C'mon, didn't the DNC clear that up yesterday? :-/

Hillary has consistently stood up for the voters of Michigan and Florida.  She, like you, has insisted that the voice of all Americans be heard.  Today, the DNC's Rules and Bylaws
Committee announced their decision on seating Florida and Michigan's delegations. In recent days, almost 350,000 of Hillary's supporters wrote in to the committee to make clear what an important principle it is for our party to count every vote.

Harold Ickes and Tina Flournoy made the following statement:

[snip]

The Committee awarded to Senator Obama not only the delegates won by Uncommitted, but four of the delegates won by Senator Clinton. This decision violates the bedrock principles of our democracy and our Party.
We reserve the right to challenge this decision before the Credentials Committee and appeal for a fair allocation of Michigan's delegates that actually reflect the votes as they were cast.

Downticket is probably the better bet, since Obama et al do not seem to have turned their psychic vote stealing powers toward 'lower' races (yet).  Use your (diminished) power to vote on the non-presidential races.  Also, they must be able to count how many blanks there were for Presidential races, so we're more likely to see stats for that (not v. likely imo but slightly more likely).

A good point JimWash08 but the laws vary state to state.

In Michigan a write-in, if I remember correctly, is separate and not related to party.  Even at that (in Michigan) a potential write-in must file an affidavit before the election to be eligible to receive write-in votes.  I'm not sure if Clinton's appearance on the primary ballot would qualify.

That's why it was such a joke when someone (was it Donna Brazile) suggested that the 30,000 odd write-ins in the primary should be considered.  None of those write-ins were legal. No candidate had filed an affidavit to receive write-in votes.

I include my family in this. My father, a very intelligent man, was reduced to imitating Hillary's tone of voice when I asked him why he was voting for Obama and why he didn't like her.

It's quite pathetic.

The candidate himself certainly hasn't convinced me to do so with his bumper-sticker, right-wing, sneaky, lying, smearing, George Bush-lite campaign.

That's what happens when you campaign on personality alone, and voters don't like your personality.

What happens then?

Can we judge him based on his own words or the words from his pastor, spiritual friends, her wife, close friends....

No we do not have the right to judge him .. we have only one option.. take him as our SAVIOR.. THE SAINT OF THE NEW TYPE OF POLITICS. THE MESSIAH.

Your comments, in my estimation, have as little substance as those of Obama.

If I didn't believe you are sincere in your support of Obama, I would be convinced you are a McCain supporter.

You are doing your candidate more harm than good as  far I'm concerned and have only reinforced my decision not to vote for Obama.

Both the Edwards and Hillary plans guarantee an option of government coverage (either Medicare, or a clone of Medicare), but the Obama plan only had a public option as a pilot program limited to people who are currently uninsured. Sometime along the line, with little fanfare, Team Obama opened up the public option.

Now, the public option is the structural nail through the heart of price-gouging private insurers, who would not be able to compete with the low overhead of Medicare.

So, as casually as Team Obama inserted an open public option, I would expect them to casually negotiate it away in the face of any heat from the insurance lobby.