Letters to the Editor
-
Tainted Wins
The problem is the win is even more tainted than Bush's 2000 "win"
Care to tell us how, or was that just another creative use of Clintonite hyperbole? I didn't see the Texas supreme court declare any winners. All I saw was a bunch of Democrats at our local elementary school caucusing for Obama, and him winning Texas according to the rules.
Because it states that some votes are far more important than others.
We are a nation that is founded upon the notion that all people are equal and there votes should count equally. One of the few times we actually achieve this ideal, is during most elections.
Rich or poor, intelligent or not, your vote is one vote. That’s all.
What Texas did is say, your vote will count more if you have the time to come back and vote again.
It’s anti-Democratic and frankly indefensible.
A caucus is bad enough, as it greatly favors those with time, but to declare a primary invalid because of it is even worse.
But, since you seem to be defending the issue, I guess you’ll have no problems with super-delegates voting for Clinton and giving her the nomination.
It’s bad enough that super-delegates will be selecting our nominee, it’s worse when people claim a 3% loss is a victory because people got to vote twice, and their second vote counted for more.
Making the argument that you’ve won an election, by keeping two huge important States from voting, and that you’re ahead in delegates counting times when you lost popular vote but gained more delegates, is the same as G.W. Bush.
You’re playing games with the election in order to advance yourself, and it’s wrong.
The worst thing Obama’s camp has done is effectively veto Florida and Michigan from revoting.