The band...

The band...named Beirut...

People I Admire...

NBA Playoffs

My late prediction: Los Angeles Lakers over the Detroit Pistons in 6 (or 7) games. I don't like either team, but I hope it's exciting and no one gets hurt.

I'm cheering for the New Orleans Hornets and Cleveland Cavaliers, but I doubt they will make it.

Prejudice, Discrimination, and Racism in Perspective

It's my belief that voters rarely vote for someone simply based on race. Historically speaking, voters' options were primarily limited to wealthy white males. And minorities were not even allowed to vote for many years. Fortunately, black males earned the right to vote in 1870 by means of the 15th Amendment. However, unconstitutional Jim Crow laws prevented many black males from voting. And all females regardless of race earned the right to vote in 1920 thanks to the 19th Amendment. Finally, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 established equal rights for all minorities.

For the record, the United States was not the first country to grant universal voting rights to all citizens. That achievement belongs to the Corsican Republic whose constitution included universal suffrage in 1755.

A simple definition of prejudice is pre-judgment. A more detailed definition is a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience (Oxford).
Simply put, prejudice = beliefs (attitudes).

Discrimination is defined as the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex (Oxford).
Simply put, discrimination = actions.

Racism is prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races (Oxford).
Simply put, racism = actions based on beliefs.

And minority is defined as a relatively small group of people, esp. one commonly discriminated against in a community, society, or nation, differing from others in race, religion, language, or political persuasion (Oxford). Another definition is a group that has less power than the dominant group.

Clearly, someone can be prejudiced without discriminating, but discrimination implies a preconceived opinion (prejudice). Simply put, a prejudiced person can hold preconceived opinions of someone without ever acting on those prejudices. However, someone who discriminates is clearly demonstrating his or her prejudices in the form of actions.

So can minorities be prejudiced, discriminatory, and racist? Obviously, members of a minority group can hold prejudices against others. And it's also clear that members of a minority group can also discriminate, but his or her discrimination may have little or no impact due to an imbalance of power. Remember, a minority is a group with less power commonly discriminated against. In fact, definitions of majority do not imply that they are discriminated against. In reality, members of the majority are more effective at discriminating because they hold a majority, if not all, of the power. This is where racism comes in. Racism needs to be thought of as a system of prejudice and discrimination imposed by those in power, the majority.

So another, more accurate, definition of racism is:
racism = prejudice and discrimination + power
A more detailed definition of racism is:

Racial prejudice and discrimination that are supported by institutional power and authority. The critical element that differentiates racism from prejudice and discrimination is the use of institutional power and authority to support prejudices and enforce discriminatory behaviors in systematic ways with far-reaching outcomes and effects. In the United States, racism is based on the ideology of White (European) supremacy and is used to the advantage of White people and the disadvantage of people of color. (Enid Lee, Deborah Menkart, and Margo Okazawa-Rey; Beyond Heroes and Holidays: A Practical Guide to K-12 Anti-Racist, Multicultural Education and Staff Development)

Failure to view racism as part of a historical context only serves to perpetuate the system of racism which dominated and still disgraces American society. Very few would deny that we still have racism in the United States. A classic example of how the system of racism continues to disgrace American society is found in South Carolina where the Confederate flag (a symbol of racism) flew with the American flag on top of the State House from 1962 to 2000. It has since been removed but the flag now flies in front of the state capitol next to a monument honoring fallen Confederate soldiers. The year 1962 is significant because it was at the height of the Civil Rights Movement. Simply put, the Confederate flag was and still is used as a means of intimidation against blacks seeking more power. Use of the Confederate flag is equal to the use of the Nazi flag against Jews, and flying a Confederate flag at a government facility is a form of state-sponsored racism. Imagine what would happen if a government facility flew the Nazi flag. Hopefully, you get the picture.

Are people racist when they vote for or against a particular candidate simply based on race? I wouldn't go that far, but people who vote simply based on race are certainly discriminating. Obviously, voters cannot discriminate based on race when there is only one race to choose from. Historically, minority voters rarely had the opportunity to vote for someone other than a white male. From 1776 when the Declaration of Independence stated that "all humans are created equal" until 1865, black males couldn't vote or run for office at all. And from 1865 until 1964, blacks had to contend with Jim Crow laws which made it more difficult for some blacks to vote. And it wasn't until 1920 that black women had the right to vote.

