They went bye bye. Even Ted Kennedy said so.

Which again leaves me wondering...why do Clinton supporters continue to misplace their hope in the belief that SuperDelegates are somehow going to magically swoop down and save them from the stark delegate deficit they are facing?

They have been steadily moving towards Obama.

If I was a Hillary supporter, I'd be most worried about loosing supers to Obama especially when there is no chance that Hillary is going to top Obama's pledged delegates AND especially days after she's had the her best news in a long time.

This image is actually a little old - her lead is barely 40 now.

You can see that Obama is CLEARLY catching up to Clinton on S-D endorsements.  And this doesn't count the Unassigned Delegates; that's anywhere from a 14 to 20 Super-D advantage.

An interesting article about California SDs.

The best part:

Barbara Boxer, one of the state's best-known superdelegates, has confused some by her stance. Boxer does not plan to endorse Clinton or Obama as long as both are running. But even though she has not thrown her support to either candidate, she does plan to vote for Clinton at the convention because Clinton won the California primary. Saying "the will of the voters is paramount," she hopes the superdelegates do not decide the nominee at the convention.

"Part of me says, 'Let's make the most of this.' We're seeing a record number of people turning out in state after state. There is tremendous excitement in states that we will need this fall. But this is dangerous territory - you try to control what your supporters say, but you can't always do that."

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_8472501?nc lick_check=1

be her downfall.

Well, he's certainly given way more money to the Supers - any surprise?

Obama will lead in super Delegates by this time next week.

It was never going to be fifty in one day. It was supposed to be over the next couple of weeks. But I do imagine that at least a good portion of them are now hedging again.

It's called quantity over quality.
Most Obama endorsers cite his ability to attract new Dem voters - not his policy positions.

McCain will win in Georgia, but Jane Kidd the State Dem Chairman, endorses Obama to build the Dem base.
Quantity over quality.
 

The superdelegates realize that Hillary Clinton's negatives are very high and are getting higher as she goes negative.

By the way, why won't she release the tax returns from the end of Bill Clinton's presidency until 2006  Doesn't she need to be vetted now because the Republicans will do it in the general election?

It is absolutely pathetic that she would compare a call to release tax returns to Ken Starr's investigations. Look for lots of op-eds and editorials pounding her for her history of secrecy.  Given what we've suffered with Bush-Cheney, we don't need another president who isn't absolutely committed to transparency.

It is also becoming clear from the math that HRC's only path to the nomination is to rely on seating MI and FL delegations "as is" or dragging out the voting process even further with re-votes in June.  

In addition, the level of negativity coming from Team Hillary has to be of concern to many.  She already threw the sink at him, what's next the toilet?

Hillary will unite and turn-out the Repub base.  Obama will increase turn-out among the Dem base (AAs and youth voters).  The math is pretty clear as to who would be better for down-ballot Dems.

WV is in play for Clinton, but not for Obama.  SUSA polls show Obama losing WV by 20 points against McCain, while the same poll shows Clinton winning WV.  And the only poll to date shows Clinton beating Obama 2-1.  So why on earth is Rahall announcing for Obama?  

Rahall acknowledged that his choice of Obama might not be popular with voters in his district, which includes Cabell County.

I really dislike Nick Joe.  What a hack.