1) some times a solid sucker punch and a firm kick in the ass out of the camera’s line of sight may be necessary for some folks who do not understand even the clearest of enunciation and the simplest of words;

2) there’s a time when a common and blunt lingua franca is called for, again out of sight of cameras and away from recording devices.

In this case, the smoke-filled room may have put the morons at ease just long enough; the outcome is still going to be the same, only the method of message delivery has changed.

(Believe me, I’ve had to resort to the very same tactics locally inside the last week. How do these morons continually manage to find a second wind and resurrect themselves, obstructing reform and democratic efforts towards GOTV? Even heart attacks — no, I’m not kidding — don’t seem to stop these stupid f*cks. If a smoke-filled room and conversation sotto voce is all that’s required to get it through their thick heads, I’ll make the compromise.)

But I don’t think it’ll go down to these last three races. The Texas caucuses actually gave him more delegates in that State…unlike the even split that most tallies had. And he’s going to close on Clinton in Pennsylvania, limiting her delegate numbers there. Then he’s got N.Carolina, which should counter any gains she makes in W, Virginia and Tennessee. Indiana and Oregon might even increase his numbers. By then the Superdelegates will be coming over, too as they see that his lead is insurmountable (or that they don’t want it to appear Puerto Rico is decisive).

I also think that the Superdelegates should not feel bound by prior oral committments to candidates. Those who have stated their committment to any candidate should be able to switch. After all, they should vote their “conscience” and an earlier committment cannot be binding. So the Clinton campaigns assertion that Superdelegates can vote their conscience plays both ways. It doesn’t simply apply to those that haven’t enunciated their decision.

The reality though is that what we have here is an example of vote-trading more than anything else. Many of the S-Delegates want to enunciate their support for her, but only if their own votes aren’t decisive. If it turns out that they will flip the result they may, as a collective face the wrath of the Democratic electorate- and that would play out especially in districts where Obama won handily. Thus they actually “benefit” if the race doesn’t narrow to point where she’s within striking distance with their votes. If it does narrow watch several of them actually jump over to Obama.

Unless, of course, you’ve been paying even a tiny bit of attention to the Senate for the last year.

The fact remains people (including Hillary) hope for various reasons the super delegates choose Hillary over Obama. That might get me to say screw it and stay home knowing the great American experiment is over. Christopher Hitchens has a recent article on Hillary in which she purportedly told Edmund Hillary that her mother named her after him except she was born in 1947 and he didn’t climb Everest until 1953. Eventually she conceded she misspoke much like her recollection of sniper fire in Bosnia. There is something seriously wrong with that woman. As for super delegates, you either believe in democracy or you don’t. If you feel the popular vote should be overruled for the sake of the party, you don’t get it.