That Old Double Standard Has Me in a Spell

It's not even worth the whole rant and raving about how the MSM won't report information about Democrats as opposed to frothing at the mouth when it comes to reporting negative stories (or non-stories as far as the drive-by media is concerned) about Republicans and/or those eeeeeviiil conservatives.

But even when Democrat superdelegates decide to shine the light on something, the MSM instinctively turn deaf and dumb.

But isn't it funny when, back during the general election of 2000, people on the left shouted up a storm about how Gore should be the president because he had more popular votes as opposed to the votes gained by the electoral college? You know, the way it's been done for 232 years?

Well now the Obamamites are screaming again. I don't know why. I mean, didn't they just get their boy nominated to the presidential candidate for the Democrat party?

But wait. Hillary Clinton is going on about how she has more "popular" votes than Obama, therefore, she should be the Democrat candidate, even though she has already conceded.

So the obvious question is, why the double standard? Why is the delegate/electoral vote so relevant now and the popular vote isn't? Wasn't it just the other way around in 2000? Heck, even in 2004?

History re-writes itself yet again and the MSM stays loyally silent.