I really hope, come the next president, that the putatively Democratic federal government will get off its ass and prevent political parties from gaming the system in favor of their voters. Everyone should have an equal opportunity to vote.
There are plenty of internet users who are disabled - people with the same disability as McCain, or worse, people without their hands or their arms.
McCain's disability isn't why he doesn't use the internet. McCain doesn't use the internet because he's never cared to learn, never had to learn, because by the time the internet became popular, he had a servant to do that for him.
He's no different from Bush, who has an aide put download songs onto his ipod. He's pampered.
Do you honestly believe that no Democratic primary voter in Michigan preferred Obama to the other candidates? If not, how can you claim that their intent should have no influence over the measure of the popular vote?
I don't share the visceral sense of outrage that Hillary's supporters seem to feel, nor do I feel it as intensely. It may be that the well of outrage has run dry for me. It's been a long primary.
That said, I do agree that Hillary has had to deal with sexism that Barack has not, that said sexism is worthy of outrage, and that the primary as a whole has revealed a level of anti-woman hatred that I did not expect.
I don't think that Obama endorses it. He's married a feminist woman, they've undoubtedly raised their daughters to expect and demand equality. And I think that he'll fight for that as president.
If he hasn't persuaded you of that then, clearly, he has some work to do.
Hillary has been the victim of sexism. That's been true since 1991 at least and undoubtedly stretches back to her public life in Arkansas and, I'm sure, her private life as well. Perhaps there are Obama supporters who would deny that, but I'm not one of them and I don't believe that there are many who would.
Is the problem really that Obama's supporters deny that Hillary's been the victim of sexism, or is it their refusal to agree with you - specifically, their refusal to share your belief that Obama is an objectively inferior candidate who prevailed primarily because of his identity? Or that Hillary is an objectively superior candidate whose identity played no significant part in her success? If it's the latter, then I doubt you'll ever get the "support" you want.
Otherwise, you're right, it will be difficult for the Democratic Party if "one half doesn't want to admit what happened to the other half" - but really, I think that statement could apply to either half of the party, right now.
And note how the poster condemns sexism in one breath, even as they deride Pelosi's "botox face" in another.
And then there's the inevitable assertion that Pelosi's supposed preference for Obama is due to some desire to be the queen bee, and not because, you know, she's a bona-fide liberal who views Hillary's Clintonism with skepticism, or some other non-sexist reason.
I'm hesitant to endorse the idea that political parties are "private" in any meaningful way. But that is neither here nor there.
There is absolutely no reason that a person should have less of a right to influence the Democratic Primary because they move from one state to another - it's ridiculous to claim that one's right to influence the Democratic Primary should change, for example, because they move from one side of the South Carolina-North Carolina border to the other. Whatever the rules may be, for a national contest, they must be consistent across state lines.
In the major political parties, that's the delegates, which in Democratic primaries are apportioned by its party's turnout in the past two Presidential elections.
This, too, is ridiculous. A state that turns out X+1 Democrats in the current election should not be given less influence than a state that turned out X Democrats merely because the latter turned out more in some previous election. The influence on this election should be determined by the turnout in this election.
There does have to be some "common currency." That common currency should be votes. Any aspect of the system that prevents that currency from being common should be changed to ensure that it is.