And I guess all the voters of MI & FL will feel just fine when they don't have a delegation at the convention?

And our nominee won't be asked about it through the summer and fall?

Are they so happy -- FL, a purple state especially -- that we can count on them.

I don't care about the candidates -- I care about winning November.

I have a deep respect for you: And if you think it's a non-issue in November, I'm half-way to believing it.

The other half thinks that most of the time, things aren't that easy for Democrats.

I hear the concern and, as I sai, I thin a good compromise is running caucus pr primary elections in Florida and Michigan that both candidates can compete in. it's not like we don't have enough time between now and the Summer convention. But you can't change the rules. We cannot let either candidate win the nomination through a convention power play.

Don't forget Nevada's at-large caucus sites on the Vegas Strip. The Clinton campaign could have objected to those months ago, but they only opposed them after the culinary workers endorsed Obama.

It seems Ezra is only recently waking up to the fact that this is what the Clintons do. Winning at all costs, no matter how many bridges they have to burn or people they have to crush. There is literally nothing they won't say or do to win.

It is cynical and it plays to the lowest common denominator. I'm for Obama because he doesn't just talk about raising the bar for America, he conducts his campaign that way.

I used to think I could easily vote for Clinton if she beat Obama, but after the repugnant way in which she's run her campaign, she would have to do a miraculous job to earn back my vote in a general election. I've become so strongly against her I would even consider voting for a Republican rather than just staying home.

Amen Ezra.

I'm really perplexed by the apologists for Clinton on this one. The Clinton campaign has taken some unfair flak to be sure, but this is really insidious and should give anyone who cares about the Democratic party pause.

I live in Michigan. The idiots in the state legislature, the governor,and Senator Levin (who is up for re-election) defied the national party after several warnings. It didn't matter. Since Edwards and Obama weren't on the ballot, and the DNC had made their position crystal clear, many people did not vote or crossed over to vote for Romney. I could accept another primary, otherwise we don't deserve to be involved in the selection of the nominee. Our own leaders screwed us, period.

You would think that Clinton would favor new caucuses in MI/FL even though (i) she almost certainly couldn't better her performance over the "primaries" held in those states and (ii) Obama seems to perform better in primaries. The fact of the matter is as it stands now, that the MI/FL delegates won't be seated if it matters to the nomination vote, and Clinton needs to put some time back on the clock.

Whoops, "Obama seems to perform better in caucuses."

'Winning at all costs, no matter how many bridges they have to burn or people they have to crush.'

Superdelegate David Wilhelm and Obama supporter, unwilling to say whether he'd switch to Hillary if she manages to come out with the most pledged delegates.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/178540.php

Good for the goose, Ezra?

Look, FL and MI would be a non-issue IF HRC WEREN'T PULLING THIS CRAP. The penalties are a regrettable situation, but would not have played a meaningful role in a general election. After all, the republicans penalized states too. On this point, Clinton defenders have fervor, but neither truth nor logic on their side.

Thanks for saying this, Ezra. It needs to be repeated from the rooftops from now until the convention.
Until recently I was OK with a Hillary nomination, but her apparent eagerness to use what can only be described as the nuclear option to steal the nomination of MY party - not hers - is truly nauseating. I never thought I'd say this, but I might not vote in the general election. If Clinton is willing to use GOP disenfranchising tactics to win the nomination, and the Democrats are willing to accept it, I'm no longer a Democrat. Clinton will have made the fundamental difference between the parties virtually indistinguishable.

Sad, but it was the tenor of Hillary's campaign that pushed me off the fence into voting for Obama in the primary here. I guess it's good to see my judgement confirmed, but it's still sad...

'Look, FL and MI would be a non-issue IF HRC WEREN'T PULLING THIS CRAP.'

LOL @ Hillary Haters acting as if Obama wouldn't try to seat the delegates if the situation were reversed.

"Look, FL and MI would be a non-issue IF HRC WEREN'T PULLING THIS CRAP."

That would be great.

But I just hear that Chit-Chat from Tweety & his buddies as they look over the convention and remind us that FL & MI aren't there.

And I wonder where they'll take the conversation -- they've got a lot of time to talk.

My candidate dropped out a couple of weeks ago -- so it doesn't really matter to me.

Again, all I want is to win in November and I'm HAPPY to start thinking about something else.

I heartily encourage readers to click on the link willyjsimmons posted above. You will find that it is entirely unconvincing as an effort to detect hypocrisy in the Obama camp (I'm not saying that there isn't hypocrisy--just not here). Wilhelm is pretty clearly saying that he's just trying to make up the *current* gap in superdelegates, which, as everyone knows, is not justified by the gap in pledged delegates. Even if HRC pulls ahead, Obama would still entitled to more superdelegates than he has now, and Wilhelm is proposing to be one of them. No "gotcha" here.

For heavens sake, chill out. Everything isn't an evil Clinton plot! Florida was disenfranchised once by the Repugs, now we the Dems should do the same? All the nominees were on the ballot, a million people voted anyway, they deserve more than the back of our hand. Rehold the primaries as long as someone besides the taxpayers pay the tab.

"Rehold the primaries as long as someone besides the taxpayers pay the tab."

Like who?

willyjsimmons,

What are the rules for super delegates? How is David Wilhelm breaking said rules.
Please explain, I don't get your point.

'Wilhelm is pretty clearly saying that he's just trying to make up the *current* gap in superdelegates'

Oh alex,

That wasn't even the question he was being asked.

He was asked

I hillary pulls ahead in pledged delegates, would he as a superdelegate switch to her.

So in the context of 'Hillary is going to destroy the democratic party by ignoring the will of the people'...

how is what Whilhem said any different?

He plans on supporting Obama regardless of the pledged delegate count, and got caught off guard by the question.

I thin a good compromise is running caucus pr primary elections in Florida and Michigan that both candidates can compete in

A better compromise is simply seating them in proportion with national totals, or seating them in proportion to the FL vote totals but capping their delegate total at a level which will not change who has a plurality.

There's the cost of holding a new election to consider. There's also the fact that they already had an election, it was just illegitimate.

I am sorry that voters in Florida and Michigan feel disenfranchised, but this was a decision their elected leaders made with full knowledge of what the consequences would be. If Michigan and Florida voters are upset with how they have been treated in this election, they should hold their own leaders, who put them into this bind, accountable.

