The Next President of the USA will be?

[Hermit]

92 percent of the black vote went his way. If you ever took statistics in college that tells you straight up its a racist vote. A racist agenda.

I have taken college level statistics courses,.. and a post-graduate level

statistics course.. and the simple fact of the matter is that you are wrong.

The fact that 92 of every 100 Blacks voted for Obama (giving you the benefit of the doubt with regard to your numbers), does not "tell you straight up" anything about the voters' motivations or agendas. You're drawing an inference about their motivations and their agendas. You're making assumptions. Compounding your error of assumption.. you're assuming that your assumptions are true and correct.

While it's reasonable to presume that race played a role in the voting preference of many of those Black voters, you jumping to the conclusion of "racism" is premature, unfounded, and unsupported by the limited statistical data you've provided. You are failing to acknowledge that factors other than race may have gone into the decision of those voters to vote for Obama. Factors like, for example, the fact that Obama is extremely intelligent, thoughtful, articulate, passionate, handsome, even-tempered, has policy ideas that people like and agree with, and.. well.. overall is seen as being perfectly well qualified for the job. Given all those factors.. how can you conclude that the vote was a "racist vote.. a racist agenda"?

Sure, in conjunction with those other factors is the fact that he's Black,.. and is the first African American with a legitimate chance at actually becoming POTUS. So what? Whats wrong with that? What's your problem with Black voters voting for Obama in large numbers if they think he's the most qualified and because he's Black? Why does their support for Obama lead you to conclude that "racism" is involved?

racism |ˈrāˌsizəm|

noun

the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to

that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

• prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief.

Perhaps you're projecting a bit there, eh overthehillsandouttolunch?

[Psychological projection, or "Freudian projection", a defense mechanism in which

one attributes to others, one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or emotions]

[allthekingshorses]

I love how people say Barack is a racist..... He's Half White!!!(have you seen him dance?) His mother is white. His children are then part white.... get a grip people. It's skin, that's all.

A little bit about Barack,

He graduated from Columbia University in 1983

Earned Harvard Law Degree in 1991

Worked as a civil rights lawyer and taught Constitutional Law.

He was also an Illinois State Senator for 8 Years before running for and winning his US Senate seat in 2004.

[Uncle Bill]

If Nobama gets the nomination I think it could lead to another electoral college win for the Republicans in the fall. He will win the popular vote with massive totals in the large urban centers of the usual blue states and lose everywhere else. This is the EC system at work, it forces a candidate to appeal to a wider range of people in a larger number of states.

[Pb Derigable]

Pb,..

if you think its logical to say "Hillary still has a good mathematical chance at the nomination" while at the very same time acknowledging the mathematics of the campaign shows that she has a "nearly impossible mathematical chance at winning the nomination".. then I'm left concluding that there's no sense in debating with you.

I acknowledge that she can't win because of the polling numbers, not by math. you think math and chance is the same. It's not. The math states she has chance, the polls don't. you are digging in quick sand.

"Mathematically nearly impossible" and "good mathematical chance" are not the same; they're opposites. Suggesting both are true at the same time is not logical.. it's utterly illogical. That you can't recognize the obvious incongruity of those two statements speaks volumes about your intellectual limitations, friend. (as does your grammar)

You're the one who thinks they are the same. I said she has good mathematically chance of winning. The polling numbers don't suggest it. Are you trying to put your overpaid college degree up against common sense. 60% percent of the vote is possible. I just gave you polling Numbers that would suggest if obama killed a bunch of nuns, it even becomes more possible.

If you can convince me that you understand the difference between "mathematically nearly impossible" and "good mathematical chance", then maybe I'll have reason to think a discussion between us might be worthwhile. I think the chances of that happening are nearly impossible. And just so you're clear,.. no, that doesn't mean I think there's a "good chance" of it happening. :f:

Ha just sounds like obama. I truly think you don't want to debate with me because you have yet to defend your candidate. You're trying to draw conclusions that don't work and say that I'm the one who drew them.--

Hermit, go tell your school that you want your money back, and i want the money for that pell grant also. I very upset my hard earned tax dollars have gotten me nothing in return. I rather give it to people who think common sense is better than liberal sense.

[Pb Derigable]

John Kerry and Gore won the black vote with at least 90%. so anybody who tells you the black vote is important, it's not.

