RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Hillary in 2008

I was referring to a perception that she was trying to rewrite the rules more than an actual attempt to 'cheat.'

For example, one of the people screaming loudest for her to get the delegates from MI and FL (and for those numbers to count toward the 'popular vote' theory is her campaign advisor Harold Ickes. However, Ickes was one of the DNC members who originally voted to strip both Florida and Michigan of their convention delegates for staging their party primaries too early in the season—and against the rules of the DNC. Rules that Ickes had voted for in the first place.

Also, while there is nothing to prevent superdelegates from taking her wins into consideration while making their decisions, there is clearly nothing requiring them to consider who "won" the popular vote, an argument that she seems to be making with increasing frequency.

And, as noted above, even that argument requires a spinning of the vote totals that is at least as fuzzy, if not moreso, than the tally put forth by Obama.

I thought Hillary's count was based on the simplest basis. If you voted for her it counted as voting for her if there was a vote total from that state available. On the other hand Obama count has more fuzziness to it. For example, he has no problem scooping up almost half of Michigan's pledged delegates plus a couple of Hillary's, those numbers are good but the actual vote shouldn't count because he took his name off the ballot when it looked advantagous for his campaign? I think if he's taking the pledged delegates looted from Hillary & others than he really can't believably claim those votes don't count.