Surprising, I guess


So, Clinton took New York (surprise). But apparently, not by enough.

Described as “unsettling,” Obama’s delegates in New York were substantial in number. Then, he was criticized for targeting very specified districts in New York, the accusations mainly that he courted the African American vote (sur…prise?) as well as the “Starbucks” districts, where young and affluent, educated voters lived (again…a shock). It just seemed to me as a little bizarre to be criticizing Obama for these tactics, because not only are they many, many times less corrupt (if corrupt at all) than some office-seeking strategies, but they MAKE SENSE for Obama, being both African American as well as young(er), and because these are very important demographics to appeal to. So…why was he singled out? I’m sure Clinton campaigned to mothers, McCain courted the military/veteran vote, and Romney will probably sweep Utah, so should they and their campaign managers be brought under scrutiny? Or is this just good ol’ Obama-specific criticism?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: