Kinda sorta have to disagree. You can want to abolish the EC, but still recognize that this election will be held under the EC system. Not that this is a reason to change the rules after the game started, but I can see the "logic."

cynicism in hardly unique to the Clinton campaign, Ezra

note Obama's killing the MI do-over when both Clinton and the DNC supported it; that would be the 49 state strategy, I guess

Many Democrats (including, of all people, Kos) have bemoaned the proportional representation aspect of the Democrats' nominating process in years past, but for better or worse that's the system in place, and for now it works to Obama's advantage. I think Bayh can certainly argue that the EC is crappy, but that's what we have in place, so let's consider it (even though it makes the ridiculous assumption that Obama wouldn't win CA or NY in the general).
I think you are correct that some of the other arguments they have advanced are actually damaging and should be considered unacceptable. Flip-flopping on MI and FL, and furthermore actually arguing that it was Obama who is disenfranchising MI and FL voters is wrong, and potentially hurts him in November. Praising McCain at Obama's expense (CiC threshold, etc) is damaging. Dismissing Obama supporters as delusional ("let's get real"; "solutions not speeches"; "skies will open up") is beyond insulting. These are actions that are inexcusable.

The article you link on Clinton and the Electoral College is from before she was a senator, and says that she plans to introduce legislation banning it once she is a senator. I don't remember her ever actually going through with it, though. Did she?

Once again, regarding MI: the Obama campaign is objecting to the fact that a re-do would not permit those that voted in the Republican primary to vote in the re-vote. I don't have hard numbers, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that many Obama supporters, knowing the the Dem primary was a beauty contest, voted in the Republican primary. A re-vote with the proposed conditions would disenfranchise these voters. There is simply no way to re-create the vote, and in any event, it would encourage states in future primary to pull these shenanigans. Personally, besides a 50/50 split, I think a fair resolution would be to give Clinton her delegates, and all other delegates go to Obama. But let's be very clear here: Clinton publicly said she knew the primary "wouldn't count for anything", but kept her name on the ballot for exactly this sort of situation. It is doublespeak at its absolute worst. And just as Clinton is pushing for a re-vote for her own political advantage, Obama is not going to agree to one with terms that are to his disadvantage. Nobody is disenfranchising anybody.

"And just as Clinton is pushing for a re-vote for her own political advantage, Obama is not going to agree to one with terms that are to his disadvantage."

a.k.a. cynicism

Clinton's position is what's best for Clinton.

The larger question is the inability of the Democrats, as a party, to hold their members to rules.

They ALL knew Florida and Michigan would not be seated if they moved up their primaries, but they did it anyway. Now, they're unhappy with their decision.

So, is this a preview of the goatfuck the federal government will be if they get in power?

New rule - every vote your spouse received in the nineties counts as a vote for you now. So like, if you voted for Michelle Obama for president in 1996, that counts as a vote now. This is a good rule, that's totally fair, and if it just happens to help one of the candidates more than the other, well that's just lucky for that particular president.

Seriously, I'm sick to death of "okay, how do we change the rules so Clinton can be the nominee now" game the Clinton camp has been playing for the last two months. Sick, I say. When will this be over?

"but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that many Obama supporters, knowing the the Dem primary was a beauty contest, voted in the Republican primary"

Too bad. If you're a Dem, why are you voting in the GOP primary? Dems complained that Rush's dittoheads crossed the line in Texas and voted for Clinton. Sometimes being "strategic" can come back to bite you on the ass.

I really hope the Clinton campaign follows through with this "everything counts like it's the Electoral College" when campaigning in Puerto Rico, the last primary contest before the convention.

1) The electoral college still exists, and is therefore relevant. Whether or not they want it to exist doesn't change the fact that it does. Saying you wish the rules were different, but playing by them as they exist isn't cynical or hypocritical.

2) The DNC did vote to strip them of their delegates, but it can also vote to repeal that decision. The process allows the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee to revisit its earlier decision. It also allows it to be challenged in front of the Credentials Committee. It also allows it to be challenged by a floor vote at the actual convention. None of this is against the rules, its just as legal as the vote to strip them in the first place.