On top of that, there was nothing at all democratic about Michigan's contest since many of the candidates were not even on the ballot. If the Soviet Union held an election where the opposition candidate wasn't on the ballot, would anyone certify that election as democratic or legitimate? Of course not! Michigan's election was both illegal and illegitimate. Florida's election was merely illegal. Neither state's delegates should be seated, unless a compromise can be worked out which would involve a new election in both states.

Ezra correctly points out that Hillary Clinton agreed to the Democratic Party's rules at every step of the way, including after the election took place, and continued to agree to the rules until it became clear that Obama's campaign was mounting a successful challenge. Hillary Clinton is practicing the most sleazy, self-serving, narcissistic, Machiavellian politics I have seen on the left side of the aisle. Democrats revile it when Republicans do it, and I cannot fathom how Democrats could tolerate this kind of behavior from one of their own.

Judging from her own comments and the comments of her campaign operatives, it has become quite clear today that Hillary Clinton has little regard for the values of democracy, the primacy of the will of the voters, the rule of law, and cares little for the integrity of the liberal/progressive coalition.

In light of this development, I can no longer vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election, even if she manages to win this election fair and square. Ordinarily, I would pledge to support whomever is the Democratic nominee in the general election. No candidate who displays such a cavalier attitude towards the basic principles of democracy and liberalism will receive my vote under any circumstances. Today, Hillary Clinton lost my vote in the general election.

"A better compromise is simply seating them in proportion with national totals, or seating them in proportion to the FL vote totals but capping their delegate total at a level which will not change who has a plurality."

And then watch the Clintonistas go insane.

They don't care about seating the delegates. They only care about winning, no matter what they do to the party as a result.

If it's cynical, risky politics that brings a lighted match and a can of gas near the Democratic coalition, it should be named as such, and its consequences understood

'Murder-suicide', I believe, is the colloquial term.

Are they so happy -- FL, a purple state especially -- that we can count on them.

No less happy than the purple state Dems who followed the rules for their primaries and caucuses, that have been told by Mark Penn that they don't count for shit.

That first general election trip to Missouri is going to be fun for a Hillary campaign. Perhaps she can park in Ohio for three months, since that worked so well in 2004.

'What are the rules for super delegates? How is David Wilhelm breaking said rules.
Please explain, I don't get your point.'

There are no 'rules'.

delegates can support whomever they like.

There is only a 'gentleman's agreement' that superdelegates usually fall in line behind the person with the most pledged delegates.

That's the 'controversy'.

Hillary (supposedly) going after superdelegates even if she's behind on pledged delegates.

She's 'destorying the party'.

And here is a superdelegate, and Obama supporter, unwilling to say whether or not he would honor the pledged delegate count.

In short, Obama is JUST AS WILLING as Clinton to win the nomination by 'any means necessary'.

Ann and Katiebird are right.

Whether or not the DNC was justified in spanking Michigan and Florida, the perception of Florida dems is that the DNC is taking away their votes. And if those states start to matter in November, you'll really have to wonder why the DNC was so hell-bent on teaching them this lesson. Especially when you look at the DNC rules and see that the specified penalty for moving up the primary is the loss of only HALF (not all) of the state's delegates. Whether Hillary's politically motivated (go figure), whether there is some technical (and expensive) way to restore the lost delegates, whether the FL and MI legislatures were totally moronic are all irrelevant to the larger concerns that the DNC should be (and should have been) focused on. At the rate Obama is going, the FL and MI delegates may not even matter mathematically, but the repercussions of the slap to the voters' faces will linger well into the autumn.

And then watch the Clintonistas go insane.

They don't care about seating the delegates. They only care about winning, no matter what they do to the party as a result.

You mean this wasn't about hearing Florida's vox populi? This wasn't about empowering voters?

It was a transparently cynical power play to get elected? No! I'm shocked, shocked.

I don't care what Clinton's campaign will say. It's the best solution available both by procedural and substantive due process. Some delegates get seated, FL has representation, but it doesn't negate the results of every other primary and caucus.

Aside: know how Clinton's been harping on Rezko, a story where there's no "there" there? Simply, no one has found a quid pro quo.

Looks like Clinton has something slightly more serious.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18958566

Especially notable because it has to do with privacy concerns, in addition to corruption.

Willy,

First of all, I'm far from a Hillary Hater, but it's interesting that you assume I must be one. She's just objectively wrong on this. If Obama pulled this kind of stunt, I'd say the exact same thing. Second, Wilhelm won't change his endorsement because he's justified in endorsing Obama EVEN IF HILLARY PULLS AHEAD. That's why the interview plays out the way it does.

"how is what Whilhem said any different?"

Because he doesn't have any rules dictating how he should vote/perform. FL and MI did, and they broke the rules. They need to be held responsible

In honor of Calvinball, I say we call it Hillaryball.

I think that both sides need to calm down for a minute. I'm an Obama supporter (via Edwards), and while I think that the Clinton campaign has been largely venal, it's absurd to not vote for her if she's the candidate in the general.

It's the essence of stupidity to not vote against a Republican just because you don't care for the Democrat. The same applies to all the Hillary fanatics out there whinging and crying out there about never voting for Obama.

I will vote for a turd if it's running against a Republican. It's that simple, we can't afford to have anymore Republican presidents.

Here is the solution to all these problems. The DNC must come out NOW and say that the delegations from Florida and Michiga will NEVER be seated. To seat them at all would be to change the rules. To allow them to have a new caucus to seat their delegates would be to change the rules. They didn't follow the rules and the penalty imposed was they get no delgates, not they get a do over. If they ever get any delegates seated the rules will have been changed. You claim this cannot be allowed for. Well if that is the case and not just a bunch of BS, then put your money where your mouth is. The only acceptable solution to this situation is to say right now that the Florida and Michigan delegations are to stay home. Save them the trip to Denver. Any other outcome is changing the rules and that is a no no. If Ezra or the Obama campaign will not come out right now and say that then they need to just shut because they don't have a leg to stand on. The rules were never the rules as you are claiming they were.

