So the superdelegates have to tread carefully or else the full Clinton wrath will be up on them (and they are afraid of that wrath). I can't help but wonder whether Hillary has extracted promises from some of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates to wait a few more weeks before announcing their support of Obama. That would allow Clinton more time to try to bring Obama down.

On Thursday night I did a quick calculation, and assuming that Clinton and Obama split the rest of the contests/delegates evenly (on the average because he'll win some and she'll win others), then Obama only needs something like 59 more superdelegates to reach 2,025. Until Obama reaches that magical number the race is still up in the air and theoretically Hillary could still win, though it's a long shot. But it also keeps her fund raising going so she can pay herself back. (I'm not knocking her in that last comment- she has a right to recoup whatever money she can from her campaign.)

I understand there's a little chance of you reading this, because threads have an expiration date. If you are, sorry I'm so late.

I would make a distinction between the relationship between the President and Executive branch entities and the President v. the legislative and judicial branches.

Thus, it's entirely legit (not that anyone needs my permission) to focus on the limits of the President's military power, when such power is not sanctioned, or when it is even opposed, by Congress.

But the analysis of intra-Executive disputes should be different. In recent years, it's been routine for commentators to assert or imply that it's somehow illegitimate for a President or his political subordinates to overrule a decision made by experts in an Executive agency. E.g., the President must not overrule a “pro-environment” decision my the EPA, in order to advance his “pro-business” agenda; the President should not set the Executive branch's stem-cell policy, if such policy is opposed by experts within the agencies such as the NIH, etc.

But I say: Yes he can, and should.

Politicians run touting their own judgment and values, and voters elect them on that basis. Voters knew that with President Bush they were getting someone to the right of Kerry on the environment, and to the right of Kerry on the cluster of issues related to abortion and fetal stem cell research.

And the Executive power is vested in 1 man or woman, the President. So what he says should go, as far as Executive branch policy is concerned. But that policy can, in turn, be held in check or trumped by the Legislative or Judicial branches.

Thanks for debating me.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121028913821779…

While the Obama campaign is not immune from criticism, the onus is now on Clinton to tread carefully as she is far enough behind that her hopes for the nomination have gone well past the “Hail Mary” stage. She has every right to stay in the race until the end, but at this point attacks on Obama are attacks on the Democratic party's chances in November, and the superdelegates need to start treating them as such.

on that alone she shows how unfit she is to be a president

class i guess was never a word in the clinton vocabulary

Getting back to Joe's post, all of this is about egos and people whining about taking their ball and going home come the general election. The Democrats would not be necessarily destroying themselves, but the media is tossing kerosene on the fire by keeping these nonissues and “political drama” soap operas alive.

By and large, I think the Democrats are fighting the “last war,” the one against Bush and the neocons, against themselves. ODS and CDS are rampant and people have become very simple in their political action, which is support my candidate and hate the other. So when Democrats picked either Clinton or Obama, they projected the hate of the last 8 years onto the other. Self defeating to the end.

“What seems clear from this is that the same attitude George Bush has shown in trying to impose his will on the legislative and executive branches…”

Yeah, what Gandelman said. Who does this guy Bush think he, trying to impose his will on the executive branch of the federal government?

On the other hand, I did a little independent research, and I found some startling words in an archaic document from a couple centuries ago:

“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”

So go figure.