Kev, thanks for your clarifications from on high. Can you please tell us the number of times in history a super delegate has changed their vote after promising to vote for a candidate? I presume that you can't, and I'm really certain you don't have the expertise to make the claims in your comment here.

lets get all under one idea, win in november, Hilary endorce Obama and finish with the sofering.

CNN is making an error by including Super Delegates to the candidates' totals. Whether a Super Delegate endorsed a candidate initially is now irrelevant. No Super Delegate is bound at the convention to vote one way or another. For instance, how do the two senators from the State of Washington, who earlier endorsed Clinton, now vote for Clinton, after Democrats in their state overwhelmingly voted for Obama? They'll vote for Obama, or else deal with a backlash from their constituents.

Therefore, counting pledged delegates only, Obama did not "catch up" this weekend, but rather increased his lead. You would better serve you viewers by not portraying Super Delegates as "sown up" by either candidate. You're giving a false impression.

Further, when a campaign changes its director, it is almost always a sign that the campaign is in trouble. Your presentation of the Clinton campaign director change as perhaps bad news for the Obama campaign is ridiculous. By your efforts to be fair, and not influence voting, you're being inaccurate.

If the voters give it to Obama, but the superdelegates hand it to Clinton, the Democratic Party is going to have to answer to a lot of unhappy members!
Abolish the Electoral College. Eliminate superdelegates. Let THE PEOPLE elect their President.