consider the delegate count and its connection to the popular vote.

[AGirl]

In Nevada, Clinton also won a popular majority, despite pressure from union officials on the rank and file attending the caucuses to vote for Obama. Yet Obama claims, on the primary electoral map posted on his official Web site, that he actually won Nevada -- presumably because rules that gave greater weight to rural than urban votes mean he won a marginal edge in the Byzantine allotment of the state's delegates. Why, in deference to the clear-cut Nevada popular majority, doesn't Obama cede the majority of the state's delegates to Clinton? Because, according to the rules, he's entitled to those delegates. But why are the rules suddenly sacrosanct and the popular vote irrelevant? Might it be because the rules, and not the popular vote, now benefit Obama? And what about Texas, another state where Clinton won the popular vote but has not been awarded the majority of pledged delegates? Once again, for Obama, the rules are suddenly all-important -- because the rules, and not the popular majority, now favor him

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/04/07/hillary/index1.html

[billbuckhead]

1. Hillary's opponent has never been a friend of democracy

His first campaign was built around getting other people pushed off the ballot.

[Occam Bandage]

2. You're opposed to candidates demanding enforcement of electoral regulations? If Kerry or Gore

had been half as committed to the integrity of the ballot as Obama has been, either or both might have won.

Obama's opponents were cheating (but hey, what's new in Chicago?) Obama called them on it. That's the kind of fearlessness I want in a Democratic candidate.

[anonymous171]

6. Obama's opponent wants to win by Superdelegates alone, popular vote/delegate count be damned.

Who is the friend of democracy again?

[bain_sidhe]

11. Believe it or not, this actually comforts me

Not the "never been a friend of democracy" part, but the part that shows he's fully capable of playing hardball. (and I've had my doubts about that.) He's going to need that capability in the general.

[Vinca]

3. What would you say if the tables were reversed?

Substitute Hillary for every time you said Obama and you'd be loving the rules.

[endarkenment]

4. Which side are you on today?

I suppose the rules are sancrosanct because that is they way contests are fairly run. Generally it is considered cheating to change the rules in the middle of a contest.

[MercutioATC]

5. It's always been about the delegates. If you don't like it, work to change it...

...but not in the middle of an election.

I don't agree with the circus we call a primary season...caucuses, primaries (sometimes both in one state), delegates, superdelegates...it's a mess.

However, those are the rules under which we're holding this contest. They're not "suddenly" important, they've always been the standard by which we're going to choose our candidate in the general.

[Occam Bandage]

7. Obama has made it clear from the beginning this is a race about delegates. Clinton,

on the other hand, has tried to claim it's about delegates, superdelegates (er, sorry, "automatic" delegates), states, big states, blue states, swing states, popular vote, popular vote among registered Democrats, popular vote among whites, among women, and among Hispanics, electoral votes of states won, and any number of things in turn, advancing them when they favor her and silently dropping them when they don't.

Obama has consistently said, correctly, that we are in a delegate race. He said that when he was down in the delegate count, and he says that now that he has an insurmountable lead in the delegate count.

Which candidate has been consistent? Certainly not Hillary.

[John Q. Citizen]

8. Obama is leading in both popular vote and in delegate count. There is a connection all right.

[TheWraith]

9. Wait a minute, votes cast in caucuses don't count! Hillary said so!

Not to mention, any argument about the integrity of the democratic process, coming from the campaign that wants to seat delegates based on a Michigan election that had ONE CANDIDATE ON THE BALLOT, is shameful.

[guyanakoolaid]

10. There's only one candidate who's played loose with the rules, and that's Hillary -

Seriously, this is too much. If you could point me to any time in this campaign when Obama has tried to bend the rules in his favor, your post would at least have some merit. As it is, it is nothing but another big fat lying turd dropped by a Clinton supporter.

I'm sorry, which candidate has been going around telling pledged delegates they don't have to vote for who they committed to?

The rules are the rules, Obama has stuck to them, and to call him the candidate who has not is really no different from saying black is white. Just a complete fabrication. Not surprising, but still infuriating.

[TahitiNut]

12. I hear the sound of a turnip truck driving away.

:eyes:

Since when is it necessary to tell "Democrats" about the delegate allocation process? The fluids found behind the ears of so many here would fill many swimming pools.

Well, here we go again. The Democratic Party allocates delegates with a greater emphasis on precincts, districts, and states that have a HISTORY of voting for Democrats! This bias is carefully intended to REWARD the candidate who appeals to consituencies where the party's electoral strength is greatest ... with a mind toward winning in November!

It seems that many are totally clueless in this regard ... especially those whining about states with high electoral votes but where the primary "popular vote" is obtained mostly from areas in that state that almost NEVER vote Democratic. It's beyond idiotic to pose specious 'arguments' about the rules and then concoct moronic "what-ifs" that ignore this allocation process.