If any part of this overview sounds like you, then the following theories can help you overcome this.

First track your calorie consumption over the course of 2 weeks where you exercised for more than 4 hours over the week. Next repeat this same process but this time without working out. More than likely when you compare your calorie retention over these 4 weeks you will find that you ate less on the non-exercise period than when you exercised.

However before you decide toget ride of exercise routines from your weight loss management programme, regulating your eating routines is not enough for promising proper weight loss. Exercise is essential too. The routine for getting it correct is discoveringthe right equilibrium between your calorie intake and export.

To help you achieve a healthy diet, free from the seductions of eating fatty foods after you workout, we recommend including the following foods into your foods:

One: Oatmeal – this high fibre food is low in calories and sugar, making it the ideal meal to satisfy your appetite between the morning and lunch.

Two: Eggs – eggs are one of the few foods in your diet that contain Vitamin D as well as very few calories. Ripe in protein too, eggs are a great route for fillingup fast.

Three: Blueberries – a good fibre source, blueberries consist of no fat and are an incredible source for Vitamin C. Plus reputed to containantioxidants, these free radical fighters have been proven to burn fat for fuel.

Four: Brown rice and whole wheat pasta – these proven carbohydrates contain loads of fibre with little sugar. The best lunch fill up.

Five: Turkey breast – the incredible thing about turkey is that you can use it for lots of meals whilst benefiting from its low fat and large protein content.

Six: Heated apples – fruit doesn’t have to be boring. By removing the core, cutting the apple and heating it up with cinnamon and sugar on top, this can create a great healthy snack.

Seven: Wine – even though you should drinkred wine moderately a research study by Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital has found that slimmers who ingest 1 glassof wine per day are 30 percent less likely to become obese.

However if you need a guiding hand starting your weight loss, the support of our natural slimming pills Proactol can help you to efficiently lose that excess fat and receive your weight loss ambitions. Simply incorporate this proven fat binder as part of a nutritious diet and you can lose a 1-2lbs every week.

The first thing that you must perceive is that some over-the-counter products work higher than others. This is due to a variety of reasons. Ingredients in some could also be more effective at burning fats than in others. Additionally, the time spent testing and creating the complement may be different. Generally what you might be getting is solely a caffeine tablet, which is absolutely not the most effective method of burning fat.

The opposite concern is stuff that is on the shady side. You don’t want to get one thing that has not been tested. These products can include anything and be potentially very dangerous for you. You’d do best to steer clear of something that’s being offered on an illicit market as a result of it could sometimes be very dangerous.

Perhaps the most effective fat burner and the one that’s regulated and accepted by authorities, is phen375. This fats burner is simply outstanding, and has the potential to revolutionize the best way through which you have a look at weight loss. Prior to now there have been fat burners that made folks over excited and actually weren’t merchandise tat have been advisable to make use of in actual way. These old drugs only increased your vitality and so they had very severe unfavorable results in your coronary heart muscle. Nonetheless, there have been great improvements since then and the brand new breed of fat burners are a great distance from the previous days of diet pills.

The beauty of phen375 is that not solely do you shed weight quickly, but you do so healthily. This can be a key factor to remember. Individuals must remember that if you shed weight it needs to be carried out in a fashion that doesn’t hurt their body.

Generally dropping large quantities of fat in a short while body would recommend using one thing unhealthy, nonetheless phen375 is simply the opposite. The unwanted effects of a number of the different very effective weight reduction products are scary and individuals are wise to stay away. Alternatively, phen375 has comparatively minor unwanted side effects and most people don’t expertise them.

Lastly, and maybe most significantly, the outcomes are permanent. They are not some momentary weight reduction that you simply get from a crash eating regimen and then fail to maintain. The load loss you get from utilizing phen375 are going to be permanent. It’s because it each suppresses your urge for food and increases your metabolic rate.

This is something that can’t be below appreciated. A change in your mind and body are a holistic change and one that when accomplished within the correct manner is more likely to be extra everlasting and everlasting than some week crazy diet.

What are Acai berries?

The Acai berry is a small purple fruit, native to South America and has been used for years to help to cure various health problems. Acai berries are high in antioxidants and consist of 10% pulp and 90% seed. The majority of the valuable nutrients found in Acai berries are to be found in the pulp and skin.

Acai berries can be bought in the form of a juice drink, supplement, frozen or in smoothies.

How do Acai berries aid weight loss?

