What is the problem?

French kissing a child under 13
In Virginia not a felony, merely
makes you a sex offender.

First, to anonymous: Of course anyone who wishes to run for office in Idaho should be allowed to do so. And no, no one is “entitled” to any office. But being a simple soul, I wonder why Walt Minnick didn’t run for Congress in the last election? He is independently wealthy and could have done so. Now I wonder why he picked district one in which to run, as in Idaho we don’t have many good democratic candidates, and he could just as easily run in district two where there would be no competition. I think his explanation that he’s building a house in district one is rather feeble. So it seems to me, he is either just a rich guy who recently decided he needed a new toy (a seat in Congress), or there is some other reason he decided to run against Grant at this particular time. I cannot help but wonder just what that reason is. And I do not believe it was a decision made by Minnick independently of the boys of Boise. The idea that Minnick can beat Sali and Grant cannot strikes me as equally feeble. So welcome to Idaho, and stop pretending.

As above, I realize that I am a rather simple person, from a simple background, living in a simple small town, in a pretty simple state, in a simply remote part of the mainland U.S. I admit to not being as sophisticated as my urban cousins. So kindly explain to me what the problem is. We have two people running for the democratic nomination for the highest office in the land (probably the highest office on earth). One of them is ahead in the number of delegates, is also ahead in the popular vote (I believe), has won the most states, and, if things play out pretty much as predicted, is going to stay in the lead with the most delegates no matter what else happens. He has just won in Wyoming and is predicted to win in Mississippi as well. So, even if he loses most or all of the remaining states, including Pennsylvania, and gets no further delegates (highly unlikely if not impossible), and even if Florida and Michigan somehow get to change the rules and get back into the picture, he is still going to be ahead in delegates, if not also in the popular vote. So what is the problem? He wins, his opponent loses. But, ah, I guess what is happening is the same thing that I encountered on my kindergarten playground, and has plagued us forever. There are, unfortunately, those individuals who simply refuse to play by the rules. There appears to be no way Clinton can possibly end up with more delegates. At best she can keep Obama from having a sufficient number to win outright. The solution to this problem would presumably be found in the special delegates who could decide who wins. Many believe they should simply go along with who has the most regular delegates in which case Obama would clearly win. If they decided against the one with the most delegates, who won fair and square, there would be a majority of very outraged voters. This strikes me as most interesting. If the win is given to Obama, on the basis of having won the most delegates (and perhaps the popular vote as well), the Clinton supporters would have a right to be disappointed, but at least they would have lost fair and square. If, on the other hand, the win is awarded to Clinton, she will have won only through foul play and trickery, in which case the Obama supporters will not only be disappointed, but outraged (and rightly so). So I ask again, what is the problem? To the winner goes the spoils. Since when would they go to the loser? Color me simple minded if you will. I still believe in truth and beauty and justice. In the meanwhile Clinton seems determined to destroy the democratic party if she doesn’t get her way. I want to know (1) where did she raise the 35 million dollars so quickly, (2) why won’t she release her tax returns, (3) why won’t Bill tell us who financed his Presidential library, and (4) why won’t he release the paperwork related to his final Presidential pardons?

LKBIQ:
“When I was a boy I was told anybody could become President; I’m beginning to believe it.”
Clarence Darrow