They recognize that their candidate limps to the finish line and their only play is to try to run out the clock and say, well we are leading and therefore, we have won.

Their implicit logic is 'super' delegates must support their candidate, even if they judge that he does not have a chance to win in November.

no reasonable scenario where Clinton can pull out a primary win absent intervention by the superdelegates.

 These college kids are so upset that they are not getting their way that they are gonna have a hissy fit if Obama isn't just given the nomination.  

Hillary's decisive win makes it very clear that she, not Obama, is the favorite with core Democrats.  Her supporter, moreover, view Obama as ultra-left.  His remark about bitter, while polling directly suggested wasn't a big deal, obviously was a big deal to pocket-book Democrats.

She increased her sway over church-goers, which is a reversal from Obama's earlier races.

Obama is losing ground.

The more the far left of the party screams, the more clear it becomes that Obama's core group is simply not the group that wins national elections.

Again, in exit polls, we see the falsehood of the OBama threat:  My people won't vote for her.  His supporters are more likely to vote Democrat than her supporters are likely to vote for him.

That fact is now glaring.  

Most of the temper tantrums from the editorialists show such a lack of objectivity  (Oh, like Bosnia was not her albatross?) that I can only conclude that these glaring truths are really upsetting them on an emotional level.

I feel like a man without a country now. I swore off voting Republican some time ago, with Bush cementing that decision for life. And now comes a Democrat even more narcissistic and arrogant than Bush, with an even more mindless and obnoxious legion of followers. I honestly don't see myself voting for him in November. Democrats down-ticket, yes, but not him.

Obama is hemorrhaging support in states that Democrats should/could win in November, while Clinton is picking up support.

SUSA released 9 new "Dem vs McCain" state polls last week, so I compared those states to where they were in late Febrary -- Obama did better than Clinton against McCain in February (by an average of 3.5 points), but now Clinton is doing better than Obama (by 1.5 points) against McCain.

This post this morning at Eschaton means that he has signed on to Hunter's theory

I'm not at all concerned about the campaigning.  They're each trying to win the election.  It hasn't been all that negative, unless you feel that complaining about it somehow helps your candidate.

I think you should remind HRC supporters of that when they diminish the voters in red/caucus states.

By saying that delegates don't matter (which are won by having the electorate vote for you) you are essentially supporting such a scenario yourself. Popular vote is not reliable, as it undervalues caucuses. The race is about winning the most delegates.

After last night, it is clear that person will be Barack Obama. He will also win about twice as many contests.

I know this is OT, but I really get frustrated by talk of popular vote advantanges if these numbers are based on tiny numbers of caucus goers and then extrapolated up to to vote elegible population as a whole.

The Republican commentators are already telling us what the October surprise will be. They have consistently said McCain most likely chance at a win would be some sort of security crisis. It's more than likely that Bushco will provide us with one. Probably in the form of Iranian militants crossing into Iraq.
Why would Iran oblige us, or make such a seemingly foolish move, think "arms for hostages" here. The Iranian government has no need for an over abundance of militants in their backyard. So, much like the other governments in the region, with such a surplus, they will be more than happy to cull the herd as it were, by sending them into the meat grinder.

Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

Obama's argument is that Superdelegates should decide before votes are counted.  Superdelegates should decide without votes counted in two large states.

[T]he person most deserving of the Presidency of the United States just miraculously happens to be the person married to the last Democratic President of the United States; it smacks far too much of the usual intra-Washington narcissism, and carries the strong whiff of American monarchy, something already wafting through the air after the ridiculous rise of the Boy King

Hunter is just dead wrong when he omits the superdelegates from the calculation of what is a reasonable scenario for either candidate to win, once again trying to make the case that a superdelegate decision to support Clinton, and give her the nomination, is a travesty of the process.  It is not.

I hate to use a sports analogy, but there are plenty of football games where the team with the most yards, the most first downs, the longest time of possession does not win the game, because the other team was able to score more points.  I understand that we determine the winners of football games by whichever team has the most points when the clock ticks down to 0:00, but the losing team does not claim that the winning team cheated, stole or got the "W" by less-than-fair means.

I know the argument is that the "rules" award the nomination on the basis of delegates, but the superdelegates have the flexibility to make a decision that takes other factors into account - and one of those factors ought to be which candidate is more electable.

If I'm a superdelegate, I have to be worried that in spite of his lead in the delegate count, and number of states won, he has not garnered the most support from the demographic Democrats must have to win in November, and the question is, do we want to win in November or not?

What is really getting on my last nerve is what feels like an attempt by the DNC - or at least some members of it - to force Obama on us by manipulating the process.  It began with their decisions on Florida and Michigan, has continued through an absence of leadership on the part of Howard Dean.  Dean had, in my opinion, a duty and a responsibility to make crystal clear what the role and responsibility of the supers is - by failing to do so, he has allowed one candidate to define that role, exert undue pressure on them and continue the manipulation of the process.  Howard Dean should have confronted Donna Brazile, for example, and told her she needed to choose whether she wanted to be all over the TV as a "political analyst," or have a role with the DNC - that she was incapable of doing both, and was unnecessarily influencing the process.

I'm sick to death of people who were apoplectic about what went on in the 2000 and 2004 elections now pushing an agenda whose message is that we don't really need to count all the votes.  We do, and we must, if this general election is to have any credibility.  Patrick Leahy screaming at Bradley Schlozman in the Senate Judiciary Committee over manufactured voter fraud suits has been rendered meaningless by his decision to announce that Clinton had no reason to stay in the race and should get out.  

I am just disgusted beyond belief, and that feeling is not going away anytime soon; if my feelings, which many others share, result in a weaker Democratic Party in the future, well, I guess that's what happens when you systematically reject the voices and votes of a significant portion of the party.  Barack Obama is not going to heal that wound - he will be the salt that is poured in it on a daily basis.  He will not unify us around a leadership which went out of its way to exclude millions from the process.  He will not change the way things are being done, because only fools would believe that what has already happened is not the embodiment of old-style, dirty politics.

If the race ends on June 3rd, with Obama having an advantage of 150 pledged delegates, and about 250 superdelegate endorsements, while Clinton has about 300 superdelegate endorsements, there will be about 250 uncommitted superdelegates remaining, and Clinton will have to get at least 100 more than Obama in order to be the nominee(I am excluding FL/MI from this, for a number of reasons).  That works out to a 175-75 split of remaining superdelegates, not impossible, but that would be a 70-30 split, percentage-wise, certainly disproportionate to the state of the race.

If Clinton wants the superdelegates to overturn all the voting up until now, fine

So if that continues, which seems likely, and the SDs go with the popular vote, that's not going to "overturn the will of the people."

And if that is all they should do, shouldn't the SD's in states that went for Clinton, but who have come out for Obama, switch their commitment?  And what about the SD"s in states that haven't voted yet, but who have already announced a commitment to Obama?  Shouldn't they first see what the will of their people is before making that commitment?

So, there goes the will of the people argument, don't you think?  Factor in the caucus states, where some miniscule percentage of the states' voters participated, and I think the argument gets even weaker.

a) Will of people is in popular vote, NOT delegate count,
b) If its close enough this is not a strong argument, extreme example what if they are within 10 votes of each other in pop vote?
c) Some argue FL is fair game, some argue both FL and MI are fair game,
d) SDs are supposed to exercise independent judgement.