There should be a price for hate.

I hope Obama and Obama supporters feel the heat of the very maliciousness and vindictiveness THEY have engendered. Obama and his supporters have no one to blame but themselves and there SHOULD be a price paid for that!

Their spitefulness and sheer evil intention are the poison which will destroy this party and the election and finally it's becoming clear to people the lies that have been told and the pretty speeches about unity and fairness that Obama spouts are nothing but propaganda.

If there is any healing in this party, it will come when Obama has the guts to stand up to his own supporters and stop the hate that pours from them. Obama talks about people taking responsibility for their actions. It will be none too when he and his supporters take responsibility for their own in this creating the divisiveness that will shatter the party.

Oh, you will want us. Soon. In the most bad way, possible. You will come ranting and raving at us that we MUST support Obama and save the election that your idiocy has lost for us. You will be TELLING us to obey you. Some democracy. I can't wait.

And maybe you should take a good look in the mirror when you speak of hysterical nitwits. Your a walking poster child for one.

Agreed. We're fucked. But all the Obama ostriches will go self-fellating themselves and each other no end on an Obama win that isn't going to happen and is absolute pure fantasy....because of their blind narcissistic self-fellating. They're so lost in their lust of themselves and Obama they've lost touch with any semblance of reality and how it really is...and really will be.

The Republicans are quietly ecstatic about that map. Saw an article (sorry, forgot to copy reference) just the other day on how they feel pretty confident that this presidential race is lock ed up tight on the electoral college.

We're fucked.

Uncovering media bias? I think Glenn Greenwald has many articles on the nature of media bias that more than prove it exists, so that is rather a moot point. Considering the subject that we're on, this is rather striking that you should say something about how Clinton going on about might have struck a chord. Did you ever stop to even consider that this schadenfreude perpetuated about her RFK remarks has constituted the very exact same "hammering home"?

And perhaps, considering the Republicans have won most presidential elections, in many ways based on their nominational procedure, perhaps there is something that we're really missing in that process. If it were so "unfair", I'm quite sure there would be less coalescence in the Republican ranks...but there isn't, is there? It seems to work quite well.

And you can blather on about how the polls don't represent what's real...But it's funny how closely they represent the results and it's results in the end that make the win.

And speaking of media bias, Rolling Stone is so in the can for Obama, their journalistic objectivity shivered into ethereal meaningless fog long ago.

What scientists? ...specifically.

Reference please.

I guess it all depends upon if you really want a democratic nominee to WIN in the fall....or not.

For all those people who say that Clinton doesn't have a REAL argument about taking her case to the convention:

Another poll by Gallup:

"In the 20 states where Hillary Clinton has claimed victory in the 2008 Democratic primary and caucus elections (winning the popular vote), she has led John McCain in Gallup Poll Daily trial heats for the general election over the past two weeks of Gallup Poll Daily tracking by 50% to 43%.

In contrast, in the 28 states and the District of Columbia where Obama has won a higher share of the popular vote against Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primaries and caucuses, there is essentially no difference in how Obama and Clinton each fare against McCain. Both Democrats are statistically tied with him for the fall election.

All of this speaks to Sen. Clinton's claim that her primary-state victories over Obama indicate her potential superiority in the general election.

The results are based on aggregated data from Gallup Poll Daily tracking from May 12-25, including interviews with more than 11,000 registered voters nationwide (including Alaska and Hawaii). Across this period, Gallup has found Clinton performing marginally better than Obama in separate trial heats for the general election against McCain. Clinton has led McCain by an average of three percentage points, 48% vs. 45%. Obama has trailed McCain by an average of one point, 45% vs. 46%.

....her victories also include several of the largest swing states that both parties will be battling to win in November: Pennsylvania and Ohio, as well as wins in the disputed Florida and Michigan primaries. As a result, Clinton's 20 states represent more than 300 Electoral College votes while Obama's 28 states and the District of Columbia represent only 224 Electoral College votes.

Last but not least, for those who question the accuracy of this:

"Results are based on aggregated telephone interviews with 11,491 registered voters, aged 18 and older, conducted May 12-25, 2008, as part of Gallup Poll Daily tracking. For results based on the total sample of registered voters, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±1 percentage point."

Oh, by the way, if the Democratic Party had the same rules as the Republican Party, Clinton would be the nominee right now.

Be my guest, READ the whole article:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107539/Hillary-Clintons-SwingState-Advantage.aspx

Something those superdelegates should think very seriously about. I guess it all depends upon if you really want a democratic nominee to end in the fall....or not.