The turning point

[iplaw]

quote:Obama has done no outreach to Clinton supporters and he best move very carefully on this issue.

Oh quit blustering.  You're going to vote for whoever your party nominates.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

Frankly, I'm more than a little surprised at the bitterness HT and RM show over this likely outcome. I know you are both invested in this candidate but honestly, she made several key mistakes in assembling a team, misjudging the character of the electorate and running as an experienced (read "same ole bs") insider. She then reinforced the image of an ambitious she devil by using the very same tactics she accused the right of abusing her with for the last decade. Meanwhile Obama reacted with restraint and a calm demeanor, while strengthening his fundraising efforts. Whether it was deliberate or a Chauncey Gardener persona doesn't even matter. It showed he would not be the same 'ol bs.

And the assumptions you guys make that paint Obama supporters as naive children who swallow everything our candidate says and we're in for a big ***** slap in the fall is way too condescending. Dare I say...elitist?  I make my judgements as to veracity of campaign blathering by running them through the framework of multiple sources of opinion. CNN, MSNBC, Fox (as long as Coulter isn't around), Huffpo, a smattering of the three other networks, magazines, blogs, forums, radio, and my mom's ability to find stuff on the internet that defies description. I wouldn't for a moment take any candidates remarks as gospel. I keep in mind their potential biases or conflicts and then....Presto! On opinion is formed!

I may not be as able to defend that opinion as well as folks who spend their lives looking for conspiracy, greed, corruption and fraud but it works for me. I'm guessing a lot of people do the same.

Personally, I have never had a reaction like this to a probable nominee of ours.  I am very unhappy and as I say, if there was anywhere else to go I would.

Don't think of me as an individual, think of me as a demographic or 50 percent of the party.

Obama has done no outreach to Clinton supporters and he best move very carefully on this issue.

I respect both you and RM for being democrats who actually commit monetarily and functionally to the party. Much of the Obama excesses come from the exuberance of youth and should be forgiven. Its not their fault they are young. I look for Obama to reach out quickly to the Clintons and their supporters. I think he is showing her respect by not calling for her to give it up yet assuming a victory. He knows she is more than capable of turning the tables should he falter in the least. The Clintons will remain a powerful, positive element of history and the direction of the party. No doubt many of the super delegates are feeling the pain of this campaign.[]

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Waterboy is right to notice how bitter I am becoming on this race.

I am just amazed at how Hillary is treated. The news media just act like she is the devil and the Obama people cry whenever she does anything that she is not playing fair and "changing the rules."

I know that when you, pmcalk, gaspar and others have turned away from her, she probably can't win the election. But I also feel a need to defend her when other posters who I don't respect as much attack her unfairly.

She has been a great democrat. Her voting record reflects my views almost 95% of the time. She changed the way that first ladies will work in the future and fought for universal health care more than any other Senator. Her life has been scrutinized more than any other candidate we ever had running for President. Yet she gets no respect. People have called her a *****, yet can't name one thing to back up that perception.

Because she was married to Bill others have spread generalizations about her. They have attacked her every motive and continue to write such phrases as "she will say anything to get elected." She is treated with all the disdain that we have for politicians and even lumped in with President Bush for unfavorable ratings.

She is a classy woman who has spent a lifetime in public service. She deserves better. She picked a bad time to run for President because Obama has done a better job in getting the strategy it takes to win delegates. Now she is getting accused of killing Obama's chances because she thinks she can win in 2012.

Yes. I am getting bitter. I am tired of the constant attack on her from the republicans, the media, and the Obama people. It is the Obama people who hurt the most. They are mostly democrats who have decided that attacking her is the best thing that they can do to help him.

I am sorry you are feeling bitter, RM.  I know what it is like to love a candidate, and have others not see all of the good in her/him.  It's like being rejected in a relationship.  I am sorry if I have been too critical toward Hillary.  I never turned away from Hillary--I supported Obama from the start.  I supported him before he decided to run.  While there are things that bother me about Clinton, my support was never anti-Hillary.  It has always been pro-Obama.

