Frank J points out that Markos Moulitzas of DailyKos is trying to spin the Obama thumping at the hands of Democratic voters in Pennsylvania as a plus, because it showed the messianic candidate can spend a lot of money and still lose. There's plenty more where that came from, says Kos, so there's no need to spend it wisely or show any gain from its use. Sort of screams Democrat, doesn't it?

I suppose it pleases Kos no end to believe that democracy is all about who can raise the most money from billionairheads, and who can threaten civil war unless their candidate gets in. "Civil war" we must assume to be metaphorical for intra-party conflict, of course.

As most people reading this know, the Democratic Party's system for selecting their candidate for President involves holding primaries or caucuses (and sometimes both) in each state and territory, plus a bunch of "superdelegates" from each State. These are State officials, Congressmen, big contributors to the Party, and Party apparatchik. They vote separately, and independently of, the primary or caucus vote. This is is by design, to A) give the Party brass a big party every four years and B) allow the Party brass to retain control over who they select as nominee.

The superdelegates are going to have a hard time ignoring Obama's war chest (and the spoiled obabies threatening to riot if he is denied his rightful throne) when deciding who to support. I don't see how they can vote for Hillary, unless she raises a bucket load before the convention and reveals that she has a death ray to counter the threats of civil unrest.

Kos also doesn't seem to realize that the more people hear about Barack Obama, the less likely they are to vote for him. So Obama's best strategy may be to buy up TV time and broadcast test patterns.

This election is already so much fun, I almost don't care who actually wins any more.

Sphere: Related Content