You put it better than I did. Fair and Square is:

Clinton wins majority of pledged delegates and/or majority of votes not including Michigan or Florida.

Or

Obama wins a majority of pledged delegates and/or a majority of votes, not including Michigan or Florida.

* * *

The big question though remains: If they are in a statistical tie in pledged delegates or the popular vote: I'm also going to call it fair and square if superdelegates slightly push one way or another in a statistical tie. I suspect in this case we will see both of them on the ticket in a deal brokered by Al Gore.

I have been turned off by the tactics of Clinton in this campaign, but I'm going to vote for her as long as she does not break rules to win or go explicitly against the popular decision. I think its funny that people think its contradictory to say superdelegates vote their conscience and vote with the majority....wouldn't their conscience lead them to vote with the majority (barring some unforseen mishap or scandal?). I dont see the contradiction unless one thinks that their conscience must lead them to vote against the popular vote--which would be very odd for someone in a Democracy to assert.

Ahem: it appears that at least 400 superdelegates are waiting until a "clear winner" emerges from the popular vote to choose sides in the nomination. This means any people expecting superdelegates to pull a rabbit out of a hat at the end of the race to make their favorite candidate win over and above what the will of majority of voters say...may be dreaming.

http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/printedition/monday/nation/ny-usdems185582573feb18,0,3127140.story

I appreciate your post about taking it personally. Not everyone who isn't supporting Hillary in the primaries wishes for her to not succeed in politics, though. A presidency lasts for eight years at the most. A twenty year senate career where she is not limited by trying to make careful choices that could lose her the white house might be the best thing ever to happen to Hillary (or to Barack for that matter if he loses). "Losing" is sometimes the best thing that can happen to a person who needs to win.

The subtitle of your article states "anyone who claims there's one right way for superdelegates to vote is either naive or dishonest" but from the way I understood the article that I posted, at least 400 superdelegates are waiting for a "clear" winner to emerge from the regular people voters. In other words, its not naive or dishonest to say that these 400 delegates at least will try to follow the peoples' winner. That this will be the "right" way for them to vote. (Barring an extreme situation, perhaps, like the ones you suggest).

Also, it seems significant that even some of Clinton's staunchest supporters seem to be telling her that she can't expect to win on the strength of the superdelegates alone. Neither can Obama for that matter.

I don't mean to say that you were implying that she would--the scenerios you lay out are more complex. I was responding primarily to your subtitle--and the idea that it could be read that people are naive or dishonest for thinking that superdelegates "should" follow the will of the people. I hope I'm not naive or dishonest, but I think that these 400 unpledged superdelegates should (barring an extreme exception like you mention) follow the will of the voters for the winner.

Of course, in the case of a statistical tie, or an exception like you mention involving an extreme scandal or upset, then I'm willing for them to "choose for us" but I hope not before. Not if there is a clear winner to emerge. Does this make sense? I don't want anyone trying to lay the groundwork for something unfair. Although, yes, I realize "fair" is a relative term in love or politics. And I think we're all probably hoping that the race doesn't boil down to a tie, so Democrats don't have to armwrestle our way into the general election--although maybe this is one way for us to enter into the general fray warmed up & ready to go.

Mostly though: just like in Pakistan, if people feel this nomination is won unfairly--that would be the worst case situation. Worse than either candidate winning in a way that is and is perceived as "fair." I think the superdelegates deciding in the case of a statistical tie would still be perceived as fair, whereas superdelegates deciding in direct opposition to a "clear" popular winner would be perceived by many as unfair. Do Democrats agree on this? I wonder.

P.S. Here's the article again for anyone interested: http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/printedition/monday/nation/ny-usdems185582573feb18,0,3127140

Don't forget that Obama did offer to seat them as long as their vote didn't change the outcome of the race; OR, he offered to seat them if there is a do-over in both states so that voters can decide fairly. So far both offers have been turned down by the Clinton camp.

"Doing right" by the voters in Florida and Michigan may have more than one interpretation--I don't understand how seating them when many voters didn't show up to vote because they were told their vote didn't count (most of those who showed up showed up to vote on a property bill and also voted for president--but not everyone who would have voted voted) is "doing right" by them either.