grasping the siderails as our disintegrating economic battleship rams into a Perfect Storm. Amidst it all, I've also been practicing at being sixty -- no small feat in more settled times. I might be getting the hang of it. Or at least enough of it to unleash my opinionated self again.

It's been noted that I've gone from being really pissed off at Obama to having two of his signs in my yard and a car that is covered with Obama stickers. Yes, I still get a tear in my eye whenever I see Hillary campaigning on his behalf, but I'm unabashedly committed to BHO. What changed? Simple answer: Nothing and Everything.

First for the 'nothing'. I'm a Democrat down to my DNA. I always said that I would support our nominee, despite my conviction that he was not the best person for the job. Any Democrat -- and I mean ANY -- is a superior choice as compared to even the very best Republican. I cannot, with any conscience, vote Republican. I'm a partisan, through and through. I do not believe the Republican party represents my values nor do I think their value system and policies are good for the country and the world. Period. No exceptions. So it was ordained from the get-go that if Hillary lost, I'd vote for our candidate. I'm not now, and never have been a PUMA (Party Unity My Ass --- the acronym for Hillary supporters who were hell-bent on punishing the party for mistreating Hillary and giving the nomination to Barack). But I seriously doubted that I would/could be enthusiastic for the man himself and there was no way I could imagine donating money. I capitulated -- accepted the party's choice. Fell in line. OK, I also cried during his acceptance speech. I'm a wuss...what can I say?

Much to my surprise, I've given him money. Today I will give him more. I'm enthusiastic. Even rabid. What the hell is that about?

Seasoning. It's about seasoning. Not mine, his. Hillary may have lost the primary season, but she put him through hell on his way to the nom. And thank God for it. I wasn't always sure that she was pursuing the best strategy and I wanted to beat the crap out of Big Dog, but it forced Barack to get his shit together and develop a strategy in the general that could respond to whatever the Right has lobbed at him. She brought up Rezko, Ayers, Rev. Wright. She and her surrogates never let him off the hook. That paid off... for Obama.

The man has earned his place in the polls and in my Democratic heart. For me, everything changed as I watched him over the last few months. He's solid. He picked an outstanding running mate. He's connected to a web of advisors of exceptional talent and experience. He projects a strong, intelligent, steady leadership style. But perhaps what I admire most is his organizing skill. I know ...I dismissed that early on ...but the man knows how to build an organization and lead it. He has a ground game unlike any that has ever existed before ...except when the unions dominated Democratic politics. He has legions of workers in nearly every single state. They are young, and tireless, and they are zealots. They are exceptionally well-informed. They have dreamed up strategies like The Great Schlep, and are winning converts the old-fashioned way -- one at a time. He is competitive in swing states. I'm in awe of the campaign he has run ...he has been more professional, creative, and focused than Hillary. It hurts to say that, but it is true nonetheless.

None of us can anticipate the future and its challenges. We do know -- unless we are delusional -- that very tough times and choices lie ahead. For us as individuals. For the country. For our government. For our president. We need thoughtful leadership. A willingness to see the world clearly and still not be trapped by old mental models. This country could be falling into a death spiral. The old model says that only the pilot can right the plane. The new model says that while the pilot pulls on the stick, the passengers need to haul their ass to the back of the plane, throw unneeded shit out the windows to lighten the load, and lean backward, aiming for the heavens above.

Barack, when you seize the controls on November 4th, I'll be leanin' and throwin'.

Our Democratic Future

If you're conscious and a Democrat, you're battling either within, or without, or both. We have some really important issues rending the party faithful and there is much blood on the floor. I think that floor is going to get slippery and nasty beyond our wildest imaginings.

Three big struggles divide the party and create schizophrenic Democrats:

1. What is the role of Superdelegates? Should they support the 'popular vote' (whatever that means) or should they ensure a viable candidate based using their long-standing political experience as a factor in decision-making?
2. Is Hillary creating or sustaining an internal civil war? Should she drop out now to save us from ourselves?
3. Is Obama a viable candidate for the GE or a vanity candidate for Democrats? Will he really capture enough Americans to win the White House?

