I just disagree with you. I'm not citing any polls, nor are you. I'm just saying I think you're wrong to believe that harping on Obama's antiwar credentials from the start is giving him any particular edge among a large swath of Democratic voters. You believe otherwise. Good for you!

I'll give you an example, merely an anecdote. My aunt and uncle totally supported the war when it began and railed against some Senate Democrats (and antiwar marchers like you and me) for opposing it. They are lifelong Democrats, think FDR is in heaven on God's right hand. They are now rabidly antiwar. But they aren't particularly concerned about who got it right at the outset--because *they* didn't. They just want out now.

It's very easy for liberal Dems to scorn such voters. My guess is that they are the ones, in part, responsible for keeping Hillary's numbers up with working-class and older Dems. I just think proclaiming self-righteously your absolute purity on this issue isn't necessarily a winner.

But feel free to disagree!

You wrote: "My view is that they are not going to go against the grain and nominate someone that is opposite of the will of voters. While there may be some history of this type of thing, in this election I cannot fathom them doing this. It will destroy the credibility of the nominee and seriously harm the democratic party."

I'm still a bit confused. The will of which voters? Are you talking about VOTERS or about PLEDGED DELEGATES? Your example of Nevada proves that they are not the same thing. It's entirely possible that, come April, Obama will have more pledged delegates than Hillary and fewer overall votes. So whose will should sway the superdelegates then?

That is one of the best posts I have read on this site in eons.

You are flogging a dead horse. Only hardcore antiwar liberals care that Obama was opposed to the war from the start. Most core Dems turned against the war later and are concerned only about who can and will get us out now. To keep harping on who was the purest from the start may win debating points but I doubt it will win many votes.

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?

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."

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.

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....).

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

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.

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

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.