I commend Barack Obama (though I don’t plan to vote for him) for contesting all 50 states (I’ll trust that Barack has figured out that he misspoke during the primary season when the number “57” escaped his lips) in the general election campaign for U.S. President this year.
In recent presidential election years, Democrats wanted to whine about how elections were stolen from them, and some Democrats even ranted that they wanted to amend the U.S. Constitution to do away with the Electoral College altogether so that they could elect a president by running up the Democrat vote totals in New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago, while ignoring hinterlands (like Ohio). Democrats were so miffed that the election was decided by, of all things, states . . . STATES! How irrelevant! Why should the United States of America base its presidential elections upon the premise of winning STATES???!!!!!!
I’m glad, this year, that the Obama campaign has opted to contest all 50 states (Obama’s success at fundraising opened the door), because the media pundits, especially the Democrat pundits, have had to reference the electoral map of the U.S.A., and not just the national poll numbers. They’ve come to grips with reality, and the reality is the Constitution, including the Constitution’s stipulations about the workings of the Electoral College.
In 2004, the John Kerry strategy for winning Ohio was to anticipate that Republicans would steal the election in Ohio, therefore an army of lawyers was recruited to catch the Republicans red-handed in the act of stealing votes at Ohio polling places. Ludicrous (unless you happen to be Bob Fitrakis of Ohio’s Green Party). I’m glad the Obama camp is taking a more pro-active approach toward winning the elections.
So, if Obama loses in November, can we all agree that, this time, the elections will not have been stolen?