3) Please show me where Hillary Clinton said "caucuses don't count," and I'll show you where Al Gore bragged about how he "invented the internet."

4) They never said pledged delegates should be turned, they said that, at the convention, anyone can vote for anyone, which is entirely true. They've also said that they have no plans to actively try to persuade pledged delegates to switch sides.

Many Florida and Michigan voters did not participate in the non-compliant primaries because the DNC declared (and all the presidential candidates, including Clinton, agreed) that the primaries would not count for selecting delegates to the convention. If those primaries are now validated in any way that influences the presidential race, that is a direct disenfranchisement of voters who took the DNC at its word, and chose not to vote in a primary held in defiance of the rules. Just no way around that. Therefore the only way FL and MI can be seated is in a way that does not impact the outcome of the presidential race. If FL and MI don't like it, they should take it up with their state party leaders who supported defying the rules of the national party. Let's settle this and move on. It's time to have a nominee and take the fight to John McCain.

Moderation is the key, isn't it? You expect, nay openly want politicians to be some degree of cynical and using the sytem to further their advantage. A politician who didn't do so would be naive, and ultimately not very successful.

But to do this skillfully and competently, you don't make statements that are spinning to the point of silliness (like Kindergartengate?) or that so nakedly insult the intelligence of people who are paying attention.

So, sure, Obama is not pushing for revotes in FL and MI, because those revotes might hurt him, and that's a bit cynical, but considering that the DNC and the state parties, not Obama, caused the primaries not to count in the first place, he's not being inconsistent or going against the rules. He's just being a little less magnanimous than he could be, because it would hurt him politically if he did so. You wouldn't want him to give up the farm to Republicans, would you?

The Clinton examples, on the other hand, which are basically trying to reverse rules that she previously agreed to for her own gain, are more blatantly cynical. The question, I suppose, is what Obama would have done if he were in Clinton's position. I can see that he might have also pushed for revotes, but I doubt he'd engage in the silliness of trying to re-cast the metrics (if it were winner-take-all, it would be different etc), and I really doubt he'd be pushing the 14-state strategy.

The larger question is the inability of the Democrats, as a party, to hold their members to rules.

The date of the Florida primary was moved up by the Republican-controlled state legislature, not the Florida Democratic party.

Mike N:

#2: What you describe is legal anarchy, where nothing is against the law until you have been found guilty by a judge. It is not illegal for me to steal your computer, at least not until I've been arrested, convicted, sentenced, and appealed all the way to the highest court in the land.

#3: The Clinton campaign claims to have won Texas, despite losing the delegate count because "caucuses don't count". Every conference call they have, they insist on "primary delegates" being the best measure for the will of the voters. Clinton supporters frequently try to count the popular vote with leaving out caucuses. The Clinton campaign officially opposes a caucus revote in Michigan.

Obama of course stole delegates from Edwards in Iowa but IOKIYO I guess!

Shock Mouse:

What I describe is the process dictated by the DNC's actual rules. The Rules and Bylaws Committee can change its decision. Any decision by the Rules and Bylaws Committee can be challenged at the Credentials Committee. If at least 20% of the Credentials Committee votes against a decision, that 20% may file a Minority Report, which is required to be among the first orders of business on the first day of the Convention itself. This isn't anarchy - the process is laid out in the DNC's rules. Yes, the DNC had discretion to strip MI and FL of its delegates. It also has discretion to undo that decision.

Playing the process out isn't anarchy, its playing by the rules. In your example, what you did is illegal. You may or may not go to jail and serve time until the process is played out and you're unable to appeal further, but your action was illegal regardless. That you're guilty doesn't mean that you aren't allowed to appeal, nor does it mean that you can't get off on a technicality.

As for your second point, show me a single quote where they said they don't count. Saying that primary delegates are a better measure is no different than saying that the overall delegate count is a better measure or the popular vote is a better measure. These are all different metrics, and anyone is free to choose any of themt o make a point. That doesn't mean that the other metrics "don't count", it means that you think one is better than the others. Theres a difference.

