I’m sorry I mistook your concerns, the delegates in Michigan and Florida are a wholly different and complex issue, and I’m sympathetic to your points.

Michigan has special problems, since the primary there essentially tells us nothing since Obama wasn’t even on the ballot.

Florida’s more complex. It sucks that the Florida Democrats get disenfranchised when their Republican government set the state primaries. Should the Democrats allow Republican controlled state governments to take advantage of national party rules so easily? Of course, without any campaigning, there was hardly a full and fair race there either.

Apportioning the Florida delegates based on our most reliable polls, but leaving the Michigan delegates unseated might not be a terrible compromise in this situation.

However, I don’t believe that at any time Hillary or anyone else agreed ‘not to seat the delegates’. Specifically, they agreed not to campaign in those two states because of the DNC’s ban. Perhaps that’s a fine distinction, but to me it’s another case of the MSM claiming Gore said he ‘invented’ the internet. I don’t really get why Obama even agreed to remove his name from Michigan, but I believe the decision would fall under the ‘political machinations’ heading.

Even if they seat the delegates, Hillary wouldn’t get all the delegates. I don’t think she can win regardless at this point.

I know that this alone really turns me off to Hillary.

As far as everything else goes, it’s politics. Hillary can try to lobby her way into the nomination at the convention, and those who are opposed to her doing so can complain loudly about it. I’m in the “complain loudly” group.

In fact, our “democratic” government is founded on the principle that if the many regions of this country vote for local people they respect, that group of legislators can, in some situations, make better decisions than the people as a whole. Having accountable experts ratify democratic decisions can prevent tyranny of the majority situations.

I deeply hope the superdelegates, with their expertise in these areas, will support the candidate that can best energize new voters, but I don’t think it’s particularly sinister if they make the wrong decision. The Obama supporters will just become disenchanted and stay home, the superdelegates will have a harder time keeping their positions of power. The system corrects itself, and life goes on.

Make nice about what? It appears to me that most of the negative campaigning is coming from the Hillary Camp. From my perspective the Obama campaign took the high road and the Hillary campaign decided to go low and is now stuck in the mud[slinging] and wondering why people are holding their noses because of their stink.

The convention really does seem to be a relic of a bygone era, having TV and internet readily available to voters to find out who they support in current times. It’s all politics, though. The convention is designed to enable brokered deals to select the candidate, which maybe used to need to be how things worked when news traveled slow, I’m not sure.

However, Hillary attempting to point out that ‘Super delegates’ are not required to vote for any candidate is just her trying to stem the perceived tide of support for Obama. I read Conrad Black’s book (or a portion of it) on FDR, so I’m not sure what people think goes on at the convention.

Here’s a clue: When Texas leader John Nance Garner switched to FDR, he was given the vice presidential nomination.

Obama is very likely to be the nominee, but he’ll have to make nice and possibly make concessions to the Hillary Camp, unless Hillary drops out prior to the convention, which I’m not sure she should do.