Sociopaths on parade again.  

Isn't this sort of like arguing that electors in the electoral college are free to vote for whomever they want? It's technically correct, but nobody runs campaigns trying to convince them to switch, even when the margin is only a few votes (e.g. 2000).  As a practical matter, pledged delegates only switch when the candidate they are pledged to is no longer in the race, and sometimes not even then.

The "fog of nonsense" idea seems plausible.  I can't think of any other reason why the Clinton campaign would be bringing this up.

"Fog of nonsense," almost but not quite.  I posted about this when the subject was first mentioned.  I think the effort is to make winning the nomination despite the pledged delegates and popular vote seem reasonable by comparison.

'What sort of plant can he be when we don't believe a word he says?'

'Never you mind what sort!  Muddying pools, poisoning wells maybe.  That damn sort.'

Unless or until Florida and Michigan residents have an opportunity to vote, I beleieve that Hillary has every right to pull whatever legal strings she can. If and when such elections are held, and if Obama still leads in actual vote count, not delegate count which is skewed because of weird caucus rules in some states, I would concur that he deserves the nomination without interference of the super delegates.  

I can't stand Clinton's tactics, I don't like her, and I don't believe she is going to get the nomination.  However, part of me wonders if, post Wright, the Dems might not have a better chance with their fading hopes of winning the Presidency with her.  Her ruthlessness may be the only quality that could pull out a victory.  I mean she is in Karl Rove's league.

Because PC Costello enjoys reading small fluctuations in polls, she'll enjoy this. Clinton's lead over Obama in PA, according to the most recent rasmussen poll, has shrunk from 13 to 10 points. her favorability ratings have dropped by 8 points over the past two weeks. Two weeks ago, she was ahead of Obama in favorability. Now she's behind.

It appears, once again, that Hillary's campaign has difficulty telling the difference between "can" and "should."

And r-ennis, unless I am experiencing unusually vivid hallucinations brought on by electoral overload, I seem to recall both Florida and Michigan voting already.  That those votes don't count is unfortunate, and not the fault of the voters themselves.  That a suitable remedy has not been found is lamentable.  However, Clinton knew that the votes wouldn't count at exactly the same time Obama did, and if her campaign didn't find alternate (legitimate) ways of winning with that being the case, she should...um...lose.

sbmike... you say that post Wright HRC might have a better chance of winning the General than does Obama.  Perhaps.  But would you rather have HRC than McCain with the type of stunts she pulls?  At least McCain is an honorable man and honorable is not something one would apply to The Clintons.  Winning isn't everything.  Winning isn't even the only thing.  How you win informs how you can govern.  Witness 2000 and 2004.  Haven't we learned anything.  Besides how bad would it be if McCain won with a hefty dose of independent/demo votes with a Democratic Congress?  How bad would it be if this country sarted realigning parties on fundamental progressive/retrograde lines?  HRC and her crew are beginning to scare the bejezus out of me.  I am slowly coming to the conclusion that she would in fact represent the 3rd Bush term in really poisonous ways.

Enough with the Michigan and Florida topic.   They risked everything on the foolish chance to move their primaries into an earlier slot.  They gambled that the race would be over early and they wanted in on the action.  They lost.  The DNC told them not to make the move, told them that they would get whacked if they did.  The MI and FL folks decided to play chicken and got crushed.  The candidates knew the score going into the beginning of the primary season, MI and FL flouted the DNC, and they promised they would abide with the decision.

Lo and behold, the MI and FL gamble backfired spectacularly.  Not only did they get smacked by the DNC, the campaign was not even close to over by their actual primary dates.  If they had shown the slightest bit of awareness or saavy they would have been kingmakers.  Instead, they lost.  Tough.

Senator Clinton, now behind, desperates wants to change the rules to her theoretical benefit.  Well, bully.  If she was so hopped up on voting rights zeal, she should have convinced MI and FL to get back in line when it could have made a difference.  She didn't.  Again, bully for her.  

Lastly, the notion that countless thousands of MI and FL voters are going to hold on to this and punish the Democrats in the general is highly doubtful.  Do we have evidence for this?  Real evidence?  Do we have some kind of precedent that we can cite to show that this is ooing to happen?   Or is all of this mere retroactive handwrining?

