As an Obama supporter, it's not an easy thing to say, but I'm willing to give Hillary until June, after the end of the primary season, to make her case for the nomination. As discussed below, I believe that, notwithstanding the rhetoric of her campaign, Hillary is angling to win the 'popular vote,' has a chance of doing so, and ought to be given the opportunity to make her case about the significance, if any, of a 'popular vote' win.
As we all know, either candidate will need the votes of superdelegates to clinch the nomination, and based upon the structure of the current nominating process, the party clearly contemplates a role for the superdelegates apart from that of the pledged delegates in determining who should be the nominee.
It's my firm belief that, absent extraordinary circumstances not present here, the superdelegates ought to, consistent with democratic principles, vote for the winner of the primary season as determined by counting pledged delegates - not the so-called 'popular vote' (or any other standard). As many other diaries have noted, it doesn't seem fair to lump primary and caucus votes together when they are completely different types of contests. Moreover, Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine have not even published the vote totals for their caucuses, so the 'popular vote' total we see in the media is actually missing 4 states (which collectively favor Obama). However, I'm willing to concede that Hillary supporters may reasonably dispute whether the "popular vote," as best we can calculate it, should be the measuring stick by which superdelegates evaluate who should be the 'winner' of a nearly 50/50 primary season.
Although Hillary Clinton cannot catch up in pledged delegates, it is still possible, although unlikely, that she could overtake Obama's lead in the 'published popular vote total' of primary and caucus voters. Specifically, Obama currently leads the 'popular vote' by approximately 700,000 voters. Although it's not likely to happen, Hillary COULD take a small lead in the 'popular vote' by way of a landslide win in Pennsylvania and Florida (either by way of a re-vote or counting her current lead), along with wins in a Michigan re-vote and West Virginia, Kentucky, and Indiana/North Carolina [and, yes, I do believe that MI should re-vote and be counted, and FL should re-vote or be counted as is].
So it's my belief that Hillary's long-term goal is a popular vote win. As a political matter, Hillary can't publicly admit to this now because she would be reminding voters that she is behind by her own measuring stick. I just refuse to believe that she would truly attempt to steal the election from Obama in the event that he is the winner of both the pledged delegate and 'popular vote' totals. I also think she's smart enough to realize that she'd never win the superdelegates that way.
Yes, I know that Hillary has made absurd arguments about the importance of 'big states,' momentum, electability, the rights of superdelegates, and other issues. Honestly though, I think this is mostly a political cover for the short-term, to give her campaign the image of legitimacy and momentum.
In sum, I'm still willing to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt, and assume that she is just angling to win the 'popular vote' and make her case to the superdelegates about its significance. So go ahead Hillary, fight until all the states have caucused and voted/re-voted, hopefully by June [but please be dignified about it]. If you're ahead in the 'popular vote' then, we can at least talk, although you know where I stand. If you're not leading the popular vote though, you'll need to get out.
