So let's not worry too much about one faction not supporting the other faction once this is all said and done. Emotions are running high right now, but we're better off spending that energy fighting the other side rather than each other.

I was for Edwards, I'm currently for Obama, but I'll vote for Hillary -- just not one second before I have to.

I agree with the sentiment, as long as the winner wins fair and square: in other words, pledged delegates. Superdelegates are neither fair nor square. Superdelegates are simply the preferences of Democratic party bigwigs who feel their votes should matter a thousand-fold more than regular citizens.

Michigan and Florida counting, after the candidates were told they wouldn't, wouldn't be fair either, obviously. Didn't we all learn as children that changing the rules in the middle of the game invalidates the game?

To repeat, as long as the nominee's victory is fair and square, most will be on board. If it's slimy and questionable, the Democrats will be fractured for a generation, and they'll certainly deserve to be.

Some talking heads on TV have suggested a way for the Obama campaign to avert this possibility: He could use his lead in pledged delegates to enact convention rules that would essentially invalidate the super delegate vote.

But Mayer is dubious of this theory. A candidate may be able to find a loophole in the rules that would allow for getting rid of the super delegates, but "at least to a certain extent both sides are bound by elementary rules of fairness, and it's difficult for me to believe that Democrats would say, 'We're not going to count these.'"

Super delegates are just party bigwigs choosing arbitrarily (or perhaps from self-interest or under pressure). If the winner of the pledged delegates loses the nomination because, say, Bill Clinton cashed in all his favors to get Hillary the nomination, how exactly does that comply with "elementary rules of fairness"? Up is down. Black is white.

The only argument to be made for super delegates at this point is that, however undemocratic, both candidates understand they're part of the game. But that's not good enough.

The possibility of super delegates swamping pledged delegates at the convention or before is an undemocratic disaster in the making for the Democratic party. Howard Dean needs to start figuring out how to avoid this calamity at all costs.

Why? Because a lot of states have caucuses, which by their more demanding nature draw a smaller slice of the electorate. So the candidate who is stronger in caucus states than primary states will be underrepresented in the popular vote count.

The only fair game in town is pledged delegates. It's very close right now, but Obama has a slight lead currently. (Some networks are misleadingly aggregating pledged delegates and unofficial super delegates right now, so they show Clinton in the lead.) HRC better plan to win pledged delegates, or her nomination will cause chaos and strife and permanent division in the Democratic party.

Why are super delegates unfair? Right now, Walter Mondale or Terry McCauliffe have an equal say to an aggregate of tens of thousands of actual voters. Are they and others like them really who we want deciding the Democratic nominee, instead of actual voters and caucusers? You mean, I waited in line outside in freezing weather for half an hour for my caucus only to be big-footed eventually by Walter Mondale and his ilk? I can't stomach that one, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that feeling.

Thank you for not smushing together the pledged delegates and the unofficial, very changeable, superdelegates, as so many other media sources continue misleadingly to do.

The Clinton campaign recently sent Chelsea to have breakfast with uncommitted 21-year-old superdelegate Jason Rae.

I don't see the contradiction here.

Obama's statement is basically putting moral pressure on the superdelegates to reflect the will of the people. Axelrod's statement, on the other hand, acknowledges the reality that they are free agents, and gives another powerful reason for them to choose Obama, that he'll be a stronger candidate against McCain.

Why do they need some simplistic, one-note position on superdelegates?

Obama's camp understands that the role of superdelegates, while noxious and undemocratic, is a reality of this election; so they're playing their hand the best way they know how.

This idea that the candidate who's winning the election by every conceivable measure except undemocratic superdelegates somehow deserves to be put on the defensive about them -- sorry, that's right out of the Rove playbook.

It's likely Obama will have won 10 straight states, all by substantial margins, by the time OH, TX, and PA roll around. (It's possible Clinton wins Wisconsin.)

So why should OH and PA be considered decisive? That's totally arbitrary and completely ridiculous. This race isn't even close to even right now. Obama is winning in every single way that matters, with the exception of undemocratic superdelegates.

It's transparent and risible how shameless the Clinton people are in dismissing states and large voting blocs that don't favor them. Pennsylvania and Ohio are declining states with old, undereducated, and poor populations on average -- so why exactly are they so decisive? And growing states such as Georgia, Virginia, Colorado, and Minnesota somehow don't matter? Oh, that's right, because it's all about the Clintons -- I forgot -- it always is.

The only reason Obama doesn't have what looks like a large lead in pledged delegates is the proportional system. He actually has such a considerable lead in pledged delegates that even the Clinton people acknowledge that it's very unlikely she'll end up with more than him.

As for VP, that's a total sucker's job for Obama. The Clintons have a way of doing what's good for the Clintons and leaving everyone around them holding the bag. Ask Gore how that turned out for him and why he consults with Obama on a regular basis.

Honestly, is this proposal really your idea of fair-minded? So absurd.