First, I think before this is over, the super delegates will vote — mostly en masse — along with the majority of pledged delegates. In other words, their vote will serve to clarify the outcome of a tight race. That’s a good thing.

But supposing it works to get her the nomination. What happens after that? Can she win in the fall? That’s too far in the future to predict, but I will say this: it’ll make it harder, not easier to win. I do think an alarming number of Democrats will either quit the party or will simply not vote for Clinton in the fall. Which is a shame because that’s kind of the whole point of being a Democrat in 2008, isn’t it?

So to you Hillary supporters who are thrilled at the prospect of a nasty convention fight (I’m talking to you, Rosemary), be careful what you wish for.

And you too, Mark, for suggesting that this is the point of a party convention — “to sort out who the assembled active and elite members of the party are willing to get behind.” That may be, but once the genie is out of the bottle you’d have to anticipate that he might have arrived floating on a cloud of tear gas, my friend. And if “winning the White House is what it’s all about,” I have to wonder if that’s going to get it done.

This in-your-face strategy just doesn’t make sense — and, far worse, it risks tearing the party apart with feelings of resentment and bitterness simply to give the Clintons their victory. In the end, the nomination wouldn’t be worth much. And it simply shows me that Hillary hasn’t got what it takes to win. Her style of fighting simply unites our enemies (Republicans) and divides our friends (Independents as well as Obama Democrats).

You heard me: whereas Obama has demonstrated that he can peel away Independents and some Republicans from McCain, Hillary, not so much. It’s much more likely that Obama can expand the Democratic base than Hillary. In short, Obama makes it easier to find a path to victory — Hillary makes it harder.

And while we’re on the topic of Hillary Clinton…

She has retooled her message and is now saying, “I’m in the solutions business; my opponent is in the promises business.” Gosh, that sounds pretty much like she is tone-deaf.

Come on guys, I’m talking to you now — think hard: how many times has your significant other wanted to talk about something that was bothering her — and when you tried to give her “a solution” she wasn’t exactly, ahem, appreciative?

And to my female readers: don’t you just wish he could empathize a bit more before jumping in with some sort of quick fix?

What this means is that it isn’t always about specificity, and policies and programs — McCain misses this point too — but about emotional intelligence. It’s about getting on the same emotional wavelength as your listener. Some say this is a sign of emotional intelligence (measured by EQ, not IQ). And if that is so, and I believe it is, then trust me — Obama’s EQ is higher than Clinton’s.

This is important because emotions control pretty much every decision we make — especially in electoral politics. Emotions move voters. Policies count, but only insofar as they stimulate an emotional response in the voter.

Democrats, for some reason, have a hard time getting this. Perhaps it’s because we are in the reality-based community and we believe in hard scientific research — not feelings. But the irony is that the science verifies what we see all around us about the role of emotion in political decision making.

Yet we continue to ignore this vital point. As a result, Democrats have traditionally run their campaigns on issues, position papers, statistics and … science! Republicans, on the other hand, know what wins (e.g., fear) and they run on that. As we know, it works because fear moves voters.

Lesson (hopefully) learned: it ain’t about “solutions,” it’s about emotions.