<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uBax5GfGY2k" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Well that sucks. How awesome would it be if Hillary and Cruz get the nom and then immediately both are ruled ineligible due to indictments and non-natural citizenship? Iowa blows.
I feel bad for O'Malley. He wasn't that bad of a candidate and showed some good self-deprecating humor. In the Democratic primaries though being a run of the mill white male candidate isn't going to cut it anymore.
I don't think it was being run of the mill white. But I do think we're in an age where you already need a brand that someone could summarize in a tweet. Otherwise, today's public will just say "who?" when they hear your name. Love or hate Cruz, he has branded himself and his brand is rising. Hillary has had a brand for a long time. Bernie is the earnest old crusader against big money. Trump is as branded as you can get. O'Malley? Some bland governor guy who has no one go-to schtick? What? His routine is being a well-spoken, thoughtful person who can even be self-deprecating? Sounds like a standard butt of jokes on a sit-com. My fantasy election, for a good reasonable policy-based look at America's future, would have been O'Malley vs. Kasich. Odds are we will have Hillary versus R. Edward from Canada. That's be reeeeaaal good for the country's dialog. Really bring us together.
He was solid, I liked him better the Clinton, he was kind of the middle between Clinton and Sanders. But just not nearly enough support of momentum for him. I really wonder if he would have pulled out before the vote if Sanders would have won.
At the risk of playing race and gender up I think being a white male with nothing else particular did hurt O'Malley. I'm not saying being white and male is the kiss of death for Democratic candidates but I don't think it helps. That's part of my point though. In 2008 the Democratic nomination and eventually presidency was won by a black man named Barack Obama. He had one of the longest drawn out primary battles against a woman. That would've been unthought of even as recently as 2000. It wasn't that long ago that being non-white, non-male, or a Socialist, would've made a candidate unelectable in the Democratic party now it is a plus.
I hear what you're saying, but I think you and I would argue it's an order of magnitude different effect. If Barack got a bump b/c of his skin color (as opposed to his oratory skills, his well-branded message, and his million dollar smile), I'd say it was 5% or much less of what made him a great democratic candidate. Who can tell though.
It will by the next cycle, if Hillary loses they'll be blamed/blame themselves for either not being moderate or not having any new blood, similar to when Dole ran in '96.
We impeached a President for adultery, at which point he admitted an additional affair he denied earlier, automatic DQ. Separately I don't know how you sell him as a moderate: which admittedly just means white guy from a swing or flyover state.
He was impeached based on a review of questioning in a separate trial that was ruled in his favor, and spurred on by illegal wiretaps made in pursuit of a book deal. The specific questioning was about adultery, and consulting lawyers on the Jones team have already admitted they placed the question in their in the hopes of causing later issues for Clinton since they didn't demonstrate sexual harassment. You know good and well your party destroyed a 25 year-old investigative law to overturn an election, pay back for Iran Contra, Robert Bork or whatever.
