There are so many ways to cut the numbers, it's impossible to settle any dispute based on who morally won the election. Any win will have to be according to DNC rules, period. The rules creat superdelegates. So all must agree that whoever gets the most total delegates, including supers, wins.

That said, the article's premise is that caucus votes and superdelegates are morally equivalent. I.e., Obama can't decry supers and extoll caucuses. This is flatly illogical. While caucuses may not be a traditional type of vote, they are nonetheless a vote by the people. All of the candidates are on equal footing, and the choice is made by the people. The superdelegates, on the other hand, vote with the same weight as thousands of persons. One single unfettered superdelegate, though only one person, has thousands of times the influence the ordinary voter will have.

I can't believe that someone would seriously equate people-chosen caucus delegates with superdelegates who can vote any way they chose. It shows that what John Dickerson considers fair depends on who benefits. A caucus is a fair and open vote by the electorate, no better or worse than a primary, just different. Neither is an accurate predictor of how a state will go in the general election, but both are democratic indications of who the state's voters prefer. Superdelegates are not democratic.

If anyone thinks the Democratic party won't absolutely implode if supers override a candidate with the most pledged delegates, they're living in a dream world. The candidates are too close in position and electability and winnability for either side to argue they should win by supers.

If you're for Hillary, her already high negatives will reach an unelectably high level if she is perceived to have lost the primary and won the nomination.

John Dickerson of Slate, along with pundits and posters, are tirelessly sounding this refrain:

"Exit polls show Obama has support for his argument. Roughly two-thirds of voters in the four contested states said that superdelegates should vote with the people and not their own priorities."

So help me with this:

Which "people" ? How do you count those who "voted" in caucuses? What about those (like me) who will be writing John Edwards' name in on their ballots? If Hillary catches up and surpasses Barak in the total popular vote (however you count it), but remains behind in delegates, have "the people" spoken?

What about Hillary and Barak supporters who are suffering from buyers remorse in June? Shouldn't superdelegates consider this factor in their "vote with the people" decisions? And I won't even bring up "the people" in the insignificant states of Michigan and Florida.

Do the Democrats want to win in 2008? If they do, Howard Dean, DNC gray beards (to be chosen by each camp), and Obama and Clinton should sit down together now. They should establish tight rules on how the campaign should proceed. At least seven points should be agreed to:

1. candidates should be encouraged to let the campaign play out to the last primary,

2. Michigan and Florida will be required to abide by the party rules already in place,

3. both candidates [and this is key to the whole shabang] will agree to run the final primaries against McCain, not each other,

4. the superdelegates will be the deciding force should neither candidate gain enough delegates through the primary process,

5. both candidates, should they prevail, agree to offer the vice-presidency to the other candidate to accept or turn down,

6. the terms of this agreement will be made fully public as the means used to enforce its terms,

7. should either Clinton or Obama refuse the terms offered, the DNC should publicize this refusal as an act that puts victory over McCain and the Republicans in great jeopardy.

This may very well leave the decision up to the superdelegates. But by following this Seven Point plan, the candidates, the voters in the remaining primaries and the inevitable polls will demonstrate to these superdelegates just who is truly most electable. It will put and keep McCain on the defensive. It will underline for the voters in November which party is ready to rise above personal ambitions for the good of the nation.

Consider the alternative. The rumors and realities of back room deals. Walk outs by irate Clinton or Obama supporters. A dead-locked convention running on and on before a dazed and then incredulous electorate. FOX and every kook with a radio talk show or a blog hammering away: “These people want to run the country?!”

Not good for the party, the candidates and especially for the country which needs to turn out of office every Republican lick-spittle to ever utter the name “Bush” with even a hint of respect.

Remember what this election is about.

I give you that your reasoning is spot on but your point seems a bit moot due to your write in choice.

I absolutely think you should vote for whomever you choose and I encourage you do just that. Lets just say the DEMS were to adopt your plan and right course you are still going to vote for Edwards?

Assuming this is your choice then you would most likely tell or want everyone to follow your lead. Again there is nothing wrong with that but what would this do and why do you care if Obama or Clinton come to these terms or not? What is the election about for you?

Fair enough questions, hihowareyou.

Because both Obama and Clinton are centrist thinkers and politicians, my write in vote will be cast simply as an (albeit pitiful) message to the remaining candidates and the Democratic party to remember the thrust, objective and pledge to Edwards’ which is partially expressed in his exit speech:

“Now, I've spoken to both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. They have both pledged to me and more importantly through me to America, that they will make ending poverty central to their campaign for the presidency. . . .”

You ask, “Lets just say the DEMS were to adopt your plan and right course you are still going to vote for Edwards?”

This would depend on whether or how both candidates spoke to the issues of concern to me. They might still need an “Edwards Reminder” when I finally vote on May 6.

But having said this, the SPA is designed to keep Clinton and Obama from savaging each other over . . . what? Nothing more than media created non-issues revolving around race and gender. Non-issues that have already led to the dismissal of two great women advisors, one from each camp, Samantha Powers and Geraldine Ferraro. How can this possibly be good for either candidate, the party or the people?

McCain and Rove are chortling over this kind of phoney purism over phoney non-issues that will serve them so well in the general election. Look for billboards and 30 second TV spots about the “monster” Hillary and the "affirmative action" candidate Barak– [mis]quoting two sincere Democrats whose remarks have been bloated, misread, and trumpeted across the land.

All, some, a small or a great proportion of DEMS may say I will eventually vote for the “winner” at the end of this torturous primary marathon. Maybe.

Even if it turns out to be all or a great proportion, our chance, and more importantly the superdelegates chance, to hear the candidates on substantial issues directly targeting McCain and the Republicans, is lost due to this fog of imagined and real slights and slurs. Both candidates may even speak to the Edwards’ agenda with intelligence and conviction, but the general public will not be getting this, or even looking for it in the media. Just as Edwards was ignored out of the election process, the best of what Clinton and Obama have to offer is being diminished by the titillating race/gender entertainments the press plays over and over again, day after day.

And meanwhile, 53% of the American people see the war in Iraq going well, Admiral Fallon, a critic of Petraeus’ surge and staunchly opposed to military adventures in Iran is forced to resign, and McCain is easily within striking distance of the presidency.

SPA Is the Way.