The date of the Florida primary was moved up by the Republican-controlled state legislature, not the Florida Democratic party.

Liar

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1829

sharply degraded my view of the campaign"

yesterday, as bill clinton completed his speech, with a hungry avarice masked with some sort of feigned charm, he said:
"we gotta win!"
the phrase of barack obama, is:
"yes we can."

two completely different views of the universe.
hubris/humility
bill clinton, according to the laws of the universe, "you gotta nothing."
in this cosmos, you, dont have the last word.
it doesnt work like that, even when it works like that!

As for your last point (sorry for the double post, I just noticed this...) - so what if the Clinton campaign opposed a caucus re-vote in Michigan?

The Obama campaign opposed a primary re-vote in Michigan. That doens't mean that Obama thinks primaries don't count. You're conflating two seperate arguments.

First your claim that the clintons think caucuses "don't count." They do, and the clintons acknowledge this. That doesn't mean they can't spin and say that superdelegates and pundits should view primaries as a better metric of popular will, however.

Second, that Clinton didn't want a caucus in Michigan, probably because she knows Obama does better in caucuses. True, but that's not the same thing as saying that they don't count.

"It's time to have a nominee and take the fight to John McCain."

No, that would be June, after the primaries are over.

"This whole process is procedural shenanigans" would, I think, be a sum up of this post and its attached comments; we're arguing about various procedural hurdles, nitpicking process decisions and generally splitting hairs. I tend to think that Democrats stand for the proposition that we should do everything we can to get the most people possible to be able to vote, and make sure all those votes count, and not put hurdles, like an electoral college in the way. It's depressing, then, to see Obama supporters cling to narrow interpretations of a process that will disenranchise millions of voters in two of our most populous states, or refuse to acknowledge that open primaries bring out more voters than caucuses; it's depressing to see Clinton supporters argue pro-electoral college lines (though I'm sympathetic), or try to "explain away" democratic results that don't help our case... and it really disheartens me that no one will come out and say, frankly, that this process of selecting a nominee is the problem, not all the smaller pieces we're arguing over. The larger problems of the existence of superdelegates, the manhandling of the primary calendar... it strikes me that all this stuff is appalling, and if we weren't in the midst of arguing over the two candidates, we might be able to come together and revolt against the whole process. I can dream... can't I? Nevertheless, it is what it is and we are where we are. And going back to the argument of blaming the side you don't like for all the negative parts... it seems to me there's maneuvering and "shenanigans" aplenty on both sides. It's who has the winning shenanigans that we're waiting to discover.

suggest we ignore the delegate process by which the Democrats choose their nominee and randomly apply an electoral college test instead

Which, I'm sure you know full well, is not what he's suggesting. He's suggesting that undecided supers make their decision based on the EC, which is stupid, but has naught to do with randomly scrapping the delegate process. The delegate process includes a huge amount of random stupidity BY DESIGN.

weboy: For the previous YEAR (if not longer) before the elections started, liberals including this blog stated very strongly how dumb the nominating system was. We argued about the stupid MI and FL results, the privilege given to NH and IA, attempts to add regional diversity, and worked to register as many people as possible to vote. I wish more democratic (small d) changes) had been implemented, but the inertia of state parties and the timidity of the major campaigns won out.

Now, in the middle of a heated primary battle, is simply not the time to be implementing new rules, especially about the results of states that have already voted. The Obama campaign is crystal clear on this: no rule changes. The Hillary campaign wants a thousand different rule changes, and loudly cries "unfair" when they think overturning an earlier result can get her closer to the nomination.

Shock Mouse,

Mike N. has CLEARLY disproven your claims...twice now; you are being deliberately obtuse.

Yes, indeed, the outrage that Hillary Clinton, et al would actually try to persuade superdelegates to use criteria that might favor her over Obama.

Reminds me of the old Dr. Strangelove line: "Gentleman, there is no fighting in the war room!" Perhaps we need a Obama-Plouffe-Klein corollary: "Madame, there should be no politicking in this campaign!"

For all their faults, the Clintons' saving grace has always been the non-sensical fervor of their enemies. History appears to be repeating itself in that regard.

