One more thought on the somewhat inverse relationship between votes and superdelegates in the Democratic race. In the battle over whether superdelegates should view themselves as mirrors of their constituents or independent agents acting on their own judgment, the Clinton camp always argued for the "independent agent" interpretation. Their arguments generally had the hot fervor of moral certainty to them, although they, like the Obama people, largely subscribed to their view only because it served their interests. What if Hillary closed the popular vote gap but pissed-off supers refused to give it to her -- because they were acting like the independent agents she wanted them to be all along?

Yeah, this hypothetical's a long way off. But it would be amusingly ironic if it came true.

Eve Fairbanks