As far as Sarabeth's question about Clinton having more popular votes and Obama having the support of more delegates… how do the superdelegates vote? I'll use the same idea that I use when talking about delegates chosen by vote in the primaries/caucuses and how the supers should vote.

I think that if the popular vote is clearly in favor of one candidate over the other (I posited 55%/45% as a possible guideline) then I think the superdelegates should clearly go with the popular vote. Not all superdelegates, there will be some who will want to support the candidate with the lower number. If there were such a scenario (let's say Obama had 55% of the popular vote and Clinton had 45%) and the superdelegates threw the race to Clinton, then voters would have every right to feel cheated.

But I think if there were a narrow lead (say Obama had 52% and Clinton had 48%), then the superdelegates can step in and make decisions based on their own judgement, taking into consideration such things as electabilty, ability to get things done, etc. If the superdelegates decide to go with HIllary in such a scenario, then so be it.

I only put those percentages out there as an example. I'm not advocating them.

It seems Hill herself has been in panic smear mode for several weeks and there's no Obamacan like thi sTaylor Marsh twit.

As for Rezko- totally A ball stuff w no proof. Again, Keating and Whitewater dwarf this nonsense, and as I led this thread off, Obama will end up w more delegates, forcing the D's to overturn to will of the people, and show they are as cynical and crooked as Bushco in 2000, or go w O. Hill will lose to McCain in that instance.

Regardless of your own personal prejudice, the ultimate effect on the Democrat party from the superdelegates deciding the race, one way or another, is as unknown as everything else.

I have no idea why so many Obama supporters are so incredibly nasty. Basically 50% of the party backs each candidate. They are both acceptable candidates, with positives and negatives, and good people supporting each. The campaign has been incredibly civil. I don't expect either candidate to give in until the end, and neither should anyone else.

The bitterness is overwhelming, and disgusting.

You have a choice. You can spread the thus far empty smears and innuendo and let them effect your politics, or not.

Recall the Friday before the election in 2000, the Maine Democrat mass faxing the revelation of Bush's DUI from 25 years before. 25 YEARS! His admitted intent was to hurt Bush with the evangelicals at the last minute…and it worked. Bush fell 5 points almost overnight – lost millions of evangelicals – making Gore competitive for the first time in the campaign.

You can't imagine the Clinton team are not all over Rezko. Chicago politics are notoriously corrupt (the former governor – a GOP – is currently in prison for six years I believe).

I don't know how Rezko will play out…but neither do you.

One thing is ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN: Rezko is an important part of Clinton's plotting in the weeks ahead.

Appreciating your sarcasm, there is rumor of today's far left contingent making plans for a “Recreate '68″ festival in Denver.

As to Rezko, while the quid pro quo question is tantamount, I also believe that if starts wrapping in questions about connection with William Ayers, Rashid Khalidi and Samantha Brooke's questionable strategy of a US police presence in Gaza, just the “guilt by association” misdemeanors will start to feel like an aggregate felony to a lot of plain folk.

Basically, you should lay off until you have something substantive to say about Obama and Rezko.

Chris…”boneheaded” is charitable spin. In the real world, NO ONE spends a half million to help someone else buy property w/o expectation of return.

This is not a lobbyist scandal. This is direct personal advantage and gain for Obama. He would not have gotten the house w/o Rezko. Why would Rezko have done this, at the same time as he was pursued by creditors? Out of the kindness of his heart???

This is what Hillary is waiting for…Patrick Fitzgerald ain't brilliant, but he is relentless. Rezko's team knows this. If Rezko turns, the whole game is over for Obama.

I agree fully with you, Clinton has graveyards of skeletons to Obama's closets…but no one has taken her down after years of trying. She is cold and hard. Obama had a hissy-fit after 8 questions.

Cosmo…you split-take on the Clintons is interesting. Time will tell, I suppose.

I see ambition as her main driving force, though. She will not let go while there is a chance…and as long as Rezko is hanging fire, there is the likelihood of a Chicago meltdown.

What is it about Democrats and Chicago that yields such lovely Democratic miracles…as the graveyard resurrections of 1960…and the landslide Democratic win of 1968?

After all the talk a disfranchised voters how do you ignore 2 states? Because deal or no that's what you would be doing. How would the voters in those states respond during the general election if Dems decide now their votes don't matter?

What? You do of course realize that it was the voters of FL and MI that decided their votes shouldn't matter.

They had a choice and made it. If they want a mulligan I'd say they'll have to wait 4 years, repeal the bill they passed, and try again.

Not even on this planet. Cuomo would have been the Rudy of '92, or the D's Mitt. He was all style and no substance.

And of course the race isn't over. No one suggested it, but you. But O can only lose it in the backrooms, and with 2000 still fresh in dem's minds, they're not gonna pull a W.

You are right about the Clinton gamble in 1992. Clinton was one of the dwarfs that year and all the way up to the 1992 Dem convention Mario Cuomo was the one everyone wanted to come to the rescue, and who would have been made the nominee even if he waited until during the convention to express an interest in the Presidency.

Yes, and outside of the big party machine states, that approach is producing landslides.

After all, she folded her tent w ease on the 93 healthcare initiative. Why? Because she realized she could not get it as she wanted it. It was all or nothing, and she wd not gamble.

In 03 she voted for the war because the country was for it, but hedged her bets w a speech stating she hoped W did not abuse this authority- in essence, playing both sides against the middle.

Bill- 'Fellatio in the Oval Office' is a gambler, and reckless, but Hill? I think she's the ultimate pragmatist, and eventually her ego is gonna give way to that.