Our Long Florida-Michigan Nightmare Is Over

Today the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee finally put an end to the Florida-Michigan fiasco, and in probably the best way possible. Here is a breakdown:

• Both Michigan and Florida get 100% of their delegates seated, thus giving their voters a voice at the Convention, even if the votes represented illegitimate elections in the first place.
• The delegates from Florida and Michigan only receive half a vote at the Convention, which represents the punishment for breaking the rules, yet is gracious considering the original penalty was no vote at all. This was necessary because without a penalty there would be no reason for them, and every other state, to break the rules next time around. People never mentioned this, but Michigan has broken the rules THREE presidential elections in a row (2000, 2004, 2008), they knew what they were doing, and they keep breaking the rules anyway, sanctions were necessary to maintain order in the Democratic Party and to not be a HUGE slap in the face to the 48 states that actually obeyed the rules. Hillary wanted them to not be penalized at all, apparently not caring that such a decision would mean chaos for the next contested primary season.
• Obama received the "Uncommitted" delegates from Michigan, the vast majority of which obviously voted for Obama (and then some for Edwards, who endorsed Obama). This was quite obviously the fairest outcome, since it comes closer to mirroring the actual will of the voters than the alternative solution, which was Hillary's contention that Obama should get ZERO votes from Michigan. Yes, they think that was the fairest outcome. No one in the entire state of Michigan voted for Obama apparently. That is what the Hillary camp would like us to assume.

In the end, Hillary got 19 more delegates out of Florida than Obama, and 10 more out of Michigan, meaning that after their votes are cut in half, she gets 14.5 more delegates than Obama, which changes nothing. I should also mention that this was the exact solution I was supporting as the ideal compromise, for everyone.

What is really important here is that the Florida decision was UNANIMOUS, meaning every single Hillary supporter on the Committee voted in favor of the compromise, signaling how ridiculous her position was, and how the Party is unifying around Obama, despite her scorched earth strategy. The Michigan vote was 19-8, so 8 Hillary supporters hung on to the outrageous demand that Obama get zero votes out of Michigan, apparently thinking it is perfectly acceptable to disenfranchise every Obama (and Edwards) supporter in the state, even though they just spent and entire day calling for the DNC to "count every vote" that helps Hillary. But even that vote shows that the Party is essentially behind Obama now, and that Hillary has no place to go. Although her spokesman Harold Ickes did close with a threat that Hillary "reserves the right" to take her complaints to the Credentials Committee (i.e. scorching the earth).

Hillary's supporters in attendance and protesting outside put on a pretty pathetic and petty show though. They repeatedly booed when Obama supporters on the Committee were making points, while Obama supporters never booed Hillary's supporters on the Committee, as apparently they've been house trained, while Hillary's supporters obviously have not. Outside Hillary's supporters were angry, and vowed to vote for McCain in November (yes, obviously they were great Democrats in the first place). There were also reports of some of her supporters handing out right-wing propaganda about Obama. Here is a sampling:

"[Obama] is a cult. His campaign is an anti-woman cult."

"I will actively campaign against him."

"You know who is backing him is George Soros. It'll be George Soros, not Obama, who is running the country."

"South Dakota is totally rigged for Obama because of Tom Daschle. Obama's going to win South Dakota because he's buying it and rigging it."

"[Obama] is a socialist! You know what the Nazi Party was before it was the Nazi Party? It was the Socialist Party."

It was not all that different from the mood outside, where signs read, "At least slaves were counted as 3/5ths a Citizen," and some pamphlets detailed Obama's supposed dealings in drugs and gay sex.

"Would you rather have a president who had an affair [Bill Clinton] or one who was a murderer [Obama]?" Eve Fairbanks, a reporter with The New Republic, was asked by one protester.

[And this shows who's side they are on:]

"HuffPost sucks! HuffPost sucks!" and later, "Fox News, fair And balanced! Fox News, fair and balanced!"

Yes, Obama is a murder apparently, and a gay one at that. And these despicable people pretend to be Democrats. Even Ann Coulter doesn't say crap that vile and ridiculous. All a pretty sad display, and I'd be embarrassed by their conduct if I was Hillary, or a sane Hillary supporter.

Anyway, I'm glad Florida and Michigan are behind us, Hillary is out of ways to distort the delegate math, and essentially everyone won, aside from Hillary and her supporters who were less concerned with a fair outcome than they were with Hillary's political games.

Update: Apparently Obama actually had the votes to press for an even more favorable option on Michigan, a 50-50 split, but chose not to, in order to be more charitable to Hillary, and to help Party unity.

Hillary's "Count Every Vote" Hillpocrisy

Here is a fun bit of hillpocrisy, for those jonesing for an early morning fix. This didn't make the news anywhere, but at the same time Hillary has been running around the country decrying the terrible disenfranchisement of voters in Michigan and Florida who voted for her (she wants to disenfranchise every single voter who voted for Obama in Michigan), equating their struggle (okay, actually her struggle because they don't seem to really care) with the suffrage movement and the fight against slavery, and comparing the Florida-Michigan row to Mugabe's anti-democratic actions in Zimbabwe, she has been trying to disenfranchise voters in Texas. Yes, we all know she also doesn't want to count any voters from Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington, but now she is going after caucus goers in Texas, who just happened to have voted for Obama. Hillary's campaign tried keep an entire county from being seated at the state convention because that county's senate district conventions were held a day late, because there wasn't a large enough venue in the county for the day it was originally scheduled. So Hillary's campaign wants everyone in the county (again, the county went to Obama, just a coincidence I'm sure..) disenfranchised, for breaking the rules, because they essentially had no other choice.

This of course directly contradicts her moral standard she has employed in the Florida-Michigan fiasco, which is that "whenever we can understand the clear intent of the voters, their vote should be counted." Hm, I'm pretty sure these people intended to vote for Obama, so why are you trying so hard to get everyone in that county disenfranchised if you are supposedly the new hero of democracy? What happened to fighting for every single vote to be counted?

