Argh . . . beat me to it!

and goes into the debate of what is snark.  A fool once said that snark is like snacks only with more 'R'.  I disbelieve that school of thought and believe that snark is a semi-cosmic near mystic power in the universe which begins the serious question:

Is this snark...

what, do you not believe either said this?  What do you think about Obama saying this and his position now?

didn't it.  Late starter?

Lame and overdone.  You could just choose to not comment since you obviously have nothing substantive to say.    

Serious_ly....

Where?

and merits a TR.

This ritual is cute, perfunctorily copying an "Is this snark" comment to every non-Obama extolling diary on the site here.  

But the horse is almost dead.  Two more days of this ritual and it will be troll-worthy.  

Any chance you or 4Justice could respond to the substantive points we've raised?  Seems the diary was misleading.

Actually, there's absolutely nothing excellent about his/her point(s) nor this sorry excuse for a diary

I've heard this mantra before

Question: Does that mean his super-delegates in Massachusetts -- Sens. Kerry and Kennedy, Gov Patrick -- should defect to Clinton? How about Robert Byrd or Bill Richardson?

Now, of course one would suspect that the diarist would have the intellectual honesty to point out that Senator Clinton also has superdelegates in her column from states that Obama won, but shit, why bring up such a small obvious detail when we can criticize Obama and slap each other on the back while downing a beer?

No one responds to these anymore because they are about two months too late and incredibly transparent.  Not to mention that Clinton and her supporters are the last people that should be eager to get into a battle of he said, she said (Michigan and Florida not counting, this being all about delegates before it was all about popular vote, and every other ridiculous and dishonest attempt to change the rules).

We've responded many times, but you stay silent. So please quit your whining.

Truth in point: if all the SDs followed their state's vote, Obama would still win the nomination. He'd lose some SDs from some states, but win almost as many others from other states. And the difference wouldn't be enough to overcome his pledged delegates lead.

So, whine, whine, whine away. You don't know how to do anything else.

Even if had said that, and all the SDs followed the votes of their individual states, Obama still would win the nomination.

So at this point, this diary is nothing more than a further whining point, nothing of any substance whatsoever.

I haven't heard him say it recently, although before the TX and OH vote he said it in several interviews that SD's were supposed to vote based on their constituants. (TV interviews) When Hillary was questioned about what Obama said..she said she didn't think so...but 'if so then she looked forward to the support of Kerry and Kennedy' (who had recently given their support to Obama).  

Nothing wrong with supporting a good progressive candidate.

I hope that a week from now Obama is one delegate short of whatever the number is by that point, and that Donna Brazile pushes him over the edge.  It would be the perfect conclusion to the endless stream of whining that has all but taken over the Clinton "campaign"

Sure!  Let's just redo the entire primary.  Best 2 out of 3.

The highlighted part about "vote the way their states have voted" wasn't from Obama, it was from Jake Tapper parroting the Clinton talking points.

Obama never said SD's should follow the votes of their states, just that they shouldn't overturn the elected delegate leader on a national scale.

Obama this week warned Super-delegates to vote the way their states have voted, "if this contest comes down to super-delegates, we are going to be able to say we have more pledged delegates, which means the Democratic voters have spoken. Those super-delegates, those party insiders would have to think long and hard how they would approach the nomination because The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you. I been sayin' that shit for years. And if you ever heard it, it meant your ass. I never really questioned what it meant. I thought it was just a cold-blooded thing to say to a motherfucker before you popped a cap in his ass. But I saw some shit this mornin' made me think twice. Now I'm thinkin': it could mean you're the evil man. And I'm the righteous man. And Mr. 9mm here, he's the shepherd protecting my righteous ass in the valley of darkness. Or it could be you're the righteous man and I'm the shepherd and it's the world that's evil and selfish. I'd like that. But that shit ain't the truth. The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd. "

Those were Jake Tappers words, not Obamas.

You should learn to identify where quotation marks begin and end.  Reading is fundamental.

Oh come on now.  Harold Ickes has morphed into a Champion of Democracy (TM) overnight, all because he switched employers.  

Bullshit.

- Remove all the superdelegates from the game and Obama has won.

• Let them cast their votes according to their wishes, and Obama has won.
  
• Have them vote according to their states, and Obama has won.

No scenario with the superdelegates or without them, in which Obama doesn't win. As such, it's not he who needs them to overrule the results of the primary season, it's Clinton.

Just admit that.