BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 08 - 10:49 PM

It amazes me how many people do not recognize that propositions of hate are much more likely to contain untruths that propositions of reason. It's like not knowing the difference between a red light and a green one. You do not often get truth from people who are filled with hate or anger, especially those who are in those states chronically.


A

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 May 08 - 10:16 PM

Anybody who thinks Obama is a Moslem obviously doesn't know him very well. That's exactly the sort of thing that can be remedied.

And he has to repeat, over and over, that he does not endorse Wright's outlandish statements--nor share the rage that caused them.

It's ironic--since the vast majority of presidential candidates do this far too much--but Obama has to wrap himself in the flag as many times as possible. He has the right idea--repeat constantly how much he owes to the US--that only here would he have the chance he now has.

And for many people, this will ease their concerns. Obviously for the racists there is no hope--but they are a small sliver of the population.

This is one situation where--for most voters- familiarity will not breed contempt but comfort.

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 08 - 02:09 PM

Well, I could not agree with you more. How refreshing it would be, some day, to hear a viable, attractive, dynamic and charismatic candidate say to the hustings, "My religious beliefs are private, and are no-one's business but my own." And still win the support of millions because he was smart and able on matters of the commons, where we need it so much more.


A

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 May 08 - 01:19 PM

Actually, I was talking about preachers, but I'd be happy to quit talking about them if they'd all go away.

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 08 - 11:53 AM

Because you keep bringing pastors and churches up, Rig.


A

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 May 08 - 11:44 AM

Amos - Why would you think I thought that?

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 08 - 11:15 AM

Still think the Constitution is misguided about forbidding religous tests for public office, eh, Rig?



A

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 May 08 - 08:34 AM

Ron - If Obama is not well known by now, I don't think there's much hope for him.
                     By the way, have you checked out his new preacher?

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 May 08 - 11:49 PM

Sorry, Rig, that's yet more drivel. Obama is not well known to many people at this point.   But, as I've said before, that can easily be remedied between now and November. There are some he could never get to vote for him no matter what he had said. But many can be educated. As Balladeer says, Obama is not so threatening as some seem to think--and can't be stereotyped by a few absurd allegations from a pastor from whom he has parted company--much as you seem to delight in doing just that.

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 May 08 - 10:05 PM

And they obviously feel that way in Kentucky as well!

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 May 08 - 10:26 PM

"Specifically health care, loss of jobs, and the war in Iraq."


                   Ron - In the words of the worlds most pathetic scum-bag-pig-fucker, "there you go again."


                     What matters to white working class voters is not what they think they can get, but what they're losing. That's how it's different than Jeremiah Wright and the ghettos of Chicago.

                     They're losing their dignity, their homes, their way of life, and their culture. They are never going to vote for what they preceive to be a black Muslim for Indonesia.

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 May 08 - 10:19 PM

"And the moment I sense creeping Fox-News-ism, I will drop it like a hot potato."


                         Ron - You're like the frog in the slow boiling pot on this one. By the time you realize they've led you down the primrose path, Obama might be president, and it'll be too late.

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 May 08 - 08:56 PM

Rig--


And what the WSJ says has exactly zero influence on Obama's troubles with white working-class voters--that's yet another of your classic smears--or non sequiturs. Sometimes it seems you are capable of nothing else.

But those troubles can--and will--be addressed by direct contrast of Bush (and now McCain) on issues which concern those voters.

Specifically health care, loss of jobs, and the war in Iraq.

It was never likely that Obama would get large numbers of voters in WV or in the PA mountains, for instance.

But anybody capable of thinking should realize that Hillary was not about to get them either in the fall--against McCain--are you kidding? Her supporters--like your good self?-- were living in a fool's paradise to assume that anybody who voted for her against Obama would support her against an authentic American hero with more military experience than any presidential nominee for decades.

But Obama has great sources for votes elsewhere. And Hillary, as I've said over and over, thanks to her position as the most polarizing candidate and her stupidly poisoning the well she intended to drink from, had no chance against McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 May 08 - 08:39 PM

Rig--

I've explained it to you more than once. You need credibility. At this point you have none.

You can sneer at the WSJ all you want. But I recognize bias when I see it. You know I was really annoyed when Murdoch took over the WSJ.   And the moment I sense creeping Fox-News-ism, I will drop it like a hot potato. But so far, it appears he's smart enough to not destroy his own crown jewel. The reporting--as opposed to the always Neanderthal editorials-- has not been influenced in the slightest. For my money it's still the best in the world. And if you think you have a better source, please share it.