Here are my thoughts:

1. Superdelegates: They were put in place to provide balance when a primary candidate won the nomination with an agenda that appealed emotionally to Democrats (especially the far left) but that risked yielding a losing ticket in the General. In other words, it was instituted to provide pragmatic political balance to unbridled fervor. Yes, that feels anti-democratic (small 'd'). On the other hand, there is something to be said about balancing the Democrat's historical ability to shoot themselves in the foot when activists -- especially anti-war activist -- rule the primaries.
2. Hillary's persistence as a candidate: Let her stay. We may yet need her, even if we don't prefer her. More on that in a moment.
3. Obama's GE prospects: He's becoming a liability, at least for any Democrats who have their eyes open. Most Obama supporters travel in a closed social network, self-reinforcing and liberal. They dismiss the hullabaloo over BHO's association with unsavory people like Rezko and Rev. Wright. They are delusional. If Obama gets the nom, I do not believe he can win. He was NOT vetted and his rhetoric swept all those touchy-feely types totally off their feet. The rest of the country is going to open their eyes and ears come September and completely reject this man. If you think Kerry's swiftboating was inflammatory, you just have no idea what's ahead.

Obama may have more elected delegates right now and Hillary may not be able to capture sufficient numbers to outpace him. But as the furor over Obama's judgement grows -- and recall that this man repeatedly touts his superior judgement -- the Superdelegates may yet discover why they exist -- to save the party from itself. If they look clear-eyed at the GE prospects and less at the emotional fervor of a bunch of 20-somethings, they may wake up and stand up. Maybe they'll pick a dark horse who hasn't even run in the primaries (Al Gore anyone?). Or maybe they will be glad to have Hillary available and the deeply commited individuals who support her candidacy. Maybe.

This much is becoming obvious, the Democrats are risking a loss...perhaps a devastating one.. in the General Election. The leading candidate, the one who has disturbed many of us with his emotional appeals and shaky policies, may be about to burst into flames. Here we are, in March of a crucial election year, tethered to a guy who can be easily accused of supporting un-American and racially biased religious views, whose wife doesn't demonstrate much pride in her country, who is an elitist, and who has won primarily by leveraging the African-American vote and the support of extremely left-liberal academics and intellectuals. This is not a 'mainstream' candidacy, despite the rhetoric.

If he wins, we're gonna lose our ass. And we will deserve it.

Health Care Policy for Dummies

OK, I'm trying to hold my temper, but I'm sitting here watching the Democratic debate, and I want to just smack Barack Obama. He and Hillary are debating health care. The contrast between the two is remarkable. She understands the business and the domain. He simply does not. He has a pollyanna view of health care that is consistent with his lack of experience on the national stage or in the trenches where the really big and powerful play hardball.

Let me cut to the chase: Barack's plan is right of center and far too Republican friendly. He is sacrificing principle and worse, he is violating basic business principles that make coverage work. He believes he's progressive on this issue. He's not. It is obvious he's never had to actually negotiate coverage. You cannot leave anyone out of the pool and make the thing work. It is a fundamental actuarial principle of the business. And whether Cigna or the Feds run it, you have to follow the same coverage principle. You must mandate coverage, just as Hillary and Edwards pushed for.

I have been an executive in an insurance company. I was intimately involved in managing care and helping to rate applicants. Barack says everyone who wants health care will buy it if it is affordable. Bullshit. I have seen many young adults -- working young adults -- refuse coverage because they'd rather spend their money on cars, electronics, entertainment. They do not believe they'll get sick. Wolfe Blitzer is right. Those people get sick and then the rest of us pay for it. Yes, people with little income for insurance...mostly responsible adults with families...can't afford the premiums. Subsidies are the answer, not exempting them from the system.

He also spouts that he will pay for his program by focusing on prevention. To paraphrase him: we'll pay for a dietician so we won't have to pay for a diabetic's foot amputation. Right. Has this man ever talked to someone who actually cares for patients? I do. I'm a nurse practitioner. I work with people who have heart problems and many of the illnesses that go with them, like diabetes. Even if you can get people to get control of their health and lifestyle (and let me tell you, this is a rare feat), this takes an enormous amount of time and MONEY. The payback is not in a premium year. Ever. He is totally nuts and clueless to think he's going to pay for his programs with this as a core strategy. It just won't work. And I think what distresses me the most is that this guy thinks he has answers when he is so clearly misinformed.

Hillary covers her program with new taxes and savings from negotiating pricing and instituting administrative cost savings. That may still not be enough, but it is much more realistic.

You know, I keep saying that I'll support Obama but the truth is, while he's charismatic, he just isn't a heavy hitter in the policy department. Worse, he has top advisors guiding him and they aren't pointing him in the right direction. Why would anyone think that would substantially change if he were elected?

I'm sorry, too much of this story feels like 2000, when the Republicans fell all over themselves lining up behind a guy who was charismatic and seemed like a whole new animal. He was an empty suit. I'm still not sure how full Mr. Obama's suit is either.

