>>You can count me among the 19% of Obama supporters who will vote for McCain if Hillary is the nominee. Here is today's aggro, in which prominent Clinton backers criticize Nancy Pelosi for saying Democratic superdelegates should reflect the will of the voters. (What a crazy idea!)
>>
>>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
>
>For what little it's worth............
>
>Should super-delegates be allowed to be independent and vote according to their own views? That does seem like the original purpose but it also smacks of cronyism and "thwarting the will of the people."
>
>I think they should be apportioned based on the percentage of the popular vote each candidate received. That may, or may not, be the same thing as the delegate proportions (I'm not sure if delegates are proportional to population, registered party members, votes cast in previous elections or what).
>
>If the super-delegate votes should be distributed according to the delegate vote, then what's the point of the super-delegate vote in the first place??????

Yes, that's a good point. I just think it will stir up a hornet's nest if the voters go for one candidate and the superdelegates essentially veto or overrule them. And for sure sending this letter to Nancy Pelosi reinforces the notion that the Clintons will stop at absolutely nothing. At the risk of using unfortunate imagery, someone is going to have to drive a stake through Hillary's heart before she concedes. It clearly doesn't bother her a bit that she is hurting her own party to hang onto an increasingly desperate chance.