What is far more damaging to the Democrats is that John McCain is gadding about the country and the world soaking up good press.  Even his 'senior moment' on Iran and al Qaeda has been sloughed off by most of the talking heads.  The Democrats are going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory yet again because nobody seems to have the courage to tell the Clinton machine that it is over.  The Clinton Restoration continues to trot out every angle to make sure that the carnage continues, because the door hasn't been slammed in their faces yet.  

r-ennis wrote, "Unless or until Florida and Michigan residents have an opportunity to vote ..."

Michigan and Florida residents already had an opportunity to vote! Both states held primary elections. It was in the newspapers! You can look it up. The Democratic Party in each state simply chose to conduct nominating contests that would not produce delegates in order to gain early influence over national perceptions of the race. They failed. But it is simply not true to say that the residents of these states have not had a chance to vote. They had that chance. They voted. It happened.

To say otherwise is to speak a knowing falsehood.

So those of you who wish to let the Michigan and Florida fiasco stand, despite its clear inequity, on the theory that the wishes of voters in these states do not have to be considered, wish me to believe that Obama is a candidate of CHANGE. If that is your view, then my view is that Hillary has every moral right to court super delegates and even committed non-super delegates to gain the nomination. My view would be different if new Michigan and Florida primaries were held and Obama still emerged as the overall winner of popular votes.

Chris has an excellent post up about the Clinton campaign's dwelling on how pledged delegates aren't

r-ennis, you change the subject. You said something that was not true. When this is pointed out, you step deftly to one side and mount a new attack. I can see why Hillary appeals to you.

But to address your point, there are only a few possible outcome to the FL and MI mess. They include:

1. Do nothing, and require Florida and Michigan Democrats to live with the consequences of their decisions.

2. Seat the FL and MI delegations as-is, and thereby reward their attempts to disenfranchise the rest of us. (Variations on this option would include seating only elected delegates, not superdelegates, or cutting the delegations in half like the GOP, but all would have the same effect of rewarding some states for cheating in an attempt to make every other state's primary meaningless.)

3. Allow MI and FL to vote twice, effectively reducing the value of everyone else's vote by half.

None of these are happy outcomes. But it's just stunning to me that any American would consider option 3 as a best-case. Even slaves were counted for 60 percent of a person back in the day; second votes in FL and MI would make the people of 48 states only 50 percent voters. My vote. My mother's vote. The votes of every Democrat I know in about half the states of the union.

The idea of revotes here is just as absurd as if Barry Bonds juiced up on steroids, then struck out, then complained that it wasn't fair that he struck out and he wants a do-over. FL and MI didn't vote early as a prank. They did so in a deliberate decision to trade away delegates for early "momentum" affecting races specifically designed to decide the race by acclamation before most of the other states had a chance to vote. They saw what happened in 2004 and they wanted in on the early-voting action, and they felt that sacrificing delegates was an acceptable price to pay, and that's that.

I actually favor solution 1 because I am for change -- the change being proving that Democrats are in fact capable of standing up to bullies and cheaters and not coddling criminals and not giving out gold stars because we're afraid of hurting the feelings of people who do wrong. But I could live with solution 2, especially since it's been obvious all along that that's what would happen in the end. Once one candidate has enough delegates lined up to win regardless of MI and FL, then _of course_ MI and FL delegations will be seated.

r-ennis,

The states of Michigan and Florida have themselves decided NOT to hold votes within the rules of the DNC.

We are at the final stage.  The algebra is ineluctable and now Hillary is at the point of making herself look ridiculous,  Once the country is laughing at her, she is definitely toast.  It won't long now that CBS is showing her Walter Mitty speech juxtaposed with the videotape of Tuzla (see the Walter Mitty ctd blog)

r-ennis,

We are saying that you should point your ire toward the fools who allowed this to happen, the good folks in the state Democratic parties of Michigan and Florida.  The voters should be pissed at them, not the campaigns.  The campaigns followed the rules - as they were set up - because of the foolishness of the party hacks in Michgan and Florida.  

Forgive my obtuseness, r-ennis, but what the hell are you talking about?  Obama may be the candidate of "change," but what does that have to do with anything?  Obama didn't make the rules by which Florida and Michigan were disqualified.  Are you saying that, as the candidate for change, he has to abide by Clinton's double-dealing?  Why should he be some sort of patsy?

In technology marketing circles it's called spreading FUD: Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Everyone does it, and the big boys (and girls) do it best of all.

Especially big players whose product offering trails far behind a much more attractive upstart's offering.

