Yes Ben, I know. When Hillary barely won in Indiana her popular vote argument was dead. For it to get consideration she would have had to have a significant margin in the popular vote with at least excluding MI. She might have been able to make it play including Fl but not including both MI and Fl since Obama removed his name from MI ballot.

But that doesn't change the fact that every nasty insult the OP heaped on Hillary would be more appropiately applied to him as evidenced by his post. Nor does it change the fact that others in this echo chamber applauded him for his completely false information.

Those are opinions I disagree with. First its clear that Hillary has lost the nomination so perhaps we can finally discuss this process honestly.

There is no legitimate metric in this process to determine the "will of the people." The system is flawed and has been for years. And for years people have been pointing out these flaws and attempt to get the DNC to reform the system.

I agree with most of the arguments which point out the flaws of using the popular vote as a metric to determine the "will of the people." But the pledged delegate count is equally flawed.

While by law parties can choose nominees by any process they choose I believe the goal should be to as nearly as possible find out the "will of the people." In this case democratic voters. All the reforms of the primary system have been to make it more democratic, to more correctly find the will of democratic party members. I agree with that goal and believe that those reforms should continue. Its a process that started when there were no primaries or caucuses and party insiders chose the nominee. It will not end until the democratic party is truly democratic.

To claim that the "will of the people" of Nevada or Texas was to award obama more delegates than Hillary is rediculous.

To use delegates to influence behavior is undemocratic and skews the delegate count. Awarding more delegates to certain regions in a state to encourage turn out in that region is undemocratic. To award more delegates after a certain date to encourage states to set their primary later in the season is undemocratic as well as distorting the "will of the people."

Awarding delegates proportinately by district as opposed to state skews the delegate count. If a district has an even number of delegates and one candidate gets 62% of the vote in that district and the other 38% each gets 2 delegates. I one candidate gets 63% or the vote and the other 37% one gets 3 delegates and the other 1 delegate.

These are just a few of the problems with the current system. Of course it cannot be changed now for this election. Obama played by the rules and won. But Clinton also played by the rules and didn't try to change one of them. The rules are that screwed up.

Each candidate had a plan to take advantage of the undemocratic flaws in the system to win the nomination. Obama more cleverly exploited those flaws and won fair and square by the rules. You can be sure that those rules will be changed so it cannot happen in the future. That's how the democratic party works.

As I said on another thread, Obama is simply giving her enough rope...

2004 Terry McAuliffe and 2006 Harold Ickes vigorously disagree with you and find your argument self-serving and politically convenient. Only because these are important swing states were they given any delegates after the crap their state parties pulled. Now we'll be rewarded in 2012 with ten January primaries.

Under your logic, maybe she should have waited until the day everyone else was off the ballot and had a victory parade in Detroit.

Even the idiots in the state party recognize they were the ones who fucked this up beyond recognition with their 69/59 split, which is some kind of random, arbitrary guess as to what truly might have happened had they not had a Soviet election.

It's a tainted primary when you tell people it isn't going to count and then after they have voted deciding that it does count. You want to talk about "self serving and politically convenient"? Ickes and all of the other Hillary supporters on the RBC voted to strip FL & MI of all of their delegates, and then later when their candidate is tanking try to divide the party and call it a civil rights issue giving them full seating.

It's a tainted primary when the candidates aren't allowed to campaign in those states while they can in others.

It's a tainted primary when only one major candidate is on the ballot.

It's a tainted primary when you have people telling you that voting "uncommitted" is a sabotage vote for the Democratic Party.