While we are discussing changing the rules we also need to demand that the Obama campaign cease all pressure for superdelegates to vote to uphold the winner of the pledged delegate count. This argument should have been made before the process was started. The Obama campaign didn't start calling into question the legitmacy of superdelegates until it looked like they might lose because of them. The superdelegate rule might suck, just like the Florida Michigan ruling, but you can't call for it to be changed in the middle. The Obama campaign must come out right now and say they will accept the result of any outcome that is brought about by following the rules as they are set up and stop trying to create a crisis because they don't get their way. Their was a proper time and place to question the role of superdelegates and now is not it. If we are truly concerned about the process being fair and democratic than we should have had a national primary. We didn't. Both sides are instead playing the corrupt game the system has set up. To judge one and not the other for it is just vile and disgusting. There is nothing progressive or liberal about this corrupt process and no one in it should be prepetuating that myth by appealing to democratic principles in their grab for power. We need to establish a national primary and we need to abolish the electoral college. Until any political will come out in support of that, then as far as I am concerned they need to shut up about the will of the people, democracy, legitmacy, or whatever other BS they are spewing to get elected.

It is quite simple, Obama does not oppose seating the delegates because it would be unfair, he opposses it because it would hurt his chances to win. If he claims he opposses it on principle, then he should just make clear they will never be seated, and that there will be no do overs. That is the principled stand. I am sure once it doesnt hurt him Obama will be glad to change the rules and seat the delegates so he won't be hurt in a general. Obama's comittment to fairness will once again reappear once it doesn't cost him anything.

'but it's interesting that you assume I must be one.'

Is it?

'If Obama pulled this kind of stunt, I'd say the exact same thing.'

no you wouldn't.

'Second, Wilhelm won't change his endorsement because he's justified in endorsing Obama EVEN IF HILLARY PULLS AHEAD.'

So conversely, are superdelegates that are currently supporting Hillary 'justified' in not honoring the pledged delegate count?

Isn't this whole dispute moot at that point?

'That's why the interview plays out the way it does.'

There's always an easy explanation when an Obama supporter gets caught in a slip up.

Now THAT is interesting.

willyj-

I don't see how it matters whether Obama would do the same thing, if their positions were reversed. Even if that were true, it's still true that if he did, it would be wrong, just as it's wrong that she's doing it now.

Suppose, by way of analogy, that I know someone's who's gotten away with stealing a million dollars. I think that's wrong (in most cases, anyway); still, I know that I'm not perfect, and I might well do it, if I knew I could away with it.

Finally, we don't know that Obama is 'just as willing' as Clinton to steal the nomination: all you've cited is evidence that one of his supporters would be willing to help him do so. As to whether he'd choose to do it or not, that's neither here nor there.

Chris,
Can we call it Hillaryball one day and Roveball the next.

To those claiming that their is a genetleman's agreement that superdelegates support the winner of the pledged delegates that is just a bold face lie. Superdelegates were put in place precisely to act as a check on the process brought about by selecting pledged delgates. They have a totally legitimate right to support whoever they want regardless of who wins the pledged count. Obama's campaign is making up lies about the issue so they can subvert the proccess in place if it helps them win. Rumor has it if McCain wins the electoral college without winning the popular vote they are going to demand that the electors switch and vote for Obama.

willyjsimmons,

Ezra's post is not about super delegates. According to the rules super delegates can do what ever they want.

Who cares what one superdelegate said. Obama himself has said that the winner of the pledged delegates should win. It's not like his owns supers would defy that if he told them to go for Hillary, should she get the most pledged delegates.

'To those claiming that their is a genetleman's agreement that superdelegates support the winner of the pledged delegates that is just a bold face lie.'

My mistake.

'Ezra's post is not about super delegates.'

Really?

I know this.

I'm referring to Ezra's earlier contention (in a previous post) that Clinton was going to 'destory the party' if she wins the nomination based on superdelegates, while ignoring the fact that the Obama campaign is playing the same games.

"To seat them at all would be to change the rules. To allow them to have a new caucus to seat their delegates would be to change the rules. They didn't follow the rules and the penalty imposed was they get no delgates, not they get a do over. If they ever get any delegates seated the rules will have been changed"

RULE 20 of the DNC Delegate Selection Rules:

Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state partyprovides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced byfifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. fromthat state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state’s delegation.

So, by not seating ANY of the delegates,who's changing the rules?

Clearly, isn't the solution for the DNC to follow it's own established rule and only seat half of them. Seems to be working for the Republicans.

what? hillary clinton is pursuing a disingenuous line of reasoning after the fact to justify something done for purely political reasons? stop the presses! i don't understand why everyone is so up-in-arms. this is the clinton way. cynical, triangulating, disingenous politicking is what we can expect for 4-8 years if she's elected. everyone should've expected this the moment obama and edwards removed their names from the the ballot in michigan and sen. clinton didn't. they'll do or say ANYTHING for political advantage. principles or convictions are way down the list.

Willy J. Simmons appears to be arguing that if Obama were to win with the help of superdelegates, it would be stealing the election, while if Clinton were to do it, it would be OK.

Is this what they mean by "Clinton rules"?

It would be nice to have a higher standard of understanding in our culture about some of the more common logical fallacies. We should make the study of Logic a compulsory in secondary school, so that this society can spend about 70% less time on issues, like these. Only through a series of Straw Man, Bait and Switch, and False Dilemma lines of attack can one argue for recording the results that were posted in MI and FL, and have them count towards the pledged delegate count.

It's no wonder George Bush was able to convince this nation to go to war in Iraq.

'Willy J. Simmons appears to be arguing that if Obama were to win with the help of superdelegates, it would be stealing the election, while if Clinton were to do it, it would be OK.'

It's willyjsimmons, and no...

don't think I said that.

What I'm saying is...

Clinton is no more 'destroying the party' than Obama is.

Which is to say, not at all.

The DNC is to blame for allowing this situation to develop the way it has.

All the ire directed at Clinton is being misplaced.

Clinton has every reason to pursue the nomination aggressively. She is not responsible for ripping the party apart. Those of us who support Clinton have been condescended to time and again by the media and Obama supporters, and now Ezra Klein. It's unfortunate that working aggressively to counteract an explicit attempt on the part of a very BIASED media to portray an equally popular campaign among Democrats as one that should simply turn out the lights and call it a day is portrayed as being divisive. But isn't that the inherent message of the Obamedia--that Hillary should get out of the way, that very few people support her, and that Obama has been ordained by a higher power to be the nominee and then president? I know people felt similarly on the other side last year, but with the numbers so close between Obama and Clinton, I find such a media-driven perception to be extremely troubling.

If she gets the nomination, it will be within the rules set forth by the DNC--there is clearly no other way for her to do so.

