The Clintons really do seem determined to prove all their critics right. I'm beginning to be sorry that I spent all those years defending them.

Even if she wins fair and square, she just lost my vote in the general election.

The Clintons care only about the Clintons and their acquisition of power.

Everyone has known this for years. Books were written on this subject. And yet you are shocked....*SHOCKED*, I say to come to the realization that the Clintons don't give a crap about any party or philosophy.

So when Prof. Krugman suggests that all the "venom" is coming from Obama supporters, we know that he means that venom from the candidates themselves and their campaign staffs doesn't count. Oh, right, except when it's coming from Team Obama. I'm not under any romantic illusions that either Obama or Clinton cares more about progressive politics than their own power grabs, but the idea that it's only the Obama camp tearing the party apart is just nonsense. We know something about how Clinton campaigns go -- this isn't news to anyone who has been paying attention. Basically everyone I know who supports Obama has been saying the same thing all along: a vote for Obama is a vote to build a progressive majority and a vote for a Democratic White House. A vote for Clinton, by contrast, is a vote for a future of uncertainty for the progressive movement.

Is this somehow a surprise? Seriously, are people who have covered politics and the Clintons in particular really surprised by this? How is it that she still has anyone out there defending her?

That said, whether you agree with their strategy or not, it seems blatantly stupid to publicly reveal something so controversial, and something that will certainly reinforce many of the criticisms against her, when they don't have to. We all suspect she would adopt these kinds of strongarm tactics, but why would they confirm it?

All it will do is turn more people against her, including some of these superdelegates whose votes she is now pinning her nomination hopes on. One can only hope that the adults in the party will soon step in and straighten her out.

Ezra,

I'm surprised by this post from you. You've been pretty equinimical (sp? word?) thus far.

My reading of this MI/FL debacle is so different, and both campaigns are gunning for it to come out in their favor (obviously) - Obama's caucus suggestion, anyone?

MyDD has a post today about how it's the FL/MI politicians who are, again obviously, campaigning to have their votes count. Few seem to be covering this fiasco from the perspective of the states; it's only one campaign's shenanigans versus the others.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/13/223556/592

SDinIA-- They do have to do this now. I'm sure their internal projections of likely delegate counts for 3/4 show that they won't close the gap sufficiently to stop calls for her to pull out of the race. So if you're concerned about this dynamic, you strengthen the reasons why you're staying in for the long run. Given the nature of what they're arguing, its a multi-week process to get this to sink in as CW, which is what they need to do to stave off withdrawal calls on 3/5.

I'm confident cooler heads will prevail. They may be willing to take the party down with them, but I don't believe they have enough support for such tactics, even in their core group. Even the Clintons can't do this without a lot of other top Dems willing to help them.

I have no dog in this fight: I came from Camp Edwards and winded up voting for Obama on Super Tuesday. But I think that Ezra is being a bit unfair to Clinton.

There is a big difference between playing a game of chicken, and resolving to tear the party down. Given that voters don't want to back a loser, she has to appear like she has a credible chance of winning. To do this, she has to make noises about superdelegates and FL/MI. They are ugly noises, but they are just that--noises.

If, come April, she has no chance of winning nondestructively, I think she will acknowledge defeat. Politics ain't beanbag, but she's a grownup.

Thought I was reading Andrew Sullivan for a second...

But I think that says more about Clinton than Ezra. Good post.

Ezra, I just read the article you linked to, and Adam Nagourney seems to be putting spin on what Clintons' advisors (unless I missed it, there was not a direct quote from Clinton) have said. And you, in turn, have spun what the article says even further.

Not to say that the Clinton campaign won't try something along these lines, but I read nothing that indicates that they definitely will. Can we please not comdemn the Clintons for something that has yet to, and may never, happen?

Ezra, don't you care at all about being evenhanded anymore? Cheating is a pretty strong word. Especially considering all of the evidence that Obama follows the rules only when they are convenient for him. Also, this hasn't been addressed:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/11/144234/675

The ironic thing is that you're doing exactly what the media and Obama want you to do, and that is to blame the Clintons. If you care at all about the truth anymore, you might want to read these too:

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011773.php

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011856.php

Krugman has said that he was radicalized by the Bush administration. It's certainly interesting watching that happen with Democrats or Democrat leaning voters and the Clintons.