Oh, and a Hillary supporter on the credentials committee that would decide the ultimate fate of the votes from Collin County said "What is troubling me...is that it seems to me that this rule is crystal clear." Which is funny, because the rules of the DNC were also crystal clear, even clearer actually because they were warned of the consequences, and yet they violated the rules anyway. In Collin County the local Democratic Party didn't want to break the rules, but they had nowhere to hold their county convention that day, so they had to do it the next day. But regardless, what we see here is that on one hand you have Hillary demanding that every vote (that was for her) be counted, and saying screw the rules, and then on the other hand you have her trying to disenfranchise 40% of the voters from Michigan, not count the votes from Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington, and now trying to disenfranchise the voters of an entire county in Texas, and defending the rules as "crystal clear". Funny how that works huh?

But that's hillpocrisy for you!

But this story has a happy ending, for democracy, not Hillary, because last night the Texas Democratic Party's temporary credentials committee voted unanimously to deny the challenge aimed at unseating the entire Collin County delegation from attending next week's state convention. The reason? The man Hillary's campaign had file the actual challenge with the committee on the grounds the change could have confused some voters in the county wasn't even from the county in question!

The Popular Vote, A False Measure Even If It Were Within Her Reach (Which It Isn't)

Many have been taking on Hillary's ridiculous math that she is trying to use to claim she is ahead in the popular vote, and thus entitled to the nomination. Contrary to her repeated claims, she has NOT won the popular vote. Her math only works if you count the invalid results from Michigan and Florida, even though Obama wasn't allowed to campaign in either state, and so they were little more than name recognition tests against someone who has been on the political scene for almost two decades, then, assume Obama got ZERO votes from Michigan, then you don't count ANY votes from Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington, and then you count the popular vote for Puerto Rico, even though they don't have an actual say in the general election (which flies directly in the face of her alternative claims that only states that factor into electoral votes for Democrats in November count). Simply put, she has most definitely not won the popular vote.

I've also attacked her popular vote argument from another angle by pointing out that changing the rules after the game is over and then claiming victory is outright bullshit. Her claims assume that Obama would have been playing by the same strategy if the rules had made the popular vote the goal from the beginning, which is ridiculous. Obama played by the rules, and played for delegates, and he won. If the rules were different, he would have developed an entirely different strategy. Let's use an example.

You have Obama and Hillary playing blackjack. Obama gets two 10s, so he ends up with a 20. Hillary gets dealt a 4 and a 2, she hits, gets another 4, hits again, gets another 2, and stands with 12. Obama wins, as he is closest to 21 without going over (the goal of the game), but right before he declares victory Hillary yells "Wait wait! If we were playing poker I would have won, two pair beats two of a kind!!"

This is essentially what Hillary is trying to do (plus maybe adding a few cards, Florida and Michigan, to her hand by cheating). Do you see the problem with this? Does she really expect us to believe that Obama would have stopped at two 10s if the goal hadn't been getting close to 21, but had instead been winning at poker? C'mon now. And the sad thing is, like I said before, in real life she still hasn't won at blackjack OR poker.

Anyway, today I read an article which took on Hillary's popular vote argument from a completely different, more existential angle, and I thought it was worth sharing. The gist of the critique is this:

But a general election for president has two qualities that a presidential primary campaign lacks, and which make it reasonable to talk about the national popular vote in the former but not the latter: (1) all fifty state elections in a general election are synchronic, i.e., they take place at the same time; and (2) the fifty state elections are all open to the same pools of voters and governed by roughly the same procedure.

No two elections that lack either quality can be combined into a meaningful aggregate result.

Give the whole thing a read here, because it successfully adds yet another dimension in which Hillaryland math is outright illegitimate, as if we needed another:

Hillary Clinton and the Popular Vote: Not Wrong, But Meaningless
by Daniel Koffler, The Huffington Post

And for my less word-inclined readers, a few pictorial representations:





Update: Donald Sutherland has also had enough with Hillary's popular vote nonsense:

Hillary's Popular Vote Notion only 'Popular' with the Punditocracy
by Donald Sutherland, The Huffington Post

What Do Hillary, Bush, Mugabe and Saddam All Have In Common?

In a great article in The Guardian, "Clinton Has Run Her Campaign The Same Way Bush Has Run The Country", Gary Younge quite aptly compares Hillary's modus operandi with that of Bush, pointing out the same willingness to lie to voters and distort reality (along with a whole host of other ills like fearmongering and exploiting racism) to further their political agendas. He starts off by setting the groundwork, "In her cynicism-sustained attempt to defeat Obama, she has shown contempt for intelligence, decency and democracy." Even though he is on the other side of the pond, he gets right what the MSM (with the exception of Olbermann) have failed to grasp:

As the primary season draws to a close it has become increasingly apparent that Hillary Clinton has run her campaign with the same contempt for intelligence, decency and democracy that Bush has run the country. Like the Bush administration, her campaign has been sustained by cynicism, divisiveness and fear-mongering, leaving a toxic and rancorous rift in its wake. Like the White House, her aim has been to win at all costs. And like the White House, it has produced the same result. Failure.

It is a continuum not of policies - on that front she is closer to Barack Obama than either of them would concede - but a mindset that has served America ill these past seven years. Creating a bespoke reality out of whole cloth and then hoping people will not just buy it, but wear it.

Younge then proceeds to explain her dance of deception and hypocrisy over Michigan and Florida, and how she unabashedly switched her entire position on those primaries when it served her political interest to do so (and amazingly the MSM here in America never points this very important fact out):

But then she won both. Now everything is different. Speaking before a crowd of senior citizens in Boca Raton, Florida, last week she went into metaphorical hyperbole, comparing the battle to seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan to the suffragettes, the civil rights movement and Zimbabwe - where more than 40 people have been killed in election-related violence. "We're seeing that right now in Zimbabwe," she explained to a crowd of senior citizens. "Tragically, an election was held, the president lost, they refused to abide by the will of the people. So we can never take for granted our precious right to vote."