Having said that, I do agree with you that the media has an anti-Hillary bias.  The media is sexist.  And if I haven't said it before, it is very disturbing to me to see the type of criticism of Hillary that is clearly based in sexism.  It is very difficult for women in this country to be ambitious without being despised.  Some of the traits that Hillary is criticized for would be praised in a man.

At the same time, there are reasons to dislike Hillary that have nothing to do with sexism, just as there are reasons to dislike Obama that have nothing to do with racism.  It is ironic that you believe that Obama supporters are attacking Hillary simply to help him.  I believe the same thing of her.  Guess we all have our own perspective.  You have refused to admit that a single complaint about Hillary is justified; instead, anytime someone criticizes her, you simply point the finger at Obama/the Media/the right wing as doing something similar or being hypocrites.  I can admit that Obama isn't perfect.  Can you admit that some of Hillary's problems are the result of her own actions?  Do you really think the gas tax holiday was a good idea, and that Hillary should not know better?  Ultimately, Hillary isn't losing because of media bias, unfair attacks, or sexism, even if that has contributed.  Ultimately, she is losing simply because the majority of people believe that Obama is a better candidate.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

Frankly, I'm more than a little surprised at the bitterness HT and RM show over this likely outcome. I know you are both invested in this candidate but honestly, she made several key mistakes in assembling a team, misjudging the character of the electorate and running as an experienced (read "same ole bs") insider. She then reinforced the image of an ambitious she devil by using the very same tactics she accused the right of abusing her with for the last decade. Meanwhile Obama reacted with restraint and a calm demeanor, while strengthening his fundraising efforts. Whether it was deliberate or a Chauncey Gardener persona doesn't even matter. It showed he would not be the same 'ol bs.

And the assumptions you guys make that paint Obama supporters as naive children who swallow everything our candidate says and we're in for a big ***** slap in the fall is way too condescending. Dare I say...elitist?  I make my judgements as to veracity of campaign blathering by running them through the framework of multiple sources of opinion. CNN, MSNBC, Fox (as long as Coulter isn't around), Huffpo, a smattering of the three other networks, magazines, blogs, forums, radio, and my mom's ability to find stuff on the internet that defies description. I wouldn't for a moment take any candidates remarks as gospel. I keep in mind their potential biases or conflicts and then....Presto! On opinion is formed!

I may not be as able to defend that opinion as well as folks who spend their lives looking for conspiracy, greed, corruption and fraud but it works for me. I'm guessing a lot of people do the same.

Personally, I have never had a reaction like this to a probable nominee of ours.  I am very unhappy and as I say, if there was anywhere else to go I would.

Don't think of me as an individual, think of me as a demographic or 50 percent of the party.

Obama has done no outreach to Clinton supporters and he best move very carefully on this issue.

Hometown, you once said that you would vote for Obama if he were the candidate, but that you thought Obama supporters wouldn't support Hillary.  I told you I would, and I meant it.  I hope you stick to your word as well.

Obviously, it is hard to admit defeat, and it is easy to blame the one who won.  Obama is trying to reach out to the white working class, and in some states he has done quite well.  I expect that he will work even harder as the general election approaches.  It is always difficult for democrats to reach the white working class, not because party doesn't have their best interest at heart, but because I believe there is some truth to Thomas Frank's theory (What's the Matter with Kansas?).  I don't think Hillary would have such an easy time in a general election winning those people over.  After all, it wouldn't take much to paint her as elitist.  You should remember that Bill Clinton did not win these people over in his first election ('92).  He won because Ross Perot captured the white, working class away from Bush.  And I wonder if he would have won them over in '96 if he had been running against anyone but Dole.  Frankly, I think the democrats need a drastic change, because I don't think our past approach has been working.

Again, I don't like to continue painting our country in terms of demographics.  I would probably be classified as a liberal elitist.  You seem to be white working class.  Is your vote any more important than mine?  Don't we both have a say in who runs are country, and how?  Can we even make generalizations like this--do all white, working class individuals think alike, vote alike?  Instead of placating individual demographics, it is high time we start looking at our country as a whole, and deciding how we can improve the lives of everyone.

[RecycleMichael]

Those are fair criticisms. I do overplay my hand sometimes.

