John McCain hasn't said that but it's clear this is how he thinks.  
It makes you wonder whether his obsession with being commander in chief means he'll treat things like education, health care and the economy like side hobbies.
I haven't yet heard him say that when he's president, he'll hold all press conferences at 0800 hours but for a man born on a naval base, you know he has reveille on his mind in the morning.  
I admire McCain's service to the country.  He put his life on the line for the United States and that's both courageous and honorable.  
But it doesn't give him the right to demean another American's patriotism.  
There are so many ways to serve this country, not all of them originate in the military.  

It would be pretty traditional to choose someone in your own party for VP who agrees with you on every single issue.  
Consider the evolving state of each of the parties.  The Democratic and Republican parties don't presently define their respective members as accurately as they used to.  
It would be hard to argue, for example, that the Republicans have been an exemplary example of fiscal conservatives.

Right now, none of the candidates have the undying support of all its party members.  
Obama could choose Clinton to be his VP as a way to expand his intra-party base.  He would certainly gain the support of democratic women 55 and older.  
But wouldn't he have even more to gain if he chose someone like Chuck Hagel to win the growing number of Republicans disenchanted with their own party, as well as the majority of support among independents?  
And wouldn't someone like Chuck Hagel further split the Republican and Independent support for John McCain?
If we've learned anything from the Obama campaign, it's that old electoral maps don't necessarily apply.  He's putting states in play that have always gone Republican. 
We can continue to look at our future as the old battle between Republicans and Democrats.  I know the Clintons look at things that way.  
But when you consider that the Republicans had a difficult time building a coalition of its traditional members and that McCain is still having a hard time building that same currently fractured base, maybe there's a bigger prize out there.    
Maybe the winning majority doesn't rely on 20th century politics. 

A few months ago, when all this FL and MI talk was still brewing, and I saw that the leaders of the democratic party wouldn't uphold the rules of this election, I decided that I would change my party affiliation to independent.  

Take away all the spin and outcries to the people and it comes down to this:  Sen. Clinton realized she was losing the election, so she's trying to break the rules set forth and agreed to by all candidates in 2007.  She knew these primaries wouldn't count.  She's changed her mind. 

If one candidate thinks that rules don't apply to her/him, then that's exactly how they'll behave in the White House.

We've already had an eight year demonstration of this very scenario.     

She was the presumptive nominee throughout 2007.  The polls were largely in her favor, national and state by state.  But she lost 20 to 25pt. leads in big states like Pennyslvania, Ohio, and Indiana, just to name a few.  It's been generally perceived that when Obama campaigns in a state, when people get to know him, his trend lines consistently go up and hers consistently go down.  
I understand there are other variables.  I'm not a statistician. 
But I think it would be an interesting hypothesis to try and quantify.  

They also tried disenfranchising the 60,000 member Culinary Workers Union in Nevada by seeking a court order to prevent them from holding their scheduled caucus.  

Are these really the kind of people we want running our country?

TPMer Pantalla (sp?)  raised this point.  Candidates were asked to remove their names from the ballots ahead of MI and FL illegitimate primaries.  And as I understand it, FL state law prevented Obama from removing his name from the ballot there.  

It's important to communicate the facts about the MI and FL primaries, the so-called "popular vote" and how you intend to defend Obama's nomination.  
It's unfortunate that you have to do this, but it's necessary. Even if you're confident that the superdelegates will side with you.  
It will be harder to unite voters if most of them have the misperception that Obama is the one who's stealing the election from Hillary. 

Have we gotten to a point in this primary when Obama can't declare he's won a majority of delegates because Hillary will get angry?  How gracious is too gracious? 
Has Hillary extended the same courtesy and respect that Obama has extended to her? 
Why do we all have to walk on eggshells about who's winning this race?  
Terry Mcauliffe and Howard Wolfson are still on the MSM 24 hours a day saying the popular vote matters, saying that Obama can't win the general election, etc. 
And there are zero Obama surrogates to answer that claim?
It's as if Hillary's surrogates went to boot camp.  
I believe it's a mistake on the part of the Obama campaign not to deploy a strong MSM communications strategy.
They're walking on eggshells while the Clinton campaign is walking all over them.   

This was to be expected.  It often happens right before a primary vote but I think we can expect a slew of attacks that will revive false claims--Muslim, terrorist, anti-semite, etc..
Thousands of bloggers have been dispatched and they're slingshotting rumors across the internet, hoping one catches on.  
Also, the new "popular vote" metric is being marketed by the Clintons, despite the fact that there is no "popular vote metric" in the Democratic primary.  It's like losing a football game and saying that more people in the stadium were cheering for you, therefore you win.  
The nominee is chosen by reaching a certain amount of delegates.  
No candidate has reached that number yet.  But now even the number is being contested.  
Good luck to both candidates.  

This is eluding me.  Can any Clinton supporters please enlighten the rest of us and give us a scenario in which they will concede that Obama has won the Democratic primary.  
If he reaches the number of delegates required to win, as put forth by the DNC, will you acknowledge that he won fair and square?
Or is there no scenario in your minds in which Obama can win the nomination fair and square?

I'm tired of hearing pundits ask why, if Obama is the presumptive nominee, are so many people in WV and Kentucky still voting for Hillary.
The answer is that she's misleading them.   She goes around saying that she's winning this race, and that she is winning the popular vote.  What she doesn't tell them is that the popular vote doesn't count. 
The delegates are the only measure that counts and she has lost that.  
The danger about her going around ignoring this point is that her supporters in turn, will ignore this point and the voters in Kentucky and Puerto Rico will ignore this point.  
And when Obama legitimately wins the nomination, they'll think he stole the nomination from her.   That something unfair happened.  
If she doesn't respect the rules, why should her supporters?
This is why I think she should step out of the race.