I think they've counted noses and figure that if they can seat Michigan and Florida in full, they can deadlock the convention. It's the only explanation I can come up with.

2012 run? If Obama loses, might some think that it was due to Clinton's current actions and not think too kindly of her?

So does everyone who thinks it's outrageous for HRC to compare counting FL to Zimbabwe now also agree that Dick Durbin deserved all the vitriol directed toward him for comparing American soldiers to soviet gulags?

An analogy is not a direct comparison, no?

Right, here we go.

If they can seat Michigan and Florida in full, and have the uncommitted pledged delegates stay uncommitted, they can keep the thing razor close. Right now Obama is ahead by 154 delegates. FL and MI, giving him zero delegates in MI, would cut it to 31. If Puerto Rico is a shellacking she could end up ahead; either way it will be very, very, very close.

she has crossed the line
from rational to menacing
behavior.
time for concern.

Her arguments now are pretty shocking. Attacking the Democratic Party in this way indicates she really doesn't care how much she hurts the party so long as she can increase her personal fortunes by any perceived miniscule amount.

It's hard to argue a person like that should have any post in the party at all, much less be a standard bearer.

The death throes of her campaign have gone from being pathetic to being extremely dangerous for all Democrats and good for Republicans.

Nah, Ezra. They're just in a state of complete denial and they think if they get the full delegate slates from Michigan and Florida seated and can come up with any metric that shows her winning the popular vote that magically enough superdelegates will support her to win the nomination (and a pony).

"FL and MI, giving him zero delegates in MI, would cut it to 31"

I didn't think that the Dems did winner-take-alls?

I mean, really, even in her Alice-in-Wonderland world where everybody thinks that she is making sense here, she cannot expect to get more than 60% of the MI and FL delegates. Giving her 60% of those is considerably more than she would have won anyway, had Obama been on the ballot.

All the hyperventilating and doomsday scenarios miss a couple of obvious points - we were bound to get here regardless; Dean can't say he's in favor of a "50 State" party that chooses its Presidential nominee with representation from only 48 states (and that would give Guam, the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico a voice, but not Michigan or Florida). That this helps Clinton, and then only to a small degree, is really a small facet of a larger, symbolic point: Democrats, really, should stand for the idea that we all vote and we all get a say.

Second, despite Nick's flailing, this has been a close race all along. The distance between Clinton and Obama in pledged delegates has been very close, as has the popular vote by whichever count one prefers (we are substantively moving about one percent of the total debating most of the reasonable alternatives).

The fact that Clinton is advocating a point of view that provides her with more delegates is neither nefarious, surprising, nor, I would suggest, beyond the pale. As we all know, or should, by now, this won't be about her getting everything she wants. But as a starting point for a negotiation, it seems obvious to me that she'd pick a position of most favorable outcome. That's what the Obama campaign has done all along too, since negating the two states allows him to claim a bigger lead in delegates and the popular vote... and a fidelity to "rules" that are not nearly as clear cut as they've claimed.

What I find depressing, rather than some bombast about "Zimbabwe is too far" is the notion that all of this is supposed to be played solely for the momentary win; there are much larger issues here, about voters getting to have a say, about backing votes for every state, about reforming a broken primary process... that seem far more valuable than the momentary success of one campaign or another. I don't favor seating Florida and Michigan (in some form) because it's good for Clinton. I favor it because it's the right thing to do. Because we aren't Zimbabwe, or Lebanon or plenty of other places that can't hold free and fair elections. Because I've always thought, as a Democrat, that's what we stand for. And after the May 31 meeting, when we do the two delegations in some form, I hope we can at least come together around primary process reform, if not a candidate. Let's get some positive good out of this. Jeez.

and have the uncommitted pledged delegates stay uncommitted
This is the really cynical part. 40% of Michiganders who bothered to vote in the primary voted Uncommitted. In the context of the election, Uncommitted clearly meant NOT Clinton, Dodd, Gravel, or Kucinich. The barest acceptable 'enfranchisement' of that 40% should be delegates pledged only to Obama, Edwards, Richardson, or Biden.

weboy wrote: "I hope we can at least come together around primary process reform, if not a candidate."

If Clinton said "I'm going to fight for a change in the rules for the next primary 4 years from now and to improve the process," that would be fine.

She's not saying that. She's saying that the Democratic Party, and its certain nominee, are supporting Jim Crow-like, Zimbabwe-like, rules -- rules that SHE HERSELF helped negotiate and agree to.

In the meantime, she's not helping herself so much as hurting the party.

Her stance is not really a position, much less a principled position. It's a burglary tool.

Seems to me if there's no penalty for FL and MI jumping the gun, then there's no way to enforce primary process reform in the future. What are they going to do next time, set up a calendar, tell states there will be penalties for violating the calendar, and then say, "and this time we really, really, mean it"?

Face it, there are lots of states that want to be first in line, and if the parties can't enforce some kind of discipline on the process we'll be having the 2012 presidential primaries the week after the 2012 mid-term election.

I say all of this as a Michigan resident who will be proud to vote for Obama in November and who knows whom to blame for the clusterf**k that was the Michigan primary (hint: their names are Granholm and Levin).

Anonymous, her "stance" is that Florida and Michigan delegations should be seated at the convention in some form, preferably the way they voted. I appreciate that you disagree (I don't necesaarily agree to a delegation from Michigan that has no Obama delegates)... but what we are likely to wind up with is the Florida delegation as it was voted and a 69-59 Michigan delegation. Really, where's the "hurting the party" part? The "burglary" part? I think debating how the Florida and Michigan should be seated is a healthy one... but just seating them is dangerous and damaging? That's just too much.

And if we need a good Presidential selection process, I'd point out we need it now... not in 4 years.

Mike D asks:"So does everyone now agree that Dick Durbin deserved all the vitriol directed toward him for comparing American soldiers to soviet gulags?"

Actually he was comparing the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the treatment of detainees in Soviet gulags.

hasn't history shown that those comparisons were apt?

"hillary and william,
if only i would have known thee."

weboy:
If those issues are truly important to members of the Clinton campaign, the appropriate time to bring them up was early January, before any votes had been held, or shortly after it was determined that the delegates would be stripped from Florida and Michigan. Right after Super Tuesday, when those states had already voted and when it was obvious that she had won those states and would need them to win the nomination, is simply not appropriate.

weboy,
You are only partially right, it seems to me. The other side of the coin is that it is antidemocratic for rules to be changed in the middle of the process, as if to deny that rule-breaking had occurred. The fact is that the rules were known to all in advance. FL and MI should probably have some portion of their delegations seated, not all of them; they should be penalized in some form, not least so as to ensure the party retains any future ability to function.

@weboy
Just as Clinton herself does you deftly maneuver around the actual issue at hand. The rules were set at the beginning of the race. They were set as EK said in large part by the Clinton campaign and/or her supporters so no negative bias is likely.