Too bad. If you're a Dem, why are you voting in the GOP primary? Dems complained that Rush's dittoheads crossed the line in Texas and voted for Clinton. Sometimes being "strategic" can come back to bite you on the ass.

I'm a good Democrat. I give money to the party. I've volunteered for several candidates. And I was assured, repeatedly beforehand that the Dem primary in Michigan did not count.

You need to understand that there is no party registration in Michigan. None. At all. On primary day, you go to the box, and the worker asks you what ballot you want. You don't sign any thing, you don't affirm anything, nothing. Take your ballot and go.

Also, crossing over to mess with the other side is a time honored tradition in this state. The GOP does it to us, we do it to them. The parties accept it, and the candidates try to take advantage of it.

So, answer me this: You've been assured, repeatedly, that your primary doesn't count. The only two candidates on the ballot are Kucinich (because he couldn't remove his name from the ballot in time), and Clinton(who had kept her name on the ballot because the reason the primary was moved up in the first place by her surrogates who wanted felt that a later primary would benefit Obama--something people seem to have forgotten). You have been assured that the primary doesn't count. You still want to be a good Dem and help the party. So what do you do? You go and vote for Romney, in order to keep the GOP in their own little clusterfuck.

And now, because Clinton has whined that it's unfair that Michigan doesn't count, even though her own people(Gov. Granholm) were the ones behind the rules violations in the first place, and voted to strip MI of their delegates(yeah, Mr. Ickes, I'm looking at you), and anticipated this situation and kept her name on the ballot....suddenly we're going to count it after all, for the purposes of determining which party people have the right to vote?

You're arguing that the party stalwarts who relied on the DNC's assurances, and tried to help the party in other ways, instead of casting a meaningless vote, should not be allowed to have a vote in a primary that matters?

Yeah, screw that. That happens, the DNC is never getting my money again, nor will I give my time. Just screw it.

the Clintons' saving grace has always been the non-sensical fervor of their enemies.
Yes, they like it so much they've adopted the tactic.

Hillary never said caucuses don't count, but she has repeatedly been dismissive of caucuses and any state that does not vote for her.
The "don't count" phrase is a bloggers joke.

"...(who had kept her name on the ballot because the reason the primary was moved up in the first place by her surrogates who wanted felt that a later primary would benefit Obama--something people seem to have forgotten)."

can't get much later than June for a primary; so Obama should be in favor of a redo then, by your logic, yes?

also by your logic and the Obama "plan," the entirety of MI democrats would be disenfranchised vs those few, ahem, "Romney stalwart Democrats."

Wow indie... I didn't know you cared so much.

Point #2: Yes you can say there is a legal process for enforcing laws. This doesn't make the actions legal until a court of law has ruled. You can't say "well maybe a jury will be sympathetic to you and throw the case out, in which case stealing that computer therefore wasn't actually illegal".

You can say "playing the process out is within the rules", but at the same time trying to stack the jury makes a farce of that. Under your definition, NO delegates have been selected so far, and a Clinton-friendly rules committee could block the Iowa delegation from sitting too, backed up by a floor vote. Under your definition, they would be illegal simply because the convention said so.

Point 3: Obama doesn't want a caucus in Michigan. They oppose a revote either way.

As for caucuses not counting, it seems claiming to be the winner of Texas and Nevada is pretty blatantly ignoring caucuses.

Now I'm going to lunch. If I don't respond back to more arguments in this thread it's not because I am wowed by his evidence (we've all heard these arguments a thousand times). It's because I am hungry.

Liar

Listen, a**hole, if you call somebody a liar you'd better be able to demonstrate that he has told a lie. My statement that the Republican-controlled state legislature, and not the Florida Democratic party, moved the primary date in Florida is factually accurate. Calling me a liar makes you, in fact, a liar--one might even be tempted to say a lying sack of sh*t.

Kinda sounds like Obama's position on public campaign funds. He was all for it until he realized he could make more money by refusing it.

I don't like it, but he is playing within the rules that exist now.

