It's not like it's Shakespeare

I wrote a letter to the editor of the NYT today, because I was mighty pissed off at a line from an article on the primaries (included in the letter):

I was disturbed by a line in the article that referred to people who went to caucuses as "more committed voters." This is unfair to all those voters who are lower income and do not have the luxury of setting aside what can be up to several hours (as my caucus in Washington was) for something where childcare is not offered for free. There is also the problem of those who are unable to take off work, especially in jobs that are blue collar and have shifts and it is hard to get someone to switch shifts with you as your entire schedule is predicated upon whether you work day, swing, or night.

Calling people who have the luxury of being able to attend a caucus more committed to the democratic system is akin to saying that those who have more means care more about the fate of our country, which in my book, is against what this country stands for.

Let's see if it gets published.

EDIT: I overlooked the fact that Obama tends to take caucuses (note that Hillary's support base is generally lower income) and that line implies that Obama voters are more committed the HRC supporters. The anger just keeps coming. Supporting Obama is fine, but saying that people who support him care more about the fate of this country then I and other Hillary supporters do is just plain fucked up.