'..shed pick a position of favorable outcome.' ..that happens to be dishonest, and breaking the very rules that she literally signed onto. Is that all the meaning we would like to have her signature hold when she would be elected?

'Oh yes I signed that before the negotiations started, but I feel differently now. Its not to my advantage to follow that legislation now.'

And certainly Dean _must_ hold onto this strategy if having dem party rules are to mean anything. Those states were warned exactly as to what the sanctions would be if their election dates didnt change. Undoing those sanctions would weaken the structure as a whole.

Why bother following the rules if you dont get punished for breaking them? ..are they merely to be taken as polite suggestions?

Thing is however its not just Clinton who is doing this damage. How many undecided super delegates are there? Those people know whats going on and have the power to put an end to it. Yet they sit back and watch. ..so they must be getting something out of it.

My personal guess is that they like having this little democratic forum, and want it to go on as long as they can feign authenticity for it. This way all the dem talking points will be splashed on the news regularly without having to worry about McCain's campaign getting a word in edgewise. ..I hope its something at least that useful.

Weboy, I think the "hurting the party" part comes from the fact that she's creating a belief among her supporters that Obama's victory is illigimate and tainted, even if they won't explicitly use those words. Why else invoke civil rights or 2000. That resentment will linger, whether she walks back from it or not, and will have an impact in the general, and presuming he wins, on his administration. You may shrug, and it could be that we may well all forget about this a few months from now, but the risk is real.

how history is unfortunately often written....
when one is not able to process anger at being spurned, humiliated and victimized in their personal/public life, the anger, victimization and negative energy can get dangerously displaced on much larger stages.

@mike D.
No. The difference is he is right, and she is fabricating a position to win a game with rules shes making up in her head.

I actually read his statement for the first time cause of that post.. its here:
http://talkleft.com/Gitmofloorstatement061405.pdf

Its away from the thread subject .. but wow, theres still someone in the US government that isnt an apologist for gestapo methods. Its refreshing.

Right now Obama is ahead by 154 delegates. FL and MI, giving him zero delegates in MI, would cut it to 31. If Puerto Rico is a shellacking she could end up ahead; either way it will be very, very, very close.

Exactly. Which leads me to ask Ezra if he'll retract his absurd charge that Clinton is trying to torpedo Obama's chances at a general election victory. Will you, Ezra? The fact is, a maximally Clinton-friendly apportionment of Michigan and Florida keeps her chances alive. Hillary is doing exactly as she should be doing if she's serious about becoming the next president. Y'all may not like it, but that's what happens when the supposed presumptive nominee fails (like Carter in 1980) to finish strong.

And by the way, Obama's campaign freely chose to take his name off the ballot in Michigan, so as to undercut in the strongest manner possible any results coming from this fairly Clinton-friendly primary. So apparently he's allowed to make strategic decisions that further his nomination chances, but she's not. Lovely.

What Obama should do is give her her way, make his case to the supers, and claim the nomination once his tally equals 50% + one.

She's now pursuing a political strategy meant to defeat Obama and ensure the party regrets his nomination

No way! She knows politics better than you and she knows that all this will not matter in teh general. She is politically astute and she knwos that few are paying attention. She is still hoping to win with super deligates. Bill Clinton is a political genius and is on her side.

If we're going to worry about what Democrats in Michigan and Florida might do in November based on whether or not their delegations count at the convention, shouldn't we also worry what Democrats in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina (not so much the last one, I guess) might do if their "special place" is effectively destroyed by allowing rogue states to undermine them?

the damage to the party is that we lose control of the calendar. If there is no sanction you end up with a tragedy of the commons situation: each state jockeys around for individual attention and we end up with a pathological calendar. e.g. the nominee is decided a year in advance, and the situation changes radically later on.

More to the point, Clinton could certainly have chosen to approach this in a way that included both states and made people there feel included. She is deliberately constructing a stab in the back narrative, and deserves nothing but contempt as a result. That's the problem.

Of course, in response to myself, one could hardly imagine Obama running around those states to whip up the controversy in petulant rage if Michigan and Florida are seated.

Unless MI and FL are fully counted in determining the nominee then I will not vote for President in November. If they are counted then I will vote for whomever the Democratic nominee is.

I think the "hurting the party" part comes from the fact that she's creating a belief among her supporters that Obama's victory is illigimate and tainted...

I think Obama's nomination will be tainted -- if not outright illegitimate -- should Florida and Michigan not be properly counted. These are two states where Clinton has shown significant strength. The same types of questions would be raised if if were Clinton who was on the edge of becoming the presumptive nominee in an extremely close contest and, say, Georgia and Illinois were the two states getting the shaft. What makes it worse, of of course, is that the real world scenario involves purple states the party can't afford to piss off (the chances of Illinois and Georgia flipping are remote, to say the least).

It's true that counting Florida and Michigan in an Obama-friendly fashion is beneficial to his securing the nomination. It's also unfortunately true that doing so is beneficial to John McCain's chances of securing the White House.

0 delegates from MI? Hows that work? Shes going to break her written pledge, expects to be rewarded for it, AND expects everyone else to still be held to that original contract?

Since all the votes are proportional Obama would have received a number of delegates from MI. We'll never know how many, but we can surmise with some certainty that it would not have been 0.

'So apparently he's allowed to make strategic decisions that further his nomination chances, but she's not. Lovely.'

A 'strategic decision' to follow guidelines they all agreed to before the race. ..now shes complaining cause she cant play her poker hand with the cards she hid up her sleeve. How sad, Not!

jimbo:

Why do you hold the eventual nominee responsible for Michigan's and Florida's respective local politicians' ceding of their own delegations?

weboy wrote: "And if we need a good Presidential selection process, I'd point out we need it now... not in 4 years."

Yeah, unfortunately the rules for this process were set out Clinton herself and others. Those rules ARE the process this time. She agreed to abide by those rules. Changing those rules will be devastating a process (however flawed) but will not be creating a new, more decent process.

If she really believes the rules are wrong, then her judgment in agreeing to the rules was wrong. That is her fault and the fault of all who, like her, agreed.

She can legitimately have a debate about changing the process for the next primary. She can't legitimately argue that changing them now is a process argument.

As I said above, her position is not a principled position. It's a set of burglary tools.

...the damage to the party is that we lose control of the calendar. If there is no sanction you end up with a tragedy of the commons situation...

Letting McCain win the White House will cause more damage to the party (to say nothing of the nation and the planet) than anything else we could do. Priorities, please.

Besides, we can learn from 2008's fiasco and not repeat our mistakes in 2012 (by adopting the GOP's much saner state-punishment method, for instance).

I don't favor seating Florida and Michigan (in some form) because it's good for Clinton. I favor it because it's the right thing to do. Because we aren't Zimbabwe, or Lebanon or plenty of other places that can't hold free and fair elections. Because I've always thought, as a Democrat, that's what we stand for.