(BTW- there is no way to allow the voters in Michigan who voted in the Republican primary to vote in a re-do. They voted and their votes already COUNTED - they are not being disenfranchised - as opposed to those who voted in the Democratic primary)

Again the same old ignorance from Ezra. It is one thing to say we should or should not have the electoral college, another to suggest that in picking a nominee to run in an election where the electoral college will be used that we ought to consider who will be a stronger candidate to win under that system. It is not hard to understand, but easy to twist into a 3rd grade level argument to try to benefit your favored candidate. I hope the Obama campaign is paying you well Ezra.

As for Florida and Michigan, unless Ezra will come out and demand that the Florida and Michigan delegations NEVER be seated, that they not even be allowed to attend the convention, then you need to come off this non sense that it is somehow illegitmate to find a way for them to be allowed in. The stripping of their delegates was not a permanent act, the rules always allowed for them to be restored and the understanding was that they would be eventually. That is why so many people voted in the them. No one anticipated the race would be this close and because of that there is a major problem, but there is nothing illegtimate about taking advantage of what the rules allow to help your cause. There is not moral issue here since both sides are simply doing what is in there interest. If anything the moral high ground is to count the votes of people who took the time to cast them, not to disenfranchise ALL of them to protest against a minor technical point that might disenfranchise a far fewer number of people.Unless you are willing to say that these delegations should never be seated, then you are changing the rules. Seating them after the nomination is decided will simply be chaging the rules when it benefits you poilitically as opposed to when it might harm you.

JB,
I'd forgotten about that public financing pledge...but he didn't actually sign anything, did he? How did that story end? It just seemed to fade from public consciousness.

...if you call somebody a liar you'd better be able to demonstrate that he has told a lie. My statement that the Republican-controlled state legislature, and not the Florida Democratic party, moved the primary date in Florida is factually accurate.

I gave you the link. Here it is again since you obviously suffer from autism. Also, below is a choice exerpt. Tell us all how when all of the Democrats vote for it, it's somehow a design of the Republicans to move the primary up.

"All but one Florida House Democratic Legislator vote on the floor to move the primary to January 29

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1829

Liar

One douchebag Democrat crossing the line, does not a liar make.

Oh, one Democrat didn't vote for it. Oh well, then they are all douchbags.

Tell us all how when all of the Democrats vote for it, it's somehow a design of the Republicans to move the primary up.

It's unclear to me whether your inability to comprehend the written word is an affectation or a congenital deficit. The Republican-controlled state legislature set the primary date, and the Republican governor signed the legislation. While the final bill passed the state House unanimously, that involved a whole bunch more Republicans voting for it than Democrats, as the Republicans outnumber the Democrats in the House 78-42. Also, the source you link to is factually wrong as to who originally introduced the bill; as it was first introduced in the House, it could not have been originally introduced by a Democratic State Senator, now could it?

My original assertion was that it was the Republican-controlled legislature and not the state Democratic party that moved the primary date in Florida. That is an absolutely factual statement, and your comments reveal you to be either a moron or a liar or more probably both. Cheerio.

"Negative campaigning is what it is. It's been the procedural shenanigans -- the cynical effort to reinstate Michigan and Florida after the campaign supported the DNC's decision to strip them of delegates, the attempts to say caucus states don't count and pledged delegates should be turned -- that have sharply degraded my opinion of the campaign."

You mean procedural shenanigans like Obama's sleazy effort to keep MI and FL from holding re-votes?

Of course, Ezra's real problem here is that his entire social milieu is pro-Obama, his career prospects are enhanced by being pro-Obama, and he doesn't want to stand against the tide.

So be it. "Professional Democrats" are rarely known for courage, social or professional.

So be it. "Professional Democrats" are rarely known for courage, social or professional.

As opposed to 'professional penny-grifters on InTrade'? Or 'professional bullshit artists'?

My original assertion was that it was the Republican-controlled legislature and not the state Democratic party that moved the primary date in Florida. That is an absolutely factual statement...

The statement was used, however, to imply that the Democrats were somehow railroaded and were all innocent bystanders when the reality is, they ALL voted for it.
Perhaps you parse carefully so that you can maintain cover, but you deliberately mislead and that's why you're a liar.