Do blacks who discriminate simply based on race when voting do so because they think their race is superior? Or is the discrimination based on gaining more power within society? Obviously, blacks could discriminate based on a belief of racial superiority, but it's more likely to be based on gaining more power. And remember that blacks often don't have any minority candidates to chose from. So voting for a white candidate often represents a vote for the candidate most likely to have the black community's interests at heart.

Do whites who discriminate simply based on race when voting do so because they think their race is superior? Or do whites discriminate when voting to gain or maintain more power within society? Again, I think the vote has more to do with power, but in this case, the vote to gain or maintain power is more significant because it serves to exclude minorities from positions from which they can create or maintain a level playing field. If minorities are routinely excluded from such positions, then they become dependent on others for social change. For example, blacks were dependent on President Lincoln and the Union Army during the Civil War, and they were also dependent on President Johnson and the US Congress for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Certainly, blacks such as Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, and Rosa Parks made significant contributions to the process, but the final legislation was ultimately in the hands of white males. Although the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed, 30% of the elected white males voted against it.

If blacks had been granted their freedom in 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was written, the issue of race and politics would be an afterthought. But blacks and other minorities did not gain equality (on paper) until 1964, and even then 30% of the elected officials didn't want it. As a result, we are still talking about race when we should be beyond race. By the way, there were plenty of people in 1776 who thought we should have abandoned the institution of slavery. Unfortunately, our founding fathers listened more to money interests than moral interests. There was a huge conflict of interests because many of the founding fathers owned slaves.

Anyway, blacks could certainly discriminate when voting in order to gain enough power to establish a system of racism, but anyone who believes we are even close to such a system is clearly in error. Some point to affirmative action as a system of racism. Affirmative action was rightfully "implemented in the 1950s to redress the negative effects of past discrimination and to encourage public institutions such as universities, hospitals, and police forces to be more representative of the population." Nonetheless, some believe affirmative action has gone too far in securing positions for minorities; that blacks and other minorities unfairly gain positions at the expense of whites. Some whites claim they are being unfairly treated simply because of their race and the unfortunate timing of their existence on earth.

But anyone who suggests that the unfair treatment of whites as a result of affirmative action is anywhere close to the injustices that blacks suffered for hundreds of years is clearly wrong. I often hear the phrase "life ain't fair." Well, that's true, sometimes it isn't. Life wasn't fair for all the slaves brought to America from 1654 to 1865. And life wasn't fair for blacks and other minorities until 1964. Like it or not, some injustices are greater than others and some injustices require amends.

Is life fairer in the United States today? Absolutely, but we still have work to do. Today, the 110th Congress is composed of 86% whites and 14% racial minorities. This is out of proportion with the population at large (approximately 70% white and 30% non-white). This is a lot better than having 100% white in Congress but it still needs improving.

By the way, the US Supreme Court has, rightly or wrongly, started to reverse the course of affirmative action. For many, affirmative action was only meant to be a temporary means of correcting past mistakes. But I doubt that some minorities like Native Americans will ever let affirmative action disappear. Why should they?

As I mentioned earlier, I believe voters rarely vote for someone simply based on race, but we would be naive to think it doesn't happen. In the end, however, I think a person's vote has more to do with who will serve his or her interests. Unfortunately, when people start thinking and acting according to the interests of MY "BIOLOGICAL" RACE instead of the interests of THE HUMAN RACE, their way of thinking and actions inevitably become racist.

Early Look at Possible Vice Presidents

Here's an early look at possible Vice Presidents for the Democrats (Obama) and Republicans (McCain).

Preface: As I've mentioned before, I don't think age, gender, race or religion should be a factor when choosing a President or Vice-President, but I'm realistic enough to know that it still does matter to many people. For that reason, I have included these demographics as pros or cons for each of the potential vice presidents.