I will never forgive Hillary for voting to go to Iraq. I think she made a major campaign mistake by not trying harder in Iowa. I think she should have stressed her international contacts and her years in the Senate more than her years in the White House.

My problems with Obama are not with what he says or represents. His candidacy gives religious Americans a chance to feel good about voting for a Democrat. He has done a great job in bringing new people to the voting process and his name on the ticket may allow the democrats to win big in the south.

But I like him less than Hillary, mainly because of his friends. I think he showed very poor judgement in doing real estate deals with a Chicago mobster. I have real problems with his church. I wrote friends back in December talking about his pastor, way before the media picked up on the story. These are major judgement flaws and I could never embrace him continually saying he had better judgement than Hillary. I will support Obama if he is the candidate, but I will always be a little distru****l of him because of what I know. I felt the same way about Bill Clinton and his practice of dropping his pants.

I could never support McCain. I completely disagree with his views on promoting nuclear energy, building a wall between us and Mexico, staying in Iraq, and his proposal to lower corporate taxes 30%.

McCain's policies are a disaster. I would rather vote for a yellow dog than to vote for him.

[pmcalk]

I can appreciate your points, RM.  I don't like that Obama was friendly with Rezko, but I have come to accept that all politicians (including Hillary) have a few unsavory friends (don't you think calling him a mobster is a bit much?  He hasn't been accused of killing anyone).  As for his church, that has never bothered me.  Having been raised Catholic, I completely understand why one would attend a church even when they disagree with what the preacher says.  The connection a church provides to one's identity, one's heritage, one's ancestors is very strong, and can mean more than any particular preacher's beliefs.  It would have been safer to join another church.  But I appreciate when politicians don't take the safe route.

There are many things I like about Hillary.  I very much admire her work on behalf of children.  My dream was to go work at the Children's Defense Fund after law school.  I think her book "It takes a Village" was wonderful.  And I don't fault her too much for her vote on Iraq.  My friends in New York have been very pleased with her as a Senator (even the ones that refused to vote for her initially because she was a "carpet bagger").  When Hillary starts behaving politically, that's when I don't like her.

My concern with her continuing her campaign is what it will do to the Democratic party.  I don't think she is purposely trying to destroy the party.  But her only argument now is that the white, working class voter in certain states is the only one that matters.  We cannot embrace that idea as democrats and have any hope of winning in the fall.  It's offensive.  At some point, we have to have unity, and the longer it drags out, the harder it will be.  I understand that you think Hillary is a better candidate.  But, given everything at stake in prolonging this fight, can you not say that Obama is a good candidate?  A candidate that can defeat McCain?  Isn't it better to start looking to the fall then to prolong the inevitable?

By the way, my second choice was always your first choice--Edwards.  Does it make any difference to you that the majority of Edwards's supporter, including his campaign manager, have now endorsed Obama?

[Gaspar]

Interesting strategy was proposed this morning by the leader of some young Democrat party on MSNBC.

He was/is a Hillary supporter and would still like to see her become president in 2012.  

He said that if Obama is elected he will either last for 4 years as the Republican party grooms a new young candidate to sweep 2012 or he will be a two termer, eliminating a Hillary candidacy thereafter.  He also theorized that the recent failure of the Pelosi led house will ensure Republican shift under Obama.

So what he was proposing to his group was to support McCain on the belief that he will only last 4 years and that would give the democrats a chance to continue to demonize Republican policy and a 100% chance of taking the White House with Hillary and maintaining a majority in congress.

I wonder if she will latch on to that strategy, or if she already has?

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

She's not done yet RM & Waterboy!  

She may challenge the constitutionality of the whole Democrat primary process in court before the convention.  

You may get to vote for her yet!


[}:)]

Love it when my uninformed "crazy" predictions come true.  Hillary just sent an open letter to the Obama campaign (12:00 today) urging them to agree to pursue seating Michigan and Florida.

Does anyone really think that Obama is going to say "Hmm, Ok Hillary. You're right.  We should let their votes (for you ) count"?

Does anyone think that a simple letter like this increases her chances of influencing super-delegates (if anything it damages her chances)?

Why would she do such a thing, formally and publicly?
What possible purpose could it serve?