Clinton insists she is winning the popular vote. She's right. But only if you tally votes with the same degree of selectivity as Robert Mugabe. For her claim to make sense, you would have to count the discounted Florida and Michigan primaries and discount the legitimate caucuses in Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington state, three of which Obama won. These four states do not reveal popular vote totals. It's like saying if you include your goals that were ruled offside and don't recognise your opponents' headers (it is football [soccer] after all) then you really won the game.

The reason Clinton has had to resort to this sophistry reveals another trait she shares with Bush - hubris. She believed she would have the nomination sewn up by Super Tuesday. She woke up on the following Wednesday out of money, ideas and volunteers. It was a month and nine contests before she won again. By then the momentum was Obama's and, though he has stumbled, he has been running with it since. By most reckonings he leads by about 190 delegates and 400,000 votes. Even if Michigan and Florida were counted, she would still trail in delegates.

I would also like to add that in order for her to win the popular vote, not only would she have to count the discounted Michigan primary, she would have to give Obama ZERO votes in the entire state, even though it is clear that over 40% voted against her, and that the vast majority of those would go to Obama (and the rest mostly to Edwards, who now supports Obama).

Hell, you think Bush bastardized democracy in Florida in 2000, well, you ain't seen nothing yet. Over the weekend Lanny Davis, Hillary supporter and complete idiot, proposed a Michigan "compromise", which gives Hillary all of her votes, and then basically splits the non-Hillary votes between Obama aaannnddd...?

You'd be thinking Edwards right? Well that would be wrong. According to Lanny Davis, around half of the people who didn't vote for Hillary even though she was on the ballot, actually wanted to vote for Hillary. Yes, this complete imbecile thinks Hillary should get half of the votes that were cast against her, and that Obama should get the other half. That makes sense, right? Yes, this is the kind of idiocy that comes from the Clinton camp, and you know why? Because they can't "win" the popular vote without making up asinine "compromises" like that. That should tell you something. So much for when Hillary said this:

Now I’ve heard some say that counting Florida and Michigan would be changing the rules. I say that not counting Florida and Michigan is changing a central governing rule of this country, that whenever we can understand the clear intent of the voters, their vote should be counted.

Okay, so let's set aside your utter hypocrisy here, since you and your top aids supported stripping both states of their delegates when the DNC voted, and you had it within your power to stand up for the voters then but didn't. Let's look past that and look at that last part, "whenever we can understand the clear intent of the voters, their vote should be counted." Okay, so 40% of voters in Michigan CLEARLY did not want to vote for you, so how should that "clear intent" (can't get much clearer than that) guide us? Well give half of those to Hillary! Apparently the best way to count the voters according to their clear intent, at least as far as hypocritical Hillary is concerned, means either:

• 40% of voters voted against Hillary, either for Obama or Edwards, but let's assume not a single voter voted for Obama, or
• 40% of voters voted against Hillary, so around half of those must have intended to vote Hillary, and just couldn't find her name on the ballot, even though it was the only name there.

And yet she still gets away with this self-righteous talk, this blatant hypocrisy, and the media doesn't bat an eyelash. She can talk about the fight against slavery and the fight for women's suffrage and compare this election to Zimbabwe and proclaim that she is in this to make sure every single vote is counted for the sake of democracy, and in the very same breath she ignores the voters from four caucus states and 40% of the voters from Michigan, and sees no problem with a Soviet-style election in which her name was the only name on the ballot, and in which no opposition candidate was allowed to campaign. Apparently she thinks THAT is a legitimate election. Well now we found something her and Mugabe and Putin and Saddam can agree on.

Anyway, back to the article, after discussing her distortions concerning Michigan and Florida, he highlights some other examples of her employment of Republican tactics:

And, like Bush, she has appealed to the basest instincts of the electorate to dig herself out of a hole. First came fear. "It's 3am in the morning and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the telephone [in the White House]," went her ad.

Then there is racism. The most recent example of which was her claiming that Obama's "support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again", as evidence of her own viability. Later she would concede that equating "white" and "hard- working" was a "dumb comment".

And then he finishes with this, which really is the question we are left with:

Like the Bush administration, the issue is no longer whether she leaves the stage with her reputation irreparably tarnished, but what state she leaves it in and how many people she is prepared to take with her.

Obama Endorsement Watch

Obama received two endorsements this morning, one from Rep. Jim Costa of California, and another from Rep. Cardoza of California, who switched from Hillary to Obama, saying that Obama will be the nominee and that Obama will take us in the right direction. He also specifically disagreed with Hillary on her attempts to divide the Party by trying to change the rules at the end of the game:

This is the most important election of my lifetime. While I continue to greatly respect and admire Senator Clinton and feel she has made history with her campaign, I believe that Senator Obama will inevitably be our party’s nominee for President. He has proven himself to be a thoughtful, knowledgeable, and inspirational leader and will take America in a new direction, which we desperately need.

The Bush Administration has been a huge disappointment. Mr. McCain, while certainly an American hero, represents more of the same failed Bush policies.

I am deeply concerned about the contentious primary campaign and controversy surrounding the seating of delegates from Florida and Michigan – two states Democrats need to win in November. I will not support changing the rules in the fourth quarter of this contest through some convoluted DNC rules committee process. Yet, we must find a resolution to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates so these states’ voters are represented at the Convention. I believe we need to avoid this potentially divisive situation by uniting behind one nominee and bringing the party together immediately. Therefore, I have made the decision to support Senator Obama at the Democratic Convention in my role as a super delegate.

Update: State Sen. Peter Burling and Deborah Nelson, two Edwards pledged delegates from New Hampshire are officially switching over to Obama. Burling said of Obama:

We chose Obama because he so clearly understands the American yearning for change. He understands it, he embraces it, and I think he has the leadership to deliver it.