Hey, but I still like ya'

Shock mouse, should you return, I don't think we disagree, much; I'm not advocating for new rules midstream (though I think the point is that the actual rules are not so much clear-cut as open to a variety of interpretations), what I'm saying is that the "loud advocating" (over a year? not that I recall, certainly not in significant enough weight to improve the process) you're describing seems to me to have been mostly muted, and almost entirely overwhelmed once the process got under way, and people had to pick sides. Now the problematic things that help Obama... are not so problematic to Obama supporters, and the problematic things that help Clinton... are not so problematic to her supporters. My point is: they're still problematic. And rather than focus on bigger questions, were left scrambling in minuutiae, and thus tacitly approving a process that is deeply flawed and deserves scrutiny and agitation. And, just my opinion, I think some big picture yelling and focing some people (like Howard Dean) to face their problematic part in the process, might help bring some much needed clarification, never mind leadership, to bear on all of this. Otherwise, I tend to come down on a pox on both houses... even the one I support.

a petty smear thirty minutes after the last post is pretty poor form. if you are going to insult someone do it when they are actively commenting.

psuedo are you and fahey still taking as much cock as you can get? how do you find the time between the probama trolling, meth scoring and general assholery you are consistently engaged in?

Poor form, most people don't actually sit on this site and check for replies to their postings all day.

It may shock you, but some people may make a comment and not be able to return to their computer for well-over 30 minutes.

It's strange, I know. But it's plenty true.

Soullie is correct, of course, but poor form's rant is pretty darn funny

The statement was used, however, to imply that the Democrats were somehow railroaded and were all innocent bystanders when the reality is, they ALL voted for it.

The statement was used by whom to imply that? By you, that's whom, and then you call me a liar because of the nonsense infesting your own weak mind. Pretty damned pathetic.

I know most of the recipients of this email are strong supporters of Barak Obama.

To those thinking I am a Hillary supporter, you are wrong, I dislike the Clintons for EXACTLY the same reasons I dislike the politics of Barak Obama [Yes, Barak gives great speech, but then too, most of history's evil doers had that talent]. Additionally, both are vapid self serving souls who have never shown a trace of moral courage and as the campaign continues, each are showing themselves to be back stabbers extraordinaire. The fact that each has repeatedly accused the other of behavior that they themselves are clearly engaging in seems to have escaped concern of the blogging generation. Better to support your guy than to be truthful?

But back to the point of this post, the other night I was chatting with a Republican Big Pharma lobbyist, he was laughing at the fact that many Obama supporters were parroting Republican talking points. While I have never enjoyed his Machiavellian humor, I did have to admit that the Democratic elite attacking Hillary/Barak were being useful Republican tools...but hey, don't take my word on it, The Village Voice lays it out in...

Hillary and the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy
The strange case of conservative pundits and their love for Barack Obama
by Wayne Barrett
March 11th, 2008 12:00 AM

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0811,374100,374100,2.html/full

The prime movers of both political parties have long tried to game the presidential nominating process—not only to choose their eventual winner, but also to pick their November opponent. And in this landmark election without incumbents, the media wing of the Republican Party, in particular, has quite visibly been playing that game. Right-leaning pundits for months now have very openly not just called for Hillary Clinton's head, but also coddled and promoted Barack Obama, salivating over the prospect of facing him in November.

Meanwhile, voters have been echoing that program: Barack Obama has been beating Hillary Clinton in part because Republicans are helping him.

Sixteen of the 45 Democratic primaries and caucuses held before this week were open affairs, allowing Republicans and independents to take part, and Barack Obama has won 11 of those contests. He almost invariably carried the Republican vote, which accounted for as much as 9 percent of the total in Wisconsin and Texas, and frequently ran even stronger among independents, who represented a fifth or more of Democratic primary voters in state after state. The 75 percent of the Republican vote that he won in Missouri, for example, may have pushed him over the top, and certainly, when combined with his 67 percent of the state's much larger independent vote, it delivered many of the district-apportioned delegates to him. Republicans in Obama states like Washington, Wisconsin, and Virginia were even freer to cross the aisle, since by the time they voted, John McCain had already sewn up the GOP nomination. While Obama often won some of these states so handily that Republicans and independents could not have provided his margin of victory, there is no way to know how many delegates in close congressional-district contests will wind up in Denver because of the impact of Republican or independent voters. And there is no exit-poll data to measure their impact on the caucuses.

