It has been apparent to all but a few that Obama was going to win the nomination since the Wisconsin primary.

You keep saying it is apparent that Obama is going to win the nomination but you don't provide any valid reason why he should win or any evidence that you can predict the future and know how the superdelegates are going to vote at the convention.

And regarding Obama's ability to get women votes I repeat that however many women votes Obama would get HRC would get more.

Of course there is such a thing as a secret ballot. However, there is no such thing that is a sub-set of the primary process. Not only that, but you can't base a primary on only a portion of the votes cast. Talk about disenfranchisement. You want to throw out the votes of voters that participated in a process that has been recognized for generations.

I don't want to throw out votes.  My point is that the caucus votes do not represent the people's choice, but the secret ballot votes mostly do. Thus, when determining who the people actually want to be president, it is the secret ballot vote that is the best determiner and HRC won that vote.

I'll grant you that most blacks live in the south, but I will stand by my belief that they are significant parts of the vote outside of the south. Blacks make up 20% of the population of New York City. They make up 15% of the population of Michigan. This is above the national average and is a significant percentage of the total vote in those areas.

Black voters are an important part of the vote, but the reality is that they are a small part of the vote outside of the south. I'm not doubting your statistics about NYC and Michigan but the United States is a gigantic country and the majority of votes will be from places where the vote is mostly non-black. Thus, since the majority (or all) of the south will vote Republican the black vote will not help Obama in the south much more than any other Democratic candidate. And in the north and west the same is true because the great majority of voters in those regions are non-black.

Therefore, the black vote makes a big impact on the Democratic primaries but it does not have a big impact when Democrats are competing with Republicans during the general election. The enormous advantage Obama got from the black vote during the primaries will be virtually erased if he were to compete in the general election. However, HRC was very popular in Arkansas which she would probably win and her ability to get votes from non-black voters in the south in general would greatly help her win states in the south such as Florida. Thus, HRC is a much stronger candidate in the south than Obama and that's a very important consideration because if it's a close race even one state can determine whether Democrats win or Republicans win. Every state is important.

The nomination is pretty much a formallity. Please point to the last time the pledged delegate leader was passed over for someone else. It doesn't happen.

What you fail to mention is that about 20% of delegates are superdelegates so it is not the pledged delegate count that determines the nominee. I stated before that Obama has approximately a 4% lead in pledged delegate but Clinton can easily win the nomination by getting more superdelegate votes at the convention. That is the process.  Pledged delegates do not determine the winner according to the rules that were implemented in 1968 when the superdelegates were created.

Also, as I mentioned before Clinton won the secret ballot vote so Obama cannot say he was chosen by the people. All he has is a very small lead in pledged delegates. So he cannot win based on the voters' preference and he cannot win from the pledged delegates so the winner, according the the rules, should be chosen by the superdelegates. Voting begins in August and until the votes are counted there is no nominee and there is no way of knowing for sure how the delegates will vote.

As to when the last time the pledged delegate winner lost the nomination, there has never been a pledged delegate winner who lost the election since 1968 when the superdelegate rule was created.  However, in 1968 only 13 states had state nomination elections and during 1968 and afterwards all the nominees have had large leads in pledged delegates. One of the reasons the superdelegates were created was to make a "referee" decision when no candidate has a pledged delegate lead. If Obama had gotten 2,025 pledged delegates he would automatically become the nominee, but he didn't. When a candidate cannot win by achieving the required number of pledged delegates then the superdelegates must decide who the best candidate is. And the voting has not begun.

It is your view that Hillary is the most likely to win the presidency. Others have a different view. Some see Hillary as a polarizing figure that will energize the Republican base enough to get out the vote so that McCain can win. Their hatred of Hillary is greater than their dislike of McCain.

Actually, it seems the Republicans like HRC better than Obama. They know HRC is a moderate, thus closer to them on the political spectrum.  The Republicans witnessed the Left wing of the Democratic party trying to push a moderate away in order to make room for a much more left wing candidate. True, Obama has made u-turns but his record for 2007 is the most liberal in the Senate and he has a very long history of close associations with extreme leftists. I've heard many accounts of Republicans saying they sympathize with and/or admire HRC. Of course they will overwhelmingly vote for McCain.  But the fact that HRC is closer in politics to the right and her greater popularity than Obama in highly conservative regions of the U.S. (i.e. South Dakota and West Virginia) indicate that Republicans prefer her over Obama.

Obama has a better ground game, a better get-out-the-vote organization, will employ the 50 state strategy, has a fund-raising advantage, will energize the black vote, and he is a most inspirational speaker to come along since JFK.

Perhaps, but HRC is much better at getting votes in swing states, and the general election is essentially a contest of who has the greater swing state support.

He is also the presumptive nominee which gives him a two month head start on Hillary if she were to get the nomination in August.

Good point, but Obama doesn't deserve the presumptive nominee status because there is no valid evidence that he is the voters' favorite and he is a much weaker general election candidate. HRC was treated unfairly by the DNC and the media and was the victim of the a large-scale prejudiced attack against her gender. Obama benefited enormously from sexism and from the DNCs and media's prejudice against HRC. And knowing that HRC was treated unfairly will influence voters' ballot decisions.

He has Hillary's full support. She has acknowledged that he is the party's choice. She is campaigning for him. She has called for her supporters to support Obama. When will you acknowledge this? After the convention?

HRC did not concede. She kept her delegates. She suspended her campaign. I believe HRC will jump at the chance to be nominee and everyone knows it. She wants to be president because she knows she can benefit Americans more than Obama and because she knows she is a much stronger general election candidate.

It is generally believed that the reason HRC is campaigning for Obama is because the DNC pressured her to do it. It is believed she had no choice if she wants to stay in the Democratic Party as an important member and continue to work effectively within their network. It was wrong for the DNC to do that to a historic woman presidential candidate. HRC is a survivor and a winner and she is doing what she believes is best for the time being.

Also, my vote is not just for HRC but for what I believe in. I choose to vote and to support a politician based on my personal beliefs.  I want HRC to win the nomination and she can win it and I believe she has the desire to win it. Therefore, I will continue to root for her to win the Democratic presidential nomination.

When the delegates vote at the convention then I will know who the nominee is and of course I will acknowledge it. Yet, that does not necessarily mean that I will vote for for a nominee other than HRC.