The role of the superdelegates is to exercise independent judgement. There are two factors that seem to stand head and shoulders above the others.

1) Who is more qualified to be president?

2) Who is more electable?

Any notion they should rubber stamp pledged delegate counts or number of states won is counter-intuitive. If that were their intended role, they would not exist.

There's more...

Though he's actually trying his level best to stay in step with the media herd riding Hillary Clinton into the ground, Jonathan Alter unwittingly dropped this interesting tidbit in the May 19 issue of Newsweek.

"For all the talk of numbers, there's one that will be most important for superdelegates: 1.5 million. That reflects the 1.5 million names of donors that the Obama campaign has on file. Because no contribution below $200 is publicly reported, the vast majority of those names are in Obama's exclusive possession, to be shared as he wishes. As Graham Richard, the longtime mayor of Fort Wayne, Ind., explained it to me last week, it's all about the Benjamins. Local officials (that's who most superdelegates are) need the tens of thousands of Democratic donors on that list who come from their states. Their re-election depends on successful fund-raising. No Obama at the top of the ticket, no list. No list, and you may be back selling insurance after November."

You read it right. This, in effect, is threatening to cripple the fundraising ability of the Democratic party if Obama is not given the nomination. He is telling superdelegates, "give me the nomination or risk losing your office for lack of campaign funds."

There's more...

for Obama confirmed this morning by DemConWatch.

Barbara Flynn Currie (IL) and Todd Stroger (IL).

This now brings their superdelegate Clinton lead to only 15.5 supers. By far the lowest tally of the entire contest. Obama is down 14 supers by CNN's count and 15 according to the AP.

If you tally in the Pelosi club, the lead is down to 8.5 supers according to DCW.

Since PA, Obama has gained 23 supers to Clinton's 15.

NBC has Clinton up 19 supers which is her best showing.

There's more...

Alot of folks me included believe the concept of Supers is bad.

It screams elitism because it says that there are times we need to save the party from its own members. Well guess what, in the past its been these party hacks that have triangulated us into the mess of the Bush and Reagan years. Clinton struggled during his whole presidency because his "middle approach" alienated much of the base and Republicans never supported him.  My guess is less compromise with the right and more appealing to the base and independents would have served him better. I liked Bill still do but I think the Clinton era is over and its a time of resurgance for the progressives or grassroots of the party.

Some folks will object to this but I believe the superdelegates have been and continue to move to Obama's camp not just because he is delegate leader. The reason is because Obama's voters may be more valuable to the party than Hillary's supporters. The voters that form the backbone of support for Obama have been AA, young voters(future of the party) and the activists. Hillary's supporters are the working class and middle age to older woman. Well my THEORY is that the supers look at that and say the working class tends to be a bit fickle and are more prone to crossover when wedge issues are introduced. Interestingly Hillary has been able to capitalize on that. So its a strength for her. Then the older and middle age women are a HUGE strength for her. Unfortunately they are the party's past. Either dying off or less likely to be involved because of the normal chores of life... working, raising a family etc.. Obama's supporters are much more valuable to the supers because a solid AA vote gives them (based on history) an automatic voting block with little effort. The young are learning to identify themselves as Democrats and identify with the values of the Democratic party. Then the activist view Obama as their champion and will reenergize the party, these are the foot soldiers.

So at the end of the day the supers are moving toward Obama and thinking the voters know what they are doing and will ratify their decision by following their lead. Doesn't mean they don't value Hillary supporter it means in the big picture they weighed the facts and come to the conclusion that the Obama supporters are too valuable to let go.

The other reason for all the acrimony may just be the normal confrontation that occurs when the old guard has to make room the new guard. Some may want to remember this was also true when Clinton came from out of nowhere to take the Democratic nomination and its a normal part of the process.

So when the supers ratify, and yes it appears likely, that they ratify the new guards choice keep in mind that maybe they ain't so dumb and maybe just, maybe they do  "get it". They are just reflecting the will of the people.

There's more...