I Have a Very Bad Feeling ...

South Carolina results are in. We took a whoopin'. There is just no way to dismiss these results as aberrant or a reflection of the black vote alone. I truly believe this is a message to Bill and Hillary that their hardball politics were repugnant to voters. When S.C. white voters line up behind Barack, you have to be willing to entertain the idea that he just might be able to mobilize white voters in the south and west.

We have a long way to go yet, but one thing is clear: Bill needs to get out of the way. He is suddenly making this contest about him, not about Hillary. I'm deeply concerned that she will not be able to stand on her own now, not because she doesn't know how, but because his messages overshadow her. It is also possible that the tactics of their well-oiled machine are no longer appropriate to this time and place.


I have been mighty pissed at Obama supporters over the last two weeks. Their insistence that he is the second coming borders on a faith-based ardor that some days scares the piss out of me. They are intolerant of any facts that fly in the face of the reality they have constructed. That is perilously close to the dynamic we've lived with for the last 7 years. I do not think that Obama is promoting this; I think it is a reflection of the youth that dominate his campaign.

I'm a pragmatist and have said I would support our nominee, regardless who that might be. Since I declared myself one week ago, the universe shifted. The MSM has decisively lined up behind the Obama campaign and defined the narrative. The increasingly subtle and not-so-subtle attacks on Obama, that stirred up the spectre of racial divides, have been toxic beyond imagining. But the bad feeling I'm having isn't about Obama supporters or Obama himself, it's the feeling that I have that S.C. was the tipping point. Hillary just might be done.

When Personality Supercedes Winning

Not again. I'm getting exhausted. We grown-ups, you know, the ones who disproportionately vote, are gonna have to slug down a case of Geritol to win this one.

An excerpt from an interview clip I saw on Olbermann last night, an interview Obama did with the Christian Broadcast Network:

"I have no doubt that once the nomination contest is over, I will get the people who voted for her. Now the question is can she get the people who voted for me? And I think that describes sort of one of the choices that people have, just a practical choice, as they move forward."

This is typical. I read a lot of liberal blogs, and almost without exception, the Obama supporters scream over and over again that "I'll vote for McCain or sit the election out if Hillary is the nominee." Can I be blunt? You are assholes. Childish, immature, pouting, short-sighted assholes.

Olbermann was pissed. Obama made no effort to speak to the need for unity behind whoever gets the nomination. Instead, he seems to be willing to risk being a spoiler by not mobilizing his supporters behind the eventual nominee. I can imagine his response to my criticism: All Democrats would support both of us but I can attract Independents and Republicans that Hillary cannot. He might be right. But the key point here is that he doesn't put a stake in the ground for Democratic unity. On the other hand, Hillary and Edwards both reiterate that the most important goal is to elect a Democrat.

Why do Hillary supporters commit to the party and the big picture -- the Supreme Court, health care reform, the environment and the Progressive agenda -- while Obama supporters commit to ....Obama? Can you say "cult of personality"?

Man, this is getting old, real old.

Saint Barack — The Halo Slips

Did you watch that debate? Did you? [if you missed it, you can read a transcript or watch it here]. Am I the only one who was pissed at Saint Barack? You know, I’ve always been very attracted to the guy. It was agonizing trying to decide between him and Clinton. Monday night, I was glad I’d walked away from him.

As I watched the man whose supporters paint him as a latter day Martin Luther King, Jr., I sputtered, fumed and swore. (By the way, lest we forget, King accomplished great things, but he had clay feet). Obama insists that his campaign won’t sully itself with Realpolitick. He harps on the need for a new civility, a non-partisan mindset. It’s all about ‘inspiration’ and ‘transformation’. He attacks, then denies it. He doesn't take ownership of his own dirty tactics, like the Spanish language ad run on his behalf by the Culinary Workers that accused Hillary of not caring about Latinos. If someone calls him on his own distortions, he calls foul, and then whines that he’s mistreated. “Can’t we all just get along?” he pleads. Will someone make that mean Bill Clinton go away? Right. Welcome to politics with Big Boys and Girls Barry.

His arrogant, dismissive style, consisting of “listen, listen” or “look, look” as he lectures and shakes his finger, sends me into orbit. When he cannot find a cogent argument to defend his past actions, he just whines, “trust me, you know what a good person I am, you know I didn’t mean it, my words are being distorted”. Worse, the fucking media plays along, defending him as a poor victim of Clintonian dirty politics.

