Hillary Clinton winning the nomination based on the votes of the Super Delegates seems as wrong to me as allowing Florida and Michigan a do-over.
Hillary has run an incredibly stupid and obnoxious campaign. There seemed to be no Plan B if "inevitable" didn't work. And sure enough, "inevitable" didn't work. So she has resorted to using every means at her disposal to tarnish the Democratic Party in the guise of going after her opponent.
If, as she says, only she and John McCain have the expertise to govern the United States, what does that mean for the Party if she is not the nominee? And to pretend that Obama's calling middle American voters who have lost their jobs and do cling to guns and Jesus offensive, is offensive in its telling.
Unfortunately, people do vote as though maintaining guns, discriminating against gays and people of color, is far more important to their and their families' well being than economic advancement. If you don't believe this, then answer why the Republicans have put these issues on the ballot in many recent elections in an effort to turn out their "base?" Because it works.
Sure there are more artful ways to say this, but isn't John McCain "revered" by the press because he is a "truth-telling maverick?" In other words, the politically polite way to express himself is subsumed by his (and only his) ability to tell it like it is.
Obama may be unseasoned, but he has played by the rules. And using the Super Delegates to overturn the will of the people is also playing by the rules. But this is one Black woman who will not vote in the Presidential election should that happen.
I've thought I would be able to vote for the candidate, regardless of who "wins" the nomination. But how the nomination is won matters to me. There are some "contradictions" I'm not willing to accept.