Actually, you could hardly be more wrong. Hillary is certainly entitled, as anyone else would be, to count every vote cast for her -- irrespective of that vote's viability under Democratic Party rules. Who got more votes is indeed simple math.

Furthermore, your unwillingness to count the Michigan votes cast for Hillary is perverse when one considers that she now has the Party's stamp of approval to do so. After all, they now have validated her claim to Michigan votes by splitting the delegates between Hillary and Obama. That decision in itself was perverse given that it made more sense to give the Michigan delegates half a vote each and ONLY apportion to Hillary the delegate number corresponding to her vote totals. Obama, not having any vote totals, would have received no Michigan delegates. In an Alice-in-Wonderland primary where Obama can walk off with delegates he didn't win, Hillary now has party sanction for her claim to have won more votes than any Democratic candidate in history.

always like to see Twain quoted by smart people. I was not disappointed this time...

Hillary is fully entitled to count every vote cast for her, whether or not those votes have any bearing on the 2008 Democratic primary. She can count her votes from her Senatorial campaign, she can count votes from when she ran for student government in middle school. She can count votes that exist nowhere outside of her own head; freedom of speech, that great American right, extends to 'freedom to count'.

When it comes to tallying up the score for the Democratic nomination, however, you have to follow the DNC's rules. LeBron James can't count baskets if the NBA doesn't allow them; Tom Brady can't count touchdowns that the NFL doesn't approve. And, whether she likes it or not, Hillary can't just ignore Obama's caucus victories any more than she can spurn the DNC's (functionally meaningless) decision to count half of the MI and FL delegates.

She is, however, free to confabulate twisted edifices of tortured logic to justify her conviction that she's the one that the Democrats want to lead them. We'd just appreciate it if she'd keep it down a little while we get on with supporting the guy we actually picked.

The essence of her argument seems to be that a flawed and disallowed primary should be counted as a fair reflection of the voters. This fair reflection is accurate simply because at this point in time, Hillary needs their votes to win some argument. No one is naive enough to believe that had the roles been reversed, she would be just as adamant that the same logic provide Obama the edge.