Update #2: Oregon DNC member Jenny Greenleaf endorsed Obama saying:

The voters of Oregon have spoken, and I have listened.

I will be supporting Senator Barack Obama at the Democratic National Convention in August. Senator Obama has the vision and leadership ability to move this country forward and to undo the damage done by the Bush administration. I am proud to support him in this endeavor and will do whatever I can to make sure Oregon's electoral votes are Democratic this fall.

This gives us a net of 6 for Obama so far today.

Update #3: Here is some potentially huge news, and if it were true it would mean a net boost of 80 superdelegates for Obama, essentially ending the primary (wait, nevermind, math doesn't actually matter, she'll keep going until she is satisfied she has successfully sabotaged Obama in November):

The Field has learned that Cardoza is the first of a group of at least 40 Clinton delegates, many of them from California, that through talking among themselves came to a joint decision that all of them would vote for Obama at the convention. They have informed Senator Clinton that it’s time to unite around Obama, and that they will be coming out, one or two at a time, and announcing their switch between now and the convention if Senator Clinton doesn’t do the same.

Update #4: Ouch, it turns out Rep. Cardoza was also co-chair of Hillary's National Hispanic Leadership Council, ouch, that hurts.

Hillary's Tangle Of Distortions Over Michigan And Florida

The Jed Report keeps doing what it does best, putting together another great video exposing Hillary's hypocrisy and political games:



The Jed Report breaks it down:

Earlier today in an interview with the St. Petersburg Times, Hillary Clinton endorsed the Republican Party's decision to cut in half the voting power of the Florida delegation to the RNC.

Why should they have been cut in half? "Because it was a Republican decision" to change the primary date, she said.

The problem? Democrats also supported the decision. In fact, it passed the state senate by a 37-2 margin and it passed the state house by a 118-0 margin. Moreover, the state party leadership steadfastly stuck with the January 29 date even though they knew the DNC would not seat the Florida delegations.

Clinton herself supported the DNC's punishment when she signed a pledge to honor the DNC's rules. The key line in that pledge: "the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will strip states of 100% of their delegates and super delegates to the DNC National Convention if they violate the nomination calendar."

And now, even though Clinton is conceding that the Republican Party was correct to penalize its delegation, she is refusing to agree to a compromise that would apply the same exact penalty to the Democratic delegation. The basis of her refusal is a demonstrably false claim.

And that of course leads us right back where we started: for Hillary Clinton, Florida has nothing to do with principle.

It's just another power play.

And here is a closer look at how the DNC's decision was made, and how Hillary's group fully supported it, and could have changed the decision if they had really cared:

On Aug. 25, when the DNC's rules panel declared Florida's primary date out of order, it agreed by a near-unanimous majority to exceed the 50 percent penalty called for under party rules. Instead, the group stripped Florida of all 210 delegates to underscore its displeasure with Florida's defiance and to discourage other states from following suit. In doing so, the DNC essentially committed itself, for fairness' sake, to strip the similarly defiant Michigan of all 156 of its delegates three months later. Clinton held tremendous potential leverage over this decision, and not only because she was then widely judged the likely nominee. Of the committee's 30 members, a near-majority of 12 were Clinton supporters. All of them—most notably strategist Harold Ickes—voted for Florida's full disenfranchisement. (The only dissenting vote was cast by a Tallahassee, Fla., city commissioner who supported Obama.)

And a reporter recently raised this very fact, that Hillary could have influenced the rules if she had actually cared at the time, check out Hillary's response:

Reporter: Some people might say, where were you when we needed you? When the rules and bylaws committee was stripping away our delegates, you were silent, and some of your top advisors, Harold Ickes, Tina Flournoy, were voting for that penalty.

Clinton: Well, I don’t agree with that decision of the Democratic party, and I’ve been pushing for them to rectify that decision, and I hope that they will do so...

She totally avoids the question. She doesn't answer it, which is quite typical of how she responds to reporters when they ask something difficult. Instead, she says that she doesn't agree with "that decision of the Democratic party, ignoring the obvious fact that she was the presumptive nominee at the time and had unparalleled power, and ignoring the fact that many of those involved in the decision, including some of her top advisors, were the ones who voted to strip Florida and Michigan of delegates. So when Hillary is asked a simple question by a reporter, all we get is more disingenuous spin and game playing. She blames it on the Party, even though she 100% supported the rules until she had a reason to want to break them. Then, suddenly, it is a matter of civil rights, an epic struggle for freedom. Right...

Hillary Questions The "Principles" Of The Democratic Party [UPDATED]

Here's some great hillpocrisy for you. Today she took some time out of her busy schedule to trash on the Democratic Party:

I think that what's happened with Florida and Michigan raises serious questions about the principles of our party.

Again, she clearly only cares about Michigan (and by Michigan I mean only the voters who voted for her) and Florida because they were essentially held in information blackout and thus went to her by decent margins. Let's take a look back at what Hillary was advocating a few months ago:

I personally did not think it made any difference whether my name was on the ballot. You know, It's clear this election they are having is not going to count for anything.

How's that for principles Hillary? But hey, if you want to know why Florida and Michigan can't be seated as is, maybe you should ask your top spokesman Terry McAuliffe, who made the stakes clear in 2004 (the last time Michigan broke the rules):

"I'm going outside the primary window," [Michigan Sen. Carl Levin] told me definitively.

"If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses," I said. "We will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost."

He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.

"You won't deny us seats at the convention," he said.

"Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."

We glared at each other some more, but there was nothing much left to say. I was holding all the cards and Levin knew it.