Hear hear Nancy!

"This demonstrates not only a gross ruthlessness on the part of Clinton's campaign, but an astonishingly cavalier attitude towards the preservation of the progressive coalition...it's an explicit statement that the campaign puts its own political success above the health of the party and the pursuit of progressive goals"

You sound surprised.

And it's pretty funny that the only arguments put up in opposition in the comments here are links to sites known for their blind recitation of Clinton talking points and irrational Obama hatred.

It's Hillary Clinton's willingness to "go to the mattresses" and offend the precious sensibilities of the "go along to get along" crowd that has always endeared her to me (though not enough to earn her my vote in the primaries). The fact that this sort of thing will cause a lot of Republican seething after she wins in the general election makes the prospect of her candidacy all the more alluring.

"The Clintons really do seem determined to prove all their critics right. I'm beginning to be sorry that I spent all those years defending them.

Posted by: arbistrista | February 14, 2008 10:48 AM"

I feel exactly the same way.

Nice job of illustrating Ezra's point, Nancy. Since Ezra doesn't agree with what Clinton is openly saying she'll do, he's not even-handed, doing exactly what the media wants him to do, and doesn't care at all about the truth. Sorry, Ezra, everything else you've ever done and written is out the window. Back Hillary up on this one or you're off the bus.

"It's Hillary Clinton's willingness to "go to the mattresses" and offend the precious sensibilities of the "go along to get along" crowd that has always endeared her to me (though not enough to earn her my vote in the primaries). The fact that this sort of thing will cause a lot of Republican seething after she wins in the general election makes the prospect of her candidacy all the more alluring.

Posted by: Tyro | February 14, 2008 11:24 AM"

And the fact that this would also make a lot of liberals seething (and I bet this would include a decent number of people who voted for her in the primary campaign) wouldn't matter just as long as conservatives are pissed off. No wonder Bill Clinton couldn't put together a strong governing coalition and get Al Gore a strong 50+% win.

"Also, this hasn't been addressed:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/11/144234/675"

Yeah, I agree. Primaries/caucuses in IA, NH, and SC where all candidates agreed that they counted and campaigned accordingly are EXACTLY THE SAME THING as primaries in FL and MI where all of the candidates agreed they WOULDN'T count and DIDN'T campaign accordingly.

sorry, ezra, but only shakespeare can do justice to the legacy of the clintons. he alone knew what to do with the perversity of the end justifying the means at all cost.

three speeches given now, by hillary clinton after primary results, and not a civil, gracious congratulatory word for barack obama.
one would aim for more from a fourth grade soccer team on a school field.

and where are their tax returns?
the lack of transparency needs to be addressed.

this is all the same thread leaving its dye on their legacy.

regarding the delegates in florida and michigan...al sharpton said he will pursue this as a civil rights issue.
i think the clintons would be ill advised to pursue this as a strategy.

This is simply the ultimate display of something that a lot of folks have been saying for a long time about the Clinton's and that's it's simply all about them. This is her "do anything to win" attitude taken to its logical end. If she would do anything and everything to beat a Republican, why wouldn't she do any and everything to beat a fellow Democrat?

Careful what you wish for folks. Clinton's willing to toss us all over the side of the boat.

I thought Joe S. had a fair point, that the suggestion of seating delegates was merely tactic to boost morale, until I read the comments of RedStar and Nancy. Then I surmised that the Clinton camp really is capable of refusing to recognize how much damage seating the Florida and Michigan delegates would do to the party. Moreover, there appears to be no other way that Clinton can win at this point, so her campaign must be at least somewhat serious, unless Penn et al. are just leading supporters on in an effort to raise money and pay off debts, including that big one to Clinton herself. It's one thing to lose; it's another to lose and be 5 million in the hole.

" it's an explicit statement that the campaign puts its own political success above the health of the party and the pursuit of progressive goals."

