<p>Witty repartee? Not particularly - that would be entirely wasted against the drooling Night of the Living Dead legions still obsessing about HRC. Only blunt instruments will serve.</p>
<p>“Especially since they have to kiss and make up with the traitor!”</p>
<p>That’s not true. McCain is an option as is not voting for either current candidate.</p>
<p>I’ve always felt that Obama supporters are the most obnoxious and arrogant around. But I don’t understand why Obama and McCain supporters would want to ridicule Clinton supporters.</p>
<p>It seems to me that they’d be considered a valuable commodity today.</p>
<p>It will not give me pleasure to see the remaining candidates flail and fail, which they will, because neither knows what they are or should be doing. She and we knew she was the best person for the job. Like the 2000 election, the victor will not be my president…because HE will not have been elected by fair play and rational thinking, but rather by gamesmanship, once again.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Haha, maybe we should have had more states like Michigan and Florida. </p>
<p>Obama’s gamemanship was indeed so obnoxious … complaining about the votes in a state he withdrew his names from the ballots. What a nerve! All the while poor Hillary accepted her fate without uttering a single complaining word. </p>
<p>And, of course, we know that Obama won the Democrat Party nomination by pressuring all those Super Delegates he had courted during his 35 years long career. </p>
<p>What a joke!</p>
<p>"Haha, maybe we should have had more states like Michigan and Florida.</p>
<p>Obama’s gamemanship was indeed so obnoxious … complaining about the votes in a state he withdrew his names from the ballots. What a nerve! All the while poor Hillary accepted her fate without uttering a single complaining word.</p>
<p>And, of course, we know that Obama won the Democrat Party nomination by pressuring all those Super Delegates he had courted during his 35 years long career.</p>
<p>What a joke!"</p>
<p>I don’t understand why for a guy that people say is smart, attracts such dumb supporters.</p>
<p>“we know that Obama won the Democrat Party nomination by pressuring all those Super Delegates he had courted during his 35 years long career.”</p>
<p>^ Oh defiinitely. He must have put a gun to their heads or otherwise stripped them of their free will. Maybe he’s just a Mafia footsoldier in disguise.</p>
<p>I have to admit that until this primary I had never heard of “super delegates” before. I’m sure it’s due to the fact that I haven’t paid close attention to the primaries until this year. It seems kind of strange to have a group of voters, who in a close primary race, can swing the balance of power out of the voters hands. Am I missing something here or does it not seem right? If Obama and Hillary had come out of the primaries with a relatively equal number of committed delegates from the states then the voters will would not be heard. Any thoughts on that? Just curious.</p>
<p>Well, Obama would have had the nomination without the superdelegates – he was ahead in the delegate count all along. And most of the superdelegates felt that they should give very serious consideration to the regular delegate count – a large number said there is no way they would have voted in a way to change the outcome to favor the candidate with fewer delegates. So probably the main “harm” of the super delegates is that it allowed HC to maintain the false hope that she had a chance at the nomination past the point when Obama had a clear majority of committed delegates.</p>
<p>BC, while you are on the subject of “dumb”, you should realize that Xig was being sarcastic.</p>
<p>^as was I, of course. (:)) Merely reinforcing the absurdity of the statement that Obama somehow illicitly muscled his way to the top of the ticket against passive delegates and a supposedly helpless opponent not acquainted with power politics.</p>
<p>No, this was the result of the party finally correcting choosing a relative outsider perceived as the stronger national candidate than the party insider.</p>
<p>“BC, while you are on the subject of “dumb”, you should realize that Xig was being sarcastic.”</p>
<p>Yes I understood that. And my statement stands. Strongarm is a good term. Which is why the Obama team favored caucuses.</p>
<p>calmom, I agree that is why HRC stuck around. I wasn’t really making those comments about will of the voters in this particular case because the only one who couldn’t see Obama was the nominee is HRC. I’m just sure as time goes by that there will be a primary decided by SD’s who are under no constraint to cast their lot with the voters. I jsut don’t understand the purpose it serves when the voter-delegate system seems to work pretty well.</p>