I wrote this in November of 2007.  It seems that given the way things are going, it's even more relevant now than it was then.  There's a lot I can add to the mix here: gas prices; the state budget cuts which are terminating my employment at the end of the month.  But really, it stands on its own and though the details may have changed a little, they're still the same basic idea.

Okay.

So.

Poverty.

Let me start by saying that, for a lot of people, it's going to get worse.

I don't mean it's going to get worse before it gets better.

I don't mean it's going to get worse unless we elect a Democratic president.

I mean it's going to get worse.

I'm not making a prediction here.

I'm just going with the odds.

What does this mean?

It's simple.

I've seen comments here and there about how so much of the party favors Clinton for the VP slot.  Some have even suggested that this is the first real test of Obama's leadership, such as illustrated here:

Early on in the debates, it was obvious that people wanted the Dream Ticket and that the two of them had a real chemistry.

Face it-- the Democratic Party is and always has been a house divided. Obama has a chance to show some real leadership here by bringing the party together.

I've seen similar arguments throughout the blogosphere and I think they're misguided.

I've read quite a bit in various places about who is and is not qualified to be president. I.e., suggestions that Obama isn't "qualified" due to some factor or another (youth, inexperience, etc). The qualifications are actually quite simple, per Wikipedia:

Article Two of the Constitution sets the principal qualifications to be eligible for election as President. A Presidential candidate must:

• be a natural-born citizen of the United States;
• be at least thirty-five years old;
• have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

Additionally, the Constitution disqualifies some people from the Presidency. Under Article One of the United States Constitution, the Senate has the option, upon conviction, of disqualifying impeached individuals from holding other federal offices, including the Presidency.[4] Under the Twenty-Second Amendment, no one can be elected President more than twice. The Twenty-Second Amendment also specifies that anyone who serves more than two years as President or Acting President, of a term for which someone else was elected President, can only be elected President once. Under the Twelfth Amendment a person who is no longer eligible to be President may not be Vice President either.

This isn't a confession.  I'm not ashamed of my choice and I'm not going to apologize for it.  But things have changed, and they've changed in ways that I don't know that I can fully articulate, though I think most of us know.  If I'd lived in a swing state, I probably would have voted for Gore, but in Vermont I had the luxury of making a protest vote.   The electoral college map wasn't going to change. Vermont was going to go for Gore no matter what I did.  If I'd lived in Florida, Ohio, New Mexico or New Hampshire, I would have voted for Gore.  I didn't have to make that choice.

After the fold, I'll talk a bit about the decision processes that go into this and why they're relevant to 2008.  For those of you in Vermont, the first few paragraphs will be familiar to you.  For those of you who don't, you'll learn some very strange things about the way we choose a governor.

In the not too distant future, all the primary elections will be concluded.  

In the not too distant future, all the results will be known.  

By then, the May meeting of the rules committee will have taken place, and we are likely to have a sufficient number of superdelegates (even counting Michigan and Florida) to have pledged their support to an established nominee who must then focus on defeating McCain.

So this is my pledge:

I will support the nominee and oppose McCain, no matter who it is.  

Though I may post suggestions and ideas as to who would make the best running mate, I will not base my support for the nominee on which running mate is chosen.

I will support the nominee and let go of whatever anger and frustration I had that that nominee was not my first (or, in my case, even my second) choice.

I will post no diaries attacking the nominee, though I may, as I've done all along, post diaries criticizing certain stances or positions.

I will post no diaries attacking one not nominated, though I may, as I've done all along, post diaries criticizing certain stances or positions.

I will not mock the supporters of the losing side (though I reserve the right to mock those whom I perceive as right-wing trolls, or anyone who will sit this election out or vote for McCain).

If I think that the nominee has a weakness among certain demographics, I will try to find ways to bridge the gap with those demographics instead of moan about how badly we're going to do among them.

I will not recommend any diaries which violate the above pledge.

Who's with me?

Most of you don't know much about me, because I haven't shared that much here; I don't post much about my personal life, and I'm not inclined to because I'm kind of a target for some of y'all.  

I'm not complaining about this; just explaining why it's unlikely that anyone here would know that, when it comes to math and statistics, I'm formidable.  I'm not saying this to be arrogant: it's not anything that I take credit for.  I just happen to have a facility for mathematics and statistics.  I find them boring but I'm extremely good with them and when I teach my students about research and research methodology, I often do so with an eye towards getting them to distrust what they see in mainstream media; even if not intentionally deceptive (which it sometimes is), the media uses math, graphs and statistics to misrepresent reality from time to time.

I expect this from the mainstream media, and I try to teach my students to look beyond the simple.

But I don't expect it here.

I'm an Obama supporter (migrated from Edwards), but I can't help but have some real respect for Clinton in this race.  She's a fierce and powerful opponent and though she's by no means someone I wanted to be President, I understand why a lot of people were supporting her campaign and I have real respect for the intensity with which she ran her campaign, even if I didn't agree with the ethics of all her choices.

Indeed, Democrats can learn a lot from her willingness to fight, fight, fight and fight, without fear of the consequences.

I'd very much hoped, though, that Clinton would exit this race with some shred of dignity about her, some way to show that her supporters that their time and effort wasn't wasted, and something that gave them all a sense of closure.

That opportunity is now gone.

Sometimes, when I read diaries, I feel like they need an annotated version.  So, for what it's worth, I've decided to mark up this diary a little bit.

As most of you know by now, Hillary's spending some time talking to those disenfranchised voters down in south Florida...

...which her campaign helped disenfranchise.

...her presence has got to be reassuring to the millions of folks who are - at this moment - unsure about whether their votes will be counted fully when we meet in Denver to choose our party's nominee....

...especially those millions of voters who didn't vote because they were told that their votes wouldn't count, as endorsed by the Clinton campaign.

She's the only one fighting to make sure their voices are heard...

...as long as they voted for her.

and she's making it clear as day that she'll continue that fight as this process plays out...

...or at least as long as it's politically advantageous for her to do so.