Why are they talking about anything if no decision has been made.
These ladies must be real charmers at a restaurant. Do they call over a waitress just to say they are still deciding?

suzyjax, they may have been contacted by Ms. Mannies or other reporters to see if they were closer to making a decision. I would think they would not send out a press release or call a reporter just to say they are still undecided.

This is a rediculous article… who honeslty cares. Maria is milking the attention for all it’s worth

So, Rep. Nadal has to wait until her master Howard Dean tells her to move. Where is her leadership? I think it would be prudent for Ms. Nadal to look at the numbers from her district who supported Obama. If she or anyone on the fence cares so much about the party, they would understand what a prolonged fight does. Of course the decision would be easy after all the votes are counted, but what was the original intent of having superdelegates. Because, they supposedly, are endowed with an in-depth knowledge and understanding which makes them better positioned to understand candidates and platforms. Rep. Nadal what is it that you believe? Are are you no different than Rev. Jeremiah Wright looking for attention. How progressive are you? Put up, or shut up, and lead with your own mind!

Marge - I think the idea was to allow people to vote rather than have all the super delegates vote at once and then have the candidates try to play catchup to prove they had viable campaigns. That too would have torpedoed the process. Only the press should be allowed to do that

I think that the decisions has to be hers, but if Hillary can’t get the delegates needed barring flood, famine, locusts or fuzzy math, it would seem that endorsing her at this point could only have negative consequences. Where as endorsing Obama now that the credits are starting to roll on Hill, could help put this long drawn out process behind us and let us focus on the convention.

This really isn’t that hard. Did they not vote on Feb 5? If so, wouldn’t it only be right that your “superdelegate” vote go for the same person you voted for on that day?

I have a novel idea—all those uncommitted: Hillary Clinton will NOT be the nominee of the Democratic Party. Further, Barack Obama WON the Missouri Primary. Does that register?

It is not helpful at this point for Clinton to be campaigning in West Virginia and stating: “If we had the rules that the Republicans have, I’d already be the nominee.” - Hillary Clinton, May 7, 2008 (one has to assume she understood the rules on the way to the nomination and agreed with them, right?), or for Bill Clinton to be signing off on e-mails to supporters with the following exhortation, “Our next test is just five days away in West Virginia. Hillary needs your help right now to keep winning.” Bill Clinton, May 9, 2008.

I couldn’t disagree more with the concept of “superdelegates.” However, it is what it is.

But, given the inevitable, I cannot comprehend such grandstanding, posturing, or “reviewing options” as I read above. I respectfully submit that the time is now OVER for such inanity.

You were selected to be leaders, so it’s time for you to get off your perch and provide some leadership. Short of that, kindly resign so that you can be replaced by someone who will lead. This especially applies to anyone seeking public office.

The only beneficiary for the continued spectacle that was formerly known as the Hillary Clinton run for the Democratic nomination is John McCain.

In short, folks…time to “you know what” or get off the “you know what!”

This is really an no-brainer, just look at the results of the Feb 5 primary and cast your vote the way the dems told you.

Who cares? Let’s get on with it…

Nadal is nuttier than a fruitcake. If term limits weren’t already the law they would have to be invented just for her.