Ed Morrissey is generally spot on. But I have to disagree with him on the super-delegate thing. His rationale for believing that they’ll break for Hillary presumes an underlying loyalty. I just don’t see it.
Morrisey says “the Clintons have spent the last sixteen years putting most of them in power. They have campaigned for them, raised cash for them, and gotten them their jobs. Most of them are superdelegates because of the Clintons in one way or another.” True enough. But it’s this same self-interest that will drive the delegates to align with whomever they think will preserve that power for them. If they sense that Obama has a better chance to win in the general, that’s who they’ll support. It’s called trading up.
People whose loyalties have once been bought with position can be counted on to do it again.
Spot on! Loved your whole post but that last line really highlights the changing loyalty aspect. It reminds me of the Seinfeld opening bit: "Some people cheat on the person they were originally cheating with. Which is kind of like a bank robber demanding money from a teller, "Give me all your money" then turning to their fellow robber and saying, "Now give me all your money too."
Makes you wish for the days when, if they were bought, they stayed bought.