Yes, this is more evidence that the will of the people is not what Obama's campaign is interested in. More like the 'Will of MY people'.

I don't see any other good result coming out of all this. I am heartbroken for so many reasons it's hard to really enunciate them right now.

In Nevada, even though a CLEAR majority of voters intended to vote for Hillary, because of the way delegates were awarded, Obama came away with one more delegate.

In Texas, even though 100,000 more voters cast their votes for Hillary, Obama could potentially emerge with more delegates.

In Washington, Obama blew out Hillary in a Saturday Caucus, but in the actual primary, when everyone had an opportunity to vote at their convenience and privately, Obama only prevailed by a few percentage points.

I imagine results in Colorado and Minnesota would have been much closer if the state had held primaries as well.

Obama's has built his delegate lead thanks to extremely friendly media attention, suspect delegate awarding despite losing the popular vote, and overinflated caucus results.

Candidates run unopposed all the time. Some people elect not to be on the ballot because their opponenent is a shoo-in, and some because it's their campaign's strategy. Obama voluntarily withdrew his name from the ballot, and is now complaining that he wasn't on it.

Having a redo election in June, continuing this infighting and wasting our resources would be almost as bad.

Also, why do you think Sen. Obama does so well in these caucus states? His supporters are motivated enough to take the time to sit through a caucus. We will need such motivated people in the fall.

The Most motivated voters for generations have been the senior voters. We always vote. Most of us were raised that it was our "civic" duty to do so. My parents in particular told me, "if you don't vote, then don't gripe."

And, in the diary you mentioned, they seemed unable to answer the "will of the voters" question.  Snarky replies were all that questions on this issue got.

With them it's either just all about winning, or all about Obama.

The "Super Voters" in Idaho who had almost ten times the power of New Jersey voters.

The net minus voters in Nevada which somehow gave Obama an extra delegate.

And so on.

These contests remind me also of the "pre-game "battle for the Axe," the famed trophy that passes to the winner of the Big Game every year ... and is then "stolen" back by the challenger the next year.

Nothing but shenanigans and fun for the frat boys.

They also participated in NV & TX according to state rules, and the results should be protected. The only people disenfranchising anyone are the legislatures of MI & FL, since they both had ample warning that their early participation would not be sanctioned. The states made that choice, and the states should be responsible for rectifying that situation. Howard Dean has made their options clear: they can hold another vote--however they choose to hold it--or they can take their chances on an appeals to the rules committee this summer.

I think the states should hold their own sanctioned votes. That way, the DNC rules are respected, both candidates can claim legitimate delegates, and the people of those states have their voices heard.

As for Obama's site map, of course he's going to put the best possible spin on it. I couldn't find a similar map for Sen. Clinton, but I would think she might highlight AL, where she beat him soundly in delegates though lost in votes significantly.

Let's see if I can link this correctly.

If you insist that Obama won despite the fact that more people vote for Clinton, you have destroyed the false moral legitimacy of the pledged delegate leader argument.