What a tool. Rather than congratulating Obama for winning a great race, fairly and graciously, with more elected delegates from those who voted in primaries and caucuses, Mark Penn, in a New York Times op-ed instead credits the superdelegates for pushing Obama over the top, and blames "low-turnout caucuses" (a talking point throughout Clinton's campaign as being "undemocratic" and "unfair"), blames the media, and blames just about anything and anyone but himself, for the loss.

...as Barack Obama gained enough superdelegates to put him over the top. ... But she went from a lead of 120 superdelegates in early February to a deficit of 40 before last Tuesday.

Given her successes in high-turnout primary elections and defeats in low-turnout caucuses, that simple fact may just have had a lot more to do with who won than anyone imagines.

more...

I admire Donna Brazile, perhaps more than any member of the DNC, and if you have a chance, everyone should read her regular columns cross-posted at Brazile & Associates.  Though she initially argued (in February) that Superdelegates should wait "a little longer" to make their support public (because of the benefits of an extended campaign) she has written several recent (and much more critical) columns stating that it's time for the Democratic Party to come together, and blamed undeclared superdelegates for the continued divide in the party:

Experience tells me that if Obama is the party's nominee, the remaining superdelegates will bear as much responsibility as the Republicans (if Democrats lose in November)... Allowing this pitched battle to continue unabated might become a big roll of the dice for the Democratic Party.

Her recent columnis not as gentle on the Clinton campaign and their threat to continue beyond June 3rd...

From the The Chicago Sun-Times and Crain's Chicago Business News

Chicago congressman Dan Lipinski is backing U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's presidential bid.

Lipinski had been one of the two remaining holdouts among Democratic superdelegates in Illinois' congressional delegation. He says he's endorsed Obama because of the candidate's emphasis on overcoming partisanship and uniting the country.

It may not be entirely unexpected; it's also not yet included in Politico's Superdelegate Count either.

Senator Clinton's only chance to woo the remaining superdelegates, and thus secure the Democratic nomination by trumping Obama's insurmountable delegate lead, is via a perceived (and improbable) "popular vote win".  So, let's put an end to the popular vote myth right now.

Many media sources, arguably for selfish reasons, remain in lockstep with the Cinton campaign, continuing to perpetuate the claim that a lead in the so-called popular is just as important, or even more important, than a lead in the delegate count.  However, it's essentially a meaningless statistic in the nomination for the Democratic candidate, and thus the popular vote should be ignored by the superdelegates, because adding caucus results to primary results is like adding apples and oranges.

Here's why...  After the break: Not an apples-to-apples Comparison...