When they started checking party affiliation, they found that this feeling is not by party.  It looks like Americans of all political stripes see something VERY WRONG and offensive to their American values when they have watched this story  over the week.  Maybe it is a matter of human decency, due process or justice, since we also hear a lot from international press about the phony anointing of Obama before the vote and the most unacceptable gaming up and piling on of a bunch of bullies, just because they can.

A lot of people have a basic understanding that a person becomes the nominee only after a majority of the delegates who will eventually become qualified to vote, have actually marked that secret ballot, and the vote is declared by public outcry from the convention floor in state totals and then confirmed and recorded by the Secretary of the Party where it becomes final, all witnessed by the entire convention and interested party members by way of live coverage.  The only other way to become the nominee is to be the only person in the race.

Math, promises, prizes, mailing lists, cash donations..none of it matters until the vote is cast and counted.  Since it is secret ballot, no candidate or voter will ever know who a convention delegate, super or otherwise actually eventually voted for.  Four months ago many people had a different idea of the outcome.  What do we know now about the next four months and who will be chosen then? If Obama is the winner he thinks he is, we can give him the nomination in Denver and celebrate it with confetti then.  But claiming it for himself any sooner than that is totally illegitimate and psychologically suspect. (Since when do we lend our support to someone who just says, "I'm the best, so I won"?) Ted Kennedy was 976 anticipated votes behind Jimmy Carter.  He thought he was the best until the vote on the convention floor. This contest is at least 800 anticipated votes closer than that, no matter who does the counting. The only reason I can think of to claim to have won this race now, when clearly it's so close and is so far from over, is because Obama is certain, or at least very afraid, that he won't win when the votes are actually counted. Why else would he take such enormous risks with all of the people who are so alarmed and disgusted by his behavior, and by the media who condone it.

It is not about what is due process or justice for the voters, the party and Hillary. It looks so illegitimate and smarmy to have you  decide to end the race.  It is so disrespectful to all of us.

 That has been a hallmark of the Obama campaign.  I have never seen the mean, aggressive,destructive, divisive behavior on the blogs as I have seen the last three months from Obama supporters directed at people who ask questions or raise concerns or objections about Obama. We have been witnessing virtual violence and abusive behavior that is dangerous.  Hillary supporters have been threatened with tracking, exposure and actions against their jobs and families.  In some caucuses people were physically restrained. Campaign workers for Hillary have been attacked. The language in comments on news sites is almost universally anti Hillary with a vengeance and nobody sees any need for restraint or boundaries.

At least twice in the last two weeks pundits on CNN (David Gergen and Alex Castellanes were the ones I heard myself) made a 'joke' that Obama would have to fear assassination if he picked Hillary for Vice President! Those comments were greeted with laughter or nothing from the host or pundits on the stage at the time.

What has happened to our sense of right and wrong, of basic fairness, of responsibility.  People represent themselves as reporters when educating the viewers about an election and they are so unprepared, unresearched, and unabashedly comfortable with spouting the Obama talking points or Axelrod conventional wisdom that it is obvious that they have not even googled or clicked on Hillary's  web site to see if there is some documented dispute to the claims Obama's making.

Any viewer who is connected to the web can see how unprepared and unprofessional they have become.  It is shameful. It is laughable, or it would be if it weren't so important to sustaining democracy to have an informed and informing press.

And isn't anybody there reading the rules of this process?  Donna Brazile and others come on and profess to be telling the rules when they are actually grossly misinforming your viewers  to their candidate's advantage,and nobody there seems to notice or even try to correct them.  Maybe that is because they ask a partisan instead of actually checking the rules.

A lot of what is being discussed as "coverage" would in any other context be illegal and fraudulent.  How can you calmly chat about votes cast in a government sponsored, audited, election where the votes were certified as cast by the Secretary of State and in the next breath suggest that it would be just fine to take those official votes and trash them or give them to some one who didn't run and got no votes.  If a precinct captain took a box of votes and changed them to be for somebody different or put them in the dumpster so the candidate couldn't get them, what would you report and how would you feel about the story.

We used to have a national value about voting,  Now it is all warped.  Obama can claim victory on his guess that he has done enough to win, but no matter what John King and Chuck Todd say, the delegates have not voted and won't for another four months.

Never in 65 years of being an active citizen have I ever see a candidate who was so close to tied with another candidate treated as though she wasn't or shouldn't be in the race.

