Mark Penn is Hillary's Chief Strategist and he is laying the groundwork for a bitter battle over superdelegates. Here's what he said trying to discount Obama's wins:

"Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states -- outside of Illinois? That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama."

Here's another gem from Penn:

"I think for superdelegates, the quality of where the win comes from should matter in terms of making a judgment about who might be the best general election candidate."

The "quality" of "where the win comes from"??? Maybe Mark Penn could share his quality criteria for wins with us. Maybe he could tell us what makes a state insignificant.

Since he clearly must believe that Barack Obama's wins in Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, DC, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia and Washington are insignificant and not quality, I'd like to offer some of the unspoken criteria that he is using to make these judgments.

#1. States that have a lot of black people are insignificant and are not quality. (sorry Alabama, DC, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland and South Carolina).

#2. Small states are insignificant and are not quality. (sorry Alaska, Delaware, Idaho, Maine, North Dakota and Utah).

#3. States in the middle of the country are insignificant and are not quality. (sorry Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska and North Dakota).

#4. States that have a lot of Mormons are insignificant and are not quality. (sorry Utah)

#5. States that run caucuses are insignificant and are not quality. (sorry Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Nebraska, North Dakota and Washington)

I think that covers almost all of them. So if you're a superdelegate from any of these states, Mark Penn thinks your state is insignificant and your contest was not "quality" so you should therefore ignore the wishes of your voters and support Hillary instead. Sure...makes perfect sense.

And, we should consider it "significant" that Hillary won California, Massachusetts and New York because we know those states will be up for grabs come November. Yeah...right.

This is an extremely perilous course that Hillary is embarking upon here, but I have to say that it's certainly no surprise. It should be obvious that she will do anything and say anything to win. If it means alienating and enraging African-Americans, a core constituency for the Democratic Party, then so be it. If it means infuriating Independents and Republicans in red and purple (mostly small) states who crossed party lines to vote for Obama then so be it. If it means going back on her word about Florida and Michigan then so be it.

Whatever it takes.