The next couple of months could see the strange spectacle of Obama running a campaign against McCain, while Hilary wages a gurilia war from the sidelines.

Is that news outlets and websites keep touting, almost non-stop, that Obama has a problem with "white, working class" voters. Please, someone point to me, in either his written statements, his spoken statements, or his policy positions posted on his websites, or his two books he has penned, what these alleged problems actually ARE with "white, working class" voters. I read these articles, but there is never an objection raised concerning his policy positions vis-a-vis the "white, working class" voters.

The articles invariably leave the impression that these white don't like him because, ummm, his race? His ethnicity? I simply don't get it, it's like 2 plus 2 equals 5 in my mind. It doesn't click.

Furthermore, the Clinton camp claims that Hillary will win the white vote. But with exit polls in PA, KY, WV, OH, and to some extent, IN (in certain rural counties) saying that anywhere from 30-50% of these voters would never vote for Obama in the general election, I cannot believe that these voters are core Democrats.

I say, "screw 'em" as Hillary said in the '90s.

As Marx wrote, "A slave who continues to want to be a slave, deserves to be a slave." In other words, let 'em vote Republican, and they get what they deserve, because many of these people are too damn stupid to vote their interests.

Needs to put Hillary in a funny hat and make her stand in the corner.

As someone posted over on TalkLeft tonight:

About 20,000 turnout for a caucus in Idaho and Obama nets 12 delegates.

Hillary wins Pennsylvania by over 200,000 votes and nets 12 delegates. What a system!

Any more questions about Obama 'gaming the system'? Not exactly a winning formula for the general, is it?

I agree that it's a really messed up primary system, but if it makes you feel any better, Obama is ahead in the popular vote as well.

HRC had every opportunity to compete in Idaho. No one from the Obama campaign made her hire Mark Penn. No one from the Obama campaign made her hire staff based on personal loyalty and not ability. No one from the Obama campaign made her ignore most of the states in the union until Super Tuesday made it clear she hadn't locked up the nomination. No one made her burn through tens of millions of dollars before Iowa had even voted.

I have difficulty buying into the idea that competency in running a campaign is a disqualification for winning a campaign.

Obama won Idaho by a much, much larger percentage than Clinton won Pennsylvania.

I'm sure that made all 20 Democratic voters in Idaho very, very happy.

Yeah, I know. It's crazy that in the general election someone gets 49% of the vote in Missouri but gets 0 electoral votes! The outrage!

My point is no system is perfect. They knew the rules going in and Hillary's campaign said early on it was "about delegate" and that the Michigan and Florida primaries "won't count for anything". Crying about why the rules or the system aren't working in your favor makes you look like a sore loser that can't get your way. Plain and simple.

On topic, I wish Obama didn't take the prospective nominee route and basically cede Kentucky and West Virginia to Hillary. (By the way, not sure why Hillary supporters are touting this as some hard fought battle, she had these states in the bag long ago but spin is spin I guess) I wish he could have fought to make it a bit closer though. However, I'm sure the campaign had data that told them not to bother. Maybe spending 30 million in a state for 2% of the vote didn't seem worth it when it wasn't going to change the fact he will be the nominee anyway. Although, they've done really well so far, so I'm sure that they know what they are doing and I'll trust their judgment.

It made the Idaho DNC deliriously happy. Believe it or not, some state parties aren't content with being the permanent minority party.

On a side note, we live in world where trade has made it possible to keep most fruit in season, affordable, and at your local grocery store all year round. There is no reason at all to punish your palate with all those sour grapes.

I'm sure that made all 20 Democratic voters in Idaho very, very happy.

In terms of relative delegates earned, an overwhelming win in a small and conservative state is equivalent to a smaller majority in a larger swing state. It's an equally valid reflection of the will of the people.

And if it's not, well hey! the Clintons had plenty of opportunity to contest it while they were winning by the same rules a few cycles ago.

I was entirely for Clinton before Iowa, but I'm getting pissed off. Above all, the party needs a winner and loser, both gracious in their roles, and Clinton keeps whipping up morons like you into believing she's still in the game even after she's beyond the point of catching up.

I hate both of the Clintons now: they've poisoned all of my happy college-aged memories of believing that the country might be in the hands of people who had its best interests at heart. They don't give a shit about anybody except themselves--not even each other.

In terms of relative delegates earned, an overwhelming win in a small and conservative state is equivalent to a smaller majority in a larger swing state. It's an equally valid reflection of the will of the people.

Maybe we should tell New York that Idaho will be determining things come November? Gosh, are they gonna be surprised!

I hate both of the Clintons now: they've poisoned all of my happy college-aged memories of believing that the country might be in the hands of people who had its best interests at heart.

So, Bush didn't even make a dent? Wow, some people have all the luck.