Oh, you mean there are rules, rules that have a purpose, and they knowingly violates these rules even after they knew of the consequences? Apparently for Hillary rules are meant to be broken, even if breaking them means anarchy in future primaries. On wait, they do know this, they signed a pledge saying as much back in 2007:



Chuck Schumer got one thing right, Hillary changes her position based on what helps her, but Obama has been 100% consistent and 100% in compliance with the DNC rules that everyone agreed to at the beginning. Hillary is the only one here saying one thing and then spinning around and saying the completely opposite for political gain.

But what is really disappointing here is that Hillary would go after the Democratic Party like that, and say that there is something wrong with their principles because they made rules and created consequences for breaking those rules as a way of enforcement. She is basically saying to the people of Florida and Michigan that the Democratic Party is out of touch and doesn't care about them, and I think it is safe to assume she is implying that unless the Democratic Party gives her what she wants and ignores the rules, they will suffer loses in Florida and Michigan in November, which is no doubt what she would like to see since she won't be the nominee.

And of course she went on to repeat her outright lie that she is ahead in the popular vote, which couldn't be further from the truth. Kos did a great job of summing this argument up today:

One of the wonders of this primary season has been the ability of the Clinton campaign -- including Hillary herself -- and their supporters to engage in some of the most patently ridiculous and bald faced lies, knowing that everyone else knows they are engaging in patently ridiculous and bald faced lies.

Chief among those lies is the fiction that Clinton leads in the popular vote.

Aside from the idiocy of the argument itself -- 1) this is a delegate race, and 2) unlike the 2000 presidential election, you can't compare the popular vote from contest to contest since each state has different rules (caucus or primaries, open, closed, or hybrid -- the way the Clinton campaign and its supporters shamelessly stretch this argument is almost embarrassing.

Clinton is "leading" the meaningless popular vote, but only if:

1. You count the unsanctioned contests in Florida and Michigan, where candidates were not allowed to campaign;

2. You give Obama zero votes in Michigan's Soviet-style election, where Clinton was essentially the only name on the ballot; and

3. You don't count the caucuses in Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington.

In reality, Obama leads by over half a million votes, for whatever that's worth (not much). But don't worry, the Clinton argument is so asinine, it has gotten little traction among super delegates.

In fact, it's so insulting to people's intelligence, that it's hurting the credibility of anyone stupid enough to use it.

I'd like to expand a little bit on his first point. This is a delegate race, that is what the agreed upon rules state and there is no mechanism in those rules to accommodate a win by any other metric than delegates. Now if they had decided popular vote would decide the nominee from the beginning, and if Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington were counted (and Florida and Michigan counted fairly--NOT Hillary's way), then the primary could have been decided in that manner, but that means that the strategies would have been very different. Her bringing up ridiculous measures of victory like popular vote, for the Republican system ignores the fact that if we had been playing by different rules Obama wouldn't have chosen the same strategy he did, so you can't assume the results would have been the same. If it had been winner-take-all you can be sure Obama would have fought like hell for California and the bigger states. If it had been all about the popular vote you Obama and Hillary would have focused more on running up the turnout in their home states while focusing on the most populous states and ignoring the majority of the US. But popular vote wasn't the goal, and this was never winner-take-all, so Obama went with the best strategy for winning the most delegates, and he won. Now Hillary can whine and go "but what if.." or "but the Republicans.." or "if only.." and she can try to change the rules and play the victim like she was robbed of the nomination, but those were the rules, the rules she agreed to, and the rules that must be followed. This is about fairness, not about what works best for Hillary. She doesn't seem to understand that. I, for one, am sick of hearing her lie and spin about the popular vote, Michigan, Florida, and all her false excuses for losing. Basically I'm tired of watching Hillary act like a child. It is undignified and embarrassing to the Democratic Party.

Update: Hillary highlights her attack/threat against the Democratic Party:

If we fail to [seat the Michigan and Florida delegates], I worry that we will pay not only a moral cost, but a political cost as well. We know the road to a Democratic White House runs right through Florida and Michigan. If we care about winning those states in November, we need to count your votes now. If Democrats send a message that we don't fully value your votes, we know Sen. McCain and the Republicans will be more than happy to have them. The Republicans will make a simple and compelling argument: why should Florida and Michigan voters trust the Democratic Party to look out for you when they won't even listen to you.

And then she put counting the delegates from Florida and Michigan (oh, except Obama's) on the same level as the struggle against slavery and other historic fights:

"This work to extend the franchise to all of our citizens is a core mission of the modern Democratic party," she said. "From signing the Voting Rights Act and fighting racial discrimination at the ballot box to lowering the voting age so those old enough to fight and die in war would have the right to choose their commander in chief, to fighting for multi-lingual ballots so you can make your voice heard no matter what language you speak."

Those people, she said "refused to accept their assigned place as second-class citizens. Men and women who saw America not as it was, but as it could and should be, and committed themselves to extending the frontiers of our democracy. The abolitionists and all who fought to end slavery and ensure freedom came with the full right of citizenship. The tenacious women and a few brave men who gathered at the Seneca Falls convention back in 1848 to demand the right to vote."

Yes, she is comparing the issue with Florida and Michigan, whose votes wouldn't even change the outcome of the primary, to universal suffrage and the fight against slavery. Oh, but of course she doesn't have a problem with disenfranchising everyone who voted for Obama or Edwards in Michigan, or the people who voted in Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington. Funny, the fight for HER voters in Michigan and Florida is suddenly the latest battle for human progress, but everyone else's voters can go to hell. And apparently she doesn't care that the voters in Florida and Michigan didn't really have a choice, as long as voters were put in boxes, it was "democratic" and should be counted. Many a third world dictator would agree whole heartedly. Oh but wait, there is more:

"In Florida, you learned the hard way what happens when your votes aren't counted and the candidate with fewer votes is declared the winner," she said. "The lesson of 2000 here in Florida is crystal clear: if any votes aren't count, the will of the people isn't realized and our democracy is diminished."