Hey, I feel the same way about free and fair elections. And for exactly that reason, I feel seating FL and MI as is (or anything close to it) is the wrong thing to do.

MI wasn't anything remotely resembling a free and fair election. All the major candidates had agreed that MI wasn't going to count. All but one of them pulled their names off the ballot altogether, so the remaining candidate was the only one that people could vote for by name.

'Free and fair election,' my ass. About as fair as a Soviet election. About as fair as flipping a coin and giving all the delegates to the winner.

There's no way, at this point, to have a free and fair MI primary. So you might as well split them down the middle, or commission a Research 2000 poll of MI Dems, and apportion the delegates according to its results.

Florida's not quite so bad - it was free, but a long way from fair. All the candidates were on the ballot, but again, they'd all agreed to stay out of FL because it wasn't going to count.

And let's face it: the new guy is going to hit closer to his weight in a primary if he gets the chance to campaign there; the establishment candidate can rely on name recognition in the absence of a campaign.

Plus, only one of them decided to publicly reverse her stand on FL, just three days before the primary, and promise to celebrate her victory there on the night of the primary. It didn't technically violate the rules, but it was a change of position that gave her a big advantage.

So neither state produced a result resembling what they'd have had if they'd had legal primaries. End of story.

"I don't favor seating Florida and Michigan (in some form) because it's good for Clinton. I favor it because it's the right thing to do."

This is a fucking lie, and you, sir, are a fucking liar.

Clinton is acting on pure spite now. She doesn't want her wing of the party to lose control of the party, and she knows the only hope of preventing that is to have Obama lose.

She can't win in 2012. She'll get some of the blame from Obama's people on any lose he suffers, and very few people are going to roll the dice on a woman candidate after the black candidate just lose the last election. Combined, that leaves no real hope for her.

Webboy, Hillary's stance is not that Florida and Michigan should be seated in 'some form, preferably the way they voted'. They've had offers to sit them, and they refused those offers. They are demanding that Obama gets 0 delegates from Michigan, regardless of the state conventions, and that Florida MUST be sat as voted.

They are demanding that because they know they will never get it. Don't sit there and lie your ass off pretending they just want them sat. They don't want them sat at all. They would just rather have the Democratic party lose than lose control of the Democratic party.

Millicent, But the accurate and standard practice of selecting Delegates doesn't give Obama '0' delegates from Michigan, it gives him at least 31, most likely 50-55. Those 'uncommitted' delegates get chosen at the state conventions. Obama has won 31 of them so far. Thats how everyone knows Hillary IS trying to torpedo this. She is actually demanding that those 55 delegate must not be chosen the way such delegates are usually chosen. She seems to be demanding that they don't get chosen at all, and can not be allowed to vote at the convention. She doesn't want all of the delegation sat. She wants her delegates sat. Thats all.

Thats why nobody takes her argument serious as a 'will of the voters' argument.

They are demanding that Obama gets 0 delegates from Michigan,

If Clinton gets the nomination based on the 0-delegate scheme, I don't see how she wins Michigan in November. She is practically begging Solomon to cut the baby in half.

I'm quite confident that this will all be settled by the last primary. And not before.

I think that it is to Obama's benefit for the question to remain open, as it drives turnout and fundraising.

I think Hillary enjoys campaigning, and is taking her best shot.

It wasn't about rules, which prescribe a penalty of 50% for early primaries, but about a ruling, made within the framework of the rules. Rulings can be appealed, also within the framework of the rules.

The full 100% reduction was the sort of mistake that I see parents make all the time: the too-large threat that can't be carried out. "You're grounded for the rest of your life!!" or whatever. Making such a threat puts you in the position of having to enforce it, in its full stupidity, or backing down, neither of which is good.

I expect the MI-FL delagate question will be wrapped up on June 4th.

Personally, I favor stripping all the superdels from those states, since, as the party leaders, they are responsible. And I want a pony.

Unless MI and FL are fully counted in determining the nominee then I will not vote for President in November.

Then you will effectively be casting your vote for John McCain. Look, I thought the stripping of MI and FL was utterly stupid at the time. (Yes, their importance as swing states means they should have gotten a pass.) But those were the rules agreed to, and both states knew it. How following those rules suggests that it would be better to make John McCain the President is beyond me. You really have to be (1) an idiot or (2) actually a Republican to think like that.

Anonymous, her "stance" is that Florida and Michigan delegations should be seated at the convention in some form, preferably the way they voted.

What? Bullshit. She's already refused a compromise where the delegates would get half a vote, but get to seat in their original proportions (i.e. the same penalty the RNC assigned to the republicans)

HRC is refusing to accept any compromise whatsoever. She broke the contract she signed with the DNC and she's attempting to change the rules and steal the nomination from Obama.

I actually hope it goes all the way to the convention in a nasty floor fight. Clinton has all but promised this, using the excuse of "I'll do that if the people of FL and MI want me to." That gives her plausible deniability at the convention to say "hey it wasnt my idea to do a nasty floor fight, the voters of MI and FL wanted me to do this"

As for the uncommitted superdelegates, they are typical scared pussy politicians. They are holding out because they dont want to take sides and alienate Hillary "you're dead to me" Clinton or the actual nominee, Obama.

At this point, nothing is off the table for Clinton. When the rules committee only gives her a 50% compromise, she'll reject it and appeal to the floor in a convention fight. When she loses that floor vote, she'll announce that she's running as an independent candidate.

She's a real life fucking terminator, and its going to be hilarious watching the democrats screw up their best chance for the presidency in 50 years.

Any Democrat who would vote for a Republican because of this inside baseball stuff is sadly deluded.

Please remember that we are not just electing a President. The party that controls the White House controls thousands of crucial appointments in the Executive Branch, the Supreme Court and other federal courts, and the regulatory agencies.

What matters more than anything is that these thousands of decision-makers be Democrats and not Republicans. I'll vote for a cocker spaniel as long as it's a Democrat.

The hillary supporters who vote for McCain in the general are nothing but stone cold racists who wont support a black candidate under any circumstances.

The exit polls in various states reveal that percentage to be around 20%. The actual numbers (as proven by the general election votes) will be demonstrated as much higher. Probably at least double that number.

HRC is refusing to accept any compromise whatsoever.

She's smart to do so at this point. Why give up negotiation real estate before you have to? My guess is she can be satisfied with "as-is" seating of the Florida delegates and near "as-is" seating of Michigan (ie., she gets her original haul, and Obama picks up, say, 2/3rds of the remainder, or some such). It's all about negotiating at this point, and Hillary is proving more adept at this part of the process than she did at choosing campaign staff.

I wonder, though, if Obama would agree to those terms. According to my math, such a compromise would still provide for the possibility that HRC could cut Obama's pledged delegate lead to 50-60 provided she gets a big win in Puerto Rico. And more importantly, it would add legitimacy to her creative popular vote counts.

