Great post!!!
As others have noted, your premise is flawed. However, your conclusion is not far off the mark. This race is pretty damn close. If the superdelegates were to swing it one way or the other, I’d call that “doing their jobs” not “stealing the election”. If the Democratic party wants a purely democratic process for choosing their nominee, they should set the process up that way in the first place. As it is, it is not wholly democratic on purpose.
If they’re going to pick the candidate who’s best for the party and has the best chance of winning in November, they’ll pick Obama. Like I’ve been saying, the only thing that will get the Republicans to the polls in November in greater numbers than Clinton would be a mid-October invasion of Gay Muslim Mexicans crossing the border to grab guns so they can force Christian doctors to give them abortions at gunpoint.
Is someone who supports Obama, I do agree with you. But I can see where others might have a different take on things.
Well, if they do it with guns, that might be OK. No 2nd amendment violation at least! 
No, no…the point is that they’re going to grab YOUR guns! :eek:
I think you’re right. And since she’ll have the popular vote by then, if they voted Obama then they’d be overturning the “popular vote.”
Just because FL and MI got their delegates stripped doesn’t make the popular vote somehow not “count” – I mean, the popular vote doesn’t count anyway as an official determining factor in earning the nomination so it’s only value is as a fact to be taken into consideration in situations like this where Obama will fail to earn the number of pledged delegates needed to secure the nomination. HRC will also fail to do so. That means that all bets are off and more voters will have voted for her by then than have voted for Obama. Seeing as how the delegate count is out the window since it wasn’t enough to secure either one the nomination, it will be fair to consider the popular vote.
And, by the way, in FL Obama was the only one to break the rules by campaigning there through his national MSNBC ads that ran due to the inability of MSNBC to exclude FL from their national ads.
I think the OP may be right about what will go down. I certainly hope so (except for the McCain part 
)
Were they to do that right now, they’d disenfranchise all the remaining states that haven’t voted yet. Which would be ironic since the Obama camp’s entire superdelegate argument has been that they’re not supposed to “leap over the will of the voters in one bound.”
What is all this “Clinton has/will have the lead in the popular vote” talk? Did I miss something?
Would it be wrong of me to note that, IF the primary season had gone according to Clinton’s original fantasy, she would have been the candidate after February 5, thus “disenfranchising” every state that voted after?
Or is that just too much cold water reality for your Clinton fantasies?
And can you explain to me, please, how a nationwide ad buy is breaking the rules to not campaign in Florida? That was an economic decision…one nationwide ad buy is cheaper than buying in every major market. The fact that the ads aired in Florida is a limitation on the options the networks give buyers, not a deliberate violation of the rules.
The only thing you missed is the desperation and delusion of certain Clinton supporters.
Smear tactics? HRC is running against an opponent. The intimidation of the elected officials isn’t connected to the Clinton campaign. There are, you know, donors that are genuinely angry at the idea of what Pelosi suggested and don’t need HRC to egg them on in that view. Some folks really don’t like Obama, without prodding (such as Fox News.) The rise of the cult of Obama isn’t everyone’s idea of a good time.
I’d like to ask you not to refer to my different view as “your Clinton fantasies.”
To address your post: that’s different because if she’d won by February 5, there wouldn’t have been superdelegates jumping in to ‘decide’ the election and she would have accomplished what it is clear Obama will **not **be able to accomplish: winning the majority of the pledged delegates outright to earn the nomination, according to the rules, just as things were intended.
The objection (by some) has been to the notion of superdelegates voting OVER the ‘will’ of the voters. The objection is not that voters vote and that those votes lead to a clear winner in advance of every state having been given the chance to vote. Disenfranchising refers to the superdelegates overriding votes, not votes leading to a majority of votes in a designed system before every state has voted.
Oh, sorry I forgot to respond to that part.
The rules were not to campaign (including advertising) in Florida. He did so. She didn’t.
It’s not that complicated.
Both names were on the ballot, neither campaigned on the ground. She won.
The popular vote doesn’t count because voters were told it would not count, how can anyone possibly think any vote under those conditions is valid is completely beyond me.
IIRC, Obama checked with the DNC before running the national ad because of the FL, MI agreement. The DNC gave their blessing.
Can someone back me up with a cite?
Actually, his advertising was only part of a 50 state package (ie, ads to be run nationally, not locally) and was approved by the DNC. Hillary could’ve done the same thing if she wanted. No rules were broken.
I’m not so sure about that. Because the campaign has teetered on the edge of real mudslinging for so long without toppling over, and with Obama taking the higher of the two low roads, the real dirty stuff HAS to be saved for the last 30 seconds of the 10th round, otherwise her goose is well and truly cooked.
That ticket has been played, and according to a lot of folks, it didn’t hit it mark to the extent it was intended. Your last 7 words are what is going on now.
Time will tell, but I think when something like Wright happens to Obama even the HRC haters can’t blame her for that. Things like that won’t, IMO, be counted or perceived as HRC ‘playing’ that ticket. That’s just the reality and Obama responded to it with a speech that impressed many.
Were something of that sort to happen again – something totally not invented by the HRC campaign at all – to Obama, I think the cooking could begin on his side. And that scandal hasn’t died yet anyway, with a new story about it earlier today where Obama stated a new position about leaving the church if Wright stayed.
If HRC comments on any such future scandal, she’d get blamed for the entire thing of course, but I think that ticket’s been played too: blame HRC for everything while Obama gropes for the ‘high road’ and then goes on vacation.
Frankly, I think they’ve both played pretty much all their cards. HRC, however, is a proven survivor over the course of decades in an often harsh public light.
Perhaps, but knowing the Clinton Machine, and because the chances aren’t yet mathematically zero that she will flap her way onto the white house roof, I’m not convinced that there isn’t something more up her sleeve. Hell, I’m kind of shocked that no one has picked up and made light of the fact that Obama was in St. Thomas the same time Wright was in San Juan. Hell, there’s only a few hundred miles seperating them, why they coulda met in secret!
I think, seriously, that the other shoe has yet to drop from her craggly talon.