As was widely expected, Barack Obama had a rough time during last night's primaries in Arkansas and Kentucky, winning just 59% of the vote against little known attorney John Wolfe in the former contest and taking only 58% against "uncommitted" in the latter primary. In fact, uncommitted captured a majority of Kentucky counties, performing especially well in regions with more Cracker Barrels than people and more coal mines than dentist offices.
Uncommited's result compares favorably to the 42% anti-war Democrat Eugene McCarthy earned in his 1968 New Hampshire foray against incumbent president Lyndon Johnson and the 37% Pat Buchanan won against George H. W. Bush in the 1992 New Hampshire primary.
And these comparisons underestimate the strength of uncommitted. Between the 67% of the vote earned by Mitt Romney in the Kentucky primary, the 17% going to challengers that have withdrawn from the race and the unallocated remainder, it's fair to say that roughly 100% of Kentucky Republicans voted for uncommitted.
Which raises the question, why not Uncommitted for America? Now that Generic Republican has faded in the polls in favor of, well, still a generic Republican, but not a very popular one, it's time to reconsider the positives uncommitted would bring to the table. He or she has never placed a dog atop a car. Nor has she placed a dog atop a grill. She's never supported a bailout or taken money from lobbyists. Never voted for a tax hike or a cut in Medicare benefits. She's never used a Teleprompter nor shut down a steel mill.
In short, uncommitted would be the perfect candidate. If only we could find her birth certificate.
Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images News/Getty Images
Tags: Arkansas, Barack Obama, Kentucky, Mitt Romney, Primaries