I think maybe you misunderstand, the issue at hand is not about wooing superdelegates, but about trying to get pledged delegates, you know, the ones you win by winning a primary or caucus, to switch their votes at the convention.

Besides I think you're mistaken I think a lot of Obama supporters would be disappointed to learn that he'd behaved this way.

Also, being an election this is more about perception than reality. Outside of us Salon readers/letter writers who I assume are pretty well informed compared to the rest of America, you have to ask, irregardless of the realities of hardcore politicking which I expect all the candidates to engage in, how will the REST of the electorate perceive this news? The issue isn't whether HRC is doing it or not, or whether it is right or wrong. That won't be decided in a letters column. The issue is how will this information affect the election?

Lol, that's funny coming from you!

"Obama crowd has a few infantry divisions, and growing, that is no different than the wing nuts."

"In many states committed delegate is just a designation."

"The Clinton camp for the record has denied these stories"

Oh I don't doubt at all that the 'pledged' delegates can change their vote. If it were against the rules this would be a whole different discussion.

However that doesn't change the perception that the average voter may have that HRC is trying to subvert the vote. (or any candidate that tries this)

As to her denial, factually a HRC campaign staffer said what was quoted. And has been pointed out, the HRC has repeatedly had 'staffers' say things that the campaign then denies. It does get a little suspicious. But again it doesn't matter cause what is key is the perception of the electorate, and considering the view (fairly or not) that HRC is a do-anything-to-win kind of person, this comment from her staffer was a bad move electorally speaking.

As this race has progressed I have been amazed at the bare knuckles, no holds barred (it's a cliche, but in this case appropriate, as in no maneuver is out of bounds) tactics the Clinton campaign has used against a member of their own party."

Actually I disagree. I think the Clinton campaign has WANTED to be a lot more vicious, but overall the campaign has been pretty tame. Daily Show did a nice montage about how many times pundits/MSM people have been using the phrase "the gloves are off" even though the campaign has been quite civilized. Especially if you go by the bar set by Bush in 2000 with the "McCain fathered an illegitimate black baby" attack.

It seems to me the fear of being seen as going negative has kept the natural instincts of both campaigns in check. But you can tell they really really want to go negative and they keep trying to toe the line and get away with it (i.e. using a staffer to say something, then deny it), question is who is going to push the boundary a little too far and get in a lot more trouble than is deserved for it. My guess is that it will be HRC simply because she is behind and needs it more, but also because she is running with a world-class political machine and they must be dying to rip into Obama. Its like driving a Maserati at 25mph.

And even the Clinton campaign won't deny outright that its candidate has ever used another politician's language. Asked about that in a conference call with reporters, Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson said, "Sen. Clinton is not running on the strength of her rhetoric."

Translation: Both campaigns do it, but it's only bad if Obama does it.

"I would think her concession speech would be poetic by now. Oh, that's right. She thinks poetry and hope and vision are naive. In 1776, she would have been a British sympathizer. A wonk is one thing, a weenie another."

And I'm going to have to say "OUCH" for Sen. Clinton...

lol

"Are Midwesterners simply less racist than New Yorkers and Californians?

No, its cause we're too cynical to feel inspired.

On the bright side it looks like there is some serious voting irregularities with the NY vote and Obama may come out ahead or at least do a lot better.

Its a valid question, however Matthews makes a huge mistake I think when he equates support, with legislative accomplishments. As if there is no other reason to support someone.

Matthews: No, no, what has he accomplished, sir? You say you support him, sir, you have to give me his accomplishments.

What kind of BS is that? Given people's opinion of congress, you have to ask how many people might feel a person with a lot of legislative experience is tainted.

Also considering Obama's 11 years as a state legislator, seems to me if Matthews wanted to know, he could have found easily.

Matthews is a piece of garbage. Not for this but also for his disgusting comments towards HRC. Seems a disgrace he's considered 'mainstream'

Bush used to claim he needed to get past the filter of the MSM, despite how well the MSM treated him. Now it may be that Obama's hopes of becoming president will rely on his ability to go over the MSM direct to the voters because the MSM is not going to be kind to him (or any other Dem candidate).

Is it possible that the media that was used to check govt, now needs to be filtered out in order to get some good govt?

How sad.