Warning: political analysis ahead.

I've been seeing this type of sentiment in a number of places since Tuesday:

Angered over the way the Florida and Michigan delegates were divided by the party's hierarchy over the weekend, Horbal said she - and others - will urge feminists to write in Clinton's name on the presidential ballot in November.

Let's just see what happens if we undo the compromise from the "party's hierarchy" and give Clinton exactly what she was demanding from Saturday's Rules and Means committee meeting, shall we? In the real world, at the end of Tuesday's primaries, Obama had 2,134 delegates, and Clinton had 1,919.

The Florida and Michigan compromises halved the number of delegate votes and gave Obama a total of 126 delegates (33.5 and 29.5 delegate votes per state, respectively), and Clinton a total of 174 delegates (52.5 and 34.5 delegate votes). Subtracting out the "compromise" delegate votes from those states, that reduces Obama to 2,071 delegates and Clinton to 1,832.

Now let's add back exactly what Clinton asked for: full seating of each state's delegates, with completely proportional representation of her votes in Michigan (i.e. not moving those four "stolen" delegates over to Obama), and no "uncommitted" delegates being seated for Obama. This results in 178 delegates for Clinton (105 FL and 73 MI), and 67 for Obama (67 FL and 0 MI).

So ultimately we end up with a grand total of 2,010 delegates for Hillary Clinton... and 2,138 for Barack Obama. The numbers have changed, but the outcome remains the same: Hillary Clinton still wouldn't have managed to reach the "magic number" of 2,118 delegates; and while Obama's delegate lead was reduced from 215 to 128, he still indisputably came out ahead.

So can we retire that canard about the Rules and Means Committee "stealing" the nomination from Hillary Clinton? Please?