I remember a time when this blog was about issues, not the delegate horserace. But it's proprietor seems to have found a different pursuit: pushing the elite media's talking points. Ezra, enjoy paraphrasing Obama campaign memos about Hillary--that she's a cheater who will do anything for power. If they fail to CC you on those memos, go back to old Republican campaign ones you may have--they're pretty much the same.

Since Willy J. Simmons thinks that Obama would do the same thing Clinton is currently doing if he were behind in the popular vote, behind in national opinion polls and behind in pledged delegates, it follows that Obama is doing the same thing and both are equally guilty of what Clinton is doing.

This insight brought to you by Willy J. Simmons' psychic powers.

@neil

Two separate points I made.

1.) Yes Obama would certainly try to seat FL and MI delegates if he needed them.

2.) Clinton is no more 'destroying the party' or 'cheating' than Obama is.

Whatever else you're talking about? I don't know.

xoxo

Oh, come off it. I'm not a Clinton supporter or an Obama support (and certainly not a Republican) AND I'm not Willy J. Simmons either. But that's plainly a disingenuous comment, Neil. And anyone who thinks that any politician who needed to get those FL and MI delegates wouldn't be doing the same thing in the same situation is ridiculously naive. This is presidential politics and it's not pretty. And frankly, if you look at the crap that the Republicans have pulled since 1994, you need to be able to deal with it. I'm not saying it's ok to stoop to their level, but you can't really expect absolute purity either. Maybe that's sad, but it's still true.

I can see doing a redo in Michigan, but to redo FL just because of lack of campaigning there seems extreme when all were on the ballot.
Or are you actually suggesting that the candidates were under-spun there?

'I'm not Willy J. Simmons either.'

And good for that.

Don't know what I did to upset you though?

LOL

whatever.

To Katebird and all of the others claiming that Michigan voters will feel disenfranchised if "our" delegates aren't seated at the convention:

I'm a Michigan Democrat, and you couldn't be more wrong. There are NO Michigan delgates to seat, because Michigan didn't have a Democratic primary, pure and simple. It sucked, but that's what happened. Nobody campaigned, nobody but HRC was on the ballot, you couldn't even write Edwards, Obama, or whoever in, and nobody -- and I mean nobody -- thought that if Hillary managed to beat "undeclared", she might actually be allowed to seat all of those delegates. Very few Democrats here bothered to vote -- the polling stations were ghost towns -- and those who did were just as likely to cross over and vote for Romney, just to mess up the Republicans.

This has nothing to do with whether the DNC's punishment was excessive and stupid. It was, but that's water under the bridge. The issue now is whether HRC is going to be allowed to claim a potentially, an election-swinging victory based on Michigan delegates she didn't actually win.

If the Michigan delegates are seated and go 100% for Hillary, it will make Florida in 2000 look like a model of representative democracy.

I have a compromise for you: let's put a bullet in Clinton's brain.

Willyj:

There's a basic flaw in your logic. You conclude from the (purported) fact that Obama *would* destroy the party that he *is* destroying the party. It doesn't take a subtle mind to see that this is a faulty inference.

Here's a brilliant idea. Why don't we wait and see how Wisconsin, Hawaii, Texas, Ohio and all the rest of the states play out before we get all of our panties in a collective bunch?

AF,

It's a bit facile to blame the media for Clinton's performance in the primaries. Both candidates have to overcome negative perceptions in much of the electorate. In the end, however, the voters make the best decisions they can, and it is presumptuous to assume that they are so stupid that they don't think a least little critically and look a bit beyond the media themselves. Obama doesn't always lose because Clinton is better known; sometimes he loses because he just fails to convince. The same is true for Clinton: sometimes, she just fails to convince. It is obviously fair for Clinton supporters to worry about media coverage, but they also have to at least entertain the thought that not ALL of Clinton's problems are due to unfavorable media coverage. This admission would actually be positive, since it would put Clinton supporters in a position to make constructive criticisms of the Clinton campaign that could, in turn, lead to better performance in elections.

I'm glad to see so many of you are standing strong, behind the following construct: "I support anything Candidate X is doing or tries to do, because, if Candidate Y were in Candidate X's position, I am certain Candidate Y would be doing or trying to do the same. Therefore, everything Candidate X is doing or trying to do is justified."

Is this a great country or what?

Thank you Ezra. This is such a ridiculous no-brainer I can believe anyone other than a complete fool would attempt argue the Clinton position in good faith. Rules were agreed to prior to the beginning of the contest. To suggest that they be changed now, irrespective of the reason or motivation, is simply ridiculous. That the sudden change of heart on this matter by one camp is politics of the most cynical sort, and nothing more. I can't even believe there is discussion over this. The Clinton camp, to borrow your metaphor, is absolutely playing with fire here. Given what this party has been through in terms of stolen elections and other electoral shananigans these past eight years, this should be a bright line.

vlad:

Hey, I'm glad to hear it. I'm a librarian, so by nature -- I LOVE rules.

Let's let it play out just as it stands then. It's fine by me.

(getting out the popcorn)

I admire Hillary for pursuing the FL and MI delegates. If Obama wouldn't do the same thing in this position, then I wouldn't want him as the nominee.

After what happened in Florida in 2000, and watching Joe Lieberman go on MTP and be more interested in sucking up to pumpkinhead than aggressively towing the line that would get the dems to the white house, I couldn't stomach another replay of that.

Did Obama not notice that Hillary kept herself on the ballot in Michigan? Obama got played -- boo hoo.

I can't see how you deny those delegations seats in a convention where they determine the outcome.

The DNC assumed it wouldn't matter because the delegate count never actually matters, but this year it does.

Amen Ryan. No need for any pre-emptive mud slinging.

'You conclude from the (purported) fact that Obama *would* destroy the party that he *is* destroying the party. '

You don't read.

I said explicitly that NEITHER of them are destroying anything.

To quote myself:

Clinton is no more 'destroying the party' than Obama is.

Which is to say, not at all.

The DNC is to blame for allowing this situation to develop the way it has.

'It doesn't take a subtle mind to see that this is a faulty inference.'

Right back at you, eh?

@gregor

'Therefore, everything Candidate X is doing or trying to do is justified.'

Ugh...

strike two.

Where did I (or anyone else) say that?

html failure on my part

Clinton is no more 'destroying the party' than Obama is.

Which is to say, not at all.

The DNC is to blame for allowing this situation to develop the way it has.

Please delete this comment:

Posted by: democrat | February 14, 2008 2:12 PM

Willy j -- You didn't upset me; I was agreeing with you. I thought Neil's comment to you was over the top.

