Hillary says it all....

Great quote from Hillary Clinton when asked why she should be the next president:

"I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."

Why the Democrats are on course to lose...

This is from my friend Barry, a fervent Democrat.

If you had any lingering doubts about how dumb the Democratic Party is, this should remove them.

We've all heard how close the Democratic nomination "fight" is--virtually assured of going all the way to the Convention held ONE WEEK BEFORE LABOR DAY, while McCain has now wrapped up the Republican nomination and can direct all his efforts and resources to winning the general election in November. Without opposition or discord.

But what the press DOESN'T tell you, is how this came about. Let's take this most recent Super Tuesday for instance:

o Hillary Clinton won New York by SEVENTEEN points over Obama (57-40%), while garnering more than THREE TIMES the total votes that GOP winner John McCain received (1,003,623 vs. 310,014). Yet, because the Democratic primaries are ALL "proportional" contests in which the delegates are divided up by district while the GOP primaries are mostly "winner take all," Hillary was awarded 177 delegates to Obama's 94...while McCain pocketed all 101 of his party's delegates!! So, in drawing over 693,000 more votes in N.Y. than McCain, her margin over her closest opponent was 83 while his was 101.

But wait, it gets worse...

o The "biggest prize" of the night was clearly California--and all the candidates campaigned extensively there, and expended the most resources of any state to date. Hillary beat Obama by TEN full points in a state where over 4 million votes were cast, getting 400,000 more than her nearest rival. McCain beat Romney by just EIGHT points, with far less than half the total votes casts (the fewer the votes, obviously, the easier it is to have a larger % thereof), while getting just 164,000 more than Romney (41% of Clinton's margin). And what was her reward: 43 more delegates than Obama (195-152) while McCain picked up all 149 at stake in the Republican primary. So, for getting way less than half the total votes Clinton attracted (965,900 to her 2,132,166), McCain stretched his advantage over his only rival by 106 more delegates than she did!

o How about the hotly-contested New Jersey primary you ask? Clinton won by TEN full percentage points...yet just 11 delegates. Yep, she won 54-44% or 602,576 to 492,186 and was awarded 59 delegates to his 48. McCain got about HALF the votes she did (310,427)...and all 52 delegates! So he got nearly FIVE times the "bump" for HALF the votes.

o Despite the "huge" endorsements of Ted and Caroline Kennedy, and with the other Massachusetts Senator (and last party presidential candidate) John Kerry actively and enthusiastically campaigning for him, Obama lost the state to Clinton by a whopping FIFTEEN points (56-41%)! Yet her yield, based on each district, was just 17 delegates (55-38))--a mere two more than the percentage points she won by with 1.2 million votes cast! For comparison, Romney won the state of which he was recently Governor by a margin 50% less than she did!

o How about a solid "red state" like Oklahoma? Clinton romped over Obama with FIFTY-FIVE percent, to his 31. McCain edged Huckabee by a mere 12,000 votes (and 4%)--more than 86,000 fewer votes than Hillary's margin of victory. In a Republican stronghold! For which he received a 26 delegate margin (32-6) while hers was just 10 (24-14).

o I could go on and on--she won Tennessee by THIRTEEN points...yet just 12 delegates--but let's not forget how the Democratic Party butchered the delegate-rich Florida and Michigan primaries. We keep hearing how she "didn't really win them"...however, all the candidates had an equal chance to be voted for (even though they were forced not to campaign or advertise in the "rogue" states), and the fact is, Clinton got 50% of the vote in a FOUR person race in Florida and 56% in Michigan (prompting that immortal headline in the Washington Post: "44 Percent Vote Against Clinton"). Florida had 210 delegates at stake, and Michigan 156. In the former, Hillary beat Obama by SEVENTEEN points...and received no delegates. McCain squeaked by Romney 36-31% (3% more than the Democratic loser), and walked away with all 57 Florida delegates. So in the state of Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris, Clinton got 164,000 more votes in the primary than McCain...and 57 fewer delegates! Seems fair and reasonable to me...

Had these two states both awarded delegates identically, Hillary would have netted 366 delegates more than Obama.

And it's fair to assume that the candidates haven't campaigned LESS enthusiastically so far because their states were proportional rather than winner-take-all...clearly, each did everything he or she could to win each primary.

Let's be clear (even though media, to my knowledge, has never once pointed this out): If the Democrats and Republicans had the same, or even similar, primary processes this year, both party's nominees would have locked up their nominations after Tuesday...and would thus have an equal opportunity to campaign against each other starting now...

The only difference is that one party devised its rules to select and get behind a single nominee at the earliest possible date, while the other...MY esteemed party...came up with a formula virtually GUARANTEED to prevent that from happening.

And we wonder why we've elected two donkey presidents in the past 44 years.

FYI: The donkey is the symbol of the party, not Barry's take on Presidents Carter and Clinton.

Hillary is still gonna win it...

Against the odds Hillary Clinton did not win the Iowa primary and was actually reduced to third place - albeit only by 0.2 per cent.

However, before everyone rushes to write Senator Clinton off, it should be remembered that in 1992 one man gained only gained 3 per cent in Iowa - a lot less than Sen Clinton's 29.5. His name was Bill Clinton.