You're gonna be bothered by how cool I am.

Joss Whedon - Created Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which lasted for seven seasons. Seventh season was not well received by the fans, but it didn't exactly kill affection for the show as a whole. Four years later: Whedon starts writing Buffy stories again. No one (that I can find) says anything to the effect that Whedon should just let it go and not mess with the fans' precious Buffyverse more than he already has.

Spielberg and Lucas - Made Raiders of the Lost Ark, an extremely popular film that spawned two very popular (though widely acknowledged as inferior) sequels. Nineteen years later: Speilberg and Lucas make another Indy film. Fans don't complain about this, except that they want it to be a worthy addition to the franchise. No one says "Ugh, not ANOTHER Indy story!"

Fans had their complaints about the Star Wars prequels, as everyone knows, but I never heard anyone complaining that there were going to BE prequels.

Did Tolkien fans complain when The Silmarillion came out because they didn't want new stories from Middle Earth?

Then WHY do so-called Harry Potter fans complain when there's apparently new canon to be enjoyed very shortly? I mean ... I think we all know why that is. But it's just amusing to me that the whiners don't seem to realize how ridiculous they sound complaining that there's going to be another story to enjoy.

Of course, I could be totally wrong about complaints in those other fandoms, not being as involved in them as I have been in HP, but it strikes me as a bizarre fannish anomaly nonetheless.

Joss Whedon - Created Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which lasted for seven seasons. Seventh season was not well received by the fans, but it didn't exactly kill affection for the show as a whole. Four years later: Whedon starts writing Buffy stories again. No one (that I can find) says anything to the effect that Whedon should just let it go and not mess with the fans' precious Buffyverse more than he already has.

Spielberg and Lucas - Made Raiders of the Lost Ark, an extremely popular film that spawned two very popular (though widely acknowledged as inferior) sequels. Nineteen years later: Speilberg and Lucas make another Indy film. Fans don't complain about this, except that they want it to be a worthy addition to the franchise. No one says "Ugh, not ANOTHER Indy story!"

Fans had their complaints about the Star Wars prequels, as everyone knows, but I never heard anyone complaining that there were going to BE prequels.

Did Tolkien fans complain when The Silmarillion came out because they didn't want new stories from Middle Earth?

Then WHY do so-called Harry Potter fans complain when there's apparently new canon to be enjoyed very shortly? I mean ... I think we all know why that is. But it's just amusing to me that the whiners don't seem to realize how ridiculous they sound complaining that there's going to be another story to enjoy.

Of course, I could be totally wrong about complaints in those other fandoms, not being as involved in them as I have been in HP, but it strikes me as a bizarre fannish anomaly nonetheless.

The chief lawyer for Senator Clinton's campaign submitted this letter to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee. The meat of it is that the Clinton campaign is asking that all of Florida's and Michigan's delegates be seated with full votes, with Obama getting NONE of Michigan's delegates, since no votes were cast for him - and, yanno, since he wasn't even on the ballot and the Michigan Democratic leadership decided a week before the primary to not count write-in votes that is TOTES FAIR TRUFAX! So ... everybody would have their votes represented. Except the people who voted Uncommitted, of course, most of whom were likely Obama/Edwards/Richardson/Biden supporters.

Never mind the fact that Clinton agreed to the rules that the DNC is trying to enforce to begin with. What gets me is this part:

The states have already been punished because no campaign activity was conducted in Florida or Michigan. There is no requirement or need to punish their duly elected delegates who represent the 2.3 million voters in Michigan and Florida who participated in the nominating process.

Um, WHAT?! The states have been sufficiently punished just because candidates didn't make campaign stops in those states and didn't have offices there? That has to be the most ridiculous thing I've heard in this primary battle, and I've heard some DOOZIES. Since when is not getting a personal visit from a presidential candidate or having a campaign office in your backyard punishment for anything? I'm in AWE.

I truly feel for the people who went out and voted in Florida and Michigan. I do think their votes should be represented in some way (although I don't see how Michigan's can, since Clinton was basically the only candidate on the ticket). But it's clear from the appearances that officials from these states have made over the past few weeks that their intention in moving their primaries up was because they thought it was unfair that Iowa and New Hampshire got so much cache in the political process from having the first say. But dudes ... if this primary calendar has taught us anything, it's that it ain't over till it's over. And while Iowa's and New Hampshire's opinions were important this go round, no doubt, it was the Clinton campaign's lack of planning for the later states that has at least partly led to her downfall in the nomination process.

One thing's for sure, though, in my mind. If Clinton fights the Committee's decision, especially after Obama reaches whatever new delegate number is required for the nomination, any chance she might have had for a future run will be gone. Fair or not fair, she can't hope to lead a party that is clearly not behind her.

The chief lawyer for Senator Clinton's campaign submitted this letter to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee. The meat of it is that the Clinton campaign is asking that all of Florida's and Michigan's delegates be seated with full votes, with Obama getting NONE of Michigan's delegates, since no votes were cast for him - and, yanno, since he wasn't even on the ballot and the Michigan Democratic leadership decided a week before the primary to not count write-in votes that is TOTES FAIR TRUFAX! So ... everybody would have their votes represented. Except the people who voted Uncommitted, of course, most of whom were likely Obama/Edwards/Richardson/Biden supporters.

Never mind the fact that Clinton agreed to the rules that the DNC is trying to enforce to begin with. What gets me is this part:

The states have already been punished because no campaign activity was conducted in Florida or Michigan. There is no requirement or need to punish their duly elected delegates who represent the 2.3 million voters in Michigan and Florida who participated in the nominating process.

Um, WHAT?! The states have been sufficiently punished just because candidates didn't make campaign stops in those states and didn't have offices there? That has to be the most ridiculous thing I've heard in this primary battle, and I've heard some DOOZIES. Since when is not getting a personal visit from a presidential candidate or having a campaign office in your backyard punishment for anything? I'm in AWE.

I truly feel for the people who went out and voted in Florida and Michigan. I do think their votes should be represented in some way (although I don't see how Michigan's can, since Clinton was basically the only candidate on the ticket). But it's clear from the appearances that officials from these states have made over the past few weeks that their intention in moving their primaries up was because they thought it was unfair that Iowa and New Hampshire got so much cache in the political process from having the first say. But dudes ... if this primary calendar has taught us anything, it's that it ain't over till it's over. And while Iowa's and New Hampshire's opinions were important this go round, no doubt, it was the Clinton campaign's lack of planning for the later states that has at least partly led to her downfall in the nomination process.

One thing's for sure, though, in my mind. If Clinton fights the Committee's decision, especially after Obama reaches whatever new delegate number is required for the nomination, any chance she might have had for a future run will be gone. Fair or not fair, she can't hope to lead a party that is clearly not behind her.