DD-

Instead of responding to the nonsense above, I will direct this to you. It occurs to me that back in January – and this is not to say I told you so, but merely to see if present circumstances have changed your opinion – that I was advocating a system where party candidates were chosen through a decision which is made on a single day. So, I am wondering if how the way this thing has played out has caused you to reconsider (or not). Myself, I remain convinced that a single-day of voting – preferably later, even June or July – would be the best way for parties to select their candidates. In my opinion, much of what we have witnessed from the Dems. – and trust me, I am not stating a preference for what the Reps. have put up – has resulted from totally unprincipled reaction to preceding rounds of voting.

Do Muslim bigots like Obama even play basketball?

Nonsense. A single primary day will only elect the richest of the candidates (those able to most thoroughly saturate the country with their message).

The better option is an extended rotated primary, where different states vote at different times based on a random lottery.

The Iowa primaries are the only reason polluting ethanol is even possible in this country. Randomizing interests is the best way to maximize progress.

So to make sure that Obama will win, his bullies go the backroom and try to shove her out of the stadium before the 4th quarter begins.

They just show that they are not only bullies but also a bunch of cowards afraid of a fair fight.

Doughboy-

I think your criticism is valid, but a randomized system has its own pitfalls. I also don’t think it would do much in the way of reducing something like the farce we have witnessed so far.

Ole,

Framing your argument in today’s context makes it VERY attractive. I doubt there is a perfect system, but given what we’ve witnessed thus far, your suggestion begins to take on far greater appeal.

I DO agree whole-heartedly that what seems to be happening is a lot of knee-jerking.

Ole,

Extending the discussion, this really isn’t about ‘us.’ This is the Party’s show. It’s all about them. You could make a fairly compelling argument that they WANT a pagent, that a pagent is what this whole business is about, NOT choosing a candidate. It’s all about $$$ and the longer the process runs, the better chance to enrich oneself. At the very least, ‘work’ the money source.

Wait the Clinton Spurs just intentially dove into the Obama Hornets knees….looks like an ACL tear. Oh the Clinton Spurs were just ejected….but the Hornets can’t continue. I guess Eastern Conference will win by forfeit.

U got this all wrong. SPURS are RONALD REAGAN. They never die.

Please for the love of god, never compare my Spurs to Hillary Clinton ever again. Also the Spurs are going to win again, so I wouldn’t equate Hillary to them.

By your own analogy, McCain is still the Celtics or Pistons. I wouldn’t want to play either of them in the finals, especially if the Western Finals causes a lot of “injures”.

Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. is a muslim parading as a christian.

DD-

I am not sure that this is playing out to the advantage of the party. Dr. Biyah! Dean reminds me of a parent who has lost control at the local Pizza Hut, trying to keep smiling for the crowd of onlookers as he tries to gain control over his kids who are throwing pepperoni and cheese at each other and exchanging ridiculous insults. From what I have gathered, the donors are starting to make a stink about the myriad issues that are emerging from this charlie-foxtrot of a campaign. I find it amusing because it really validates the (mis?)perception that Democrats are bereft of the management acumen necessary to get things done. I mention this not out of spite, but merely because my twisted sense of humor revels in this sort of buffoonery no matter who is perpetrating it. Still, I might just withdraw my tentative support for Yobama and endorse Mcnasty.

I see your Basketball Analogy Tom and I raise you my Wrestling analogy. The analogy is compelling. I get the comparison that the Western Conference is much more superior to the East – so much so gruelling that the Western representative can be undone and upset by the “Leastern” conference that is rested and ready. However once you start assigning them teams like the Hornets and Spurs you start to lose me. First of all, I would always bet the house on the Spurs. The Spurs have less weaknesses that Hillary, though they are both dominant and despised for being so. They both have big reputations but the Spurs HAVE DELIVERED championships, – Hillary only has the promise to.
I still believe Wrestling is the ultimate analogy to politics. That’s why I’ve devoted an entire blog on it.

If I could edit my post. That typo would be changed. It should read ‘TIM’

bfoo,

I think it’s evolution. The ‘Left’ tends to go through convulsions every couple of generations (people generations, not party generations) and methinks this might be a big one. Like small quakes before the Big One.

When you live in a time, events around don’t appear to be changing. But the world HAS gone through major changes the last twenty years and it would be presumptuous to believe those changes have ceased.

Communications and technology alone have compressed the world and the people in it. We all know a LOT more about the rest of the world, some of us, at least, than we probably care to. World-wide trade is interacting, and interdepending, nations like never before. How we behave towards and against them have to be changed as well.

And if we’re changing on the ‘outside,’ we would have to presume that we’re changing on the ‘inside’ as well. And if the Dem/Left is the party OF change, and I would like to think it is, it’s logical to presume as well that IT would be a party IN change.

The Cons have it easy. You’re either for change or you’re against it. They’re against it and if your against something, your position is static. But if you’re for change, you encounter a sea of options in which people can differ. Not everyone agrees on the same things to change nor on how much change to make. So the Left will always be in a state of flux. It’s the natural order of things.

Hopefully this change is growth, progress, improvement, call it what you well. Hopefully it’s for the better.

Valuable thoughts and advices. I read your topic with great interest.

Interesting and informative. But will you write about this one more?