Something about this surprises you?

Nancy,

Does the fact that Hillary agreed to the change in dates mean anything to you?

Regarding Florida, I am conflicted because on the one hand I believe it should count(I live in Miami), but on the other hand, I don't because there was no campaigning here. You would have never known that a primary election was going on. When the DNC punished Florida, I knew this was going to be a mess. The DNC should have done what the RNC did. And that was to count half of the delegates thereby punishing the party but without being too severe.

P.S.-I find it odd that some, but not all, Clinton supporters lump Obama and the media on the same side. Relatively speaking he has been receiving good press. I say relative because many pundits still think she has more experience than he. You can see that when reading Howard Kurtz, Mark Halperin, and Politico. As for the press hating on HRC, that existed way before Obama became a senator, so it is simplistic to think that Obama has done well so far because of the media. I am happy to have either Clinton or Obama as the Democratic nominee, although I am more comfortable with Clinton because of her husband and the fact she has the Latino vote who are not loyal democrats as other groups. But I do find it annoying when I hear Clinton and her supporters belittle Obama as a politician and campaigner. His campaign has shown how talented he is as a politician.

Obama will very likely win pledged delegates even if the Clintons succeed in seating Florida and Michigan. What is really interesting in this article is that the Clintonistas are saying they will go to the mat to get enough superdelegates to overcome Obama's almost certain pledged delegate lead.

I haven't ever been one of those "I won't vote for her if she wins types," but if she "win" only due to the support of superdelegates, not only will I not vote for her, I will vote for McCain.

This is absurdly 1 sided. You write as if seating the delegates would be divisive, but that aything else wouldn't be, which is simply untrue. As I see it, there are 6 ways this all resolves itself, only 1 of which doesn't leave alot of democrats angry and disaffected.

1) Either Clinton or Obama build enough of a delegate lead that the question of seating FL and MI no longer matters, which seems unlikely to happen.

2) Rerun the primaries - fine, but who wants to pay the tens of millions of dollars to do this? What if turn out is below the original numbers, than why should the do over be considered more legitimate? Do you run them as just Clinton vs. Obama? If so, why do Edwards supporters, who was still in the race when these votes occurred, get a do-over and have the option to choose sides, while supporters of candidates who dropped out elsewhere don't have this option? Is there any precedent for this kind of do-over, even if it is allowable? I'm willing to bet there would be alot of unforeseen and unintended consequences and complaints that are being ignored here.

3) Run them again as caucuses, which are cheaper - alot of the same problems as 2, especially regarding the lower turnout. Additionally, caucses favor Obama, whose supporters are better educated and more affluent, and therefore more able to adjust their schedules to take part in a process, which lasts for hours as oppossed to the minutes it takes to vote in a primary.

4) Seat them, in which case Obama supporters are furious that clinton stole the election by changing the rules mid-game.

5) don't seat them, in which case Clinton supporters are furious that Obama stole the election by disenfranchising millions of voters. Additionally, how do you recruit volunteers and activists in Florida and Michigan, two states democrats will need in November, to work for the nominee when you've just told them that they have no say in choosing the nominee?

6) Seat them in some penalized manner (like the republicans who are seating half the delegates, or something along those lines)-seems you have the problems of both 4 and 5 here.

Ezra, you're smarter than this. Don't treat this as such a simple issue. It's your depth and willingness to look past the facade of these debates that has brought you to prominence, but here you're writing is overly simplistic and blatantly favors your chosen candidate. It's pretty transparent.

C'mon, don't hold back, Ezra. Let us know how you really feel about it.

That Neil who posted above isn't the same neil as me. (And I'm not the lycanthropic Neil, either). I won't vote for McCain. And if I lived in a swing state, I probably wouldn't hesitate to vote for Hillary.

"why should the do over be considered more legitimate"

Because it will be done under circumstances where the electorate is told that it is legitimate--unlike the last one?

Want to know how they will govern, just watch the way they run.

