Dickerson identifies two important arguments Clinton will and must make to superdelegates: Clinton wins the big battle-ground states and she wins among core blue-collar Democrats.

But there are other factors that superdelegates need to consider.

Foremost, is Barack Obama the "best" nominee? His U.S. Senate record is thin, in spite of several noteworthy accomplishments. He has not been a U.S. Senator long enough to have worked with others "across the aisle" nor does he have the legislative accomplishments that answer this concern.Additionally, Obama has one of the highest missed voting records of any U.S. Senator. While some of this can be attributed to his presidential run, Sen. Clinton has made votes during the same period that he has not. And he has not proved himself yet on the Foreign Affairs Committee, where he chairs the subcommittee on NATO and Europe.

Sen. Clinton has proved herself on the Armed Services Committee. Sen. Clinton's record includes impressive accomplishments for her constituents in New York, as well as achievements for the greater good toward health and safety, military families, U.S. troops' health care, and higher education.

The second concern involves the so-called "will of the people" argument. Sen. Obama can certainly argue that he has won more states than Sen. Clinton. I am not convinced, however, that he can argue, in good faith, the "will of the people", particularly not in caucus states. Tempting though it is to use caucus states as representative of the greater will of Democratic voters, this is simply not the case. Caucuses represent only 2 percent of a state's voters at the low end and just 10 percent of voters at the high end. Primaries are much more representative of the "people's will".

Finally, if we are "hiring" somebody for this position, as Sen. Clinton states, superdelegates should look at a "seniority-like" factor. Seniority is a tried-and-true union contract provision that has helped women and minorities over the years, especially in situations (workplaces) where the "inside track" often kept them off the fast track. This factor, in concert with experience, is a powerful and positive tool that actually depersonalizes and de-politicizes it.

These are several additional arguments that superdelegates need to weigh as this process goes forward. However -- and I have posted this elsewhere -- superdelegates need to put the braks on their decision until voters have their say. Once this process is complete, superdelegates can and should take their leadership role without being excessively emotional.

Those are arguments stirring enough to put superdelegates to sleep.

wayhey1:

Those are arguments stirring enough to put superdelegates to sleep.

Don't let this rattle you, Mabelle...there's enough flame wars around here (I myself am responsible for my share...), that people speaking rationally is a nice breath of fresh air.

Would we all be better off if we started framing the superdelegates, in our discussions, as tiebreakers?

Still not buying that Hillary's record is more accomplished than Obama's. That is an argument for McCain in my opinion.

Obama hasn't been to Beijing, China to call the PRC on human rights abuses:

<link>

Tie-breakers it is BlueOhio. Clinton strategy makes sense because Obama has not won the most crucial states carried by Democrats in the general election (CA, NY, NJ, MA, TX, OH) - this shows, just as exit polls reveal, that Hillary is winning among people identified as Democrats. Obama, on the other hand, has a lead based on caucus all-or-nothing Red states, which rarely, if ever, vote blue in November. Obama's campaign is weak in the core democratic core states, and is naively relying on manipulative caucus wins in the rural red states.

He needs to step up with a realistic, detailed plan and clear message, and not run a campaign off of provoking a string of apologies through the media, a more form of the traditional character assassination tactics of Republican lore.

wayhey1:

Those are arguments stirring enough to put superdelegates to sleep.

LMFAO