I guess what I'm missing here from Mr. Dickerson is what Obama is supposed to do about Texas if he wants to retain his ability to complain at the end? Give Clinton delegates?

I know John asked this question of Plouffe today and may not have liked the response but there is a big distinction between Texas and the DNC process writ large.

Texas rules are what they are. Both sides played on an equal footing. The convention rules also are what they are but Dickerson seems to be arguing that after the process is done, the superdelegates should be absolutely free from criticism if they decide to basically wipe out months worth of process to accumulate states, delegates and popular votes. Unlike Clinton in Texas, Obama isn't threatening to sue if the superdelegates go the other way. I do think he should be more than able to criticize such a result, shouldn't he?

You're absolutely right, of course. No-one is saying that if the superdelegates overturn the popular vote lead or the pledged delegate lead, they will be breaking the rules. Obama's staff are saying that it would be a bad idea for them to do that. They have every right to make that case.

Dickerson obviously is trying to throw up enough dust to make it seem that there is some sort of moral equivalency between the positions of the two candidates and their supporters, but sort of realizes that one of these things is not like the other. He acknowledges that Plouffe is not claiming that the superdelegates would be breaking the rules. The most he can come up with is that "some" unnamed backers think it would be "underhanded" if the superdelegates overturn the pledged delegate lead.

One man One vote

It isn't if I personally support any of the three senators but find all of these arguments illogical! The democratic rules for winning delegates make no sense and Hillary thought she would have everything tied up by February made no plans for the long fight.The mistakes both Obama and Hillary made trying to answer questions should have propelled John Edwards to the nomination since he made no such mistakes spoke even better than Obama and seems to believe almost the same things the other two do. The really crazy thing is the whole democratic party let Governor Dean disenfranchise the voters of Michigan and Florida without a whimper which is about par for the way the party of special interest and self-interest has behaved the last few decades. The republicans are little better but at least if we have to live in the police state we have allowed the USA to become;well it started before we were born....at least I would like to be able to make money otherwise there are many other countries who can use my energy and education; If we are not going to find a man,woman or even hermaphrodite to be the voice of the people then Clinton or Obama are equally bad choices and nobody who works or aspires to work should support either of the two. How did we get to the state where John McCain is the best choice left;and he scares me to death. Still we can all leave and work somewhere else with all the former American companies;for less money than we are used to working for. Who really cares who won Texas;the rules are set up so the Democratic candidate will be in someone's pocket and the American people will not matter because there isn't a choice for president because they are all the same. I keep hearing the new buzz word is change;remember Jimmy Carter? He brought change running on a campaign of change for the sake of change. The direction we need to change is so obvious but nobody has the guts to do it..to go there. Get ready for four more years of nothing.