Clinton and her aides downplayed the significance of her Iowa loss, and she said the New Hampshire primary Hampshire primary is a more meaningful contest.
'This is a new day, this is a new state, this is a primary election,' she said, turning to sharp criticisms of the Iowa process. 'You're not disenfranchised if you work at night. You're not disenfranchised if you're not in the state.'
If she's being truthful (which is always in doubt), then shouldn't she have know about the way the Iowa caucus process "disenfranchises" groups of voters from the start? Why did she participate at all? Why didn't she lead a protest to bring some change to the system - isn't that what she claims she's so good at? Don't the Democrats believe that "every vote counts, and every vote should be counted"?
No comments:
Post a Comment