Redstate

....one of the people telling us how superdelegates should override the will of the people and that it was important to let the people decide?

Dean has graciously put Obama in a real bind. Obama, as things stand now, is probably the guy that would win those superdelegates if they were forced to pick now, but he's the one that was most vocal about the superedelegates sticking with the people and letting the peoples' votes decide. If he goes along with Dean he looks a touch hypocritical and opportunist - which we know he is, but serves as just another chip off the "new politician" veneer he's trying to sell. If he doesn't go along with Dean and continues to believe the people should decide he may actually lose - Clinton could pull off enough wins and by the right margins that she will, when you add in Florida, totally close the popular vote gap between them. With Barry looking more and more damaged and weak by recent events ("bitter," Wright and Meeks, Rezko, the "money from oil companies" bit, etc.), a tied popular vote could be enough to sell some superdelegates on Clinton - maybe she's unpopular, but at least they know there won't be any new damning revelations in September and October.

Also, if Barry looks to be trying to preempt the vote in these states, he could lose support in them and actually cause to happen exactly what Clinton is holding on for - he could depress his own numbers just enough to allow Clinton to pull even with him in total votes. And then we get to have the conversation about whether it's the people that matter, or the delegates, whether we should look to who won more primaries in big important states like CA, OH, and PA or who managed ridiculous margins in a few deep red states based on incredibly low turnout at caucuses. (Personally I find Clinton's argument more compelling - I'd rather nominate a Republican who won primaries, even close ones, in TX, OH and FL to one who picked up big caucus wins in MA, RI and MD).

All this makes me wonder - if Clinton had just put a little more effort into those caucus states she wouldn't be here. She didn't even need to win - all she needed to do was keep Obama in the 55-60 range rather than the 65-75 range and she would have picked up a couple of delegates in each state, and probably would have had enough to make the pledged delegate differential nearly irrelevant. I wonder how many current and former Clinton people kick themselves every night.

Mr. Dean.
We vote in Pa. on Tue 22 Apr.. my vote counts.

It is bad enough that "YOUR" chosen candidate and "YOUR" political party has decided not to count Fla. and Mi. now you want the voters of Pa. not to count.

How about no vote counts and the Dem.party machine just pick whom ever they want to be in office. Why even go to the trouble of having an election at all?

Mr. Dean... shut up.
Patrick, proud to be an Americn

All the more ammunition for states to continue to move up in the process in future cycles.

The worse Obama looks as a candidate, the more the leading Dems call for her to drop out.

Maybe the Dems are taking their principle of surrender to heart.

Well, not really, but only because I so strongly disagree with so much of what they believe. (I started to say because they are stupid socialists, but it sounded just too harsh, particularly as my neighbor is one, and she's not a stupid socialist, just a deceived older lady.)

But seriously, if we in the Republican primary were campaigning and voting and contributing and then in the end a few hundred national elitists got to decide the nominee without regard to the votes, I'd be hot, hot, hot. Regardless of whether or not my guy won. I'd be hot that some stupid person who called themselves a Republican set up such a stupid elitist primary.

Of course, they're democrats, so they'll just gripe and complain and then send a few nuts to Denver with Molotov cocktails.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

Hillary Clinton was a pretty well-known quantity by last October - positives and negatives, especially negatives.

Obama was a relative unknown. Policy-wise I disagree with him on GWOT and I doubt he'd nominate strong originalist judges. But if I wanted a living constitution and didn't think Iraq was part of GWOT I would have been for him as the clean, fresh, liberal candidate. But that was before Reszko, a spiritual advisor whose spiritual advice is "God Damn America", and learning that Barack Obama launched his political career with two terrorists.

You have to wonder how many people who voted for Obamaearly primaries would have voted for Clinton if they knew about Ayers, Wright, and Rezko back then. I bet if everybody knew things about Obama back in January that they know now, that Clinton would be leading in regular delegates and in the popular vote.