Why don’t you explain it to me, since I’m oblivious.
Is your avatar the poster boy for NAMBLA?
Ad hominem attacks are always a classy touch.
The issue in 2000 was not the electoral college. The issue was that many people felt like the Republicans cheated. Right or wrong, that was the issue. Of course, some people did ask themselves at that time if the electoral college was antiquated, but they did not question that the electoral college was the system in play at the time.
My understanding (correct me if I am wrong) was that Florida and Michigan delegates were not counted, as punishment for having set their primaries at a time at odds with the DNC. All candidates understood this beforehand, which is why Obama did not even appear on the ballot in Michigan.
Clinton wanted to change the rules only towards the end when she thought it might help her out.
Now, the only similarity that I can see between the two is that some floridians in the 2000 election claimed that they were not allowed to vote or that their vote was not counted. Likewise, we can say that people from Michigan and Florida did not have their votes counted in the Democratic primaries this year, 2008.
I will admit that I don’t understand the DNC’s reasons for punishing Florida and Michigan voters this way. However, it was done BEFORE the primary season and therefore was not directed to hurt either Obama, Clinton or any of the other candidates that were, at one time or another, presenting themselves for the Democratic Presidential nomination.
Obama’s got tons of cash. If he had any balls, he would have funded a re-do, in Michigan and Florida. Instead he hid behind ‘rulings’ by a committee to gain the nomination. He should have said: “Let the voices of ALL the people be heard!”. He’d have gotten a helluva lot of mileage out of that.
Now, McCain can go into Florida and Michigan and talk about how the DNC and Obama don’t give a rat’s ass about them, and he’ll have a point.
No balls, no glory (as it should be).