Acai berries allegedly help dieters to decrease their weight thanks to their unique properties which:

* Reduce appetite due to their high fiber content . This also limits snacking between meals.
* Increase muscle mass
* Increase metabolism, also due to their high fiber content.

What are the side effects of Acai berries?

Unwanted side effects can usually vary and can depend on whether Acai berry users consume the berry in diet pills or in a natural form and typically include:

* Diarrhea
* Increased sensitivity to stings from bees.
* Unpredictable reactions when mixed with other medicines or supplements.

What is the Acai Berry Scam?

Fraudsters have been attracted to the huge amount of media attention on the health benefits of Acai berries, and have invented techniques to take hundreds of dollars from consumers.

The first important point to note is that, many of the inexpensive Acai berry supplements use only Acai berry extract. Users may see only minimal results from these cheaper varieties.

Also, a huge amount of websites are advertising free samples for consumers who would like to try Acai berries. Websites like these employ the scam of offering the berries for free and charging the customer for shipping only. This leads consumers to believe that they are getting an unbeatable deal. Sadly, this is not the case.

Customers are unwittingly signing up for an auto billed subscription which takes payments from the customer monthly and this can be very difficult to cancel. The product provided is sub-standard and in the website’s terms and conditions, customers will find that they are only able to cancel within 14 days of their order which is supposedly the ‘free trial’ although in a large number of cases, the free trial is not even despatched until the two week trial period has passed and so, users are really made to pay for their so-called free product.

Conclusion

Although Acai berries are nutritional and good for health and wellbeing, users should be wary of buying Acai berries from websites due to the huge number of unscrupulous scam sites online.

Tava tea improves hyperglycemia and cuts down the risk of type 2 diabetes. In various studies, the researchers demonstrated that Tava weight loss tea assists the metabolism of glucose in healthy people and when tested caused an anti-hyperglycemic effect within mice that were diabetic.

A specified serum is linked with the anti-hyperglycemic effect of Green herbal tea. The health benefit of Tava tea for the prevention of diabetes is spotted in one ingredient in Green herbal tea. This is identified as EGCG. One of the important benefits of Green tea is to help diabetics to split glucose and reduce the levels of glucose. This can be attributed to the EGCG component contained in tea.

The benefits of Tava tea with diabetes can be comparable with alternative beverages. A university in The USA examined the effects of tea and wine with type 2 diabetes in 2008. Alpha-glucosidase, the enzyme was discovered in these drinks and glucose is absorbed slowly from the digestive system in the body. Red wine and tea contain natural anti-oxidants, delaying the glucose movement into the system and moving down the small digestive track or intestine. Ultimately, this glucose going through the small intestine ends up in the blood stream and helps reduce the risk of diabetes.

Tava Tea is certainly one of the most strongest blends of Green tea that you can buy, its unusual mix of three of the most powerful forms of Green teas gives a whole wealth of healthy benefits.

White carbohydrates , for example white flour are made from refined grains. This means that the grains used have had some of the iron, fiber and b-vitamins stripped away. This method betters the texture and shelf life of the product. Synthetic B vitamins are added to the product later on.

Brown carbohydrates, for example, brown rice, include grains still in their natural, unrefined state. As a result of this, whole-grain carbohydrates include a larger amount of beneficial fiber, vitamins and antioxidants.

Which should I choose?

There is research to suggest that deciding on whole-wheat carbs rather than carbohydrates that are refined, people may lead healthier and longer lives. This is because the threat of dangerous conditions, including heart disease and some cancers is lessened and also that whole-wheat foods have a larger concentration of nutrients and antioxidants. Blood sugar levels are made better, because whole-wheat carbs are slowly absorbed into the body whereas refined carbohydrates become absorbed quickly and may cause blood sugar levels to sky-rocket.

How can I tell if a product is made from whole-wheat?

To begin, take a look at the product’s name; this will let you know. Look out for names such as ‘Whole wheat’, ‘Whole corn’ and ‘Whole Grain’.

Another method to know if the product you have picked is made from the whole-grain is take a look at the ingredients list. The first few ingredients make up most of the food. Again, check for ingredients beginning with ‘whole’.

Lastly, check the nutritional facts list; if each portion offers you a fiber count of three grams or more, it is most likely a whole-wheat {food| product.

Will whole-grains help me lose weight?

