redblueamerica.com

"I have no doubt they are upstanding citizens of above average intelligence. (Please don't challenge me on that.)"

I happen to have my doubts on that subject, but I certainly won't challenge your opinion here! I think we were both talking about the wisdom of the superdelegates various decisions in the nominating race and not individual IQ.

But I'm still curious as to what course of action you think history might judge as ill-advised. What do you think the correct course of action might be?

The topic was posited as a forward looking question.

An iconic sequence springs to mind from the movie 'Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade', where the chalice has been selected and drank from. ... After which comes the fabulously cold line, "He chose poorly".

The individual who drank from the cup would not be considered an 'idiot' or 'intellectually challenged' in a medical sense. But, in the colloquial sense, he would be seen as a foolish risk taker by both camps inside the tomb as well as the cinema audience in large part.

One cannot look so much at the individual's relative intellectual merit in making the judgment, but as a summation. For this alleged party of the people to have contrived such a process to begin with (this intellectually self-contradicting abomination), regardless of how this 'process' winds down, simply smacks of idiocy.

The next phase of the march might well be sloganeered as "Yes We Can Overcome Our Idiocy". Onward. Unite.

once the party accepts that it is already the Dimwitocratic Party.