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 May 08 - 11:32 PM

Ron - Treat them as you will. The fact that my personal observations don't show up in Rupert Murdoch's newspaper says more about the paper than it say's about my observations.

                      All of this goes to the issue as to why Barack Obama will never grasp the reality of how to communicate with white working class voters.

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 May 08 - 08:56 PM

Rig--

It's simple. Unfortunately your track record of accuracy--or in fact anything but smearing, which is without question your true expertise--is, not to put too fine a point on it, wretched.

Therefore you have two choices. Either you can provide sources, with date, for any allegation you make--or you have, bluntly, no credibility.

And your postings will be treated accordingly.

Your call.

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 May 08 - 08:24 PM

Janet--

Still waiting for any rebuttal of my view of the current political scene.

And by the way: re: cut and paste:   I have never cut and pasted anything on Mudcat. I give direct quotes or put it in my own words.   But I'm flattered that you think something I wrote was from the WSJ. I'm not up to their standard.

Or perhaps it was your usual careless reading that made you think I had cut and pasted something.

Be that as it may, I do believe in reading, thinking and assimilating--and in facts and logic, rather than unrelenting cynicism.   You might try them some time.

Just a friendly suggestion.

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: Amos
Date: 18 May 08 - 04:09 PM

I have concluded that the problem that lurks behind your erratic emotional roller-coaster, Fantz, is a badly sporadic delivery of oxytocin.

Regarding never being one for quickies, I am forced to assume this derives from a lack of opportunity.



A

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 18 May 08 - 01:29 PM

Awwww, Amos--I would never shoot you!

That would be far too quick, and I've never been one for the quickies.

But then, I know that's the only occassion some of you old boys have been able to rise to even with your Viagra, for decades or more now. But still, does every conversation with you old timers have to be about your penis problems?

Besides, I'd much rather drag you behind my car for a long distance, watching you kick and scream your way into the Brave New World.

:)

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: Amos
Date: 18 May 08 - 01:20 PM

Aw Jaysus, Fantz, obvously you see right through me, don't you?

I am revealed tot he world as a pointy-headed, strictly in the box, kool-aid drinking, numb-nutted conformist who cannot imagine a world not owned and run by the two-party system.

You, on the other hand, are a free-spirit, free-thinking, steely-eyed visionary who sees right through the clouds of corruption and dismal duplicity being foisted on the American people by fools like me.

You stand with history's heros, and I lie with the dross of yesteryears conventional thinkers.Come the revolution, I shall be cast down, or maybe shot, for my middle-class bourgeois myopia; you will be raised up as a loyal charter member of the New World.

Is that's what's botherin' you, Bunky?

Have some ice cream. It might fix everything (except your love life)

---

Back to more rational propositions, what is it about the loop with Michigan and Florida disqualifying themselves that you see as corrupt, specifically? That they didn't take a stand for a worker's utopia?

A


A

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 18 May 08 - 01:11 PM

To say your logic is convoluted is an understatement, Amos.

You are, by your history here, utterly incapable of thinking outside that wee, conventional box you inhabit.

You can't even conceive of an American society that isn't controlled by the duopoly.

So why bother your pointy little head trying to figure it out?

There, there go have a nice Sunday rest.

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: Amos
Date: 18 May 08 - 01:08 PM

Are you saying, dearest colleague, that the Democratic Party--perish the thought--is capable of corruption!!!!!???

But, seriously, are you saying that by making a rule that says if P, then Q, and finding P, therefore implementing Q is tantamount to corruption? How on earth do you reckon that? Florida and Michigan both, for whatever reasons, decided to reschedule their primaries in direct nonconformance with agreed upon rules of conduct, yes? Or do I have that part wrong as well?

That is like going 80 in a 35 zone and calling the cop who pulls you over a fascist pig for not understanding that you were just having fun and weren't endangering anyone. Or like skipping all your classes and calling the prof a capitalist tool because he fails you for the course.

A

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 18 May 08 - 12:54 PM

"It has to do with the party versus the state. The primary election is managed, run by, designed by, and for the benefit of the Democratic or Republican party in its quest for a nominee."