Answer:
She is laying groundwork.  She is performing due diligence work necessary so that she can mount a legal case against the DNC.  

Because the media is involved, Obama will have to respond.  His answer will have to be NO.  The moment that happens her legal case will begin. She IS going to challenge the constitutionality of not seating FL and MI in a presidential primary.  She's going to fight the Whole Democrat Party!

You go girl!

Come on Lawyer types, am I wrong?  []

And here's the letter, I give you Exhibit A:

Senator Barack Obama
Obama for America
P.O. Box 8102
Chicago, IL 60680
Dear Senator Obama,

This has been an historic and exciting campaign. Millions of new voters have been brought into the process and their enthusiasm for the Democratic Party and the principles for which you and I have fought and continue to fight is unprecedented.

One of the foremost principles of our party is that citizens be allowed to vote and that those votes be counted. That principle is not currently being applied to the nearly 2.5 million people who voted in primaries in Florida and Michigan. Whoever emerges as the Democratic nominee will be hamstrung in the general election if a fair and quick resolution is not reached that ensures that the voices of these voters are heard. Our commitment now to this goal could be the difference between winning and losing in November.

I have consistently said that the votes cast in Florida and Michigan in January should be counted. We cannot ignore the fact that the people in those states took the time to be a part of this process and to make their preferences known. When efforts were untaken by leaders in those states to hold revotes to ensure that they had a voice in selecting our nominee, I supported those efforts. In Michigan, I supported a legislative effort to hold a revote that the Democratic National Committee said was in complete compliance with the party's rules. You did not support those efforts and your supporters in Michigan publically opposed them. In Florida a number of revote options were proposed. I am not aware of any that you supported. In 2000, the Republicans won an election by successfully opposing a fair counting of votes in Florida. As Democrats, we must reject any proposals that would do the same.

Your commitment to the voters of these states must be clearly stated and your support for a fair and quick resolution must be clearly demonstrated.

I am asking you to join me in working with representatives from Florida and Michigan and the Democratic National Committee to arrive at a solution that honors the votes of the millions of people who went to the polls in Florida and Michigan. It is not enough to simply seat their representatives at the convention in Denver. The people of these great states, like the people who have voted and are to vote in other states, must have a voice in selecting our party's nominee.

Sincerely,
Hillary Rodham Clinton

[RecycleMichael]

I think you are getting ahead of yourself by saying this is all groundwork for a lawsuit by Hillary. Nowhere in that letter does she say anything like that.

I completely agree with her (surprise). The voters in those states voted and their votes should be counted somehow. The Obama camp has fought against counting them, having a recount, or any other effort to give those voters a chance to be part of this primary campaign.

He is standing in the way of allowing Michigan and Florida democrats from being counted.

They went to the polls on the day they were told to. They voted. Because they didn't vote for him, he wants to use bad rules devised by party insiders as a weapon to obstruct their votes from being counted.

Why were the national democrats telling the voters of those two states when to vote? It is because they were trying to manipulate the process so that other states would get the media attention and the campaign spending in other areas. They were pandering to Iowa and New Hampshire and other smaller states.

The rules were wrong from the beginning. The national party screwed up the process, the two state parties didn't play along, so now those votes don't count. A handful of party insiders have caused real damage to the process and to the party. Hillary is trying to undo this problem, albeit because it helps her. Obama refuses to budge, albeit because it hurts him.

If Florida voters (who are always about 50/50 on party) vote for McCain and it costs Obama the election, he can only blame himself.

I would think that he is far enough ahead in popular vote and delegate count now that he should back off and allow those votes to count. They are not enough to put Hillary ahead. He would be seen as a diplomat and the gesture would help his image.

I doubt it will happen. Any compromise will be negotiated between the two states and the national party will be fought by his supporters with the same lame arguments they have used ever since he did so poorly in the votes.

Let the votes count. The democrats need both of those states to win the Presidency.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

Interesting strategy was proposed this morning by the leader of some young Democrat party on MSNBC.

He was/is a Hillary supporter and would still like to see her become president in 2012.  

