do you live in Tn?

you dont register in Tn per party.

Nothing, nothing is more important than ending the Two Family system of government we have now. The Bush/Clinton family Oligarchy is more dangerous in the long run than another four years of Repigs.
Having two families run things decade after decade is polarizing at best and rather un-American when you get down to it.

Also, though Obama and Hillary agree on many issues, Obama is clearly on the proper side of the most important ones. The Iraq war, privacy, the drug war, corporate influence, poverty....
Hillary fails miserably on these issues as is evident by her voting record and Bill's history (no, she won't be different than Bill)

Regardless, the Two Family thing is Democratically unsound and must stop if there's to be any kind of recognizable change.

"The mind is like a parachute, it only works when it's open."

Not only that, but it's more than a little over the top to go on a tirade about the way the Dems have gone about a process like this for the last 30 years. If it doesn't benefit your guy, it's by definition corrupt and subject to bribes?

Methinks some folks lost perspective on the way to the forum. Besides, it's breaking a tie, not "subverting the will of the voters." That would be not allowing folks to vote at all, monkeying with the vote count or other shenanigans, which is not remotely how this has gone.

Great response, Rachel. I'm going to keep these arguments on a card to hand out in response to all the super delegate whiners.

and probably lots of single issue voters as well (Iraq, Health Care, etc.). I'm not so sure it makes sense for the voters who tend to decide these elections (at least since '80), those "swing voters" or "Reagan Democrats" or "independents" or whatever phrase you prefer for the people who seem to have no particular allegience to either a party or an ideology.

It takes a "perfect storm" sort of scenario to conceive of a way for the Democrats to lose this election, but none of these conditions have been completely erased yet. I'll run down my thoughts on a "perfect storm" scenario. Mr. Neal, you can file all of this as opinion unsubstantiated by links or other hard data.

1. Right now, McCain is saddled with disaffected base. The more libertarian Republicans are unhappy with the runaway spending and increased government size/power that happened on an all GOP watch. The social conservative Republicans don't see McCain as one of their own. The only candidate in the running who can possibly energize that base is Hillary Clinton. Dyed in the wool Republicans hate Clintons with the same passion Democrats hate Bushes. I can't conceive of any way McCain can defeat Obama no matter how he gets the nomination.

2. Right now, those "swing" voters are extremely unhappy with the GOP. They think Iraq was a huge mistake and believe the war on terror has been sidetracked by it. However, if Hillary Clinton gets the nomination after going into the convention behind on pledged delegates, there is at least a possibility for mass defections by those independent voters who have been coming out to support Obama in droves. Many will just stay home. A few may go so far as to cross over to McCain if he manages to run a good post-convention campaign. Additionally, if Clinton takes the nomination in such a manner, this could also depress the African-American vote. They'll never go to McCain, but they may stay home.

3. The economy recovers and starts humming along again. This is the trump card people aren't talking about. A sluggish economy spells disaster for the party holding the presidency no matter what else in the world is going on. It really doesn't matter how little practical control a president has over the economy for good or bad, he and his party get the credit and absorb the blame. Nothing trumps an empty wallet. Nothing. McCain has to hope for a full recovery from the present sluggishness by no later than mid summer to have a prayer. The elder George Bush got a full economic recovery in '92, but it came too close to the election to help him any. Timing is everything here.

The summary: Within a positive economic climate, McCain has to face Hillary Clinton after she has "stolen" the nomination by securing enough superdelegates to overcome an Obama lead in pledged delegates in order to have a real chance of winning. If any piece of that puzzle fails to fall into place, I just don't see how he wins. That's my perfect storm scenario for McCain.

Unfortunately, winning by 51% won't do it. If Ohio has 141 delegates, and Clinton wins 51%, she'll probably get between 71 and 75 delegates, but Obama will get the other 66 to 70. Going up by only 5 to 10 delegates won't do the trick. She needs to win about 60% and pick up a majority in most or all of the Congressional districts. She needs to split the districts that have an even number of delegates 3-1, not 2-2, so that she can get more like 90 to 100 delegates to his 40-50.

That's how Obama has been raking in the delegates. And he wouldn't have done so well if she had been able to keep his wins to 55-45 instead of 60-40 or 65-35 or worse.

The thing that makes the Clinton campaign look bad in all this, is that until January, her campaign had out-raised his, primarily because she'd been raising money longer than he had, but also because she out-raised him in at least two quarters last year. Where did all the money go? He didn't just start spending money in Idaho or Maryland when the money started pouring in in January.

BC was far from perfect. However, he wasn't such a horrible president.

And, no matter what any one says, HRC has a mind of her own and would be her own person as president.

Pam Strickland

"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." ~Kurt Vonnegut

A Clinton is a bad choice. Just like last time.

Proud Dole/Kemp voter, eh?

Or didn't you put your vote where your mouth is to jump on that glorious bandwagon?