are just the same, aren't they?

"The fact is, for all these Obama supporters calling Hillary a whore and saying she is trying to steal Obama's nomination and suggesting that Obama is going to win no matter what... approximately half of the Democratic voters in the world are hearing you, loud and clear. And all you're succeeding in doing is pissing us off."

This is a fucking dirty lie, and you should be ashamed of yourself. Since you're a Clinton CultWack of Degree 9, that isn't possible. That does not give you the ability to tell stupid, dirty lies all the time, which you do.

I have never seen a letter from you which is accurate. This is why I dislike Clinton supporters, and gets back to the "cool" meme noted by another. Obama supporters are correct, cool, and pleasant. Clinton supporters are wrong, hot, and lie all the time.

And that is EXACTLY why Hillary is losing. You, Rosenkavalier, are producing the immense dislike for Hillary that so many of us are generating. Every time I read a Hillary supporter tell a lie, exaggerate some idiotic point, or really say anything, I dislike Hillary more.

So, keep posting, Rosenkavalier. Just like in "Peter Pan," every time you post, an Obama supporter gets wings and votes for Obama.

"I've noted elsewhere, Obama just oozes "cool", it's not a coincidence that he looks so comfortable in a suit, he looks genuinely comfortable with who he is (whether this is a campaign tactic or not is up for debate, but the fact that it resonates is, I think, not)"

Thank you for this very perceptive comment. It just crystallizes what I like about Mr. Obama. He is "cool" all the time. He can say, "Well, your argument just doesn't work, and my idea is better." in a pleasant, neutral tone, which is just the best approach to take in such a case.

I have never seen him "flapped", or "non-cool".

It's the right take to why he appeals to so many.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton began with the same set of rules.

It is now clear that Obama began to work with the rules. The caucus system rewards good ground games that deliver supporters to caucus locations. The Obama group did that. The small states, which often do not vote Democratic in the GE, provide Democratic primary votes. Obama organized those.

He and his campaign did a better job working with the rules.

Clinton's campaign assumed that she would win, and didn't do the work. They assumed that Feb. 5 would be the decision day, and did nothing about post-Feb. 5 states. They did a very poor job working with the system.

They attempted, from Day 1, to give aid and comfort to the cheaters in FL and MI. This wasn't right then, and it remains not right.

So, why should we go from a representative system to a "winner-take-all" system? Only because the sore losers in the Clinton campaign believe that it would have helped them. That's no reason to change.

Ask Huckabee, Paul and Romney supporters about "winner-take-all". You will find a lot of Republicans who do not like that system. It provides a sure answer, but often one which does not provide a consensus candidate.

Candidates after Bush do not run for office. They run to be Jesus. No one is allowed to question them. They seem to exist in a world of perfect adulation.

We need a constitutional amendment that all events involving a sitting politician should involve both supporters and opponents.

So, if this silly idea was adopted, we would have Barack Obama with the MAJORITY of ACTUAL votes, but a MINORITY of delegates.

I certainly don't like that idea.

Winner-take-all sucks. The Republican Party activists who supported Romney, Huckabee, and Ron Paul certainly agree with me. IN many cases, their candidates did well but got no delegates.

What kind of acid are you on? Seriously, dude, your incoherent ramblings suggest that you are several tacos short of a complete combo platter.

Get help, Jason.

"Barack Obama 45

Hillary Clinton 43

Barack Obama has taken the lead in Pennsylvania, a remarkable turnaround after trailing Hillary Clinton by 26 points in a PPP poll in the state just two and a half weeks ago."

Let's see: about 4 hours ago, the Clinton CultWack was mocking me severely for believing that Barack might take PA. And now we see some evidence that I am not deranged....

It's been 3 hours and no ClintonCultWacks have shown up to explain why Penn's apology for whoredom is the new clue to Clinton triumph.

Penn has apologized for his error in judgement.

Who the fuck cares about his apology?

The guy is a textbook example of conflicts of interest. He has IRONS IN EVERY FIRE IN THE UNIVERSE. How can he give advice to Clinton from one side of the room while giving advice on the other side of the room to her opponents.

In legal firms, they are not allowed to have one partner represent one side of the case, and have another partner represent the other side. Why doesn't Penn follow rules like that? If you represent Clinton, you can't give advice to her opponents, even if it is another principle in his firm.

An advisor gives advice to a person who represents something that the person believes in. A whore takes all comers, and believes in only money.

Penn is a whore. I wouldn't deal with whores.

And this is NOT an equal opportunity scandal. Obama has no whores on his staff.

She's apparently going to release her tax returns.

There is gonna be some UGLY stuff there. HIDEOUSLY UGLY STUFF.