A shot across the bow of the Chosen Ones that if, in fact, they’re planning to muscle our gal out of the race, they should talk to Oprah beforehand about making up the shortfall they’ll soon find in their coffers for congressional Democrats’ re-election campaigns.

Perhaps I was hasty in thinking that a quick, coerced exit for Her Majesty is the surest way to sore-loserdom.

During your appearance [on ABC on March 16], you suggested super-delegates have an obligation to support the candidate who leads in the pledged delegate count as of June 3rd, whether that lead be by 500 delegates or 2. This is an untenable position that runs counter to the party’s intent in establishing super-delegates in 1984 as well as your own comments recorded in The Hill ten days earlier…

Super-delegates, like all delegates, have an obligation to make an informed, individual decision about whom to support and who would be the party’s strongest nominee. Both campaigns agree that at the end of the primary contests neither will have enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination. In that situation, super-delegates must look to not one criterion but to the full panoply of factors that will help them assess who will be the party’s strongest nominee in the general election.

We have been strong supporters of the DCCC. We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August.

Now all we have to do is sit and wait for the letter from the Obama donors threatening to cut the party off if they don’t follow the pledged delegates. Exit question: Let’s say she does, somehow, win the nomination. How many bridges will this sort of hardball crap have burned in the aftermath? Note the numbers, please.