She was just willfully trying to mislead the voting public with her example. Much better.

As others have pointed out, in the 1968 season June would have been the equivalent of late January from this season.

It was also noted that 1968 was the year of the riots in Chicago during the Democratic National Convention.

Finally, 1968 was the year that Richard M. Nixon became president.

The events of the 1968 contest aren't historical support for the argument that Hillary should stay in the race through June. In fact 1968 really is a rational for Hillary to have dropped out after Wisconsin.

Maybe 1968 isn't the best election year to use.

Somehow the Florida Republicans managed to find the right monkey wrench that managed to convince all but one Democratic member of the Florida Leg. to vote for the new date despite the "serious" objections of the Florida State Senate Democratic leaders (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r25wUeMAwdE).

Somehow they got the 12 Clinton supporters that were on the DNC's rules panel to unanimously vote to strip Michigan and Florida of their delegates. They also ensured that the sole dissenter on the panel was an Obama supporter.

They even managed to convince Senator Clinton, in spite of her dedication to making sure that Florida and Michigan didn't lose their delegates, to sign this pledge:

"THEREFORE, I (Hillary Clinton), Democratic Candidate for President, pledge

I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential

election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa,

Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as “campaigning” is defined by

rules and regulations of the DNC."

The fact is that not recognizing the unsanctioned contests is not supressing the will of FL and MI voters because there wasn't a real vote or a real campaign in either state. It would be like giving the Celtics the NBA championship for winning a pick-up game against the Lakers on a high school basketball court.

Since a real compromise on the unsanctioned contests would mean acknowledging that Obama has a level support in Florida and Michigan that is greater then zero, Clinton won't accept it. The Clinton campaign knows portioning out the delegates based on the Florida results and giving Obama the undecided vote in Michigan would still leave Obama with more than a 100 pledged delegate advantage. So they are most likely insisting, behind the scenes, that undecided voters could be anybodys. Arguing that Clinton would have received some of the undecided vote is a pretty specious argument considering that the two serious choices MI voters had was "Clinton" or "Undecided". The undecided votes in Michigan were basically "Not Clinton". I also suspect they are going to try to make an end run with the Florida delegation and try to conjure up an argument prevent Obama from receiving any Florida delegates.

Bottom line: Seating the Florida and Michigan delegates based on the unsanctioned primaries would be unfair and wouldn't reflect the will of those states' voters. But even that level of unfair won't be enough for Clinton if it doesn't give her the nomination.

Experience is a red herring. The is no empirical evidence that the more experienced person is always better than the less experienced person. In my own work history, seniority has never an indicator of competence. Experience is the argument people hide behind when they are worried about being passed over in favor of younger but more competent employees.

Abraham Lincoln's national elected experience prior to becoming president was one two year term in the House of Representatives. He became the Republican nominee based on political leaders in other states reading published accounts of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Basically, Lincoln's qualifications for president was being a lawyer, eight years in the Illinois state legislature, one term in the US congress, and some really good speechs. Sound like anyone we know?

Say what you will about the challenges facing our country today, they pale in comparison to slavery and civil and a President with a resume that mirrors Obama's was up for the task.

Meanwhile James Bucanan's 10 years in the House, 3 terms in the senate, time as the ambassador to Russia, 4 years as Secretary of State, and 3 years as the ambassador to Briton failed to give him the competence needed to prevent the fracturing of the union, to end slavery, or even to prevent the Panic of 1857.

Andrew Johnson was the governor of Tennesse, a US senator, and vice president. He also opposed the 14th Amendment.

Basically, Abraham Lincoln, who's visage appears on two forms of US currency, the monument named after him and Mount Rushmore, had a fraction of the political experience of two of the worst presidents in US history: the person who preceeded him as president and the person who suceeded him.

They've been voting overwhelming for white candidates in every single general election. They don't have to prove anything.

"Maybe we should tell New York that Idaho will be determining things come November? Gosh, are they gonna be surprised!"

As surprised as Mark Penn was when he found out that California wasn't winner take all?

We should follow the example of the virtous Clinton supporters who never say anything negative about Obama or his supporters. It truly is a sad, one sided affair.

It made the Idaho DNC deliriously happy. Believe it or not, some state parties aren't content with being the permanent minority party.

On a side note, we live in world where trade has made it possible to keep most fruit in season, affordable, and at your local grocery store all year round. There is no reason at all to punish your palate with all those sour grapes.

Obama won Idaho by a much, much larger percentage than Clinton won Pennsylvania.