He said that if Obama is elected he will either last for 4 years as the Republican party grooms a new young candidate to sweep 2012 or he will be a two termer, eliminating a Hillary candidacy thereafter.  He also theorized that the recent failure of the Pelosi led house will ensure Republican shift under Obama.

So what he was proposing to his group was to support McCain on the belief that he will only last 4 years and that would give the democrats a chance to continue to demonize Republican policy and a 100% chance of taking the White House with Hillary and maintaining a majority in congress.

I wonder if she will latch on to that strategy, or if she already has?

A lot of people say they are Democrats but aren't. A lot of people think they are Democrats but aren't. Some people will say outrageous things to get their moment on the tube. This sounds like one. No Democrat would refer to the Pelosi led house as a failure or contemplate voting for McCain just to get Hillary in by 2012. He is either a poser or totally unaware that the Congress is in serious jeopardy of losing even more Republican seats in this race. Congressional republicans are pretty much on their own as the national party concentrates on McCain. People haven't forgotten the disaster rubber stamp congress of the last 8 years that followed Bush directives like he was a dog in heat.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I think you are getting ahead of yourself by saying this is all groundwork for a lawsuit by Hillary. Nowhere in that letter does she say anything like that.

I completely agree with her (surprise). The voters in those states voted and their votes should be counted somehow. The Obama camp has fought against counting them, having a recount, or any other effort to give those voters a chance to be part of this primary campaign.

He is standing in the way of allowing Michigan and Florida democrats from being counted.

They went to the polls on the day they were told to. They voted. Because they didn't vote for him, he wants to use bad rules devised by party insiders as a weapon to obstruct their votes from being counted.

Why were the national democrats telling the voters of those two states when to vote? It is because they were trying to manipulate the process so that other states would get the media attention and the campaign spending in other areas. They were pandering to Iowa and New Hampshire and other smaller states.

The rules were wrong from the beginning. The national party screwed up the process, the two state parties didn't play along, so now those votes don't count. A handful of party insiders have caused real damage to the process and to the party. Hillary is trying to undo this problem, albeit because it helps her. Obama refuses to budge, albeit because it hurts him.

If Florida voters (who are always about 50/50 on party) vote for McCain and it costs Obama the election, he can only blame himself.

I would think that he is far enough ahead in popular vote and delegate count now that he should back off and allow those votes to count. They are not enough to put Hillary ahead. He would be seen as a diplomat and the gesture would help his image.

I doubt it will happen. Any compromise will be negotiated between the two states and the national party will be fought by his supporters with the same lame arguments they have used ever since he did so poorly in the votes.

Let the votes count. The democrats need both of those states to win the Presidency.

Insiders? Wasn't one of them Ickes? Staffer for Hillary? (from Time this week, "Five Mistakes Hillary Made:Clinton picked people for her team primarily for their loyalty to her, instead of their mastery of the game. That became abundantly clear in a strategy session last year, according to two people who were there. As aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put her over the top because she would pick up all the state's 370 delegates. It sounded smart, but as every high school civics student now knows, Penn was wrong: Democrats, unlike the Republicans, apportion their delegates according to vote totals, rather than allowing any state to award them winner-take-all. Sitting nearby, veteran Democratic insider Harold M. Ickes, who had helped write those rules, was horrified - and let Penn know it. "How can it possibly be," Ickes asked, "that the much vaunted chief strategist doesn't understand proportional allocation?" And yet the strategy remained the same, with the campaign making its bet on big-state victories. Even now, it can seem as if they don't get it. Both Bill and Hillary have noted plaintively that if Democrats had the same winner-take-all rules as Republicans, she'd be the nominee)

I don't think its fair that Tulsa suffers from OKC and the rest of the state sucking taxes from our area to improve theirs. But the rules were voted on in the legislature by the representatives of the whole state. We were fairly represented in making up those rules. Nonetheless it is unfair. Should I use your reasoning to refuse those rules and pay only the taxes I deem fair and just?

They were rules. Compromise is in order for sure but these candidates knew the rules before the race started and even participated in their developmment.

[cannon_fodder]

1. So now the DNC can't make rules for it's own primaries?

2. Why did Hillary agree to the rules if they are so horrible?  

3. Even counting those states, she loses.  

quote: A handful of party insiders have caused real damage to the process and to the party.

