No argument here -- I agree that that's what should happen with the super-delegates. I'm wondering what you think, though, about the argument that Hillary out to get out of the race before the end of the primaries in June. There's a lot of hand-wringing going on among Dems, who read pieces like Hillary's Math Problem and conclude that two+ more months of Clinton's Obama bashing in a lost cause will do grave damage to his chances in the fall. I'm more optimistic about letting the whole process take it's course: the primaries play out, Obama retains his lead, the super-delegates shift sufficiently to give him a majority and, voila, the Dems have a presumed candidate by early summer -- plenty of time to take on McCain. Anything wrong with that picture?

I for one think that only the combination of both a pledged delegate lead and a popular vote lead will totally clinch the nomination; however, being as Hillary isn't much more likely to get a popular vote lead than she is to get a delegate lead her continued presence and kitchen sink heaving is a damaging, ugly, and a useless waste of time for all concerned. She certainly doesn't seem to be endearing her self to the American public, and she is obviously going to do more harm than good. Of course if the cease fire in Iraq continues to unravel McCain will be utterly crushed in the general election. Its hard to know what to think about more problems in Iraq, it kinda seemed inevitable that the Bush/McCain surge strategy would fall apart because of politics. Its obviously in Iraqi hands much more than ours, but if its a hundred years of slow numbing bleed with sporadic periods of violence, or if its a blood bath now the war will continue to be very ugly. My prediction either way is that the violence can't be contained in a sustainable way, and sooner or later Obama or another anti war candidate will crush McCain before or after his first term in office.

I'm a Washington state resident, and this is the first I've heard of this story (go figure). I'm really glad to hear this, though.

Now, I wonder if CNN will adjust their "superdelegate count" to reflect one less committed delegate for Clinton...what are the chances?

OK, I just read Corn's latest post -- I guess there are scenarios in which a scorched earth campaign by Hillary could help burn Obama's chances in the fall. But he's going to have to put up with cheap, character-assassination attacks in any case -- it's just sickening that it's coming from Hills.

Jay --

The only thing that is potentially wrong with that picture is the Clinton campaign's tactics. If it spends the next two months convincing voters that Obama hasn't passed the commander-in-chief test or that Obama's top aides are anti-Semites, it's doing a serious disservice to the nominee and the party.

(If, for example, Clinton were to drop out and declare her support of Obama, and then spend April and May trying to repair Obama's support among white, working class voters in key battleground states, that would be an awfully lot better than her saying, "[Wright] would not be my pastor," which has the opposite effect.)

You can argue that McCain is going to launch these same attacks as well, and that the net number of attacks on Obama/the Dem nominee will stay roughly the same regardless of when the primary ends. The problem is, Obama's return fire (and all the money and time and energy that goes into it) ought be aimed at McCain, not Clinton.

That said, I think Obama can begin his general election campaign in June and fare fine.