Since we know what the pledged delegate outcome will be (pretty much, anyway) and the campaign has hit the point of being destructive. (Exit polling says that 60% of Clinton voters who won't vote for Obama has grown significantly since Ohio and vice versa for 40% of Obama voters) then why are the super-delegates holding out? Why not close ranks?
As someone who perennially votes for the loser - because I'm usually voting for someone who stands for changing a system which has felt like a consolidated power zone for the few for a very long time - I have to say that I'm skeptical about what the super-delegates are up to.
It seems to me that at this point, they should end it by endorsing so that the party can move on to targeting McCain. To keep it going is to increase the divide within the party. So, why do it? I think it might be because they're looking for just enough of a justification to install Clinton, the establishment candidate.
I'm not as confident as others that the super-delegates are that concerned about going against the voters. If they were, they'd rubber stamp what the voters have already made clear.
How many more times do we need to hear Clinton talk about McCain being more prepared for the CIC roll than Obama? How many more times do we have to listen to her campaign distort his views by insinuating those of anyone he's had any association with onto him? Tonight I heard a Republican strategist talking about how much easier it would be to make their campaign attacks on Obama sound more credible because Clinton has laid the groundwork. Why wouldn't the super-delegates want to protect the candidate that their voters are choosing?
My answer is that they don't want him to be the candidate. The Clintons represent the power of the inner circle. And they aren't kind to those who decide not to support them. (Bill Richardson is now Judas, you know.) I think that there is fear, not only of a Clinton backlash, but also of a shift in power dynamics. It's safer to stay with the status quo. So, they're holding out to see if Obama can give them any reason at all to justify to the rest of us why they will cast our votes aside and choose Clinton.
It can be argued that by keeping the campaign competitive it gives Obama a chance to get to every state and introduce himself. But the rest of the primaries and caucuses will happen regardless of the number of candidates, so the party could support him going to those states, anyway. And how many more of the democratic voters would opt to give him a listen if the whole party was saying this is our candidate, let's get behind him? The time could be used to solidify voter support for Obama over McCain. The longer Hillary is attacking him, the more likely that voters will decide they are choosing between their Democratic candidate and McCain and will opt to sit out or vote for McCain if their candidate doesn't get the nomination.
As much as I want to have hope, I find that I have a real cynical streak. (Facing a long-term debilitating illness and the criminal nature of our health insurance system can do that for you, I guess.) I don't trust the insiders. And if they do overturn our vote, I am likely to not vote at all in the general. Because they will have proven to me that it doesn't matter. Nothing will really change.
Let's all hope I'm overly paranoid. I so want to be proven wrong here. Please....
Edit for suggested resolution:
Zerzan says:
would (rightly) say, the old boy network is ganging up on her, alienating her voters. If enough endorse BHO before the last primaries, allowing the pledged delegates to put him over the top, the spin is much better.
I like this suggestion. Calculate how many SD endorsements are needed to secure the required delegate count once the last primary is executed. This would signal that Obama will be the candidate, but allow the final votes to have significance. Afterwards, the remaining SDs could affirm the nomination.