[Audacity]

I can't believe people want to deny the blacks voting for blacks because they identify racially.

I'd posted about why do blacks not go to hockey games and when I asked a couple of blacks walking into one of these recent playoff matches, he said because there are hardly any blacks playing.

I'd say the majority of blacks vote black PURELY because of race. Same analogy with hockey. Sure there are OTHER factors in some/few blacks voting for blacks, but come on. Don't deny the obvious.

[Pb Derigable]

I certainly don't agree with your take on Obama. Especially articulate and handsome. Ha. Who do you think he will chose as is running mate IF he gets the nom?? My guess is Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. 92 percent speaks for itself mr spinmaster. Now follow with a 10 page eulogy on what a racist I am and how your candidate is the only choice. Go ahead punk, make my day.

NOBAMA "08

He most likely pick a white Governor with Military background, so it covers up his faults in terms of experience and Military and Natl security. The repubs will do the same with a younger guy from a Dem swing state.

Dick Durbin would be good for obama, but he is way too far left and you can't have two people from the same state.

I met Dick Durbin and he is a very nice man, unlike his fellow Junior senator. But then you watch him on TV and you never think he is that far left.

By the way I admit that I'm a racist,in some ways, but if obama was a Republican with G.O.P values, I would vote for him to be VP. Even my political science teacher said the first non white man to be president will be a G.O.P. For the fact Dem's loves minorities and will vote for a minority and G.O.P. will vote for G.O.P. Maybe if the candidate was more center then left, which obama is the definition of a left winger.

[Hermit]

Hermit, go tell your school that you want your money back, and i want the money for that pell grant also. I very upset my hard earned tax dollars have gotten me nothing in return. I rather give it to people who think common sense is better than liberal sense.

It's quite apparent that you lack common sense, liberal sense, and.. well.. any sense whatsoever, Pb. But fear not, my friend, I'll do my best to help you make sense of this campaign math-polls-chances stuff that has thus far been beyond your intellectual ability to grasp. Consider it my favor to you, bud, and please.. feel no obligation to thank me. I do it from the goodness and kindness of my heart.

I acknowledge that she can't win because of the polling numbers, not by math. you think math and chance is the same. It's not. The math states she has chance, the polls don't. you are digging in quick sand.

Chance = opportunity. Yes, Hillary,.. based on the simple fact that she's a candidate on the ballot,.. has a chance (opportunity) to win.

Chance = probability = odds = mathematical likelihood of an event occurring. The mathematics

indicates that Hillary has nearly impossible odds/probability/likelihood (chance) of winning. The poll number support the fact that Hillary's mathematical likelihood of winning is extremely low. However,.. given that the superdelegates can do whatever they want, Hillary does still have a mathematical possibility of winning. Its not a "good" probability of that happening though because the superdelegates are not likely going to go against the pledged delegate totals and the popular votes total.

Mathematics is about numbers. Polls are about numbers. The polling numbers and the mathematics that looks at what it will take to win the primary are not "the same", per se, but they are both indicating the same thing: that Hillary virtually no chance of winning the nomination by way of overcoming Obama in the pledged delegate race or the popular vote race. The poll numbers support the mathematical near impossibility (low chance) of Hillary winning because in order to win the nomination she'd have to win every remaining primary by enormous margins and the poll numbers suggest she does not have enough support to win by those margins.

Whether you're looking at polling numbers OR the mathematics of the campaign, in both cases Hillary has a near impossible chance/likelihood/probability/odds of winning the nomination. Your insistence that "Hillary has good mathematically chance of winning" is flat out wrong (based on the math) and illogical (based on the math and the polling numbers).

The only context in which your argument has any merit whatsoever is with regard to the fact that by simple matter of being one of the two candidates in the democratic primary race, Hillary does have an "opportunity" (chance) of winning the nomination. And, of course, that context is utterly meaningless as pertains to the debate being waged here. Is that really all you have to offer this 'Hillary's chances of winning' debate, Pb? [oh wait.. you also have the forthcoming "Obama nun killing spree" scenario to offer, right? ]

It's you who's digging (and sinking fast) in quicksand, Pb.

You're the one who thinks they are the same. I said she has good mathematically chance of winning. The polling numbers don't suggest it. Are you trying to put your overpaid college degree up against common sense. 60% percent of the vote is possible. I just gave you polling Numbers that would suggest if obama killed a bunch of nuns, it even becomes more possible.

