Normally the nominee's campaign team micro-manages everything taking place at the convention.  If there's two "presumptive" nominees, that's a recipe for catastrophe.  It'll make the party look divided, divisive, disorganized and downright unprepared to take the reins of power.  It might make for "fascinating theater", but it could also spell disaster in November.

So, I'm starting to lean towards the idea of having the uncommitted superdelegates throw their support en masse to whomever is ahead in the pledged delegate count by the end of the primaries.  If it's Clinton, she's our nominee and I will support her and her running mate, Barack Obama.  If it's Obama, he's our nominee and I will support him and his running mate, Hillary Clinton.

Pretend it's a movie.  You would say..."Well, THAT could never happen!"

Then the movie spells it out for you...how it actually DID happen...but not in the way it appears.

Obama was drafted.  Talked into it.

By whom?

Guess.  Think.  Who are 'the big Dem losers in DC Dem establishment politics who are surfacing, one by one, to advance this candidacy?  Daschle.  Kerry.  Kennedy.  Add the MSM.

Is there light at the end of that tunnel now?

The anti-Clinton Dem establishment didn't want Edwards and didn't think he could win...to get rid of the Clintons...and beat Hillary...they needed someone spectacular...someone they could package and sell and who would owe them everything if he won.  (Sound familiar at all?  This worked for Rove with young Bush).

These people, cynically, have nothing to lose if it doesn't work...and everything to gain if it does.

And Obama is the candidate of the D.C. establishment machine. Ted Kennedy, David Broder, and John Kerry aren't outsiders, last time I looked.

And while I do credit Obama with bringing more voters to the table, Hillary is also doing this.  In fact, Obama probably lost California because the hispanic vote was 29%.  That's huge and unprecedented in a democratic primary.  Via pollster, here are the past latino vote percentages:

2006 Dem gubernatorial primary - 12% Latino, 8% black (LAT)
2004 Dem presidential primary - 16% Latino, 8% black (via CNN)
2000 Dem presidential primary - 17% Latino, 11% black (via CNN)
1998 Dem gubernatorial primary - 12% Latino, 14% black (LAT)

And then this: "There's not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush's position at this stage." That was July of `04.

And this: "I think" there's "some room for disagreement in that initial decision to vote for authorization of the war." It doesn't seem that you are firmly wedded against the war, and that you left some wiggle room that, if you had been in the Senate, you may have voted for it. ("Meet the Press," 2004, via MyDD, Nov. 11, 2007)

[The reason Hillary won is because the Latino and Asian American votes remain emergent, not yet insurgent.

Emergent voting blocs respond to leaders in their community. If the candidate wins the leader, she wins her followers. Insurgent voting blocs instead respond to calls for change, and may focus more on single issues or agendas. If a candidate stakes out a good position, she captures the community. Hillary played the politics of emergence.]

[Latinos and Asian Americans in California are overwhelmingly Democratic, and will likely remain so for a very long time because of Reep immigration demagoguery. But they also tend to be more mainstream and conservative.]

[So Hillary won by old party-style top-down appeals to Latinos and Asian Americans. Dems shouldn't rest thinking that this strategy will hold for long. Younger Latino and Asian American voters were energized by Obama, and formed a visible and crucial part of his GOTV ground troops. They had an impact. Roberto Lovato notes that Obama was able to bring down Hillary's overall 4-1 advantage among Latino voters to a 3-2 advantage by Super Tuesday. It could be argued that Obama's bottom-up machinery hasn't yet taken full advantage of the pent-up energy amongst young Brown and Yellow voters.]