Simmer down, BSAMS. Have your coffee and danish. You're obviously cranky this morning. I'll clarify.

As of now, she's behind in the popular vote, and it's likely she'll remain behind.

If, in fact, she remains behind in the popular vote then her current argument undercuts her pitch to those superdelegates.

Similarly, if she catches up to Obama (in fact, one analysis I read that, at best, she would beat him in the popular vote by "a tenth of one percent."

Under either scenario, her current argument, that the superdelegates should follow the popular vote, doesn't give her much of an advantage. The superdelegates would either go with Obama or possibly split down the middle. In either case, she ends up losing to Obama.

With this in mind, it doesn't seem like a good argument to me.

So, to recap, she seems to be trying to have it both ways: using the "popular vote" argument now even though she'll probably have to abandon it to win the nomination.

But, you're right, I was insufficiently detailed in my earlier comment. Sorry about that.

And, MEM, you're right. Obama needs the superdelegates too. At this point, however, the popular vote argument favors him.

In the end, both candidates would be better off making a pitch to the superdelegates based less on mathmatics and more on the simple of question of "who do you think will best represent the party in November". Because, in the end, that's the point of the nominating process.