I watched the key sections of the controversial interview Obama gave to the editors of a conservative Reno newspaper. The newspaper whose endorsement he was fishing for. No one mentions that the paper’s agenda is a Republican one. This is the interview in which Barack just happens to extol the Republican party as the party of ideas, more ideas than even Bill Clinton had during his presidency. Clearly, Obama was trying to align himself with Republicans to win their support. He did, by the way. Yet these key facts are left out by his supporters when they defend him. The media has been utterly silent about the context.

Let me be clear, I have no problem with Obama's strategy to gain votes. I do object to his saintly protestations that we all misunderstood him and are trying to sully his precious attempt to ‘reach across the aisle’. When he is called out, which is what Hillary tried to do during the debate on Monday, he waxes into a lengthy professorial explanation of what he “really” meant. If we didn’t get it, then we must be stupid or bad people who aren’t playing nice. Again, I call bullshit.

And I’m really, really sick to death of Obama supporters who prance around the blogs, spoiling for a fight and accusing anyone who is beginning to see the guy’s flaws, as racists, against change, corporatists, or worse, purveyors of Rovian politics. We older Democrats are getting sick and tired of being accused of racism or cynicism when we point out Obama's flaws and the political realities that expose his weaknesses. Slam us enough and we'll vote for his opponents. I think that dynamic may be taking hold in recent primaries.

Obama is a politician, not a saint. His senate run was essentially unopposed due to problems within the Republican party at the time. He hasn’t been tested in the mud-wrestling environment of national politics. From what I can see, he can’t take the heat very well and he sure as hell can’t think on his feet or respond articulately when attacked spontaneously. He is great at teleprompter speeches but not-so-great when he has to react quickly. A campaign against the Republican machine will require quick responses from him, not just his bevy of strategists behind the scene. This was one of Kerry’s great flaws, he wasn’t a street fighter. Hillary, on the other hand, is. You may hate that reality, but it isn’t going to go away. The Republicans will not play nice just because Barack wants a kumbaya world. That's not cynicism. It's just what's so.

Beyond the campaign, many of the most critical presidential decisions are ones that have to be made in a split-second, when experience and an understanding of context count. There are times when you cannot ponder the options for days or weeks. I continue to worry that Obama’s skill at that is poorly developed. While he is a thoughtful man -- which is a strength -- it can also be a hindrance if you lack practice at making timely decisions about complex international situations.

If we are to have a fair examination of the candidates, not just what they believe but how successful they will be in a national campaign, then I think it is reasonable to evaluate their performance when attacked. It is also fair to identify when they are pandering to the Right to position themselves for votes. If Hillary panders she is accused of ‘triangulating’, as if she is conducting a ménage a trois. When Obama does it, he’s shaping a broader vision and building a consensus with Independents and lite Republicans. That’s utter crap. Let’s call it what it is: they are both trying to win an election, whatever it takes. Playing holier than thou feels way too similar to “God is on my side”, the rationale we’ve all endured for 7 interminable years.

She won??

It's getting hot. Very hot. More divisive than ever. My candidate 'won' the caucuses though perhaps not the delegate count. Things are still up in the air. Regardless, the reported voter alignment makes for interesting analysis.

Black and young voters overwhelmingly supported Obama. Black voters seem to be moving rapidly behind 'their' candidate. And youth have consistently lined up behind him, a clear trend that solidifies with every state contest.

Latinos and women overwhelmingly supported Clinton. The fact that Latinos supported Clinton despite their union lining up behind her opposition, is a huge surprise. In an open caucus in which you publicly declare whether or not you are for the union's endorsement or against it, Latinos stood up to their union and voted their conscience. I think I feel good about that but it sure may portend a dilution of the two big service unions' political power. This is important because so many service workers are Latino/Hispanic. And that demographic is the largest growing one in the country.

Women may turn out to be a wild-card in this election. The pundits and polls consistently harp on how soft Hillary's support is, especially among educated women. But women over 60 just might trump that and determine the outcome, along with Latinos. Both groups vote in high numbers.

But there is another undercurrent here that is only beginning to be gingerly discussed. There is very bad blood between Hispanics and Blacks. In my personal experience, they hate one another. The real 'race issue' here might just be the chasm between our two largest non-white ethnic groups. California is ahead....a huge Hispanic enclave. Feb 5th, here we come.

And in case anyone is wondering, yet again the turnout was huge -- over 100,000. Democrats are energized and are not staying home.

This primary season is going to be so close that we may not have a clear nominee for months. Who would have thought that? Certainly, not me.