I may never grow to understand how Democrats think, or not think. And I will never, in this election cycle, understand how Senator Obama’s charisma alone has carried him to where he is now. It’s no surprise, really, just incomprehensible. If your stereotypical Republican thinks with his wallet, your stereotypical Democrat thinks, or at least does not, with his emotions. This primary process has proven disastrous for Democrats. Not just for the next nominee, but also for the party. The soft underbelly of their inconsistencies and hypocrisies are front and center for everyone to see. Sen. Obama’s celebrity status has allowed him to glide smoothly by, but these days he’s more and more a nominee and far less the deity that the media has portrayed him to be. While reality is hitting him hard, Sen. Clinton is showing just how well she does politics.

In her victory speech last night she was glowing brighter than the inside of a house painted by Thomas Kinkade. Sen. Obama’s speech made him sound tired, desperate, and clinging at straws: a man in position for victory yet fighting from a position of weakness. Closing a gap in a key state from 25 to 10 points is not a victory, it is damage control. The problem with Sen. Obama is that while he may not be as vicious, his supporters clearly are. And while the same can be said of Sen. Clinton’s supporters, Geraldine Ferraro has been the clear example that there are certain criticisms of the Senator from Illinois that will not be allowed to fly in today’s political climate.

What amuses me more, beyond the nature of Democrat discourse, is the way some of the pro-Obama folk have behaved. The running accusation is that Sen. Clinton acts “entitled” to the nomination, and by extension, the presidency (Andrew Sullivan: The Worst Of All Worlds For The Dems). What escapes Sullivan and his mental ilk is that the rules have been written and agreed upon by both parties and they are playing by those rules. The Democrats, in their stupid assessment of what is fair and what is not, have agreed on a proportionate delegate distribution that prevents a clear winner from emerging. To think, there are folk who want to implement this on the level of the Electoral College (Fairvote: Reform Options for the Electoral College). The resulting chaos isn’t really as bad as the reactions of party illuminati demanding Sen. Clinton to back down.

Why should she? She has a thesis in her mind and is more than willing to present it to everyone. The rules of the Democrats have allowed for this possiblity, how little the chance, and now everyone needs to play. She could have floated the idea of changing the rules in mid-game to a winner take all system, which would have given her the nomination at this point. She didn’t. She intends to play by the rules of their game. Obama supporters are instead whiners demanding of the Superdelegates to announce their allegiances now—NOW, DAMMIT—in order to settle this and “heal” the party. What they fail to realize is that the Superdelegates are there exactly for a situtation like this. Being the lords of the unwashed Democrat masses, they can make decisions that can overturn the raging mobs that may nominate an undesireable candidate. Sen. Clinton knows the game and she has been courting the Superdelegates, no doubt (John Podhoretz: The Big Superdelegate Suck-Up).

Sen. Clinton in this primary has been a story of the underdog. She has the media stacked against her (Jeralyn Merritt: How the MSM Treats Hillary: One Video Shows It All) , she has been called epithets at a level that would be unacceptable were similarly bigoted comments were levelled at her opponent (“nutcracker” being a common one), and even in victory she is painted as a loser by pro-Obama media outlets (Ann Althouse: And Hillary gets her 10 point margin.). Perhaps the most telling sign is the attitude that those who voted for Sen. Clinton don’t really matter. Assuming that trend from one comment alone may be an exercise in tea leaves, but there is something to glean from the Google News search results, too.

The ugly disdain for undesired voters is the Democrat behavior that has haunted them, election after election. That a large portion of voters of Pennsylvania have been labelled as racist, or portrayed through statistics as uneducated, for not voting for Obama reeks both of in-party and media hubris that is simply beyond belief.