"I said she has good mathematically chance of winning". Yes you did. And you are wrong. Mathematically she has almost no chance of winning.

"The polling numbers don't suggest it". True dat. In fact the polling numbers suggest she lacks the necessary support to overcome Obama.

"60% percent of the vote is possible". True dat. For that matter, 100% of the vote is also "possible". The reality of the democratic primary situation though is that Hillary needs something like 80% in each and every remaining primary. That too is "possible", theoretically, but its not very likely. In fact it's very, very, very, very, very unlikely.. it's so unlikely as to be statistically virtually impossible. Why are you unable to grasp or acknowledge this reality, muh-man?

"I just gave you polling Numbers that would suggest if Obama killed a bunch of nuns, it even becomes more possible". Yeah ok, I'll grant you that (so much for dealing in reality though, eh?). I suppose it would become "more possible" for Hillary to win the nomination if Obama goes on a nun killing spree. But what are the chances (you know.. the odds/likelihood/probability) of that happening?

You're really sinking fast at this poin..

oops.. too late.

RIP Pb.

[wanna be drummer]

Qualifying your personal brand of republicanism as being "moderate" is, I'll admit, a political strategy on my part.. aimed at not alienating you. You know, in case there's even a slim chance you might open up to Obama as November nears.

Seriously though,.. you're a republican, I know, but in my experience of you, you're also a thoughtful guy. [Given that you're smart and do seem to exercise your capacity for deeper thinking, how/why you choose to remain a republican is quite a mystery to me. But I digress.. ]

Rather than throw your vote away on a thrird party nobody with no chance of winning, why not cast your vote for Obama so, if nothing else, you can tell your kids and grandkids you voted for the first African American POTUS in American history? Imagine how cool and progressive on the cutting edge they'll think you were! They'll be so proud of you, man! You don't want them rolling their eyes and laughing at you for being out of touch at such a historic moment in American history..so much so that you voted for Ralph Nader or Ru Paul instead of Barack Obama,.. do you??

I could always vote third party and lie to my grandkids. That works just as good

...I wonder how long it'll be before overthehillsandouttolunch

refers to Nathan as "Mr I Don't Even Give A Shit Who Wins"...

I respect John McCain for his military service,.. and I used to have some respect for him as a politician. Not anymore though. I have absolutely no respect for him as a politician anymore. And that's because he's a republican, per se,.. it's because he's chosen to become a shameless, principle-less pandering political whore. (you know.. as opposed to your standard run-of-the-mill political whore.)

anyway..

cheers bud.

I used to love McCain. His history (that still fascinates me by the way. He's lived one hell of a life, ya gotta admit), his politics, his down-to-earthness...of course things change when you're up on the ballot to be the freakin President. I think, deep down, he's still got those pure beliefs he held 20 years ago, but I think he's realized that to be the President (or hell, even just getting reelected to Congress), you gotta please the people through words.

He's changed, so have I.

After rereading this, I noticed how gay I must seem

[Pb Derigable]

Hermit wrote a post that takes 10 min to read, but yet he can't defend his candidate. Which he hasn't since he lost Penn. and now he's calling me dumb. Just like Liberal Elitist to question a hard working American like me. He tells people who want war, "How many tours have you done". While his candidate wouldn't know the difference between a Sailor and a Solider. Maybe Im bitter Hermit, that i have to earn a living, unlike most of the people who glorifies Mr. Obama.

Hermit claims victory in this debate when at the same time he thinks we already lost the war in Iraq.

God bless you hermit, there are 1.5 million people who are defending your right to look down on people like me.

Tell me how much did that fancy college education cost you. In fact how much did it cost me?

[Hermit]

Are you conceding that I've successfully made the point about you being wrong and illogical in your assertion that "Hillary has a good mathematical chance of winning the nomination", eh Pb? Your changing of the subject to my lack of "defending" Obama would seem to suggest as much.

The fact of the matter is that I've defended Obama plenty in this thread. Will another round of repetition make any difference to you? I highly doubt it. In fact, I think the probability of it making a difference to you (or overthehillsandouttolunch) is about as remote/unlikely as Hillary's chances of winning the nomination.

