And the point of this bait (sorry, experiment!) is what?

I’m not a fervent Hillary supporter. Contrary to popular perception of the Clinton “magic,” her performance as a candidate has been somewhat inept. Nonetheless, I am consistently surprised by the premature epitaphs attached to her campaign. It’s not hard at all to imagine a simple scenario in which she earns the nomination without tearing down Obama and destroying the Democratic Party (a fanciful notion - you all give her too much credit). Here goes.

Hillary wins Pennsylvania convincingly, as appears likely, and performs well in the remaining contests. As a result, Obama goes into the convention (or into the Summer) with a slim lead in pledged delegates, but not enough to put him over the top. True, Obama has won more states and has marginally greater delegate support, but the number of voters who actually showed up for each candidate is basically a wash, and may even favor Hillary if you count the Florida beauty contest, in which millions voted, regardless of whether their delegates are seated (let’s toss out Michigan since Obama wasn’t on the ballot; and btw, if the Florida vote had been translated into delegates it’s not even clear Obama would be in the lead).

In that case, the decision rightfully goes to the Superdelegates to exercise their best judgment as to who should win the nomination (I’m not saying this is a good thing, but this is what the geniuses have devised). Given that (1) many of Obama’s victories came in caucus states where a strong grassroots organization of highly motivated voters can mask thin popular support, (2) many of those victories and votes came in states where the Democrats have no real chance of winning, (3) Obama seems to have had a difficult time broadening his base beyond the liberal-intellectual and African American wings of the party, and (4) Obama’s lack of national exposure leading to the possibility of his being negatively defined by the Republican attack machine (as appears to be happening now), it would not be unreasonable for a majority of the Superdelegates to conclude that Hillary - who convincingly won New York, California, Florida (beauty contest I know, but important nonetheless), Ohio and Pennsylvania - would make the best candidate.

Where would that leave the Party in November? Fractured and angry with a wounded nominee many would perceive as illegitimate and a large portion of its base (I’m thinking mostly of African Americans here) feeling robbed. The only possible way to heal the divide would be to include Obama on the ticket, although that too seems unlikely and would carry drawbacks in the general election. However, while this scenario is bleak, the alternative, an Obama led ticket, while avoiding some of the rancor, has its own drawbacks.

Let me ask you a question that may shed some light on your question and on the seriousness of your concern for the Party. If Clinton beats Obama in North Carolina, will you concede that the super delegates should vote their consciences and do what they think is right for the Party?

Aha! And there lies the problem for Hillary. She can not win North Carolina "cleanly". It will only come from more mud-slinging and a lack of focus on the issues.

Barack Obama is addressing race right now because Hillary has backed him into a corner and forced it.

And regardless of what she throws his way, Obama probably wins NC, wins OR, wins MT, and probably IN as well.

And I am so over polls! yes Hillary won NY and CA in the primary, but if you want to talk polls... Obama leads McCain by greater in those states.

Polls Schmolls. Talk to me about polls after the conventions nominate McCain and Obama. Then I'll care about polls.

The only way that Hillary can win the nomination without fracturing the party, and losing in November, is to win more selected delegates than Senator Obama.

That is the only way. If Senator Obama goes to the convention with more selected delegates than Hillary then he is the rightful nominee.

All this nonsense about how Hillary would be more electable in November is pointless. There is no way to prove that. If she does not win the most selected delegates, then she will go to the convention as the loser. We do not send the loser of the semi-final match on to the championship bout. It is an absurd notion.

Just a little reality check for all those who may be buying into the Hillary, as a winner, spin coming from her camp.

Iowa, Iowa, Iowa.

She had every advantage in that State, and had an enormous lead over the rest of the field. She finished up in third place. Senator Obama beat the odds on favorite, Hillary, and she did not even come in second.

She has squandered huge leads in many states. Look at how far ahead she was in Texas, just weeks before the held their primary.

To the winner belong the spoils. This is America. We do not hold Coronations here to Crown some loser.

To the winner belongs the spoils, and to the spoiler belongs the whines.

The issue for me isn't whether the super-dels should use their own best judgment. It's what "best judgment" means.

To Hillary supporters, it doesn't mean "best judgment" at all. That's perhaps why Billy says "vote their conscience," whatever that means. Ignoring the consequences isn't "best judgment" and Hillary supporters want them to ignore the consequences.

I think their best judgment should take into account the effects of overruling the primary and caucus voters. What good is it to give the nomination to Hillary in a way that fractures the party, resulting in a convention in which there are walkouts, protests, general chaos, etc.?

I think their best judgment should take into account that giving the nomination to Hillary would mean rewarding her for a campaign so sleazy that it sets new precedents for sleaze. Has any Democratic presidential nominee ever stated that the Republican opponent is better qualified to be Commander in Chief than another competing Democratic nominee? Is this the kind of behavior they want to reward?

I think their best judgment should take all of the above into account. Hillary supporters want them to ignore all of that, and take some very abstract view of "who can win" that doesn't have much at all to do with who can really win. If you they do that much damage to the party, Hillary loses, too. Everyone loses.

And how many politicians do you know who possess those qualities who would also be willing to sacrifice their careers to be a short- term "winner" because they believe Hillary Clinton would become a president worthy of their long-term sacrifice?