Democrats (Obama)
1. Jim Webb of Virginia (current junior Senator, former Secretary of the Navy)
Pros: White male with military experience; anti-Iraq War; attack-dog mentality; former Republican from possible swing state; age 62 (to counter Obama's youth)
Cons: Real or perceived over-aggressiveness; age 62 (perhaps too old for future of party)

2. Tim Kaine of Virginia (current Governor)
Pros: Washington outsider from possible swing state; 14 years of local and state political experience including city council, mayor, lieutenant governor, and governor; white male; Roman Catholic; age 50 (future potential)
Cons: Relative unknown; age 50 (too young of a ticket)

3. John Edwards of North Carolina (former junior Senator)
Pros: White male populist; admits mistakes; anti-poverty work; age 54 (future potential)
Cons: Couldn't carry home state in 2004 election; admitted too many mistakes

4. Wesley Clark of Arkansas (retired 4-star general)
Pros: White male with military experience; age 63 (same as Webb)
Cons: Uninspiring candidate; ties to Clintons; age 63 (same as Webb)

5. Hillary Clinton of New York (current junior Senator)
Pros: White female with 35 years of experience; health care reform; women's rights; popular among older and less-educated Democrats; age 60 (same as Webb)
Cons: Female; represents old Democratic Party; admits she has lots of baggage; baggage has not been completely vetted (one example: 1996 Bosnia trip); campaign debt; real or perceived negativity toward Obama; age 60 (same as Webb)

Who Didn't Make the Democratic List and Why:
Evan Bayh of IN: possible dark horse, but not likely to carry Indiana for Democrats
Ed Rendell of PA: age 64; ties to Clintons
Ted Strickland of OH: age 66; ties to Clintons
Bill Richardson of NM: minority; not a very good speaker or debater
Joe Biden of DE: age 65; from solid Democratic state
Chris Dodd of CT: age 63; from solid Democratic state
Al Gore of TN: never gonna happen; couldn't win home state of TN in 2000
Kathleen Sebelius of KS: female; boring speaker (reminds me of John Kerry)
Mark Warner of VA: currently running for an important Senate position
Chuck Hagel of NE: two words: current Republican

Republicans (McCain)
1. Charlie Crist of Florida (current Governor)
Pros: one word, Florida; Washington outsider; age 51
Cons: rumors of homosexuality

2. Mark Sanford of South Carolina (current Governor)
Pros: Governor; perceived as Washington outsider; age 47
Cons: Relative unknown; from solid Republican state

3. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas (former Governor)
Pros: appeals to Religious Right; former Governor; charismatic; age 52
Cons: appeals to Religious Right; from solid Republican state

4. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts (former Governor)
Pros: appeals to social conservatives; former Governor; Washington outsider; age 61 (but looks much younger)
Cons: perceived as flip-flopper; Mormon; not sure McCain likes him; not likely to carry Massachusetts for Republicans

5. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut
Pros: acts and talks like a Republican; good friend of McCain
Cons: two words, current Democrat

Who Didn't Make the Republican List and Why:
Tim Pawlenty of MN: Minnesota looks tempting but a McCain-Pawlenty ticket doesn't
Jim Gibbons of NV: age 63; relative unknown; Mormon
Colin Powell: age 71; disenchanted with Republicans; now believes Iraq War was mistake
JC Watts of OK: McCain knows he's not going to get many black votes even if he has a black person on the ticket
Condoleezza Rice: see JC Watts; McCain and Rice on same ticket = too much Iraq
Rick Perry of TX: Voters are now leery of governors from Texas
Bobby Jindal of LA: at 36, still a political lightweight: too much too soon = Quayle

Why It's Okay to Vote for Obama

1. He's got a specific plan for bringing about change to politics as usual in America. You may not agree with his plan, but you cannot say he doesn't have a plan or lacks specifics. Click here for his plan, all 64 pages of it. If you want to continue politics as usual, please don't vote for Obama. And if you're a Republican, many prominent conservatives including Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Michelle Malkin have expressed serious concerns about John McCain. Limbaugh and Coulter even suggested that there's not much difference between McCain and the Democrats. So why not vote for Obama?