Absolutely. Whole-wheat carbohydrates include a high fiber content which can be good pills for weight loss as it adds bulk inside the stomach, meaning that you will stay fuller for a longer amount of time and will need fewer calories as a response to this. You will not get the same result from white carbs as refined carbs just do not have as much fiber.

What types of food are made from Wholegrain?

There are many products that are available in whole-wheat versions including:

* Breakfast cereals
* Brown rice
* Bread
* Oatmeal
* Bulger

How much whole-grain should I be eating?

The USDA suggest three servings of whole-grain carbohydrates everyday. This is easily achieved after you change from refined carbs to whole-wheat.

Astonished by the National Health Services and leading Pharmacies ‘no harm’ attitude to homeopathy, over three hundred protestors are now planning to partake in a huge homeopathic binge to help raise public knowledge about the fact that homepathy is ineffectual.

During this demonstrationwhich is set to occur on the 30th January 2010, all three hundred protestors will publicly swallow a completebox of 60 homeopathic tablets to demonstrate that they are nothing more than fakes as well as hopefully prompt pharmacies to stop selling them.

Where did Homeopathy come from?

Question consumers and they will describe homeopathy as ‘all natural herbal medicine’ the majority of the ingredients contained within this commonly accepted complementary medicine are so dilute that there is nothing left to them.

Yet further studies into the creation of homeopathy has found that it is not strictly an herbal medicine, but is structuredon 3 central tenets developed in 1796 by Samuel Hahnemann. Threetheories which are still used to this day:

• The Law of Similars where whatever caused your symptoms will also cure them i.e. unable to sleep, take caffeine
• The Law of Infinitesimals where the more diluted the remedy is from water, the more concentrated it will be
• The Law of Succession where vigorous mixing of a homeopathic remedy would intensify its potency

Analysingthis history, it is completely understandable why sceptics of homeopathy are requesting that the government to instruct the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence to assess whether it is right for the National Health Service to promote homeopathic remedies. Providing limited if any results, all scientific studies point to the fact that they will not help your health.

Any analysis of the current state of the ongoing U.S. occupation of Iraq that relied solely on the U.S. government, the major candidates for president or the major media outlets in the United States for information would be hard pressed to find any bad news. In a State of the Union address which had everything except a “Mission Accomplished” banner flying in the background, President Bush all but declared victory over the insurgency in Iraq. His recertification of the success of the so-called surge has prompted the Republican candidates to assume a cocky swagger when discussing Iraq. They embrace the occupation and speak, without shame or apparent fear of retribution, of an ongoing presence in that war-torn nation. Their Democratic counterparts have been less than enthusiastic in their criticism of the escalation. And the media, for the most part, continue their macabre role as cheerleaders of death, hiding the reality of Iraq deep inside stories that build upon approving headlines derived from nothing more than political rhetoric. The war in Iraq, we’re told, is virtually over. We only need “stay the course” for 10 more years.

This situation is troublesome in the extreme. The collective refusal of any constituent in this complicated mix of political players to confront Bush on Iraq virtually guarantees that it will be the Bush administration, and not its successor, that will dictate the first year (or more) of policy in Iraq for the next president. It also ensures that the debacle that is the Bush administration’s overarching Middle East policy of regional transformation and regime change in not only Iraq but Iran and Syria will continue to go unchallenged. If the president is free to pursue his policies, it could lead to direct military intervention in Iran by the United States prior to President Bush’s departure from office or, failing that, place his successor on the path toward military confrontation. At a time when every data point available certifies (and recertifies) the administration’s actions in Iraq, Iran and elsewhere (including Afghanistan) as an abject failure, America collectively has fallen into a hypnotic trance, distracted by domestic economic problems and incapable, due to our collective ignorance of the world we live in, of deciphering the reality on the ground in the Middle East.

Rather than offering a word-for-word renouncement of the president’s rosy assertions concerning Iraq, I will instead initiate a process of debunking the myth of American success by doing that which no politician, current or aspiring, would dare do: predict the failure of American policy in Iraq. With the ink on the newspapers parroting the president’s words barely dry, evidence of his misrepresentation of reality begins to build with the announcement by the Pentagon that troop levels in Iraq will not be dropping, as had been projected in view of the “success” of the “surge,” but rather holding at current levels with the possibility of increasing in the future. This reversal of course concerning troop deployments into Iraq highlights the reality that the statistical justification of “surge success,” namely the reduction in the level of violence, was illusory, a temporary lull brought about more by smoke and mirrors than any genuine change of fortune on the ground. Even the word surge is inappropriate for what is now undeniably an escalation. Iraq, far from being a nation on the rebound, remains a mortally wounded shell, the equivalent of a human suffering from a sucking chest wound, its lungs collapsed and its life blood spilling unchecked onto the ground. The “surge” never addressed the underlying reasons for Iraq’s post-Saddam suffering, and as such never sought to heal that which was killing Iraq. Instead, the “surge” offered little more than a cosmetic gesture, covering the wounds of Iraq with a bandage which shielded the true extent of the damage from outside view while doing nothing to save the victim.

