Is this how HILLARY intends to unite the country?

Word.

you forgot to add...that when Obama was asked
"boxers or briefs?"

Obama said
"I don't answer those humiliating questions...but whatever the answer is, I look good in them."

Caucuses clearly do not work for anyone, since they are clearly not, statistically speaking, representative...

Remember the 2000 Bush-Gore fiasco and all the talks about killing the electoral college...?

Yet the electoral college system, which produced an outcome still statistically close to the popular vote numbers, was not remotely as skewed as the caucus one, which simply has failed to produce an independent sample of the party base (GOP and Democratic alike).

As I recall GW Bush won a lot of smaller states and finally Florida to beat Gore ? So the smaller one's if a candidate can win them beats bagging the big fish (states).

I don't think Clinton staying in the race divides this nation any more than it already is.

Thoughts on Caucus vs. Primary
I think they BOTH have merit......here's why:(long)
In the most abstract sense, an election is a process that candidates are forced to go through and the results of that election can tell us something about both the candidate and the people who support her. In short, elections serve are tests, plain and simple. Just like any other test what the results tell us will depend on the form the test takes. For instance, consider the difference between a 100 m dash and a marathon. Superficially both tests are the same thing, but deep down they measure very different things about the athletes who participate in them. The 100 m dash measures a person's explosive power whilst a marathon measures his stamina and ability to pace himself. So, too, primaries and cuacuses are tests that are superficially similar but that tell us very different things about the candidates who are able to win them, and a little consideration will go a long way in helping us figure out what these two processes are good for.
In a primary, candidates ask citizens to cast a ballot for them. The citizens are allowed to cast that ballot in a specific location for a finite amount of time - usually about 12 hours on a given day, but "early voting" and mail in voting are becoming more popular as time goes by. This does not require a large commitment on the part of the voter, and the commitment required is being reduced as time goes by. Because of that, ballot box elections tend to have relatively high voter turnout and so the essential factor in determining who will win is: how many people know about the candidate and like him enough, or dislike his opponent enough, to show up and vote. There are, then, two barriers that a candidate must overcome - the people have to know she exists, and know enough to form a presumedly positive opinion of her. So ballot box elections have become primarily a measure of one's ability to manipulate the media, raise money, and to a lesser extent increase turnout with get out the vote efforts. These are primarily skills that help one win the general election, so they are important, but winning elections is not the only job of a candidate. The job the candidate will do once they win the election is probably as important than whether or not she or he wins the election. In fact, it's safe to say that if the electorate could tell reliably the job a candidate would do beforehand then the election would largely hinge on the job the candidate would do. That's where caucuses come in.
In a caucus more is asked of a citizen in terms of time, timing, and know-how. The voter must show up by a specific time, be willing to commit upwards of a few hours, and know how to caucus. None of these things are trivial matters, and it has often been said that the bulk of a campaign's performance comes down to their ability to build a ground organization beforehand. Doing this requires planning, foresight, and the ability to execute on time. These skills may not be crucial in a general election, but they are among the essential skills of an effective leader. Thus some caucus wins are an essential part of a Presidential resume, in my humble opinion, precisely because it utilizes the skills a candidate will need to have when she is no longer a candidate but an elected official.
That's not all you learn from a caucus in comparison to a ballot box election, though. You also learn something about the candidate's supporters. See, supporters who are willing to make the commitment to show up to a caucus are not voters who will be easily swayed. In other words, a caucus allows you to get some feel for the depth of support a candidate inspires. Now, in a general election that would be pretty meaningless, but in a pre-general election contest that's valuable information. See, a candidate who inspires more commitment from his supporters gives him a base that is not going to be as easily swayed or dissuaded from voting by negative advertisements, lies, and dirty tricks - all hallmarks of a Republican campaign. That itself is valuable information because the general election campaign will be run against a Republican, so it's good to know whose supporters will stick with the party come what may, unlike the so-called "Reagan Democrats." This also means that they're the type of supporters are are not likely to take it lying down if they feel the race were wrongfully stolen from their candidate like Bush stole the election from Gore in 2000.
Now, is a caucus a perfect instrument for measuring these features of a candidate? Well, not really, I must confess. If one were to set out to design a test to measure these things I think a better one could be designed. In comparison to ballot box elections, however, this is what they tell you.
Naturally, there are other useful and objective methods that are worth considering, even if not all of them are commonly considered: fundraising, number of donors, number of volunteer hours committed (though this might be easy to falsify), general election matchup polls, overall performance in all swing states, etc, but these are qualitatively different because they don't entail actual performance from the candidates in a formal process or are derived from the processes described above.
That said, I would actually like to see a few more different fundamentally democratic ways for the allotment of state delegates if only because the two we use now don't do a sufficient job of plumbing the depth of a candidate's abilities.

Excellent explanation, dude.

I don't see why caucuses are so bad either. I think that to be effective one should learn to master both.

It seems the caucus is the better method, too. It seems primaries work for people who don't know issues and vote because someone else told them to vote and caucuses work for more educated voters.

sorry. I shouldn't laugh at this, but it made chuckle.."Hillary the size queen"

Indy: Interesting take on the caucus process (never participated in one...so the insight is helpful).

So if caucuses require more of a time commitment and activist role for the voter, is it possible that caucuses give an indication on which way the Superdelegates would vote; that is if Superdelegates really do vote for what is best for the democratic party?

No caucuses do not have merit. It's peer-pressure, plain and simple. When people get into a voting booth alone, they vote differently. Obama is giving kickbacks to college kids to caucus for him. People who work and have families do not have time to stand in a hall for hours.

