You say: "The clips that your "video" are taken from are from Obama's response to the idea of a Clinton/Obama "dream ticket."

You are mistaken here, as I downloaded the url for the YouTube clip about a week ago. It was most definitely on the Net before the 'dream ticket' debacle and shows Obama speaking in SC, I believe.

From the CNN site:

"[Mississippi's] state's Democratic voters were sharply divided among racial lines, exit polls indicate.

As has been the case in many primary states, Obama won overwhelming support from African-American voters. They went for him over Clinton 91-9 percent.

The state has a larger proportion of African-Americans (36 percent, according to the 2000 census) than any other state in the country. And black voters make up nearly 70 percent of registered Democrats.

But Mississippi white voters overwhelmingly backed the New York senator, supporting her over Obama 72 percent to 21 percent.

According to The Associated Press, only two other primary states were as racially polarized -- neighboring Alabama, and Clinton's former home state of Arkansas.

The exit polls also indicated roughly 40 percent of Mississippi Democratic voters said race was an important factor in their vote, and 90 percent of those voters supported Obama...."

How can this possibly bode well for November?

You say: "Why not spend some time like doc and others explaining the strengths and virtues of Hillary?"

Good suggestion. I have done some of that, but have been so taken aback at the pure venom directed toward Hillary on this and other sites, I end up being in defensive/counterattack mode all too often. Sometimes this feels like trying to fend off attacking swarms from Hitchcock's "The Birds". I do think I've made it clear that I really admire and respect Hillary Clinton and I've said more than once I see her as someone who sincerely wants to be the best president possible for all Americans. I see her as a woman of exceptional strength who understands the art and necessity of compromise, someone who's been through the toughest mills Washington has to offer and is still standing. The woman admittedly has her imperfections, but these are imperfections I can live with. Okay, it's late and I'm dead tired and rambling. But thanks again for the suggestion.

Is just one more reason to vote for Hillary. Apparently, Senator Clinton is mulling over whether to add free-to-the-pubilc 'de-programming' in her health care platform. Heaven knows the healing will be needed.

You say: "If you choose not to go to the caucus then you only are credited with 2/3rds of your vote.

Remember you needed to vote in the primary to vote in the caucus, the fact that your candidate's supporters didn't come out to caucus (and thus excercise their full vote) is not the fault of some evil Soviet-Style jiggery...sorry."

Would that we could simply devolve into a Darwinian paradise where the young and healthy take it all - shoving the elderly, the handcapped, the working stiffs, and those saddled with young children straight off the nearest electoral cliff. Caucuses are fundamentally survival of the fittest plain and simple, a dynamic which suits the Obama campaign to a tee.

As for a FL and MI re-vote: why not? How many of those tossing around all the high flown, condemnatory arguments would appreciate watching their ballot waft straight into the nearest trash can? Raise your hands.

You say: "If you don't like the rules, then change the rules...before the contest takes place."

I seriously doubt that FL and MI voters had any say in the making of these 'rules'. Also, attempts to keep these 'rules' in place after a sharp and very unexpected change in election dynamics warrants flexibility in the matter. If these 'rules' happened to benefit Clinton, you can bet Obama supporters would be screaming bloody murder - and with justification.

You say: "What you are saying in effect is that caucuses aren't fair because Obama's supporters are more engaged and committed."

Yours is, at best, a specious argument. It doesn't matter how 'engaged and committed' a voter might be if physical, financial, or family limitations prevent them from attending a caucus. There is also the element of intimidation: just how outspoken is a voter likely to be, if his or her boss/minister/neighbors/mother-in-law argues publicly, perhaps strenuously, for a candidate who is not of the former's choosing?

You say: "TexasKate (who's apparently not from Texas)"

I moved to Texas from New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. I grew up in IL and have lived all over the country. What would you have me call myself? LithuaniaKate?

<<My mom got her 62-year-old butt motivated enough to caucus in Wyoming for Obama. So, based purely on my personal experience (which counts for ass), you're full of crap.>>

First of all, thank you for the tender phrasing. I got MY 60-year old butt to the nighttime caucus here in Texas, after voting in the afternoon. It turns out that a huge percentage of TX voters had NO idea their state even had a caucus process, including up to and on the day of voting. The Obama campaign put ferocious attention and time into making sure younger voters flooded the evening caucuses and this paid off big time.

I caucused at the old folks' home where we voted earlier in the day. I would guess that many of the residents were thus enabled to vote in the daytime. Not a single one of them was in evidence that night, however, as the clock ticked on toward 9 p.m. and the stuffy, second floor room got hotter and hotter and we all stood around wilting. What was in evidence was a very long line of Obama fans, students from the local university whose facial expressions and body language seemed to indicate a belief that the Clinton line might somehow contaminate them.

The Obama line included precisely two older adults who were obviously not students. The Clinton line, along with middle-aged and older white and Hispanic men and women, contained several young women who were almost certainly local college students - but not a single guy. For me, the demographics of the lines were sadly telling.

You say: "Are you seriously trying to argue that, of the 1,459,814 people who voted for Clinton in the Texas primary, she only got 18,620 caucus votes because 1,441,194 of her primary voters were prevented from voting due to "physical, financial, or family limitations"

The reason Clinton won the popular vote in TX and Obama received more delegates is this: Texas has an exceedingly strange caucus system by which delegates are apportioned not according to the present election, but according to the LAST one. In other words, if precinct A had a big turnout in a previous election - for dogcatcher, say, and precinct B had a lower turnout, the former is rewarded and the latter penalized in a subsequent election. In TX, this time around, precincts with large numbers of black voter got a big (undeserved) award,and those with large numbers of Hispanic voters got a big (undeserved) penalty. THIS is the reason the Obama campaign focused so fiercely on the caucus process in TX. Clinton could've turned out an equal number of caucus goers - and still lost to Obama. Is this equitable? Obviously not.

Thank you for your post, perhaps the sanest analysis of Obama and his fans I've read on this site. I agree with every word you said.