A vote from "rural America" counts no more and no less than one from those "big city high populous" places, also known as, you know, AMERICA.
So very tired of this bullshit. Hillary has her supporters. Obama has his. Obama's supporters are greater in number than Hillary's and thus he is the nominee. Have a problem with that? Join a party where they don't have a problem with awarding the election to the candidate who receives fewer votes.
It doesn't matter if Obama has won more votes than Hillary. She should win the nomination because her voters are whiter.
At this point, Hillary won't be able to overcome Obama's lead in the popular vote, let alone pledged delegates. The only purpose that these diaries serve is to show that Hillary's supporters don't give a damn about either, and expect that their candidate should be the nominee because her voters are in some way more deserving of consideration than Obama's.
For children under 18 years old and people aged 18 to 64, the poverty rates (17.4 percent and 10.8 percent, respectively) and the numbers in poverty (12.8 million and 20.2 million, respectively) remained statistically unchanged from 2005.
Both the poverty rate and the number in poverty decreased for people aged 65 and older (9.4 percent and 3.4 million in 2006, down from 10.1 percent and 3.6 million in 2005).
Seniors have the lowest poverty rate of any age group. Highest? 18 and under. Most vulnerable? You make the call.
Truth is, vulnerable voters are casting their ballots for both Clinton and Obama, for any number of reasons. It's bullshit to claim that Obama's supporters are without care. Really, since when did black America become the idle rich? Since when did young America all receive a fully-stocked 401(k)? Did I miss an episode of Oprah's Big Give?
There are vulnerable voters on both sides of the divide and they all have their reasons to believe that the candidate of their choice will improve their lives.