Obama is a fucking joke. He is the same as getting any idiot off the street, and has done nothing that is valid for running. 20 people have come forward from his school days to his state senate days, and all have said the same thing, he did NOTHING. He hasn't even gotten one major bill through the senate.

He voted for Cheney's energy bill, and now blasts it. He doesn't tell people how he voted. He voted present on Iran. He gave kickbacks to big energy companies, and his Iraq war stance is the same as Hillary's. The difference is, he doesn't know how to actually do it.

We just got over one idiot learning on the job, you want another one? Barack is a disaster. The guy cannot answer one simple question. He's a one word catchphrase. Wait until the convicted terrorist friend and business partner, who he took money from, hits the press. The guy is a con artist, and an empty suit. His despicable wife just dumps on top of all the crap he's associated with.

He hired Jesse Jackson Jr., to speak for him, for Christ's sake. He goes on television saying, Hillary is responsible for Bhutto's death, Hillary didn't cry for Hurricane Katrina victims, etc.

Obama should not be running period. He cannot win. Every state he won overwhelmingly, is a red state that will stay red, and a caucus, which is not a primary. When he lost Ohio, that was the final nail. He cannot win a general election. A two-term senator -- god.

His supporters are all kool-aid drinkers who they themselves cannot give a credible answer as to why they support him. They start throwing out, Abraham Lincon, JFK, Jesus Christ, they're insane. They are the George Bush supporters of 4 years ago. No matter what this man does, it's somebody else's fault, and he's holy. The fainting at the speeches is just the tip of the ice berg. Obama's speeches sound like a person running for student counsel. They're beyond laughable. He should be a baptist preacher.

BTW, NO GAY SHOULD EVER BE VOTING FOR HIM. What this man did is unforgivable. Putting up McClurkin after he was told twice to not use him. He gave the gay community the finger each time. Then he goes out and tells gays to treat homophobes with dignity because they don't know that they are wrong. And before you say anything, the Clintons saved the gays with DODA, getting gays into the military before getting them banned for life, and DOMA, which stopped Republicans from writing gays out of the Constitution. It was done for a reason, and saved us.

This uniting the country crap, is just that. This was George Bush's platform. Get off the idealist bullshit wagon. Start facing reality. This guy is not the second coming. I don't want Pollyana. They're doing the same thing all over again, "I want the candidate I can have a beer with." I don't want a president that acts like a friend. I want someone who will get shit done. Barack came out and admitted that he needs smarter people to help him.

This is the most laughable quote in this entire thread. The Pollyana's plans seem practical? Hillary is a realist. She's not out there proclaiming she's Jesus Christ.

Hillary had an office down the hall, with her own advisers. Yes, she was a critical role. She was behind Bill's presidency all the way through.

Obama's speeches sound like they're written by a four year old. I've never saw a person look more like a used car salesman, selling a lemon. He is a total bore.

Thank you for elevating the discussion here...I've been trying to get past the name calling and try and focus on issues...Calling all of his supporters kool aid drinkers who can't tell you why they support him is a direct insult to me...If youve read this thread I've laid out reasoned arguments on the issues why I prefer obama and welcome any Hillary supporter to do the same so we can have a civil disussion......Pretty strong charge that Obama is paying college kids to caucus for him.....any proof?

speaking of bullshit:

One of my friends was kicked out of the military with a "general" discharge because of her relationship with her girlfriend. So I have no idea where you came up with the conclusion that he GOT them in the military before getting them banned for life, but it's incorrect.

Clinton's don't ask/don't tell policy does not stop the military from discharging servicemember for homosexual contact and they don't get an honorable discharge when it happens.

What Clinton did was eliminate disclosure or inquiry of sexual orientation as an eligibility for service question. Military recruiters are not required to ask a potential recruit "are you homosexual?" nor is a servicemember requried to tell the military if they are a homosexual.

Which may seem like Clinton lifted a ban on homosexuals in the military, but all it did was require them to remain closeted. Clinton's don't ask ... don't tell policy did/does not do anything to stop homosexuals from getting punished for misconduct "general discharge" that otherwise serve honorably in the military. It still happens. Servicemembers are accused of homosexual contact and they investigate and discharge. Still sound Clinton lifted a ban?

If Clinton had made good on his promise to let homosexuals serve, he would have insisted that no servicemember can be discharged for sexual orientation, period.

getting really fed up with reading all the exaggerations of what that administration did. It's hype.

Dude.

You're not even worth replying to. You're not making sense and have resorted to name calling and dogmatism to "prove" your point.

I mean...come on. You call Obama a two term senator (Three in actuality) when Clinton is a one and a third term. No, I'm not implying that she was baking cookies in the White House, but she was not President. President Bill Clinton...not Hillary. Hillary not equal to Bill. She is her own woman. I just wish she'd take credit for the things that SHE did, not things her husband and husband's staff did.

You utilize the argument that people who knew Obama from before said he didn't do anything. Well, people from Bill's cabinet have also stepped forward and said that Hillary didn't do anything.

Are we supposed to believe that one is true and the other false. Fact of the matter, is that people don't always like people that they come across. Maybe Bill's cabinet didn't like Hillary. Maybe Obama's classmates didn't like him. These are all things people are saying which has nothing to do with the platform that these politicians are holding out.

But the fact of the matter is if Clinton wins or even Obama, it's ONLY four years and if they don't do their job, elect someone else. It's not that serious. Whether you like him or not, Obama has the greatest chance of defeating McCain. If Clinton DID bow out and endorse Obama, even become his running mate, they would beat the BREAKS off of McCain. But at this point, I don't see them running together at all. Bridges have been burned in this campaign and it's not pretty.

still waiting for a Hillary supporter to bring up some policy issues we can discuss......civil discourse is always a productive act