Basically, such an outcome exposes Obama's candidacy as the weak finisher it turned out to be, as it positively limps to the finish line, as Electoral College map looks increasingly scary for him (and increasingly strong for her), and as she continues to loudly trumpet the fact that several hundred thousand more voters cast their ballots for her.

And critically, amidst this backdrop, it will look reasonable for her to refrain from conceding. Because then we really would be one or two serious Obama summer missteps away from a brokered convention victory for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

It wasn't about rules, which prescribe a penalty of 50% for early primaries, but about a ruling, made within the framework of the rules. Rulings can be appealed, also within the framework of the rules.

The bitch wont accept a 50% compromise. She's already stated that she's going all the way to the convention floor fight unless both FL and MI have 100% of their delegates seated.

Millicent you are dreaming. Obama has been winning 90% of the superdelegates as of late, even after getting punked by 40 points in WV and KY.

You are delusional if you think that trend is magically going to shift to a 75% Clinton trend (which is what she would need to pass Obama).

Unless Obama has a major, major catastrophe (far greater than anything we have seen so far) then there's no way the SDs are going to swing in Clinton's favor, regardless of what happens in MI and FL.

Its all over but the cryin folks

Unless Obama has a major, major catastrophe (far greater than anything we have seen so far) then there's no way the SDs are going to swing in Clinton's favor, regardless of what happens in MI and FL.

Then why won't Obama meet her Michigan/Florida demands?

The fact is he's a weak finisher. Supers can see that. Hell, the whole country can see that. And supers who've come out for Obama are perfectly free to change their minds in Denver.

I agree, by the way, that Obama will almost certainly be the nominee. I just don't understand why he seems so determined to also be the next Michael Dukakis: losing Michigan in the general would be absolutely disastrous for his chances.

she continues to loudly trumpet the fact that several hundred thousand more voters cast their ballots for her.

The SDs response to that has been a "fuck off, we dont care." Hell Clinton only got 4 superdelegates since her big wins in KY and OR, meanwhile Obama picked up 22.

The SDs writing is on the wall: Hillary is screwed.

What's going on here is that Clinton is trying to create a narrative where she was cheated out of the nomination. If she "wins" the popular vote by any metric and loses on delegates in any part because of the failure to seat FL and MI delegates as elected, millions of her low-information supporters will believe that. And then they won't vote for Obama unless she is there with him.

Then, she has her pick on what to do. She can blackmail him into getting the VP slot if she thinks he has a chance in November, or she can let him lose and run again in 2012 (folks, if you think the Democratic party will make a pariah out of a politician with a massive and loyal personality cult and a DEMONSTRATED willingness to tank a presidential nominee out of sheer spite, you're crazy). I'm not sure that she even knows what she wants yet -- other than to create a situation where the only conceivable way that Obama can win in November is with her on the ticket.

In a way, Obama really did misplay this back in March. He should have agreed to seat the Florida delegates as elected with some nominal penalty (1/2 or 2/3), and then agreed to hold a Michigan caucus in mid-June if (and only if) the delegate math made it meaningful. I think the Clintons would have agreed to it then.

Then why won't Obama meet her Michigan/Florida demands?

Because it's even weaker to meet preposterous demands such as Hillary's. She agreed that FL and MI broke the rules. She agreed that if they broke the rules there should be a consequence. Why should FL and MI pay no penalty (Hillary's "demand") when the rest of the states followed the rules?

I'm going to go apply for disability, because my head has exploded.

Hillary wants the votes counted in Michigan, where Obama wasn't on the ballot and the best anyone could do was vote for "uncommitted."
Harold Ickes was on the rules committee and voted to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates.
Harold Ickes wants the "uncommitted" votes in Michigan to not go for Obama.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Ickes_We_want_the_Michigan_uncommitted_to_stay_uncommitted.html
Hillary compares Florida to Zimbabwe.

Let me sum up. Decisions are made by the DNC which are agreed to and abided by. When it is clear that that will hurt you, you wish to change those rules in such a way that only votes for you are counted. Then you compare the original procedure, which you agreed to, to elections in a developing nation. Because your plan to count votes for you, when your main opponent's name was not on the ballot, is democratic.

OW!

Why should FL and MI pay no penalty (Hillary's "demand") when the rest of the states followed the rules?

Because not making them pay a penalty help us win the White House.

I for one care more about beating John McCain than I do about some argument about process. And again, the DNC is perfectly free to copy the GOP's state punishment method in avoid a repeat of this unfortunate situation in 2012. Let's learn from our mistakes, but in the interim cut our losses.

If Georgia and Illinois were the two states in question, I have a feeling that all this touching fealty to an obviously flawed penalization process wouldn't be quite so evident.

Also, Millicent--

Do keep in mind that the "negotiation" is constrained somewhat by the fact that there will be a DNC ruling at some point, and it is highly unlikely that the terms will be as ludicrously favorable to Clinton as you suggest (seriously? Florida literally as is, and Obama gets a third of the delegates from Michigan?). The Obama campaign probably has a decent rough idea of what the ruling is going to be, and they certainly won't agree to terms less favorable than that.

My guess is that the ruling will be that both are reduced to 1/2 or 2/3 of the elected delegates, with Obama doing slightly better in Michigan than simply allocating all "uncommitted" to him. Perhaps reducing superdelegates to half votes.

That's not going to be nearly enough to give Clinton the nomination. My guess is that at that point, she moves from effectively tanking the eventual nominee to explicitly tanking the eventual nominee. She won't endorse him, and may endorse McCain.

Millicent,

Lets not be dense purposely. First of all, Obama has finished fine. It just happens to be that more clinton friendly states are at the end of the process. Would you also say that hillary is a poor "february-er" since she lost 11 in a row in that month? None of this changes the fact that there were more Obama supporters than Clinton supporters.

Your second point is equally daft. Obama's chances of losing Michigan will be hurt by no more than 0.001 percent. You've spent to much time around histrionic Hillary supporters. Most people are not going to base their presidential preference on the punishment of the primary by the DNC. Luckily most of the country is more grown up than hardcore hillary fans.

Hillary wants the votes counted in Michigan, where Obama wasn't on the ballot and the best anyone could do was vote for "uncommitted."

Right. Hillary quite reasonably wants to count the votes in a state where the Obama campaign -- in an effort to delegitmize any possible results in a state they knew didn't look good for them -- voluntarily left themselves off the ballot. The fact that Clinton's position is also the position most helpful to the Democrats in November only reinforces the reasonableness of her stance.

w/r/t "touching fealty to an obviously flawed penalization process."

Yes, it is flawed. I wonder at what point, precisely, did Harold Ickes conclude that it was flawed, my guess is around Feb. 6 or so.

Everyone assumed that somehow, the delegates from MI and FL would be seated. The general idea was that there would be a clear winner who would seat the delegations as is, because they wouldn't make any difference. There was no pretense that this would be a real primary or an accurate reflection of much of anything, because they weren't supposed to matter.

