It's not a good idea to tell voters that their votes aren't as important as the RULZ, or undemocratically elected delegates. It is especially not a good idea to tell the whole world that FL and MI don't count, particularly since it is a suicidal stance in the General Election.

I'm beginning to wonder if they really want to win this election or not. Their actions seem to belie that.

She also should step down as co-chairman of the Democratic National Convention.

the decisions of millions of Americans who have voted

We've got a system of checks and balances here. The donors are one factor and it is past time they weigh in. They are on the right side this time.

she's certainly free to express her opinion, but not simultaneously claim neutrality; the two are polar opposites and can't be reconciled.

the only honorable course for her is to step down from her co-chair position of the DNC.

The existence of superdelegates as part of the process means that the process is not meant to be a contest of pure popular vote. It is one of primarily popular vote because it is more than possible for a candidate to win the nomination without the support of any superdelegates, but the opposite is not the case. (Even though the extent to which this is a true popular vote is questionable because one could have more pledged delegates but less popular votes, but that is another issue.) The process is grounded in the popular vote of the people, but it is not intended to be soley based on that vote. Where the popular vote of the people is clear and favors one candidate it is decisive and cannot be overriden. Anyone who gets enough of the popular vote will get enough pledged delegates that they cannot be denied the nomination. When that does not occur the nomination winds up being decided by superdelegates who are intentionally designed to not be directly tie to a popular vote. That is what is supposed to happen when the process is inconclusive- the independent judgment of representatives of the party are meant to reign. (Just like in the electoral college when no one has a majority the House of Representatives decides.)

Those who have argued that the leader in the pledged delegates, or the popular vote for that matter, is the only legitimate nominee have essentially through their sucess in getting people to accept this argument, changed the rules in the middle of the game. They have basically suggested that the process as designed is illegitimate, and while that may be true, if that was the case then this should have been brought up long before the point when engaging in these type of arguments would inevitably become tanamount to advancing the electoral prospects of a particular candidate. The real problem is that the by accepting these arguments about the importance of having more pledged delegates or popular votes, the very system itself has been rendered illegitimate. The way the system is set up having more popular votes or pledged delegates means little to nothing if you don't have a majority of delegates. Having elevated such a lead to some sort of decisive significance has essentially rendered the intended role of the superdelegates moot and is therefore tanamount to changing the rules in the middle of the game. This will not be lost on the supporters of the candidate who loses, and hence the winner will be seen by many as having extorted the nomination out of the party via threats of tearing the party apart if they don't get their way.

There is no presumptive nominee. No one has a legitmate claim to the nomination until they 2024 delegates in their colum. I might agree that someone with 2022 or such could make a pretty darn strong claim that if they don't get the nomination that it would be illegitmate, that is not going to be the case in this election. Both candidates will be well short of the 2024 and will need superdelegates to put them over the top. Whoever is leading is by no means a deciding or binding factor for the superdelegates decision. If any candidate had a statistically significant lead then they would have the nomination secured, or they would be so close to it that there would be no doubt they could secure the few superdelegates needed to win. That is not what is going on here. The superdelegates will decide. They may want to pretend that is not the case and try to avoid having to take any accountability for their choice by defaulting to the leader in the race, but ultimately that is still their choice, and if the nominee they choose loses a general election, or winds up being a weak president they should, and I am sure will, be held accountable for that.

The proper course of action for both Obama and those in the media would have been to simply say that both candidates should work towards obtaining the delegates needed. If they fail to do that, they should appeal to the superdelegates making their strongest argument as to why they would be the best nominee or president. They could certainly use the vote and delegate totals as evidence for their arguments, but any insinuation that those things consitute decisive factors is inappropriate. The candidates should bot be willing to acknowledge that the superdelegates are free to exercise their own independent judgment, and that they will respect the outcome no matter what happens. They should state that if they failed to get the proper number of delegates or convince the superdelegates to support them then they have not earned the nomination, and that no one should feel that they are entitled to it based upon a lead that falls short of the required majority needed to win. The superdelegates themselves should make clear that they have chosen who they did based on their strenght as a candidate and their confidence in that person's ability, not simply weasle out of having to take responsibility for the consequences of one's choice by claiming they simply defaulted to the leader. I would accept one saying that they could not see any significant difference between the two candidates, that they had full confidence in both, but for that reason they defaulted to the leader in whatever category. (I would find this very hard to believe and would prefer they not do this, but I think such a position is at least defendable.) What seems to be the prevailing mindset in many circles however, where the superdelegates must defer to this, that, or the other is simply an attempt to change the rules of the process and how it functions, which being done in the middle of the process is totally unacceptable.

Speaker Pelosi is confident that superdelegates will choose between Senators Clinton or Obama -- our two strong candidates -- before the convention in August.

If Pelosi suddenly came out and said "the popular vote is the only thing that counts" Clinton supporters would be giving her a standing ovation for her wisdom, even if she didn't officially endorse either candidate with said words.

Your objection is not to her faux neutrality (and I agree It's false) but the fact that she is weighing in primarily for Obama. Can you seriously dispute that? Do you SERIOUSLY claim that if she came out with positions that supported ur own beliefs while still claiming neutrality you would have a problem with that?

In fact, the very fact that she's covertly supporting him is another nail in his coffin. The short-term gain from her support is obvious, but when it comes to the party choosing a nominee, all his illegitimate advantages - no delegates from Florida or Michigan, backing by supposedly neutral party bigwigs, and a complicit media - will serve to delegitimize his campaign, and hence, his chances in November. If he is the nominee.

Representatives with Barack Obama's presidential campaign have reached out to Michigan and Florida Democrats to begin a "dialogue" about how to seat the delegations at the nominating convention that will be held in Denver later this summer.

"As we've said consistently, we think there should be a fair seating of the Michigan and Florida delegates. The Clinton campaign has stubbornly said they see no need to negotiate, but we believe that their Washington, my-way-or-the-highway approach is something voters are tired of," Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said.

The pool of available uncommitted SDs would shrink further, and her path would become more improbable.  

Per MSNBC..... 'Some' talking head said 'some' superdeez are
upset with the Clinton's tactics.  'Some' think 'some' are too rough, religious flap, some Dems trying to go there, etc. etc...

Clinton's strong arm tactics against Pelosi have cost Clinton her female base....