Honestly, I don't want her anywhere near the ticket, but then, things like this: [link] makes me cranky.

I always question context with statements like that. I've seen so many comments in that vein twisted (jokes taken seriously, etc.) that I'm always wary of taking them at face value.

Regardless, I understand your distrust of Clinton--she did take some positions and say some things that I disagreed with strongly in the past two months--but I look at our nation and the undeniable fact that Clinton holds the key to a large voting block, and I think that the two of them together have a better chance of winning in November than any other pairing.

Given the speech he's been making, it sounds a lot like he's setting that up. We'll see, obviously; I may be wrong. I'll vote for him either way. I just hope that everyone else who was initially a Clinton supporter will, too.

I had almost forgotten what it was like to listen to a political speech and not feel like I need to shower afterwards.

How is "Shere Khan" a pun

Is an attempt at clever wordplay not a pun? Perhaps there is a better term for that type of wordplay, but it didn't occur to me when I was typing the post. What do you suggest?

I still think the wordplay was lame. Kipling named the tiger "tiger." He named the bear "bear." He named the leopard "leopard." He named the cobra "cobra" and the tailorbird "tailor."

Rikki-tikki-tavi -- now there's a good name.

not least that her so-called popular vote margin doesn't even include my STATE.

a nonsensical popular vote claim that did not count the state I live and vote in.

And when Obama is the nominee, what about the people from Pennsylvania, Ohio, and South Dakota? He certainly did not win the popular vote in those states. Are they not counted either?

It's a ridiculous statement, from either candidate.

I just hope that everyone else who was initially a Clinton supporter will, too.

Not going to happen. I don't know if I'm ready to trust someone who, four years ago, was a state senator. He hasn't convinced me that anything's going to change. I will not drink the Kool-Aid until I know what's in it.

And when Obama is the nominee, what about the people from Pennsylvania, Ohio, and South Dakota? He certainly did not win the popular vote in those states. Are they not counted either?

Huh? Obama's not deleting those votes from the totals, or totting up delegate counts only from caucuses or the states he won. I don't think it's really comparable.

And when Obama is the nominee, what about the people from Pennsylvania, Ohio, and South Dakota? He certainly did not win the popular vote in those states. Are they not counted either?

I believe her argument was that she won the popular vote, which discounted states with a caucus system, like Washington. That's the root of the issue.

And when Obama is the nominee, what about the people from Pennsylvania, Ohio, and South Dakota? He certainly did not win the popular vote in those states.

Umm the point here is that Clinton claims a popular vote lead based that includes some states. If you count all states Obama has a popular vote lead. So the objection is not that Clinton did win our states (though she did not) but that she is claiming that if you add up all the votes she has the popular vote, arriving at that total by leaving our votes out of the total. That is the problem with unofficial tallies. You can always find an excuse for not counting someone. Clinton totaled up various states and claimed to have won the popular vote overall - by leaving 14 states out. That is a bullshit claim.

>I just hope that everyone else who was initially a Clinton supporter will, too.

Not going to happen. I don't know if I'm ready to trust someone who, four years ago, was a state senator. He hasn't convinced me that anything's going to change. I will not drink the Kool-Aid until I know what's in it.

I don't much care for the "drink the kool-aid" metaphor. Obama is my third choice, maybe fourth. But if the choice is him or "endless war" , "appoint more John Roberts" to the supreme court McCain, the guy who bravely spoke against torture and then voted for it, I have no trouble voting for Obama over him. If you support Clinton, I presume you support at least some of what she campaigned on. There are zero issues on which McCain is better than Obama.

Obama's speech was....

He knocked out of the park.

And when Obama is the nominee, what about the people from Pennsylvania, Ohio, and South Dakota? He certainly did not win the popular vote in those states. Are they not counted either?

That's not the issue. There are NO numbers from Washington in her popular vote tally. Zero. Because we're a caucus state that doesn't report official numbers of caucus-goers, we don't exist in her calculus. She literally is not including us. That's my issue. All these people in this picture [link] plus all of us already crammed into the gym when it was made, plus the thousands like us all around the state, the ones that supported her just as much as those of us who supported Obama, don't exist in that so-called "popular vote" number she's tossing around.

Obama's not deleting those votes from the totals, or totting up delegate counts only from caucuses or the states he won.

I didn't say he was. It was stupid for her to do, but there is a very real possibility that those voters will feel just as perturbed as Susan and Typo, albeit for slightly different reasons.

The problem is in the nominating process. This primary cycle has certainly shown that the current system doesn't work when it's this close. There's no way in hell a nominee should be decided by superdelegates.

I've got a funny feeling that the Democratic Party is not done with polarization. McCain's got to be loving this.