Clearly, that is not the case. Clearly, also, the delegations are going to be seated in some manner or another. The point is that Hillary is now arguing that they should be seated as they voted in clearly flawed primaries. Harold Ickes is now saying that the "uncommitted" MI delegates shouldn't be Obamas. They have rejected all reasonable attempts to compromise, to date. They are doing this for the sole reason that it is their very last shot. They screwed up the caucuses, the superdelegates have not been swayed by her pitch, she doesn't have the delegates, and the only thing she can do at this point is launch firebombs into the process. This is as obvious as the sun setting in the west.

First of all, Obama has finished fine. It just happens to be that more clinton friendly states are at the end of the process.

Er, no, Obama is not finishing "fine." Typically a victorious candidate consolidates the party around his banner as the finish line nears -- closing out his competition. The fact is Obama has failed to convince millions of voters in these late stages to unify behind his candidacy.

Obama's chances of losing Michigan will be hurt by no more than 0.001 percent.

You wish. If Obama and the DNC flip Clinton's Michigan supporters the bird, you can bet many of them will at least consider what the other party if offering, especially given the unfortunately racially-charged political controversy roiling SE Michigan, and the possibility that Michigan-born (and Michigan winner) Mitt Romney could well be McCain's running mate.

The fact that Clinton's position is also the position most helpful to the Democrats in November only reinforces the reasonableness of her stance.

I would ask what color the sky is in your world, but that would assume that there's a "sky" and a "world". I think under the circumstances these assumptions would be unwarranted.

"If Georgia and Illinois were the two states in question, I have a feeling that all this touching fealty to an obviously flawed penalization process wouldn't be quite so evident."

Millicent--

I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that Michigan is some massively pro-Clinton state. Polls taken in February and March indicated Obama was running neck-and-neck with her. There have been no recent head-to-head Clinton/Obama polls (for obvious reasons), but Obama consistently does better than McCain. I mean, as Bill Clinton is so fond of pointing out, Jesse Jackson won the state twice. And although she would win Florida, it would probably only be slightly more than she won Pennsylvania or Ohio -- say maybe 15 points or so.

This isn't Illinois and Georgia. It's more like Missouri or Indiana and Wisconsin. Saying otherwise is perplexing.

"Hillary quite reasonably wants to count the votes in a state where [EVERY MAJOR CANDIDATE EXCEPT CLINTON] campaign -- in an effort to [COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THEIR PLEDGE NOT TO PARTICIPATE] -- voluntarily left themselves off the ballot. [CLINTON DID NOT FOLLOW SUIT BECAUSE, AS SHE SAID, EVERYONE KNEW THE STATE WASN'T GOING TO COUNT]."

Corrected your statement.

Shorter Millicent: Only Hillary can beat John McCain, because I say so. And because I believe that, then rules, fair play, delegates, and superdelegates, and most states don't matter. The only thing that does matter is that Hillary be the nominee. The ends, ergo, justify the means. And the fact that my position is the position most helpful to Hillary in November only enhances the reasonableness of my position.

Millicent--

Seriously, how do you possibly justify your portrayal of Michigan as being as favorable to Clinton as Kentucky or West Virginia? I just looked it up. Recent poll averages have Obama up by a point on McCain there, and Clinton down three. Is there any actual facts you can cite to show that Obama would have done worse than the "uncommitted" numbers if he had contested the state?

Because if not, your prior posts indicating that are shockingly dishonest. Out-and-out lies, really.

I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that Michigan is some massively pro-Clinton state.

I'm not under the impression that Michigan is "massively" pro-Clinton. I think the Obama campaign weren't very confident in their chances at winning Michigan, and so welcomed the opportunity to help downgrade the state's importance. I don't blame them for taking an action they (rightly) thought beneficial to their chances, just as I don't blame HRC's campaign for opting for an action beneficial to her campaign instead of a slavish adherence to a penalization process that hurts both their nomination chances and their party's chances in November.

It's more like Missouri or Indiana and Wisconsin.

Huh? Florida is a huge stage. In fact its population is larger than thee three you mention combined. Michigan, too, is a large state - larger by several million than Missouri, Indiana or Wisconsin.

The Obama campaign probably has a decent rough idea of what the ruling is going to be, and they certainly won't agree to terms less favorable than that.

Then they'll have to live with the consequences of giving Hillary an excuse to wage a floor flight, legal battle, etc. I think the general election is Obama's to lose, but giving Clinton what would appear (to millions of voters, at least) to be a justifiable reason for sabotaging his fall campaign is stupid, because, short of somehow edging Obama out for the nomination, an Obama loss in November represents HRC's best bet at eventually becoming president.

"Huh? Florida is a huge stage. In fact its population is larger than thee three you mention combined. Michigan, too, is a large state - larger by several million than Missouri, Indiana or Wisconsin."

Are you thick, or just pretending to be? I was clearly referring to the margin of victory coming out of Florida and Michigan, and not the populations -- just as you were by claiming the states were the equivalent to (massively pro-Obama) Illinois and Georgia.

The point was that Clinton would not have won Florida and Michigan by 30+ points. She would have won Florida by 15 or so if it had been contested, and Michigan would have been a toss-up with Obama on the ballot.

"but giving Clinton what would appear (to millions of voters, at least) to be a justifiable reason for sabotaging his fall campaign is stupid, because, short of somehow edging Obama out for the nomination, an Obama loss in November represents HRC's best bet at eventually becoming president."

Assuming you define "justifiable" as "justifiable as she sees it," I agree with this statement. That's why I think that she is going to whatever she can to tank Obama's campaign. I think that she truly believes that there is no legitimate way she could have lost (this is why she is a lunatic, not a liar), and as such, she is going to feel completely justified in her mind in tearing down Obama.

(For instance, say Obama gave her everything she wanted on Michigan and Florida. He would probably still win the nomination on delegates, yet I guarantee you that she would seize on something -- probably the idea that she won the popular vote with the caucuses not counted and Obama getting 0 votes in Michigan -- to convince herself that it was "stolen" from her, and attempt to undermine Obama all the same. Simply put, I don't think she has been consumed by her ambition to the point where you really cannot call her rational or sane.)

"Hillary quite reasonably wants to count the votes in a state where the Obama campaign -- in an effort to delegitmize any possible results in a state they knew didn't look good for them -- voluntarily left themselves off the ballot."

This, friends, is what we are up against when "arguing" with Hillary supporters. Millicent is, perhaps, an egregious example, but they all share a common trait with their candidate: they are either crimially stupid, criminally dishonest, or some combination of the two.

Bottom line is, winning this way would be awful -- for her as well as the party. She would be destroyed forever politically, instead of already being the odds-on favorite at the age of, at worst, the young-for-a-woman age of 68. I like Hillary, and I don't mind her keeping it going through the final primary, but this Florida and Michigan stuff is just terrible. For her most ardent supporters to deny that is, well, it's a very, very bad a case of denial. Even this much threatening is already hurting her political future.