To PJ, and anyone else who might think that it's OK to seat the Michigan delegates for HRC because she was the only one clever enough to keep her name on the ballot:

If she intended to claim those delegates for herself in a tight race, based on her stirring victory over "undeclared," she should have been honest with Michigan Democrats about that before the primary. I, and many I know, would have bothered to go to the polls and vote for "undeclared." I don't hate HRC, and I'll definietly vote for her in the general, but she's not my first choice.

What infuriates me, as a Michigan Democrat, is the Clinton campaign now claiming to support my "right" to be "heard," when before the primary they, along with all of the other candidates, were telling me that they would abide by the DNC's decision to strip Michigan of its delegates.

If they actually try to go through with this stunt, it will be vote stealing. A pretty baroque form of vote stealing, but vote stealing nonetheless.

@David

Understandable.

feh, it's the line breaks that are breaking my html.

Now I know better.

It is quite simple, Obama does not oppose seating the delegates because it would be unfair, he opposses it because it would hurt his chances to win.
Straw argument. He hasn't made a public statement on the issue other than saying he abides by the DNC decision.

I can see doing a redo in Michigan, but to redo FL just because of lack of campaigning there seems extreme when all were on the ballot.
Voter preference is only static in the absence of stimulus. Voter preference becomes dynamic in the face of campaigning. In October, Clinton was up by 20 points on Obama. Even if all of Edwards voters went over to him, that would still leave him about tied with Clinton. After campaigning, he walked away with a 2:1 lead.

Campaigns alter results. Florida's election results are therefore illegitimate.

If she gets the nomination, it will be within the rules set forth by the DNC--there is clearly no other way for her to do so.

That does not mean she will have done so ethically. If you have been at all critical of Republican procedural gamesmanship in the past, then that is a hypocritical stance to take.

Obama's campaign is making up lies about the issue so they can subvert the proccess in place if it helps them win.

You're conflating Obama supporters with Obama's campaign. The campaign has been quiet on the delegate question and the question of whether victory-by-superdelegate is legitimate.

Given that the campaign is actively courting superdelegates, one would suppose they feel using them is acceptable.

Vlad: As another Michigan Democrat, I 100 % agree.

Alex--I appreciate your comment. I did not mean to imply that I believe that the Clinton campaign has done nothing wrong and that her troubles are solely due to the media. I think that the frankness of Maggie Williams' open assessment of past mistakes yesterday is very refreshing.

I do, however, find the idea that Hillary Clinton should just back down very troubling. One would believe from Ezra's post and from media reports today that the election were essentially over, and that Hillary Clinton enjoyed little support around the country and in the party. I find it too convenient that once Obama has achieved a marginal lead in pledged delegates, and has appeared in ONE poll as the national frontrunner, that the race is over.

Ezra is himself trying to change the rules, and implement a narrative that was essentially drafted in the Obama campaign's post-Potomac memos: that the real role of the Superdelegates is to vote for the leader in pledged delegates. I wasn't aware this was a rule--in fact, it was recently invented by the Obama campaign. Yet Ezra (and every other media elite) seems to agree with Obama's spindoctors that Hillarys attempts to get an edge in a ridiculously close election is almost criminal in manner. Read Ezra's post again--it is written as though Hillary is Nixon breaking into Watergate, not as a politician who is essentially even with her competitor.

Ezra should not try to paint Hillary as a bad loser who enjoys low levels of support, nor any real hope of winning the nomination.

clinton karma

At this point it's awfully hard to control the damage caused by the FL/MI situation. Some people will be pissed because Dem delegates won't be seated. OK. But is the answer to that to go back to states where many people did vote, explain to the state that in one way or another the Democratic Party couldn't get it's shit together enough to have delegates from each state count at the Convention? How does the Democratic Party look if it has a second election? Many people in each state aren't aware of the infighting within the Party, but they certainly will see that things are amiss if they're asked to vote again.

And it's not clear that this will satisfy the Clinton camp--arguments can (will?) be made that circumstances have changed, and votes should be counted under prior circumstances.

Will new voters be able to register for the new election? Why or why not? (I suspect the Clinton answer would be that they can't, and that answer would be motivated by the fact that many, many new voters can't wait to jump on the Obama train.)

And on and on.

It's not clear to me that having another election of some sort is the way to go. It's not clear to me it's not. I really don't know what the best solution is.

AF,

I certainly wouldn't argue that Hillary has low levels of support and should give up. Nor do I think we should prosecute her for something she hasn't actually done yet. But I agree with Ezra that any real attempt to seat this delegates would be unfair by almost any measure. If Hillary's just threatening this as a campaign tactic, that's fine, but if she really goes through with it, that's overstepping.

Whatever Mrs. Clinton may have done or said about the Florida and Michigan delegates, leaving them out of the process is undemocratic, bad for the Democratic Party, and just shouldn't happen.

Alex--

As far as the delegates from MI and FL go, I agree, this is controversial. However, I do not buy that Obama would be trying to seat them if he were in a similar position. While I technically understand the "Hey, no fair!" argument against seating these delegates, I find it important that they do get seated.

Obviously, I believe this because they support Clinton. But that's not just it. The reason these delegates need to be seated is because they offer a bit of reality in the face of the Obama narrative--that in the face of his movement, Clinton enjoys little support. This narrative needs to be fought with reality. And the reality is that voters in MI anf FL supported Clinton. Would Obama's share of these states been larger had he (and all the other candidates, including Clinton) spent more time in them, before the primaries? Sure. But she still would have won them by large margins.

If we are talking about what would be unfair by almost any measure, then I must assert that to deny MI and FL voters a chance to weigh in on the issue of "Do Democrats really like Hillary, or do they hate her and want somebody new?" represents a move on the part of the Obama campaign to push its own agenda, not what is best for the Democratic Party.

That's me, above, oops

AF

"But she still would have won them by large margins."

how do you know this????

No one campaigned in one state, and in the other, hers was the only name on the ballot.

And as we've seen, wherever obama is able to campaign, the better he tends to do. So I would really like to know what you base your claim that "Hillary would have still won by huge margins" on.

MI & FL voters are not disenfranchised, they will be able to vote for President in November. What they will not be able to do is take part in the party selection. The parties make their own rules for selecting nominees, just look at states where you have to be a party member to vote in the primary. Isn't that disenfranchising independents? No, it's letting the members of a party select their own nominee in the way they see fit.