I guess I'm capital letter Neil. neil, I live in DC, so it would strictly be a protest vote. But seriously, if Clinton wins only due to superdelegates (I know, everyone says this isn't likely to happen), I will never support her. And I've voted D in every election since 1988.

GodDAMN, Ezra, you haven't learned a thing since the days when you astonished us all with your incredible naivete and imbecility while taking up space on Jesse Taylor's blog. Rock on, you amazing doofus.

"Obama stole the election by disenfranchising millions of voters."

Last time I checked, the DNC stripped Michigan and Florida of their delegates, not Barack Obama. This is the biggest load of bull. If Barack Obama had won those primaries, you wouldn't hear Hillary complaining about the disenfranchised voters.

Ezra is 100% right here. This has nothing to do with fairness. It's about her win at any cost attitude. This is exactly the kind of divisive politics that Senator Obama strives to eradicate. If she isn't careful, she will wind up angering half of the democratic party, and only jeopardizing her political ambitions.

Ahem, you didn't already know that this was what the Clintons were like?

Not only do we have over a decades worth of data to demonstrate this Nixonian behavior, but this tacitly was one of Clinton's selling points.

If she would do this to her own party, just imagine what she'd do to the Republicans.

For the record, while I don't support Hillary, I do prefer her over Obama. And yes her Machiavellian tendencies is one of my primary reasons.

Just imagine what she'll do to the Republicans.

"it's an explicit statement that the campaign puts its own political success above the health of the party and the pursuit of progressive goals, and one can't but help assume that's exactly the attitude they would take towards governance, too."

it's about time people are realizing this. i'm voting for whoever the democratic nominee is in november, but the fact remains that hillary is a political opportunist. this is just one more example.

hillary uber alles.

I think it's also time to realise that this strategy from Hillary's campaign is the sort of thing that will bite her on the ass in a general election.

Imagine her campaigning in swing states like Colorado or Missouri after Penn's 'small states don't count' line?

It's basically foreshadowing a Kerry=style one-state strategy in Ohio. No thanks.

The campaign is basically saying that they'll win the nomination even if it fucks up the general election chances. 'Murder-suicide' is how I heard it described.

Who are these "aides"? Everything always points to the Clintons evil ways, surely you can point out something positive about Sen. Obama instead of always slamming "the Clintons".

I think this is a bit overblown. The Credentials Committee is going to have a majority based on whoever has the delegate lead, and somehow, I don't see the superdelegates wanting to recreate the 1968 Chicago convention on national TV.

Remember that while the Clintons do have power in the party, it's been some years since they've had their hands on the levers of power, and a fair number aren't all that charitable towards them. This is more bluff than serious talk.

This kind of thing is why I voted for Obama over Clinton.

The makeup of the Senate is 100 times more important than any marginal policy difference between Barack and Hillary.

Given the Clintons' record of losing Congress to the Republicans and triangulating their way to survival, I just don't think Hillary is the one to strengthen the Party and help win us more Senators.

Especially not when she keeps regressing into survival mode.

Whatever one's opinion of Hillary or Obama is, if you are a liberal please don't be vindictive and vote for John McCain. We've seen what 8 years of republicanism does to this country. Voting for him out of spite can do some REAL harm to human beings both domestic and abroad.

The really big problem with this, one that I'm not seeing discussed at all, is that this is potentially catastrophic to the Democratic candidate in the general even if the Clinton's shady actions fail. All of the press coming out of the convention will be about arm-twisting, backroom deals, fights on the rule committee, and if the MI/FL delegations don't get seated, large numbers of them may just walk out, and do so very publically. The real problem is that there is no 'senior statesman' with enough clout to twist arms and prevent this scenario from coming to pass. You're also going to hear a ton of stories to the effect of "How can the democrats run the country if they can't run their own convention" Ugly, very ugly.

Is Hillary trying to ensure she loses the general? A nomination win as ugly as the one her campaign is actively and publicly contemplating will rip the Democratic Party in two and virtually guarantee a McCain win. Leave it to the Clintons to take the first chance for a political realignment and squander it for their own ambitions.
Shameless. Obama needs to put this in an ad because it's really poisonous stuff. "Clinton would use the nuclear option at the convention to steal the nomination."

