Each state decides it's own rules. Some have a primary, some have a caucus, some have both. Some primaries are closed allowing only that party to vote in them and some are open allowing everyone to vote. Some states have primaries that don't select any delegates too.

Paul:

Good luck! Each state has its own primary and each state party often has its own rules.

Short answer for Paul.  Each state has a primary (or caucus...or both) to vote for the person they want to run for President.  These votes go to the delegates pledged for each candidate.  After a while, some people running for President drop out, leaving more delegates for fewer candidates.

For the Rebublican party, all the viable candidates have dropped out except McCain, so he is the presumptive nominee.

For the Democrats, both Obama and Clinton are stil in the fight, and are fighting over the remaining delegates.  One has to have a majority of the delegates to be nominated at the national convention. 

A few years ago, the Democratic Party invented the "superdelegate" system to try to prevent exactly what's happening now.  Obama may have more pledged delegates by convention time, but Clinton could still win the nomination based on what the superdelegates do.

So, the primary process is to weed out a nominee for President before the political party's national convention.

"Most Israeli actions against Palestinians have been a re-action."

Funny. That is only true if we ignore the Palestinian position that the illegal immigration of jews, the forced migration of arabs and the subsequent formation of the state of Israel is the initial offense.

While many may argue against Israel as a way of spreading anti-semitism, it is also a problem that arguing in favor of the Palestinian position or addressing the wrongs of the Israeli government is incorrectly labeled anti-semitism.

As for the Israeli willingness to compromise? Yes, there are many Israelis that want an amicable solution, just as I'm sure the same holds true among Palestinians. yet occupied territories (Those territories granted to Palestine after the 1967 settlement that are still under Israeli control) are still opened up to new settlements by Israelis, the Wall was built entirely on Palestinian, not Israeli land, etc.

Both parties seem reluctant to compromise. The biggest obstacle to peace is that a final peace requires Palestinians to stop the violence, while Israel will have to stop the violence, remove illegal settlers (some even encouraged to settle illegally by the authorities) and surrender control over large areas.

Israel has more power over the situation and therefore has to surrender more in order to get to the 1967 compromise (which was one hell of a compromise, the Palestinians losing half their land to a bunch of immigrants being supported by Western Europe and the US due to their collective guilt for their actions or inactions during the  Holocaust.)

If the state of Israel had been carved out of a sizable chunk of Germany, I'd have no problem with it. As it is, a people that was promised autonomy after helping the allies in WW2, after being subject to one colonial power after another suddenly lost their land to what was basically a bunch of European colonists.

The terrorist actions of the palestinans or on their behalf haven't helped their cause much, but that is irrelevant when considering whether they have a point.

Palestinian terrorism is more like Irish terrorism than 9/11 terrorism. It's a war between unequal powers where the weak side is using despicable means. Palestinians are no more anti-semites than Irish Catholic IRA supporters are racists who hate white people.

Joe and Knut:

I understand where each of you are coming from.  I also (on certain points raised) agree.  But you are divineing a fine point that Wright did not. He made a general statement -- one that often has anti-semitic overtones.  That was my point.  Note that in my posts I have not said criticism of Israeli policy is anti-semitic -- I have defended the right to do so.  I have however said to label it as state sponsored terrorism may be anti-semitism.  There is often anti-semitism mixed into these critiques.  Notice in previous thread I would be willing to give Wright the benefit of the doubt that he misspoke -- but he has never sought to clarify his statements.  What does that say?  Each of you have articulated fair criticism of Israeli policy.  Do you think of Israel as a "terrorist state?"  Because based on Wrights comments (and thats what is at issue here) he does.  Again, perhaps he misspoke, but I find it hard to believe someone as eloquent as he is could not find a better way (as you both have) to criticize Israeli policy.

Knut -- I think your history of Israel as "Palestinians losing half their land to a bunch of immigrants being supported by Western Europe and the US due to their collective guilt for their actions or inactions during the  Holocaust" is not fully accurate.  Prior to 1948 there was a SIZABLE Zionist movement in Israel (then Palestine) and prior to the War the UK had looked to the founding of a Jewish state in Palestine.  So the "payback for the holocaust" origin is not a complete history.

The problem is that Palestinians (and the arab states around Israel) have never been amenable to compromise for any serious amount of time.   A refusal to recognize the right of Israel to exist is a non-starter.  Joe educate me -- the Tibetans want autonomy right -- they do not want the destruction of the rest of the Chinese state do they? The Palestinians Governments have historically wanted the destruction of the state of Israel.  Israeli governments have been willing to compromise if the Palestinian authorities are willing to recognize Israel has a right to exist.   

