I have never heard any Clinton supporter argue that she will win the Democratic nomination by gaining more pledged delegates than Barack Obama.

Their arguments appear to be centred on two claims. The first is that “Florida and Michigan should count” and the second is that “super delegates have the right to vote any way they want”. There is, obviously, a logical inconsistency between both these claims. For the latter, which is actually true – although one would hope that there is some reflection of the wishes of the people within whatever route the super delegates decide to cast their vote – is reliant on the argument that “those are the rules”, whilst the former asks that the rules be discarded.

It’s the classic dichotomy at the centre of the Clinton’s supporters logic. They insist that the rules – and they didn’t write them, they are just playing by them – allow super delegates to ignore the wishes of the electorate  and elect Hillary “as she is more likely to win”. However, they also insist that Florida and Michigan must either be given to Hillary or that there must be a new vote altogether, despite the fact that the rules clearly stated before the contest that, if Florida and Michigan went ahead with early elections, then they would not be seated at the Denver convention.

They appear to be insisting on sticking to a rigid interpretation of the rules when it benefits their candidate and insisting that the rules don’t count – or that there are “bad rules” – when it hinders Hillary’s progress.

They really are sounding more and more unhinged with each day that passes.

For instance, they seem to accept Hillary’s central argument that she has the experience of the White House which Obama lacks, which is a bit like saying Posh Becks knows how to play football from the time she has spent with David. It’s an argument that McCain would tear her up on if she ever faced him in a presidential election.

Then there’s the Taylor Marsh argument that “Hillary is a fighter”:

Eleven wins at Barack’s back and he couldn’t close it out; couldn’t seal the  deal.

In the opening stands Hillary Clinton. The first woman who ever had a chance  to change the country and the world in one swoop. A woman with the U.S. military  Armed Forces standing by her side and backing her up. Strength beyond wisdom,  which comes through alliances gotten through years of hard work. A woman with a  lifetime of experience applying for The Job.

A fighter, but not just to win. To lead. To change the world. A woman at the  helm. It can happen. Believe.

Such hyperbole ignores the fact that this is “a fighter” who is losing both the delegate count and the popular vote. Perhaps we are expected to admire the fact that she is willing “to fight” even when there is no logical way that she can win.

For let’s take the Clinton plan to it’s logical conclusion. Let’s say that we get to Denver and that Obama is leading in the delegate count and in the popular vote and that Hillary manages – it’s a long shot, but let’s assume it for the sake of this argument – to persuade the super delegates that she has the best chance of beating McCain.

The super delegates vote for Hillary and Obama loses. What then?

What her plan actually asks is that the Democratic Party goes against the democratic majority and rejects the first ever African American politician to have won the chance of running for the presidency. A young inspirational leader who has galvanised voters across the country should be denied his prize by super delegates, by the party establishment.

Am I the only person who sees a problem with this scenario?

If that played out the way Hillary’s supporters no doubt hope it will – for when it comes to the numbers this is the only way she can do it – then African-Americans would, rightly, desert the Democratic party for decades. Possibly for generations.

It would be an unforgivable slight. A betrayal on an epic scale.

And yet, that is Hillary’s plan. Anyone who supports that plan is fucking bonkers.