The big “win” the media have dubbed Sen. Clinton’s score from this week’s Democratic primary election in Rhode Island, Vermont, Ohio, and Texas is hardly that. Of the 100,000 votes separating the difference between HRC and BHO, it turns out half that number went to candidates whose names were on the ballot but who are out of the race, including 29,000 votes for Sen. Edwards. Who knows why people would vote for the ex candidates in such a close race? Confusion? A little nostalgia for the ex’s? Why?
As for the twelve million registered voters in Texas the difference between their preference for Sen. Clinton versus Sen. Obama is down to 4 out of 1000 persons. That is hardly a resounding endorsement for either candidate.
Yet, caucus results favor Obama. Why? Maybe only highly educated young people can find their way to such an event to state their support for their candidate. Think about this. Obama says his approach to government is to leverage the passion and desire of the American people to pressure change that will strengthen the citizens instead of patronize the extreme wealthy and excuse corporate selfishness. Let’s say he means this. I believe he does because that is why I support his candidacy. But another reason I support his candidacy is because I see evidence of impassioned people bothering to attend caucuses to state their case and be counted. These people will set policy on health care, national security, and ensuring the constitution is protected against further erosion. I won’t count on the ex’s in Texas to help.