Iraq is dying; soon Iraq will be dead. True, there will be a plot of land in the Middle East which people will refer to as Iraq. But any hope of a resurrected homogeneous Iraqi nation populated by a diverse people capable of coexisting in peace and harmony is soon to be swept away forever. Any hope of a way out for the people of Iraq and their neighbors is about to become a victim of the “successes” of the “surge” and the denial of reality. The destruction of Iraq has already begun. The myth of Kurdish stability-born artificially out of the U.S.-enforced “no-fly zones” of the 1990s, sustained through the largess of the Oil-for-Food program (and U.S.-approved sanctions sidestepped by the various Kurdish groups in Iraq) and given a Frankenstein-like lease on life in the aftermath of the U.S. invasion and occupation-is rapidly unraveling. Like Dr. Frankenstein’s monster, present-day Iraqi Kurdistan has been exposed as an amalgam of parts incompatible not only with each other but the region as a whole.

By DAVID BROOKS
Published: February 19, 2008
At first it seemed like a few random cases of lassitude among Mary Chapin Carpenter devotees in Berkeley, Cambridge and Chapel Hill. But then psychotherapists began to realize patients across the country were complaining of the same distress. They were experiencing the first hints of what’s bound to be a national phenomenon: Obama Comedown Syndrome.

The afflicted had already been through the phases of Obama-mania – fainting at rallies, weeping over their touch screens while watching Obama videos, spending hours making folk crafts featuring Michelle Obama’s face. These patients had experienced intense surges of hope-amine, the brain chemical that fuels euphoric sensations of historic change and personal salvation.

But they found that as the weeks went on, they needed more and purer hope-injections just to preserve the rush. They wound up craving more hope than even the Hope Pope could provide, and they began experiencing brooding moments of suboptimal hopefulness. Anxious posts began to appear on the Yes We Can! Facebook pages. A sense of ennui began to creep through the nation’s Ian McEwan-centered book clubs.

Up until now The Chosen One’s speeches had seemed to them less like stretches of words and more like soul sensations that transcended time and space. But those in the grips of Obama Comedown Syndrome began to wonder if His stuff actually made sense. For example, His Hopeness tells rallies that we are the change we have been waiting for, but if we are the change we have been waiting for then why have we been waiting since we’ve been here all along?

Patients in the grip of O.C.S. rarely express doubts at first, but in a classic case of transference, many experience slivers of sympathy for Hillary Clinton. They see her campaign morosely traipsing from one depressed industrial area to another – The Sitting Shiva for America Tour. They see that her entire political strategy consists of waiting for primary states as boring as she is.

They feel for her. They feel guilty because the entire commentariat now treats her like Richard Nixon. Are liberal elites rationalizing their own betrayal of her? Is Hillary just another fading First Wife thrown away for the first available Trophy Messiah?

As the syndrome progresses, they begin to ask questions about The Presence himself:

Barack Obama vowed to abide by the public finance campaign-spending rules in the general election if his opponent did. But now he’s waffling on his promise. Why does he need to check with his campaign staff members when deciding whether to keep his word?

Obama says he is practicing a new kind of politics, but why has his PAC sloshed $698,000 to the campaigns of the superdelegates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics? Is giving Robert Byrd’s campaign $10,000 the kind of change we can believe in?

If he values independent thinking, why is his the most predictable liberal vote in the Senate? A People for the American Way computer program would cast the same votes for cheaper.

And should we be worried about Obama’s mountainous self-confidence?

These doubts lead O.C.S. sufferers down the path to the question that is the Unholy of the Unholies for Obama-maniacs: How exactly would all this unity he talks about come to pass?

How is a 47-year-old novice going to unify highly polarized 70-something committee chairs? What will happen if the nation’s 261,000 lobbyists don’t see the light, even after the laying on of hands? Does The Changemaker have the guts to take on the special interests in his own party – the trial lawyers, the teachers’ unions, the AARP?