She signed the thing!  If she didn't agree with it, she should not have signed.  Certainly she knew what it meant.  Certainly she had the clout to remain in the race if she chose not to sign.

The fact is, she needed to sign it to pander to Iowa, New Hampshire, NV, and SC at the time.  Now she needs to blow those states off to pander to Michigan and Florida and try to get the nomination.  How very principled of her for standing up for them...

quote:
   Four State Pledge Letter 2008
   Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina
   August 31, 2007

   WHEREAS, Over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a 2008 nominating calendar;

   WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic diversity of our party and our country;

   WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process, to insure that money alone will not determine our presidential nominee;

   WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.

   THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.

What was unclear about that which caused her to agree to "violate their civil rights?"

[RecycleMichael]

I like the part where they use the terms "racial and ethnic diversity" and then have Iowa and New Hampshire go first.

The DNC cannot get their act together and just make everything screwed up.

Look at how the election results are counted. The votes are porportioned crazily...and don't get me started as to why we have superdelegates counting for 25% of the vote.

Look how they break down...

The formal description (in Rule 9.A) is "unpledged party leader and elected official delegates".[2]

19 Distinguished Party Leaders (DPL) (officially 22[3] less 2 Senators and 1 Governor here counted in those categories)
31 Democratic Governors (incl. the Mayor of DC and Governors of Territories)
48 members of the Senate (46 Senators and the 2 Shadow Senators from DC)
223 members of the House of Representatives (includes the 4 Congressional Delegates from DC and from the Territories)
398 Democratic National Committee Members (actually 402 delegates with 398 votes, considering the 8 Democrats Abroad delegates with ½ vote each).

Did you realize that DC has two "shadow" senators? How about that 55 of the superdelgates are not "assigned" yet?

Why do democrats outnumber republicans yet continually lose the presidency? See above.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

1. So now the DNC can't make rules for it's own primaries?

2. Why did Hillary agree to the rules if they are so horrible?  

3. Even counting those states, she loses.  

quote: A handful of party insiders have caused real damage to the process and to the party.

She signed the thing!  If she didn't agree with it, she should not have signed.  Certainly she knew what it meant.  Certainly she had the clout to remain in the race if she chose not to sign.

The fact is, she needed to sign it to pander to Iowa, New Hampshire, NV, and SC at the time.  Now she needs to blow those states off to pander to Michigan and Florida and try to get the nomination.  How very principled of her for standing up for them...

quote:
   Four State Pledge Letter 2008
   Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina
   August 31, 2007

   WHEREAS, Over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a 2008 nominating calendar;

   WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic diversity of our party and our country;

   WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process, to insure that money alone will not determine our presidential nominee;

   WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.

   THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.

What was unclear about that which caused her to agree to "violate their civil rights?"

Doesn't matter CF.  99% of her constituents are more susceptible to her words than any facts or evidence.  We already experienced this with Bill.  

The Clintons have learned that if they say it, and it sounds good, their people will believe it, no matter what the truth is.  She doesn't care, and neither do her supporters, so don't go waving around facts and evidence, they have no effect.

You are trying to battle emotional defenses with logical weapons.  It doesn't work.  Never has!

[cannon_fodder]

I'm not arguing that the rules make any sense.  They seem to me (like many liberal ideas I'm in my eyes) well intentioned but the execution does more harm than good.  I don't defend the execution of the system.

BUT, those are the rules.  Hillary knew or should have known the rules going in (it was apperent her campaign did not - saying taking all of California and NY would nearly wrap things up in an interview early on).  Obama knew the rules and played to them perfectly.

He played the game better under the existing set of rules and looks like he will win under them.  So Hillary now argues that the rules suck and need to be changed.  Perhaps that's a valid point, but you don't change rules in the middle of the game and the person calling for such a change from behind always looks pathetic.

The Clintons, if anyone, had the power to advocate for a rule change long before this race started.  They have played under these rules for nearly 20 years.  They weren't a problem until she found herself losing.

I'm not trying to be mean, just trying to explain why so many people have little sympathy for her position.