http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20080605/cm_ucac/obamawasselectednotelected;_ylt=AiI579ZdIJ9GORTYyZTjcKn9wxIF">link
But now Hillary has won the popular vote in a Democratic primary, while Obambi has won under the rules. In a spectacular turnabout, media commentators are heaping sarcasm on our plucky Hillary for imagining the "popular vote" has any relevance whatsoever. It's the exact same situation as in 2000, with Hillary in the position of Gore and Obama in the position of Bush. The only difference is: Hillary has a much stronger argument than Gore ever did (and Hillary's more of a man than Gore ever was).Of course that's not true. It's not even close to the same thing as 2000. Hint to Coulter the rules of the 2000 presidential election and the 2008 Democratic primary were different. For starters in 2000 there weren't two states that where declared non-contest in which voters were told not to bother voting (the Republicans decided not to count votes after the Florida people voted). Some states don't even have popular vote totals. Finally no one argued Gore should be president because he won the popular vote, they argue he should be president because by any rational and honest count of Florida vote shows Gore won the state and the electoral college. (at worst the state was a statistical tie in which the vote difference was hopelessly within the counting error). Any honest person would say it's impossible to know who won the popular vote in the Democratic primary because well it wasn't a measuring stick for anything and thus there was no accurate attempt to record it.
That's not the point of this anyways. No one voted for Coulter to be able to give her opinions out there to the public. She (as most op ed writing republicans)is almost always wrong, inaccurate, deceiving and just plan baseless in her facts and opinion expressed. Such as the whole Hillary-Gore introduction to her opinion article used to try to convince me. Why exactly do these people continue to get to express their opinion using the mass media to me? I would point out to Coulter this is a representative republic and not a Democracy. She should be happy we live in a representative republic, because apparently some Americans want to be represented by liars, morons and fantasy factoid historians. Without such people there is simply no justification that Coulter herself should have her opinions receive such mass marketing. In any honest democratic count of her opinions would quickly find shes been wrong nearly 100 % of the time and thus there is simply no point to hearing what she has to say. Coulter has been selected not elected to be a spokes person by the mass media and she should thank god such a system is in place in the USA.