So then the big issue would really become, do super delegates vote with the people's choice? Obviously Hillary's folks will try to nix that, whether by fighting for delegates from MI and FLA or simply fighting for super delegates to come to her.

Seems to me that if Hillary prevails in going against democracy in terms of pledged delegates or if she prevails in going against her own pledge re MI or FLA, then that is a vote which takes us down a very slippery path... away from the Rule of Law and further into the type of govt bush has pursued.

Ahhhh, I can't wait until the people give Obama enough pledged delegates to overcome her superdelegate lead as well...that will be a nice ass kicking for Democracy!

You know the superdelegate count is bs. There is no guarantee that they will vote as they profess to at this point. They can do what they want, so why are they included? The only reason is obviously to give the impression that the clintons are leading. Obama is leading in pledged delegates and that's all that matters. The larger that lead grows, the more likely that the superdelegates will go his way.

Is 5% a "considerable" lead in delegate count at this point? Seems fairly slight to me with several BIG primary states yet to even vote.
And the idea that caucus states are sufficiently democratic in their process that their super delegates must obey the caucus will is laughable.
The party rules on super delegates do say how they should vote: according their own judgement and will.
Obama agreed to these rules in advance and now wants to change them midstream. How "fair" is that?
And for elected officials who are super delegates which constituency should they follow? Must Edward Kennedy and John Kerry vote for HRC since she carried their state? Do mayors vote as their city did if their county or state went the other way?
To start trying to change the rules for super delegates now is no more fair or just than it would be to drop proportional distribution of delegates. Would that be fair in mid stream?
One thing is for sure: this race suggests that the rules, state and national, need a good overhaul.
Step one, eliminate all state caucuses and the absurd primacy of Iowa and New Hampshire.

First, I think you can make the same argument about superdelegates that many have been making about regular voters; if they were going to be for Hillary, they would be already. More importantly though, I think we're nearing a point where reason and spin are irrelevant with respect to superdelegates. People have caught Obama fever. There's a passion amongst the younger and more pragmatic members of the party (and many nonmembers) that the party simply cannot afford to do without. A Hillary nomination at this point would just tear these people's hearts out.

I absolutely buy the argument that the overwhelming majority of Hillary voters will still turnout for Obama, while the reverse isn't so true. Her voters are first and foremost Democrats and will do anything to see the Republicans defeated. On the other hand, many of his voters are independents or moderate republicans, and a lot of them just hate Hillary. They will not turnout in November, or worse, they may turnout for McCain, and that would create a toss-up in an otherwise Dem leaning year. It would also have a significant effect downticket, meaning that even if she did win, she'd be working with 52-54 Senators as opposed to 56-60.

If FL and MI were to be seated, has anybody determined how many delegates each would pull out of those respective states?

I wish all the media outlets would use the double number realclearpolitics uses - the pledged delegate count, super delegate count and total count - that way, the information is accurate as far as any one can tell, but mostly, it INFORMS: who is ahead in elected delegates, and who is getting their support from party insiders! THis becaomes very important when the electorate feels is is lopsided; "stealing" the election with all kinds of more or less veiled threats of reprisals and promises of rewards is not how a party that calls itself "democratic" shouls select it's nominee!

A strong showing in DC, MD AND VA will put Sen. Obama ahead in the delegate count, EVEN if you include the super depegates. I wish all the news organisations would be breaking these numbers down!

For the first time, there is mention of a possible concession by Clinton (and from a pro-Clinton newspaper)

In a sign of how radically the dynamic of the race has shifted in recent days, some Clinton staffers now privately concede Obama could lock up the nomination with a single win in Ohio or Texas on March 4, or in Pennsylvania on April 22.

http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/printedition/monday/news/ny-ushill115572996feb11,0,1806112.story

Hillary is dead in the water in the general election. Even if she and Bill find a way to pull out some cooked up way to win......she will be a candidate who couldn't even win the majorty of the states IN HER OWN PARTY. Oh and I am in TEXAS.....she may win here but it won't be big.

Why do Hillary supporters think the Patrick/Kerry/ Kennedy superdelegate reference is such a "gotcha" point? I think Obama is saying that the superdelegates should not force an outcome contrary to the pledged delegate outcome. Under that, the MA elected officials could agree to follow their constituents choice -- however, so would superdelegates in the states Obama won. It seems to me that is what the "we won more states" argument Obama keeps making is driving at: it forces state officials in all the states he won to vote for him.

But it is clear from the link above that the majority of superdelates are DNC members -- are these people local elected officials, or what?

The point that I think noone is realizing is that neither Obama or Clinton has a pray of getting anywhere near 2,025 delegates by the end of the primary season (June 7th in Puerto Rico).

What we will have for the 79 days (over 11 weeks!) after that, is constant news stories about smoke-filled rooms, deals, and tons of stories about just how undemocratic this process is. This is something that the Democrats can't afford to go through. Plus McCain will have all this time to organize, fund raise, and otherwise sit back and enjoy the Strum und Drang.

This whole Superdelegate thing should not be the deciding factor. There is an online petition to ask that Governor Dean lead an effort to amend the Convention rules to guarantee that the winner of a majority of Pledged Delegates (the ones awarded through Primaries and Caucuses) will have sufficient bound Superdelegate votes to guarantee the nomination.

Here is the link - http://www.PetitionOnline.com/dem2008/petition.html

Help in this grassroots effort to keep this nomination in the hands of the people voting and not with the Superdelegates.

There is zero chance that things will drag out for 11 weeks. It's close enough that it may go all the way through to Puerto Rico, and we may need to find some way to conduct an actual vote in MI and FL, but when all is said and done, whoever has the fewest pledged delegates will concede and put their support behind the other one.

The super delegates are important right now because it makes the story more interesting for the press, but that's the extent of it. Once we know how all of the states will vote (or enough states that the runner up can see the writing on the wall), one candidate will gracefully exit the race.

At that point, the super delegates will line up behind the last one standing to more them over the mark. There won't be stories of smoke-filled rooms. That doesn't do the party any good, and ultimately, both of these candidates will support the needs of the party.

A nice counter to the Clinton claim that she "won" Michigan and Florida:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=65ed7d1f-b586-40d0-bc4c-48292494d4ef

As Tad Devine wrote in yesterdays NY Times opinion piece;

"Superdelegates should withhold their endorsements until the convention at which point they should vote in a block to put the person with the most EARNED DELEGATES over the top to win the nomination".

It really is that simple. Therefore, Hillary needs to pack it in and give the nomination to Barack. Because he is going to win the next 5 contests putting his numbers at 24 states to her 10 going in to March 4 where he will steal Ohio and VT to be our party's nominee.