2. Obama opposed the Iraq War from the beginning, a war that even the conservative National Review said was a mistake. And here is what the late William F. Buckley Jr. had to say, "Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans." Let me repeat, these are conservative Republicans saying the Iraq War was a mistake and failure. So what difference does it make if Obama says it was a mistake?

3. Obama realizes that "It's the war economy, stupid." Many people don't make the connection between the Iraq War and our stagnant, if not recessive, economy. The average gas price before invading Iraq was $1.82, but now the national average is $3.39 with averages expected to hit $3.60 by summer. And the cost of the war for US taxpayers: 12 Billion dollars per month, that's 400 Million dollars per day. If you want to keep spending this amount of money on an unnecessary war, please don't vote for Obama.

4. Obama realizes that sometimes it's necessary to talk with our enemies. Remember when Ronald Reagan sat down at the table with the evil Soviet Union? Or when Donald Rumsfeld visited Saddam Hussein? And Iraq's current Prime Minister al-Maliki recently met with Iranian President Ahmadinejad. And even Reagan's administration negotiated with Iran. In 1985, the Reagan administration illegally agreed to sell weapons to Iran, a state sponsor of terror, in exchange for hostages. In the end only 3 hostages were released, but the US made enough money to help fund a "freedom fighting" militia in Nicaragua who engaged in terrorist activities. And if you're a Christian, please remember what Jesus said, "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you."

5. Obama is a healer. This is not to say that McCain or Clinton couldn’t be healers. I’m sure they could, but Obama represents the best chance of healing a wounded citizenry. I realize the last so-called healer didn’t work out too well. Bush claimed to be a uniter, but unfortunately many perceived him as part of the problem. I will not put all of the blame on Bush’s shoulders, but he should bear a good deal of it. It certainly doesn’t help when you have one of the most despised vice presidents of all time, a person who only listens to opinion polls when it suits his agenda (Click here and here for videos). Anyway, Obama doesn’t seem to think we’re as divided as it might appear. Obama had this to say in a 2006 interview, “The country is not as polarized as our politics would suggest.” Let’s hope he’s correct.

Each candidate has positives and negatives. Unfortunately, most politicians and voters respond to negativity, and since I’m not afraid to address Obama’s negatives, I will discuss that here. One of Obama’s negatives involves the words of his former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Opponents of Obama can’t understand how Obama could have stayed in a church with such a leader for 20 years. What opponents incorrectly assume is that Rev. Wright preached “God Damn America” every week. If he did, where are the tapes? If more tapes appear, I’ll be the first to condemn them, but to my knowledge, only two clips were played endlessly on so-called news channels. But one must not forget the importance of context.

Blacks in America were slaves for 250 years, followed by another hundred years or more of inequality (see Jim Crow Laws). Rev Wright was born in 1941 and grew up during the most violent time of America's domestic history. During this time, it goes without saying that Rev Wright was subject to an oppressive culture on a daily basis. Many blacks living during this time witnessed some of the most inhumane treatment of blacks and others on a daily basis. And in 1961 Rev Wright honored his country by serving in the armed forces even before his country would honor him or his race as equals. And even though the Civil Rights Amendment of 1964 was passed, equality did not happen over night. Like Mr. Obama said, Rev. Wright is part of a different generation, and some of them haven't gotten over the past; not unlike the many Jews who have vowed to forgive but never forget the atrocities of Nazi Germany and others. And let's not forget the Native Americans and their ongoing grievances with the US government. And let's not forget women's struggle for the right to vote and equal rights. I certainly believe all these groups have legitimate arguments and frustrations with the governments that oppressed them, especially those people who actually lived under such oppression (like Rev. Wright did). By the way, Rev. Wright and others are not likely to forget that the Confederate Flag flew with the American Flag on top of the South Carolina State House from 1962 to 2000. It has since been removed but the flag now flies in front of the state capitol next to a monument honoring fallen Confederate soldiers.

Anyway, what was Obama’s response to Rev. Wright? Obama denounced and rejected Rev. Wright's comments saying, "Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue."

