he'd have probably beaten Bush, but he was an outsider southern type.

If Obama can't make HIS case to the Democratic faithful how in the world does he make his case to the general population come time for the GE is the question I have?

The simple fact is that part of the pushback from Clinton supporters is because they feel it is to the party's detriment that we have a strong and viable candidate that doesn't have to be carried over the finish line, but can make it on his/her own.

Maybe not a stampede, but not exactly a silence either.

I think that's a pretty weak argument.  If your candidate is as strong as you claim, the SDs would see that he is inevitable, and all of them would be rushing to jump on his bandwagon to enjoy the fruits of his fundraising machine.  

The fact of the matter is that they're all waiting to see what the voters are going to do.  I stand by my argument:  Since the participants in caucuses are a tiny fraction of Democratic voters,  it's easy to see that they likely do not reflect the will of the electorate in most cases.  And that's not even including SDs' Republican constituents, who will be using Barack Obama's voting record, ill-chosen personal associates, and admitted drug use to tar and feather every Democrat as far as the eye can see into the forseeable future.

It just begs the question: if everyone wanted this to be over weeks ago, why isn't it?

I thought Obama had the campaigning thing down, but he has managed to piss off millions of core Democratic voters in the process.

here, let me help:

did Hillary denounce the dozens of people from WV and KY who, on television in front of the whole world, said they wouldn't vote for Obama because he was black ?

or, did she denounce the tens of thousands of white people in those states who admitted in exit polling that race was a factor in their votes ?

when did she stand up and speak out against the guilt-by-association-twice-removed tactics used to tar one black man with the activities of another black man ?

when you post your results, links would be helpful.

And even the Obama blogs agree the system is trash.

In formats that limit voter participation Obama does better than Clinton.

In formats that represent our best understanding of what Democracy should be, Clinton doesn't always win, but she does do better.

And in those formats, when she's not doing better, she's winning.

Again, what I've always said, ain't caucusses great.

Not only do they limit voter participation, but then when someone wants to consider a popular vote tally at the end of the process, the fact that voter participation was limitted by caucusses also functions as a reason why we can't count the popular vote.