Or could it be that the Clinton camp is floating the rumors of superdelegates about to endorse Obama en masse to make him look silly when they don't materialize? And it gives credence to their argument about still having the momentum in this race.

I'm guessing there is something to the WSJ story, just as there was probably something to Brokaw's story. Back then the 50 probably held off a mass endorsement because the media bought into Hillary's hype after what is in retrospect a pretty pathetic March 4th showing. These 6 could be part of that original 50. I'd say if it doesn't happen now, it will happen sooner or later. I can't imagine either the WSJ or Brokaw would just make things up out of nothing, that is Hillary's job ;)

It's as I suspected. You really cannot count on the reporting on Supers until the Supers themselves release a statement. There are a lot of rumors floating around and sometimes reporters fabricate stories out of them to fit some narrative they have created in their heads.

It still could happen, but it nothing more than rumors until they, the NC delegation, says so.

They read his survey to see he is a fraud.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html

The survey shows the real Obama.

I can't imagine either the WSJ or Brokaw would just make things up out of nothing, that is Hillary's job ;)

The things that are said now.

The WSJ or Brokaw not make things up? Since when.

Don't wave the WSJ at me - good lord! I've spent 8 years repudiating the WSJ. I cannot turn on a dime and now think well of them just because they are saying something for once that I agree with.

That's the problem with citing all these people like Noonan - if I turn around now after all these years of bitching about these peoples' utter lack of credibility and say, well they are credible when they agree with me - what does that make me?

It really goes against all my instincts and most of my convictions. If someone is credible, but conservative, I welcome their opinion, like Hagel. I loved his endorsement. But I do not give one good damn about the endorsements of people I believe do not have any convictions.

Well, so much for that story. I guess we will see who gets behind whom over the next month and something.

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

The best timing for this would be between the PA and NC primaries. The local angle of the NC delegation endorsing Obama would blunt any case for Clinton's viability based on a PA win. I'm guessing he probably has some Indiana reps lined up as well for after 4/22. At the same time, anything that suggests the party is rallying to Obama before the PA primary would be helpful there, so they can't be too upset that the story is out there. I expect we'll still see lots of non-NC or -IN endorsements between now and 4/22 to drive the point home. Can't wait for Mark Penn's memo telling us about Obama's electability problems if he can't win PA even as the automatic delegates are rallying to him.

Not that facts matter much here, but the WSJ is one of the most credible news organizations around. The reporting side is quite distinct from the editorial side, which is neanderthal.

From Newsweek Magazine:

"Should Obama become the Democratic nominee, [affirmative action] could be one of the tougher issues on which to find common ground. Ward Connerly, a prominent opponent of affirmative action, is pushing to get referendums on the subject onto ballots in at least five states this fall. Affirmative action, he says, "is probably the most difficult race issue [Obama] will have to face." If the candidate denounces affirmative action, Connerly predicts, "his support among blacks will plummet from around 80 to 50 percent. Then, bear in mind that much of his support in Iowa, Vermont and Wyoming came from white males, who by a margin of 70 to 30 [percent] oppose affirmative action."

Reading is fundamental - and so being so impatient to see your own drivel on the screen that you issue an annoying double post. But I digress.

It is SO logical that Tom Brokaw would take a leak that Obama is about to get 50 super dels after Super Tuesday from a Hillary supporter and go on air spouting nonsense on the news. Get real - the leak came from inside the Obama camp and they pulled the trigger too early. Did the Obama campaign deny anyone on their behalf issued the leak. No they issued the same carefully parsed dare I say "the depends ontwhat the definition if 'is' is" non-denial as in the NAFTA flap. Yeah real believeable.

Give me one logical reason why Senator Clinton's camp would be putting forth false stories that superdelegates are defecting enmasse? To make Obama look foolish? His camp is doing a fine job in that on their own with their premature congratulations over non-confirmed delegates to try to project the inevitability of his winning and that he has momentum.

I know you conspiracy theorists are convinced that Hillary is responsible for everything bad that happens, but sometimes you've just got to admit that your candidate and his campaign are not perfect and they do make mistakes. This is another one.

And just to source how the Obama camp (meaning supporters & the formal campiagn itself) were directly responsible for the rumors of the 50 supers jumping to Obama - here's a direct quote for his cochairman in Missouri. Try the Google sometime and educate yourselves. Unless Hillary is impersonating him, some IDIOTS on this thread need to face reality rather than trying to pin everything on the Clinton campiagn.

Rep. Lacy Clay (D-MO), Sen. Barack Obama's Missouri co-chairman and pledged Obama superdelegate, said Obama will gain the support of 50 undecided Democratic superdelegates later this week, according to the Columbia Missourian.
Said Clay: "She (Sen. Clinton) will not make up those numbers. This race is over."