Not when the taxpayer foots the bill for the party, Amos.

Sorry, but homey don't play dat tune.

Of course, the state has a huge stake in clean elections. But the solutions to our electoral clusterfucks in the US are evolving.

50 years from now, our descendants will look back on this electoral era and wonder why we put up with and paid for this level of electoral corruption.

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 May 08 - 12:51 PM

"'Large percentage" of plumbers and electricians were laundering money for crack dealers... Gee, I wonder why that sounds like yet another unsubstantiated accusation... Source and date, please.'"


                   Ron - This might come as a complete shock to you, but I didn't hire on here as your personal research libratian. Look it up, it's all over the place.

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: Amos
Date: 18 May 08 - 12:30 PM

Nothing Banana Republic about it, dumkopf. Not a matter of state or Federal level, either. That is a stupid alteration. It has to do with the party versus the state. The primary election is managed, run by, designed by, and for the benefit of the Democratic or Republican party in its quest for a nominee. If there is an argument wihtin the party that legitimately disqualifies a vote, it is not a legal matter but a party matter.

General elections, at state and federal levels, are a different matter altogether.

Neve rmind, I'm done pouring more hot air into a crowded skull.


A

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 May 08 - 12:18 PM

Janet--

There's only one person on Mudcat whose meter is always set on "Outrage". Clue: look in the mirror.

And the fact that you cannot come up with any rebuttal to my reading of the current political scene says all we need to know about your grasp of the situation.


Sorry--no more time to spend in your delightful company for a while.

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 18 May 08 - 11:33 AM

I say a little prayer for you...

"May I have the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference."

Accepting the things one cannot change is a very important skill to develop in order to reduce stress and stay healthy, Ron.

Get back to us when you are ready to do your work, and we'll be happy to recommend some professionals in your area.

My precioussssssss...hehehe

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 May 08 - 11:27 AM

Janet--


A few monosyllables are not usually considered a rebuttal of anything--except perhaps in your circles.

Perhaps you need to learn this.

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 18 May 08 - 11:25 AM

Here is Ron from the 'Popular Views on Obama' thread this morning:

"OK--still waiting for any rebuttal for this, by anybody who badmouths Obama's chances."

hehehehe

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 May 08 - 11:16 AM

Sounds like a bitter laugh to me, Janet .

And where's the answer to my question re: the current political scene? Exactly why is my reading incorrect?

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 18 May 08 - 10:57 AM

hehehehe

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: Bobert
Date: 18 May 08 - 10:55 AM

"...a laugh..."

Somehow I don't see you being able to laugh at anything, Fantz...

b~

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 18 May 08 - 10:05 AM

My precioussssssss....

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 May 08 - 09:32 AM

Janet--

And please tell us, when you get a chance, what sort of music you like to do. This is after all a music site--and Bobert, Amos, I and the vast majority of other Mudcatters do a lot of it. And it's endlessly satisfying.

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 May 08 - 09:29 AM

Janet--

"Most of us". Uh, not exactly. Unless you're really a split personality-- more than Bobert, Amos, I and many others thought.

Why don't you realize we're only looking out for your best interests? Constant outrage is just not good for your health.

But I'm still waiting for even the beginning of a rebuttal to my evaluation of the current US political scene.

Don't worry, I have lots of patience. I'll check in from time to time.

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 18 May 08 - 09:21 AM

I'm not too worried about my sense of humor, Ron. But I do understand why folks like you and Bobert are so concerned, because it is quite simple for most of us to have a laugh at your expense.

Have a nice day, Ron and work on those kindness skills! We know how hard it is for you to put nice and kind together in practice. But we think you really need to keep working on it.

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 May 08 - 09:17 AM

Janet-

No, not likely. Unless you count music. I'm ferociously addicted to that. What kind of music do you do?

It's just that since your meter appears to be stuck on outrage--and, as Bobert as pointed out, you're sorely lacking a sense of humor-- we around here worry for your blood pressure.

Now how about some actual facts and logic to contradict my reading of the current political scene?

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 18 May 08 - 09:07 AM

Ron, do you have a drug problem? I ask, because you talk about drugs a lot around here.

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 May 08 - 09:07 AM

"Large percentage" of plumbers and electricians were laundering money for crack dealers.

Gee, I wonder why that sounds like yet another unsubstantiated accusation.

Source and date, please.

