Why should the abusee vote for the abuser?

More to the point, I think, is why should any of us living in the real world indulge you in your little victimization party?

>> IMHO the remaining S.D's that haven't yet to take
>> sides come across as pandering political cowards.  
>> Especially since a lot of them in their heart of
>> hearts no Hillary wins GOING AWAY in 5 months

Or alternatively, they actually have different views than you.  I know, it's hard to believe, because your opinions are just so obviously but... yeah, some people just aren't smart enough to realize it.

>> News Flash, Hillary didn't twist Obama's arm and
>> make him attend Trinity.

It's so funny and clever when people begin their sentences with the phrase "news flash".  I never stop finding that funny.  It's like the guy you're talking to is totally out of date and clueless, and you just get in his face and say "news flash!" likea TV reporter.

(I'm engaging in "retro posting" here.  The paragraph above is something I would have said in 1983.)

>> The situation in Iraq has changed. People are not
>> really aware of it yet.  In November it will be a
>> different story.  Adopt accordingly.

I swear I've heard this before.  When was it?

Oh, that's right... every year since we first invaded in 2003.

>> so your answer is to insult

It's generally considered fitting to meet an insult with an insult in response.  It says something about you that you would heap the blame on the responder.

Juno, your whole modus operandi in this thread and elsewhere is as follows:

"Obama supporters are all idiotic assholes."

"See?  They don't show me any respect so I won't vote for Obama!"

I don't know if you're doing it intentionally, or if you don't realize how childish you're being, but either way you're not fooling anyone.

>> because up to this point, Obama has failed to
>> reign in his supporters' vitriol where, perhaps,
>> it mattered the most: see the RFK uproar, for
>> instance

He said he took Hillary at her word that she was referring simply to the length of the campaign.  What more exactly should he have done?

Of course, if you're just looking for reasons to dislike him, you'll find them.

Careful there with them "facts".

Aha, thank you!  I've been looking at the "remaining", "required", etc. numbers for some time and trying to figure out whey they didn't quite add up.

One RCB vote changed everything.
That's an interesting way of putting it.

I think most observers would say something more like "One RCB vote didn't make the enormous change the Clinton camp was asking for."

Possible.  I can tell you this, I hope those idiots don't honestly represent Clinton.  About 2 dozen morons are making her look foolish.  I'm an Obama guy and I hate seeing this happen to her.

I don't.  Not after she's spent the last several months trying to salvage her candidacy by undermining the legitimacy of the system, and especially after her behavior in the weeks since Indiana and North Carolina.  She had the opportunity to show leadership and grace, and she displayed neither.

The people making her look foolish in the committee meeting today are the crops from the seeds she's sown.  She more than deserves this.

>> I'm not saying York was entirely artful about
>> expressing it, but that argument is no more
>> absurd or off limits than the majority of pledged
>> delegates thing.

Yeah, actually it is.

Delegates are what count.  The final determinant is, of course, total delegates and not just pledged delegates.  But as of yesterday Obama has a majority of the largest, and most democratic, category of delegates: the pledged delegates.  That is significant because:

1) With several races still left for Obama to pad his pledged-delegate majority, it means that Clinton would need a very large edge in superdelegates to bring the total-delegate race into contention.

2) The pledged-delegate count is still the most accurate reading available of the will of the voters.  Having won the pledged-delegate count, Obama has a strong claim to being "the choice of the voters".

Contrast this with the Clinton camp's popular vote argument.  The popular vote is a weak argument, because:

1) Unlike the pledged delegate count, it has no concrete bearing on the outcome of the total-delegate race.

2) It severely undercounts the popular sentiment in caucus states, where turnout is roughly a quarter what it is in primary states.

3) Clinton doesn't actually lead in the popular vote, unless you:

a: Discount any votes from caucus states that didn't release official totals.

b: Count the unsanctioned and un-campaigned race in Florida.

c: Count the unsanctioned race in Michigan in which Obama wasn't even on the ballot.

In short, there's spin and then there's spin.  Obama's campaign is guilty of taking something that's genuinely meaningful to the outcome and playing it up for maximum effect.  Clinton's campaign is guilty of taking a meaningless metric and then ginning up an absurd set of conditions under which she's actually ahead in that metric.

I don't mind being spun, but I do mind having my intelligence insulted, and that's the difference here.

Silly Obama-supporter.  Hasn't anyone told you that states where Obama wins don't count?

That's not a fair metric to Clinton, because it doesn't produce a win for her.

He didn't advocate a "complete shut down of this process".

That's something you fabricated so you could pretend to be all offended.