What the Clinton's are proposing is breaking the rules that they agreed to when they ran for the Democratic Party nomination.

Whoa. Ezra mad as hell.

If Senator Clinton does not like the Democratic rules for selecting a nominee, she is free to either try for another party's nomination or start a party of her own, ala The Lieberman Connecticut Party.

It's been an hour since I asked that that horrific comment be deleted. Does anyone watch over this blog? (see 2:12pm)

Willy, aside from the Wilhelm distraction, have you noticed that your entire case about Obama's crookedness is based on arguing about HYPOTHETICAL TRANSGRESSIONS, while the argument about Clinton's lack of ethics is based on THINGS THAT HAVE ACTUALLY HAPPENED?

Katie's right, get that f-ing thing down!

Hey JB--Hillary didn't run in those states either. And the "uncomitted" vote in MI was lower than hers, even though both Obama and Edwards could have taken that together. The demographics of those two states work better for Hillary.

In any case, if Hillary gets the delegates from MI and FL seated, she will do so within the rules set forth by the DNC. She can not break the rules--largely because there is not a rule to be broken here. And Ezra's claim that Hillary is the one endangering the Democratic coalition is plain false. Neither Hillary nor Barack enjoy a 50% share of the support of the party. They are pretty much even. As much as people would like for her to quit, the fact is, she's got a lot of support, and a pretty good case to go forward.

Are a lot of the regrets being offered by her campaign and the dismissal of caucuses kind of convenient to make right now? Sure. But guess what: it's politics, and it's not just the Clintons who play it. I know it might come as a shock, but Obama does it, too. So does Edwards. So does everyone who ever has run, ever is running, or ever will run a serious presidential campaign.

I don't know where people like Era or the rest of the blogger/liberal media elites get off thinking that half of the voters in the Democratic party shouldn't expect the candidate they voted for to fight like hell for this nomination. I certainly do, because I don't appreciate a bunch of Chris Matthews, Andrew Sullivans, and Ozombies trying to make the case that my candidate doesn't have any support, and that places where she found support have no valid voice because their state parties/legislatures made a "boneheaded" move to advance their influence.

Thanks.

kateybird,

I glossed right over that comment (I assume you mean "democrat" at 2:12)and didn't even notice it.

THAT'S HOW BIASED AGAINST CLINTON THE MEDIA HAS BEEN THUS FAR

It just seemed "normal" to me.

John & jj -- thanks for the support (and yes jj that's the one). I sent Ezra an email telling him about it. But, since I refuse to reprint what was said -- I guess he blew it off.

In all my years reading blogs I've never seen anything like that left standing.

AF,

but as i said, the more obama campaigns somewhere, the better he tends to do. that tells me, at least superficially, that a lot of her support is name recognition only.

And maybe you weren't paying attention, but Obama won mostof Hillary's core demographics in the Potomac Primary. So I dont see how you can count on those voters going for her in MI or FL.

Unfortunately, we'll never know. You don't have a magic crystal ball that tells you the outcome of hypothetical situations anymore than i do. But I really don't buy that if there HAD been a campaign, that Hillary would have blown obama out.

Thats not been the pattern. Whenever Hillary wins, its usually pretty close. When Obama wins, more often than not, its a blowout.

What does that tell you?

JB--

Since we are not looking at crystal balls anymore, let's look at the facts. Hillary and Obama are essentially even. Neither has a majority of the support among democrats.

That tells me that for people to claim that Hillary Clinton is being a sore loser who should pack it up would prefer to exclude the opinion of pretty much half of the electorate of the Democratic primary.

Sounds oh-so-not-unifying. That's what that tells me.

Thanks!

Well. thats not entirely true. Obama has the majority of pledged delegates so far. But the game isnt over and no one is claiming that it is.

I dont think anyone is saying she should pack it in. Who has said that?

I think what people are saying is that she shouldnt try to change the rules in the middle of the game in order to rig the outcome in her favor.

And, if, at the convention, she's behind on pledged delegates, its my opinion that, yes, for the good of the party she should concede.

It would destroy the party if superdelegates over-ruled the outcome of the elections. Conversely, if obama is behind on pledged delegates at the convention, for the good of the party, he should concede as well.

I dont understand where you get this, "Everyone thinks she should drop out right now" meme. I've not expressed that, and nothing i've read or seen suggests that anyone else has suggested that.

JB

The MSM has been saying she should get out since Iowa.

The MSM has been saying she should get out since Iowa.

Bullshit. I challenge to find any mainstream media source for that. I wager that you will not.

I doubt you could even find that claim on a Democratic blog that endorsed one of her opponents.

Wishing she would drop out because she is not your preference is different from saying she should drop out. And it's more than just semantics.

"The MSM has been saying she should get out since Iowa."

"Bullshit. I challenge to find any mainstream media source for that. I wager that you will not.

Here are two to start:
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/01/09/hillary_nh/

"Here was Matthews on "Hardball," the night after Iowa, proclaiming, 'For Clinton, what was once considered inevitable is now barely likely.'"

"'Could New Hampshire end the Democratic primary race?' leered Olbermann on Monday."

Neither article contains the claim tht she should (defined as "must") drop out of the race.

Fail.

Saying she lost or is losing is not the same as saying she should stop campaigning.

whatevia, dude

and BO never said the repubs were the ideas people of the last 15 years too, right?

Not whatever. You made the argument that people said Hillary should--a word that means "must" or "has a duty to"--withdraw from the race. All you posted were pundits saying that she might not, or even probably won't, win the nomination. You do not see a difference?

and BO never said the repubs were the ideas people of the last 15 years too, right?

He said it. But the statement does not imply those were good ideas. It simply indicts Democrats for not offering a better alternative. The language was certainly inflammatory and designed to get a rise out of Clinton; which it did, she was baited, hook, line and sinker.

But the content was not controversial in the least. Democrats have been complaining about their feckless representatives for years.s

hmm a lot of thes comments center on what clinton SHOULD do, and all sorts of touchy feely emotions on what her duty is. Its clear that she has her own vision of duty, to the party and the country.

Thats fine, so do the voters. There are some issues that just arent being raised here that need to be looked at by those voters.

FL and MI voters might feel disenfranchised by how their leadership rooked them out of a worthwhile vote. Those leaders did it specifically out of spite for other states, and were out of step with the rest of the organization, but went ahead anyway. So they got punished, and were fully aware that they would be.

