The Strangest Basketball Game in the World

This entire argument about Hillary using the popular vote to grab the nomination is akin to the following peculiar NBA basketball game.

Both teams start out knowing that the game will be decided based on who is leading on the scoreboard at the end of the game. Points will naturally be awarded for successful baskets....

As the game goes on, one team (which happens to be missing all its shots) decides that it will try to convince the referees that the game should be determined based upon the total number of PASSES each team has made....

:shake head:

Naturally, had both teams known that the game would be decided based upon the number of passes, the team that is leading in baskets DEFINITELY would have put more effort into passing.  (Setting aside the fact that the team leading in baskets also has more passes at the time when the losing team starts pushing for new rules mid-way through the game.)

If the Democratic Party wanted to base its candidate selection on popular vote, then it would have already done so.

It doesn't.

So no pleading after the fact is going to change that for Hillary.

Obama's campaign has been masterful, especially in targeting its efforts at "odd-numbered" delegate areas and other key sections of these states.

To me, this demonstrates what a great military tactician Obama will be WHEN he is elected President. He doesn't just try to carpet bomb everything; he skillfully chooses his targets and goes after them.

Had the Party's candidate selection been based on popular vote instead of delegate counts, then the way that Obama would have targeted his time/effort/money/people/energy would have been markedly different.

And Hillary would still be losing under those rules as well.... :-)

Sorry.

The argumentation that HRC is using to convince the superdelegates to base their decision on a different metric than the one that was agreed upon is simply absurd....

In fact, it reminds me a lot of President Bush's calls for retroactive immunity, having facilitated the breaking of the law. One simply cannot have a functioning system (or a fair game) if the rules can be changed after the fact.

The "popular vote counts" call is not the first time the Hillary has done this. She did it in both Florida and Michigan. First she signed a document stating:

"THEREFORE, I (Hillary Clinton), Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules, pledge to actively campaign in the pre-approved early states Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina. I pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window (any date prior to February 5, 2008)"

Every Democratic candidate had their names removed from the ballot in Michigan out of respect for the Party's decision.

Hillary didn't.

Now she is claiming, "The results of those primaries were fair and they should be honored."

:shake head:

America has had enough of leaders who change the rules as they go along in order to meet their own personal needs. Rules are there for a reason.

Sorry.