Super-delegates may be free to overturn the verdict of the voters, but they do know what the consequences of that will be in November. And that should be the one and only guide - as well as the future of the party. Think they want to see just how many new dems they can turn away over a period of a few weeks, and harm the party for years to come? Note that Sen. Clinton STARTED the race with about 100 "super" delegates in her pocket. (McAuliffe stated, in the plane from IA to NH, "let's not forget who's getting the nomination - we have the super-delegates" - seriously - from DAY ONE!). And now Sen. Obama has a slight lead among currently elected officials - Sen. Clinton's entire lead is made up of DNC members. Loyalty should be to the party and the issues it stand for, not to the Clintons, no matter what they promise (you know what we can do for our friends) or threaten with (political suicide, off the president's list, etc etc....). Enough already - please stop the madness! (I am convinced the Clintons would rather see a McCain win, leaving them at thee top of the dem. pecking order, than see Sen. Obama in office - total shake-up of party power base, gone are the chances for HRC, and Bill is worried he will be eclipsed by a "real" transformational democrat.

Though I am committed to Obama, I hope I'm not being over-sensitive to note that the last paragraph above reads like a Clinton press release. Would it not be more proper to use the conditional, instead of stating the events as something that WILL happen? And is it not wildly understating facts to say that Obama is "widely expected" to exceed Clinton in pledged delegates? Thus:

"The Clinton campaign WOULD in all likelihood have to rely on supers to get the nomination, with Barack Obama MATHEMATICALLY CERTAIN to get a majority of pledged delegates — and they WOULD need to have people reminded that the rules provide for this in order to maintain their legitimacy."

However, this is not an endorsement of Clinton's position on elected delegates.

Career politicans and party fanatics get to vote with yardsticks? Hopefully pledged delegates will come armed for a knife or a gun fight.

Viva la people!

How does this possibly endorse Clinton's position. Dean says use whatever yardstick you want. Clinton says the "yardstick" should be big states that voted for her, or the fact the the GOP will tear apart a candidate with a scary black minister. Obama says the "yardstick" should be the leader in delegates and popular vote. Dean isn't saying which yardstick is right. He's stating the obvious point that supers are free to choose.

All the big wigs are giving Hillary lots of space. After dominating the weekend talk shows, Pelosi, Dean, Reid have stopped arguing about super delegates, when to get out of the election, how to unify the party, etc. Maybe they've been scared by the political blowback they've caused and are trying to backpeddle for some damage control. Or, do they sense that Hillary's end is imminent (this steady stream of endorsements) and they want to take the high road as she leaves the race?

Rules won't matter, voters, especially the young, will be bitter and rightly so, millions of voters will be lost to belief that elections are about the people.

Dean has always said his goal is to ensure that the supporters of whoever loses this race feel as though they were treated fairly.

All this quotation does is further that end. It's obvious but important for Dean to say ... for the perception of a fair process to all parties. It doesn't change the fact that supers are politicians and understand the implications of overturning the voter's choice.

everything on obamatalkingpointsmemo.com sounds like an obama press release.

go hillary!

now cue the trolls.

What Hillary Rambo Clinton, The Heroine of Tuzla, is urging the Super Delegates to do, is to overthrow the majority of elected delegates. The Clintons are calling for a Coup to install Hillary. Think about the irony in that. It is called The Democratic Party, but Hillary wants to be installed as it's leader by means of Coup.

I'm an Obama supporter.

I don't have any problem with the SD's voting according to their "best judgement" or their conscience. I'm confident they will make the best decision when the time comes.

What I find amusing/disturbing is how Clinton supporters automatically assume that SD's will vote for Clinton based on their "judgement". I think that SD's will look at the state of the race at the end of the primaries and make a decision - and I'm confident that decision will be for Obama.

Why? Let's remember there are two kinds of SD's - elected officials and party officials.

