I'd just like to point out the poll covered March 11-16. This was right at the peak of the Wright then and before Obama addressed it with that speech. Also, he hasn't campaigned in the state that much. A ton may change in the next month.

Judgment.

His judgment failed. He made a really bad series of political judgments. Even going so far as to continue to bash Geraldine Ferraro during his speech which in some quarters that you are not hearing about is causing a great stir of restlessness in the democratic party.

Judgment errors.

Failed to deal with the church thing early on.
Called into question another womans integrity over race and gender.
Set in the pews for 20 years and did nothing.
His wifes comments when analyzed mirror quite extensively the Rev. Wright's.

His main and most outstanding virtue is now diminished considerably. His judgment is in question. Not his race. I don't think a majority of people believe he is a bad person now, or a racist but his main virtue has been tarnished by this. His judgment failed and they are now making a series of mistakes over this.

They are guilty of having a lead and playing prevent defense and it might cost them. Once again I see at play here the democrats ability to take a certain win and turn it into defeat.

“For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.”

Ordinarily this type of comment would go unnoticed but in the context of the Rev. Wright speech and Barak Obamas insistence that the Rev. Wright somehow has no influence over his families thought process while sitting in the pews for 20 years.

There is this one statement. Powerful and like a neon sign flashing, screaming an endorsement of the Rev. Wright and his sermon. I think this is why you are seeing the numbers drop.

I would disagree and I think everyone who is a part of this primary process are a bit confused as to what the superdelegates represent.

Lets pretend for a second that we did not have the super delegates and we arrive at the primary process with Mr. Obama leading by say 100 delegates. Now in the typical democratic process this should enable Barak Obama to become the parties nominee. I mean after all in the grueling primary season that lasted for 5 months…………HE WON.

Now enter reality. We arrive at the convention in Denver. Barak Obama is ahead in pledged delegates by 100 but now comes those people who want to save the party from itself. Hillary Clinton somehow pulls out a win despite having lost the popular vote, and the pledged delegate vote.

Has the party saved us from ourselves?

Fact. Tuesday’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to allow Washington state to hold “top-two” primaries could change the face of local and statewide politics. The power of the super delegates has now quadrupled by this ruling. Not today but in 20 or 50 years from now.

Fact. In 1988, a study found that superdelegates and delegates selected through the primary and caucus process are not substantively different in terms of viewpoints on issues from each other. But it also found that superdelegates are more likely to prefer candidates with Washington experience than outsider candidates

Resulting conclusion. Not mine but published conclusions. Some Democrats believed that these changes had unduly diminished the role of party leaders and elected officials, weakening the Democratic tickets of George McGovern and Jimmy Carter.

Super delegates are about as undemocratic as it comes. Now combine this with the supreme court decision and it is very possible that in the coming years we are going to see the two party system diminished to the point that super delegates ultimately decide who THEY want to be in charge of almost everything.

Obama-Clinton
Nat'l RCP Average 47.3 – 44.2 Obama +3.1

General Election McCain-Obama McCain-Clinton
National McCain +1.4 McCain +1.3

Mike Huckabee proved that a candidate who is basically out of the race can stick around without significantly hurting the party. While Clinton and her supporters might not want to admit it, the math against her makes her odds of being the nominee next-to-impossible (note: including Ohio and Texas she has still fallen further behind in pledged delegates since the “firewall” election), and while she has every right to stay in the race, for the sake of the party she would do well to follow the lead of Huckabee and campaign in a way that does not harm Obama. She obviously doesn't have to say that Obama is a better candidate, but attacking his experience and suitability to lead should stop. If she continues to attack, which it looks like she will, then it would be appropriate for the superdelegates to exercise their role as stewards of the party and begin to make their voices heard.

Having two candidates in the race is a nice insurance policy should some horrendous scandal erupt around either one, but it needs to be done in a way that respects the fact that the math has all-but-decided this race. If that doesn't happen then I agree with Elrod that the super-delegates should find a way to end the uncertainty and commit to a candidate, rather than letting this drag on any longer.

We have superdelegates for a reason: to save the party. Continuing on will result in a party implosion. That's why Bill Richardson stepped in. Hopefully others will follow soon.