Tracy, I did not say I disagreed with the DNC's decision. It's not perfect -- Solomonic is the word that comes to mind -- but under the circumstances I think they did about the best they could. What I do disagree with is Hillary not agreeing with the decision and claiming she was robbed. Given that neither state was supposed to count at all I have no idea what she is complaining about. Pure audacity.

Do you have a link to that CNN piece showing Hillary with a lead in the popular vote? The only one I have seen is one in which, in Michigan, she is credited with every vote cast for her and Obama is credited with zero (0) votes. I think you will agree that it is not a fair representation of the wishes of Michigan voters. We want to be sure every vote counts ;-)

I have only one more thing to say. DIE, HILLARY! DIE! DIE! DIE! DIE! DIE!

There, I feel better ;-)


>First, I find it interesting that your candidate agreed to the FL and MI decision, but you do not. It is in his favor, afterall, it awarded him delegates for votes he did NOT receive. I find the decision regarding MI to be against the principals of a democratic electoral process and find it as bad or worse as what happened to Al Gore in 2000.
>
>Second, she is not lying (although she was certainly stretching the truth previously) when she claims to have received more of the popular vote than Obama today. Given the numbers allowed in from FL and MI (and NOT all were allowed in), she has indeed received the popular vote according to CNN. Although I don't see the numbers even given the strange FL and MI decision. Perhaps she is 'forecasting?' She did say in her Puerto Rico speech 'after Tuesday elections.' I guess you would consider that a lie? Wow, it is amazing the amount of slack you give Obama and absolute none to her. You even appear to find fault where they doesn't seem to be any. I'm really getting disenchanted with your party.
>
>That is what you get Mike for being a Democrat. You have to live with their un-democratic decisions.
>
>Anyway, it's all moot. Obama will win the party ticket. Anything else would be called 'racist' whether right or wrong.
>
>
>
>
>>>>Superdelegates can still change their minds, Hillary says. Time for reflection is needed, Hillary says. I'm ahead in the popular vote, Hillary continues to lie says. Is someone going to have to drive a stake through her heart before she concedes she has lost?
>>>>
>>>>http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/02/democrats.race/index.html
>>>
>>>Not that I like her either, but she has a valid point. She also has a valid point re: FL and MI delegates. Votes should not be changed by committee as the DNC did on Saturday. She bothered to run, and she got the votes.
>>
>>Those two primaries were invalidated before they were held and Hillary agreed to that along with everyone else. If the committee had chosen to adhere to that, neither candidate would be receiving any delegates from the two states. The DNC's decision was a compromise. Hillary stirred up Florida and Michigan voters so much after the fact that they genuinely believe themselves disenfranchised. This is being presented as thought the primaries were held in the normal manner and then the votes were taken away. They weren't.
>>
>>I don't know if you caught it but Harold Ickes, Hillary's chief kneecapper (and DNC member!), said Michigan votes should be counted exactly as cast. IOW Hillary gets every vote cast for her and Obama, who took his name off the ballot, gets zero. About 40% of the ballots were marked "Uncommitted." The Clinton camp says none of those votes were for Obama, since none of them say Obama. "He made the decision to take himself off the ballot," Hillary now says airily. Truly unbelievable. Well, no, not unbelievable given the Clintons' loose history with the truth, but still appalling.