Wednesday, March 05, 2008

George W. and Hillary...What's The Difference?

This morning while I was eating my bowl of Kashi Strawberry Fields cereal (an excellent cereal I might add) I was watching Good Morning America and Hillary Clinton was being interviewed about her three wins the previous evening.

After all of the questions about how she celebrated last night and what not was out of the way the commentator asked what was in my eyes an excellent question.

The commentator noted that even with the wins last night Hillary was only able to decrease Obama’s delegate lead by six delegates (prior to last night he had a 112 delegate lead and after last night he had a 106 delegate lead), the commentator went on to ask that if she wasn’t able to close in on his lead if she still deserved to receive the nomination?

She of course avoided the question, but this question got me thinking. In 2000 Democrats were up in arms about the fact that George W. Bush was chosen to be president against the will of the people and was thus an “illegitimate” president.

If Hillary Clinton receives this year’s Democratic nomination without receiving a majority of the popularly elected delegates what is the difference between Bush’s “illegitimate” presidency and Clinton’s “illegitimate” nomination?


Anonymous said...

Don't forget (the propagandas) that they keep telling you in school and in the corporate own media that our government represents the people, is for the people, and by the people...blah...blah..blah...By the way in the Bible belt states people actually believe that this is the God country and everything is God given. Thus in a sense the President is our highest priest...choosen by God, destiny to defend our "freedom".

xtrachromosomeconservative said...

...and you can see the disastrous consequences of the corporate "own" media when folks can't spell owned properly.