She had great showings this week and I don't buy the media narrative.  She won Indiana after being down by 6, she came within 7 votes in Guam, after being down by 11%, and she closed from 25 down in NC.

Can someone tell me what terrible thing the DNC was trying to prevent from happening by telling FL and Mi not to have an early primary?

Were a bunch of people going to die that day if they did not abide by their ruling?  Was there going to be some physical catastrophe if they did not abide by the DNC ruling?  

They only thing I saw was a record number of people voting that was the worst thing that happen.

My point is or am I alone in my reasoning that it was a stupid rule by the DNC and all they had to do was to admit to it and count the delegates.

The analogy I use is like if the DNC would have said you cannot come to vote if you wear brown shoes.  Your vote will only count if you wear black shoes.  I mean that is how stupid the DNC ruling was to me.

How come a bunch a people can vote all at the same time on Super Tuesday what's the difference.  So two states wanted to vote early.  I do not understand what is so wrong if you want to vote early.

The only thing holding the party together right now is the fact that Hillary's still running.  I know some of you don't want to hear this, but if Obama was to be annointed the nominee at this point it would be devastating to the democratic party.  There wouldn't be massive demonstrations.  Instead, people would withhold their money from the DNC and vote for McCain in November.  That's how "old white people" riot.

If they need BHO's humongous fundraising skills and his Rolodex, why don't they just say so, get all the SDs to come down at once, and declare it a done deal?

Uncommitted Democratic superdelegates in Congress overwhelmingly say they won't necessarily back the presidential candidate who wins the most primary delegates. Instead, electability will be very important in their decision.

Of 42 lawmakers interviewed by The Hill, only four said they regarded the primary vote as decisive.

*

A few Democrats echo party leaders, who have called on superdelegates to sustain the will of primary voters. But even superdelegates who say the delegate count will be decisive in their own decision-making add a caveat: They warn that the delegate count will be less important if the leading candidate has not also won a majority of the popular vote.

"For me it will be a combination of delegate lead and the popular vote," said Rep. Jason Altmire, a neutral Democrat from Pennsylvania. "If Clinton catches Obama in the popular vote, that's important.

"I see stupid people.  They're everywhere.  They don't know they're stupid.  They can't help themselves."

http://thepage.time.com/obama-dnc-fundraising-deal/

If this is true, are the SDs free at all?  If you are taking money from one of the candidates, how can you be "free"?

And do I care if Obama is embarassed by losses in Kentucky and West Virginia?