 Why aren't you reporting on the closeness of the race, not it's aftermath?  You have developed or bought this meme that there is this special class of "pledged" delegates whose votes count more than others and yet you do not do any substantive reporting on how they were chosen in such undemocratic, outrageous ways.  In talking about electability, when it is mentioned, you don't talk about Obama getting more delegates for Black votes than were awarded to Hillary for Latino votes or more for urban than for rural .

With your help, Obama has made a winning argument out of "number of states won." And he puts down any discussion of electoral votes. If we're going to be counting geographic areas, let's count counties. In Missouri she won maybe 110 counties, and he won 5, and he gets to claim the state?  If you don't like counties, let's count congressional districts..

In California she won what,63 congressional districts, and he won 3-4.  But he still got only 10 less delegates than she did from that huge state. The fact is, she can win the Electoral College and be President on winning 12 or 13 states, and he can loose it winning 34. So this "winning most states" meme is just political propaganda and nothing more.  Yet how many times do you folks repeat it with no context, like it should make him President?

 John McLaughlin, bless his craggy heart, did a long piece on 'Obama's Weakening Support" Saturday in which he pointed out that Obama got 13 delegates for 13,000 votes in one instance and Hillary got 10 delegates for 200,000 votes more than Obama.

 It is all wrong. The set up was wrong and the outcome of the caucus system was disenfranchising and unfair  to Hillary voters.  Knowing all that, Obama, and the supers and the party leaders needed to have made some adjustments for fairness in their committee process, and some re-votes to try to fix some of the mess.  They all should have  gone an extra mile toward showing respect for the voters.

But you should have been letting us know how unfair the process was and  it should not be possible for the media as a group to help make it much more unfair.  If the better we understand something , the better we know what to do with it and how to react to it, then you folks could have helped a lot in preventing the Obama camp from completely bamboozling the press about how this nomination process should go.

 Aren't journalists supposed to tell us the facts and help us with context and behind the scenes information we can't all be there to get?  Well this story has been covered massively but there is so little  real information and so much garbage and so little reporting that there is more news in a hour on the ticker at the bottom than in several hours of "coverage."  Are you going to wait till it's too late to do something about it?

Tomorrow a lot of citizens will turn in to the coverage of the elections in Kentucky and Oregon.  Will they hear about how vigerously Senator Obama campaigned in Kentucky during the WV primary, with the expectation of severely cutting Hillary's lead, spent enourmously on ad campaigns ground forces and campaign offices, only to make a show of leaving the state to Hillary the last few days?  Or will we hear that Kentucky doesn't count because he didn't campaign there?  

Have you noticed that he discounted millions of voters in various states with the same dismissal?  That is almost as good an excuse as charging "racism" for poor performance. Why  do you help him get away with excusing that most of the voters who will make up the general election are  not seeing presidential leadership and experience in him.  

MMaybe what we will see is a coronation Iowa and little coverage of the actual elections at alll.  And maybe there will be a lot of Vice Presidential speculation and Lawrence O'Donnell will tell us that between the lines of Hillary's victory she not only concedes to Obama, like he "saw" last week, but this time reveals that she is rennouncing her citizenship and moving to Canada. And Matthews and Russert will decry the "racist" vote that keeps the eastern mountain states from seeing the truth about Obama.  Maybe the mountain voters are seeing the truth and Matthews is being flim flammed.  How about some serious look at the process going forward, the story of the elections in both states, some reporting and investigating about  Obama campaigning in the "forbidden states" and what the agreement said would happen to his delegates there.

Please stop saying that it is impossible for her to win.  As long as she is in the race it is possible for her to win and hyou are  misleading your viewers.

We know that 2025 will not be the number of credentialled voters in Denver so it has no consequence today. Nobody knows how they will vote, till Denver.  So if, you show the "delegate count" every fifteen minutes and promise your viewers enthusiastically that Hillary can't win, then you will surely be saying every fifteen minutes that this is all speculation until August and that most news services have differing numbers on their speculation boards and that the delegate awarding process is seriously flawed and so Democrats have a lot of things to change before the next election because this process is so undemocratic.

And if you repeat as fact that the Obama effort to discount Puerto Rico is legit along with the rest of his talking points, then what is the point of Constitutionally protecting the press anymore? ObamaCo can just memo a chiron guy what we are supposed to swallow whole today and we can just read it on our secreens between commercials.  And we won't need you...or democracy.