Just now below Lono again used this rationale for his belief that Hillary has no chance at all to win. So many Obama ites keep citing the mantra,"It's the math" "she can't win" it is impossible for her to win'.

The other mantra now is "Rules are Rules" to justify the disenfranchisement of two major democrat states that are critical to the dems and will continue to be critical for the dems, in the general election. And who may well sit out the election in droves if they do not get to have their votes counted.

But the truth is: the GOP has no such similar rules as this in the current BY Laws. And The DNC had NO RULES SUCH AS THESE until this Election!

That's the point. The DNC made it a rule this time for this election. And they have the same power to alter and adjust the rules at all times.

And even at this very ,moment the DNC has it within their own by laws, the ability to change and/or alter any rule at any moment for any reason, should the need arise.

Well the need has arisen due to the very tight race the country has here between HRC and Obama.

Further the states all assumed the DNC would make allowances for them should things get to a point where we had no clear obvious winner.

So that's point one. Rules can be adjusted and it is already a RULE within the DNC that they have the power to alter the RULES if need be.

So the Rules are Rules argument is specious at his base.

It is at really a disingenous argument.

The other is the math.

With Florida and Mich's votes counted the math changes.

Further, even without those two states...if Obama continues to implode and Hillary continues to do well.,that will be something for the super delegates to consider.

The race isn't over yet.

And the most important factor in all of this is that although Obama has managed to, thus, far only(before the Wright debacle) managed to win a bunch of small states and co-opt all these caucuses(which are really pretty meaningless exercises in popularity of certain very select small groups but in no way reflective of any ability to win across the country at large)...but he has LOST all of the major democratic Blue states!

In the general he wouild have to win The Blue states all won by Hillary thus far and he would have to win them BIG in order to beat Mccain in the fall.

If these blue states have HRC supporters who either vote for McCain or stay home that's bad for Obama winning in the general election. And polls say the HRC supporters and some of the Obama supporters will do just that if either side loses.

And you can be sure If Florida and Michigan are not allowed a way to count their votes or re-vote their state you can be sure these two states will certainly not be compelled to vote for any dem in 2008.These sates went to Hillary. So try and figure THAT math in the fall from the loss of many voters from these states should not not have the primary count

The Obamaites keep saying it's the math and Rules are Rules..

And they can whistle that tune until November when they lose to McCain if they disenfrachise Fla and Mich.

The DNC Dean and Donna Brazil desperately wanted Obama to be the candidate and they still do, but they surely know what a bind their Rules changes have created this go 'round now. And most certainly they never counted on Jerimiah Wright appearing when they pushed The Obama as the new savior/messiah upon the gullible masses.

His exposure must have sent shock waves through-out the powers that be in the DNC.

They must be having some very animated and heated discussions in the DNC behind closed doors these days.

Laurie... tell me this.

Even with Florida and Michigan, HRC is very unlikely to take the lead in pledged delegates.

How can you complain about the disenfranchisement of Michigan and Florida primary voters, then argue that the Superdelegates might have to consider overturning the will of the people?

Shouldn't it either be "Rules are rules" or "let the people decide?"

Here's what you don't know.

The pledged delegates are allowed to change their pledge.

This is why so many are confused about this entire process.

They don't understand it.

Pledged does in no way mean they MUST keep that pledge nor vote for the one they curently are pledged to ,at this time.

Until the Convention when delegates and then also the super delgates actually do cast their vote.... We just don't have a candidate.

Eugene McCarthy had a bunch of delegates and primary wins, RFK had some too but had been killed HHH Humphrey was handed the nomination without even one primary win and he DID compete in the primaries and lost...but he still garnered the Dem Nomination.

And McCarthy was at the convention with his delegates and his primary wins, vying for the nomination, but was turned down by the super delegates in favor of HHH.

Just for the record, which more accurately represents the "will of the people"...the delegate count, or the popular vote? The existence of the superdelegates is precisely because there could be a divergence in these two things.

This same scenario plays out every year with millions of voters, this is not some sort of special election or electoral oddity. The early states decide the candidate before the later states get to vote. It's never been called "disenfranchisement" before, though. At some point during the primary process (every primary process), the math determines the candidate. Hillary Clinton is simply not going to win 60% of the vote in every remaining state.

Include Florida and Michigan if you like, that doesn't change anything (I actually mentioned that below).

She only took 50% of the Florida vote and 55% of Michigan. So even if you count the votes as they are now and give the FL and MI delegations full voting privileges (incredibly unfair to do so, but even if you do), she doesn't win. If you give them half a vote each (which is what the GOP did), that makes it even harder for her to make up ground.

Pledged delegates are not going to flip and super delegates will not go maverick, particularly in this race with 2000 fresh in everybody's memory.

yikes, I sure wouldn't want Hillary to get the nomination like a Republican.

