You wrote:

"Obamanuts claiming others are having "tantrums". Oh, the tragic irony. You just cost yourself an election by having a misogynistic, bigotted fit against people who were life-long allies."

___________________________________________________

Tantrum? I'm happy as a clam! You're enraged and furious that your (alleged) candidate lost. And lost fair and square I might add.

BTW- you still haven't figured out where I am misogynist have you? Kind of hard to do that and be a woman and a feminist, don't ya think? LOL!

The meeting only seems biased to Obama because the results don't hurt him. The committee only gained importance when Hillary began crying disenfranchisement. As we all know, HRC agreed to forgo campaigning in both states, she agreed to forfeit the delegates as well. EVERYONE knew that the DNC would strip MI and FL of their delegates. It was decided and agreed to long before any votes were cast. As a result, 2 very flawed primaries occurred.

In MI, HRC was the ONLY top contender on the ballot. All other top tier candidates removed their names. A totally invalid election for purposes of allocating delegates. In FL, some democratic voters stayed home, some voted in the Republican primary. Agian, an invalid election procedure.

So, my question is this: How can one make allocating the delegates fair and just and reflect the will of the people? Some voters were always going to be disenfranchised. That's a given fact of the situation.

The DNC threw a bone to everyone: They tossed the voters full seating of delegates. They tossed Hillary and Obama 1/2 votes for each delegate. They allowed Hillary to maintain her edge in both states in delegates. They barred any big advantage to Clinton in allocating delegates.

No, it's not fair but then, neither election was "fair" either. Dean should have simply told them, "you get 1/2 vote for each delegate" from the very beginning and ended this debacle before it started.

Tantrum much? Have a hanky, wipe your nose and grow up.

I also "cherry-picked" some of your ealier posts regarding Obama. Notice the difference in tone:

January 4, 2008

"Much as I like Barack Obama, I don't have the much-needed confidence that he is "the guy" who will be pushing the broom cleaning up after the elephant-parade that is the Bush Maladministration. He needs more gravitas."

January 28, 2008

"Barack is the "feel-good" candidate. Fine. He's a good man and will make a good President...one day. However, 2008 is not that "day". I'd select Hillary Clinton as President with Barack Obama as her Vice-President for eight years. Then, in 2016, he'll have the gravitas, the experience and the sophistication to be a wonderful President."

January 29, 2008

"As a white, moderate, male, I am embarassed at the crass way other white men choose to demean women and sexual or ethnic minorities. There is no defense for such language or activity."

February 4, 2008

"While Barack Obama may, might or could make a great President, 2008 is not that time; he needs eight years as Hillary's VP to mature, secure gravitas and gather the needed experience with which to operate Presidentially."

Own your own words pal. You wrote them, not me.

Your posts have veered from logical and rational several months ago to very angry and personally nasty. BTW- Obamabots IS name-calling. Calling Obama supporters naive, racist and sexist(?!!!) is name-calling? I'm none of the above.

I have frequently granted Hillary many points in her favor like experience and good ideas. However, I have always deplored her husband's rather weak legacy and I have always called her on her hypocrisy.

I read through many of your posts and you started out being very even-handed although supporting Hillary. As the contest wore on, you have become very denigrating of Obama-supporters. I wonder if you realize that. Go back over your letters. I was very impressed back in the winter. Now, you're just an angry writer.

What did I say that was vulgar? I can make a point without resorting to vulgarity. Unlike Yourself:

Exhibit A: May 1, 2008

"there isn't enough diskspace to paint accurately what a self-entitled parasite the obamateur and his vulgar wife is.

The Obamater and his vulgar unAmerican wife, political and personal associations and unhinged supporters are truly a traveling carnival."

Exhibit B: Again May 1, 2008

"Oprah: treasonous porkchop

This time the overstuffed traitor has shoved this race-baiting empty suit down on us and an inevitable landslide loss to McCain, 3 Supreme Court justicies and a GOP retake of Congress.

Small matter to her fat butt right; she's got the money to weather it all. Screw everyone else as usual.

What do you expect from a piece of crap that opened a fancy school for poor people abroad instead of in the nation that made her a multi-millionaire."

Exhibit C: Yet again May 1, 2008 (you nust have been riled that day)

"What kind of bucktoothed moron would really think that America with all it's problems now, wants your white-guilt babble on race. Shut up, stupid."

Ana you responded to me:

"@AlecsMom

AlecsMom wrote: @Ana It's funny that you decry the Obama-supporter name-calling when you engage in it yourself. Remember, that's 50% of the party, too. Or don't we count? -- AlecsMom"

Tsk, tsk. I called Barack Obama no names; I chastised his supporters, of whom you are one. Understand the difference?

___________________________________________

Umm, Ana, that's exactly what I accused you of doing: Name-calling Obama-supporters. Got it? Yeah, I said you attack his supporters by name-calling. Got it? It's right in fron of you.

You also wrote:

"Get your son Alex to lend you one of his 3rd grade English books; you might advance a grade."

________________________________

He's not in the 3rd grade, he 3 yrs old. But even he would understand the very brief and precise statement I wrote. I told you that you name-called Obama-supporters. Got it for the last time?