The Sunday talkers blather about the two new Clinton strategies: superdelegates grabbing and seating the Michigan and Florida delegations.
I think the hoo-ha over the superdelegates is overhyped. While Clinton has an edge over Obama in committed superdelegates, this is probably unimportant. While rules give these delegates a right to vote there opinion over the popular winner, most of these people realize that it is best for the party to pick the popular winner. It seems very unlikely to me that these politicians and political operatives will trump the popular will and pick a nominee.
The seating of the Michigan and Florida delegates is a slightly thornier issue, allow Clinton say she is supporting the popular will of voter's in these states. I live in Michigan, and do not find this argument compelling. The primary was a joke, and in our state Clinton was the only major candidate to appear on the ballot. For this reason, I support holding a second contest to decide the delegates from Michigan. At any rate, this could matter in very close national contest.
The argument that Clinton stood with out state (made by our governor, among others) doesn't really ring true. Clinton's line on the early primary was exactly the same as Obama's, Edward's and the DNC's. It is true she has changed this line now that it is politically expedient, but that does not make her "loyal" to our state.
I supported the early primary because I think the system we currently have in place is ridiculous, and this is a suitable protest of unfair party rules. However, the result turned out to be unrepresentative and unfair (and ironically Michigan would have gotten a large voice had we waited), so we must repair it.