Dear Mr., or is it Dr. Schaller...?

It depends on how you define winning "fair and square." Was Obama's "win" clear-cut, unambiguous, straightforward, exact, precise? No, it wasn't. But, he's the nominee so why are you yakking about this crapola?

Remember it was the dreaded Superdelegates who put Obama over the top. (They were "dreaded" when it was feared that they'd break for Hillary.) Obama's "win" comes with a host of problems, many of his own making.

First, Obama was against seating the Michigan and Florida delegations. Then he half-heartedly suggested 1/2 a vote for the delegations; then when he "won" the nomination, he was in favor of seating MI and FL with FULL VOTES.

When Obama wrote to the Credentials Committee, arguing in favor of full votes for the MI and FL, he wrote:

Democrats in Florida and Michigan must know that they are full partners and colleagues in our historic mission to reshape Washington and lead our country in a new direction.

Well, with those words from Obama, he has tacitly argued for acceptance of the popular vote results, too, in MI and FL. Which, of course, means that Hillary won the majority of the Democratic primary season popular vote.

Obama must be as nervous as a long-tailed cat in a roomful of rocking chairs! If there's a roll call vote, he could be in for a big surprise.

So, YOU, and all the Obama supporters should put a sock in it and knock off promulgating these counter-productive yakking points, gratuitously bashing Clinton. Your guy won -- not fair and square, but he "won" -- so stop already with the divisive commentary.

Why are you fucking around analyzing Hillary's every perceived misstep, when you should be questioning and analyzing why Obama isn't pulverizing McCain?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/clinton_backers_should_put_a_s.html

Did ya'll see Thomas Schaller's article at above link, dated today? It is titled: Clinton, Backers Should Put a Stop to Party Disunity

But, the choice of words Schaller chose to describe staunch HIllary supporters, doesn't do much to help unify. Schaller defines Clinton supporters as "dead-enders."

Oy, such a headache I'm having!

Nope, I disagree with you Celia. Calling supporters (of any Democratic candidate who did not nab the nomination) "dead-enders" is counter-productive if the goal is party unity.

What did Mr. Schaller have in mind when he chose that word? That Hillary supporters are unruly? That Hillary's supporters have a position or opinion that leads to nothing further?

The dead-ender term is an epithet used in this manner. Obama supporters derisively refer to Hillary supporters as "dead-enders" in the same way that the vocal anti-Bu$h crowd refers to the 27% in the GOP who still support Bu$h.

My point is, simply, that the term is unnecessarily negative.

Barack Obama has already lost the election.  He did it to himself.  No blaming Hillary.  No blaming the long primary season.  No blaming the race crapola. No blaming Bill Clinton.  No blaming media bias. No blaming Hillary "dead-enders."

Obama lost when Michelle Obama uttered those words about being proud of her country for the first time in her adult life. 

Wait and see.  The McCain campaign and its surrogates are mostly keeping their powder dry until after Labor Day. A lot is going to happen between now and November 4th.

Subtly, McCain is going to remind voters that he's proud to be an American, that America is good.

Overtly, Obama is going to remind voters that he's proud to be an American, that America is good.

However, Obama is going to be forced into explaining why he's proud to be an American because of Michelle's stupid remark. Not a good position to be in, having to explain as a presidential nominee why you're proud of your country.

The Repubs have plenty of stuff "in the can" for their negative attacks against Obama.

Obama had better rush it up a bit.

...remember when Obama was touted by the media as a sure win in the Nevada caucus?

You remember when the Culinary Workers Local 226 endorsed him -- 60,000-strong! -- and that endorsement was going to decide the winner?

You remember, don't you? All those voters, all that organizational muscle, all that strength among Latinos was going to break for Obama.

Well, apparently Nevadans are a heckuva lot smarter than Obama's people give them credit.

I think they'll see through his pandering on Yucca. Change we can believe in didn't (and won't) hit the jackpot in Nevada.

Your words: The truth is that supporting Clinton for the nomination is a dead-end -- Celia, you read way too much into what other people say, as a springboard for your unfounded insults.

Sen. Chuck Hagel won't endorse either major-party presidential candidate in 2008, a spokesman said.

The announcement came just hours after a former GOP congressman Jim Leach suggested Hagel as a possible running mate for Obama.

"Sen. Hagel has no intention of getting involved in any of the campaigns, and is not planning to endorse either candidate," Hagel spokesman Jordan Stark said.

Hagel will be overseas on official business during this year's party conventions, Stark said.

So...another rumored running mate with Obama, says, "thanks, but NO thanks."

Maybe it will be Chet Edwards.

Roll call votes are not unusual.

In 1992 when Bill Clinton had enough delegates to secure a first-ballot nomination, Paul Tsongas and Jerry Brown (his main primary opponents) clung to their large delegate blocs, to use as leverage for rules, roll calls votes, positioning, etc.

As a very eloquent commenter above said, "christ on a cracker!"

LOL!

Or maybe they'll have all the veepobilities pick straws and whoever picks the shortest straw loses, which means he's the nominee!

Or, how about the fifth caller shtick -- the fifth caller, providing he's hopeful, changeful, and second-bananaish, he's the nominee!

But seriously, I think the nominee could be Congressman Chet Edwards (D-TX). (Too bad about that surname right now. That might disqualify him.)