Elected officials will go for Obama because they want coattails. They don't want to be perceived as "going against the voters". And they have already seen how Obama's grass roots organizing can help them on the ground - See Bill Foster in Illinois (Denny Hastert's seat) and Donna Edwards in MD (beating out incumbent Al Wynn) - so they will look at that as helping them in November. (not to mention the recent press about the Clinton supporter who would be "stunned" if Obama isn't the nominee and the next president)

Party officials will go for Obama because they want to build the party for the long term. This means young people. Think of the incredible energy that college students and even some high schoolers (like Casey Knowles) are showing on behalf of Obama. Think of the high turnout, the voter registration drives, the party switching going on. This are the metrics that the party looks at.

I've never had a problem with the super delegates. After all, they will make their decision based on self interest. And, I think they will see that their interests are best served by Obama as the nominee.

It is better for Obama to lose in the general then for the Democratic Party to lose a generation of voters.

Another reading: Put this in the context of the shifting narrative of the last couple days. Clinton is starting to suggest now that SDs moving to Obama are "trying to shut down the election," "silence the voice of the people."

Conventional wisdom says these comments by Dean support Clinton's endgame, but if more and more SDs keep moving to Obama and Clinton keeps trying to paint those endorsements as the party insiders trying to force her out, this statement by Dean sets up more clearly the contradiction in her position. It could pre-empt Clinton's apparent plans to attack the motives of the SDs who are backing Obama.

Dean's just trying not to piss off the Hillary people by seeming to prejudge it, while he, Reid, and Pelosi push SD's toward decisions. If he announces the decisionrule is pledged and then pushes hard for a decision, then we alienate more of our base. We all know Obama's getting it, barring nearly impossible events. Every time the meme of leaders pushing HRC hits the media, she gets energized. They're just trying to do this more quietly, which is smart.

There's nothing here to react negatively to.

Speaking of SD balls, check out Richardson's riposte to Carville from yesterday's Washington Post. Excellent.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/01/AR2008040100885_pf.html

ohh please give it a rest with the threats that millions of new voters will turn away ...ohh well they didn't vote before anyway and democracy survived. it's their choice. we survived the election being given to geaorge bush in 2000 as well as the voting machines being tampered with we will survive the kiddies disappointment in OBAMA losing. if blacks allow the hispanic vote to marginalize their importance infutute elections well...their problem.

Another Super Delegate goes into the Obama column:

Wed Apr 2, 8:50 AM ET

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Wednesday won the endorsement of Lee Hamilton, a former Indiana congressman who is a leading U.S. authority on foreign relations and national security.
ADVERTISEMENT

The support of Hamilton, who co-chaired two blue-ribbon commissions that investigated the September 11 attacks and advised President George W. Bush on the war in Iraq, could boost the Illinois senator in his May 6 Indiana primary contest against New York Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Hamilton said Obama offers American voters the best chance to create a new sense of national unity and transcend division.

"He champions the politics of consensus, not of partisan division," the longtime Democratic Party figure said in a statement. "He is driven by the search for the common good."

Hamilton, also backed Obama on foreign relations, an area where the White House hopeful has been criticized for inexperience.

"His foreign policy is pragmatic, visionary and tough," said Hamilton, former Democratic chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives committees on foreign affairs and intelligence.

"He will work with our friends and allies. He will strengthen our ability to use all tools of American power and relentlessly promote the American values of freedom and justice for all people."

It was the latest key Democratic endorsement for Obama in his race against Clinton for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. The two face hard-fought primary election battles in both Indiana and Pennsylvania in the next several weeks.

Obama also has picked up other endorsements recently from New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey.

Hamilton represented Indiana in the House from 1965 through 1999. He now is president and director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

ohh please give it a rest with the threats that millions of new voters will turn away ...ohh well they didn't vote before anyway and democracy survived

O really? So the last 8 years and 4000 dead Americans and the constitution in tatters is no big deal. The speech Al Gore gave in '05, where he said basically - we've been here before, we've always pulled out of it before, but this time I'm not so sure..." meant nothing?

The fascist takeover of our government meant nothing? O no big deal we survived - while becoming the world's major torturer? No big deal? New Orleans - 2000 people drowned in their homes NO BIG DEAL?

You really think we can survive just on the old coalition? How do you figure that when all we do is lose? Look at the statistics.

The SDs probably know Obama can't win genereal election.

Hillary will get Fla. & Michigan - if delegates are seated and she'll have popular vote and she wins.