On my way to bed, but quickly:
The popular vote is not as crippled as you make it out to be. Most of the purely caucus states are very small. Some, like Texas, are large but include also a popular vote as well as a caucus process. The national polls have more often than not shown Hillary ahead in popular sentiment. So I find your attempt to discount the popular vote deeply unconvincing.
And Caucasing is a different phenomenon than a popular vote. To say it reflects the will of the people, and thus stands as a contradiction in a discussion about the popular vote is question begging to the extreme.
By some meaningful metrics Obama is ahead. By some meaningful metrics Hillary is ahead. To discount the metrics which measure either one as ahead of the other is foolish to the extreme- and engages in precisely the sort of debate that will lead to a dangerous schism in the party when close to 50% of the party does not get the candidate they wanted. The party is deeply divided- the only victory to be had here is to forge consensus and synthesis of respected viewpoints, not following the 'Tao of the Republican', which has been the politics of 'crush the opponent by any means necessary'. Imagine the Democratic-party-as-HZ-post-2003. Thats not the way to go.
So I urge you, buck and all democrats to NOT pursue the rhetorical cycle/script that we have been locked into with the republicans. Instead, look to the convention process as an opportunity to forge consensus and look to this debate not as an opportunity to shoot down the supporters 'on the other side' but find out why 50% of the party supports the other guy.