to avoid mixing up the ugliness of some of Obama's and some of Clinton's supporters with the candidates themselves. I have found myself becoming angry - with no real justification - at the candidates themselves because of the behavior of some of their supporters. With Edwards now out, I really don't know which one I'll vote for - but I'll absolutely vote for one of them.

Reading some of the more colorful posts, I can't help but envy the cushy life some of these people must have. They must not have to worry about depending on Medicare or Social Security. I do. I have paid into these systems for 30 years, and since I'll be expected to work until age 68 - another 20 years from now - I will have paid into them for 50 fucking years. Another eight years of repub presidents and their "reforms" and I - and working class people like myself - will be fucked in our old age.

This is a matter of life and death for millions of Americans. Could some of you people put aside your personal hatreds and focus on the real problems? I have had to hold my nose when I voted more times than can be counted. It comes with being an adult. Grow up. And if you really want progressive values to dominate in the Democratic Party, stop your bitching and join up. Bringing progressive values to fruition - specifically the enactment of progressive policies - is the work of a lifetime. Get off your ass and give us a hand. We can't do it without you.

I am a bit more savvy and politically aware than this article assumes. I knew about all these shenanigans while they were happening and I felt the DNC had no choice. The jostling to get in front would be never ending, but that said no candidate can justify denying Florida and Michigan its votes. It is disenfranchisement and if it were Obama that won Florida, there is no doubt the media would be screaming about it and demanding that Floridians be heard.

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?

Ugh.

Hillary was the only candidate to treat Florida as if it mattered in this race and she did so as a political calculation with the obvious intention of changing the rules after the fact in order to favor her.

If indeed (evidence, please?) HRC was the only candidate to treat Florida as if it mattered... this is a huge point in her favor.

If it was a political calculation... this is a huge point in her favor.

If she can get the delegates from Florida to be counted at the convention...this is a huge point in the Democrats' favor, at least as far as winning Florida come November. The Democratic party should be slightly interested in getting Florida Democrats to vote in November, instead of--dare I say it?--needlessly snubbing them by not counting their 1.7 million votes.