The point was that Clinton would not have won Florida and Michigan by 30+ points.

Right. And denying Obama the delegates he'd normally be entitled to by winning a fifteen point victory in a state of 18 million hardly equates with your examples of Missouri or Wisconsin (I have no idea why you included Indiana, as that was a Clinton victory). Again, I was making what to me is the obviously true claim that concerns about the integrity of the penalization process among Obama supporters would not exist were it their candidate who was attempting to salvage substantial delegate hauls in big state victories. I admit it: I don't give a rat's ass about the integrity of a process whose aim is to punish two states with a combined thirty million residents and forty odd electoral votes. What I do care about is capturing said electoral votes. And any way, we can always choose a different penalization process in 2012 if this one proves impossible or unwise to enforce.

The fact is he's a weak finisher. Supers can see that. Hell, the whole country can see that. And supers who've come out for Obama are perfectly free to change their minds in Denver.

Hillary STARTED with $200 million dollars, the backing of the party apparatus, pre-endorsements by scads of superdelegates, and a meme of inevitabilty.

So please, spare me the whole "He can't close" meme. Two of the best Democratic candidates to emerge in the past 30 years have gone head to head in the primaries. And despite all the advantages she started with, Hillary not only hasn't been able to close - she hasn't been able to start.

I think that she truly believes that there is no legitimate way she could have lost.

Maybe. But if so there's a substantial element of truth to her musings. After all, a solid HRC victory in Florida -- coupled with even a modest one in Michigan -- might well have proved a decisive Obamamentum stopper heading into Super Tuesday (or at some later stage had either of those two states obeyed the rules). It's hardly a mystery why Hillary must be pretty peeved that an Obama victory in a very close nominating process will partly result from taking two large, potentially quite Clinton-friendly states out of the equation.

Millicent is, perhaps, an egregious example, but they all share a common trait with their candidate: they are either crimially stupid, criminally dishonest, or some combination of the two.

Instead of spewing cheap invective, why not try, um, actually responding to my points. The Obama campaign's managers were incredibly shrewd (would that Hillary's managers possessed similar aptitude). They absolutely knew even a narrow Michigan loss headed into Super Tuesday might have proven fatal or extremely damaging to their chances. So they quite understandably made sure the state's results looked as illegitimate as possible.

Having read the thread, and being the guy that only recently in the last 2 weeks said the race is over, I have to say Millicent is cuckoo for coco puffs. She's just making shit up. I find it more interesting that people are so insecure as to argue with her nuttiness. Millicent you would fair better at sites like mydd and talkleft where they still suffer under fantasies that Clinton still has a shot. My guess is given some of the sophistry you have written- that is precisely from where you are hailing.

She won't endorse him, and may endorse McCain.

Posted by: Joe

I doubt this. I mean, you'd have to assume that she's motivated not merely by ambition, but actual spite. Her political career is deeply enmeshed in the Democratic Party, so she's not going to leave it. And endorsing McCain would be tantamount to doing that. If she wants to be president, she'd have better luck by challenging President Obama in the 2012 Democratic Party primaries.

Ps - least you be confused. I would accept her marginally as VP, but not so as this crazy wingnut stuff keeps spewing from her ardent supporters. You people seriously need to get a grip. I accused Obama supporters of being kool aid drinkers, but seriously, you are starting to beat them.

Hillary STARTED with $200 million dollars, the backing of the party apparatus, pre-endorsements by scads of superdelegates, and a meme of inevitabilty.

No reasonable person denies HRC was in an incredibly strong position last autumn, or that her campaign made a colossal strategic blunder in running a general election campaign from the getgo. Just as no reasonable person denies Obama is positively limping to the finish line.

Two of the best Democratic candidates to emerge in the past 30 years have gone head to head in the primaries.

Personally I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that in fact we haven't had two of the best candidates this cycle. Given the very strong forces favoring the Democrats this year, I suspect we'd have been better off going with a lower upside/more boring vanilla candidate this year (ie., an Evan Bayh, Mark Warner). Who knows, maybe we'll finally get the brokered convention pundits have been speculating about for several decades.

The Obama campaign's managers were incredibly shrewd (would that Hillary's managers possessed similar aptitude). They absolutely knew even a narrow Michigan loss headed into Super Tuesday might have proven fatal or extremely damaging to their chances. So they quite understandably made sure the state's results looked as illegitimate as possible.
Dammitall if they weren't sneaky enought to get all the other major candidates except Hillary to play along! They're masters of manipulation, those Obama folk.

One point that rarely gets raised is whether participants in a party primary can be said to be disenfranchised. Were registered voters n Michigan and Florida not allowed to vote in the general election, they would indeed be disenfranchised. Why? Because voting in federal, state, and municipal elections is a "right." But participation in party primaries seems to be another matter--a privilege, a choice you're entitled to as a member of the party, but not an inalienable right.

"Maybe. But if so there's a substantial element of truth to her musings. After all, a solid HRC victory in Florida -- coupled with even a modest one in Michigan -- might well have proved a decisive Obamamentum stopper heading into Super Tuesday (or at some later stage had either of those two states obeyed the rules). It's hardly a mystery why Hillary must be pretty peeved that an Obama victory in a very close nominating process will partly result from taking two large, potentially quite Clinton-friendly states out of the equation."

Then she should have said so before everyone agreed to not participate (and everyone except her had agreed to take their names off of the Michigan ballot). I can guarantee you that if she has said in Fall 2007 "I don't care what the DNC says, I'm going to approach these and compete in them like real primaries" then the other candidates would have competed as well. But she didn't. She explicitly said on numerous occasions that "everyone knows they don't count." She signed a written pledge along those lines. Going back on it now, under these circumstances, makes her a filthy liar.

Now, maybe Obama was naive to take her at her word. But I'll take that over a lying, opportunistic scumbag.

Millicent and weboy, what democratic principle have you discovered that involves treating spurious elections as real? Since when did Americans accept elections when only one name was on the ballot, and when voters were told that the primary was not valid - and so did not vote? You are proposing to violate two of the key principles of democracy - that all parties and candidates shall be represented on the ballot, and that voters shall have access to a duly constituted election on the appointed day. Neither of those applies in the cases of Florida and Michigan - as even Clinton acknowledged before she lost the nomination. Explain just what makes either of these “elections” legitimate, or think like a Democrat, and admit that they weren’t, aren’t and won’t be valid.

Since we are on the subject, let's remember that to compare Florida to Zimbabwe is a grotesque insult to the people of Zimbabwe who have suffered so much. They deserve more respect than to be used in a cheap and dishonest comparison for political advantage. Equally, anyone who sees any resemblance between Mugabe's atrocious regime and the havoc it has reached and the way the Obama campign is defending the process to which everyone agreed simply needs some therapy, or, more likely a course in basic ethics. Hillary is trying to race-bait again, casting Obama as the scary black man stealing white votes. Her tactics are vile, and anyone who endorses them is endorsing and collaborating with a racist. That's the reality that weboy and Millicent are trying to deny, and they know it.

