1. The HRC camp has readily admitted for weeks now that they NEVER expect to catch-up to Obama in Pledged Delegates.

2. The strategy is to destroy Obama in order to make him unelectable and, ergo, leaving HRC the only viable nominee that has actually participated in the process.

3. Given these facts, isn't is OBVIOUS why the Obama camp and, increasingly, more and more leading Dems want to see this race end?

4. The most likely outcome is that Clinton will bloody his face, knee cap him, and wear him down, but NOT knock him out. (For SDs to back somebody OTHER than the Pledged Delegate Leader, that leader will have to not be damaged, but DESTROYED.) Many of you think that Obama on his best day cannot beat McCain, yet you see no problem with tearing him down a couple notches in the faint hope that MAYBE you can destroy him.

5. And this is the disgusting thing. Every Clinton supporter who understands this race knows that the only shot she has is to DESTROY Obama. And, in my humble opinion, it validates everything people have said about the "Clintons will do anything to win" argument.

6. By supporting Clinton at this point, you're not just remaining loyal to your chosen candidate. You're specifically endorsing the attempted destruction of the man who, MOST LIKELY, will be the Democratic Nominee for President of the United States. Make no mistake about it, you are aiding and abetting John McCain.

7. Clintons own advisers have said on background that they give her a 10% shot.

But what you DIDN'T see is Huckabee trying to destroy McCain. Once it became apparent that McCain would, MOST LIKELY, be the nominee, Huckabee ran a positive campaign. He poked fun at himself. He drew contrasts w/ McCain without attacking him.

What so many of you folks have shown ME is that you're Clintonistas BEFORE you're Democrats. You care more about your hatred for Barack Obama than you do your defiance of the Republican Party. You're willing to let McCain continue the war, tilt the court to one that will overturn Roe, and champion the same old Bush policies just because you don't like Barack Obama, or you think he's inexperience or a liar or whatever.

And this notion that "Both candidates will need SD's" so it's OK for SDs to overturn the will of the people is absurd. The fact that neither will have enough pledged delegates to reach the majority has no bearing on the fact that Obama has gotten hundreds of thousands of more votes and hundreds more delegates than has Clinton.

No matter how you want to spin it -- and I would probably do the same in your shoes -- that would indeed be overturning the choice of the people.

Politics is a zero sum game and a margin of ONE SINGLE VOTE is plenty good enough to win an election. Let alone 100, or 100,000 or 700,000.

Luckily for every true Democrat, the NYT and WaPo have both reported that, when asked, the majority of Super Delegates have said that they would not contradict the voice of the people.

They know, as does anybody with any objectivity, that doing so would absolutely destroy this Democratic Party.

Can the SDs do it? Absolutely. It's not about "rules" it's about perception. And the perception would be that all those elections counted for nothing, and, among my peers -- the African American community -- it would look like nothing more than a backroom deal that steals the election away from the first black man that was able to beat the white candidate at her own game.

Is that a fair perception? Not entirely.

But in almost every scenario, it still comes down to super-Deez,

ie who has the numbers inside the Party heirarchy.

In theory, and by the Rules, the Super-Deez, like everyone else, have the right to a free vote on their own personal judgement.

Nobody else is forced to vote a certain way.
Whether caucus, closed or open, participants had a right to vote for the candidate they preferred.

But not the Party officials, they aren't allowed to.

What is the problem with letting the Super-Deez have the same right to vote for a candidate as they choose?  

I don't understand why they should be pressured to vote according to the math? (And skewed, well-known biased math at that, with no resolution about relative importance of which specific metrics to include/exclude or weight etc)

So, why don't we just change the rules to say "Super-Deez aren't allowed a free vote at all, they must vote according to the math"

(once we first agree on which math we think is the right one)

And if it will come down to who has the numbers inside the Party heirarchy, and they just spin whatever math after the event to justify it, to make it "appear" legitimate etc. well.. then they may as well come out and do that now, or straight after the next round in April. Just start trickling super-Deez to come out publicly over the next few weeks, and end it.

But some of the opinion polls, are indicating a majority want them both to keep going to the end, which forces continued negative and bitter campaigning etc.  So the Super-Deez may feel forced to wait till the end, then play mind-games with the math to justify what they wanted to do all along.

It is therefore reasonable to ask what he did - empowered as he was as a high-profile, long-standing parishioner - to change the viewpoint of Wright and Trinity, and whether those efforts were successful.

What was missing, as I've pointed out several times is Obama -- he addressed us to let us know that he knows what Wright said was wrong and divisive, he also addressed us to let us know that we are wrong to focus on what Wright said -- what he has not done is turn around and address the community of which he says he belongs.

There is a paragraph in MLK's "I have a dream" speech that begins:

But there is something that I must say to my people,

If Obama wins the nomination by instructing his delegates to vote in lockstep to exclude two pro-Clinton states, that will also be very damaging for the long-term prospects of the party.