One Man, One Woman, No Vote

Imagine this scenario: In the midst of the largest rejection of a seated president in modern U.S. history, the opposing party's presidential primary is a choice between a black man and a woman. And as that choice comes down to a bitter wire, the possibility exists that the deciding votes to secure either candidate's nomination could come from a faction of delegates--melding both Republicans and Democrats--that cannot vote for either one in the Presidential election.

Don't imagine: It's becoming more likely than most of the U.S. of part of A. would care to think about.

As Sen. Hillary Clinton continues to bash Sen. Barack Obama and the balance of delegate numbers hovers at "insufficient" to secure the nomination, the June Democratic primary in Puerto Rico looms larger as a deciding factor. And in this local primary, you will find the comical spectacle of open Republicans joining slimy paws with Democrats to lobby local support for "the candidate of choice." And at this point, that support leans closer to Sen. Clinton.

Why? Former First Lady of a two-term President, international reputation and let's not discount her skin color. (I've covered a similar notion here.) But at the delegate level, it boils down to "connections": The local Fools have more connections to Sen. Clinton than they do to Sen. Obama, and connections equal power. Local políticos will not turn their back on that power--most of it illusory--unless they have a greater power (or illusion of it) elsewhere.

Does that mean that Sen. Obama courts local delegates with promises, promises, promises? No. It means the Democratic party works its ass off to make sure a nomination is locked up without resorting to Our muddled delegates. The point isn't "who's chosen", but "chosen in time."

It can't be any other way. Imagine the most-watched election in history, one that breaks long-standing political barriers, being framed by a people who live under political barriers such that they can't even vote directly for the candidate they put over the top.

It's one thing for stateside candidates to take Our money: That's the deal. It's another thing entirely to have Our primary votes actually mean something. That's so not part of the deal.

Is this some veiled argument for statehood? Hell no. There is no argument "for" statehood aside from "The U.S. of part of A. wants Us," and that's not happening ever.  What The Jenius writes here is an argument for "Get over yourselves" aimed at Fools and missing the mark not from a lack of perspicacity on My part, but from a lack of intelligence on the part of the well-monikered Fools.

As for the rest of Us, Our choices range from guffaws to grunts. Guess how long I'll laugh...


The Jenius Has Spoken.