the winner is chosen by having the majority of delegates. This is ALL that matters. I know she is trying to make all these cases for why supers should choose her but is it working? Is she getting supporters to switch sides and suggest she has a chance? You could go all the way to Denver and fight, fight, fight, but at what point do you accept the fact that you aren't going to win? If Obama gets over the 2118, can you accept those results? At what point do you finally say, "ok, she lost"?

Is it realistic to think that you can still win by yelling as that woman in the video did? Is it worth it? Is it worth destroying her image as so many did today at the rules committee? How about destroying the party? "Giving" the election to McCain? All just to win?

Come on, think a bit smarter here and honestly ask yourself, is it worth it?

I don't understand how Hillary and her supporters expect full representation from primary's that weren't.

You simply cannot argue with any sort of logic that those voters represent the state from those primaries. Some voted for the republican candidates, some stayed home, some wanted to vote for others but they were not on the ballot either, none of them ever saw a candidate or a major campaign in either state.

How is each primary a representation of democratic voters in each state? How can you honestly argue that? How can you argue that this vote counts, yet caucuses are "undemocratic"? Do you not see the hypocrisy?

What is the best result of these "results"? The RBC decided today and it's pretty good. The decision would never be perfect but for Hillary supporters it almost sounds like compromise isn't even part of their vocabulary. It was count them all, give us the best possible outcome imaginable (0 delegates for Obama in Michigan and only 33% of the delegates in Florida) and accept no other possible outcome.

Seriously, how is that fair by any stretch of your seemingly limitless imagination?

Ok, you seem to be someone where that I can at least have a debate with. Who we are responding to here are probably GOP plants just to stir trouble, but I've seen some crazy Hillary supporters. You do have legitimate concerns and I can understand them.

The best I can do is tell you why I'm supporting him. First, he can move people in the way Reagan did. He inspires and motivates, and makes people feel as if there is something about the way he would govern. One might argue that this is a bad first reason, but I disagree. Mobilizing people to your cause is how you get things done. Hunkering down behind your position and making people come to you has not worked in the past and will not do anything for us in the future. We do need, for lack of a better word, change in our political system. Hillary is more of the same and while Obama enjoys the front runner status, people are too easily forgetting that she has a plethora of problems. Her baggage is big and heavy.

Secondly, I personally have an interest in nuclear weapons and nuclear power. Obama has actually worked on the Comprehensive Threat Reduction with Senator Hagel. With respect to nuclear power, he has not ruled out this as an option for power generation in the country when both Edwards and Clinton have. While you may disagree with my opinion about the use of nuclear power, what I find so great about Obama's position is that he is willing to look at all sides and not rule out any option. When you rule out options, you start looking like the same type of politicians that we've had in the past. The word Stubborn comes to mind.

Finally, Obama's position on foreign policy to me is much more sound that Hillary. She seems to be using the same rhetoric that other politicians use again and again while Obama has stated a different way to engage the world. I do not believe that Hillary would change the way, in any fundamental sense, that we conduct ourselves on the world stage. Both have little experience at all in this area, so that argument is mostly based on the belief on what they will do or not do.

Basically, Obama is a different type of politician and I'm putting my support behind him. People point to the lack of experience but I don't see any substantial experience from Hillary either. Obama was instrumental in ethics reform but I haven't seen a similar accomplishment from Hillary's side. As far as running only for the office of president, I don't get that either. When I see Hillary, that's all I see. I think even Bill said that he's wanted to be president since he was a boy.

In any case, it does take a "leap of faith" to some extent for someone like me to support Obama (I first supported Richardson). But when it comes down to it, everything about him seems different from the typical politician that Hillary represents.