I have been a long time reader of this site, and have always meant to post a diary, but just never got around to it. And, before I get started, I should note that I was originally a John Edwards supporter, but now support Obama. That being said, here goes...
To preface my question, here's where we're at right now. As of this moment, Obama leads in the number of pledged delegates won, overall popular vote, and number of states won (check here for all the numbers.) Hillary is not going to catch him in number of states won (he's already won 30 contests overall), she is extremely unlikely to catch him in pledged delegates (he'd basically have to drop out of the race tomorrow for this to happen), and is very unlikely to catch him in overall popular vote. By all conventional measures, Obama is in the lead, and unlikely to lose it throughout the remaining contests. As of this moment, the Hillary campaign's only path to victory is coup by superdelegates, a path that many believe would make her candidacy illegitimate.
As a result, the Hillary camp has resorted to trying to find a measure, any measure, that shows them in the lead, in order to convince uncommitted superdelegates to support her candidacy. They started off by trying to draw a distinction between "caucus delegates" and "primary delegates." Yet, Obama leads in both categories (scroll to the bottom for the numbers, and these numbers come from before the Mississippi primary on March 11th, which Obama won easily). Next, the Clinton campaign pushed what the states would be worth in the electoral college as being what the superdelegates should use to make their decision (which she leads slightly, 219-202), but this is an argument that carries about as much weight as any of these.
Here is my question, plain and simple, for the Hillary supporters, and I ask that you answer honestly. If everything I just said were reversed, what would you be saying??? If Hillary led in pledged delegates, states won, and overall popular vote, wouldn't you not just be asking, but demanding that Obama withdraw from the race? If your candidate were thus ahead, wouldn't you be calling on Obama to drop out in the sake of party unity?? If Hillary were up by these measures, and Obama were grasping for a measure, any measure to show that he was ahead, wouldn't you be saying he was looking to circumvent the party rules, and cause a civil war within the party??? (and a side question on the poll I just linked to, I know the reasons why some Obama supporters would be reluctant to vote for Hillary in the general election, but what reasons would so many Hillary supporters give for not supporting Obama in the general?)