Ha ha! You're wrong, but persistent. Persistently wrong! There's your new handle. I mean, you're opposed to corporate lawyers? Do you hate Michelle Obama? And do you know nothing about Hillary's public service? Then you are a stone cold moron.

You wrote: "Also, if the popular and state vote both end up supporting Obama, will the Democratic Party, supposedly the 'party of the people' really accept these super delegates going against the votes of the people?

Hm, which "people" do you mean? The Latinos who are voting against Obama 2:1? The blue-collar voters and older voters Hillary is winning by double digits? Those people? I guess they don't matter to you. They certainly don't matter to your candidate since he doesn't seem to making much of an effort to appeal to them. I guess he figures his grand coalition of rich liberals, starry-eyed college kids, and closet Republicans are the only real people who matter.

You wrote: Other than the FACT that this is totally being pulled out of your butt, it is about as accurate as anything in Nostrademus or in a tarot card. Stop posting bullshit. You have NO IDEA what superdelegates would do. I can say one thing: Many of them, like Gore's campaign manager, have said that the superdelegates should not decide the issue. They will follow the other delegates, that's MY GUESS - I AM BEING HONEST UNLIKE OTHERS WHO

Hmm, I state a simple fact and you go off like a crazy person. I guess the truth hurts, huh? Superdelegates are mostly party functionaries, many of whom came up through the system during the Clinton years and remember them fondly. Your guy won't be the nominee no matter how many Montanas and Idahos he comes with, sorry, guy.

"Assholes, morons, dweebs and idiots..." Projecting, much? Love the unity from the uniters. Really uplifting, like their candidate.

if Obama wins. Preening narcissists shrieking slogans at us, then berating us when we don't fall in line. Worship for style and spectacle over substance. A cult of personality that replaces reasoned debate.

Oops, aren't we already there? Hasn't Bush given us as much of this as we can stomach? Maybe the Obamadroids should stop chanting "Yes! We! Can!" and start shouting "Four! More! Years!"

You wrote: "I support Obama for several reasons. He's a good guy, his ideas are sound, and he's not a Clinton. We did the Clinton thing for 8 years. One time thru that little merry-go-round is enuff."

Boy, those sure are great reasons. Really deep and solid. Gives me confidence in your candidate.

because his cousin Teddy already was. Give somebody else a chance, will you!

I just totally disagree with you. The big states matter. Winning them matters. Winning Ohio by 9-10 points matters more than lapping somebody in Kansas. It will matter to the superdelegates (whom both of them will need since neitehr will win with pledged delegates). But I guess we'll just have to wait and see what actually happens, you know, in the real where, where history takes place--unlike Mr. Shapiro, who wants to start another Obama coronation already.

OK! Super delegates do not matter. I will chant this repeatedly until it sinks in. Yes! We! Can! Oops, wrong chant.

There will be no "excuse" if Clinton loses Ohio or Texas or Pennsylvania. That will be REAL evidence of true momentum with core Dem constituencies on Obama's part, and will definitely sway waffling superdelegates (oops, but they don't matter, sorry, back to my chant....).

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. You don't win "without the pledged delegates from this primary season." You win with them AND the superdelegates. Am I saying something somehow controversial? I thought this was the way the system worked. No?

Look at it this way. Clinton won Massachusetts by double-digits and got more pledged delegates from the state than Obama did. But Obama got the superdelegates of Kennedy, Kerry, and the governor. That's how it works. I doubt seriously that Obama wants to give those superdelegates back.

THIS is the real campaign going forward. Front page story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/09/AR2008020902703.html?hpid=topnews

Some excerpts:

Democratic operatives not affiliated with either campaign consider Clinton's operation in the superdelegate race much more formidable. Rep. John D. Dingell (Mich.), the longest-serving member of the House, never received a call from the Obama campaign, according to a source close to the Energy and Commerce Committee chairman. Last week, Dingell endorsed Clinton.

And some superdelegates can be worth more than others, particularly those who have the ability to bring along others with them.

Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.), who endorsed Clinton last year and is viewed as a vice presidential possibility, is trying to lock down the five DNC members from Indiana who are superdelegates on behalf of Clinton, according to a source close to Bayh.

Obama's campaign is working hard to catch up.

While three members of Connecticut's congressional delegation have endorsed Obama, the state has six DNC members who are also superdelegates. Two days after Dodd's campaign flamed out in Iowa, Obama was on the phone, telling Larson about his bid and the high-minded effort to refashion the way campaigns are waged.

"Obama made the best pitch himself. Sometimes seeing is believing," Larson said, recalling that both candidates and Bill Clinton called the weekend after the Iowa caucuses. "I heard from him. I heard from Hillary. I heard from Obama. . . . It's not as if they were beating down the path to me. They were beating down the path to everyone."

Wait a minute. You're worried about "legitimacy" and yet you think a system where someone who loses the popular vote in a state, but gets more pledged delegates due to some arcane rule, is fine, but if superdelegates make the decisive choice of the nominee, it's not?