So there you have it, in the same breath she lied and said she was ahead in the popular vote, she compared Obama to Bush stealing the 2000 election, and she committed brazen hillpocrisy by saying "if any votes aren't count, the will of the people isn't realized and our democracy is diminished" when HER OWN PLAN doesn't count the votes of half the voters in Michigan and completely ignores the voters of FOUR other states!! The ridiculousness of this is astounding, I mean just amazing that she can talk like this with a straight face. How shameless and small, invoking the memory of the great struggles of American history to serve her own political agenda, while committing the same acts of disenfranchisement that she is being all self-righteous about. Shameless.

Next thing you know she'll be saying Christ died for the votes of Florida voters, and only her voters from Michigan, and so that the people of Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington got ignored. "You better seat those delegates or Jesus died for nothing!!" Hell, she acts like she has a divine right to the nomination and the presidency, it is only a matter of time before she invokes the will of providence as a new measure of victory.

Update #2: Oh, and I should also add one more thing. You know those super fair and democratic Republicans who Hillary is saying will get all the angry Democratic voters? They cut the delegates from Michigan and Florida by half for breaking the rules. So I can only assume that Hillary would be ok with her delegates from both states being cut in half as well, since that is how the Republicans do things, which is pretty consistently the measure by which she addresses all problems.

Update #3: Here is a statement by a Florida voter who is tired of Hillary speaking for them. This voter is not being disenfranchised. This voter is not being punished.

Update (5/22): NY Governor and Hillary supporter David Paterson profoundly disagrees with Hillary's Michigan-Florida claims:

Paterson, a superdelegate, said he doesn't believe the DNC should change the rules after the fact on Florida and Michigan and added that he's not buying her claims about leading the popular vote if the ballots cast in those states were counted.

"I would say at this point we're starting to see a little desperation on the part of the woman who I support and I'll support until whatever time she makes a different determination," Paterson said, adding: "I thought she was the best candidate and I thought she had the best chance of winning."

On Clinton's claims regarding the popular vote and likening the fight to set the Florida and Michigan delegates to the civil rights movement, Paterson said:

"You have to rule out the undecideds in Michigan. You have to assume she won 100 percent to nothing in Michigan. I don't think anybody in their right mind would do that, nor would they see it as a civil rights issue."

Democratic Victory

Last night Obama officially won a majority of the pledged delegates, making it impossible for Hillary to win by the rules. Last night Obama stopped short of claiming victory, padding reality so as to not give Hillary ammo in her campaign to convince her supporters that Obama is sexist because he is trying to push her out of the race, even though she has clearly lost. Watch his victory speech in Iowa, where he came full circle, its very good:



Notice he congratulated Hillary on her win in Kentucky, as he does every time she wins an election, whereas in Hillary's victory speech there was no congratulations to Obama, or even an acknowledge that Oregon had an election. This is typical of Hillary. I don't remember her publicly congratulating Obama since Iowa, although I could have missed an instance or two. Typically she won't acknowledge Obama's wins or the states that voted for him, and she'll just contact him privately to say "good job" so she can say she was gracious, even though she can't muster the sportspersonship to say it in public. Not only did Obama congratulate Hillary for her win, he heaped praise on her for her service to the country and commitment to the American people. I think he was being overly gracious with that praise, but this is why he makes a much better leader than I would, I couldn't find anything nice to say about Hillary, and yet even though he has been the target of her nasty campaign for months and months he still somehow manages to be the bigger person. Much bigger. And here is where it all started, with his Iowa victory speech:



So, tonight he secured a democratic victory by clinching the majority of the pledged delegates. He won by the rules, the rules that everyone agreed upon, including Hillary and her entire campaign, he won by the rules fair and square. And he still didn't declare victory because he is that nice. Yet Hillary is going to try to say that Michigan and Florida must be counted. Okay, that is deceiving, she is going to try to say that Florida must be counted, and that only the voters who voted for her in Michigan should be counted. This even though she said that the votes in those states wouldn't count for anything. This even though she ran unopposed in Michigan. This even though both primaries were little more than name recognition tests, and Obama wasn't allowed to campaign in either state, which essentially locked in wins for Hillary because the voters didn't have access to enough information to make an informed judgment. This even though Michigan and Florida violated the rules, and not enforcing the rules would be a giant slap in the face for the 48 states that did follow the rules, and it would create absolute unmitigated chaos during the next primary season. And the funny thing is, even if the tainted primaries of Michigan and Florida were counted, she still wouldn't win. But like I said, this now has very little to do with the current race, but will be greatly important to future elections. And don't feel too bad for Michigan, they violated the rules in 2004 and were punished as well. Michigan is a naughty naughty state, and we have to be firm with it. I say split them all 50/50, so they make no difference, yet the delegations still get to sit. Incidentally according to the polls a 50/50 split would probably be pretty close to how it would end up if they were allowed revotes. But of course Hillary doesn't care about what the voters actually want, or that they weren't really given a choice in the first place, she is just concerned with winning, at all costs.

On the election results, Obama beat Hillary by big margins white voters of all ages except those 60 and older. Obama beat Hillary among voters with no college degree, and voters making less than $50,000 per year, which are supposed to be the voters he has some kind of "problem" with. Turns out there is no problem when the voters don't live in areas where racism is endemic.

Oh yes, and Hillary's last three victory speeches have been little more than infomercials for her website which revolve around desperate begging for donations, and last night's was no different. Today we got a look at why she has been doing this. Hillary claimed her campaign raised "approximately $22 million" in April, but the figure was actually closer to $21 million, and she neglected to mention that her campaign spent $28.9 million during the same time, adding nearly $8 million to her already huge debt. Now her campaign is more than $20 million in debt, and still failing to pay bills. According to the LA Times, "She also delayed payments to consultants. Including the $9.5 million in unpaid bills from April, she owes consultants and other vendors $19.5 million." Tisk tisk, and yet she continues to throw donors' money away while stiffing vendors and weasels like Mark Penn on what she owes them. Personally I think she doesn't owe Mark Penn anything more than a swift kick to the nuts, but I feel bad for the smaller vendors she has been screwing over for the last 5 months. Oh yeah, and Obama has $37 million just waiting to be spent.

