Hillary CLinton has clearly said that caucuses do not count. Do you agree or disagree?

Hillary Clinton, in her recent letter to the super delegates, is trying to convince them to support her by stating that she has a lead in the popular vote and delegates chosen BY PRIMARY.
The problems with this are:
1.) Her 'lead' in the popular vote depends on her FULLY counting votes cast for her in Michigan and Florida, not giving Obama any votes from Michigan. She also counts Puerto Rico, which doesn't even vote in the GE. She ALSO discounts the caucuses which, big surprise, were Obama wins.

2.) No matter what she says, the caucus delegates count JUST AS MUCH toward the nomination as the primary ones. SHE is the one who blew off the caucuses and tried to win through the 'big state strategy'...she failed. Do not try to argue that she has ALWAYS been against caucuses unless you can provide EVIDENCE that she was against them BEFORE SHE STARTED LOSING.
Therefore, her argument that she is ahead in 'primary delegates' is shaky at best, laughable at worst.

She is perfectly willing to discount the votes of those HARDWORKING dems who came out to support their candidate of choice. She wants the supers to disregard them COMPLETELY. Is this the kind of strategy we want to carry Clinton to victory at the convention?

Do you agree with Hillary's position? Yes or no. Please elaborate in your response.

Those voters send delegates to the convention. It doesn't matter who benefits. I don't agree with the party regarding their manipulation and dividing us.

Technically superdelegates count, but they should get behind who ever's got the most pledged delegates based on primary and caucus votes.

And they're doing so.

Even Dean admits he doesn't know. Not that I believe him.

We know because we've asked them and they've told us.

Perhaps you saw the press conference:

her strategy is at all fair or beneficial to her and the party.

Agree or disagree?

in one room full of either like thinkers, or under pressure from the majority, with votes known to all present shouldn't count. Unfortunately for those who believe every vote should mean something, caucuses do count. Thanks.
quickesst

Small wonder she rose to such lofty heights in the DLC.

Whether that's the way it _should_ be or not, the fact of the matter is that "that's the way it is this year." Those who don't like it are free to debate the issue for future election seasons, but the way it is not, the primary season is about allocating each state's delegates to the candidates running. It's up to each state to determine what process it wants to use to allocate its delegates. It would take a consensus of all the states to switch over to a popular vote contest and somehow, I suspect that it would take quite some time to get them all to agree. Until then, it's pointless to talk about popular votes.

America is a "representational democracy", not a "direct democracy". That's why the President is actually elected by the Electoral votes (and why the candidate with the most popular votes sometimes loses), the Dem & Repub nominees are actually selected by the delegates. Whether anyone thinks it's fair or right or not, that's the system we are operating under this year (and have in the past).

Got it?