Until this past year, I hadn't really known what caucuses were. Why would a state rely on a caucus to choose their nominee? It seems more logical to make the primaries like the main election, since that's the one that REALLY counts, and if you're wanting to win, you do things in a way more likely to choose a winner.

I still see no one answering the question of why the voters in Michigan and Florida should not have their votes count (i.e., be disenfranchised). I personally don't give a damn about the party rules of which state should come first, and I seriously doubt many other people do either, except those who want a thumb-on-the-scale type of advantage. And those voters in Florida & Michigan have little control over what their party leaders choose to do.

Even though I personally think that Clinton would make a better president, I still plan to vote for whoever is the eventual democratic nominee. But, I have to say, it'll be harder to do so now if it's Obama, because such a large part of his supporters are so obnoxious, and because he's done so little to rein that in (it's not plausible to think he's unaware of it). I've also been disgusted by the willingness of his supporters to slander the Clintons with being racists, or using racist tactics. If Obama were a man of real integrity, he would have immediately put an end to that the first sign of it coming up, but he didn't because it benefits him in the short run. The irony of much of this campaign is the idea that it's the Clintons that have made this a divisive race, while any objective analysis would show that it has been Obama's supporters that have had far more to do with it, along with their Hillary-hating supporters in the media.

Further dishonesty amongst the Obama supporters is this idea that there is an equivalence to yelling "sexist" and yelling "racist." That's like saying there is equivalent weight to walking off with a pencil and stealing a car. Both are wrong, but they are not in any way equal. I'm annoyed by the idea that Clinton running for president indicates she thinks she's "entitled," but Obama running somehow does not. I'm tired of everything Clinton does being put through a hate filter so that motives that aren't even slightly plausible are assigned to her, and a corresponding love filter being put to everything Obama does. That's irrational behavior, and dangerously close to cult mentality. I'm tired of people calling Clinton "whiny" when she asks for a level playing field (as if that were somehow unreasonable or undesirable!).

I'd be far happier with Obama if he were winning more honestly, but his above-it-all stance is untrustworthy, it indicates an unwillingness to face tough challenges, his unwillingness to win based upon concretes and facts, rather than lofty rhetoric that leaves out the hows and replaces it with non-verbal somehows that are left to the listeners imagination alone. I'm tired of treating a difference of a few percenetage points as a landslide when it suits Obama's supporters, and a minor quibble when it doesn't. I also do not see anything wrong with the campaign continuing, the longer the media focuses on the democrats, the better, it makes McCain seem irrelevant and have less time to use the media as his own personal plaything, but more importantly, it keeps the vetting process (such as it is) going longer, because a race this close needs to be more thoroughly vetted.

--Ron