Um actually, that's not true. The re votes would not result in much change of the delegate count (remember her win in Ohio that's now been rendered moot as far as delegates go.)

The Hillary campaign needs these votes to sustain the various narratives that she's using to try and sway the supers.

Even if she got her re votes basically she'd just be doing it to try to pull ahead in the popular vote and thereby get supers to switch based on that. Except that of course she would be once again trying to change the rules that she agreed to just to suit her current situation. She is quite the lawyer isn't she?

Oh and as far as 'counting every vote' her campaign is also asking that the superdelegates to look only at how Clinton performed among Democrats who participated in the primaries and caucuses rather than the total number of Democrats, independents, and Republicans who voted in them when considering popular vote.

This whole argument is so skewed it's absurd.

So you are saying:

If Obama had lost 14 out of 17 contests.

If he was so behind in delegates, popular votes and states to the point that coming back in even one of those metrics was almost impossible.

If his campaign was in the red at the end of February

That not only would he still be in this but that the media wouldn't be pointing out the fact that he was done?

Riiiiiiiiiight

1. I wouldn't be surprised if both the results from FL and MI are counted. Right after everyone else has voted and it is apparent that she would have still lost. Again, as far as delegates go, FL and MI get her nothing. Hell she didn't do that well in MI and she was running again 'uncommited.'

2. As far as the charges of sexism go, I ultimately think that the person who is finally gonna come in an drop the hammer is going to be Nancy Pelosi

It was to make Mondale the nominee. Remeber him? Yeah, he's the guy who won 1 more state than I did and I was 12 years old and not even elgibile to run for president.

"hillary would almost certainly end up with the popular vote lead after all the states have voted"

That's just not true!

First of all, wgho cares really because it takes delegates to get the nomination. And good luck explaining to half of the party that, "oh we just decided to change the rules at the end so your person loses, hope you don't mind and see you in November!"

Second of all she only wins the poplular vote if you only count the registered democrats who voted in the caucus and not everyone who voted in the caucus.

Not exactly what I would call the 'popular' vote.

I think the fair solution would have been to split the delegates in MI 50/50 and just let her have FL.

Oh and then . . .she still doesn't win

It isn't single mothers who are causing problems, it's men who won't be fathers to their children. These guys are scum of the earth. It doesn't matter what happened between you and the mother, whether it was a one-night-stand or a failed marriage or whatever. Your child doesn't care and you should get over it.

Sorry, to vent but there is no excuse for a man (or anyone else) who refuses to support their child financially or emotionally. Honestly, I don't understand how anyone could abandon their own kid but it's inexcusable and we should all treat these men like the pariahs that they are.

With the moneyed interests in the party pretty much openly threatening the Speaker of the House and the CLinton campaign basically openly touting their 'pledged delegates don't have to vote for the people they were elected to vote for' (talk about disenfranchisement!) strategy, I don't see how this is anything but bad for everyone.

As an Obama suppporter I can totally see this. Even as Edwards was closing down his campaign there seemed to be an attitude of "well, we'll just see how many delegates he has and then we'll talk" from the Obama campaign.

This troubled me because I really liked Edwards and his message and I would have liked to have seen more of it from Obama. Also, admittedly Obama has a tendency to come off as arrogant sometimes which certainly does not help him.

Now, I will pose that many have shown (Slate) that an Edwards endorsement might actually hurt either Clinton or Obama in N.C. and I would also point out that Kerry got pretty much no help in the South from Edwards in 2004. But still, why alienate someone when you don't have to. Also, from a MSM perspective, this endorsement would be huge right now.

Again as an Obama supporter, I would urge him to get on the telephone with both Elizabeth and John Edwards and say, "I read this article and realized that I probably was acting like a jerk which I have a tendency to do sometimes. Whether or not you endorse me or Senator Clinton, I would like to apologize and say that I have nothing but respect for you and your efforts to speak for many in this country who have gone unrepresented for too long."

In light of who we've had for the past 8 years, I believe that admitting when you have made a mistake shows a hell of a lot more character than who your pastor was or what kind of fish story you told about your diplomatic trip.

My point was that I think he should admit a character flaw and try to mend fences just because it's the right thing to do. I think all of the final 4 candidates, even Sen. Clinton - although she is losing it fast, deserved enough respect to be heard.

I could care less how he does it. Hell he could send them a freakin gift basket for all I care.