5) don't seat them, in which case Clinton supporters are furious that Obama stole the election by disenfranchising millions of voters. Additionally, how do you recruit volunteers and activists in Florida and Michigan, two states democrats will need in November, to work for the nominee when you've just told them that they have no say in choosing the nominee?

The first sentence is ludicrously wrong, for reasons rehearsed many times elsewhere. As for the second, if that attitude is so prevalent, why did so many people bother to vote at all in those states? While I'm sure some people will feel the way you describe, many more will take the adult view that there is a victory worth working for here, rather than sulking.

For people like me who saw through the Clintons the moment they strode onto the national stage (or, as we're known to Democrats, "Clinton haters"), it's hard not to feel smug as we watch our "progressive" friends slowly come to the realization of who these two people really are. Welcome! It's nice to know we can agree on something.

Frankly, I think the DNC vs Michigan/Florida food fight, did just as much harm to the party as Hillary's call to seat those state's delegates.

Put in it's proper context, the rules of the DNC don't mean squat when compared to the rights of voters. It simply doesn't matter whether DNC rules are broken all tat matters is that voters get the right to make their voice heard.

I think the Hillary camp could have defused this situation by forfeiting any claim to the delegates from those states in return for allowing voters in these states to hold primaries on the same day as the last scheduled primaries.

People crying "unfair" would have their chance to win those delegates fair and square and the voters in those states wouldn't have their rights trampled by idiotic DNC rules.

(Another blogger, IOZ, has EK down cold:)

To see the Progblog Commune go bonkers over the sudden realization that, like, holy shit, dude, Hillary Clinton is in it to win it is as enjoyably brain-slowing as beer and a well-rolled fatty. Cries Ezra Klein:

"This demonstrates not only a gross ruthlessness on the part of Clinton's campaign, but an astonishingly cavalier attitude towards the preservation of the progressive coalition. To be willing to blithely rip it to shreds in order to wrest a nomination that's not been fairly earned is not only low, but a demonstration of deeply pernicious priorities -- namely, it's an explicit statement that the campaign puts its own political success above the health of the party and the pursuit of progressive goals, and one can't but help assume that's exactly the attitude they would take towards governance, too."

Oh the humanity! Care for the "preservation of the progressive coalition" is like care for the preservation of the Jackalope: well-meaning, perhaps, but futile in that the little fucker doesn't actually exist. The "progressive coalition" is a synonym for online, cosmopolitan, highly-educated liberal arrivistes with aspirations toward l'élite. That's all fine and well, but it's certainly not a "coalition." Ripping it to shreds would be like rending the two-page, newsprint coupon stuffer in your mailbox, neither difficult nor significant. Hillary wants to be President. All the outrage of Ezra Klein and DailyKos are snowflakes on the wind. When has either Clinton ever embraced "the pursuit of progressive goals," whatever those are. I mean, the straight line from failing to jury-rig universal health care out of the extant insurance system to cruise-missiling an aspirin factory to sending the boys into Iraq and Afghanistan isn't especially straight, nor particularly progressive as I understand the term. Not that it matters. I mean, let's say that Hillary C. uses a lot of parliamentary hoo-dee-doo to squirrel out a victory in a close nomination fight. Ezra and Chris Bowers and Matt Stoller and the rest of 'em can twist their panties as tight as they like, but in the immortal words of Senator J. Billington Bullworth: What are you gonna do, vote Republican?

Ah, Jim, I remember you guys well. The ones who lamented that the Clintons would not simply lie down and let Republicans win for the good of the country. While Hillary Clinton is not my first choice for president, if she is nominated, I look forward to seeing the right-wingers explode with rage for the next 8 years, lamenting how unfair it is that she insists on getting elected instead of graciously stepping aside to allow the Republicans to take their rightful place in the Oval Office.

To run for president you must believe that you are the best for the country -- not the party, or the pundits. For some that means fighting however possible until there is no path to the nomination. I have no problem with this, particularly since I think it comes with the fundamental character traits of those running for president.