The Gang of 14 created bipartisan unity on judges, but Obama sat it out. Kennedy and McCain created a bipartisan deal on immigration. Obama opted out of the parts that displeased the unions. Sixty-eight senators supported a bipartisan deal on FISA. Obama voted no. And if he were president now, how would the High Deacon of Unity heal the breach that split the House last week?

The victims of O.C.S. struggle against Obama-myopia, or the inability to see beyond Election Day. But here’s the fascinating thing: They still like him. They know that most of his hope-mongering is vaporous. They know that he knows it’s vaporous.

But the fact that they can share this dream still means something. After the magic fades and reality sets in, they still know something about his soul, and he knows something about theirs. They figure that any new president is going to face gigantic obstacles. At least this candidate seems likely to want to head in the right direction. Obama’s hype comes from exaggerating his powers and his virtues, not faking them.

Those afflicted with O.C.S. are no longer as moved by his perorations. The fever passes. But some invisible connection seems to persist.

By DAVID BROOKS
Published: February 12, 2008
There’s a big difference between the Republican and Democratic campaigns: The Republicans have split on policy grounds; the Democrats haven’t. There’s been a Republican divide between center and right, yet no Democratic divide between center and left.

But when you think about it, the Democratic policy unity is a mirage. If the Democrats actually win the White House, the tensions would resurface with a vengeance.

The first big rift would involve Iraq. Both Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have seductively hinted that they would withdraw almost all U.S. troops within 12 to 16 months. But if either of them actually did that, he or she would instantly make Iraq the consuming partisan fight of their presidency.

There would be private but powerful opposition from Arab leaders, who would fear a return to 2006 chaos. There would be irate opposition from important sections of the military, who would feel that the U.S. was squandering the gains of the previous year. A Democratic president with few military credentials would confront outraged and highly photogenic colonels screaming betrayal.

There would be important criticism from nonpartisan military experts. In his latest report, the much-cited Anthony Cordesman describes an improving Iraqi security situation that still requires “strategic patience” and another five years to become self-sustaining.

There would be furious opposition from Republicans and many independents. They would argue that you can’t evacuate troops just as Iraqis are about to hold national elections and tensions are at their highest. They would point out that it’s insanity to end local reconstruction and Iraqi training efforts just when they are producing results. They would accuse the new administration of reverse-Rumsfeldism, of ignoring postsurge realities and of imposing an ideological solution on a complex situation.

All dreams of changing the tone in Washington would be gone. All of Obama’s unity hopes would evaporate. And if the situation did deteriorate after a quick withdrawal, as the National Intelligence Estimate warns, the bloodshed would be on the new president’s head.

Therefore, when a new Democratic administration considered all these possibilities, its members would part ways. A certain number of centrists would conclude that rapid withdrawal is a mistake. They would say that the situation had changed and would call for a strategic review. They’d recommend a long, slow conditions-based withdrawal – constant, small troop reductions, and a lot of regional diplomacy, while maintaining tens of thousands of troops in Iraq for the remainder of the term.

The left wing of the party would go into immediate uproar. They’d scream: This was a central issue of the campaign! All the troops must get out now!

The president would have to make a terrible decision.

Which brings us to second looming Democratic divide: domestic spending. Both campaigns now promise fiscal discipline, as well as ambitious new programs. These kinds of have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too vows were merely laughable last year when the federal deficit was running at a manageable $163 billion a year. But the economic slowdown, the hangover from the Bush years and the growing bite of entitlements mean that the federal deficit will almost certainly top $400 billion by 2009. The accumulated national debt will be in shouting distance of the $10 trillion mark. With that much red ink, the primary-season spending plans are simply ridiculous.

It’d be 1993 all over again. The new Democratic president would be faced with Bill Clinton’s Robert Rubin vs. Robert Reich choice: either scale back priorities for the sake of fiscal discipline or blow through all known deficit records for the sake of bigger programs. Choose the former, and the new president would further outrage the left. Choose the latter and lose the financial establishment and the political center.

This is the debate that Democrats have been quietly rearguing during the entire Bush presidency. The left wing of the party is absolutely committed to winning it this time. It will likely demand the clean energy subsidies and the education spending, the expensive health care coverage and subsides to address middle-class anxiety. But no Democratic president can afford to offend independent voters with runaway spending. No president can easily ignore the think tank establishment, which is rightfully exercised about the nation’s long-term fiscal health.

