The problem with Clinton getting it to count is that some of the voters may have voted differently, having been told that it would not count.

A bunch of Obama voters, for example, may have thought that, since it didn't matter anyway, they'd ensure a somewhat decent Repub if they voted for McCain, whom they could tolerate, over Romney, whom they could not. See what I mean? I know it could have gone the other way, too, but honestly it seems likely that Obama voters could go for McCain (not in the general, but as sort of middle of the roaders, would want to be sure that, given Dems' tendency to lose elections, there was someone they could tolerate as Pres.) Other Dems may have thrown their vote to Paul or Rudy or some other lightweight, to skew Repubs. The point is, they were told their votes wouldn't count, weren't they? So it hardly seems fair to count them now, unless there was a do-over.

It's off topic, but it happened during one of her appearances on cable as she was doing her "victory" rounds. I think it was Hannity & Colmes, but it could have been MSNBC. Someone showed her the Obama "snub" picture and asked if she was snubbed. I thought for all the world that she was going to take the high road--the question was rather drawn out, so I was smiling inwardly and anticipating a similar reaction from Hil, kind of like, "for goodness sakes, this was nothing at all. Please don't make something out of nothing." I was genuinely shocked when she gave a coy smile, a fake hurt hesitation, and made some statement that seemed to confirm that indeed she'd felt snubbed. Having seen all four photos of the "snub," it seems obvious to me that she was not, or at the very least that it is indeterminable whether she was or not. I had NOT seen the photos before her response, so given her insinuation, I went online expecting to find something egregious. It is simply not at all clear that she was--and even being there she could not know for sure--and I think he clearly was distracted, not snubbing her at all.

Look at all my previous postings. I have not been one of those polarized by Clinton--I have always said I would vote for her if Obama is not the candidate, and I admire her debate performances, her smarts, etc. But this particular response to this particular question just brought me to some tipping point. I turned to my husband and said, "Unless I find some obvious, unequivocal snub by Obama, I will not vote for that woman." I can't explain why this was so revolting to me. It was EXACTLY what others have been saying all along about her playing the race card and everything else, that I've been resistant to believing. It's like she is deliberately playing a psychological game with Obama/the press/Americans. I simply can't stand disingenuousness, and I hate that she chose to bring this petty bickering to FOX NEWS. (Hell, I can't stand that she patronizes FOX NEWS). I can't possibly vote for someone who is this cunning.

I don't agree with you on the "snub"--did you see the vid? No way that's a snub. Especially since he had just rec'd the Kennedy endorsement--he's the one that would have been feeling generous. Unless he was avoiding her for that reason? Honestly, I don't think it was mean...

BUT, I agree with you COMPLETELY on the stupidity of the drawn-out primaries. All on the same day. Period.

Gotta rush--so I'm making it quick:

@Deadhead (or anybody):

The numbers don't really add up--most of us think the C and O are sort of even, splitting the contests, etc. Yet the numbers for C are way too high. Is this the super delegates thing? If so, what's that about exactly, and why is it not EVERYWHERE in the msm, given that they are so invested in the horse race aspect anyway. I mean, in general, it's amazing how little they talk about the delegates. Shows go on cable for an hour at a time, and all the talk is about the "winner" etc., with nary a mention of delegate count.

So, what's up with the super delegate thing?

It seems that elections necessarily include two separate paradigms: the issues and the race. Here at salon, readers are famous for taking the media for task to focusing on the race (see my own posts here; I'm constantly whining about this), but the reality is that the candidates themselves must address both the race (not "race", lol, but "the race") and the issues. Both form and content count if you're the one doing the running. I say all this as prelude to the following observation:

Hilary HAD to change the momentum after SC, so the obvious solution was to claim the easy victory in Fla. as though it were no different from other primaries. She didn't do the same thing in Michigan b/c she was not in the same political position, having just won NH. Who WOULDN'T do this? If you were her adviser, wouldn't you tell her she must "capture Florida" for the publicity and to remove the "bump" from SC for Obama going into Super Tuesday? Obama certainly would have done the same.

And if Obama HAD done the same (ie, claim victory for a publicly discounted race as though it were the same as other races), then Hilary CERTAINLY would have used something equally as dismissive as "beauty contest" to describe his action. That's sort of the game they are forced into playing, no?