So let me get back to you point by point:

Junior Senator: so you opposed Kerry (junior senator) and currently oppose Clinton (junior senator).

Big states: you think because Clinton won New York and California that this proves that Obama would lose those states to an entirely different candidate -- a right-winger?

If the Democratic primary was "winner take all" like the GOP's: yes, Clinton would be in the lead. Go ahead, join the GOP if you prefer that system.

I was not referring to you; if you were the first to use the language "A or B" that is pure chance.

It's odd that you picked out a response to me because I recall reading your post and thinking "right on."

I am not so loyal to the Dems that I will vote for whoever they put up. I am independent like you for the reasons you stated so eloquently. If you construed something else it was only because I took Clinton to be a party member (which I think is fair) and she has vaunted the other party's candidate over her own, at the expense of issues her party claims to matter.

So let me get back to you point by point:

Junior Senator: so you opposed Kerry (junior senator) and currently oppose Clinton (junior senator).

Big states: you think because Clinton won New York and California that this proves that Obama would lose those states to an entirely different candidate -- a right-winger?

If the Democratic primary was "winner take all" like the GOP's: yes, Clinton would be in the lead. Go ahead, join the GOP if you prefer that system.

To those who say super delegates have every right under the rules to overrule the popular vote and go for Clinton are correct.

It won't happen for two simple reasons:

1) It would damage the party a great deal by pissing off those who could grow their base. The number of people who actually vote have gone down in the last 20 years, and Democrats have suffered most from the drop in participation (far more of the public claims to be Democrat or Democrat leaning).

2) It would damage their own reelection chances. Obama's ability to bring out Democratic voters in ALL states (all of which have districts Democrats could/must win) makes him valuable not just to people who want to grow the party, but win their own elections.

In fact, party officials -- especially those in elected office -- are pulling for Obama according to those with access to such conversations, for precisely the reasons I cite.

So yes, Clinton can win if party insiders overturn the will of the voters. That's unlikely, given that there is no polling that shows Obama is going to lose the "big states" or that either would lose the general.

And if there are any outside factors that weigh in, it's hard to see how they benefits Clinton in the eyes of the insiders. She has very high negatives. The Clintons have not made themselves popular among elected officials and party insiders (she's got high negatives there too). And she has known baggage that would give the GOP's smear machine months of attacks without ever having to use the same baggage twice. With Obama they have one dodgy house purchase and the experience argument (and they can make the experience argument until the cows come home in a Clinton-McCain matchup too).

Short of some bizarre growth in our economy (which is unlikely since we don't make anything anymore), there's no way to balance a budget without raising taxes -- or cutting spending dramatically.

The only way you could balance the budget by cutting spending is to slash defense. It sucks up close to 100 percent of the discretionary spending we actually have available to spend (about $700 billion of the $1.1 trillion discretionary budget, which will run at least a $400 billion deficit for years -- especially if you count the money it's borrowing from Social Security and Medicare, which has to be paid back -- with interest).

People say you can cut social security and medicare, but not without changing the law. Currently they are independently funded (and in much better shape than any other government programs). In order to use the money they generate for other stuff, it would take an act of congress that is politically impossible. So all the talk of "bloated entitlement spending" is really politics and little more.

I would be all for cutting defense by $400 billion and building schools. But I'd still raise taxes on the rich as even cuts that big to defense won't give us the healthcare and education that a modern nation should enjoy (such cuts would just bring us to a balanced budget with no additional money -- which gives you an idea how megalomaniacal our war spending is).

So you support minimal government -- or you would cut defense spending by $400 billion or so? Or both?

It's a serious question. What kind of society would you like to see, assuming that we aren't going to have a whole lot of money in the future (at least not spread around in a vibrant middle class)? I'm not trying to corner you, just curious.