Rhubarbs,

You write, "None of these are happy outcomes. But it's just stunning to me that any American would consider option 3 as a best-case. Even slaves were counted for 60 percent of a person back in the day; second votes in FL and MI would make the people of 48 states only 50 percent voters. My vote. My mother's vote. The votes of every Democrat I know in about half the states of the union."

I'm still don't buy that line of reasoning.  Having a vote that counts and a vote that doesn't count is not the same as having two meaningful ones, which is what you are implying Florida and Michigan would get.  Democrats in Washington got to vote twice, as did voters who voted in both phases of the Texas primacaucus.  Nobody is arguing that those events halve the votes in other states, because their multiple votes have no more influence on the delegates than the single votes of you, your mother, and all of your Democratic friends.

The "willfully trading delegates for momentum" assessment doesn't really hold up either unless you impute monumental stupidity to the Florida and Michigan Dems (perhaps not a huge stretch, but I'm inclined to think that this was not their plan).  Early races only affect the momentum because their is something at stake.  Trading all of your delegates for an early primary is like selling your hair to buy a set of combs (think of "The Gift of the Magi" but with the characters buying things for themselves).

And again, your objection does not seem to be to states voting early in an attempt to unduly affect the momentum of the race.  Iowa and New Hamphire have been doing this for decades, and South Carolina and Nevada joined in this year.  Your objection is rather to Florida and Michigan breaking the DNC rules,  but if the DNC says that the rules permit a new vote, do the rules suddenly become less relevant?

"And also remember that pledged delegates in most states are not pledged. You know there is no requirement that anybody vote for anybody. They're just like superdelegates."

(above)

"Sen. Hillary Clinton on Wednesday warned that millions of people in Florida and Michigan "are in danger of being excluded from our democratic process" if their votes are not counted.""

www.cnn.com/.../florida.michigan

So if pledged delegates vote for a different candidate than the one they are pledged to vote for, wouldn't that also "exclude from the democratic process" those who elected them as pledged delegates?  I'm confused...

I guess r-ennis's implied position is, if Fla and Mich voters are excluded from the democratic process, then everyone ought to be equally excluded.  Provocative, but I can't bring myself to agree.

r-ennis,

A few points:

First, Obama still leads the popular vote by a fairly large margin even when the Florida vote is included.  Including the Michigan vote would be absurd because voters were literally barred from voting for any of the major candidates other than Clinton and Kucinich.  Even if you include Michigan, he's ahead by over 200,000 votes.

Second, as I've mentioned elsewhere, the popular vote is flawed as a metric in this contest in that it comes very close to the Clinton "well if you don't count all the caucuses, it's very close" argument.  Consider Colorado and Alabama, two states with roughly the same population.  Obama's 34.2% win in CO amounted to a margin of 41,000 votes, while his 14.4% win in Alabama amounted to a margin of 77,000 votes.  Perhaps you think that caucuses should count for much less, but I doubt the states that chose to hold caucuses would agree.

Finally, the argument that Florida and Michigan aren't being included, so Clinton should use whatever underhanded techniques she wants is something of a non sequitur.  How are Florida and Michigan in any way related to trying to flip pledged delegates from other states?

quick correction:

"Early races only affect the momentum because their is something at stake"

that should be 'there', not 'their'.

Actually, Hillary does not appeal to me. She is merely the lesser of evils as far as I can tell. Furthermore, I did not change the subject. My two previous posts were consistent and it has become clear that Obama supporters, no less than Clinton supporters are willing to bend the rules to favor their candidate. Regardless of who is at fault, the fact remains that Michigan and Florida residents will not have an opportunity to have their votes counted.

At the very least, it would be politically foolish to ignore these two potentially key states. That's why I believe that Hillary is justified in seeking support of super delegates and even committed Obama delegates as long as what she is doing is legal. Obama does not have the moral high ground, as far as I can see.

Looking at the raw politics, a case can be made for Clinton in that a recent poll indicated that about 37% of Clinton supporters intend to vote for McCain if Obama is the candidate and only about 25% of Obama supporters intend to vote for McCain if Clinton is the nominee. Why shouldn't super delegates consider that?  Particularly after the recent Rev Wright controversy, you will see more and more Jewish voters opting for McCain and they are in crucial states, without which no Democrat can win.

Hillary Clinton spokesman Phil Singer , responding February 19 to an article stating that the Clinton