in Michigan and Florida. It's so transparent it's silly. Were these states likely to go his way in a revote, he would be fighting tooth and nail to get it done. He is concerned here with his own advancement, not the "will of the people" or fairness to the ordinary folk. The same for his supporters.

This is no different than what he and his voters accuse Clinton of. Indeed, I think he has cleverly maneuvered to get the Clintons accused of things they haven't deserved, and he certainly has passive-aggressively been able to get her blamed for attacking him when she's just been making policy differentiations.

She does have policies that are better for the regular folks, the economy, the health system. She is more progressive than he.

And they are both politicians. So let's go on to find what the "will of the people" really is, and let's have the choices made on that basis.

Of course, that would require a serious reconsideration of the votes in Michigan and Florida and the non-proportionately designated delegates would have to be reapportioned in a truly proportional way, rather than one that gives more delegates to the popular vote loser.....

Winner wins all Electoral votes means the Texas Caucus should not be counted. Texas caucus has only 5% of the Primary vote and yet it counts 1/3 of the Primary delegate count. That is the most distorted representation I have ever seen in my life. The democratic primary math is really screwed up. Even woodoo math will make more sense. I like Howard Dean. But not this math. He screwed up Big Time.

Boy if my favorite football team lost 14-6 (2 Touchdowns to 2 field goals) and I decided that if they really had this great system where field goals counted as 10 points, MY TEAM WOULD WIN!!!!!

If the primary delegates were winner-take-all it doesn't mean that Hillary Clinton would've won. It means that candidates would have planned different campaign strategies and Sean would have no clue who would have won.

And by the way, Clinton's "electoral college" argument doesn't make sense either (nor does the "big state" argument). Comparing who wins in a DEMOCRATIC primary has no relation to who will win in the GENERAL.

Can't he find something else to write about?

Democrats will win as long as we all vote for the winner of the Primary Process.

It is as simple as that. We just need to all stick together when it counts.

I sometimes wonder where does Obama get all these money, until yesterday I saw news on Obama in California fund raising, and saw some Arab names. And it suddenly clicked for me. I don't want to spread this like Repugs, but Obama does have foreign attractions. HRC has loyal Dem follows thus winning the Blue states.

Thank you for this very valuable insight and information! I'm copying it and sending it to automatic delegates in my area. I was in Memphis in 2000 for our "victory celebration" for Al Gore. I never thought I might have to experience another sneakily stolen election -- especially from someone in the party I have supported so strongly for many years. I have MANY serious questions and concerns about Obama's ideology and intentions. Unfortumnately, his actions are simply exacerbating those concerns -- causing me to more and more seriously consider such possibilities as writing Clinton in in November or sitting out the election. His shenanigans fly in the face of true democracy.

that the Democrats ONLY hope to win this election is to nominate someone other than Obama or Clinton. The nominating process has become more polarized than most general elections. The Democrats need an experienced national leader to run against McCain. Neither of these two candidates qualifies.

They wrote these rules to prevent another Nixon-McGovern blowout. Now it is time to use those rules for that very reason. The single most important issue here is to prevent McCain from winning - he has clearly demonstrated that he will be no more than a Bush third term. If we keep that in mind then we should not object when the Democrats nominate Gore, or Biden, or Dodd, or some other grownup who can beat McCain.

because the popular vote didn't count in the equation because superdelegates didn't care, and Obamanistas pretend that Obama didn't take his name off the ballot in Michigan and is therefore entitled to more votes than he received, nope. I will not vote for Obama.

I'll be casting a presidential vote for the Greens or one of the third parties that needs extra votes to keep their party on the ballot.

Ionic, since I am in favor of eliminating the electoral college, but its my safety cushion. The electoral vote from my state will be blue, but I will have bragging rights when it comes to what Pres Obama tries to do.

oh yea of hope and unity.

As long as it's the big O, nothing matters - no questionable campaign contributions (in light of the O's statement: "I don't take money from Washington lobbyists"); no dirty little secrets like TreeHouse Foods, or the nonprofit hospital where his wife is on the BOD that charges uninsured more for health-care, or the slums that the big O turned his back on for Tony Rezko; or facts showing that his own cronies helped bring down Michigan and Florida; no lies-stated-as-facts in his campaign mailers in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania.

The more I read about O's willful deceit and disregard for those values he "espouses", and the more I hear from O's followers, the less I like them and the less I trust him.

I guess the word "progressive" is just another term for fascist.

Notice that I counted the Texas primary for Clinton and the caucus for Obama. If Obama instead got it all, he'd be in the lead. Throw in FL and MI for Clinton and she'd be in the lead.

And if pigs could fly what would their wings taste like?

Finally, this excellent analysis proved my sanity.

Very little, not much and yes.

Happy now?

Can I ask you questions?

If Obama wins, will Hillary supporters quit whining, quit pretending Florida and Michigan were disenfranchised by Obama, and will they support Obama?