i'll argue the same as caucus states. They represent only approximately <5% of the votes possible. So if you want to argue about not counting states, then lets not count those with unfair election method. Rules are rules. You don't cherry picked them. This goes to the superdelegates argument too where they can choose whoever they want to support regardless of popular or delegates. That's what they are for. To make independent judgments.

There is no restriction upon caucus participation that is not also present in the primaries, except in degree of commitment (and in cases like New Mexico and Minnesota to name a few- even less- in that some caucus states allow absentee voting/representation). Finally, the states have been given every right to choose their nomination format. You can set any stock you like by the "popular vote"... but you can't pretend that giving it weight is not a gross injustice to one third of the country. You can't pretend that the race would not have been conducted much differently were this a popular vote race rather than a measure of pledged delegates. Leaving alone the caucuses, it would be undemocratic to add up the raw totals of open and closed primaries while pretending they are equivalent. I respect your feelings on the matter, but I ask you to look back on the race and weigh "popular support" without imposing the bias of fuzzy math. If each of the 14 caucus states had been a primary and one reduced Obama's margin of victory by the change in the Texas contests- you would not be talking about Puerto Rico as a hypothetical savior and Clinton would take no notice of the "popular vote," because Obama's margin of victory would be far outside any artificial, self-serving calculation she might invent.

So far statistics has shown that crossovers on Open Primaries has voted more in favor than Obama than Clinton. So if you want to take that into account, it just means higher PV margin for Clinton.

Why should the DNC have "removed Iowa, NC, Nevada and SC?" I'm assuming you mean NH, not NC.
These 4 states were designated as the first 4 primaries on the DNC calendar. I don't think you are fully-informed.

As for the whole popular vote argument - if that what this was all about then both campaigns would have conducted themselves very differently. That is, states with small populations like Idaho would have been completely ignored and the campaigns would have poured all their money into states like California. And I still don't understand how the popular vote from Puerto Rico will factor in at all when the Superdelegates come to a final decision - with all due respect to PR, how they vote now is irrelevant as they do not participate in the general election.

Oh, and that going to the convention meme? Obama will have won the pledged delegates by then and as a result his delegates will control the convention. She will go no where.I'm not the least concerned about that, except for her dragging it out so long.

She said today

"Ask anybody who is supporting my opponent to please tell you how he gets to the 270 electoral votes that we must have to win," she said. "Every independent analysis that I have seen, some of them done by no friends of Democrats as well as objective news channels, show that I defeat John McCain in key states like Florida, like Ohio, and my opponent does not. Show that I have won states totaling 300 electoral votes. My opponent has won states totaling about 217 electoral votes."

Too many supporters in this race seem to have lost sight of the prize and swayed by campaigns and the press simply cannot see the wood for the trees.

1. Tree...Pledged Delegates  

2. Tree...Super Delegates
   
4. Tree...Popular votes
   
5. Tree...Endorsements
   
6. Tree...Electoral College projections
   
7. Bush...Caucus votes

8. Wood...The most likely candidate to ensure a Democratic win against John McCain

Good, then be fair and count all the votes cast in this election, and assume Obama would have won at least 40 percent of the uncommitted votes in Michigan, and he leads in the popular vote

If you want to live and die by the metric du jour, you will die by it

Change the rules, forget the states, the caucuses, the primaries, everything Clinton said about it being "all about delegates' earlier in the campaign, and go with your preferred invented metric that can't even be properly calculated since many caucus states don't report "popular vote" totals -- and Obama STILL wins even by your metrics

And indeed, your whole argument for Clinton's electability is not based on a "popular vote" scenario, but a bogus Rovian electoral vote scenario

Disingenuous, shading over to a lie

Good, then be fair and count all the votes cast in this election, and assume Obama would have won at least 40 percent of the uncommitted votes in Michigan, and he leads in the popular vote

If you want to live and die by the metric du jour, you will die by it

Change the rules, forget the states, the caucuses, the primaries, everything Clinton said about it being "all about delegates' earlier in the campaign, and go with your preferred invented metric that can't even be properly calculated since many caucus states don't report "popular vote" totals -- and Obama STILL wins even by your metrics

And indeed, your whole argument for Clinton's electability is not based on a "popular vote" scenario, but a bogus Rovian electoral vote scenario

Disingenuous, shading over to a lie

The Popular vote is what SHOULD have mattered all along....

Recommended...and I agree with many of your assertions.  Just one note/question, though, you state support for giving Obama 45% of Michigan's delegates?  Is that intended to represent the entire vote that Clinton did not receive, shown to be 55%?

According to CNN's count for Michigan:

Candidate     Votes     Vote%  
Clinton       328,151   55%
Uncommitted*  237,762   40%    
Kucinich       21,708    4%
Gravel          2,363    0%

Included Obama, Edwards, Biden(?), and Richardson(?)

But regardless, I agree with your basic assertion that Popular Vote should still matter.  In my mind, regardless of convulated primary election delegate assignments, popular vote is and should be the truest representation of "the people's vote."  The fact that the very process allows some states to hold caucuses where a person's "first vote" is never truly known, where some hold "open elections" that allow people of all parties to vote in the "Democratic" primary, and certain candidates own personal choices have prevented such votes from being known in the case of Michigan, all greatly complicate trying to determine just what the popular vote is to date.  Granted, nobody could have probably predicted the situation we would now be in, but *in my mind, all these matters highlights the need for serious election reform.  But perfect or imperfect as it now stands, it seems perfectly reasonable to expect the Superdelegates (who, like it or not, will ultimately be responsible for deciding our candidate) to take a broad view in determining where their support should lie.  And it would seem logical that trying to determine which candidate has the broadest popular support would be critical in trying to select the best candidate to face McCain--it is unfortunate that our process makes it so difficult to determine that support.  Because let's face it, the convoluted practices the Democratic party has chosen to select a candidate have no affect or bearing on the electoral system that will be used to determine our next President come November.  

So, again, I think this whole process highlights the need for serious election reform...and I hope every single member of the DNC takes this into serious consideration for the future.  And in light of the imperfections of the current system (further complicated by some candidates strategic maneuvering), the chosen metric for choosing our candidate has not worked in producing a winner.  So I only hope that all superdelegates (both committed and uncommitted, because we obviously all know that they can change their minds) will keep in mind the ultimate goal of this process--and that, quite simply, is to beat McCain come November.