If Barack leads by 100 delegates at convention time would you Dems be ok if

[Beet]

Under the system set up by the Democratic party, superdelegates are supposed to vote according to their own judgment. The argument as to why only pledged delegates should count has always been rooted on the notion of "popular will", in the sense that pledged delegates are more reflective of the popular will, does it not? In that case, if the pledged delegate leader by a plurality clearly trails in the popular vote (and for caucuses, suppose that the margin is large enough that even the most generous caucus turnout estimates in favor of the popular vote loser keep them as popular vote loser), why is the pledged delegate count still significant?

Secondly, why will so many people not vote for Hillary Clinton? Don't you realize that there are just as many people out there who are part of a different, older demographic that will simply not vote for Barack Obama because of his "funny name"? Therefore the number of people who inexplicably refuse with utter stubbornness to vote for one or the other basically destroys the Democrats' chances of winning in November, no matter who they nominate. They are both basically standard Democrats by policy so I don't see why either one is so offensive.

[Beet]

Frankly, I think there is a lot of steamed up outrage on both sides; not necessarily anyone in particular but in general, the campaigns have an interest to raise a ruckus and cry foul as if the other side is stealing it from them. It really turns me off. Any time things are very close there will clearly be a lot of chaos. If one candidate is clearly ahead in the popular vote and the delegate vote, and if nothing has emerged that clearly makes them far less electable, then they should win. Other than that however, most voters and superdelegates will probably be guided by good intentions; there will always be room for the loser to complain, no matter what.

[Beet]

They are both basically standard Democrats by policy so I don't see why either one is so offensive.

Now that's just utter nonsense, Beet. Everyone knows that Obama is the Messiah and Savior of all mankind while Clinton is Lucifer in human form. Duh.

I'm perfectly fine with either of them as the nominee. I'd much prefer Obama, but I will have no qualms about voting for Clinton.

I'm going to say this, as brutal as I was to Hillary early on, that was mostly just me in election mode. I didn't hate her that much and would probably be able to easily suck it up and vote for her had she clinched the nomination early on.

However her behavior throughout the campaign has quite changed that. Policy isn't really what the difference is to me anymore.

Which is precisely why I was hoping there would not be a long and divisive primary. For what it's worth, my mom, who has voted Democratic since 2000 and voted straight Democrat in 2006, said to me last week that she would campaign actively for McCain just because she "hates Obama". I'll work on her, but this thing will be quite a challenge, the higher the emotions run and the more negative things get the more craptacular the Democratic meltdown will be. What kills me the most is that it's basically a slow grind.