At this point we all know what we need to know about these candidates in order to make an informed decision about who we support. Throughout this thread I've repeatedly expressed my support for Obama and the rationale for that support. The relevant issue right now is not "why do I support Obama?" or "can I defend him against allegations that he's a racist?", the relevant issue at hand is the process by which the democratic primary will be decided ansd concluded. That's why we've been discussing campaign/election mathematics, pledged delegate totals, popular vote totals, the role of superdelegates, and.. the need for Obama to go on a nun killing spree if Hillary is going to have a chance to win the niomination.

When Obama wins the democratic nomination and the race officially becomes Obama vs McCain, I'll surely be reiterating why I think Obama is the better candidate, and I think there's a very high probability (likelihood..chance..odds) that at that point there will be opportunities aplenty for me "defend" Obama against republican smears and against legitimate questions about whether or not he's a better candidate than John McCain. For now, Im content at having proven the wrongness and illogic of your "Hillary has a good mathematical chance of winning the nomination" assertion.

Go Obama!!

[Pb Derigable]

Are you conceding that I've successfully made the point about you being wrong and illogical in your assertion that "Hillary has a good mathematical chance of winning the nomination", eh Pb? Your changing of the subject to my lack of "defending" Obama would seem to suggest as much.

The fact of the matter is that I've defended Obama plenty in this thread. Will another round of repetition make any difference to you? I highly doubt it. In fact, I think the probability of it making a difference to you (or overthehillsandouttolunch) is about as remote/unlikely as Hillary's chances of winning the nomination.

At this point we all know what we know to about these candidates in order to make an informed decision about who we support. Throughout this thread I've repeatedly expressed my support for Obama and the rationale for that support. The relevant issue right now is not "why do I support Obama?" or "can I defend him against allegations that he's a racist?", the relevant issue at hand is the process by which the democratic primary will be decided ansd concluded. That's why we've been discussing campaign/election mathematics, pledged delegate totals, popular vote totals, the role of superdelegates, and.. the need for Obama to go on a nun killing spree if Hillary is going to have a chance to win the niomination.

When Obama wins the democratic nomination and the race officially becomes Obama vs McCain, I'll surely be reiterating why I think Obama is the better candidate, and I think there's a very high probability (likelihood..chance..odds) that at that point there will be opportunities aplenty for me "defend" Obama against republican smears and against legitimate questions about whether or not he's a better candidate than John McCain. For now, Im content at having proven the wrongness and illogic of your "Hillary has a good mathematical chance of winning the nomination" assertion.

Im sorry hermit, il get back to you once my headache goes away from all this spin your putting forth. Still the point you made about Hillary is that she is not in the lead in the Democratic race. So yes i concede that she is not in the lead at this point of time. Maybe in a few weeks.

[Pb Derigable]

Wait im getting a phone call on the G.O.P. phone.

[Pb Derigable]

Papa bear just said,

This spining shit will stop, or god help me, Ill pull American Idol off the air, and play the Rev. Wright DVD from now until november.

[Uncle Bill]

Papa bear just said.

This spinning will stop

O' Rielly has been defending nobama the last few nights on his show, too funny, you just never know what you'll see lol

[Hermit]

While his candidate wouldn't know the difference between a Sailor and a Solider.

Are you so bitter that you feel the need to say things that are so.. well.. inane?

Maybe Im bitter Hermit, that i have to earn a living, unlike most of the people who glorifies Mr. Obama.

Ok,.. so at least we agree that you're bitter.

Fwiw, I don't look down on you as a person at all, bud. You're the one who first got personal about education level, not me. I work for a living too, muh-man. I work hard for forty hours a week, sometimes more. I earn a modest income and I live a very humble lifestyle. I've been driving the same car for 14 years now. I'm not by any means rich (or even well-off), nor am I an "elitest". While I am better off than some people (afterall, I do have a job and I do have excellent and affordable healthcare coverage), like so many of my fellow Americans right now I'm "just barely gettin by". And before you go assuming that it's people who don't have to earn a living who are supporting Obama, you might stop to remind yourself that it's the republican party that caters to the wealthy and privileged, not the democratic party. Obama is a democrat; his policy agenda is an agenda that supports working class Americans like you and me, friend.

Your bitterness is, sadly, clouding your judgment, bud.

Oh, and btw,.. I've been making student loan payments every month for the last 15 years, and my debt won't be paid off for another 10 years or so. So as much as you'd like to think you paid for my education, you're quite wrong about that. I'm paying for it.