Looking ahead a Reuters poll out today shows blue skies for Obama, both in the Democratic primary and the general election. He is trouncing Hillary 59% to 33% among Democrats, with the support of more than 80% of voters under 35, with a lead among all voters under 70, with a lead in moderates, liberals, and progressives, with a lead among Catholics, Protestants and those claiming no religious affiliation, in short the poll shows there will likely be no problem in Obama bringing the Democratic Party together for November, indeed he is already well on his way. For the general election the poll shows him handily beating McCain, 47% to 37%, and has a big edge over McCain in independents. The poll also shows that McCain's nonstop attacks Obama on foreign policy isn't making a scratch on Obama, but may actually be hurting McCain. This is basically like watching a boxing match between Muhammad Ali and, well, John McCain. It would almost be hard to watch if it wasn't so delightful.

Hillpocrisy Is Endemic In Hillary's Campaign

Let's talk about Michigan-Florida hypocrisy. We know that top Hillary official Harold Ickes voted as part of the DNC to sanction Michigan for violating the DNC's rules. And now he takes the exact opposition position, now believing that they should be counted (because it helps Hillary now).

We also know Hillary's past position on Michigan and Florida:

I personally did not think it made any difference whether my name was on the ballot. You know, It's clear this election they are having is not going to count for anything.

And this was Hillary later:

Hillary Clinton says the results of Michigan's Democratic presidential primary should count, even if Barack Obama's name did not appear on the ballot.

"That was his choice," she says in an interview with Steve Inskeep. "There was no rule or requirement that he take his name off the ballot.

Notice the hypocritical change of course when it benefits her.

And now we have top Clinton spokesman Terry McAuliffe himself, as DNC chairman, in 2004 stressing the importance of following the DNC's rules:

"I'm going outside the primary window," [Michigan Sen. Carl Levin] told me definitively.

"If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses," I said. "We will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost."

He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.

"You won't deny us seats at the convention," he said.

"Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."

We glared at each other some more, but there was nothing much left to say. I was holding all the cards and Levin knew it.

And Terry now, when Hillary stands to benefit, has a 180 degree change of heart, and suddenly the rules are no longer the rules:

I'm saying they've already voted, let's count the votes. I’m saying that the state parties in those states need to work with the national party and figure out how we count the votes that have already been voted.

Now we have long known that Hillary is a shameless hypocrite, to the point I actually had to create a new term to describe the amazing depths of her hypocrisy. But it seems like everyone around her has come down with a bad case of the hillpocrisy as well. Bill is a total hypocrite. All her top supporters seem to be total hypocrites. It seems that hypocrisy is extremely contagious. At this point I'm getting concerned. The next time I hear someone from her inner circle being a complete hypocrite I'm putting in a call to the CDC, because we may have an epidemic on our hands. I think the sooner Hillary drops out and we can put her in quarantine the better for the Party and the country.

Is Hillary Scorching The Earth For 2012?

Yesterday Rep. James Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives and one of the country’s most influential African-American leaders, brought up a growing concern among Democrats that Hillary may be trying to sabotage Obama and the Democratic Party so she can run against McCain in 2012:

House Democratic Whip James Clyburn, of South Carolina and the highest ranking black in Congress, also said he has heard speculation that Clinton is staying in the race only to try to derail Obama and pave the way for her to make another White House run in 2012.

“I heard something, the first time yesterday (in South Carolina), and I heard it on the (House) floor today, which is telling me there are African Americans who have reached the decision that the Clintons know that she can’t win this. But they’re hell-bound to make it impossible for Obama to win” in November, Clyburn told Reuters in an interview.

If you are familiar with everything Hillary has been doing to undermine Obama and the Democratic Party, despite knowing that she has virtually no chance of beating Obama for the nomination, this theory is not so far-fetched, in fact many have believed for quite some time that this is her strategy. At first I was skeptical, but now I'd be surprised if this wasn't her goal. In fact at this point nothing she does makes any sense unless she is trying to sabotage Obama and Democrats in November. What is bothersome is that many Democrats don't seem to understand what is going on, and keep supporting her regardless of how detrimental doing so is to their interests. But to average citizens, casual observers of the election who only get their information from the media, they have no way of knowing the depth of her treachery and her embracing of right-wing attacks on Democrats. And even now when someone as important as Rep. Clyburn expresses concern that this is what is happening, the media is silent, they don't report it, so yet again the average low-information voter (Hillary's base) has no idea what she is doing.

Clyburn also commented on the Clinton campaign's renewed emphasis on trying to spin Florida and Michigan votes in order to inflate her popular vote count and claim she has won more popular votes, a lie I exposed here.

I think it’s so disingenuous … (adviser James) Carville and Sen. Clinton were all on TV. I’ve seen them two or three times this week, talking about counting Florida and Michigan.”

Obama did not campaign in those states because the Democratic Party said Florida and Michigan wouldn’t be included in the formal tally for the nomination. “Her name was the only one on the ticket in Michigan and still 42, 43 percent of the vote was against her,” Clyburn said.

Again, note her stated opinion of the Michigan and Florida elections at the time:

I personally did not think it made any difference whether my name was on the ballot. You know, It's clear this election they are having is not going to count for anything.

Note her amazing hillpocrisy.

He summed it all up with this:

There’s a difference between dropping out and raising all this extraneous scurrilous stuff about the guy (Obama). Just run your campaign … you don’t have to drop out to be respectful of other people.

In other words, there is absolutely no reason for her to be slandering Obama like she is, unless she has an ulterior motive, like sabotaging him for the general election, which she has clearly attempted time and time again. If she wants to stay in this race, go ahead, Huckabee did, but he wasn't actively trying to destroy McCain's chances in November while remaining in the campaign.

