The Democratic Party is playing with imaginary rules that consistently morph into something else. With regards to Florida and Michigan, I here how every vote should be counted even if these states broke the rules! Well if every vote should be counted, then the Democratic Party should NOT have Super Delegates since they can "over-ride" the will of the people.

Last night, while hearing the reporting on the primary, the news media had various discussions about the "popular vote", the "electoral vote", and the "Super Delegate vote", all obfuscation of how the Democratic Party should select its presidential nominee.

Seems to me that the Democratic Party really has no defined rule for how the presidential nominee will be picked. Back to the smoke filled room for the selection process.

Another two weeks and let's see where things are. I don't know whether the remaining superdelegates are from the Democratic party the Clintons once led, or whether they are independent.

Atually, let me restate that. I don't know if the Democratic party is independently run.

Maybe they're too afraid of being blackmailed by the Clinton big donors again.

It's one thing for the Clintons to break the agreement about FL and MI

But I'm not able to justify being a democrat if the DNC breaks that agreement too.

In response to those who think I would be happy if the Supers overturned the overall Obama majorities (in every measure), no I would not. I am a strong Obama supporter. But I don't think that will happen, and I think Superdelegates should just get on with doing what they will do in the end: break largely toward him. We all know pretty much how all the remaining primaries will turn out, and we know the demographic differentiations. They are what they are -- and delay has costs.

Like it or not, the Superdelegates' function IS part of the existing rules, just like the rules about caucuses and the rules used to exclude FL and MI. So they should do their job -- but do it sooner rather than later, for the good of the party.

Theda S.

re 'demographics':

from "the bruising will go on..." (adam nagourney, today's nyt)
"sixteen percent of white voters said race mattered... and just 54 percent of those voters said they would support Mr. Obama in a general election"
he's getting half the admitted racists. how much better does he have to do in this demographic?

The Dem party is NOT a democracy...its a club. If you don't understand that then the school district you attended probably cut Civics & Government out of your life, under pressure from the budget blunders of the Far Right. The Club adopts SOME elements of democracy and some elements of rule by law. The rules say that despite how many delegates Obama or Clinton won, the super delegates get to vote any which way they choose. By insisting they vote for Obama, simply because he's ahead in the delegate count is NOT democratic, nor does it play by the rules.

Clinton's smarter than Obama and she understands that she needs only do one thing to have a good chance at getting the nomination: that's to stay close in the pledged delegate count and take the lead in the national polls come June 6. There's no way in hell that the super delegates are going to choose the candidate that's trailing in those polls. At that point Obama's delegate count will only prove that the early primaries & caucuses chose the wrong candidate.

If CLinton's ahead by more than 4 points in the nationals on June 6 she'll be the nominee.

Ok! What's Obama's vision for the American people?
Asking them to join hands and Hope is no more visionary than a Hallmark greeting card. What does he want to do about Iraq? He's bounced around so many poorly thought out answers, including his proposal to give defense money to State and let them hire mercenaries to fight in Iraq...how inane is that! About health Care? He's proposed a universal program that doesn't include anyone who doesn't want to pay for health coverage...that will be everyone without jobs, everyone who feels they're healthy enough and every cash-strapped pensioner in the country. That's plain stupid, not visionary.

Obama talks a good talk but he's come from nowhere and brings no record of accomplishment. They only thing we know about him is that we know little about him.

America's voting for Obama because we all want to be part of celebrity history: helping to elect the first black man to the White House. We'd do a lot better by having American Idol run the election. At least then the candidates would have to show us something.

We probably agree more than disagree, but I would argue with you about why Obama has done as well as he has. I think he has cast a timely message that plays to the people's frustrations with Washington and offers "hope" instead of more of the same bad old issues politics. For that I think he deserves kudos for identifying and exploiting a message that resonates. He's also proven himself a capable and steady campaigner; and a charasmatic leader (we would probably agree on personality cults in this regard).

That said, I agree that there is little substance to the hope theme, and even less track record. I don't think president Obama can change the culture of Washington, just as I don't think the culture of Washington has changed much in the last 150 years. One need only read Cokie Roberts' new book about first ladies, especially their letters back home, or Dr. McClulough's book on Truman. The body of historical evidence indicates that Washington has always been a bog; and if history can predict, will always be so.

So far no one's been able to point to a single Obama accomplishment. That would suggest he's unable to break thru legislative gridlock, despite his suggestion he's been anointed do that. Clinton, on the other hand, worked across the aisle and alongside NY state conservatives to bring 80,000 jobs to employment-depressed upstate NY. Even the state's conservative wing praises her efforts. Clinton's health care plans have a good chance of working. Obama's is simply more bureaucratic smoke and mirrors...designed to make his supporters giggle with glee and nothing else.

As for bringing people together...that's pretty easy to do when you're willing to spend $20M a month and $12M in PA alone. And STILL he couldn't catch Clinton. What does that tell you about a willingness to fight?

This is already happening. The superdelegates are already moving slowly in the direction of giving one candidate a majority. We'll have our nominee soon enough, and it will be long before the convention. We've gone this far. Another few weeks won't matter.

The entire blame for the Democrat snatching defeat from the jaws of victory lies with the Clintons and their powerful DNC clique. They are the "chosen ones" paid for and vetted by the real power brokers, the various lobbyists, the Bourbons, old hands like Henry Kissinger, the industrialists and financiers, the Big Media like Murdoch.

Sometimes, what you see is really what you get - if she walks and talks like a Republican, maybe she *is* a Republican in Democrat-clothing.

Please correct me if I am wrong. Neither Obama or Clinton can secure the nomination at the convention if they vote as they are currently aligned. This means that both need the super delegates to secure a first round nomination. Once the first round is complete, I believe the delegates are released and can vote however they want. This goes for Supers and standard delegates. In days of yore some nominations went through many votes before deciding on a person to nominate. Sometimes neither of the two leaders were chosed, but a dark horse was a compromise choice.

Frankly I am getting tired of people saying Clinton cannot win but Obama can. Neither can without serious defection of superdelegates.