I hadn't thought of it that way, and I guess in the end I'm willing to give it a shot. Regardless, I think even those of us who see it as a reasonably pragmatic move will be watching incredibly closely, and in the end, if he makes any sort of regressive move, we'll see it, and we'll pounce.
I actually don't care one way or another what kind of ceremony they do; I mean, as a non-believer it doesn't actually hold any water.
What I do find somewhat worrying is that the belief is being forced on the family of others by converts; it'd be one thing if it were in the wishes of the entire family, but in the case of the Holocaust victims it's not entirely clear this is the case.
This seems to me to be one of those gray areas; their expression of religion (which I don't particularly care for or against) may in fact infringe on the religious expression of others... which I was under the perhaps mistaken impression that our Constitution is supposed to protect. I mean, if I was an Incan and required a ritual virgin sacrifice, would that action, under the guise of religion, make it correct? I think the answer to that one is rather clear. What if it's to smoke Peyote? That one is not so clear. That the Catholic Church feels the need to keep their records private in fear of their deceased members from being proxy-baptized says to me that the actions of the particular group are infringing on others.
Is this hateful Mormon bashing? You betcha. Is it bigotted? I assert it isn't; there are plenty of other things that are part of their faith and other faiths (including my own!) I find rather amusing and funny and utterly useless, but this is one particular ritual I was horrified to find they did in direct contradiction of the wishes of others.
I believe it actually doesn't. My understanding is that if you voted in a way that is invalid in one part of your ballot, the rest of it would still be counted. The particular vote is invalidated, but the ballot is not.
I checkd out the Sec. of State website, and I can't find a citation for where that would be true.
(I am an inspector for San Francisco... I'll make sure to get that question clarified when we get our review training in a couple weeks)
I'd like to add to the other comment. While McCain actively referred to Hillary's health care plan using the phrase, Obama did not. Here's the context:
"John McCain says he's about change, too--except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics," Mr. Obama told his supporters here. "That's just calling the same thing something different."
With a laugh, he added: "You can put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change; it's still going to stink after eight years."
The problem with not selecting Clinton and then selecting Sebelius is that the rationale that Clinton has been making about her particular candidacy, regardless of whether you take it or leave it, is that she's had much more experience. Now, if you presume Clinton supporters are supporting her for the experience, namely with the claim that Obama is too green, then you'd want someone with experience, and I think that the selection of Sebelius would be an insult. Now, if you went with someone with more national political experience, say... Diane Feinstein, then I think that one could more legitimately say that he were selecting someone to balance out the concerns that Clinton supporters may have with an Obama candidacy.
For the record, I don't think that Feinstein is a good choice at all, since geographically she doesn't bring anything to the ticket, not to mention that it would let Schwartzenegger appoint an interim replacement.