I think people should be happy that we are going this far into the primary for a change. However, Clinton supporters almost seem like they are frustrated that they have to put up with the rest of the primary and want Hillary crowned the nominee now. As if the rest of the states "don't matter" because they are "small" and anything Obama does until then doesn't matter.

I think some of those fervent supporters need to deal with the idea that their candidate might not win. It certainly is a possibility.

The issue with Nevada is that it shows one issue with the PR system. No system is perfect but I am a firm supporter in the PR system because it allows voters in lower population states to have a voice over higher ones. So, yesterday would it have been ok for Seattle to determine the will of the rest of the state? In Nevada is it ok for Vegas to determine the rest of the state?

The other options are winner take all or base it on total vote. In a primary, there can exist a case where a candidate could get 1 more delegate and still lose the popular vote. It's not a hard scenario to come up with but it happened in Nevada because of the small number of delegates awarded.

That's how Obama got 1 more delegate. If you want to fight over that one delegate, that's fine but I'm not going to concede that it is as flawed a system as the superdelegates. It's not even in the same ballpark.

"I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. You don't win "without the pledged delegates from this primary season." You win with them AND the superdelegates. Am I saying something somehow controversial? I thought this was the way the system worked. No?

Look at it this way. Clinton won Massachusetts by double-digits and got more pledged delegates from the state than Obama did. But Obama got the superdelegates of Kennedy, Kerry, and the governor. That's how it works. I doubt seriously that Obama wants to give those superdelegates back."

No, you are correct. That is how the system is set up. My view of superdelgates is that they are not going to go against the will of the people. Kennedy and Kerry are not going to vote for Obama if the pledged delegates support Hillary. Obama can't "give" superdelegates back, they are free to vote for who they like. My view is that they are not going to go against the grain and nominate someone that is opposite of the will of voters. While there may be some history of this type of thing, in this election I cannot fathom them doing this. It will destroy the credibility of the nominee and seriously harm the democratic party. Additionally, one could argue that they should vote the way their districts and states voted depending on the type of superdelegate they are. This then begs the question of why we have them anyway.

So, that is why I consider them largely meaningless.

"the system works with superdelegates the way it always has."

I have always been against this system. I do not support ideas like this that go against the people who vote in the primary and more importantly, I'm not for a system that has such a blatant flaw in it. The only reason it hasn't mattered in previous elections is because the vote wasn't close for the nomination. A system is seriously flawed to me when it falters at the most important time when you need it to work. This system is just that.

If superdelegates vote with their state or district, they are doing nothing but reaffirming what voters have already done. If they follow the will of the people and support the candidate with the most pledged delegates they again do the same. So what is the point of superdelegates other than to select a candidate that did not win the primaries and cause serious concerns about the legitimacy of the nominee? How does this system benefit the party in 2008? My argument is that it doesn't and will not happen. Thus, they are largely meaningless in this race. Pledged delegates are all that matter.

"There will be no "excuse" if Clinton loses Ohio or Texas or Pennsylvania. That will be REAL evidence of true momentum with core Dem constituencies on Obama's part"

Again, another largely meaningless distinction. Nevada shows that you can win the state and still lose the delegate count. The only thing "winning" a state does for you is give you some media attention. What matters in Ohio, Texas, and Penn. are how close the votes are and the delegate spread.

In short, Delegates of the states are all that matter.

Tell me how winning the nomination with superdelegates without the pledged delegates from this primary season is EVER going to fly.

The ONLY thing that matters is pledged delegates. If not, we have a much larger issue than deciding the differences between candidates. The media and pundits keep talking about this like it matters but I don't see how the democratic party could ever let this happen if they want to have a shred of legitimacy remaining.

Just to be clear, if Clinton wins the pledged delegates I won't have any issues supporting her but if she lawyers her way into the nomination by superdelegates and seating MI/FL, she is going to have serious problems. I don't see how a Clinton supporter can't agree with that.