Tuesday, 22 January 2008, 21:20:49 EST
In the last presidential election I participated in the primary voting. Since I hadn't voted before, I didn't really know what the primaries are. I think my stance on political parties also effected my idea of what to expect. I won't be participating this year. It's a complete waste of time, as far as I'm concerned. When I can go to the poll and pick the candidate I like, out of all that are in contention, then I will go back. Of course, that is never going to happen.
Speaking of candidates in contention:
The real story, though, I think is -- the divide here is on the socioeconomic issues between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. And, quite frankly, even though John Edwards running as a populist, he was never really part of the debate for many of these voters, who really thought, if you made less than $50,000, you supported Hillary Clinton.
If you did not have a college degree, you supported Hillary Clinton. If you thought the economy was worsening, you supported Hillary Clinton.
I think the core issue is the demographics, that she does extremely well among people who are less educated, among people who are poorer, and among people who are older, basically sort of a Wal-Mart set.
That was Amy Walter and David Brooks, respectively. They are not the only people I have heard make these statements. Clearly it isn't a big secret. What surprises me is that no one seems to be listening. It makes me sad, and would make me angry if I let it. Would you like to know what her "change" campaign means? Her idea of change is doing away with personal responsibility. Doing away with freedom of choice. Doing away with the free market ("I want to take those profits..."). Welcome to the USSA!