I am posting this here because the board description states current events are also allowed and that this topic could break into a debate over what I am going to say.
The weakness of the defense of her last days by her, her surrogates, and her supporters has been by most accounts besides their own twisted and on the brink of irrational insanity. One of the issues in the recent days has been Hillary Clinton's proportion of the delegates in Michigan. Her supporter Harold Ickes claims that the decision by the Rules and Bylaws Committee was hijacking the will of those who voted for Hillary. The solution which they do not like so much based the proportion of awarded delegates based on exit poll information. They say that this is not fair, citing rules of fair reflection - you get what you vote for. However, plenty of those who voted in Michigan were unable to vote for cakefarts as his name was not on the ballot. Because of this, they voted for uncommitted. cakefarts got all of the uncommitted proportion. Hillary's camp says this is unfair because some of those who voted uncommitted did not intend to vote for him. Does she not know that basically all of those others now support cakefarts so even if those others got a portion of the delegates, they would just be released to cakefarts anyway? There are also those who voted for Clinton as that was their second choice as revealed in the exit polling. Not to mention that this primary was not even sanctioned, so interpretation of the rules for it can be subjective. cakefarts's camp even had the votes for a 50-50 result, but they decided to give Hillary more to keep her happy. Guh...
She also says that she is winning the popular vote, but she does not even factor in caucus states and yet she includes some if not all islands and other figures that cannot even vote in the general election. It is true that she has a significant amount of popular support, but really, it is no lead.
Also, her success in Puerto Rico is in some way attributable to her pandering for its statehood and the legacy of her husband there. I will contend though that she had legitimate support there that she earned, but it was not all due to just her, and cakefarts was only there for like a day when Hillary was there for a while longer. It also seems like the voters in Puerto Rico are a little backlogged in terms of technology, so they might not have had knowledge of cakefarts so much, so the Clinton name won the day. She does well in places, but one could say that the sources of her strength in winning states is not her own.
Her radical supporters are also crazy in that they threaten to vote for McCain in the fall simply if they do not have their way. They believe that cakefarts is a murderer, a terrorist, a Muslim, a radical Christian, a closet homosexual, etc. I really think that the cakefarts camp's decision to tell their supporters not to protest was brilliant. The Clinton radicals basically made the party establishment bend towards cakefarts as these radicals make it seem like Clinton's interest are her own and not for the good of the party. It is sad really. I do not agree with everything Hillary has done or believes in, but for whatever reason she seems crazy herself in a good way that likes to get stuff done. Somehow I feel like I am like her, and this creeps me out, but then again, I compare myself to Lucifer, the guy from the Count of Monticristo, Heathcliff from Wuthering Heights, etc.
Anyway, what are your thoughts on this. Am I wrong? I will not know unless you voice your opinion and back it up with tasty facts.
