Hello and welcome to this late political gap fest.

I'm John Dickerson here with Emily Bazelon and David Plotz.

Today we're going to talk about the Pennsylvania primary and politics.

We're also then going to talk about world food crisis.

And then the third topic is going to be the autism pander. We're going to come back to

politics, how the candidates are all pandering on the question of whether vaccines lead to autism.

And cocktail chatter. And then we're going to end. We're going to if vaccines lead to cocktail

chatter, which in this case it will. David, you have in the past, when we've talked about

the superdelegates versus the pledged delegates and the fight that's inevitably going to arrive

in the Democratic Party, you've stuck up for the superdelegate system. So what I want to ask you

is in that context, did the superdelegates get more data for their argument if they're going to

overthrow the momentum that Barack Obama has among the

pledged delegates.

From the Pennsylvania, from Hillary's a nine-point Pennsylvania victory.

Thank you, yes.

9.2, yes.

Well, I mean, it's another point of information.

It's more, it's another data set.

I assume that all the pledged delegates who have not announced their commitments are,

you know, know, know, they know who they want to support and they're just, you know,

they're, it's not that they don't know who they support. Let me say that. But they have some

strategic reason for not announcing it. And I, you know, I'm totally incoherent on this subject. Emily, why don't you answer this question while I think about it.

...