My point was simply that while there is a lot of sadness on one hand, there's much reason to rejoice on the other.  This was the downside of having two historical firsts running against one another.  Someone's dreams would be realized, and others would be dashed.

But things are changing quickly in America.  Gay people can marry for the first time (in some places), a black man is a presidential nominee, one woman is the Speaker of the House, and another made an incredible, powerful and moving run for the Presidency.  While many things have gotten worse in America in the past eight years, these recent events can give us hope that they're starting to get better.  For all of us.

The caucus process is different, but calling it a fraud is insulting to the many, many people who took part in them and became active in their party as a result.  Caucus attendees elect the vast majority of our party central committee, and they go on to elect the leadership of our party, and those leaders in turn choose the leadership for our state, including DNC representation.

When I lived in primary states (NY and PA) I never once was invited to influence the direction of my party.  I never once got to select which delegates represented me at conventions.  And I never once got to recommend platform planks.

Yes, caucuses are stupid, antiquated and inefficient... but its how some states choose to vote for their nominees.  Obama didn't come up with the system, he didn't "cheat" in the caucuses.  He just paid attention to those states while Clinton didn't.  There was nothing fraudulent about them.  Retarded and sad, yes.  But fraud?  Please.

No one seemed to be complaining when the super delegates were all lined up behind Clinton.  Again, it's a stupid system, but it's the system we've had for decades.   Did he try to persuade them? Almost certainly.  But I've seen nothing to indicate he did anything that Clinton didn't do, or didn't try to do.  

As for the RBC... I've said repeatedly that the Michigan decision was wrong.  I understand the rationale, but I don't see where they had the authority to do what they did.  So I half agree with you there.  Although, for the record, they stole 4 of her delegates, not scores.  Hopefully, that will be rectified in August.

As for the popular vote thing.  I know many people pin their hopes to that one, but I would think that an honest look at the whole thing would force people to conclude that there is a legitimate question as to who got the most votes.  Everyone just so happens to prefer the scenario where their candidate got the most.  Either way, plus or minus 100,000 votes out of 34,000,000 is an amazingly dead even tie.  

The fact that the districts where Obama won garnered more delegates per vote is either a statistical fluke, a matter of demographics, or a brilliant strategy on his part.  I really don't know (I suspect something built into the demographics, but I have no evidence), but in either event, I've seen nothing that indicates of any sort of fraud or foul play.  

There was an interesting discussion here a few days ago about the over-riding relevance of the class that one identifies with.

Meaning, some people start out on the lower rung of the socio-economic ladder, work their way up, but still identify with their class of origin (Democrats?). While others pull the ladder up once they get to the top and no longer identify with their class of origin (Republicans?).