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 May 08 - 09:04 AM

Fascinating, Janet, that you have not even the beginnings of a counter-argument to my evaluation of the situation--which, as usual, is based on facts and logic, not frustration and bitterness, which seems to be the only song you know.

Your response says worlds.



Don't forget the sedative. And more exercise. And more sleep.

We're only looking out for your best interests.

And thanks for staying out of the gutter. See, you can do it.

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 18 May 08 - 08:50 AM

So Amos, it is just fine with you to have banana republic voting standards, so long as it is at the state level?

Ron, no offense or anything, but I am REALLY tired of your propagandizing for Obama.

Thanks, I'm happy to wait until May 31st to let the DNC Rules Committee sort it all out, rather than have you shove your propaganda down my throat.

And just so you know, Ron--I don't read 98% of the crap you post, much less cut and past here. And your demands for "proof" are a joke. You come off like a bad parody of Elliot Ness.

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 May 08 - 08:38 AM

Ron, if you're talking about companies operating facilities like meat packing plants, yes the illegal alien needs to steal somebody's social security number, and work on that basis, but it was my understanding that we were talking about construction.
                     The "company," as you put it, might be a developer, or he/she could be a general contractor. In either case, the work is let to a long series of sub-contractors--site development, framing, concrete, roofing, dry-wall, painting, plumbing, electrical.

                     The illegal aliens are usually working for these subcontractors, and that's where they're expenses are buried.
In California, during the recession of the early 1990's, a large number of the plumbers and electrictians were laundering money for crack cocaine dealers. They dealt strictly in cash. They'd buy all of their supplies and materials for Home Depot and Lowes, for cash, and pay their people in cash, and they didn't need to make a profit at all. The profit was in the coke.
                     An honest plumber didn't have a chance.

                     These are realities you won't find in Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal.

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 May 08 - 08:34 AM

Janet--

I had thought you were too intelligent to fall for the "FL and MI disenfranchised" canard. I'll try not to overestimate you in the future.

1)   Your girl Hillary herself explicitly endorsed the idea that FL and MI votes would not count--before she "won" them herself.   It's only since then that we've heard the whining about "disenfranchisement".

2) Her own campaign chairman said in January it would be a 17-state primary season--Hillary's campaign expected it to be over when she disposed of Obama on "Super Tuesday"--so did not plan at all beyond that. ( Not exactly the best advertisement for a president--who really should be able to plan for more than one contingency). But when he said that, it would seem that 33 states would have been "disenfranchised" according to the Hillary plan. Yet obviously that did not bother her people--or Hillary herself.

3) It's a tempest in a teapot, at this point. I've read that the Michigan Democratic party has offered a deal whereby she gets 69 delegates and he gets 59. And the Florida party solution has to do with halving the number--so she will come out 29 ahead in FL. He'll still be comfortably ahead.

Time for even you to come to terms with the fact that he ran a much better and more innovative campaign--harnessing the power of the Net to raise money in small amounts from huge numbers of people, thereby giving them a stake in his success. His campaign was also more perceptive, and far more positive than that of Team Clinton. She had all the advantages when she started--and she threw them away. He has won this contest fair and square.

One obvious aspect of this--his team recognized, right from the start---, possibly from his experience in Chicago politics, where numbers are important-- that they could pile up lots of delegates in caucuses--especially in the period right after "Super Tuesday" . Her team could have done the same--after all, in 2007, she had more money, more name recognition, and more delegates already lined up--including the Democratic "Establishment" most places. But they squandered their money on pricy hotels, Mark Penn, and other necessities.

And on top of that she alienated the antiwar movement by refusing to admit she was wrong in voting to authorize Bush to use force against Iraq. She had scads of opportunities to rectify this, including several explicit invitations in debates. But she declined to do so, thinking she could "triangulate" the electorate right from the start---run from the beginning as if she were in the general election, not bothering to actually address the desires of her own party first. Perhaps the "triangulation" was based on advice from Bill--who's been full of wonderful ideas this primary season.

She--and he--guessed-- spectacularly-- wrong. And they have paid the price.

And your accusation of misogynistic attitudes being behind her loss is also-- not to put too fine a point on it--total drivel. There are many strong women who could have run a better campaign--and gotten far more support--and that I and many other Obama supporters would have been pleased to support--and will be pleased to support in the future. Nancy Pelosi leaps to mind.

