Both Kerry and Gore won WA in the general election and still lost. Clinton needs to win WA as well as FL and MI in order to win in the general election. So, if we are worried about how the voters in FL and MI are going to feel if we disenfranchise them, the the same must apply to voters in WA.

Clinton's claim that she is ahead in the popular vote and therefore should be the nominee is based on a popular vote total that does not include any votes from WA, CO, IA, or NV as those states held valid caucuses but did not keep track of the number of voters voting that day. (These states just kept track of the number of delegates allocated based on the outcome of the caucuses).

Clinton claims that voters in FL & MI should not be punished because their legislators chose to violate DNC rules - yet she thinks that voters in WA, CO, NV, and IA should be punished and disenfranchised because their Democratic party members chose to uses caucuses rather than primaries to allocate pledged delegates to the national convention.

If you think we here in WA aren't paying attention to Clinton's remarks believe me we are. Our state is a tie for her, but a solid win for Obama against McCain. Believe me, if she convinces Super Delegates to snatch the nominee from the pledged delegate leader, in essence disenfranchising WA, we will know.

Clinton can't win without WA, so she'd better start thinking hard about taking her "popular vote" claim to the convention floor. We here in WA will not forget what she did to us.