AKA I need to get some sleep before my uninspiring job tomorrow, unfortunately, but I do want to know @ your opinion of a joint ticket and/or where you stand on the do-over story. I'll look for you tomorrow night.

The teamed ticket might bring a sort of healing. I think McCain is going to be very strong. Whether he can be beaten is quite debatable. Just because some Republicans don't like him doesn't mean that they plan to lose. Unlike Democrats, they are pragmatists.

I would favor Hillary at the top. You can go to NYT and read Stanley Fish's latest article on that which I pretty much concur with. Plus, I think she would be more likely to carry swing states. Those national polls which reflect current enthusiasm mean almost nothing. McCain hasn't begun to fight! I suspect he will use people not directly affiliated with his campaign to do his swiftboating for him. I also think he would make great use of the media which adores him to hit any Democratic nominee. That way he can stay white glove above it all. As long as Resko in going on, Obama is vulnerable on that. Bill may be more vulnerable than Clinton herself on some things, but they are married so it would muddy her.

I know you would like to see things follow their course, but you see how things are. The more people vote, the more they become attached to their candidate. The more they will fling hissy fits when their candidate isn't chosen. Democrats staying home is not what we need to win. Sure a brokered sort of convention would be dramatic and interesting, but it could hurt the party long term.

Frankly, I don't see Clinton or Obama easily taking second place. However she was asked today if she could foresee them teaming up and she said she could see this as possible but that she would prefer the top. I am not sure why she even through the possibility out there. It surprised me.

To summarize: If they team up is this the best chance to win. I doubt it. I think some voters might be able to deal with voting for a black man and some might be able to vote for a woman even though they might not be exactly enthusiastic, but put 'em both together and there are plenty of people who would just choke and flee to McCain.

However, here is a possible glimmer of light (or maybe rather darkness). The economy current is awfully shaky. If it really starts to tank, Hillary could pull out "It's the economy, stupid" and really go to town.

Just a bit of observation from Texas. Latino voters were way up. Lots of action there. Strangely, the number of black voters were slightly down. If you will look at the Texas map at NYT, you will see all those brownish Clinton counties. Draw an imaginary line east of Fort Worth. That's Hillary country, sparse populated but vast and heavily Hispanic. Then look all along the border from where El Paso in next to Las Cruces, NM and then southeastly along the Rio Grande all the way to Rockport and Corpus. Again Hispanic and Hillary country in a wide swarth. What will this show you? Nothing much about Texas in the general, because the Democrats are unlikely to carry Texas, but it will show you much of what Obama is up against in New Mexico and California. In those states, he would be toast. I don't think the General Election has caucuses.

Yes of course Florida and Michigan should vote again! Or better yet, just let their standing votes be counted. It is absolutely ridiculous that millions of people will not have their opinion count because the idiot democrats are bogging everything down with arcane rules. Who cares when they vote as long as people get out there and vote!

You said: I'm sure you can find more facts about this as easily as I can. I didn't claim that black people were specifically targeted in this instance, but rather that they may be suffering more if they missed a historic opportunity to vote for a person of the same race. Women were told not to vote as well, or told that their votes would not count, so they might have missed a historic opportunity as well--but I was thinking of the black people disenfranchised and turned away in huge numbers, thrown off the voting rolls for being criminals or future criminals in the year 2000.

First, let me explain my problem here. I have no idea how to search for this because there isn't enough specific information. Black people being disenfranchised would net me hundreds of hits.

Help me out here, doloresflower, because with one simple answer you can clarify this.

When you say black people were told not to vote what is missing is this explanation: ________________ told black people not to vote. See, all that is necessary is a subject which would answer the question of "who?" The verb would be "told" and the object would be black people. Otherwise, we have a non-event. Plenty of people did turn out and vote. Apparently they were not told or else they were told and chose to disregard the information.

As to how I feel about Obama and Clinton on the same ticket, see what I told Uncle Fester in my last post. A team might avoid a lacerating battle for the party but not necessarily be able to win.

Geez what a jerk you are with you last few lines of comment there. How very nice that you would add to the problem of Republicans dominating the political landscape of this country by switching over if Clinton is nominated. What exactly is your beef with this intelligent, esteemed lady? Though her campaign has not been run well she is an eloquent, driven woman who would turn this country around.

Yes, but the brain-dead folks who participated in the faux-primary shouldn't be allowed to "vote" until the real election. No do-overs for you!