I used to like Ann Coulter, but haven't in a long time. I pretty much stopped reading her about a year ago when most of her columns seemed long on vitriol and short on substance. I suppose it was the result of off-year ennui.
But I do agree with this column.
When Gore won the popular vote in the 2000 election by half a percentage point, but lost the Electoral College -- or, for short, "the constitutionally prescribed method for choosing presidents" -- anyone who denied the sacred importance of the popular vote was either an idiot or a dangerous partisan.
But now Hillary has won the popular vote in a Democratic primary, while Obambi has won under the rules. In a spectacular turnabout, media commentators are heaping sarcasm on our plucky Hillary for imagining the "popular vote" has any relevance whatsoever.
It's the exact same situation as in 2000, with Hillary in the position of Gore and Obama in the position of Bush. The only difference is: Hillary has a much stronger argument than Gore ever did (and Hillary's more of a man than Gore ever was).
I've thought about this irony for weeks now as the Democrats insisted that Hillary Clinton should concede defeat to Barack Obama because they liked him better. It seemed silly to me that the candidate with the popular vote should give up before the contest was over (and it's still not over until August, but that's another story).
Does this mean Obama has been "selected, not elected"? Can't wait for those bumperstickers.
Cross-posted at Common Sense Political Thought.
|