... and Hillary Clinton is still due to become the Democratic Party nominee for the Presidential run this Fall. If Democratic Party stalwarts fail to understand that Hillary and Bill Clinton are their best package to run against McCain in this 2008 election season, then welcome to another 8, 16, or 32 years of Republicans in the White House, folks.

The idea that these Washingtonian Beltway journalists and talking heads and Slate pontificators hold that Hillary Clinton is unelectable, is just one more reason to favor her elevation to the high office of U.S. President. Hillary's critics have been wrong about just about everything else over these last eight years, so their view of Hillary is just one more strong reason to expect her selection by the Democratic Party as the strongest candidate who can win in the general election campaign.

If the Democratic delegates fail to select Hillary Clinton for 2008, I assure you, the Democratic Party will lose my vote come this Fall election cycle.

She is unelectable. She lost.

@ MichaelBernard1:

The nomination system of primaries and caucuses may be quite flawed but it does bear some resemblance to a democratic process. Furthermore, all the candidates implicitly accepted it.

Your temper tantrum and threat reveals a contempt for democracy and a contempt for other Democrats. Well, take your marbles and go home. You'll be asking Democrats to play with you again before November 4.

Obama 08!

Why are you a Democrat? What principles do you believe in? How outraged are you by the way Bush (remember him?) has been running the country for the last seven years? Do you realize that many of what most Democrats believe are Bush's most destructive policies -- the war in Iraq, an inclination to "bomb Iran", tax cuts for the wealthy, far-right judicial appointees, a refusal to take the government's oversight and regulatory roles seriously -- will be continued by John McCain? You seem to have a lot of anger -- where's your anger for Katrina? for Guantanamo? for the children left behind by No Child Left Behind? for the hundreds of thousands of people who have died -- because of the war, because of lack of health insurance, because of eating tainted spinach -- as a result of Republican policies and Republican incompetence and Republican callousness? As a Democrat, where's your anger for the stolen 2000 election? Do you understand that this November is the opportunity we Americans finally get to cast our votes in response to all that? That we finally have a chance to take our country in a new direction? Are you really willing to waste your precious vote -- a vote that billions of people around the world would love to have, since it affects all of them -- on this internecine battle?

For the record: yes I'm an Obama supporter, yes I'm very annoyed by the way Hillary has run her campaign, but if she somehow connives her way into the nomination she will have my vote this fall. Why? Because I'm a Democrat.

If Clinton does somehow get the nomination, she will also have my vote--not because I'm a Democrat but because I've looked at the three candidates, and while I like Obama better than Clinton, either of them is miles ahead of McCain.

And as for "Beltway journalists and talking heads," they aren't the ones who decided Clinton should lose this primary. That was done by the voters. The Beltway journalists and talking heads are merely ratifying what the Democratic voters have decided.

Personally, I want a line on the ballot that says, "None of the above." I don't much like any of the candidates except for maybe Ron Paul. I'm tired of having to choose between the lesser of two evils every four years.

I think Ralph Nader is having his name legally changed to "None of the Above".

:0)

I'm tired of people trotting out that phrase every four years. It implies there was once some halcyon time when all candidates were brilliant. Newsflash: Democracy isn't about, and has never been about, electing a perfect human being with whom the voter agrees on all issues. In fact, historically it's always been more of a negative act than a positive one: voting against tyranny (usually in the guise of the business-friendly, nationalist candidate.) The reason for the First Amendment is because our founding fathers, in their wisdom, realized that the ballot box wasn't enough to ensure democracy -- we also had to have the right to lobby and petition our elected officials once they're in office. Democracy is a process requiring constant participation. It's supposed to be messy. The person you should vote for is the candidate who most respects the democratic process, and then, once in office, let them have it.

Kalaresh- I couldn't agree more.

If popular vote totals mean nothing, then why was Hillary at one point arguing that they should be the measure for superdelegates to decide?

Because Hillary's case for the nomination always comes from what is convenient for Hillary and never from some underlying principal.

Thus, explaining her constantly shifting rational as to why she should be the nominee.

No way!

Hillary Clinton opened the door for Barack Obama and all his callow, youthful Democratic fringe group supporters, first, by trusting that they had more smarts than to pick Obama, fresh faced and inexperienced as he is. Second, by virtue of Hillary immediately stomping on the crew of democratic political operatives that took down Howard Dean in 2004, and that failed miserably to sustain Al Gore in 2000, namely the New Hampshire democrats, Hillary practically held open the door that Barack Obama and his followers walked through to get the Democratic Party Nomination. Ironically, just the other day, I was witness to Barack Obama's Wife, Michelle, seated pleasantly next to our former New Hampshire Governor Jeanne Shaheen, she who so vigorously favors Capital Punishment, that she actually vetoed bipartisan legislation here in New Hampshire when she was Governor, maybe Michelle not knowing, that it was Jeanne Shaheen and her Husband, when he was Co-Chair of Hillary Clinton's primary campaign here, who tried to raise the issue of Barack Obama's alleged prior use of marijuana or "Mary Jane" as I like to call it. Here in New Hampshire, unlike, say, California or Hawaii, any marijuana use or possession is a serious crime, and possibly a felony. Here in New Hampshire, you cannot even buy your liquor, not even beer and wine until recently, outside of a State run Liquor Store. So in this rabidly law and order, prohibitionist State of New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton stood up for Barack Obama, to preclude his swift and certain demise, as was done to other liberals here, such as Howard Dean, Al Gore, and all the way back to Ed Muskie from Maine, our neighboring State, a man who was a genuine champion for the Democratic Party in that 100 year Republican and backward looking State of Maine which, by the way, offers the clearest example of Environmentalism and Environmentalist policies, so-called, that I personally know about. In other words, anti-middle class, anti-economic growth and development, Malthusian (pro-abort) era of limits. Simply put, how can the State of Maine not have sustained any population growth or economic development since World War II, during the same period when the rest of America experienced such 20th Century Progress and Progressive results? If it were not for Ed Muskie, the State of Maine would be even worse off than it is now. In his absence, Maine is regressing seriously, and promoting a profoundly anti-middle class set of policies on the rest of the Nation and the world, as well. These are people who do not even keep a pet or maintain a terrarium, yet they are the guardians of the Planet, self-appointed, of course. Do you get a sense of your own foolish credulity, my young Obama supporter? If not, you will, and the Republicans will help you find it, I am willing to bet.