Hill enablers: If she is electable, why are SD's and Senate colleagues abandoning her? [View All]

The superdelegates exist and were created to exercise superior judgment as to who would make the best Democratic candidate. Hillary Clinton began this primary season with a seemingly insurmountable advantage among superdelegates: by nearly a 3:1 advantage.

Today, many of those superdelegates have defected from her to Obama. But these were *her* supers. If these supers have the responsibility to choose the right person, shouldn't they have stuck with Hillary? Why would her own supers defect to Obama if they are convinced that Hillary is the better candidate with more experience? if they are convinced that she is the more electable than Obama?

Are the superdelegates simply "stupid" Obamabots like we are here in DU?

Further, Hillary has experience right? She has spent exactly two more years than Obama in the U.S. Senate. Additionally most of her colleagues have known the Clintons for 20, 30+ years. THEY KNOW HER!! So why have more of her Senate colleagues endorsed Obama, a political neophyte who Hill enablers argue is unelectable, to be the Democratic nominee?

These are the primary issues that Hillary enablers have failed to address:

1. Why have the superdelegates abandoned Hillary to support Obama if she is the best candidate?

and...

2. Why have more of Hillary's own colleagues in the Senate chosen Obama over her? (I believe that Obama is beating Hillary in terms of U.S. Senate endorsements.)