Play Live Radio
Next Up:
Available On Air Stations
Watch Live


Defining Winning

Depending which school of professional thought you believe:

A) Winning could be beating the predicted spread. &
B) Winning could be proving that despite the votes cast, a particular candidate has momentum.
C) All of the above.
D) None of the above.

So, what if a particular candidate gets the most votes cast, and beats the predicted spread, and even shows momentum, but in the process reveals an incredibly dark and self-centered side of herself? &


What if she successfully shows her ability to go negative? What if she convinces people that she can be just as underhanded and divisive as the Republicans have been accused of being for the last seven years? &

As Chris McConnell mentioned when we appeared on These Days last week, some people were just never going to vote for Hillary Clinton no matter what. While he isn't one of those people, I am. I've been on record here since my first post as being completely unsatisfied with both major party's candidates. But there's a special place in my rankings of the candidates for Hillary Clinton, and it's always been tough for me to put it in words.

So I was grateful that this morning a great blogger who I respect a lot, Scott Barnes, was able to put at least part of it in simple words in his site :

"Some 200 years ago this country fought a war so we wouldn't have to live under a political dynasty. And now here we are, and for the last 28 years either a person named Bush or a person named Clinton has been either the president or the vice-president. That's longer than a lot of my friends have even been alive. And so I believe that it really is time to get away from politics-as-usual because that's the best way we stand a chance at cleaning up George Bush's mess."

-Citizen Voices blogger Chuck Hartley is an attorney who lives in Escondido.