The first requirement this campaign season was to be strongly against the Iraq war. She blew even this first point. And that in itself was enough to kill her chances.

Her refusal to admit she was wrong in the 2002 Iraq vote--and her backing GWB in his saber-rattling against Iran--forced the anti-war movement to look elsewhere for a home. They tried Kucinich and some others. But when it came down to only HRC and Obama, no question where the antiwar movement was going to go. And it ain't Hillary.

Sounds like classic sour grapes on your part. Unsurprisingly.

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 May 08 - 07:54 AM

"Most of these people work under the table for cash." Some do. Any company which itself has to file tax returns cannot afford to hire people on this basis however--serious consequences if they were discovered. So they do not. It's nowhere near as black and white as you paint it, Rig.

As usual, your facts are missing.

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 08 - 09:29 PM

Silly airhead--those were national elections, where the citizen's franchise is guaranteed by Federal law. If you don't see the difference, then all your steam is about as weighty as a whistling teapot.

As for being spineless, and a party man, I don't think so.

A

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 17 May 08 - 08:38 PM

So, Amos--how did you get Howard Dean's job?

And BTW Amos, I sure as shit don't need the likes of a spineless party man like yourself to tell me what a disenfranchised voter is or isn't, thank you very much.

You are such a phony hypocrit! If it is Ohio in 2004, it is a travesty not to be tolerated. If it is Florida in 2000, it is a travesty not to be tolerated.

If it is Michigan or Florida in 2008?

Well, that isn't the same, right?

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 08 - 08:20 PM

Fanz:

This not a national election, air-head. This is a Democrat Party primary in which the party--an organization--defines a process for choosing a candidate for an election.

The Party and the Flordia and Michigan principles of the party made an agreement about how this was going to go down, and as a result of that agreement, when the two states rescheduled against the rules, the party told them their primary votes wouldn't count--and as a result Obama did not campaign in either state, and wasn't even on the ballot, because he was playing by the rules.

These voters have NOT been disenfranchised. I don't know who was in the decision the state party members made to break the agreement with the DNC people, but it is pretty clear that a ballot with only one candidate on it is not a fair electoral process. Or do you not see that?

What do you think would be a fair solution to the fact that the MI and FL Democrats are now complaining their delgations are being snubbed, despite the fact that they clearly decided this would be the consequence they preferred?

Sometimes your rhetorical armwaving is pure Bolshie, ya know that?


A

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 17 May 08 - 08:18 PM

Oh, the irony.

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: Bobert
Date: 17 May 08 - 08:07 PM

Wow!!!

Lotta Daddy Bush stuff going on here... What exactly does eleite mean??? Being educated??? When did that become a friggin' sin...

"These gol danged pin head, Volvo drivin', sandle wearin' elitist is the problem, Ralph..."

Yeah, no friggin' wonder that the US is quickly becoming a place where educated people don't want to live and work... The "brain drain" in America is a direct result of Daddy Bush's teaching his kids well to put down anyone who has made the sacrifices and become highly educated... There are scientists who flat out won't work in the US because of this attack on eductated people...

This is one fu*ked up mess that Daddy Bush and his kids have started and if the US is going to survive it had better start valuing education and quit the friggin' bashing of folks who have pushed to become educated...

And for so called intellegent people here in Mudville to become shills for the Bush anti-intellect campaign is frightfully sickening...

Tell ya what??? What you gonna do when the doctors quit on ya'??? Answer me that one... They seem to be the only intllectuals you folks haven't run the fu*k off...

If that is elitist then sign this ol' hillbilly up...

I am sick of ignorance...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: How is West Virginia doing in elect.?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 17 May 08 - 08:04 PM

When the Florida and Michigan popular vote is included, she is ahead in the popular vote.

Now, call me crazy, but my thing is if someone goes to all the trouble to get off their ass and show up at the polling booth as a legal voter, we should probably count their votes.

Or we can do it the Obama Banana Republic way, which is to only count the votes that make you the winner.

Which, incidentally, makes the Democrats look about as fair minded as the Myanmar junta.

Unless you have a crush on Obama, of course, or work for the MSM.

And Peace, I wouldn't be so sure Obama will be the next president. I agree he is likely to be the next president, but McCain is a damn formidable opponent, and it is already clear that Rove the Hard Man is already orchestrating on his behalf (whether he is in agreement with that or not).