People are upset at Clinton because she is still vigorously pursuing the nomination, even in the face of long odds at securing the nomination. But she has a right to stay in the race. Obama, and Obama supporters, are wrong to complain about this, when Hillary is only insisting upon her rights. It's important for those Obama crazies out there to realize that no one can be held responsible for the consequences of doing what they have every right to do. Here are some hypothetical examples to show why this is true:

Let's say Hillary and Obama are playing chess, and Obama has just captured her queen and both her rooks. It's mate in five, and Hillary can see this. Hillary has the right to continue playing the game. She also has the right to take half an hour for each of her next five moves, even though she knows she can't win. There's nothing in the rules of chess to prohibit this, and Obama clearly has no grounds for complaint simply because Clinton is insisting upon her rights.

Let's say Hillary has invited Obama to the movies, and has decided to drive. Hillary has the right to drive very slowly. She also has the right to take the long way to the theater. She has the right to turn back around when she is halfway there, because she decides that she would rather wear the yellow pantsuit instead of the other yellow pantsuit. And Obama can't complain, even if they end up late to the movie, because it's Hillary's car and she has the right to drive it in ways that comply with the rules of the road.

Let's say Obama has decided to throw a party for his friends. Hillary has the right to throw a party on the same night as Obama's. Hillary has the right to call her party the "I hate Obama" party. She has the right to invite all of Obama's friends. She has the right to offer each of Obama's friends $5,000 to come to her party instead of Obama's. Obama has no grounds to be upset, because Hillary's only doing that which she has a right to do.

Let's say Hillary and Obama are roommates. Hillary has the right to leave her dishes in the sink for three days. She has the right to stay up late at night playing loud music in her room, even if Obama has a big speech to prepare for the next day. She has a right to spend an hour in the bathroom the next morning, even though Obama has to be at his campaign rally by 9:00. Obama can't in good conscience complain, because Hillary has the right to use her portion of their joint living space as she sees fit.

Let's say Hillary has two hamburgers, and next to her is Obama who is starving. Hillary has the right to eat her hamburgers, even if she's not particularly hungry. She has the right to say, loudly while she eats, "Ummm....this hamburger is delicious...I bet you'd like to eat one, wouldn't you Obama?" She even has the right to eat one hamburger and take the other hamburger and grind it into the dirt with her foot, or feed it to her dog instead of Obama. These are her rights, should she insist on them, and Obama has no grounds for complaint.


These are all things that Hillary has a right to do. She doesn't, however, have a right to my respect or a right to my vote.

You can be one of four people invited to have dinner with Barack Obama. All you have to do is donate to the Obama campaign between now and this coming Monday. Four supporters will be randomly selected and flown, all expenses paid, to have dinner with Obama.

I've already contributed my $60, and I'm eagerly awaiting the telephone call telling me that I'll be having dinner next week with the next President of the United States. But the lawyer in me smells something fishy.

This is, essentially, a promotional contest, meant to drum up contributions for Obama's campaign. And there's a prize: dinner with Obama. He'll pay--he says so. He'll also pay your plane fare.

Sweepstakes and promotional contests are fairly well regulated in this country, both by local and federal law. They typically require lots of disclaimers and printed rules and regulations, none of which I saw in the e-mail I received, or when I followed the link to make my donation.

I'm not very familiar with this area of law, but this smells like trouble for Obama with the FTC.