But what if the "fat lady" refuses to sing?

Dear Senator Clinton,

Seriously, Hillary, it's over

Not that I'm calling you fat, Hillary, but simply making reference to the old saying. You ran a competitive campaign, and obviously there are plenty of voters who like you as a candidate. But you are in no way entitled to being the nominee because you were the First Lady for 8 years or 7 years as a senator.

You've been arguing that basically, because you say so, the Democratic Party should simply throw out it's nominating rules, go against 'the people' and make you the winner. What about all the Obama supporters out there? Wouldn't they be pretty angry about you usurping their candidate's more legitimate 'win'? Might they decide to vote independent or *gasp* Republican instead of by default voting for you?

What about voters, Democratic, Republican or Independent who don't like the idea of two families owning the presidency for what, upwards of 24-28 years? (Bush I 4yrs + W.J Clinton 8yrs + Bush II 8yrs + H.R. Clinton 4-8yrs). Regardless of any of my other political views, that last prospect scares me the most. I mean, we're a democracy (fine, fine, Constitution-based federal republic) right? With term limits for (some) elected officials? I don't care how amazing a president someone is (or might be), there is a system that exists for a reason. Washington refused to serve more than two terms for precisely this kind of reason and that precedent was adhered to until FDR was elected for his 3rd term. Even though FDR is generally accepted to have been a 'good' president, a formal term limit of 2 (technically 2.5 to account for a VP serving out a presidential term) was imposed via the 22nd Amendment in 1951 precisely because of FDR being elected more than 2 times. Similarly, the DNC's presidential nomination process, while not perfect, exists and should not be changed due to the whining of a single candidate with an over-fed sense of entitlement. You serving another 4-8 years, spiritually continuing your husband's terms, is not the 'Change' that voters want, ma'am, please stop claiming it is.

And no, Michigan and Florida should not count in the slightest. They chose to break the rules and should not be 'un-punished' just because you say so now. You can bet your bacon that you, Senator Clinton, would not be arguing for their inclusion if the results were close or clearly in Obama's favor.

Respectfully,
Potentially disenchanted 'young' voter.

PS: Am I the only one confused about non-voting US territories having presidential primaries? It seems a little goofy to me, but I guess the DNC can do what it wants to pick its candidate. The fact that a candidate won in Puerto Rico, American Samoa etc should not be used as an argument for whether or not they can win in November (or are even a better candidate than their same-party candidates)