What an embarrassment for the Times this schmuck is. I tried talking to him for 30 seconds in person after an AIPAC event and he seemed genuinely disinterested in what I had to say. But this is just how he treats a lowly college student greeting guests at an AIPAC event. He saves the best stuff for common sense policy ideas.

I'm not one to defend a cynical bastard like Kristol but your analogy to the 2000 Bush v Gore race isn't the best.  The superdelegates in the current race can factor whatever they want into their decision for who would make the best candidate including the popular vote.  Of course the total delegate count should be regarded as "everything".  

It's interesting how one's attitude plays such a role in how folks interpret one's words.

If someone is pompous, condescending, or otherwise holier-than-thou, they'd better be, at the very least, consistent. The arrogant do not deserve and will not receive a scintilla of slack from me (among others) if they say something one week, then contradict it the next.

OTOH if someone is humble in word, generous to his critics, and willing to admit mistakes, I'll give him slack. If he says something one week before later contradicting himself, well, at least he's been a gentleman about it.

This is what fries me about pundits like William Kristol and politicians like Hillary Clinton. They ooze self-righteousness, which means they haven't been paying attention, because no human being deserves to be self-righteous, so why should we suddenly change the rules for them?

Perhaps such myopia stems from associating with trailblazers earlier in their lives, before they themselves took center stage, with much of the deference showed to their forbearers unjustifiably splashing over onto them. They don't understand that they don't own the mantle until they've spent years breaking it in.

Or perhaps they lead with all that linguistic machismo to compensate for some deep-seated feelings of inadequacy?

Either way, ideological opponents who are also careful readers (e.g., Chait) will succinctly impale them upon their own lances every time.

Uh, Jon, I think that part of Kristol's argument was to deflate the Obamaphiles' contention that Barack is ahead in the popular vote, and therefore he should be awarded the nomination.  For some reason the Democratic leadership decided to disenfranchise 2 of the biggest states from the primary process (FL and MI).  Had Democrats in those states been allowed to have their votes count (the way the Republicans did), Hillary would be much closer, and who knows, maybe even ahead of Obama.  

For the party that demanded "Let every vote count" in 2000 (unless, of course, the voters were on active duty in the military overseas at the time), to now say voters in FL and MI don't count is quite a turnaround.  I'd suggest that it has been the stupidity of Howard Dean and company, as well as the corrupt Democratic Superdelegate role in determining the nominee, that wins the Hypocrisy Sweepstakes here, not Kristol.  The party of the little guy simply squashes the little guy when it comes to picking the nominee.  

dlrocdoc, no sorry but you are simply wrong in your math. If they revoted and Hillary took her same percentage of 55% in Florida, Obama's percentage would jump up to 45%, a huge increase in his net. And of course he would do better than his zero. Hillary only tops Obama now if you count Hillarys 55% and essentially 100% of the votes that were counted in Michigan and Florida (since they are not counting the none of the above option in Michigan)

In any conceivable case Obama would be ahead now, and this before North Carolina (which has a much higher delegate and popular vote count than Indiana however it votes) after that it is all small time.

Blackton, fair enough, but all of these numbers are conjecture.  The fact of the matter is that the only number that counts in the end is the total number of delegates.  Whether the delegate came from a democratically conducted election, a caucus held in an open room with lots of public arm-twisting (instead of a secret ballot), or from being annointed by birthright (e.g, you're a superdelegate because you are a close relative of Nancy Pelosi), each delegate has the same clout.  To claim that delegates selected by popular vote should count more may be morally correct, the the method chosen by our Democratic Party is hardly moral.  If the Obamaphiles would just can the popular vote argument, Kristol will have less to rip the Democrats with.  That way we all win!

What torques me is that the Democratic Party---our beloved, enlightened party of the little guy---simply don't trust the little guy to select the nominee---instead they give veto power to superdelegates, and blithely disenfranchise a few big states from participation in the process as well.  Even my junior high school student body elections weren't this rigged!  

And Kristol knows unfair and corrosive.