So let me put this all into perspective by asking you a few questions. How could any presidential candidate prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have sat in church week after week listening to preachers talk about how God and Jesus loved everyone equally while non-whites were degraded on a daily basis outside the church building? And this next question is specifically for whites: How many of you have disowned family or friends outright who said things far worse than “God Damn America,” words such as nigger, coon, or spade? Obama considers Rev. Wright family, and he did what most of us have always done; that is, he condemned the words but not the person, Obama attacked the sin, not the sinner. Even Mike Huckabee and other preachers agree with Obama on this (Click here and here for links). Even so, we (including all races) have come a long way, but we (everybody) still have work to do.

Here’s another question: How is “God Damn America” any different from Rev. Jerry Falwell’s comment that America deserved to be attacked on 9/11? (Click here for video). Or what about Rev. John Hagee’s statement that the Catholic Church is the Great Whore? John McCain rightly called Falwell and others “agents of intolerance” in 2000, but he kissed and made up in 2006 when he decided to run for president again. McCain even accepted the endorsement of John Hagee. And what was McCain’s response? “When he endorses me, it does not mean that I embrace everything that he stands for and believes.” I totally agree with McCain, but does the same standard apply to Obama? (Click here for video).

I don’t agree with Rev. Wright, Rev. Falwell, or Rev. Hagee, but that doesn’t mean they can’t express their First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech. This is, after all, America. To say they can’t say such things is simply un-American. And what did Thomas Jefferson have to say about dissent? “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

Another negative associated with Obama is his so-called lack of patriotism. Most of this stems from his decision not to wear a flag pin. Here is Obama’s response: “You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest; instead I’m gonna try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism.” Enough said. If you don’t agree then you can just be like those bleeding heart liberals and wear your heart or, in this case, your flag on your sleeve, I mean lapel.

I included a section on Obama’s negatives to emphasize the fact that we all make mistakes and have weaknesses. It doesn't matter if you are Democratic, Republican, Independent, etc. I could just have easily spent my entire time writing about McCain’s and Clinton’s negatives, but I don’t respond well to negativity and neither should you. The world would certainly be a better place if we didn’t.

Anyway, you can denounce Obama's speeches and what he represents if you like, but you would only end up sounding like Hillary Clinton who stated, "We don't need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered."

I prefer to believe in hope: “Yes, we can heal this nation. Yes, we can seize our future. And as we leave this great state with a new wind at our backs and we take this journey across this great country, a country we love, with the message we carry from the plains of Iowa to the hills of New Hampshire, from the Nevada desert to the South Carolina coast, the same message we had when we were up and when we were down, that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we will hope.”

Even if you still don’t think Obama is a healer, he’s certainly no less a uniter than Bush. At least Obama’s words or actions (or even those of his pastor) haven’t divided a nation against a war that has killed 4036 US soldiers and many thousands of Iraqis.

This year, the distinctions are clear: more of the same or a fresh start. Which are you going to choose?

Clinton vs Obama (The Stats)

Here's a look at some 2008 Democratic Campaign Statistics:

Pledged Delegates (Includes Florida and Michigan)
Obama 1768 (+105)
Clinton 1663

Super Delegates
Obama 307 (+27)
Clinton 280

Total Delegates (Includes Florida and Michigan)
Obama 2075 (+132)
Clinton 1943

Popular Vote (Includes Florida and Michigan)
Obama 47.6%
Clinton 47.7% (+0.1)

Contests Won (Includes Florida and Michigan)
Obama 33 (+12)
Clinton 21

Primaries Won (Includes Florida and Michigan)
Obama 19
Clinton 19

Caucuses Won
Obama 14 (+12)
Clinton 2

Democratic States Won (According to 2004 Results)
Obama 12 (+4)
Clinton 8

Republican States Won (According to 2004 Results)
Obama 17 (+5)
Clinton 12

Big States Won (70 or more delegates)
Obama 10
Clinton 11 (+1)

Small States Won (Less than 70 delegates)
Obama 19 (+10)
Clinton 9

Money Raised
Obama $234,745,081 (+ $45,648,028)
Clinton $189,097,053

Categories Won
Obama 9 (+7)
Clinton 2

Upcoming Contests (Predicted Winners)
Obama 2 (SD, MT)
Clinton 0
Toss-up 1 (Puerto Rico)

Commentary:
I'm a life-long Independent who supports Obama for the Democratic nomination. I'm still undecided about voting for Clinton if she happens to obtain the nomination. Personally, I see very little difference between Washington DC Republicans and Democrats when it comes to corporate influence, over-spending, waste, voting to authorize unnecessary wars, disconnect from middle and lower class citizens, trade, and politics as usual (partisanship). And the longer this democratic process continues, the more Clinton acts like a Washington DC Republican.