It would be another brutal choice.

As William J. Stuntz of Harvard Law School wrote in The Weekly Standard, the Democrats have conducted their race amid unconstrained “Yes We Can!” unreality. Because the Democratic candidates appear to agree on so much, they’ve never tested each other’s policy proposals or exposed each other’s assumptions. But governing means choosing, and reality will be unkind. The artificial unity between the Democratic center and the Democratic left would be smashed by the harsh choices of 2009. My guess? The centrists would win.



By WILLIAM KRISTOL
Published: February 11, 2008
Last summer, George W. Bush told The Washington Examiner’s Bill Sammon that Hillary Clinton would probably be the 2008 Democratic nominee. “She’s got a national presence and this is becoming a national primary,” he said. “And therefore the person with the national presence who has got the ability to raise enough money to sustain an effort in a multiplicity of sites has got a good chance to be nominated.”

This seemed a reasonable judgment at the time. It may still turn out to be right. But today Barack Obama is neck-and-neck with Clinton in the national polls – and he’s shown a greater ability to raise money. After his strong showing over the weekend, it is Obama who now has the clearer path to his party’s nomination.

I’ll avoid a false precision in the numbers that follow. There are minor differences among news organizations in projecting delegate allocations in states that have already voted, and in counting preferences among the 796 elected officials and party leaders – the “superdelegates” – who vote according to their choice, not voters’ instruction.

Obama leads Clinton by roughly 70 delegates among about 2,000 chosen so far in primaries and caucuses. (There are still about 1,200 delegates outstanding.) Among the superdelegates, Clinton is ahead by about 100 superdelegates among the 300 who have declared a preference (though any of them can change their mind, so a count of them now is in large measure premature). All in all, Clinton seems to be slightly ahead.

She won’t be for long. On Tuesday Obama is expected to prevail in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. So around 9 p.m. Tuesday night, television networks probably will be announcing, for the first time, that Barack Obama holds an unambiguous delegate lead.

His lead in votes – which is already in the neighborhood of 200,000 – will probably have widened. And Obama should be able to increase those delegate and popular vote totals on Feb. 19, when Wisconsin and Hawaii go to the polls.

Next comes March 4, when Ohio, Texas, Vermont and Rhode Island vote. Clinton’s campaign believes Ohio and Texas will constitute her firewall. Will it hold?

I suspect not. Obama will have momentum. He will likely have more money than Clinton for advertising. His ballot performance among Hispanics and working-class whites has generally been improving as the primary season has gone on. He intends to push a more robust economic message that could help him further narrow the gap among lower-income voters. And an interesting regression analysis at the Daily Kos Web site (poblano.dailykos.com) of the determinants of the Democratic vote so far, applied to the demographics of the Ohio electorate, suggests that Obama has a better chance than is generally realized in Ohio.

As for Texas, look for a couple of possible endorsements to help Obama there. If John Edwards campaigns for Obama in East Texas, and Bill Richardson defies the pleas of Bill Clinton and travels across the border from New Mexico to help out, Obama could prevail.

If Obama wins Ohio and Texas – or even wins one – he’ll be in good shape. He should take Wyoming on March 8 and Mississippi on March 11. Then there’s over a month until the next contest, in Pennsylvania on April 22. That stretch of time could be key. It could be the moment for many of the uncommitted superdelegates to begin ratifying the choice of Democratic primary voters, and to start moving en masse to Obama.

Many of these superdelegates are elected officials. They tend to care about winning in November. The polls suggest Obama matches up better with John McCain. And the polls are merely echoing the judgment of almost every Democratic elected official from a competitive district or a swing state with whom I’ve spoken. They would virtually all prefer Obama at the top of the ticket.

All of this will move the superdelegates to Obama – perhaps as early as just after March 4, or perhaps not until April 22, or perhaps not even until the last match-up on June 7. But the superdelegates will want to avoid a situation in which they could be in the position of seeming to override the popular vote, or of resolving a bitter battle over whether and how to count votes from Florida and Michigan, at the convention.

And there are, as a final resort, two super-superdelegates (so to speak) who would have the clout to help Democrats achieve closure: Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi.

If they stepped forward at the right time, they would earn the gratitude of their party. And they might also enjoy contemplating a derivative effect of their good deed – the fall of the house of Clinton.