Far from scientific polling but its the most work Ive heard of, limited polling and interviews by NPR of democratic voters last week showed most of those voters not mad at the candidates, or the DNC, but at their own state Dem leadership. Almost universally they felt it was a situation they deserved to be in, and that the leadership there needed to be changed. ..its not a violent revolt waiting to break out in the general election as its being framed here.

Now for those that still do feel negatively that their vote didnt count in the due to how the delegates fall.. try living on the west coast for a few cycles. Maybe even in Alaska.. Then you get to have the real feeling of useless. When the winners never campaigned there, and are declared before the voting even gets started in your state. Thats disenfranchised.

The bigger problem is how this shows the working habits and honour system of HRC herself. Hows this going to work out when shes in a conference directly with N. Korea.

"No Im sorry Mr. Il. I know we agreed to these rules, but I feel their just not showing me in the best light. The Korean people really should be heard, so we need to ...."

That will go over well.

Or lets step back a few paces, and just go for a much less drastic scenario.

"I know I made campaign promises. But I really feel that some independant voters would feel left out if I went to work on that. Instead Ill give another speech on how evil medical bills are, and leave it at that."

She is demonstrating here right before our eyes that she doesnt feel she is obligated to stand by agreements that she has made. That is the important issue. It soesnt matter that she can, or is entitled to, or is being advised to, change the current status of MI, and FL. The issue is that she agreed to a set of rules, even had them promoted as Ezra posted.. If she changes them now when it is convenient, then we can see how good her word is.

Wait she really does have a tendency to sign onto legislation and agreements without understanding the outcomes.. kinda like the AUMF.

2 options there were that: 1. She knew full well what was going on and voted for a war, only to deny it now. 2. She really did think it was only about inspectors, and had absolutely failed to gauge her opponents intentions (Bush et al.) and completely failed to understand the scope of the legislation she voted for.

Similarly here.. either she knew that she signed up knowing she would fight it later when it didnt turn out right, or she went along with it without considering this disenfranchisement that she has suddenly been so inspired to fight.

Either way.. her role in this is a bad one.

@david b.

2.5 million FL and MI dem voters are totally happy not to have their votes count.

And of course the interests of the 5th and 10th largest US economies by State are over joyed to have no voice whatsoever in the dem party nomination.

And you know this because NPR played it that way to you.

You really think that some pissing match several months ago between a handful of bureaucrats is going to prevent these guys from having a say at this most historic of conventions in Denver? No way baby. Better to try to hold back niagra falls with a thimble.

And I really don't think Team Obama wants to stand under that downpour even by proxy.

As for changing the rules, you obviously have never dealt with any international diplomatic negotiations, or any US or international business negotiations where the parties have a real difference between them. Getting the best deal for your people is Negotiating 101. I absolutely want the woman who gets the best deal at the table working for me on the both the national or international stage.

The last person I want to represent me is the guy who cries about the other side stealing his lunch.

Yet another case of Team Obama complaining while Team Hillary gets the job done.

@patience.
ok I dont know whether to laugh or gag at that one.

No I dont feel that they are happy about, nor did I state this in my comment. What I agree with NPR on is that their anger is not at the candidates, the DNC, or even these primaries. Their anger is directed at their own statewide dem leadership and their grandstanding. If I had quoted FOXnews Id scoff right along with you, but NPR is far from a highly biased news organization.

If you have presentable credentials for international negotiation, please feel free to present them. Otherwise the only obvious thing is that you criticize my experience without the qualifications to do so.

Since you dont want someone that resorts to crying leading your team, then its suggestible that you not be supporting HRC. Since that is a favored tactic of hers.

Yes it seems likely that in Denver these delegates will have no say, as things stand. There is lots of talks of rerunning the primaries, in which case they will once again have a say. That is truly the lesser evil.

Negotiating 101 eh? Since you quote that as dicta you present evidence that you either never passed that class, or never went beyond it.

As for changing the rules... Other nations will not continue to deal with you if the basic rules of the negotiations are broken. I presented N.Korea as an exampe as they are an extreme case in the regard. They have left talks with the US because the 1 dish in 1 place setting was not as agreed.

You setup the framework for negotiation and then work within it to further your goals. It takes *gasp* forethought and planning. The ability to read through documented agreements and foresee the consequences of accepting or denying them.

This method of using plausible deniability to cover for either stupidity or bad strategy may play well in american politics but doesnt work so well beyond our borders.

So exactly when was she graced with the inspiration that the poor voters in those states might feel left out? Did t just happen to pop into her head after those primaries were over? She only started her objections after that time.

So does part of 'getting the job done' involve just signing off on any old crap and then calling for a 'do over' when it doesnt go your way?

Many thanks to all the clintonistas who are happy to mug rules and fairness in service of their team's goals.

Each specious post helps clarify the current realities and create another Obama voter.

willyjsimmons gets a special award for rove/bush politics-is-war ethical excellence.

onwards !

-- stan

"Each specious post helps clarify the current realities and create another Obama voter."

You had me until "Obama." Based on what I've seen here, how COULD one vote Obama?

American Prospect, Kos, Huffington amd Move On need to start a fund from "Us/we", to pony up some or all of the costs of a MiFla do-over.
Our $$$ would be a powerful voice to make justice prevail and have the MIFla voters primary preference heard.

It's ridiculous to complain about Clinton violating the rules by petitioning to reinstate the Florida and Michigan delegations. Read the rules before you get all morally outraged. The rules explicitly allow for such petitions.

It's ridiculous to complain about Clinton violating the rules by petitioning to reinstate the Florida and Michigan delegations. Read the rules before you get all morally outraged. The rules explicitly allow for such petitions.

@david b

The Orwellian dualities of the online Obama supporter never cease to amaze me.

"calling for a 'do over' when it doesnt go your way?"

Isn't this exactly what you are proposing to treat MI and FL. And isn't that essentially what Team Obama's online outrage by proxy over super delegates is all about.

What kind of candidate goes into a party election and doesn't know he has to win the super delegates? And the sad thing is his negotiating skills apparently are so poor that even after giving them lots of money he has to drum up "virtual outrage" across the web base to make his case.

It looks like to me that in the case of superdelegates, we're going to see another web chorus of Kennedy like endorsements by super delgates in a vain attempt to win in the media what couldn't be won on the ground for Team Obama.

If this whole super delegate food fight isn't a giant do over, I don't know what is.