Knut I also had to take issue with this:

Palestinian terrorism is more like Irish terrorism than 9/11 terrorism. It's a war between unequal powers where the weak side is using despicable means. Palestinians are no more anti-semites than Irish Catholic IRA supporters are racists who hate white people.

In both the Palestinian/Israeli and Republican/Unionist disputes religious differences are fuel and reasons behind the violence on both sides.  Its not simply political distinctions.

thanks, for the breif descriptions. here's what i was really after ...

Jeff said: For the Democrats, ... One has to have a majority of the delegates to be nominated at the national convention. 

did Edwards win any delegates before he dropped out? is so, where do they go?

if not, and maybe this is from my living in Canada where we always have 3 or more parties, how did they decide on the majority? is it 50%+1 - what if Edwards and the others lasted longer? and was that "majority" including the Michigan and Florida delegates? (i.e. since it was known well beforehand that M. & F. delegates would not count, why wasn't the "majority" reduced?

or, why isn't the "majority" ... the majority? if one has 10, the other 11, who imposed the "threshold" of 12 - if one candidate has 11, isn't that the "majority"?

hasn't there ever been the situation where there was a 3 horse race right up to the convention? again i'm thinking of an Edwards type situation. in that case. is the "majority" 34%.

somehow, all the current broo ha ha about the Democratic delegates seems to be a situation that comon sense from passed experience should have taken into account and been ready for.

anyone know?

 the Palestinians losing half their land to a bunch of immigrants being supported by Western Europe and the US due to their collective guilt for their actions or inactions during the  Holocaust.)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Israel got less than 20% of Palestine.

"Knut -- I think your history of Israel as "Palestinians losing half their land to a bunch of immigrants being supported by Western Europe and the US due to their collective guilt for their actions or inactions during the  Holocaust" is not fully accurate.  Prior to 1948 there was a SIZABLE Zionist movement in Israel (then Palestine) and prior to the War the UK had looked to the founding of a Jewish state in Palestine.  So the "payback for the holocaust" origin is not a complete history."

Yes, prior to 1948, there was a sizeable Zionist movement. But a lot of those were recent immigrants, many of them illegal. Prior to 1895 would be another matter entirely.  And yes, the UK had considered founding a Jewish state there, I know. They'd been petitioned for that for a very long time. But the Uk didn't establish Israel, so whether they intended to do so or not is of little relevance, except to say that the authority of a colonial power doesn't determine the rightness of a thing.

"Israel got less than 20% of Palestine."

78 percent of historical Palestine was sectioned off into Jordan. Of the Palestine that remained, Israel at first got 55 percent to 45 percent for Arabs, their percentage of the whole increased to 17 percent vs 5 percent after the 1948 war and to 22 percent after 1967 and under the current occupation. But the Arabs left in the 22 percent Palestine didn't have the option of resettling in Jordan, so to them the other 78 percent was irrelevant.

Of the 22 percent that remained, that is now known as Palestine / Israel  -- Israel has more than half.

But the question isn't whether Israel currently has 22 percent or 50 percent of historical Palestine (Or what we mean by Palestine) but whether they were entitled to any?

We do not recognize the property rights of conquered and displaced peoples 2000 years after the fact. Certainly no-one in the US could argue that with a straight face. The Israeli property rights are based on "Right of Conquest" in the few decades leading up to 1948, not a religious claim thousands of years old. This is a clear violation of the rights of the people who lived there at the time, the Arabs.

Political good will from the Super-powers and former colonial powers, much of it brought about by two wildly divergent sentiments - guilt over the Holocaust and "good riddance to the remaining jews", is part of why Israel managed to hang onto the territories and why it is so difficult to address the situation.

Aside from the 2000 year old claim, Israel is just a colony of stateless European settlers established by force and terror to the detriment of the native people.

As an atheist, I cannot accept a religious claim that "Israel" is destined to belong to the jews and that it therefore is justifiable to use any means to preserve it. And what other claim is there?

"Israel" isn't just occupying the Palestinian territories, it's occupying "Israel".  The UN recognized part of that land as Israel in an effort to compromise, but Israel has taken it all (all of the 22 percent lot). Israel has been poking its nose at the UN for over 40 years on this matter, as an illegal occupying force.

Yes, at this point, with so many generations growing up there and livving there, and the original settlers soon all dead we're at a point where an amicable compromise would hopefully be the best solution. But that solution can't be reached with an inaccurate view of the roots of the conflict. Such as thinking that the Palestinians are the only bad guys here.

And as for the part about "State sponsored terrorism"? That only applies when the actions calculated to terrorize are carried out by the government or with the blessings of the government. I find it hard to believe that all the "terrorizing" actions on either side are carried out by private individuals, unconnected to authority and completely cut off from government or political pressure.

Edit: Oh and we should get back on topic. Obama good. Hilary scary. Mccain Cryptkeeper.