With Poll:If Clinton wins the popular vote, does she have to be given the nomination?

The only fear I have left before getting to Obama V. Mccain.

I am writing this diary because of something I just read on openleft.com written by Chris Bowers.  

That is a very good thing, since I know that I would not have been the only person extremely uncomfortable with nominating a candidate who did not receive the most popular support in the process. The day we nominate a candidate who did not receive the most popular support / participation will be a dark day for the party.  

Chris's post assumes that Obama will be the popular vote leader at the end of the process.  I assume, however, that if Clinton were to somehow win the popular vote, he'd have a hard time not giving it to her based on that from what he wrote.  It's not a safe assumption at all to conclude Clinton might not be able to claim a unfair popular vote victory on June 4.

He states that many others would as well.

I have problems with this to put it mildly.  The nominee selection proccess for decades has been based on who has the most delegates and the nominee is chosen by who has the most delegates.  Now, we're being told that the winner of the national popular vote should be the nominee? If Obama thought that the path to the nomination was by winning the national popular vote, he would have spent a tonne more time in California, New Jersey, Mass, etc.  He thought that the way to the nomination was through DELEGATES.  The rules are being changed not just in the middle but near the end of the game!!

Outrageous.

Now, I don't know if Chris Bowers is accepting the popular vote argument as definitive because he is such close friends with Jerome Armstrong or what.

Anyway, I am a bit worried.  As much as I think it would be unfair and would make a mockery of the proccess, do you think that Senator Clinton will have to be given the nomination by the superdelegates even if Senator Obama has a majority of the pledged delegates if she wins the popular vote as Chris seems to imply?

President Clinton is said to be encouraging his wife to stay in because she can still win the popular vote. He even gave a stump speech in West Virginia begging for a high turnout. If 2 million voters vote in the Puerto Rico Primary and if 2.5 million vote combined in Kentucky/West Virginia and go huge for Clinton, she might claim a lead.

This seems to be HRC's and WJC's moral claim to the nomination as well, in their eyes.

I am horrified by this to say the least.  Am I just being paranoid?

Let's try to take our Obama supporter caps off for this thread and discuss as impartially as we can this problem. Thanks!