http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/03/MNE1UOVB1.DTL

Dude, if that is what you get from that article, then I completely understand why you are referred to the way you are on here.

However, you have now blown your cover.  We now know you are actually Katharine Harris.

What's not to understand about that?

My name is spelled  Katherine Harris  

considering that the loser of the popular vote in 2000 is not sitting in the White House, do YOU have any problem with that?

Familiar with the word "NEARLY"?  

That the D's are trying to do something that is somewhat more representative than "Winner take all" is something to be lauded instead of misrepresented.  Could it be even MORE representative?  Possibly.  However, the thought that "winner take all" is more "fair and balanced"...gaaaggghhh uulllpppp...sorry, that term always activates my Faux News gag reflex...is ridiculous.

My point is the Super delegates...You would have to read the entire article..

-- Modified on 2/3/2008 12:15:54 PM

I didn't say the Dems method was perfect.  It was your "Republicans are fair and balanced" bit that gagged me.

Can also add Chris Mathews, Rush Lambaugh, Ann Coulter and others I suppose!

Yep I talked about this in a past post .Hillary  will win because of the Super Delegates and they make up about 1/5 of the total vote .
Look at this site .She has the most and they can change   but Bill and her secured a lot and most will probably stay with Hillary.

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html

-- Modified on 2/3/2008 8:45:10 PM

Did you read the entire article?  Both parties have super delegates as part of their primary system.