"It is amusing to see Salon calling 39% over 37% a "stunning victory". Especially if she doesn't get any extra delegates from it."

A. The pundits once again prove themselves as "stunningly" useless jackals.

B. Either the polls were "stunningly" wrong,

C. Or if the polls were right, Clinton gained somewhere over 10 points in two days. Thats fukkin' stunning.

Mentioning delegates brings up a good point. Isn't what this is all about? Getting a majority of delegates, a simple majority at that? I have no idea why coming in first means so much, it is not a winner take all delegates contest.

Based on MSM coverage it is not clear that Huckabee has a substantial lead in delegates and that the top 3 dems are fairly close in delegates. Further, there is a 7 delegate difference between Obama and Edwards - a 24 delegate difference between Huckabee and McCain. And since Republicans require half of the delegates the Dems do, Huckabees lead is more significant.

Based on coverage it seems like it's all about coming in first, not about amassing delegates. Romneys right about getting silvers, and look at Edwards, he is certainly still in it (delegate wise) even though he "only" has a silver and a bronze.

..."became first lady, tried to change health care policy and failed bitterly, was publicly humiliated..."

This shit really pisses me off. She was the first first lady, who did something no other first lady even thought about. She saw the health care crisis before it happened and attempted to change MAJOR NATIONAL FUKKIN POLICY. The fact that she failed is more an indictment of the usless piece of shit politicians who destroyed any chance of serious health care discussion reform because of that "uppity" woman in the White House.

And since then, what politician has made any attempt to fix health care? Am I supposed to believe she was humilated because she failed as a first lady when said aforementioned useless politicians have not done a fukkin' thing about health care?

Fuk you and the ship you came in on.

Oh excuse me, Bush provided guaranteed windfall profits for the drug companies. Thats a big whoofukkinpee for health care reform.

The primaries seem to be like watching a baseball game and predicting the winner after each early inning, then coming to an inevitable conclusion after the fourth that the games over. Who needs the rest of the innings when you "know" the winner by the fourth?

What if the primary results were withheld and then only announced after all states reported in. Then people would not have the luxury of putting their money on predicted winners or "front runners", they would have to place their money on the candidate they independently determined supported theirs and the nations best interests. Man that would suck. I guess.

The issue is not whether I can tolerate freedom, it's whether I can tolerate dumb-asses who state since I don't have the same opinions as they do I cannot tolerate freedom.

The reality is the tax system as it is today is unfair. If you are married filing jointly and your income is $63,700 you pay 15%, if you make $63,701 you pay 25%. A 10% tax liability swing for a buck. This is fair - how?

Contrast this to the high end incomes. If you make 349,700 your tax is 33%, if $349,701 you pay 35%. A 2% percent swing for a buck. Still sucks, but alot less. Then to add injury to insult, if you make 100 kabillion zillion dollars you pay at the same rate as the shlob who made $349,701. And this is fair - how?

Sales taxes are inherently unfair to lower and middle income people. No fukkin' around with the numbers or "prebates" can change that.

The only thing I believe that has a chance at fair, is a flat tax on ALL income, NO EXCEPTIONS or endless fukked up formulas.

Inheritance, simple interest, gambling, work, capital gains, real estate gains, lemonade stands, etc. At 10% (just to pick a number) the person making $20,000 a year pays $2,000. The person making $200,000 pays $20,000. The person making 20 kabillion zillion dollars pays 2 kabillion zillion dollars. Now I know paying 2 kabillion zillion dollars in taxes is a lot of money, but come on, the 18 kabillion zillion dollars left is not exactly pocket change.

I don't know if hope is something I need from a candidate. Hope is one of the things that certainly keeps the human race chugging along against all odds, but hope is no predicator of outcome.

When buying a car I can hope I made the right purchase, I certainly do not want the dealer telling me to have hope I've made the right choice.

I do not want the presidential candidate of hope, I want the candidate of getting the fukkin job done while aligning as closely as possible to my perception of the nations priorities.

Candidate of Change? All of the candidates are running for the highest LEADERSHIP position in the world. If they're not running to change things what the hell are they running for? The question is what the fuk they want to change and how are they going to change it.

I really do not understand elections. Couldn't we just simplify things and have the candidates butt heads like rams do in order choose leaders?