Dear Husband sent me a link to this guest post at Taylor Marsh’s site.
Only now that Obama has a miniscule lead of 128,736 in the number of votes cast (and that includes assigning all the “uncommitted” votes in Michigan to Obama) has the media focused on total votes cast. This lead represents less than 1% (0.62%) of votes cast in the primary elections held so far, yet it is trumpeted by the media endlessly.
But, since this is actually the Democratic primary, perhaps we should look at how Democrats have actually voted. Based on the available exit polling data, we find that Hillary Clinton has a commanding lead over Barack Obama in the number of votes – As of February 16, 2008, 391,992 more Democrats voted for Clinton than Obama.
DH sees this as an absolutely brilliant argument why, if the delegates from the primaries & caucuses don’t give her the nomination, the super-delegates should.
Blech.
Looks like an extended middle finger to independents to me.
This is the first time ever that I’ve engaged in a presidential process so early. I have always felt alienated from the partisan playbooks, and resigned to the choices they’ve belched out for the rest of us.
This time around, I wanted to feel as if I — an ordinary American who has declared independence from party politics — could be part of this awe-inspiring fundamental of our system.
I guess not.
Paul Lukasiak’s article underscores the absolutism inherent in this exclusionary political approach. In making his argument that Obama really is not the Democrats’ choice (and he may very well be right) he completely discounts the rest of us who are participating this year.
Never mind, says he. Thanks anyway, but you non-Democrats who have stupidly cast your votes and meddled in OUR primary are, frankly, quite unimportant.
Hmph.
Consider this post to be a metaphorical finger right back at ya, bud.
Follow Me