Hermit claims victory in this debate when at the same time he thinks we already lost the war in Iraq.

And I'd be right on both points, now wouldn't I? I've won the debate over your wrong and illogical "Hillary has a good mathematical chance of winning the nomination" assertion, and we've already lost the war in Iraq... or at least we can say "the war in not winnable". I'm pleased about the former but not about the latter. I am willing to face the reality of the situation in Iraq whereas you apparently are not. *shrug*

Papa bear just said,

This spining shit will stop, or god help me, Ill pull American Idol off the air, and play the Rev. Wright DVD from now until november.

Papa Bear wants a falafel.

[Uncle Bill]

What some people fail to realize is that it's not up to the posters themselves to decide who has won the argument, the reader will decide for themselves who's points have merit.

[The Rover]

Obama Nation

Abombination

[Hermit]

What some people fail to realize is that it's not up to the posters themselves to decide who has won the argument, the reader will decide for themselves [whose] points have merit.

(I've decided that) your point has merit.

Please consider the following:

Pb asserts:

"Hillary has a good mathematical chance of winning the nomination".

His rationale in support of that claim is:

"She needs 60%. If she can get 3 delegates for every two obama gets. she gets the majority". [*source*]

In order to give Pb's argument merit, one would have to conclude that "Obama getting 3 delegates for every 2 Obama gets".. throughout the remaining 10 primaries.. constitutes Hillary having "a good mathematical chance of winning the nomination".

Given that none of the remaining primaries are "winner take all" (the delegates are allocated based on percentage of votes garnered by each candidate in the primary), for Hillary to get 3 delegates for every 2 that Obama gets she'd have to win each and every remaining primary by garnering anywhere from 60% to 80% (or more) of the votes. In other words, she has to win by margins of 20% to 40% (or more) in each and every of the remaining 10 primaries. ALL of them. And remember that each time she falls short of the needed margin, the required margin of victory gets even higher for the remaining primaries.

Bear in mind that of the 40 primaries that have already taken place, Hillary has won by margins of 20+% only TWICE, and Obama has won by margins of 20+% 20 times (ie, he has won by a margin of 20+% in half of the previous 40 primaries!). Hillary's done it twice in the previous 40 primaries, and now she has to do it 10 times in the remaining 10 primaries... in order for her to mathematically win the nomination.

Pb's assertion is:

"Hillary has a good mathematical chance of winning the nomination".

My assertion is:

"Pb's assertion is both wrong and illogical".

Three simple questions or you, Unc:

1. Given the information/mathematical argument I've laid out above, on a scale of 0-10 (0 being '0% probability' and 10 being '100% probability'), what do you think the probability is [ie, how likely do you thnk it is] that Hillary will win EACH AND EVERY of the remaining ten primaries by a margin of 20% - 40% (or more)?

2. Does that probability/likelihood, in your opinion, consitute Hillary having "a good mathematical chance of winning the nomination"?

3. Who's argument/assertion/pov do you think has more merit: Pb's or mine?

[Uncle Bill]

hermit>thanks for taking the who's/ whose bait I threw out, it shows the level of you're ( ) pettiness so I don't feel bad about ignoring the rest of you're ( )post that I didn't ,as usual, read.

hehe

I forgot:

[Hermit]

hermit>thanks for taking the who's/ whose bait I threw out, it shows the level of you're ( ) pettiness so I don't feel bad about ignoring the rest of you're ( )post that I didn't ,as usual, read.

you expect me to believe your grammatical error was intentional?.. was "bait"?

Riiight.

[i suppose you having written "the reader will decide for themselves" rather than "the readers will decide for themselves" or "the reader will decide for him/her self" was also "bait", eh? LOL!]

And my correcting your mistake is the excuse you give for not stating a position

on the merit question regarding the debate me and Pb have been having, eh?

..what a cowardly and transparent copout.

With regard to pettiness, afaic your "I don't feel bad about ignoring the rest of you're ( ) post that I didn't, as usual, read" comment reveals the level of you're ( ) pettiness.. and your mendacity. I can't help but wonder what basis it's been upon that you've been dismissing my arguments if, as you claim, you never read my posts.

