How asinine is that? The time to change the way you count the votes is BEFORE the election, not AFTER it. Does anybody seriously think BTD would be endorsing this Calvinball play if the situation was reversed?

Any attempt by party leaders to force her from the race, or to manipulate a win for Obama based on a greater "electability" argument that has not been proven by votes will be seen by me not as a detrimental move against a particular candidate, but as a betrayal of the party's once assumed commitment to women and their political equality. That, I believe, is an incredibly important issue -- which party leaders do not seem to have awakened to yet.

They need to allow this process to play out in the fairest possible way. So that women, whether they are Clinton supporters or not, can be assured that the party's stated commitment to equality in terms of political participation and representation is not just lip service, but something all the party's leaders -- not just women or Clinton partisans -- can be counted on to energetically defend.

I know a lot of people see this campaign merely in terms of which candidate is preferred -- which is "liked" or "hated" more than another -- but in terms of personal character, these are both fine people. In terms of judging how they would perform in office, one has a well-examined record on which to make a judgement, the other does not. Strong arguments for their success in the general election can be made for each one. Viable arguments against their success in the general election can be made for each one. Neither would be a shoo-in against McCain. Neither would be a disaster for the party in November. Both would represent social change that should be celebrated. Although the election of a woman would represent much deeper, and perhaps not yet achievable, cultural change, and require a bigger adjustment in deeply held cultural attitudes.

For me, the factors at play in this campaign that have been most disturbing are the ones that have made me doubt the commitment of the Democratic party to women. I am not as concerned about which of these candidates wins or loses as I am about whether I can continue to believe that this is a party that takes me seriously, respects me, and genuinely represents me.

I know I am not the only woman for whom questions about the party's commitment to women, and respect for their place in the party itself, have been raised this campaign season. I think party leaders must start answering those questions now -- by making it clear that the remainder of this process must play out with scrupulous fairness.

(A) There is absolutely no good reason why the SDs ought to ratify the pledged delegate count (Pelosi-style).  It would make no sense.  In fact it would not be an improvement, in democratic terms, over the supers their conscience, since, as we know, delegate lead does not = most popular candidate.

(B) Nobody is taking part in this process for the good of their health.  They are looking to select the most promising candidate for the GE.  SDs have a duty to choose such a candidate.

(C) How do they decide who that is?  All things being equal (i.e. no massive scandals for either candidate) two factors seem most important: ability to carry key swing states, and ability to win the popular vote.

(D) I have won all the key states except BO's homeground.  If I win the popular vote as well (inc. Flo. and Mich.) I ought to be the candidate, and SDs should do what they are meant to and vote for me.  If I don't win the popular vote, I understand it will be inappropriate for me to be the nominee - I'll step aside in that case.