This also means that Super Delegates without a constituency, such as Donna Brazile, former President Clinton, Former Vice-President Gore should not vote at all.

DFA didn't even make a pretense of asking though before they sent out their message yesterday.

I may think the concept of SDs is a bit elitist and a bit of an anachronism, but they exist.

Given the rules, I don't see why an SD should feel required to vote a certain way.

SDs by virtue of being either elected officials or party operatives have a vested interest in the party as a whole doing well so hopefully most would vote in what they believe to be the party's best interests though personal interests are bound to be involved.

Let's say I'm a Congressman from Ohio and I prefer Clinton to Obama, but the voters in my district vote for Obama 60 to 40.  That might give me pause over whether to throw my delegate vote to Clinton, but it shouldn't stop me from supporting the candidate I think is the best choice.

If SDs should have to vote based on votes in their state or district, then they are not really SDs, but merely delegates apportioned the way delegates normally are apportioned.

I am in no way defending the existence of SDs, but they exist to give additional influence to party insiders and elected officials and they should be given the leeway to vote their conscience.

Besides if SDs have some moral obligation to vote along the lines of their constituencies, it can get pretty blurry.

What if Clinton win the state, but Obama wins my district.  Do I have to vote for Clinton or do I have to vote for Obama?

What if Obama wins 51 to 49?  Can't I insert my own judgment since my constituents are evenly divided?

What if Clinton wins 48 to 46 with 6% going to Mike Gravel (is he still running?)?  Do I get to use my judgement then?

The idea of the nomination coming down to SDs might come across as unseemly since it evokes the idea of fat cat deals being made in smoke filled rooms.  The losing side is going to complain that the winner simply strong-armed or bought off enough SDs to win.

Truth is, politics is often unseemly.  It doesn't have the niceities of a sporting event.  It involves cutting deals and bring pressure to bear to get stuff done.  It may not be pretty and it may not seem fair to the side that loses, but at this point how else do you decide what's "fair" when half the voters like one candidate and the other half like another?

For once I agree with Move On. Via TPM, which fails to note that Move On has endorsed Obama (poor journalism again from TPM) :

The superdelegates are under lots of pressure right now to come out for one candidate or the other," reads the petition from MoveOn, which has endorsed Obama.

I understand why the Clinton campaign feels the need to stress this angle; at this point, a victory via Supers is the best hope they have. But am I alone in thinking that 'free' Supers may not ultimately be in Hillary's best interest?

As I see it, the Democrat's biggest problem, by far, is Florida and Michigan. I know BDT has tried to craft a perfect compromise, but in truth, there's only one perfect solution to that disaster, and that's for Florida and Michigan not to matter. That only happens if one candidate has a lead of at least 366 delegates over the other.

Barring some unexpected development, it is very likely that Obama will go to the convention with a lead of 50-200 delegates. (assuming Clinton wins the states she has to) There are ~800 Supers. That's enough to either push Clinton over the top, (depending on what happens with FL and MI) or bury her so deep that FL and MI become irrelevant.

Pretend you're a super. Do you?

• Prop Hillary up, which will prompt a huge media firestorm and extensive review of you, the nomination process, and the Democratic National Party as a whole?
• Toss Hillary under the bus, making the media happy and making an enormous pile of stink (in the form of FL and MI) go away at the same time?