After all, this is a guy who calls Obama a communist..

And I am banned, by state law (nothing to do with the private sector), from collecting bargaining rights.

And in that regard, it's important to note that in 1972, only 27 of the 50 states had primaries or caucuses. The other 23 states, plus the U.S. territories and the District of Columbia, allowed party leaders to select the delegates, an easily corruptible process which lent itself to a lot of backroom deals and quid pro quos.

No doubt, George McGovern's campaign -- managed by Gary Hart -- was incredibly well-organized and disciplined with lots of highly motivated staff and volunteers, enough so that that McGovern won a number of key primaries in a crowded and hotly contested field of Democratic candidates that included 1968 nominee Hubert Humphrey. The big prizes were the California and New York primaries in June, winner-take-all states with 271 and 230 delegates up for grabs, respectively. By winning both, he effectively put the nomination out of reach of anyone else.

However, it must be noted that McGovern only received 25.3% of all votes cast in Democratic primaries and caucuses across the country, yet ultimately received the support of 1,729 delegates and thus cinched the nomination at the national convention in Miami in July 1972.

Sen. Humphrey actually finished first with 25.8% of the nationwide vote, yet he won the support of only 67 delegates. Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson received only 3.1% of the Democratic vote nationwide, yet finished second to McGovern in the delegate count with 525. Alabama Gov. George Wallace, who had been shot and crippled by a would-be assassin, finished third in both the popular vote and delegates.

Thus, there certainly were some very serious issues concerning the allocation of delegates per candidate by state. For example, Illinois had 153 delegates going to the convention in Miami, but only 65 of them were supposedly allocated by popular vote in the primary, and the other 88 were appointed by party leaders as unpledged.

In the Illinois primary itself, Sen. Edmund Muskie received 62.6% of the vote and Eugene McCarthy 36.3%, while McGovern received a scant 0.3%. Yet when delegates were actually allocated, Muskie received 52, McCarthy none, and McGovern 13! Those 88 unpledged delegates appointed by Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and other state party leaders subsequently pledged themselves to McGovern at the national convention.

So, the McGovern campaign certainly outhustled and outlasted all of its rivals, and in the process captured the overwhelming majority of convention delegates on the first ballot. But the same level of support for the nominee was never reciprocated by Democratic voters as a whole, which proved a disaster. And the party establishment, whose influence had been marginalized thanks to the change in rules after the 1968 fiasco, was definitely angered by the convention result.

Rather than clean up the party's act after 1968, the Democrats' redesign of the nomination process had actually made it even worse. The new system that had been put in place for the 1972 election was a thorough mishmash of state processes, and really coherent to only the relative handful of people who had rewritten the party rules -- which, not coincidentally, included George McGovern himself.

As a result, there were lots of unhappy Democrats, and a huge chunk of mainstream Democratic voters subsequently sat on their hands during the general election campaign, which knee-capped McGovern's efforts against the very well-funded campaign of President Richard Nixon. He never stood a chance from the very get-go.

And that very point is what renders the Nixon campaign's June 1972 break-in at DNC HQ at the Watergate Hotel & Office Complex Watergate so incredibly and inexplicably stupid in retrospect. McGovern posed no threat to Nixon that year, yet the president nevertheless sought to place his thumbs on the scales of an election which he was clearly going to win going away anyway.

And by allowing his campaign and his own paranoia to spin out of control like that, Nixon sowed the seeds of his own ultimate political destruction, which caused a lot of grief for everyone across the country before he finally went down.

So, if Bernie Sanders is modeling his campaign by channeling George McGovern's 1972 effort, that in and of itself is a very dubious proposition.

I have seen this denounced as "medieval" and "undemocratic," etc. -- although, as almost all superdelegates are those officeholders, they "are actually chosen by voters."

They are chosen for the office they ran for and won.

They are not chosen as delegates pledged to any particular candidate.

And that is a huge difference.

Never.

If they do they will spend the next generation fending off every billionaire, multimillionaire and celebrity in creation.

They're hoping it happens naturally. But, if it doesn't, they'll find some other way to pull the rug out from under him.

But, frankly, he's very easy to beat if they'd just take him on. And there's still plenty of time to do that. Only a handful of delegates have been selected.

He's almost everything Republicans hate.

He's a morally corrupt, and literally corrupt, clown who's been cavorting with criminals and Democrats, and criminal Democrats, and God knows what else for all of his adult life.

Not mention flipping and flopping and flipping again on any and every issue.

1. Used to express approval or agreement.

2. A response some bosses or executives expect after a question of status or quality of work
   
1. 
   

  Although, I may have missed something or lot what with --the bs on wheels, the souffle, running interference, White Man's Burdenism, and, of course, the pungent cozying up to Kissinger's nether regions. But, this is not to be considered a criticism, for I, too, try to avoid the cliche like the plague.

So here goes: Kissinger is evil, hence his efforts in China are evil, China is evil, Clinton takes some advise from Kissinger, Clinton and China are both evil.  Evil, for purposes of this discussion is what lines some of our pockets the way the terror sponsoring Saudis is the terror sponsoring Iran than lines our pockets.

 And, my comment that I prefer the imagery of Kissinger fleeing a European hotel in hot pursuit by Spanish prosecutors, should be interpreted as my fondness toward him.

At best she was going for "see even Repubs think I did a good job as SOS" but the point everybody is getting instead, is that the guy is a war criminal and any campaign not as stunningly tone-deaf as Clinton's would have  distanced themselves?