When the nomination process began, conventional wisdom, the media, and the Clinton campaign projected that the nomination was Hillary Clinton's to win or lose. Even Mrs. Clinton said the process would be over on February 5, 2008 (click here for video). Well, conventional wisdom, the media, and Clinton were wrong.

Mrs. Clinton and the Clinton brand of politics are losing the election to a candidate who was a relative unknown until 2004, the year Barack Obama came on the scene at the Democratic National Convention. How could this have happened? How could Mrs. Clinton and the Clinton Machine be losing to such a political lightweight? How could the Clintons be losing in fundraising, the popular vote, number of pledged delegates, and number of contests won (even if you include Florida and Michigan)? How is this possible? How could the former First Lady of a popular Democratic president, a person with 35 years of experience and thousands of political ties, be losing to a bi-racial man whose father was from Kenya and who once lived in Indonesia? And how could the Clintons be losing to a man whose preacher once said "God Damn America"? It just doesn't seem possible. Perhaps it is the "vast right-wing conspiracy" Mrs. Clinton talked about many years ago. Perhaps "THEY" are behind this.

Or maybe it's something else. Perhaps it's Mr. Obama's character; his genuineness, intelligence, and inspiration. Or maybe it's because he doesn't change himself, his message, or his tactics every other week. Or perhaps it's because he doesn't appear desperate to win at all costs. Or maybe it's because he doesn't want to change the rules. Or possibly it's because he doesn't pit "US" against "THEM". Or maybe it's because he doesn't appear to think he's somehow entitled to the presidency. Or perhaps it's because he appeals to people's hopes that the government can and should empower people from the bottom up, not the top down. Or maybe it's because he stays on message week after week and talks about the issues (Those who say he doesn't give specifics are not listening or looking. Click here for Mr. Obama's specifics). Or possibly it's because words do matter, and people believe he will put his words into action (if given the chance). As Mrs. Clinton said, actions speak louder than words. Indeed, Mrs. Clinton has 35 years of action, but the majority of people just aren't buying it. I wonder why.

Perhaps Mr. Obama is winning because he opposed the war in Iraq on principle from the beginning while Mrs. Clinton appears to have favored the war for political reasons. Or maybe it's because Mr. Obama is acting "dovish" or "feminine" while Mrs. Clinton is acting "hawkish" or "masculine". Or possibly it's like Mrs. Geraldine Ferraro said, it's because Mr. Obama is black or because America is more sexist than racist. I hope not.

Or maybe it's because Mr. Obama's positives are higher and his negatives are lower than Mrs. Clinton's. And why should we believe Mrs. Clinton when she says she is more electable in the General Election when she can't even win her party's own primary election? And why should we trust that Mrs. Clinton will be better in the General Election when she has to lend her own campaign 5 MILLION dollars and she can't even raise more funds than her opponent in the primary election? Where are the organizational skills? Where is the Clinton Machine?

I agree with both candidates that Mrs. Clinton should stay in the race until June 3, the date of the last primaries. When the dust has settled, the (conceptually undemocratic) Super Delegates should vote for the candidate with the most Pledged Delegates. Hopefully, that candidate will also have the popular vote, but if he or she doesn't, get over it. We all know the popular vote is not the way we elect our nominees or presidents. If you want to change the rules, do it before the process begins, not during it.

Considering the statistics above, I find it difficult to believe that the Super Delegates or anyone else will override the "will of the people" (Look at the stats). As you might have noticed, I included the results from Florida and Michigan for the sake of argument. Even if you include these results, Clinton is still losing. And if Clinton somehow obtains the nomination without winning the Pledged Delegates, I will probably vote for a third party candidate.

The nomination was Mrs. Clinton's to win or lose. She lost it.
Or maybe you could say Obama won it.