Anon at 3:05 -- the reason people voted in Florida was that there was a big tax issue on the ballot.

Trying to seat Florida and Michigan after they were determined not to have an delegates is unprincipled and unfair. You simply cannot change the rules of the game after its been played -- especially when it will be rigged to screw the first black presidential candidate. The Clintons have proven that they care only about power and ambition. The only thing worse are the apologists and uncritical defenders. It makes me wonder if you care more for your candidate, than you do the cause. If the Clintons persist in trying to steal the election from the people, the people will be marching in the streets.

I hate to be the one to break to you Ezra, but Clinton has already lost the African vote. (or a decisive portion of it at any rate). And loosely translated that means she can not win a general election. If this goes down to the convention and Obama loses, you better hope its to a draft Al Gore movement.

Apparently, Hillary is actually running in the "Connecticut for Lieberman" party, because she's acting just like Joe: screw the party, what's important is her ambition.

Dramatic Graph of Hillary Clinton's Recent Meteoric Rise in Wealth

http://thememlingindex.com/hillary_clinton_net_worth-wealth.html

You knew Bill had to be in the limelight...South Carolina wasn't enough.

John D: You simply cannot change the rules of the game after its been played -- especially when it will be rigged to screw the first black presidential candidate.

And yet you seem to have no qualms about disenfranchising two entire states because of completely arbitrary rules put in place by a group with no elected authority.

I agree that she should forfeit any claim to the delegates but she should also request that the DNC reschedule valid primaries where Michiganers and Floridians get the chance to have their say in this thing. Denying them that opportunity just because it might cut into Obama's lead is every bit as craven as you believe the Clinton's are for trying to get them seated.

In the end, this isn't just about "rules" it's about the will of the people and without the voters of Michigan and Florida, it simply isn't a complete expression of that will.

"don't seat them, in which case Clinton supporters are furious that Obama stole the election by disenfranchising millions of voters"

This doesnt make sense. Its not Obama disenfranchising them, its the state parties who wanted more say so they moved the dates up, even though they knew the DNC would strip them. So if you want to say any one is responsible for "disenfrachising" the voters, its the state parties, definitely NOT Obama.

And the irony of ironies, if michigan and florida had stuck to the original schedule, they would have had a HUGE influence.

Secondly, how can the Clintons serioulsy expect to seat delegates from a state where there was only one name on the ballot?! Thats like Cuba/Iraq elections. Saddam Hussein held elections you know, he was the only one on the ballot, but he was democratically elected. Does Hillary really want to follow Saddam Hussein's lead?

I really can't believe the clintons are actually making the argument that michigan should count.

Florida shouldn't count either, but at least there were other names on the ballot there.

Why can't Michigan and Florida simply re-vote?

The Clinton campaign is just sending signals that they're still serious about winning, to keep her supporters from jumping ship.

Caucuses don't matter. Superdelagates can be used to overturn the pledged delegate totals. Educated voters "don't need a President." Incendiary measures must, and will be used.

It feels like the Clintons are running a new series of attack ads.

On themselves.

With everyone and their baracuda saying it's a clear power grab if in fact they try to pull it off then how would they ever be able to convince those who would decide if they could in fact do it let them do it. Why would the people in charge allow them to get away with it?
And, exactly who has the last say...the DNC? Why would HDean let them do that? So they could fire him afterwards because they can't stand him?

JB: This doesnt make sense. Its not Obama disenfranchising them, its the state parties who wanted more say so they moved the dates up, even though they knew the DNC would strip them. So if you want to say any one is responsible for "disenfrachising" the voters, its the state parties, definitely NOT Obama.

Obama didn't move up the primaries but, unless I missed it somewhere, I've seen no calls by him to reschedule the votes. How is that not disenfranchisement? He benefits directly by not having the delegates counted and preserves a potentially artificially large delegate gap by not calling for a revote. Hardly a noble position.

he is definitely saying the delegates shouldn't be counted now.

I've seen no calls by him to reschedule the votes.

