Look folks, it's best to let this play itself out by the rules

[PurityOfEssence]

The rules are flawed, but flaws that benefit one group never seem to bother many of that group, while they shriek about ones that impede them.

The rules are very clear: unless there are 2025 delegates voting for one person on the first ballot, it's an open contest. At this point, for the first time in seemingly forever, the later-voting states actually get to have their voices heard. That's good. (Of course, Michigan and Florida have screwed up everything with their selfish rebellion for which they may get richly rewarded, but that's another gripe.)

If Obama can't "make the sale" before the convention, then he needs to make it during the convention. I can't stand the "nyah-nyah" jumping up and down from extremists on either side when rules deny their opponent of a victory, but the rules, like all rules, are imperfect mathematical standards attempting to create a framework of fairness. It's like the law: it's not "fairness", but it's an attempt at it.

Clinton HARDLY owns the Democratic Party. Even though many hacks and apparatchiks are in her pocket, many CAN'T STAND her or her husband and will be willing allies to Obama.

If the Obama crowd goes into a raging fit with threats and demonstrations, it'll not serve them or anyone else well. Republicans love to depict us as barbarians, and we will have substantiated their slur if we do this, as well as nauseating enough swing voters to the already-appealing (to moderates) McCain. Anyone throwing a hissy fit that screws us all is being selfish and childish.

Regardless, there are other contests in the offing, and we should allow the candidates to make their case. It'll be most telling, too: one's value as a person is shown under stress, and we're auditioning someone for a very stressful and important job.

Mercifully, we now have the luxury of some time between the showdowns, and it'll be interesting to see how things sort out. Personally, I'm rather ambivalent about the two of them, so much of this is falling on deaf ears, but take note how many others are in the same position as I am: lukewarm or even dejected about the choice, yet willing to be good voters.

I don't see either as villainous or pristine, and I don't see either as having much of a leg up on the other for the general election, so I'd like to see how they can do and who can convince enough to support them in their claim for the mantle. The only real substantive difference I see at the moment is EXTREME recklessness in the Obama Camp, disregarding the danger of many missteps and flouting reality as they scamper about in headlong fulfillment delirium. If he's the nominee, it's going to take a lot more than being convinced that everyone will long for him too, just as soon as they've really heard the call. There's a reason why the "cult" sneer keeps coming up: much of the approach is filled with dazzled, orgiastic worship, and the religious proclamations and ponderously significant cadences of his speechifying doesn't help much for those of us who prize cool reason.

She may be brittle and a bit on the shrill side, but she's attempting to appeal to logic, which actually goes a lot farther than many people think.

Neither side has a real claim of virtuous "right" to the nomination, and more than anything else: they haven't really convinced us yet.

A deal's a deal: let the contest continue according to the rules.

Laissez les bon temps roulez!

[MichiganVote]

1. You might be interested in this

Mark Brewer, Dem. Chairman for Michigan
http://video.woodtv.com/?video_id=10913

[Johnny__Motown]

5. Mark Brewer is trying to avoid the blame for fucking up so badly

[texastoast]

2. Let the contest continue

As long as neither side acts like they were brought up without any manners.

As long as the posters on this board quit acting like a bunch of immature teenagers. So many of the posters on this board have acted like, well, ewwww.

Indeed, yes, let the debate reveal that neither candidate is very different in policy positions.
So much of the energy could be spent getting Dems elected to the Senate and the House.

Power it over there, folks. That's where we need the help. We've got two very good presidential candidates, and whoever is elected will need the help of the House and Senate. Take the vituperous tripe over to those races against the REPUBLICANS.

[Benhurst]

3. Thanks for a reasoned post.

Recommended :kick: #1

[thevoiceofreason]

4. Cher! Where you from?

I'm all for playing by the rules.

So is the good Senator from the Land of Lincoln.

[PurityOfEssence]

6. Then mehopes he sayeth so unto the faithful

so they'll stop with all the threats and projections of horror.

Funny, but Lincoln was from Kentucky and Obama's from Hawaii. Now, Hillary Rodham, on the other hand, was born in a carpetbag right there in Illinois...

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

7. -snip-

There's a reason why the "cult" sneer keeps coming up: much of the approach is filled with dazzled, orgiastic worship, and the religious proclamations and ponderously significant cadences of his speechifying doesn't help much for those of us who prize cool reason.

1. Not dazzled.
2. Haven't cum yet.
3. Atheist here :hi:
4. On occasion he can be quite inspiring.
5. Actually a pretty cool, reasoned guy. No "Shame on you!" moment. :shrug:

[John Q. Citizen]

8. If logic is your cup of tea, maybe you see the logic of not going up to the convention. I know I

do, and apparently so do a number of the major and minor honchos of the Democratic party if one believes their public statements at any rate.

The only recklessness I've seen is Hillary's twin assertions that Obama isn't qualified, yet that he is qualified, as the front runner in elected delegates, states won, and popular vote, to be a heart beat away from the oval office, but only on a Clinton headed ticket.

That seems pretty reckless to me.

My belief is that the supers will put Hillary out of her manic depressive bi-polar misery sooner rather than later.

The recent election of a Democrat to Hastert's district is yet another indicator that Obama has the longer coat tails, and the supers who rely on winning elections for their bread and butter can't miss that aspect. This is also demonstrated in the constant and very large erosion of the once formidable but now rather small Clinton lead in super delegates.

Once the supers decide enough is enough, the game will be over, and according to the rules. That will be long before the convention in my opinion.

Still, I'm contemplating attending the convention as overflow crowd with 3 my kids who will range in age from 9 to 14 by August. I don't plan to attend as a street-fighting man but rather as a street-dancing man.

Maybe I'll see you there.