'/b' tag needed!!

If true, it would really spell Doom for the Clinton campaign anyway.

They aren't being this cautious so, at the end of the day, they can toss the race to the person with fewer votes. It just wouldn't make any sense.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that the Clinton campaign has been making the rounds saying the fact the election would be decided by the SDs is OK (since she wants them to overturn the elected choice), and their role is useful and they are like pledged delegates anyway.
So technically, if the SDs endorsed to the extent it forced her out of the race now, she really wouldn't have any grounds to complain, would she ?

Seems like part of the problem is the misperception that the race is still close. There's no reasonably likely way for Clinton to close her pledged delegate gap with Obama, so the concern the Anonymous Super Delegate has (or says other ASDs have) about being perceived as throwing the election is misplaced.

Out of curiosity, in previous elections, have many superdelegates declared their positions before someone had already locked up the nomination with pledged delegates?

Obviously, the race is long since over by this point, and to the best of my knowledge, since the superdelegate system was enacted, they've never been the deciding factor.

Anyway, just wondering when most superdelegates have declared their intention in the past? Before there is a clear frontrunner, once the race narrows to two or three candidates, once the nominee is obvious, or not until the convention itself?

I don't think Pennsylvania is going to matter much when it's all said and done. I think the supers and party leadership are going to start getting jittery about letting this thing drag on while McCain's favorables skyrocket. I expect some serious pressure on Hillary pretty soon. You can see it in the media...the narrative is already turning toward her diminishing relevancy as a candidate. The supers will soon follow.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it assumes that superdelegates are an amorphous bloc, rather than a collection of individuals.

Most superdelegates have, in fact, endorsed - many long before their states voted. DCW puts the current count at 455 endorsements, with 339 uncommitted.

So who's sitting on the fence? One important category is part decision-makers with a vested interest in preserving an appearance of neutrality, so that they can perform their jobs. That includes Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, and other who will be running the convention - but also almost all of the members of the DNC's all-powerful RBC (Jim Roosevelt, Alexis Herman, etc.) Add them all up, and you're probably talking 40-50 folks who will remain publicly neutral until forced to cast a vote, and for very good reason.

Then there are the folks who are ideologically determined to go to Denver unpledged. The most prominent example is in Oklahoma, where the state party chair has assembled a group of five uncommitted supers, apparently to gain leverage and vote them as a bloc. But my impression is that they're not alone - that more than a few super have decided that the risks (to themselves, that is) of staying neutral are low, and the potential rewards astronomically high.

I'd agree with your anonymous super that a third group are just hoping and praying that the decision will be taken out of their hands. These folks can see the divide within the party, and know full well that a decision either way will offend a bloc of potential supporters. In some cases, they may lean differently than their constituents. In others, they may agree with their constituents but fear crossing some element of the national party, and being labeled Judases. So they've decided to close their eyes tight and wait for the moment to pass.

But I do have to part ways with your superdelegate on his last point. "Fear of tampering" didn't inhibit the first 455 to endorse. And it's unlikely to impact those leaning toward Obama - all they have to say is that the voters have already made their preference clear, and that Obama has an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates. If it's inhibiting superdelegates from endorsing Hillary, then her campaign is doomed - if they're reluctant to be seen as tampering with the popular will now, why on earth would they do so in August? But mostly, I just see this reason as a fig-leaf behind which superdelegates can hide. If they don't want to decide just yet, for any of the reasons outlined above, they need only say "I'm tring to respect the process" and who can object to that?

If they were really concerned with the health of the party, they'd move to end the race now, not prolong it.

The only really credible reason is that they are cowards who are waiting until the last possible second to endorse to make sure that they pick either the winner or the person most strongly supported by their constituents. The tampering explanation is laughable as demonstrated by the fact that well over half of the supers have in fact already declared.

not at all persuasive. as if the timing will affected people's sense of whether this is being 'fixed' by party insiders. they're already giving that impression by failing to back the person who has essentially won the nomination first of all. second of all, when Obama reaches the convention with a lead in delegates and popular votes, if that is overturned it would be the ultimate act of 'insiders fixing the race', by this person's own logic supers should declare NOW to avoid such a thing happening later. I mean, really, this isn't that difficult, folks! the Dem. party needs rules that make sense on the whole, our primary system is a disgrace and is fundamentally undemocratic. but the rules are the rules, and by the current rules, Obama is winning by every valid measure.

Yes, I am persuaded that the uncommitted Democratic superdelegates have excellent reasons for delaying their selections until the Convention. Some of them have their own reelection contests to worry about, and they may wish to avoid harming their chances by declaring preferences too soon. The controlled corporate media is largely exaggerating the likelihood that the superdelegates' choices will affect the outcome.

You know, it's possible that people who want to vote with their constituencies aren't cowards. Some people hold Democratic ideals a bit more strongly than others, and there's nothing shameful about that.

The only really credible reason is that they are cowards who are waiting until the last possible second to endorse to make sure that they pick either the winner or the person most strongly supported by their constituents.

I disagree. Most of the super delegates are named automatically, based on their status as elected representatives. They may believe the system is anti-democratic, themselves (which it obviously is). The only solution for those people would be to wait to ensure they don't overrule the choice of the voters.

Any attempt to short circuit the election by fiat would have serious repercussions. Hillary's people are already complaining about disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan, now you're asking supers to disenfranchise the 10 states and territories that haven't voted yet?

"Seems like part of the problem is the misperception that the race is still close. There's no reasonably likely way for Clinton to close her pledged delegate gap with Obama..."

So why does his campaign continue to attack her with negative campaigning on a daily basis? Doesn't make any sense.

So why does his campaign continue to attack her with negative campaigning on a daily basis?

Maybe Mark Penn convinced him that serving as Hillary's punching bag wasn't an effective election strategy.

...which means it's not over.
thanks!