It was interesting to listen to Clinton's non-concession speech in Ohio last night, and to hear how she is echoing, essentially down to specific bullet points, McCain's attacks on Obama only a few minutes before. Between picking up republican talking points, and such explosively divisive acts as announcing it's OK to try to lure pledged delegates to defect, or pushing for ex post facto rule changes for delegates in Mich and Fla, Sen Clinton has come to the conclusion that if SHE can't have the white house, then NO democrat deserves to win it. She's doing everything she can to divide the party and hobble Obama's post-nomination efforts (I guess if she makes him un-electable through vicious attacks on his positions, inuendo, and baseless charges, then that might improve her chances of gaining the nom in a convention battle–levels the playing field, so to speak).

Pledged delegates are not allowed, by law, to defect on the first vote. On the second they are free to vote however they want; hence – 'defection' is the wrong word. Second, it is McCain who is picking up Clinton's talking points. She has been saying the same thing about Obama for weeks now.

I'm hoping Obama makes a clean sweep in the next couple weeks & ends this … but still don't like to see baseless attacks on Clinton. There are enough legitimate things to criticize her campaign on.

Bush will cancel the elections if Obama looks like the next President. He needs to be assured immunity for all his crimes.

Defection seems like the right word to me, because legal or not those delegates are supposed to be representing the votes of real people in real primaries and caucuses. Despite what Mark Penn and the Clinton camp say those peoples' voices should be able to expect that their votes continue to count on the convention floor even into a second round and even though they didn't vote for Ms. Inevitable.

If the super-delegates all voted the way their state voted, there will be no first round winner.

If no one could change their vote in the second round, then the second vote would be exactly the same as the first & so on & the convention would not end until one of the candidates dies or drops out.

The super-delegates were actually designed to bring democracy back into the convention – to take it out of the hands of a tight cadre of party insiders. They are elected officials, and therefore responsible to us after the convention. The suddenly oh-so-special regular delegates? Are total political insiders, are not known, and have little responsibility to anyone outside the candidate they represent.

My bad … I left to early. Final point was: Obama is fighting just as hard for delegates to switch sides after the first vote; his best chance of winning is if the super-delegates flock to him on the first vote. Would you still consider this 'defection' if it helps your candidate?