So are you really THAT pro-Hillary or do you hate Barack THAT much? Why?

Maybe you could trot on over to YouTube and look up Lorna Brett Howard, Former President of the Chicago chapter of NOW. Why would Hillary LIE about Barack's record and feelings on choice? Why wouldn't she go after McCain? She and her campaign LIED and spread false memes about Barack's position on choice. LIES. As in NON-TRUTHS. And you really want that in the White House. To the point of even *when* Barack wins, you want her to take him out and someway, somehow, just please-please-please get into the White House. What do you have to gain by getting her in there?

Oh, you mean maybe like how if your record is so transparent and archived, WITH VIDEO FOOTAGE, it's easy to um, misspeak? Can you perhaps respond to my actual comment regarding such a Hillary supporter defecting because of her tactics? That'd be cool. I readily conced Barack isn't perfect, nor do I expect a President to be such. However, the unadulterated (pun intended) desperation and clawing and grasping at straws by the Clintons is definitely turning me off to her candidacy. That and her being behind in integrity (granted, that's subjective), pledged delegates, popular vote, and things like that there.

SobeOne, really. Your fatigue is showing.

Sabotage by Obama campaign in Michigan and Florida? Links and proof please. Those contests NEVER HAPPENED officially, so any call for "as stands" is still-born. The state legislatures denied re-votes...unless you'd like to go on record as advocating that Barack already has so much power, he can subvert whole state political structures.

By omission, you forget to state that while Barack cannot cross the threshold either, HE IS AHEAD(!!!!!) in pledged delegates and popular vote. Or is it your contention that he's not ahead enough or being ahead is really practically the same as being tied, for extremely small values of ahead, as in zero which would be NOT ahead, but yet he is so, um...HEY, A PASTOR!!!

So you have one side that uses a word that for all practical purposes was correct.

And the other side says some words that claim something happened that very, very as in holy-crap-there's-publicly-available-VIDEO-fer-cryin'-out-loud cleary did NOT happen, and that side is trying to use it as justification for claiming foreign policy experience and being fully vetted.

I am NOT elevating Barack to some exalted, inevitable, Messiah status. I am merely looking at 2 candidates and I'm seeing one stand tall while the other is furiously digging downward, clawing, scratching and screaming "But it's MyyyYYYY tuuuuuuurrrnnn!!!!"

For shizzle. You want to elect who again?

I know I'm coming in late to this discussion, but something's really bothering me. ShawnWM-when you complain that Barack is not a viable candidate because he's only won African-American votes...I stop listening to your argument. See that second part after the hyphen? American? They're not 3/5 of a person anymore. "They" are just as American as you, me, whomever. Really, the color or hyphenation or whatever now matters? If there are X number of Americans...remember, Americans...and a candidate can consistently, routinely win with them, then that's, um, good, isn't it?

Please explain your position.

For one-note W.E.S.

B-b-b-ut in the general, there goes Florida! Anyway, it is so far from over. Keep in mind the new number to Clinton camp is 2209. And then there's the rules committee meeting. Then the convention credentials committee meeting. Then the lawsuits. She'll claim without Michigan and Florida being awarded AS WAS that it was not a valid primary and so there is no valid nominee. Just watch. And the lawsuits won't START at the Supreme Court, but she'll push it to that level all the while claiming no valid contest until ALL avenues and appeals are exhausted. Right up to "write in my name tomorrow if you believe, like I do, that I am the only one qualified to win" on November 3.

I'm talking about the Tex gals and Shawn and iq et al. I could respect them if they'd simply come right out and say, "I won't vote for the uppity ni&&3r and I know a lot of other people who won't either so install Clinton." I don't remember which *Tex it was who said it, but her high-flying righteous indignation knew no bounds regarding "the Obama supports mongerering about race and smearing Clinton" [paraphrased]. I mean, seriously, because "Obama supporters" claim the Clinton camp, and Mrs. Clinton herself by her own words, were race-baiting, she is O-U-T OUTTA THERE and cannot *sniffle* EVER EVER EVER NEVER EVER forgive Obama or his supports? Really? In a word...wow.

And Shawn..you're getting close, my friend, so why not just be honest with yourself and say "ni&&3r". At least you'd be true to yourself, right?

If you all are actually that viscerally against Obama and I'm way off base here about why, then I guess I apologize and instead just shrug and say, "weird." But I kinda don't think so.

I refer you to www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15537.html. And if your response, like one-note-wes's is along the lines of "that's why SHE must be the nominee!!!" I refer you to the 50 state strategy. 50. All 50. It isn't the demographic (see Obama wins with the demographic elsewhere) - it's the geography! And if Hillary is such the great candidate, why doesn't she have more delegates, more Super delegates, more popular vote, more money, more of anything except rabid irrational support? (nice softball for you to rant about the 'Obamabots' smearing the race-baiting of the Clinton camp. you're welcome). She. will. not. be. the. nominee. And this is not the last chance for a woman to be President, so it isn't misogyny.