Perhaps it is a testament to the Hillary campaign and its supporters that while their so-called reasoning stands on shakier ground with every passing day, it continues – albeit tenuously – to survive at all.

They persist in adapting to new goalpost positions that literally change by the hour, have developed some kind of new math by which losses are calculated as gains, and continue to steadfastly ignore the inconvenient truths that spell defeat in letters so large they can be seen from the nearest asteroid belt.

Although there are many to choose from, my favorite line from the Hillary camp is that she would fare better than Obama in going up against the inevitable GOP slime machine in the general election because she has already been fully vetted, and there is nothing new the Republicans could dredge up against her.

This line of thinking completely ignores the fact that the GOP have been preparing themselves for a Hillary candidacy for years, and have had more than ample time to perfect their mode of attacks – notwithstanding the fact that they have never allowed the truth to stand in the way of their swiftboating operations in any event. Whatever isn’t there will be craftily created, and what is there – no matter how distantly in the past it occurred – will be resurrected with a vengeance.

As for there being nothing new that Ms. Fully-Vetted can be hammered with, one need only look to Hillary’s behavior over the past few months.

The lady herself has declared that McCain is a more qualified candidate for POTUS than her fellow Democrat, her campaign is an exercise in fiscal irresponsibility and a complete inability to plan ahead for unforeseen events (like Obama taking the lead, or Super Tuesday not being a wrap-up of her inevitable nomination), and one can only – sadly and horrifyingly – imagine what hay would be made of her blatant lies about her wartime Bosnian sniper-fire experience by a party running a former POW as its nominee.

To hear the Hillary supporters tell it, while an Obama nomination would unleash the wild dogs of contrivance, innuendo, and out-and-out lies about every statement he has ever made, every action he has ever taken, every experience he has ever had, these same dogs would, if faced with Hillary as a nominee, simply slink off to their cages, tails tucked firmly between their legs, whimpering that there was nothing to be said against her.

But there is a far more disturbing aspect to what some of the Hillary campers cling to in their darkest hour, and that is the idea that the super-delegates will – and should – overturn the will of the people in order to install their candidate-of-choice as the nominee.

I have seen the SDs variously described by some Hillary supporters as the grown-ups who will step in to save the ignorant Democratic voters from themselves, the level-headed adults who will not allow “childish enthusiasm” for Obama to prevail, a group of real powers-that-be that will swiftly move into the position of omnipotent deciders ready to determine the course of the Democratic Party regardless of the will of the majority of its constituents.

What is truly abhorrent about this stance is the deja-vu-all-over-again memory of another group of “deciders” – namely the Supreme Court – who once determined that a few adults (themselves) should step into the fray and “save” an immature and ignorant nation from elevating the “wrong” person to the presidency. I think we all know how that turned out.

And yet this same kind of complete disposal of the democratic process is now an avenue that some Hillary campers wholeheartedly embrace if it means having their candidate installed as the nominee – the same end justifies the means argument they eschewed a scant few years ago when it resulted in a G.W. Bush presidency.

What is truly puzzling about this concept that the super-delegates will ignore the will of the people in order to anoint Hillary is the lack of proffering any concrete motivation for their doing so.

Obama has undeniably caused a surge in new registrants for the Party, and his ability to raise funds among the populace is becoming the stuff of legend. And yet there has been no explanation from the Hill supporters as to why the SDs would ignore those incredibly desirable abilities in order to ensure Hill’s nomination – not to mention that it would for many SDs, should they choose to ignore the will of their own constituents, be at the cost of their own careers as they face re-election in future.

In addition, there is the never-ending whining from some in the Hillary camp that sexism is to blame for their candidate’s inability to secure the nomination, a factor which – according to them – is all-pervasive and clouds the more reasoned perception of the voters-at-large. I have yet to hear any explanation as to how this insidious sexism would somehow be absent among the SDs, who they are now counting on to “save” their candidate from the chopping-block.

Perhaps, like so many other aspects of the “reasoning” of Hillary supporters, this too is of no consequence in the end-game, where charges of blatant sexism will be dropped as is convenient, along with every other excuse for their candidate’s inability to garner the votes that were somehow not forthcoming but still rightfully hers.

This primary process has been fraught with unexpected victories along with unforeseen defeats. It has turned Democrat against Democrat, and has led to anger among the faithful that used to be reserved for those on the other side of the aisle.

But what is truly tragic is seeing the same kind of rhetoric that was once solely owned by the Republicans being used by so-called Democrats against their fellow party members: You’re either with Hillary or against Hillary – and if you are against her, we, her supporters, will take the entire party, and the democratic process, down without hesitation rather than accept defeat.

It is said that there are none so blind as those who will not see. In the present circumstances, I would go a step further to say that there are none so sightless as those obstinate enough to pluck their own eyes out, in a vain attempt to prove that their ignorant vision should be blindly accepted by those who see the more-than-obvious truth in all of its undeniable clarity.