Well, back when I was a Floridian without a party, I surely never thought I'd be studying the DNC delegate selection rules in 2008 from my apartment in Los Angeles.
If you're following the primary at all, I'm sure you've heard about the fight over seating the delegates from Florida and Michigan. You've probably heard about Clinton "moving the goal posts."
The fact is, depending on how you count it, either Clinton or Obama have the most popular vote.
The fact is, Florida and Michigan are still up in the air.
The fact is, you can look at total number of states won, or you can look at which states you think are more important in the general.
The fact is, superdelegates can vote however they want and making the determination that they are soon going to make is exactly why they're there.
Now, if you want a run-down of these issues and the relevant rule of the DNC, including links to vote calculators, you can read this post: Le Sigh, by Zuzu on Shakesville. Personally, I feel a lot better now that I understand the Florida / Michigan situation more clearly and beyond the rheteric.
She also touches on the caucus states. Oh, and this:
As for Scott's "Calvinball" blatherings: he continues to pretend that somehow Clinton is responsible for the fact that unpledged delegates (a/k/a "superdelegates") will be making the decision of who to vote for, and that the fact that there are no rules for them to follow when making their decision is likewise somehow Clinton's fault. So while he derides the metrics of the popular vote, and accuses Clinton of forwarding the popular-vote argument in order to hurt Obama's legitimacy as the nominee, he seems to lose sight of the fact that neither Clinton nor Obama gets over the hump without the superdelegates, and the superdelegates can consider any metric they choose to in order to make a decision. And -- surprise! -- both Clinton and Obama are playing to win, and playing within the rules.
Have no doubt, Obama's move to focus on McCain like the primary is over IS A POLITICAL STRATEGY. And a good one. Pundits declaring it's over and mocking Hillary for perseverance and strength that should be admired IS A POLITICAL STRATEGY. And here's hoping that taking your name off of a ballot IS A POLITICAL STRATEGY, because I just can't fathom why else someone running for president would do that.
And acting like half the Democratic party doesn't matter is just rude.
IT'S. NOT. OVER.
Why are Hillary's supporters still voting like she can win?
BECAUSE SHE CAN.
Update: First off, the comment thread on that Shakesville post is worth a read. Thoughtful arguments back and forth and lots of additional information and details.
Second, I think what it really comes down to is: Why are the remaining superdelegates waiting? It's either out of respect for Hillary Clinton (meaning they're going to vote for Obama), or it's because they are still genuinely unsure which way they're going to go due to the reality that Clinton and Obama are neck and neck.
Personally, I'm hoping it goes all the way up to the convention, because I think it would be good for the party, and I think that a Clinton/Obama or an Obama/Clinton ticket will dispatch McCain handily. The only way we lose and/or need more time is if they don't run together.