"Instead of spewing cheap invective, why not try, um, actually responding to my points. The Obama campaign's managers were incredibly shrewd... They absolutely knew even a narrow Michigan loss headed into Super Tuesday might have proven fatal or extremely damaging to their chances. So they quite understandably made sure the state's results looked as illegitimate as possible."

I would, avoid the invective if you had a shred of evidence for what you're claiming.

Back up your paranoid ranting with some proof, or admit that you are arguing out of your ass.

Where I once was solidly dismissive of the idea that Clinton was setting herself up for a 2012 run, now I'm agnostic. In any case, it's clear she's trying to set Obama up for a 2008 loss.

This doesn't even make sense as a political strategy. If Obama loses in November and the conventional wisdom decrees that his loss was in part because of Clinton's actions in delegitimizing his nomination, then she becomes the Ralph Nader of 2008.

What the hell does that get her? Does anyone in her campaign think Nadar had a chance at winning anything in 2004?

Nobody else seems to have brought up this theory: perhaps it isn't even about winning the nomination for her anymore, but prolonging the idea that she has a chance so that people keep giving her money and she can pay off some of her campaign debt. Making her supporters angry at Obama and the DNC would seem to help the fundraising angle even if it doesn't have any chance of getting her the nomination at this point.

Obama's supporters here are as weak as is Obama. Barry Ballless runs from debate with Hillary, while you power brains call those who debate criminals. Piece of shit rightwing trolls (redundancy) will bring the same crap to the table, because it breeds devisiveness and hatred, vital in their goal to make Obama the Democratic nominee.

Just as no reasonable person denies Obama is positively limping to the finish line.

I must not be a reasonable person, then, because I don't see any evidence for this statement in the world outside the Clinton encampment, which inclines me to deny it.

jimbo, are you so desperate to earn your own personalized dildo from the McCain campaign? Why not just tell us how you bask in the Wobbly One's doddering presence? Your pretense of being a Democrat wouldn't deceive a blind mouse in a dark alley.

"She's now pursuing a political strategy meant to defeat Obama and ensure the party regrets his nomination."

For real?
You did drink the Koolaid dintcha?

"Weboy, I think the "hurting the party" part comes from the fact that she's creating a belief among her supporters that Obama's victory is illigimate and tainted, even if they won't explicitly use those words."

I certainly will be using those words, but it certainly didn't take Clinton to suggest them?

It's been obvious since the caucus rigging.

"She's a real life fucking terminator, and its going to be hilarious watching the democrats screw up their best chance for the presidency in 50 years."

Yep. If they'd only nominated her, the Terminator would be on their side. Stupid stupid people.

Shes probably just still trying to win the election but I can't believe anyone is buying the bullshit MI/FL argument that she has been peddling for months. I guess its because its beyond selfserving - so wrongheaded that it is hard to see how wrong it is. If the Democrats lose either of those states because of her stirring everyone up there it'll be a real shame.

Brilliant. So when Florida and Michigan Democrats don't vote for Obama because he won't allow their votes to be counted, it will be all Hillary's fault, because she stirred them up. Those foolish people, so stupid that they will only move if "stirred up" by Hillary.

lig

no one is buying the arguments except the crazies on line.

Tobie,

disenfranchisement
One entry found.

disenfranchise

Main Entry: dis·en·fran·chise
Pronunciation: \ˌdis-in-ˈfran-ˌchīz\
Function: transitive verb
Date: 1664
: to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some PRIVILEGE or immunity.

Lige,
The shame of losing MI or FL will belong to Obama and the DNC. If Ezra were to be honest here, he'd admit that Obama should have supported revotes in both states when he had the chance.

Brilliant. So when Florida and Michigan Democrats don't vote for Obama because he won't allow their votes to be counted, it will be all Hillary's fault, because she stirred them up. Those foolish people, so stupid that they will only move if "stirred up" by Hillary.

There's no evidence whatever that this is hurting Obama in Michigan; as noted earlier, he polls somewhat better against McCain in Michigan than Clinton. He does not poll well in Florida, but it is widely recognized that the state is not good for him demographically.

Anonymous | May 22, 2008 7:03 PM
If you were honest you would see that the Michigan Democratic party chose not to do a revote and the Florida legistlature [Republicans] said they could not afford it. Also the various counties in Florida realized it was impossible due to the voter machines being switched from old to new. Do some research. Stop blaming Obama. If anything blame Clinton. She was the one who made no fuss about the decision last year.

It's amazing how many Clinton supporters ignore the fact that Clinton and Obama poll exactly the same in Michigan.

All this isn't really making any difference at all when it comes to the general election. Hillary supporters just like to shriek and howl because they are sore losers.

Millicent -- your theory that Obama is going to lose Michigan over this is not bourne out by the polls. Have a look at 538 on the bottom of the right hand column where all the polls live. Obama is beating McCain in Michigan according to the poll average shown there.

Ezra, I'm an Obama supporter and a fan of your blog, but this post seems waaaaay over the top.

There are a lot of possible reasons Clinton could be taking this position: Maybe she still sees a 1-in-100 path to the nomination, and wants to pursue it. Maybe she's trying to give Obama a reason to give her more of what she wants in backstage negotiations.

The assumption that Clinton's acting out of malice is not justified, and it's also not helpful.

ModDem,

You misrepresent my position. I am not saying Obama blocked those revotes; I'm saying he didn't support them. It was an error on his part.

"I accused Obama supporters of being kool aid drinkers, but seriously, you are starting to beat them."

And you are...?

Will somebody tell that Clinton chick to get a life???

Just as no reasonable person denies Obama is positively limping to the finish line.

The basis for concluding that Obama is "limping" is very thin. Of recent primaries, he has won NC and OR handily, lost by a paper-thin margin in IN, and come from far, far behind to make a reasonably close race in PA. That leaves only KY and WV, two small states where neither Democratic candidate is going to come close to winning in November, and which have disproportionate numbers of Josh Frys among their electorates.

Disagreeing with you on this one does not make me "unreasonable," Millicent.

If Obama has won, why not agree to seat all the delegates from MI & FL?

A very basic tenet of the Dem party is "count every vote." It appears that the Obama folks are having a problem with situational ethics. The rules for these 2 states were over the top and never meant to be enforced at the convention. The fact that this is a very close race means that it's time to count ALL the votes and let the chips fall where they may.

If Obama continues to block these 2 states, then his nomination will stink with illegitimacy.

The fact is more people voted for Hillary than Obama, this doesn't guarantee her the nomination, but it does give her the right to some respect and a place at the table.

So stop your whiny ways and grow up, this is politics.

Ambinder is reporting on a group that's sending oranges to superdelegates, asking them to give Florida full seating.

