Clinton is right when she says 2.3 million didn’t go to the polls because they thought their vote wouldn’t count. Granted, that isn’t what she said when she signed onto the DNC stripping their delegations.

Fact is we can’t have a nominee without counting everyone who voted for one.

I differ from the Clinton supporters in that I don’t think MI should be seated as-voted, and I don’t think it will make a difference as to who the nominee is.

This is about beating the Republicans in November. I’ll certainly support seating MI and FL to get that done.

I’m fully aware of the consequences of not seating FL or MI. But, honestly, they broke the rules and knew the consequences. I don’t think it’s fair if they do seat the delegates. They do need to send a message to other states who break the rules. I think it will happen more and more if states see that they can get away with it. I know it will be bad for the Democrats if they don’t seat the delegates, but a line has to be drawn.

I think an Obama/Richardson ticket would be the best choice. Two minorities. Richardson will definitely help get the Hispanic (Clinton) votes. Richardson has so much to bring to the table, a big one being experience, which Obama lacks. I don’t think McCain would be able to beat this ticket.

Basically, Obama doesn’t take money from federally registered lobbyists. Lobbyists that work for lobbying firms have to register. Obama’s campaign checks the contributions against that database and rejects anything that comes from a lobbyist.

The limitation there is that lobbyist family and friends can certainly donate money to the campaign, and those lobbyists can certainly funnel money through friends to get it into the campaign. There is no way to stop that because listing all of a lobbyist’s family and friends would be an invasion of privacy.

He has returned large sums of money that have been discovered to have come from lobbyists. He means what he says when when he says that lobbyists aren’t going to own his campaign. According to the Associated Press, 90% of his donors contribute $100 or less and 41% have donated $25 or less. His campaign is about the people, and that is one of many reasons he has my vote, my time and has received money from me. I wouldn’t contribute otherwise.

I’m not sure that would give him the vehicle for his focus on poverty, however.

An Obama/Edwards ticket would be better, but I think still unlikely. I think he’ll choose a less obvious running-mate — maybe female, but I don’t think that he necessarily needs to. Most female HRC supporters are probably not likely to vote Republican in any case.

Completely irrational but from the pro-Hillary blogs I’ve seen lately, rationality doesn’t seem to be a strong point.

I think he’ll pick Clinton, but I don’t want him to.

A non-Clinton female choice that would be good might be Kathleen Sebelius but I don’t know enough about her yet.

All your other points are right on the money.

Why is it that when people vote for Clinton they are voting for who they think is the best candidate, but if they vote for anyone else they are voting *against* the woman?

Clinton supporters can’t seem to accept that she *isn’t* the best candidate for a lot of Americans, so they seem to have to attach some other reason they aren’t voting for her.

I have seen a TON of comments and poll results regarding race as an important issue to some of the people voting (they vote for Clinton by a large margin). I haven’t seen ANY regarding gender as an important issue. It isn’t about sexism or chauvinism. We just think Obama is the better candidate.

Clinton lost my support when she got bought out by the health care industry and now wants to force everyone to buy health care that they still can’t afford. It’s a little like fixing homelessness by legislating that everyone must buy or rent a home.