Nor can the exit data reveal the motive for so many crossovers. These voters may have been attracted by Obama's message of transcending politics as usual, or they may simply have been trying to tilt the scales to help nominate the candidate they believe Republicans can most easily beat. In the lead-up to Texas and Ohio, Rush Limbaugh, whose radio show reaches 13 million, dropped his "mafia wife," "Nurse Ratched," and "testicle lockbox" descriptions of Hillary Clinton long enough to urge his listeners to vote for her "if they can stomach it." His rationale was to keep the bloodbath going. Up to then, he was unabashedly boosting Obama with the same perverse purpose. Obama still carried most of the 252,000 Republicans who voted in Texas—a Limbaugh stronghold—but his percentage dropped from 72 percent in Wisconsin to 52 percent.

Limbaugh is one of the opinion makers on the right who made little secret of his early preference for Obama. Conservative pundits slammed Hillary early and hard, exploiting every opportunity to widen the racial divide among Democrats. Though their party is so white that the networks have no ethnic exit-poll data to analyze, these reliable partisans have expressed shock at a number of supposedly race-baiting Clinton comments, with the New York Post's top campaign columnist even calling Bill and Hillary "modern-day George Wallaces, standing in the White House door."

Once Obama became the apparent nominee, especially after the Wisconsin primary on February 19, these same pundits began turning on him (though, it has now become clear, perhaps a bit prematurely). As often as some of them have declared that Clinton is the most beatable Democrat, their own agenda suggested otherwise. George Will may have inadvertently tipped this card when he wrote after Obama prospered on Super Tuesday: "The Republican Party's not-so-secret weapon always is the Democratic Party, with its entertaining thirst for living dangerously." It is possible, of course, that their hatred of the Clintons was all that drove these right-wing pundits in their early targeting of Hillary, but it's more likely that they were collectively so confident of beating the black guy in November that they became his unofficial advance team.

Since few Democratic voters—theoretically—should be affected by anything this cabal has to say, its impact on the nominating process has been, at best, indirect. But the right's talkers have helped to shape the way the election is covered. And even if they've only affected the margins, it's precisely those margins—in states like Missouri, or in district delegate fights, or in the narrowing popular-vote contest—that matter. Perhaps the more important point for Democrats is why these drum beaters have been so universally on the same beat.

What they should do is have all the superdelegates committ to a candidate NOW.

That way, whoever wins; it will be pledge delegates that put them over the top.

There is no reason why superdelegates should be waiting, you can't tell me these people don't have a preference; if they don't then they can vote NONE OF THE ABOVE.

This would then shows us clearly the path to the nomination for the last 10 states. And it could also force one candidate to drop out if the Supers all went against him.

They're supposed to be leaders of the party - so get out front and f-cking lead already.

S Brennan,
You make a very good point, I can tell you from experience here in Virginia many Republicans voted Obama simply because they hate Hillary and wanted her knocked out ASAP.

Of course this was prior to Rush pushing them to vote for Hillary. I definitely believe Obama did much better in Virginia because of the Republican cross over.

But to them, they see that Democrats and Independents crossed over and voted for McCain...so alls fair as they say.

One can oppose the existence of the Electoral College, while still recognizing the fact that it cannot be abolished before the 2008 election.

The Electoral College will determine the 44th president of The United States whether a voter thinks it's a good way to elect a president or not.

One can oppose the existence of the Electoral College...

So, what system would you prefer? Most others, including the popular vote and a vote of the Senate were considered and quickly dismissed.

I suspect that you live in a populous state probably on the East or West coast and just want these states to run roughshod over the people that you consider a bunch of ya-hoo's in the heartland.