Then it's an open and shut case, right?

For me it's The Will of the People" and by that token Florida and Michigan must be counted.

Hillary can beat him on the popular vote when all the votes are tallied in.

The super delegates do have some place however especially when the DNC has made such a mess of things by now properly vetting a candidate.

Or as in the case of 1968 when although there was a significant but albeit, minority group ,of far left anti Viet Nam War supporters for McCarthy, the main of country, although also tired of the war, in no way would have voted for a candidate as far left as Eugene McCarthy, in the general. So the DNC put up HHH out of general pragmatism.

That was a sad election.

The hope died for us dems for that year, with the assasination of MLK and especially, Bobby Kennedy.

He would have won.

No one cared anymore and many dems just didn't vote... and sadly them Nixon got in by default.

I hope this doesn't happen with McCain....that he wins by default because dems are so divided.

Ok... so now you're suggesting that the pledged and superdelegates should change the vote, thus further discounting both the primary results and popular vote?

You're not answering my question. Is that deliberate, or was it unclear? I'll be kind and assume it was the later, that I didn't do a good job of asking the question.

Let me simplify. Here is a multiple choice. Which do you prefer.

A) Follow the rules. Disallow Michigan and Florida, super delegates vote their conscience.

B) Follow the will of the people. Allow Michigan and Florida, supers vote either with their districts, states or popular vote.

C) Doesn't matter as long as your candidate wins.

As I see it, those are the only options. If there's a fourth I haven't thought of, let me know.

I believe that the DNC wants Obama and surely is quaking in their boots right now at the thought of HRC exposing their tactics when they created these "New Rules" for this election back when they did.

Because I saw the video taped proceedings of those DNC Committee mettings on c-span, recently. And it isn't a pretty site how they set this whole thing up from the start.

So the DNC and big Dem. Senators who also have a vested interest in keeping the party intact want to and hope to continue to push Obama through and make him the candidate. They probably will niminate him unless HRC stops them in some way. And knowing her she probably will find a way.

But, you are also right I doubt HRC can get over 60% in as many states as she would need to in order to overcome the popular vote without Mich and Florida. But,With those states she could get enough popular votes.

And they should be counted.

If she were ahead in the popular vote then the pledged delegates would have a case for switching and the super delegates of course would follow suit.

The whole point of the super delegates is to insure that a very untenable candidate doesn't get the nomination should the DNC have failed to properly vet a candidate before setting him/her upon the public.

There are many in the democratic party who think Obama was a mistake and had not been properly vetted before he was pushed into the arena.

That is a problem now for the DNC and for the party at large.

Slip sliding away,
Slip sliding away
You know the nearer the nomination,
The more it's slip sliding away.

I know a woman, Bill Clinton's wife
These are the very words she uses to describe her life
She said a good day aint got no rain
She said a bad day is when I lie in the bed
And I think of things that might have been.

(Chorus)

I know the process is complex Chicago but if you must have simple here goes: Ensure that Florida and Michigan gets seated with the voters will fairly distributed as voted for(yes that means a re-vote in Michigan,at least).

and two: allow the process and the primaries to continue so that we have a complete picture before any super delegates throw in their lot to one or the other.

On your last question: I want what is best for the country not ant particular party.

My view is that Obama isn't trustworthy or a viable candidate in particular for the general election, at this point.

I am not entirely sure HRC is either, at this point....Because of her high negatives among those who hate her.

But, I believe she is tough enough and poliical savvy enough to pull it off in November ,possibly,even so.

It's very difficult for all of us democrats this year.

The problems in both candidancies are troubling.

polls ducadmo. I clicked your first one on. It showed a 3 point lead for Obama..I believe 3 points is within the margin of error and still virtually a tie.

Not that polls matter at this point..again... But that said I did see where Obama had a 10 point Gallup lead poll yesterday. That's true.

Now your first poll from Rassmussen shows then again neck and neck within the margin of error.

So much for that.

So what does that mean? Forget Florida and Michigan voters and stop the primaries?

Just because Gallup had Obama up by ten one day? when the margin of error is still a virtual tie? and there are 10 primaries to go?

That doesn't really seem democratic.

But if he really does continue to break away and far and away in the polls then Hillary will have to really start thinking hard about things. So good point on that one,ducadmo.

So your answer is C. You want Hillary to win because you find BO distasteful and think he can't win in the general election, and you don't care what it takes for that to happen. I think you're 100% wrong, but thats ok with me. I don't mind disagreeing with people, nor do I value them less for disagreeing with me.

But you need to own your opinion. You want whatever it takes to make sure Hillary is the nominee. Thats an honest and fine opinion for you to have. But don't pretend it has anything to do with enfranchisement or rules. Its about the ends, not the means. Be proud of your beliefs.