with apologies to mcdonald's, who i believe has actually copyrighted this . . .

Unless the democrats can quickly resolve their candidate crisis, the presidential election is sure to go to the republicans.  and no, this isn't a pro-mccain rant.  i've posted numerous times on his failings in fray.

rather, i simply point out the current ugly dispute among democrats can and will be used against them in the general election.   the republican talking points are easy to imagine:

• "would you vote for a party that tried to disenfranchise the primary voters of 2 of america's largest states?"
  
• "If we learned anything during the primaries, its that half the democrats consider this candidate too inexperienced to hold the office of the president"
• alternatively "if we learned anything during the primaries, its that half the democrats consider this candidate a return to the nasty, deceptive practices of a previous aministration"
• "If the democrats are this divided among themselves, how will they ever bring "change" and bipartisan cooperation to washington?"
• "why were so many people fired from candiate "A's" campaign for overtly racist comments?"
• "will candidate "B" play the race card every time he gets into a tight foreign policy spot?  is he going to demand the resignation of dozens of elected officials in foreign governments everytime he hears a phrase that doesn't sit right with him?"

discouraging stuff.  but reality based.  start practicing the phrase "president mccain"

really

I pity whomever gets elected this November; they will have a tough row to hoe. I'm sort of hoping that the Repugs manage to steal the election a third time...Wouldn't want to wish this job on the Dems.

I think if McCain does make it, it will be a Pyrric victory of sorts, and the GOP will wish it hadn't. The Booby Prize.

WHOEVER..gets elected, not whomever...you dumb shit. Learn some grammar.

Jack

"Who" is used as a subject, "whom" is used as an object.

With 'I pity whom', I is the subject, pity the verb, and whom is the object.

Of course, only pedantic assholes resort to becoming grammar or spelling police.

Gets is a verb. Proper grammar uses Who when there is a verb following which applies to that subject. Whom is used when there is not.

Ie: We can vote for whomever we choose (the verb choose does not apply to Whom). We vote for whoever is the best candidate, in our opinion (is does apply to Who).

I don't charge for this....just shut up and learn something when you have the opportunity.

Jack

Sort of like determining how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Few people even bother to use "whom" anymore...it's dying out, becoming an obsolete word. I know this must depress you.

Too bad that you couldn't deal with the semantics and had to attack the grammar. You must have been brow-beaten in Grammar School. LOL.

baltimore aureole:

• "would you vote for a party that tried to disenfranchise the primary voters of 2 of america's largest states?"

Very misleading. The Republicans only granted 50% of normal delegates to Florida for the same infraction as Democrats. Plus, the Democrats are looking for a mutual agreement on how to conduct a second primary that will count.

• "If we learned anything during the primaries, its that half the democrats consider this candidate too inexperienced to hold the office of the president"

The voters will decide on where that threshold is set, notwithstanding what Hillary has claimed.

• alternatively "if we learned anything during the primaries, its that half the democrats consider this candidate a return to the nasty, deceptive practices of a previous aministration"

This is a very subjective statement. Is there some nastiness involved? Yes, but it is on a scale far less than "a previous administration", if you mean Bush.

• "If the democrats are this divided among themselves, how will they ever bring "change" and bipartisan cooperation to washington?"

This is primary season silly. The Republicans are actually more divided on the issues than are the Democrats. Pennsylvania could well make this all moot anyway. This sounds like nothing more than wishful thinking.

• "why were so many people fired from candiate "A's" campaign for overtly racist comments?"

This is one area I have found troubling. As a result I switched from a soft Clinton supporter to an Obama supporter a few days ago in another post.

• "will candidate "B" play the race card every time he gets into a tight foreign policy spot? is he going to demand the resignation of dozens of elected officials in foreign governments everytime he hears a phrase that doesn't sit right with him?"

You lost me completely here. Bottom line, there is a seething dislike of Bush and the obstructionist Republicans. That is not going to go away any time soon. You want proof? What happened the other day in the "safe" Dennis Hassert Congressional election. Oh, yea, the Republican got his butt kicked. November will not even be close. McCain's goose is cooked. Practice saying "President Obama". Now say it 3 times in quick succession. You should be feeling better already.

Yes, yes, the Democrats are visibly trying to lose, as ever they do.

Circular firing squad. Burying the wounded.

But the playing field is well tilted. How can they possibly lose?

This merits, at the least, a National Holiday! Heck, make it international -- global -- Galactic!

While incomplete (omits the fundamental subject/object distinction) and somewhat garbled, even his explanation is otherwise pretty much correct.

As long as McCain continues to run on extending the Iraq War unto the end times, seeks to privatize social security, advocates further tax cuts for the wealthy, and attempts to cut medicare and medicaid, the Democrats should be OK even if they ran Elliot Spitzer!

Of course, the Joke is right that I was wrong, but for a more fundamental reason: whomever is obsolete and not used in modern English. But I decided to throw it out there anyway. Grammarians have small minds sometimes. Now Jack would mistakenly have you use whomever when it is the object and not followed by a verb, as in "we decided to vote for whomever". Wrong!

Next time the Joke makes a mistake, I'm pouncing!

RE: 'whomever is obsolete and not used in modern English' and 'Jack would mistakenly have you use whomever when it is the object and not followed by a verb, as in "we decided to vote for whomever". Wrong!'

Sorry, but that's just silly. Certainly, language evolves, and ours is doing so on this very point -- certainly to the point that most (especially those who don't know those rules I posted!) would accept "whoever" in most contexts where those rules say "whomever" is correct. But to suggest that that "correct" usage is actually "mistaken" or "wrong" (i.e., in, for example, formal writing) borders on the perverse.

might take a while

Not trying to be pedantic, but I got that from Practical English Usage (Swan, 2001) p. 595. "Note that whomever is not used in modern English".

However, grammar rules need not be so strict. B-A's McCain's "I'm loving it" in the top of this thread is technically incorrect, as a verb such as love should not take the progressive form.

So Jack essentially nit-picked because (as usual) he had nothing to say.

Next time the Joke makes a mistake, I'm pouncing

I made one already...in one of my examples, not out of ignorance because no one is better at English grammar than I am....but a simple mistake.

See if you can find it.

Jack