You can't figure out why?

It's not really that hard.

OT of course, but maybe worth noting that President Codpiece Face is now at a historic low of 19%.
http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/

Perhaps you should consider these facts:

1. Ninjas are mammals.

2. Ninjas fight ALL the time.

3. The purpose of the ninja is to flip out and kill people.

honoring the spirit of the Democrats' 50-state strategy

...in which caucus states, small states, red states, states with lots of African-Americans, and states with not many African-Americans (excl. NH) don't count.

Don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining. Like Ezra says, if the Clinton campaign pulls out an unlikely victory, it won't take this kind of bullshit to justify it. It'll be the equivalent of that NY Giants play, and obvious to all.

The bankruptcy of Clinton's gambit is apparent to just about the entire commentariat, save her most diehard supporters. And even many of those supporters are beginning to accept that Clinton might not win. What's interesting is how many of them are saying that they won't vote for Obama. I wonder what accounts for their virulence? What is it about Obama that is so much WORSE than more war in Iraq, more disastrous economic policies, more tendentious judges, and so on? An open question to Clinton supporters.

Donna Brazile was on CNN last night, and she made some very astute observations about the inability or unwillingness of the Clinton camp to try to win the nomination in the traditional way, by convincing voters that she would be a better candidate. At some point Brazile said something like, "Nobody's going to come along and hand you all these superdelegates."

It's not too much of an exaggeration to say that every time a Clinton person mentions the word "delegate," they're essentially ceding the legitimacy argument to Obama. It's a massive miscalculation, and it does sound "unseemly" to the people they're supposed to be representing.

Good post. But:

...along the way, gambits like this one will have soured many decent people on Clinton's campaign...

Careful, because you're starting to sound a little Beltway-fishbowlish. Is so much of the population really following all this so closely?

Ezra, I will give you a lot of credit. You strike me as someone who was as neutral about this race as a person could be, truly letting the "facts" (as much as political arguments can be facts) guide your thinking. As such, you did not succumb to momentum and get swept up on the Obama bandwagon.

But I certainly sense a shift recently in your tone and tenor toward the two campaigns. And given your general neutrality up until recently, I interpret that as a pretty serious indicator of the corrosive effect of Clinton's antics on the general electorate and conventional wisdom within the party.

In short, I think the evolution of your opinions about this campaign is a lot like what most people who are not committed to one candidate are going through. And that evolution certainly seems to be favoring Obama.

Actually I see no good reason why the Florida delegates shouldn't be seated. Yes, it means changing the rules in midstream, but so what? It was a dumb rule to begin with. The candidates didn't visit Florida, but voters there still have televisions, newspapers, and the Internet. If Obama had won the state, ten bucks lays you one he'd be the one calling for a seating.

Admittedly, Michigan is different as only Clinton was on the ballot. The fair solution would be to hold a caucus, which Obama would probably win.

Anyway, it's beginning to look like Obama would win even if both Florida and Michigan were seated. So really, why not?

I actually like Kos's idea of splitting the FL and MI delegates evenly between Clinton and Obama. Save the money that new caucuses would cost for the general election.

tom.a.
LOL
Of course you do.

One of the things I hated about the Bill Clinton administration (although generally is support of it), was the constant stream of 'high level advisors' making their own policy/process arguments anonymously in the press. It was often difficult to tell what the real position was (I'm admitting the possibility that they didn't know themselves, but were just testing the waters).

Now, along comes the spider and sets herself down amid largely the same cast of wanna-be presidents called Clinton Camp insiders. Beholding their performance is sickening. They look like amateurs, act like spoiled brats, and generally induce vomiting-like symptoms in me.

They have proven the almost impossible to prove: that the Clinton camp is NOT ready to govern.

"Anyway, it's beginning to look like Obama would win even if both Florida and Michigan were seated. So really, why not?"

I think that this is actually going to be the end result. It becomes clear that Clinton is going to be 150+ pledged delegates behind, she concedes, and they seat the FL and MI delegates.

Ezra,

You've repeatedly said in recent weeks that you really like Hillary the politician, the wonky fighter, her policy shop, etc, but you are really turned off by her campaign (her press shop, pollsters, etc).

At some point (and I think we've reached that time) you have to see her campaign as an extension of herself. I had lunch with James Carville (ok, I and 15 of my peers) back in October. Carville, who at the time was claiming he was not advising Clinton's campaign and in fact would never return to U.S. domestic politics, made a very interesting point. He said that, of all the candidates, Clinton's campaign most accurately mirrored the candidate herself. It was cautious, careful, mindful of future consequences, and very disciplined, all qualities that apply to Clinton herself.

It is Clinton's responsibility to control her campaign. It is essentially an extension of the candidate, and should be treated as such. The failures of her campaign, the largest apparatus she's ever had to run, are her failures.

And I think if there is one thing this campaign has proved about the Clintons (both Bill and Hillary), it is that they'll do anything and say anything to stay in power (or return to power, as the case may be). Is that really what democrats are about? Don't we hold ourselves up to higher standards?

One day Scorpion needed to cross a river and went to Frog and asked him carry him across. Frog said no, you will sting me to death. Scorpion replied, why would I do that? I promise not to sting you if you do me this favor. Frog agreed, Scorpion climbed on his back, and they started across the river. Half way across, Scorpion stung Frog. As Frog, now paralyzed, began to flounder he cried, "What have you done in stinging me! Now we will both drown." Scorpion replied, "I could not help myself, it is my nature." The Clintons cannot help themselves, it is their nature.

This reminds me of John Cleese's comment on the Super Bowl. He said something about how in Europe, when a team declares themselves 'World Champs,' they typically invite the rest of the world to actually compete...

honoring the spirit of the Democrats' 50-state strategy

Are you kidding me? This from the "significant state" campaign? How freaking stupid do they think we are???
Man, that just beat it all.

mara
LOL
Of course you do.

Your point being?

Minor fact, but fact nonetheless: Dodd, Gravel, and Kucinich were on the MI ballot as well.

http://miboecfr.nictusa.com/election/results/08PPR/01000000.html

tom,

I can agree to splitting MI evenly since only Clinton was on the ballot, but splitting FL evenly? why?
just because candidates weren't allowed to debate there? that's silly

oops; should have read, "...weren't allowed to campaign there? that's silly."

I can see seating FL & MI with an eye toward the general election if HRC's 150+ delegates back.

If she wins based on FL + a questionable change of the rules though... I can't imagine a better way to show voters once and for all that the two major parties are equally bankrupt

Let's see: HRC agreed in writing to removing herself from the MI ballot, she claimed at the time that it was universally acknowledged that they wouldn't be seated, and she has made it obvious since that time that all this was a pattern of deception and had always planned to try to seat them if necessary for her to win. The appropriate response is obvious: penalize her deceptive practices by seating a MI delegation composed of Obama pledges.

Or should we set the standard that deceptive and unethical campaign practice ahould go unpunished?