Clever idea, but the group's website has what I think is a bizarre error: they say they are "remembering Boston 1746" (here)

It's above some teabags, so I think they mean to reference the Boston Tea Party. Which was in 1773. In 1746, they hadn't even fought the French and Indian War yet, much less agitated themselves towards the Revolutionary War.

Seriously, the only thing I could find on the Google about Boston in 1746 was the printing in that city of a popular British anti-Catholic screed. I really don't think that's what this group intended to reference...what am I missing here?

MonaL:

Democratic theory and practice do not require us to "count every vote" when only one major candidate's name appears on the ballot, as was the case in Michigan. Nor does it require us to certify the result of elections such as the Florida primary, when many people did not vote because they were told that the election would not count.

Full disclosure - I'm a Florida resident and I voted in the primary, because I'm more interested in politics than roughly 98 percent of the population. I know, however, that many of my friends did not vote.

Moreover, it is NOT true that "more people voted for Hillary than Obama," even if you include Michigan, where Obama's name did not appear on the ballot. This myth has been exposed on several occasions in the past few days. You are either disingenuous or poorly informed about this and other issues.

"She will do this by convincing voters in Florida and Michigan that his campaign has wronged them and should be severely punished. It's an attempt to poison the well, to deny his campaign 44 electoral votes, or about 1/6th the total needed to win."

I would point out that Rush has been pushing an identical line for at least the last two weeks. For those who doubt the "poisoning the well" point, ask yourself why Rush would be pushing it too--and what that then says about a leading Dem doing the same.

Demanding that the 31 Michigan delegates that Obama has so far won be stripped of their delegate status and replaced with Hillary shills is not a tenable position, no matter millificient, anonymous, Jimbo, and the other Hillary shills pretend it is.

MonaL, most of us are fine with seating all the delegates, but thats not what Hillary is demanding. She is demanding that we only seat here delegates from Michigan, and refuse to seat the 31 delegates that Obama won at the state conventions as well as the 20+ more he will win through the rest of the uncommitted delegate selection process.

I really wish you Hillary supporters would stop willfully ignoring that simple fact. Hillary doesn't want the Michigan delegates seater. She wants HER Michigan delegates seated and refuses to recognize the already selected 'uncommitted' delegates whose positions were won by Obama supporters at the michigan state conventions.

Anonymous, the 'Obama is going to lose' brigade doesn't care about polls. They know Obama is black, and they refuse to believe it's possible for a black man to be elected President.

The big question is, if they are so damned cynical, why do they believe a woman can be elected President? I believe it's possible to honestly think neither could win. I think it's possible to honestly believe either could win. I do not think it's possible to honestly believe one could win but not the other.

The only way you can pretend 'more people voted for Hillary than Obama' is if you:

1.) count Florida as cast
2.) Count only Hillary's votes in Michigan and pretend nobody in the entire state wanted to vote for Obama.
3.) Refuse to count Iowa, Washington, Maine, and Nevada.

Gee, amazing how people who scream and howl that 'democracy is being destroyed!' when we don't count the votes from 2 states whole heartedly support not counting 4 of them.

Actually, the disenfranchisement of MI and FL voters is more like the bad ol' days when all those Dems put on their sheets and terrorized blacks into staying away from the polls.

I can't see any rational explanation for Clinton's behavior at this point.

She's lent her campaign over 10 million after its been mathematically certain that she can't win.

The Clintons are wealthy, but not Ross Perot I'm going to blow millions on vanity rich.

Then she starts denouncing the DNC in pretty strong terms - not a tone of friendly disagreement, but poisonous.

It can't possibly be principled - if this was truly a principle that she believed in as passionately as she's talking why didn't she realize the manifest injustice of it earlier? If Fl and MI are Zimbabwe doesn't that make Terry McAulliffe Robert Mugabe?

And she hasn't fired him?

But its not political calculation - She. Can't Win. And spending millions on the chance of destroying the hopes of the Democratic party in 2008 with the expectation of having them elect her in 2012 is not very well thought out.

I think she's just so caught up in fighting that she can't step back and look at the strategic level. Knowing when you're beat is a valuable skill, which Clinton doesn't seem to have.

I think she's just so caught up in fighting that she can't step back and look at the strategic level. Knowing when you're beat is a valuable skill, which Clinton doesn't seem to have.

Agreed. Looking at the strategic level has never been a gift of the Clinton campaign. Yet another reason to thank the Christ she won't be our nominee in the general election. She might seriously wound Obama, but I'd still like his odds better than I'd like hers if the roles were reversed.

Justaguy/sweatyguy raise the really queasy issue here. There are basically two possibilities left here:

1) Clinton is so keyed up thanks to the bitter campaign that she's lost sight of the big picture, and is now just fighting to fight.

OR

Clinton wants to torpedo Obama's chances to keep an open Dem slot for 2012.

IMHO, the thing that's made so many Dems start to think option 2 is what's really in play is that it's hard to imagine an experienced politician like Clinton going off the rails as option 1 suggests. Even now, I'd prefer to think of Hillary Clinton as a master strategist playing a sophisticated political game than a vindictive idiot crashing through years of hard organizational work in a fit of personal pique.

The discussion with Millicent above is also really interesting b/c it reminds me of so many Bush-era fights where the other side arbitrarily chooses some premise (ie: Iraq has WMD; American education needs more private schooling; everyone in Guantanamo Bay has information about imminent terrorist attacks), then makes a bunch of wild policy moves based on it. If you don't support the invasion of Iraq, you must want New York to go up in a mushroom cloud. If you don't support NCLB, you must want children to remain illiterate. Here, the premise is that Barack Obama simply cannot ever win an election because he is (pick one) black/elitist/too liberal/too dovish. So if you don't support literally any pretext to hand Clinton the nomination, you must want John McCain to win. It really makes all the crowing about the "Reality Based Community" seem a little silly these days.

NS

It's even worse. If you don't accept what is at this point their sophistry, then they threaten to take their toys home, write in Clinton's name anyway, or vote McCain. So, you are not only being subject to wildly changing arguments that only serve Clinton, but also to threats of blackmail if you don't accept the arguments and Clinton.

"If Obama continues to block these 2 states, then his nomination will stink with illegitimacy."

Somehow, I think that any Obama win will "stink with illegitmacy" amongst the Hillary brownshirts like yourself.

When I first suspected that the Clinton supporters were going nuts occured over at TalkLeft. On that a site, I believe it was after Indianna which turned out to be much closer than polling said it would be. There were all these wild accusations and innuendo of cheating by Obama even by Big Tent Democrat (Armando) who claims to be an Obama supporter (but his support seems more along the lines of the Seinfeld espisode where a guy becomes Jewish just to tell bad jokes about Jews). The biggest problem I have with Clinton is that she continued to run, but that she's doing so by trying to destroy Obama's legit wins and accomplishments in the primaries. That's the most destruction thing to the party.