Winning

If you're listening to the media prattle about the Pennsylvania primary, it seems that a win isn't a win unless it's big enough. When is winning not winning? When Hillary wins, even if by nearly 10%. Have you noticed how often the talking heads refer to the presidential nomination race as a marathon, not a sprint? While my marathon training cannot in any way be compared with Hillary's long road to the nomination, I will once again take this opportunity to draw certain parallels. First of all, I wish the length of the two were reversed. If my training had been even half as long as the year-long plus presidential campaign, I'd probably feel a lot better right now. I also wish I could raise money as successfully. The most obvious parallel is that this isn't over yet. We're both still plugging away. The bottom line is this: There will be no winning without relentlessness.

(Begin political screed)
I'm awed by Hillary. She's so courageous in the face of destructive forces that often seem much greater than her ability and will to overcome with grace and grit. The animus defies reality. It cannot be explained by who she is or any mistakes she has made. It's coming from somewhere else. She has been facing down blatant sexism, hateful speech and a never-ending chorus of people who want her to step aside "for the good of the party." That's a lot of hooey, and she knows it. Sincere people know it, too.

If people cared about democracy with a capital "d" they would fight so that all votes count, endorse an election calendar where all voters get a say rather than punish some states for moving ahead and not others. (See Wayne Barrett's piece in the Huffington Post for a thorough review of this subject and how elected Republicans jettisoned voters in Michigan and Florida.) They would want voters in all 50 states to have meaningful and fair elections and for a nominee to be selected at the end of those 50 primaries, not after only a few states. They would question why Barack Obama opposed re-votes or any attempt to have the 2.3 million votes cast in those states counted in the popular vote. They would question why unpledged delegates (so-called superdelegates) in some states do not feel compelled to reflect the will of the voters they represent, as Obama's supporters interpret the unpledged delegate's role. (Kerry and Kennedy in Massachusetts support Obama even though Hillary won the popular vote there.) They would question the fairness of caucuses that sound charmingly like old-fashioned democracy in action, but effectively limit participation in the process. Letting democracy in all of its messiness play out would be a good place to start. Follow that with serious election reform once the election is over. You don't hear much clamor for that. Instead you hear people calling for Hillary to sit down, shut up, go home, give up, back down and admit defeat "for the good of the party."

Hillary's extraordinary strength amid a struggle for recognition and simple respect strikes me as nothing short of heroic. Why should she sacrifice her goals and vision for revolutionary change? I think Hillary continues because she's come too far, she's too close to the finish line to turn back now and let the naysayers dissuade her from her ultimate goal as a public servant.

I am inspired by her relentlessness and determination. She has to be exhausted, but she's not a quitter. She knows she has what it takes, and with unwavering support from people who believe in her, she'll do it.

(End political screed--for now)

When I finished a triathlon in Chicago a few years ago, my niece Emily and nephew Alex asked me if I won. I said yes without a moment's hesitation and I showed them my medal, which satisfied them. It happened to be my worst performance, but that isn't what mattered most. Several of my coaches just ran the Boston marathon. Finishing is winning. A personal record is winning. Attempting it at all is winning.

Today: 4.2
Miles to date: 165.2