Nice election you got there.  Be a shame if something were to happen to it.

Funny. Bill wasn't worried about what went on behind closed doors when he was president.

I'd have to check the historical record for this, but have the Clintons won the whiniest major campaign in recent history? They have an excuse to wrangle out of evey result or even possible result. Yeah, the primary/caucus system is way too complicated and should be reformed in the future. But where were they on this when the nomination looked like a lock -- and where would they be if they were winning caucuses? Or Iowa? Or any contest in the month after Super Tuesday?

How pompous. Texas has rules, rules that while confusing at least have been the same and easily discoverable for some time. The rules allocate some delegates through the primary election, and some through the caucus. No one will be "taking away" something earned if the election and caucuses yield two different results, any more than I "take away" your vote if I support an opposing candidate. Really - this grasping at straws is both unbecoming and getting tiresome. I feel an annoying mixture of pity and disgust.

After weeks of finding reasons to discount every Obama victory, the Clinton campaign seems to be laying

Make the "run" instead of "won" -- with emphasis.

And Bill Cinton knows a thing or two about how tragic it is for Hillary to be betrayed by 15-minute closed-door sessions in the early evening.

But seriously, in this case Bill doesn't seem to have been saying that the caucuses are illegitimate. I read him as saying this to exhort Hillary voters to take the effort to show up and participate in the caucuses to. More like, "If you really want your vote to count, you've also gotta show up to caucus between 7:00 and 7:15, sharp." Nothing wrong or whiny about that. Obama's been saying the same thing in Texas for a while now.

In re whininess, I think they're just on a par with Bob Dole in 1992.

yes, and It would be tragic if Obama were to win this election in the primary season and superdelegates were to come in at the convention and take it away."

As it becomes increasingly clear that Obama is going to be the nominee,  now would be a good time to curtail the Clinton bashing. Having an ex-President in the chorus of supporters wouldn't be so bad. I think allowing them a gracious exit would be both prudent and the right thing to do.

Because of the vitriol of the Far Right during the GOP primaries, look how much time and energy McCain has to spend pandering to his base.Time to stop pounding the Clintons. This all could be over in the next ten days. The candidate of unity would look pretty feckless if he can't unite his own party.

Rhubarbs: And Bill Cinton knows a thing or two about how tragic it is for Hillary to be betrayed by 15-minute closed-door sessions in the early evening.

I'll call that a shave and stiletto.

fougasseu, in theory I agree with you 100 percent. Ending this kind of political warfare is at the core of Obama's message, after all. The problem is that Hillary has actually stepped up the Obama-bashing, not curtailed it, which is why most of us are not ready to let down our guard. Despite her remarks at the end of last week's debate about being proud to share the stage with him, within 48 hours she was screeching about his "shameful" tactics like he was a schoolboy in need of punishment.  

I'd definitely like this to end with as little mudslinging as you do, but there's just no way to reign this in until Hill and Bill start to realize that their continued battering Obama has been incredibly divisive (and is actually sinking her in the polls).

Ummm, almost everybody's talking 'bout the "closed doors" and election process angles, but I kinda sorta thought the point of Michael Crowley's post was to underscore that South Carolina Bill might be back, using language like "somebody were to come in at night and take it away" to suggest the Menacing Black Guy breaking in and stealing something.

I can't get over what has happened to Bill Clinton. He used to be impressive.

Did anyone else read Geraldine Ferraro's op-ed in the NY Times today? Very disingenuous. She starts off arguing for the value of the superdelegates, which she helped create in '84. About two-thirds of the way in she acknowledges she's a Hillary supporter and by the end she's arguing for the inclusion of Michigan and Florida, implying that the voters had their vote taken away rather than that no campaign was conducted in their state and they were told their vote would not count PRIOR to election day, which might have some effect on the results, don't you think? Not to mention that Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan. Shameless.

Bill Clinton's comments are the kinds of nonsense I would expect to find posted on message boards.  It's sad that it's a former president talking that kind of trash.

"Somebody" of course being a large mass of voters.