But hey good luck with that.

As for your take on negotiating, it's touchingly niave and it illustrates everything that is wrong with the Obama camp approach. If you really think that conservative republicans, or oil lobbies, or car companies, or copyright holders, let alone foreign governments aren't going to use every tool in the shed against you, you are easy pickings.

It's no wonder he gets so much of the republican vote in the dem primaries. Anyone who thinks strategical has to understand that they are going to be able to dance circles around this guy, as he complains by proxy over and over again that he's not being treated fairly.

Hasn't crying and complaining been the non-stop theme from Team Obama since they lost NH.

Whaaa it the voting machines, we wuz robbed, Whaa Bill's beating me up, Whaaa it's unfair that the power elite of the party isn't backing me.

It goes on and on and on.

@Alexis

False moral outrage is entirely what makes Team Obama run apparently.

I have no sympathy for Obama voters in Michigan who couldn't vote for him -- you couldn't because he took his name off the ballot. Three other candidates (not just clinton) stayed on, and Hillary's campaign made it clear that they were staying on and criticized Obama and Edwards for dropping off. Go read any of the zillion articles from early October on the subject.

Obama wanted MI and FL not to count because he couldn't handle those big primaries early in the session. He needed to focus on getting activists to give him a win in IA, and momentum in NH. Big state primaries early in the process played to Clinton's strength, so he did his best to deligimatize them.

He and Edwards were the anti-democracy candidates, not Hillary.

The only way you can legitimately not count those primaries is to hold another primary. Absent that, Obama's victory would be a sham.

How can he credibly argue that he's ahead on pledged delegates and should therefore get the support of superdelegates if Hillary's delegates from MI and FL would belie that position?

Let's recap:

1) Hillary agreed not to be on the MI ballot.
2) She then kept her name on that ballot. Here's what Donald Riegle had to say about it: "It's an absolute fraud. They very clearly waited until others had followed through with the agreement and then didn't follow through with it. This was not an accident. This is a very deliberate manipulation of the ballot."
3) She then acknowledged that the primary should not count: "It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything."
4) Once the votes are cast, she reverses her position and claims that these delgates should be seated.

She has engaged in ongoing deceptive practices here. She has lied to the Democratic party flagrantly and to her own advantage. This is the most reprehensible conduct I have ever seen in a Democratic primary race.

She is a disgrace.

It's ridiculous to complain about Clinton violating the rules by petitioning to reinstate the Florida and Michigan delegations. Read the rules before you get all morally outraged. The rules explicitly allow for such petitions.

The rules only allow for what's possible. They do not clarify what is ethical.

If Clinton cared about those voters being disenfranchised, she would've said so when saying so involved risk. She waited until sham elections were held, giving her a lock on those delegates should they be seated. The only risk at that point--and it's a small risk--is that pursuing that option would turn-off voters.

The benefits were that she gets to appear to care about the franchise, regardless of whether they're seated. And if they are seated, she gets more delegates. That's pretty much a win-win play.

It's also the kind of procedural bullshit you expect when Republicans play hardball with Democrats. But she only ever seems to make such maneuvers when they stand to give her own political fortunes, not those of the Democratic party or Democratic voters.

It amazes me how willing people are to just make stuff up to bolter their case. Calling all toasters says: "Hillary agreed not to be on the MI ballot." Wrong. She never made any such agreement. She didn't sneakily "wait until others had followed through with the agreement"-- when Obama and Edwards pulled their names off the Michigan ballot it was to avoid the embarassment of losing, not because there had been some agreement.

Unapologetic Andrew implies that while Hillary is following the rules, it is unethical to suggest that the Michigan and Florida delegates should be seated because they were selected in sham elections. I think it would be best if everyone recognized that there are legitimate competing ethical positions here, and avoid slamming either of the Dem candidates for trying to make their best case.

I tend to agree that Michigan delegates shouldn't be seated because, for whatever reason, not all of the relevant choices were on the ballot, and that the DNC should pay for a new primary in Michgan. There was nothing sham about Florida's election though-- everyone followed the rules about not campaigning or organizing there, turnout was huge, and voters had access to plenty of information about each candidate. I think the Florida results should stand.

It amazes me how willing people are to just make stuff up to bolter their case. Calling all toasters says: "Hillary agreed not to be on the MI ballot." Wrong. She never made any such agreement. She didn't sneakily "wait until others had followed through with the agreement"-- when Obama and Edwards pulled their names off the Michigan ballot it was to avoid the embarassment of losing, not because there had been some agreement.

Unapologetic Andrew implies that while Hillary is following the rules, it is unethical to suggest that the Michigan and Florida delegates should be seated because they were selected in sham elections. I think it would be best if everyone recognized that there are legitimate competing ethical positions here, and avoid slamming either of the Dem candidates for trying to make their best case.

I tend to agree that Michigan delegates shouldn't be seated because, for whatever reason, not all of the relevant choices were on the ballot, and that the DNC should pay for a new primary in Michgan. There was nothing sham about Florida's election though-- everyone followed the rules about not campaigning or organizing there, turnout was huge, and voters had access to plenty of information about each candidate. I think the Florida results should stand.

Unapologetic Andrew implies that while Hillary is following the rules, it is unethical to suggest that the Michigan and Florida delegates should be seated because they were selected in sham elections. I think it would be best if everyone recognized that there are legitimate competing ethical positions here, and avoid slamming either of the Dem candidates for trying to make their best case.

I'll concede that there is an underpinning logic behind her position. However, her decision to pursue seating FL and MI after the elections were held and she won is best characterized as the unadulterated, cynical pursuit of her own self-interest. That brand of ethics only has legitimacy among people who stopped reading philosophical and political science texts once they reached Adam Smith.

It is an ethically inferior position. It also contradicts her stated wish to become president in order to serve the American people. Selfishness and service are rarely found in concert.

The main reason Florida is a sham: voter preference is static only in the absence of stimulus. When subjected to a campaign, voter preference becomes dynamic. I refer you to Clinton's 20% lead over Obama in Virginia as of the fall and her eventual 20% loss on Tuesday. What was the difference? A campaign.

Voter preference in FL was not subjected to a campaign and thus it remained stable. This clearly benefited the status quo frontrunner, which happened to be Clinton.

Supporting those results is, objectively, an ethically weak position unless you approach it from the perspective that one ought to do that which is in one's best interest regardless of any other concerns.