It's definitely the moral.  However, I'm not sure I am cool with it.  I guess it's a case of reaping what you sow.

Donating money to help elect Democrats is NOT the same as buying SD's.  All candidates donate to help elect Democrats.  It's not Obama's fault that Clinton was so freaking stingy and he ended up donating more.

Yeah, that's why Hillary started out with a 100 superdelegate edge, the bulk of the money and an air of inevitability.

And that's why even though Obama now leads among elected supers, she still has a slight edge in party insider supers.

Yeah, that must be it.

*sigh*

I guess he was trying to buy her support, eh?

She must be going to endorse Obama any day now.

as a supporter of Sen. Obama's campaign. It is my will that funds donated be used not only to better his campaign but to fund and help the DNC with the general.

Further I will be making direct donations to the DNC quite soon.

Yep.  I get a good chuckle out of a certain someone's diaries that always shout, "LISTEN UP SUPERS"!

Uhh (pointing to scoreboard), they are.

Wow, did he really say that?  Can you link me up please?  I would love to have that quote in my pocket for future reference.

Obama could pick up as many as 7 superdelegates this weekend.
There are 7 new superdelegates being named this weekend, all in states that Obama won: Alaska (1), Georgia (2), Wyoming (1) and Hawaii (3). Obama has a good chance to pick up all 7.

I think when Obama is sworn in as 44 it will be even better news for Hillary, as it will mean he can only ever be president for 8 years maximum.

Why I don't necessarily agree with SDs switching why do you have to call them "cowards" for doing so when he gave a logical, ethical reason for doing it? Tacky.

It's not the media that are causing your, so called, "coward" supers to flip, it's the pledged delegate count, and as an added bonus, it's the Clinton campaign's pseudo-moral posturing over FL/MI (see Cardoza endorsement).

that Hillary is $20 million dollars in debt right now. By August, Obama is going to be sitting on at least (probably more than) $100 million dollars and  Hillary will have acquired even more debt.

To think that the Super Delegates are going to switch from the well funded candidate to the candidate with no money is beyond folly. The most important primary after Super Tuesday was the money primary, and Obama won that in a blowout. Hillary has entered Huckabee territory right now and she can fight on as long as she wants. But if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to witness, it doesn't make a sound.

The Clintons have always been known as savvy politicians, however I really believe they are having trouble adjusting to a more informed electorate and greater availability of information in this election cycle.

California voters would change their February primary vote for Hillary Clinton to a vote for Barack Obama if the vote were held again, according to an exclusive poll commissioned by CBS 5.

While voters in the California Democratic Presidential Primary backed Clinton by a 10-point margin, a new SurveyUSA poll shows that if given the chance to vote again, Californians would choose Barack Obama by a 6-point margin, 49%-43%.

http://cbs5.com/politics/poll.clinton.ob ama.2.720136.html

Hasn't Clinton been against that all along?

Interesting, considering 1 out of every 5 of her superdelegates are from New York.

If you're going to try and twist what was an argument about SDs not overturning the results on a national level to a state level argument (even though you know damn well that's not what the argument was) then you're going to have even bigger troubles as Barack has won twice as many states as Hillary.

The argument was originally a statement against the SD party insiders doing a smoke filled back room deal to counteract the results of the democratic portion of the process.  It's ironic that some folks around here want to (disingenuously) cry the blues about democracy for the self serving purpose of get the farcical beauty contest from Florida and the Sadam Hussein style only one name on the ballot contest in Michigan to count (in direct violation of the agreement that Hillary's campaign helped to create and then signed on to), but these same people who are willing to ignore everything that your average kindergarten student knows about fair play will then turn around the throw democracy right out the window if they can get SDs to help them to do it.  They'll even ignore the votes of caucus participants in order to lie about the invalid popular vote metric!  Talk about irony!  They have to abandon democracy (by not counting caucus voters in the PV total) in order to even get into a position to even pretend to argue for democracy!

That argument, which I subscribe to at a high level, has always been vexed: There are quite commonly conflicting loyalties for supers.  Do they follow the will of their district, their state, or the country at large?  If every super followed the first, then the second and third would jibe.  But they do not, and most supers who have recently endorsed Obama seem to be following the broadest interpretation of "the will of the voters."  Indeed, if I'm correct that the apportionment of supers by state imperfectly maps to the apportionment of pledged delegates, at least for some of them it seems to make sense to follow the overall results.

Costa is a Blue Dog, not sure about Cardoza.

In any case, Obama is lining up the conservative and Red State parts of the Party.  Or rather, when Edwards proved unable to generate enough pull, they went to Obama and made an alliance with him.

Pelosi's the convention chair; because of this position, she's kind of obligated to remain neutral.  She likely won't declare until we know who the nominee is.

But what she can do is give the ok behind the scenes to move over to Obama.

Didn't you hear?  Nancy Pelosi is a sexist turncoat who follows Barack Obama because she likes to take orders from callow men - nobody likes her and she never did anything good for women anyway.

Oh yes, and she and Obama are both San-Francisco-loving, latte-drinking librul elites who like Frrrrance.  Real Americans hate them both and they will lead our party to dooooom.

She's borrowing a Bush phrasing, just like "You're either with us or against us", and "Stay the course"

"Sexually discriminate against me once, can't sexually discriminate against me again."

I think perhaps that America is sexily racist. Or is it sexist, but in a racy sort of way?

Ah, screw it. It's Friday. It's a three-day weekend. Bring on the beer.

And, Clinton supporters, I suggest you imbibe large doses of booze this weekend. After all, it's long been considered truth serum. Maybe come Tuesday morning, you'll start making sense.

Next weekend is Maine's state convention and it's very likely that Obama will be picking up some delegates there. The uncommitteds were basically Kucinich folks and Edwards folks who wanted to be able to affect the party platform and delegate selections.

Agreed - SD's get to change their mind based on what they think is best for the party, and can do so at any time.  Clearly, any Clinton SD is kidding themselves if they don't see they have a duty to put a stop to what Clinton is doing and switch to Obama right away.

But pledged delegates switching is antidemocratic and we just can't have people disregard the will expressed by the voters they represent as a delegate by acting like an SD and changing their mind.  

Great! Then my money's on Kucinich.

All these elections Obama's been winning are meaningless. In the end, I think the supers will come around....

Great point.  The pledged delegates don't vote until then either! Edwards can still pull it off!

EOM