Whats good for Gore, isn't Sauce for Clinton

As Time Runs Short, Clinton Claims Lead in Popular Vote - New York Times: "Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is entering the Kentucky and Oregon primaries on Tuesday with one of the most pugnacious political messages of her campaign: That she is ahead in the national popular vote when all votes are counted, including from the unsanctioned primaries in Michigan and Florida, and that party leaders who have a vote as super-delegates should reflect this level of appeal." Okay is this beginning to sound like the 2000 election to anyone else??

Isn't this the same whining that all the democrats use when it comes to Bush's election?? "He didn't win the popular vote -- he's not my president" ... its all over the place ... just check out some of the comment posts on YouTube if you don't think this is still going on (never mind the total trouncing he gave Kerry).

But for some reason this same standard is NOT being applied for Hillary.

She is leading the popular vote but because Obama leads in delegates (read 'electoral votes') they are ready to crown him the nominee.

Even if he gets the majority of electoral votes delegates he still will NOT have the numbers necessary to win out right. If Clinton had not ran, I still don't think he would have gotten it ... if he hadn't won, I think Clinton would have.

No democratic president has ever won the white house who has NOT taken West Virginia --- Obama got totally trounced in WV! He got stomped. Analists have said that West Virginia is most likely to go Republican this election than vote for Obama - even if Hillary asked them to vote for him, even if she was his running mate.

Wonder how the DNC would feel if Hillary decided to fight for this nomination in the courts the way they tried to fight for the Presidency in 2000? how would they feel if the courts got to decide the fate of the party just because she didn't like the numbers ... would they want to divide the party the way they divided the nation?