Hillary supporters to demonstrate at DNC meeting

Since the media is solidly in the tank for BHO the coverage Hillary would receive would be zero, nada, nothing. Unless you count the reports of her being a "divider" as opposed to BHO who is being touted as a "uniter". Sheesh.

Some inconvenient facts are being forgotten by Sen Clinton's most rabid supporters.
1. The democratic parties of FL and MI moved up their primaries in defiance of DNC rules. They were aware of the consequences of their actions.
2. All candidates (including Mrs Clinton) signed a document stating they would not campaign in those states as such activities would convey legitimacy on those 'renegade' primaries.
3. Senator Obama did not campaign in FL as he was told that that primary would not count. His name was removed from the MI ballots.

Now, surely, the problem is not with the people of FL and MI, but rather with the democratic parties of those states.

Another point ignored by Sen Clinton's supporters: She had no post super-Tuesday strategy. Mark Penn and her other 'strategists' were telling her she would wrap up the nomination by that time. She underestimated Obama - a tragic mistake her campaign now acknowledges in retrospect. Her third place finish in Iowa sent her into a panic, and it was then that she decided to go back on her word and campaign in FL and MI. Sure, a lot of people voted for her there, but consider the number who would have voted for Obama if he had campaigned there. What does all of this say about the ethics of Sen Clinton? How can an ethical person claim victory under those circumstances, and especially in MI - a Soviet-style election (she had no competitor)? She is way behind in the delegate race and so is insisting that those primary results be counted. This is shameless political calculation, using bogus claims of voter disenfranchisement as a cover. If she had the lead in delegates, those people in FL and MI wouldn't matter to her. Must the democratic parties in those states be rewarded for breaking the rules? What about the 48 other states that followed the rules?

As to the matter of her winning the popular vote: This is a bogus argument and Sen Clinton KNOWS it's a bogus argument. She KNOWS that this claim makes sense only when FL and MI are counted (and they shouldn't; basic fairness requires that they should not), and ONLY when the results in four caucus states are ignored. We know that Obama beat her in all caucuses, except Nevada, and even there, he gained the majority of the delegates. Here is the crucial point (and which Sen Clinton fails to inform her supporters of): The caucuses HAVE NOT released their caucus numbers. NO ONE knows the numbers for those caucuses. It is reasonable to conclude that since Obama overwhemingly won the caucuses, then he has a major lead in the number of votes cast in said caucuses. Again: Sen Clinton's claim that she is leading in the popular vote is true ONLY when those caucuses are ignored. What does this say about the ethics of Sen Clinton? The fact of the matter is that it is Sen Obama who is leading in popular votes, NOT Sen Clinton.

In any case, it is precisely because the caucuses do not release their numbers (and they are not required to do so) why it is the DELEGATE COUNT and not the popular vote that is the established method of laying claim to the democratic nomination. And here, Obama has the decisive lead, as is also the case (we can logically conclude) with respect to the popular vote.

According to DNC rules, it is Obama who is playing 'fair and square.' Sen Clinton's chance of getting the nomination is for the super delegates to overturn the expressed will of the majority of the primary voters.

Having said all of that, the delegates of FL and MI will be seated at the convention; both DNC chairman Howard Dean and Obama have said so. Of course, it has to be done in a fair process that takes into consideration the fact that Sen Clinton had no opponents in those states in those primaries (they did not campaign as per DNC rules), being fair to the other states which followed the rules, and not rewarding unruly behavior. Sen Clinton must acknowledge that she will not, and should not, have the delegates apportioned according to the way she 'won' but then again, I won't hold my breath. Last week, the democratic party of Michigan decided to give her 69 delegates and Obama 59 (again bear in mind the 'Soviet' nature of this primary) and her camp turned it down. And she wonders why a good number of Americans find her untrustworthy and less than honest.

As to the notion that the media is "in the tank" for Obama: this is laughable, and not even worthy of explanation.

Yes, lets count all the votes of all 50 states, not just the caucus states that Obama won! Let me remind Lloyd that voters of FL and MI count too, and Obama campaigned in those two states: TV ads southern states and workers in MI urged people to vote uncommitted if they are for Obama. Do not leave out information. If Obama had wrap up this nomination, then he has nothing to loose to agree on a revote that was discussed in April. But BO camp refuse because his win is slim. First he told delegates to respect the voters but most of his delegates are from states that Clinton won. Remember Ted kennedy, Kerry, Richardson just to name a few. Despite all endorsements from Mass. Hillary won popular vote by more than 10%. So Obama's win is on shaky ground. So his strategy is to push out his rival. He should be ashamed of himself to win by default, not hard contested primary. But again he won his US senate seat by default, he won State Senate seat by default but he ran for city council in New York City and lost. People in NYC know him and don't want him.

When you have your Meeting on Saturday May 31, 2008 and I want Hillary Clinton to win the Nomation.
I am a California Delegate so I deside to have Hillary Clinton to get the Nomtion to go to the Denver, Colordo Cenvention in August.

ALL 50 states need be counted. And while trying to bash hillary the great, americans need take in consideration all of obamas pastor's drama