If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Since 2000, Democratic Party supporters have argued that George W. Bush stole the election from Al Gore. While vote recounts in Florida have returned varying results, one thing is indisputable: Al Gore won the popular vote. Still, George W. Bush was sworn into office a couple of months later, and the rest is history.

History is prone to repeat itself. Especially when unchecked power is at play.

The Democratic Party nomination has heated up since Hillary Clinton has taken a renewed interest in her own campaign. Undoubtedly, she is a powerful politician and determined to win. But at what cost?

Largely ruled by Democrats as a stolen election, the 2000 Presidential election stirred up great debate over our political process. It also created concern about the power and control that prominent political families have in America.

Hillary Clinton now stands at a divisive point in American political history. Results in the Democratic Party primary show that Barrack Obama leads in the popular vote. Most polls indicate that Hillary does not stand a chance of winning the popular vote. However, the news has been reeling about how Hillary still stands a chance to win the Democratic Party nomination by way of super delegates.

The question to Democrats would then be: How does Hillary Clinton winning the Democratic Party nomination, having lost the popular vote, differ from the stolen election of 2000?

In other words: How is Hillary Clinton different from George W. Bush?

More importantly: What democracy do we really have when two prominent political families steal elections at the highest level of our country?