Sweet Jesus, I didn't KNOW that Florida had closed primaries. I specifically asked someone I trust about that beforehand, and he said they were open. So we made a mistake.

How do you take an innocent, albeit mistaken, observation that some of the voters might have crossed over and therefore skewed the election, and make it into an anti-Hilary diatribe? I'm pretty measured about the candidates.

I'm sorry I brought up the whole snub thing (Yes, that was I who did that in the middle of the night--don't know what I was thinking), because I really wanted to talk about the delegate thing in a more serious, less bickering kind of atmosphere.

How come no one has answered my question about the super delegates? I'm getting the idea that this whole thing--primary season--is some kind of sham, where the media keep the actual figures under wraps so as to allow themselves to frame the race however they want. On Diane Rehm today, someone actually asked about delagates and superdelegates and the "expert panel" said (1) They didn't really know the numbers and (2) It's too early to start talking about delegates. !!! What? I'm sorry; I thought that was what a political contest was all about.

If we could please set aside our partisanship (C v. O) and remember that no matter who is ahead officially, we would be interested in this if "our" candidate was in the same position--ugh, what I mean is, forget about C v. O for a minute and think objectively:

1. Why are Hilary's delegate numbers so much higher than Obama's when they seem to have been fairly even matched in terms of "wins" even when taking delegates of those states into account?

2. Assuming the answer to 1 has to do with super delegates, who are these people, how do they get that status, and ARE THEY COMMITTED to vote one way or another at this point?

3. Why isn't the msm talking about this? Given their interest in anything but actual issues, why is this not Topic A on every newscast the way every minutia of every delegate is discussed on general election night? Why is Chris Matthews not turning to Pat Buchanan and saying, "Gee, Pat, I don't know how this is going to play out--Obama has won more delegates in the states so far, but Hilary is way ahead in the count b/c of the elite super delegates..." after which he would pull out some stupid chart that "teaches" us who these people are, how they were appointed or elected, etc.

4. Along with 3, why in general is the msm not talking about delegates very much. All they talk about with each primary is the "winner" and so on, and they dutifully show percentages and absolute totals of votes, but they only occasionally mention delegates. It seems like it should be more talked about as they go along, that this state has so many delegates in play or whatever. They also don't often discuss that Repub. primaries are "winner take all" while Dem are proportionally distributed. I'm just saying, given all their blathering, it's amazing how they seem to leave out some critical stuff.

My personal take: I considered that maybe they (cable talking heads, "experts" on radio shows) themselves don't know the rules of engagement, but, really, that would be too cynical, so I've decided it's this:

Keep the public in the dark. Let THE MEDIA influence the "momentum" by focusing on tears, snubs, and identity politics. If people knew right now, for example, that Edwards is not at all far behind in the delegate count (and I believe as I write he's dropping out, but this is just an example) and the number of delegates outstanding far exceeds the number he would need to win, then they might actually keep Edwards in the forefront and consider voting for him, rejecting the media's agenda. The more we know about actual counts/numbers, the less power the media have in influencing "momentum."

Anyone with me on this?

No, listen, really.

I honestly think the snub itself is ridiculous--that is, whether or not it happened (totally debatable, given the cherry-picking nature of every camera lens). Furthermore, I think it's clear that given C and O's volume of shared appearances together of late, there is bound to have been a bunch of snubs, whether intended or accidental or not even there or sort of "Oh I hope she doesn't look toward me b/c I don't feel like being in this awkward moment b/t her and Kennedy," or whatever.

I brought the whole stinkin' thing up because I really, really wished that Hilary had put it to rest w/Chris Wallace last night instead of fueling it. EVEN IF she was unambiguously, unquestionably snubbed, taking the high road might have been nice for the Dems in general. Right? AKA Smith: Wouldn't even you agree to this? I mean, if she had, instead of essentially admitting that she felt snubbed, said instead something like, "Now, Chris (big smile on her face), I know you media guys love to promote a scandal, but, really, Barrack and I are working together to bring progressive issues to the public. Let's focus on how my health care plan..." And wouldn't you have, today, in salon, bragged about how she remained above the fray or stayed classy or kept it to the issues or something? That's all I wanted. I really wish this stuff wasn't in the media and all over salon, and I was making the point that Hilary herself sort of kept it alive. I would have liked her better for it.

I feel that I am more balanced about the candidates than many here; I guess I wish Dems kept their dirty laundry hidden a bit (just the petty stuff), especially on FOX. (childish, I know)