Just saw the most recent report on Fox News this morning with Jane Skinner and some dude from Roll Call on the Hillary "Donor" gripes about Pelosi's rather public role in the question of the super-delegates.

The pundit must have been a Hillary hack because he kept talking about how obvious it was that Pelosi wanted to see Barack Obama win the Democrat nomination.

So I wonder if I am the only one who sees this issue as being fairly innocent for Pelosi?

See I tend to see things like 20 Hillary thugs (eh donors) sending the sitting Speaker of the House (the third most powerful seat of Government in the nation) telling her to basically, "shut the heck up" as some what infringing upon her 1st Amendment rights.

The Roll Call moron argued that because of her position she should take a back seat in the public discussion.

Why? So that BILL CLINTON can cheat the scales heavily?

Why wouldn't the democratic party want their highest elected office holder making it clear that she advocates for fairness in staying with the election process?

Isn't that what we used to call leadership?

ALL Pelosi has argued for is that the super-delegates should more or less follow the will of the dedicated delegates, which we can all assume is reflective of the voter's will. Can't we?

Pelosi seems to me to have been very even-handed in her rationale for the behavior of how super-delegates should proceed. In essence it seems to me she has argued for fairness in the process.

I was in the car yesterday listening to Rush, and he kept referring to Hillary's new soundbyte where she argues that even the dedicated delegates don't have to vote for the candidate they have been dedicated too.

UNBELIEVABLE!

The Clinton's are losing this battle, and God help us all, finally exiting the stage of political office for good. But they will try to cheat, bend, intimidate, manipulate and Vince Foster us all if necessary to see their goals achieved, and this thuggish note to Pelosi is just the most recent example...