« Bill Kristol goes negative on Obama | Main | Flying Newt Gingrich: Techno-savvy! »

February 25, 2008


I'd be more impressed with the disenfranchisement argument if the Clinton team were arguing that the nominee should be the candidate who won the popular vote. (I personally hate the whole delegate system).

Of course, they're arguing just the opposite - claiming that superdelegates may actually have a better sense of the voter's wishes than the voters do themselves.

My guess is that they don't demand full enfranchisement because they're also losing the popular vote, even when Florida and Michigan are included.

Like the selective recount attempted by Gore in 2000, the Clintons' approach to seating delegates is very much result-oriented. Their attempt to cloak the effort in principle is risible and hardly deserves to be taken seriously.

Hillary's supporters laud her pragmatism, which is a nice way of characterizing a will to do whatever's necessary to get what she wants--a mindset that explains not only the Florida/Michigan ploy but the entire misbegotten campaign.

The death throes of a feral animal are not pretty to watch.

please help me i am in serious danger clinton and c.i.a threatened me my english isnot good enough my blog in arabic explain everything my blog http://494949.blogsome.com

The comments to this entry are closed.