When considering that the ultimate goal of all democrats is to get a democrat elected in the Fall, the word "lose" needs more clear definition.
It isn't Hillary's fault that Michigan and FLA did their primaries out of turn and were punished for it. Those were huge delegate mines pro-Clinton..and much needed votes this Fall I might add...
And, Hillary won the popular vote. Now Obamabots will argue that "so what, Obama got more superdelegates."
Let's look at what superdelegates exist for: making the scales tip one way or the other according to the best interests and trends of the voting democrat populace.
An important factor to remember is that Hillary's momentum was not flagging towards the end, it was starting to snowball. It was a photo finish and she was gaining on Obama. If we had another four weeks and several more states to go, we'd be nominating Hillary without a fight.
Obamabots will argue "so what! He won fair and square! You're just bitter!"
Well yes and no. Some Clinton supporters really are bitter. Bitter about the rampant sexism in the media. The loaded questions she had to field while the press lofted Obama to their shoulders and sung high praises to him..
But the "no" part of that equation is that many Clinton supporters are genuinely worried for the democratic party with Obama as the nominee.
For one thing, the momentum factor. What it told us is "democrats are changing their minds. They're taking a second look at Hillary.
Given that she won the popular vote. Given that we most desperately NEED the FLA and Michigan votes...and given that her momentum was picking up at the end, reflecting new sentiment anti-Obama and pro-Clinton....and given that now with more foreign woes, Obama next to the experienced stateswoman Clinton looks even worse....
Not to mention the recent Edward's scandal and its twin Sinclair scandal "in play" and looming on Obama's post-Denver horizon...
Superdelegates must not just weigh the big hoo ha that the press whipped into a frenzy about Obama, they must first and foremost weigh the needs of the democratic party, and indeed the entire american populace for a WIN this Fall, instead of sacraficing that win on some racial ideal that is pumping up (the only thing that really is pumping up) the clearly second-rate (to Clinton) candidate.
So who "won" and who "lost"? The answer is that Clinton won-over the hearts and minds of a majority of democrats.
And I'll say it again not one pundit will look you straight in the face and deny that a Clinton nomination would be a potential landslide for democrats.
When you bet on a horse in the race, you don't look at the coat color or how well he was brushed, you look and make sure it has four legs on the ground and a track record that spells "winner". Betting on a three-legged (missing leg>>pending Sinclair issue, and lack of experience in time of war) longshot is not in the interest of the whole of the democratic party.
