Originally Posted By: britneyspearsatemyshorts
only the moveon.org types could cry endlessly about Gore winning the popular vote and not getting the win, but now they are rallying behind a guy that couldn't even get the majority of democratic voters.....


Man, does that sum it up nicely.

The candidate who wins the popular vote should be the winner.

Unless, of course, the candidate the Democrat elites have pre-selected as their choice doesn't get the majority of votes. I love how the Democrats constantly re-define our democracy to suit their socialist agenda. And anyone who disagrees with their on-the-fly rules changes is just "mean", "evil", or "a racist/bigot".
While excusing their own mean, evil and racist/bigoted behavior in pursuit of victory, by whatever underhanded or ruthless means.





I loved in this Associated Press article on Hillary's victory in Puerto Rico today, how they can't even acknowledge in the headline that their beloved Obama got pounded into the dirt by a ratio of greater than 2-to-1, and that a 72% majority would not be satisfied with Obama as the Democrat candidate.



The AP article buries this fact in rationalization that the few delegates Obama won in Puerto Rico inch him slightly closer to the nomination that has eluded him for 3 months.
But AP fails to note that even the last two upcoming primaries won't clearly give Obama the nomination, he'll still require 30 superdelegates to secure the points needed to win. (i.e., a backroom deal with party elites, -vs- the clear popular choice of Democrat primary voters)

In Hillary's words, If Obama is the clear nominee, then why can't he seal the deal?