Troubled

As I sit and watch the primary and caucus returns tonight on MSNBC, FOX, and CNN, there were two things that troubled me. The first concerned depressed turnout for the GOP. Now granted, turnout has been lower this presidential cycle for the GOP than the Democrats, but the "contributors" on CNN went on and on about how low turnout was this evening for Republicans, especially in conservative Kansas. Here's a news flash for you folks at CNN: unlike the Democrats, the GOP race is over! McCain is the nominee. Why would voters come out AFTER the nominee has been determined? It makes sense for the Huckabee supporters who are trying to make a statement for their candidate, but to dismiss, out of hand, how poor turnout has been tonight as a result of McCain being the nominee is a crock. Where does CNN find these "contributors"?

The second thing that troubles me is the concept of the Democrats using the "super delegate". Now I know that John Edwards had to release his delegates and they are in a sense, "free agents". I get that. But the party that promotes "equality" and "proportionality" over "law and order" by employing such a system to save the ass of their front-runner, presumably, Hillary Clinton, offends me! What is a super delegate? A super delegate is a former Democrat President, Vice President, member of the House or Senate, State Party Chairman, etc. who are not pledged to a particular candidate, unlike the delegates that a candidate wins in the state he carries. At this moment, Obama leads Clinton in pledged delegates, but trails, narrowly, in the super delgate count because they are free agents. Now I don't agree with Democrat lackey Donna Brazille on just about anything, but she did say something tonight on CNN that made a whole lot of sense to me. Instead of allowing super delegates to pledge their support to a candidate to save their own face, presumably Clinton, super delegates should be bound to the winner of the state they live. Brilliant! If you're going to implement a system to "reward" those higher ups, they shouldn't act as "king-makers", but rather reflect the will of the people. Otherwise, what's the point of going through the charade of a primary/caucus system only to screw the winner in the end! Furthermore, Howard Dean should have the balls not to sit the delegates from Michigan and Florida. If the party rules explicitly state that Michigan and Florida will not have their delegates seated at the DNC in August because they leap-frogged the Super Tuesday states in order to be more impactful, then the delegates from those two states should not be seated. Why? We all know who benefits from a complete 180, and it's not Obama. Again, it would offend anyone's sense of fairness to play by the rules and then get "screwed" out of the nomination for respecting the rule of law. But leave it to the Clintons to do whatever it takes to win! Is it any wonder why Senator Obama gains more and more momentum every day among the Democrats!