Take Michigan: Even though it was an "election" worthy of Joseph Stalin or Saddam Hussein, with no major opponent on the ballot (because the others honored an agreement she retroactively broke), 41% of voters chose nobody when given the opportunity to vote only for Sen. Clinton. Here's what would have happened in Michigan if Hillary Clinton had not been the only leading candidate on the ballot : Based on exit polls taken at the time, she would have received 46% of the vote to 35% for Obama and 12% for John Edwards. That means that, with Edwards' endorsement, Obama would now be getting more Michigan delegates -- and more of its "popular votes" -- than Clinton. But because he honored the agreement and she didn't, she now wants a one-sided agreement that rewards her behavior. Or take the Florida election: Clinton and her supporters want those votes counted because it will add numbers to this "popular vote" argument. But John Edwards got 251,562 votes in that invalidated primary. Shouldn't those votes be added to Obama's total now? That would bring Hillary's meaningless "popular vote" margin there down from 294,772 to 43,000. Throw in the votes from Dodd et al. and Hillary actually lost Florida's "popular vote" (she received 49% of the vote total). See how meaningless this metric really is? Please, Clinton supporters: Stop using this damaged and destructive logic. I know that "counting every vote" sounds like a high-minded principle, but it's not. When the Clinton campaign dreamed it up, they knew it would mean defending a Stalin-like vote in Michigan and using M.C. Escher logic in Florida, but they guessed that these nuances would be lost on many supporters - and they have been. They knew it meant reversing a pledge that Sen. Clinton acknowledged on video (in defending the fact her name stayed on the ballot), but so what? Apparently "counting every vote" is a more compelling "principle" than "keeping your word." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-esko... A reader writes: My question to you and anyone else who may be interested is: Why is it that the Democrats who played by the rules are now to be punished? I am a 51 year old white woman with two daughters who live, work and attend school in Florida. Both of them played by the rules and did not vote in the Florida primary as they were told their votes would not count. Why is no one concerned about their disenfranchisement? Why should people who broke the rules and voted be granted better treatment than those who did the right thing?..the rules are for the little people, not the Clintons. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com... What you'll see televised from the DNC's Rules and By-laws Committee meeting on Saturday, May 31, will be a swarm of irate Hillary Backers carrying signs and protesting any possible outcome of the Mich./Fl. debacle other than a no-fault decision with the votes going to HRC. She needs 'em. And she needs the rules changed, despite the fact that she agreed with the DNC's decision last fall. But that was when she was still "inevitable". While Camp Clinton bats their collective baby blues and denies organizing a mini-mob scene to influence the decision..they've been actively urging Clinton supporters to pressure the DNC to fix the game Hillary's Way.Obama's volunteers, with a little encouragement, could have overrun the city. They got no such encouragement. What Obama volunteers got from HQ was a clear message: Do not go. Do not protest. Do not pressure the DNC. This is not who we are. We are about changing this kind of political posturing. There are better ways, more positive ways, to use your time. Phone banking. Canvassing. Registering new voters. Whether he liked them or not, Senator Obama played by the DNC's rules in Michigan and Florida. Senator Clinton thought the rules were just fine so long as she was front runner and destined to win the nomination. The specter of losing compels Hillary to change the rules. Of course, she's not playing this bait and switch game only because she has to win this thing any way she can--she's the new, improved populist who cannot bear the thought of a single vote not counting for all it's worth. Not a one. Unless it's a caucus state vote. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-h...