Its not up to him to reschedule the votes. The state parties need to ask the DNC for permission to hold a "re-vote".

Are the state parties doing that?

Why are you putting this on Obama when the trouble all started, and could end, with the state parties?

Michigan has already certified their slate, so it's unlikely they'll be seated.

Either Obama wins this outright in the next 3 weeks or it's going to be an ugly food fight at the convention.

KT:
"I've seen no calls by him to reschedule the votes."

Its not up to him to reschedule the votes. The state parties need to ask the DNC for permission to hold a "re-vote".

Are the state parties doing that? Seems to me, thats the best solution out there. But i guess the FL and MI parties dont care about their own "disenfranchised" voters enough to do that.

Why are you putting this on Obama when the trouble all started, and could end, with the state parties?

KT:
"I've seen no calls by him to reschedule the votes."

Its not up to him to reschedule the votes. The state parties need to ask the DNC for permission to hold a "re-vote".

Are the state parties doing that? Seems to me, thats the best solution out there. But i guess the FL and MI parties dont care about their own "disenfranchised" voters enough to do that.

Why are you putting this on Obama when the trouble all started, and could end, with the state parties?

sorry for the triple post. Tech difficulties at my end said the post didnt go thru.

Don't disenfranchise me.

I'm an Obama supporter who didn't vote in Florida because I trusted the party when they told me the vote wouldn't count.

And yes, I'll vote for McCain if Clinton steals my vote. I figure a McCain win will kill off the witches on the right and Clinton would strengthen them.

Just imagine what she'll do to the Republicans. Posted by: Joseph

Triangulate between them and the Democrats, presumably.

KT-

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.

If the Hillary campaign really does end up winning the nomination over Barack Obama by changing the rules in the middle of the game and seating the MI and FL delegations, and an outraged African-American community decides to boycott the election in protest, how would Hillary hold on to purple Kerry states like Pennsylvania? How would she flip purple Bush states like Ohio and Missouri?

How would Hillary hold onto purple Kerry states that Obama won overwhelmingly like Minnesota and Washington state? How would she flip purple Bush states Obama won overwhelmingly like Colorado?

I hope the superdelegates are considering all of the potential ramifications of the so-called "nuclear option".

"Obama didn't move up the primaries but, unless I missed it somewhere, I've seen no calls by him to reschedule the votes. How is that not disenfranchisement? He benefits directly by not having the delegates counted and preserves a potentially artificially large delegate gap by not calling for a revote. Hardly a noble position.

he is definitely saying the delegates shouldn't be counted now."

Except that just isn't true. He has said previously that he would be fine with new nominating contests in those states where both candidates would be able to campaign. Howard Dean and the DNC have said this is a possibility and in fact their preferred solution. It's the state parties that have refused, and it's the Clinton campaign that is insisting the results stand as is.

If I had to guess what they were trying to do it would come down to two scenarios:

1. Float the idea re FL and MI and Supers and see how badly it is received (to see whether they should even try it).

2. Float the idea so that the outrage will be spent by the time it becomes necessary.

And just for kicks, those party operatives in FL and MI really missed out -- if they hadn't jumped the gun they might have ended up being even more important.

Well at least the Hillary campaign finally got Ezra to stop talking about the differences in their health care plan.

Whoops. ;)

Jason K: Except that just isn't true. He has said previously that he would be fine with new nominating contests in those states where both candidates would be able to campaign.

I hadn't seen that. Do you have a link? Or remember roughly when/where he said that? I like to see what he said on the matter.

"

Or remember roughly when/where he said that?"I remember reading that a couple of weeks ago. NYT I think. Roughly it was that Dean & Obama wanted new elections but that this was being blocked by Clinton supporters in the Florida party.

Wirro: 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.

Voters, even those registered with the Democratic party, get zero say in how the "rules" are written or applied. Without input, by voters, "primary rules" are just arbitrary constraints put in place by people who have no direct accountability to them. Dismissing the validity of voter will in two entire states because the state party and the DNC got into a pissing contest seems like a pretty flimsy defense.

