Last week a national Electoral College poll pitted Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama separately against John McCain in each of the 50 states and Washington, D.C. The numbers will obviously change between now and the general election, but the poll shows both Clinton and Obama defeating McCain with combinations of states that shake up the familiar red-blue divide of the past two presidential elections. And though they win with different states, the fact that the poll gives both Obama and Clinton an advantage fails to help resolve a main point of contention in the Democratic primary: Who is more electable? And so, as always, we turn to the pundits.
Yesterday's Chicago Tribune included an opinion piece that, even though we're a day late on it, we just can't let slip by. In it, writer Dennis Byrne rails against the fact that both party's presidential front-runners are New York politicians (and Bloomberg, our mayor, might join them in the race). He claims it's bad for America that the leading candidates are from somewhere so "provincial."
I find it curious that American voters may have to choose between two New Yorkers and it has received little, if no attention, from the coastal media. Maybe they think the rest of us won't notice. Maybe they don't care whether the rest of us notice. After all, New York is the Center of Everything (followed at a respectful distance by the District of Columbia and a great distance by everyone else), so the rest of us should be glad that someone from New York would be sitting in the Oval Office.
Okay, first of all, stop projecting. And second of all, fuck you.