I read somewhere that Hillary has actually won more popular votes in primaries and caucuses than Obama. I seem to recall many people considered it undemocratic when Bush won the Presidency but lost the popular vote so I guess this is one aspect of "change" the Obama folks don't consider on their "things to change" agenda. I also believe more of Obama's victories have come in states that will, in all probability, go to McCain; with that and the delegate count at 1250 to 1319 IIRC I see no reason why Clinton can't still win the nomination. The superdelegates are ostensibly there to take into account things like who won the higher number of popular votes (rather than just delegates) and whether victories came in states the Dems are likely to win or lose in the general election, right? Would it be so bad for the party, as many Obama supporters suggest, if the candidate who is polling in the lead and has the greater number of total popular votes wins the parties nomination because of the decision of the superdelegates? Why would that be skullduggery? If Clinton wins the most popular votes but loses the delegate count will Obama fans who were angry with the undemocratic nature of using the electoral college instead of popular votes in past elections be consistent in applying the same logic and support Clinton?
John Thornton