For the record, I think Hillary should relinquish all claims to Michigan/Florida delegates (and wrote her today saying as much) but I think she absolutely should push the DNC to schedule revotes.

WRB, Is this what you were referring to?

If so, it doesn't seem to mention support by either Obama or Dean.

Dear Ezra,

Whoa, Donks, it only took y'all 15 years to finally wake up and smell the cooperative-grown, peasant-picked, fair-trade coffee brewed up in the Clintons' kitchen. A new record!

I presume you'll be forthwith filing Ezra Klein's piece in the "No Sh**, Sherlock Folder" on your PC desktop?

There should be a reelection in Florida and Michigan. The Democratic candidates should pay for the costs. What's 18 million to them?

We all know Ezra is a prodigy and all, but yeah, he shoulda seen this one coming. He actually seems surprised. It's this kind've thing that is pushing me towards not voting for HRC if she wins the nom. I still can't vote for the fool McCain though.

power hungry

She should knock it off

Dear Tyro (3:13 PM):
Like I said, it's nice to know we can agree on something. She's not my first choice either!

Joseph: "Imagine what she'll do to the Republicans"?? I'm not totally opposed to underhandedness in service of good results. But Hillary is terrible at it. She's never done a damn thing to the Republicans. We're the ones who have been done, as when she strangled health-care reform at birth by telling Democratic congressmen to butt out.

Even if she "rips apart the progressive coalition" blah blah blah, she still gets to be president.

And thats all there is to it.

/still grossed out by her actions though.

Obama's no saint when it comes to putting Democrats and/or the Democratic party first. He is not as hardball as Clinton (or as divisive as she may become) but he is looking out for himself as well.

Ezra,

They really got up your nose huh?

Can't say I blame you. And it says something for their media relations game when they've managed to P-off someone who normally has as much equanimity as you

The real problem is that there is no 'senior statesman' with enough clout to twist arms and prevent this scenario from coming to pass.

Someone, quick, call Jimmy Carter! Course, maybe he'd jus try and throw his hat back in the ring too: http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/i_got_what_america_needs_right

maybe Al Gore can adjudicate.

Many people who have understood the Clintons'selfishness from the start are pleased that the scales are beginning to fall from the eyes of the likes of Mr. Klein, among others. But remember, that realization alone might not sink the Clintons. Even though they are recognized as not caring about the country, many of their admirers are just that -- people who are agog at their nerve, bravado, tough gutter fighting, and by identifying with them feel some sense of being elevated themselves to the Clintons' level of success, status and wealth. A kind of "second life" identity by proxy.

"We had to destroy the city in order to save it."

Ezra, What makes you think only African Americans and the youth vote will rebel if the Clintons get away with stealing the nomination? I am white, over 50, and an attorney, and so help me God, if the Clintons steal this nomination, I will riot, and I will vote for McCain and never vote for a democrat again, because democrats will be responsible for allowing such a horrendous crime against democracy to happen. So let's not let it happen. Do what ever you have to do to insure that the democratic nominee is the one who is elected by the people in the primaries and caucuses.

Sohbet

Sohbet

Well...I agree that she should forfeit any claim to the delegates but she should also request that the DNC reschedule valid primaries where Michiganers and Floridians get the chance to have their say in this thing. Denying them that opportunity just because it might cut into Obama's lead is every bit as craven as you believe the Clinton's are for trying to get them seated.

engage in wholesale jewelry and supply vast kinds of handmade jewelry

supply a wide range kinds of styles fashion jewelry

http://www.fantastic-replica.net

http://www.fantastic-replica.net

Thanks for sharing this information. Someone on Yahoo Answers referred me here and I love it.

BjBead is discount fashion Jewelry of Manufactory,jewelry Wholesaler and Exporter. cheap jewelry

BjBead is discount fashion Jewelry of Manufactory,jewelry Wholesaler and Exporter.

Michigan has already certified their slate, so it's unlikely they'll be seated.

Either Obama wins this outright in the next 3 weeks or it's going to be an ugly food fight at the convention.

Laptop Batteries
Laptop Batteries discount laptop battery