well, at least my letter made you out yourself as a Clinton supporter. I doubt even Mark Penn would have had the chutzpah to come up with your Pennsylvania and Ohio are all that matters superdelegate plan.

I really don't find much in your last post worth responding to, so let me just quote your most illogical passage:

"The only reason Obama doesn't have what looks like a large lead in pledged delegates is the proportional system"

Umm, you mean that damn proportional system meant to ensure a greater voice to a greater number? That more democratic one? So you, an Obama supporter, talking about "new politics" think we should have a system where if Obama defeats Hillary by one vote in California out of millions cast he should get all the delegates for that state? You might want to check your irony detector.

"He actually has such a considerable lead in pledged delegates"

Check your math. Unless of course your definition of "considerable" is "very tiny" (and please don't give me a raw number and say "well, it's more than 20"--give me the percentage lead)

"even Clinton people acknowledge that it's very unlikely she'll end up with more than him."

That's because of that same proportional system you were just decrying. Gee, which is it? Is proportional good or bad? He doesn't have to have a huge lead to stop her from catching him, just a small enough lead so that if she takes 55 percent (a majority) he still is ahead. It's like a basketball team up by 2 points who runs a stall offense for 20 minutes (back when they could). It isn't the size of the lead that matters, it's the rules of the game.

The rules of the game define the size of the lead, obviously, not the reverse. That's why a 10% lead in a basketball game -- 110-100, say -- is considered a pretty large lead; but a 10% lead in a football game -- 11-10, say -- isn't. The fact that Clinton is very unlikely to win pledged delegates defines the fact that Obama has a large lead. Insurmountable counts as large, no matter what the game, wouldn't you say?

Rules are rules.

1) The superdelegates may be undemocratic, but they're part of the rules this year. They're free agents who can do what they wish.

2) Michigan and Florida were stripped of their delegates, and all candidates agreed to that fact and no one campaigned in those states.

That said, putting moral pressure on the superdelegates to reflect the will of their constituencies or to ratify the pledged delegate winner, is NOT the same thing as trying to change the rules.

On the other hand, trying to seat Michigan and Florida delegates after everyone has agreed that they wouldn't be seated, that is obviously trying to change the rules in the middle of the game. In fact, it's cheating, and, more than anything else, more even than the possibility of superdelegates overturning the pledged delegates, would rip the Democratic party apart.

CTMorling, first of all, I'd urge you to take the pledged delegate total more seriously than the popular vote total. Why?

1) The candidates were never campaigning for popular vote. They were campaigning to win delegates in particular states and districts of states. Treating popular vote as if it means more than pledged delegates would be sort of like tallying up teams' runs in baseball and saying they count more than their actual wins and losses.

2) The popular vote actually understates Obama's support in the Mountain West, Pacific Northwest, and plains states -- Colorado, Washington, Minnesota, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, etc.. -- since a smaller sample of the electorate shows up at caucuses than primaries, given their more demanding nature. If popular vote were the name of the game, no state would ever hold a caucus, as it would give it less power in determining the nominee.

Second, I'd ask for you to do what's best for your party's unity and continued strength and growth. If one candidate is winning the pledged delegates by a non-trivial amount -- >30 -- then it's hard to see how it wouldn't rip the party apart to have another candidate get the nomination. All those voters and caucusers, including all those new people who have entered the process, would feel like their votes and time and energy didn't ultimately matter.

Third, I'd ask you to do what's best for your country. That means choosing, 1) who actually stands the best chance of beating McCain, and 2) who would make the better president.

That so many in this country are passionately anti-Hillary is not a fact in her favor. If an anti-Hillary vote is by definition a bogus vote, than count on McCain gliding to the presidency on "bogus votes" in a general election McCain v. Clinton contest. Hillary will energize the Republicans like Obama never could. That's actually one good reason to nominate him over her.

Aside from Hillary's baggage, most Republicans and independents just prefer Obama as a person. It's not a question of ideology; it's about tone, approach, character, and, oh yeah, spouse. They don't feel condescended to or demonized by Obama in the same way they do Hillary. They don't feel he's someone who will spin and lie to them the next 4 years, as they'd expect Clinton to do.

There exist people and characters who are larger than life. They mysteriously stand for more than their biographies or individual psychologies. They're archetypes. They represent some aspect of all of us, of history, society, sex, or human aspiration.

I believe Daniel Plainview is an archetypal character. I know I couldn't keep my eyes off him and am still thinking about who he is and what he represents a month after seeing the movie. Lewis' performance struck me as a beautiful, large thing; something that rings true, even if I don't know exactly what it means or from where it came. Just the opposite of vanity, in fact: mystery.