It's ok if you're unable to counter the arguments/points I make with substantive arguments/points of your own, Billyboy. There's really no need to hide behind a "I never read your posts" copout. It might give you solace to know that you're not alone in your state of intellectual vapidity, muh-man. Pb and overthehillsandouttolunch are right there with you. But I give them credit for trying at least. They're not intellectual cowards like you are. They might be intellectual midgets, perhaps*,.. but they're not cowards. Show some courage.. and some intelligence.. by stating a substantive, logical position regarding the merits of the debate Pb and I have been having about Hillary's mathematical chances of winning the nomination.

Come on, Billyboy,.. *CLICK*.

oh yeah,.. almost forgot..

* just kidding, dudes.

[Uncle Bill]

Clinton to Obama: Let's debate like Lincoln

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/26/obama.debate/

Sen. Hillary Clinton called for a Lincoln-Douglas-style debate with no moderator against her rival, Sen. Barack Obama, who says no more debates are needed before the May primaries.

I think he meant to say "no more debate losses are needed before the May primaries". What's he afraid of? It would be out of the ordinary and worth watching, unlike the usual debates.

I still think she should run as an independent if the moveon.org types deny her her due. She has a wider appeal than nobama.

GO HILLARY!! lol

[zosodude13]

for all you NObama fans, would you care to share a POLICY you dont like about him that would stop you from supporting him?

any good hillary supporter would have some facts about his plans for the economy, Iraq and so on and why there arnt as good as Hillary's plans (if you know what her plans are )

so, show hermit and I what cha' got!

[Hermit]

Your numbers that you keep posting are not consistant with those on CNN. do you really think Im going to take your word over that of Bill Snyder?

Good lord, man,.. we've already covered this ground. -->

The numbers aren't "mine". I get the numbers I post from a number (pardon the pun) of sources, and I usually post a link to the source. Fwiw, Ive been getting popular vote total numbers from *this site*, and Ive been getting delegate total numbers mostly from *here*, but I also check the totals as listed *here* and *here*.

Do I "spin" what those numbers might mean?.. sure. This is politics afterall.

But I also back up my "spin" with logic and sound rationale,.. unlike you who

tends to do nothing but repeat the same Clinton spin lines over and over again.

And btw.. who's Bill Snyder?

And why the hell would you take his word rather than mine?

Hillary is the only smart choice dude. I havent met anyone in the real world that shares your sentiments. Thus, I think you are a standout.

According to the popular vote totals of the primaries that have taken place thus far (for

the source, see the link in the above quote),.. 14,418,691 people have voted for Obama.

[in case you can't make sense of a number containing

so many digits,.. it's "14 million, 418 thousand, 691".]

Thus, I think I'm hardly a standout.

Don't you ever tire of making absurd statements?

cheers, bud.

Go Obama!!

[Hermit]

so, show hermit and I what cha' got!

I hope you're not holding your breath, friend.

Uncle Billyboy and Pb don't support Obama or Clinton; they're just nattering naybobs who enjoy validating overthehillsandouttolunch's rabid Hillarymania and otherwise demeaning democrats and liberals. Overthehillsandouttolunch is so out to lunch that he thinks Uncle Billyboy and Pb are on his side. Overthehillsandouttolunch is also so out to lunch that he doesn't realize that Clinton and Obama espouse values and political policy ideas/plans that are very similar.. so much so that they're essentially running on the same platform. Outtolunch doesn't get it that if he supports Clinton, which he clearly does, he ought to also be willing to support Obama in the general election against the republican candidate.

Outtolunch's support for, and preference for, Clinton is politically reasonable enough (though his rationale most often isn't presented very reasonably), and I'm sure that you don't begrudge him his preference for Hillary any more than I do, zosodude. It's unfortunate though that he's so rabidly Pro-Clinton that he's become just as rabidly anti-Obama. He doesn't realize that (his) anti-Obama diatribe is harmful to the democratic party and is helpful to the republican party. He doesn't realize that his anti-Obama ravings and smears undermine the political agenda that he, as a Clinton supporter, shares with Barack Obama and other democrats at large.

We'll see if Outtolunch is able to identify any specific (and significant) differences between Clinton's and Obama's policy ideas. When he comes up empty handed, maybe he'll start to realize that there's really no need for him to keep demonizing Obama. Maybe. Unfortunately, I think the chances of his even trying to identify significant policy differences between Clinton and Obama is about as mathematically unlikely as Hillary's mathematical chances of winning the nomination via pledged delegates. Which brings me back to..

..I hope you're not holding your breath, friend.