But to be clear, she ought to drop out, because she absolutely cannot win. It is impossible for her to win, period. But as long as the media wants to keep this race alive by pretending she can win, it will go on. They completely ignored Huckabee when he refused to drop out despite the math, and for good reason. But of course they only give Hillary preferential treatment because they hate her so much, and because they just can't get enough of Obama. Right...I'm seeing a lot of that...

Update: Clyburn adds more here:

James Clyburn, an African-American congressman from South Carolina, told me that Clinton called him in the middle of the night after Obama won that state’s primary and raged at him for fifty minutes. “It’s pretty widespread now that African-Americans have lost a whole lot of respect for Bill Clinton,” Clyburn said.

Pennsylvania Results (Hillary Won The Battle, Lost The War A Long Time Ago)

As expected Hillary won Pennsylvania, but not without having Obama cut deeply into her once huge lead, despite all of her advantages in the state.

As expected, she is spinning away, completely out of touch with reality.

As expected, the media is pretty much saying the race goes on (imagine that, they ratings go on as well).

As expected, McCain and the Republicans are undoubtedly very happy that many Democrats apparently don't understand that attacking their nominee from two fronts at once probably isn't the best idea.

Hillary won Pennsylvania by a mediocre less than 9% margin, far from the blowout win she needed, but enough for the media to continue to indulge her delusions of having any chance of winning the nomination. Not that the media needed much push, they've been willfully ignoring the math for months now, while repeating Hillary's talking points like they are witty jokes they think may impress someone. Thus even on The Huffington Post there is a big headline which reads: Hillary's Next Must-Win: Indiana.

Excuse me? Her next must-win? Let's inject some reality into that statement. EVERY state is a must win for Hillary if she wants to actually win the nomination. Not only is every single state a must-win for Hillary, every single state is a must-win by HUGE blowout margins. She failed miserably at this in Texas and Ohio, and she has failed in every state since then. She failed miserably again last night. Before yesterday's primary Hillary needed to win 65% of the vote in EVERY SINGLE remaining state in order to win. For a little perspective, I could count how many states she received over 60% of the vote or more on one hand, if I had been in an industrial accident which lost me 4 fingers on that hand. Yes, she has only once even overcame the 60% mark, and that was in her home state of Arkansas (she didn't even come close in New York, her new "home state"). And before yesterday she needed to win 65% of the vote in every single race. She failed. She only got 55% of the vote in Pennsylvania, a full 10% below what she needed. Now, she needs 68% wins in EVERY SINGLE STATE from here on out to win. Considering Obama has a big lead in North Carolina right now, and will also easily win Oregon, Montana and South Dakota, and Indiana will be close, there is absolutely no way she can pull this off. Simply put, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

And yet the media continues to pretend that a less than 9% win in Pennsylvania (a state she had every possible advantage in) means something. Well, it does mean something, it means the same thing her failures in Ohio and Texas meant, it means that she has even less of a chance today than she did yesterday. As Slate puts it, "Coming into today, the odds that Clinton would catch Obama in pledged delegates were very small. Now they're zero." Exactly.

Okay, so let's talk what Obama achieved last night, despite Hillary's spin and the media's regurgitation of it. Beyond cutting her huge lead down to less than 9% despite all of her advantages, Obama also gained among her core supporters. Obama made gains among the 60+ crowd, among white, among white men, among white women, among lower income voters, and among protestants. Obama's close margin is even more impressive when you consider that the demographics in Pennsylvania were significantly less favorable to Obama than the those of Ohio. In the end Hillary's spin that Obama has some sort of problem capturing her demographics is flat out wrong, because he has continually shown he can cut into her base.

One last thing, the general election polls in Pennsylvania have been all over the board, however they show clearly that Hillary has no better shot against McCain in PA than Obama does, and in fact Obama generally outperforms Hillary in the general, despite her win in Pennsylvania, which shows her primary-derived electability argument is complete crap. Yet expect it to be repeated ad nauseum, as Hillary seems to think very lowly of our intelligence, as pointed out in this excellent blog.

Okay, another last thing, Hillary is also running around saying "now more people have voted for me than my opponent", which is a complete lie. She is of course including the votes from Florida and Michigan, neither of which were legitimate elections given that in neither race did the voters have the information to make an informed decision (they were essentially name recognition races, with Obama unable to touch Hillary's advantage with his own advertising), and Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, so according to Hillary Obama got ZERO votes for Michigan. Nice try Hillary. Also the popular vote was never counted for the caucuses in IA, NV, ME & WA (three of which Obama won, and the other was essentially a tie), so the reported popular vote totals under report Obama's popular vote lead, and Hillary knows this. So to recap, she thinks it is fair to count the popular vote totals in two tainted races, one of which didn't even have Obama on the ballot*, but she doesn't think that four legitimate states should have their votes counted in the popular vote totals. So when you hear her running around claiming she has won the popular vote, realize that she is being purposefully deceptive. In reality she is still far behind in the popular vote, and those numbers are only going to get worse for her in the races ahead.

Update: The New York Times, which endorsed Hillary originally, wrote a scathing indictment of the low tactics she resorted to in order to pull off her small win in Pennsylvania:

The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.

Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.[...]

By staying on the attack and not engaging Mr. Obama on the substance of issues like terrorism, the economy and how to organize an orderly exit from Iraq, Mrs. Clinton does more than just turn off voters who don't like negative campaigning. She undercuts the rationale for her candidacy that led this page and others to support her: that she is more qualified, right now, to be president than Mr. Obama.

Update #2: It seems that Hillary only gained 9 pledged delegates from Pennsylvania. For a little perspective, Obama recently gained 8 delegates from California after they finished counting the ballots there, and the media didn't even mention it. 9 is nothing.

*Note: Let's have a flashback to what Hillary said about her name being the only one on the ballot in Michigan:

I personally did not think it made any difference whether my name was on the ballot. You know, It's clear this election they are having is not going to count for anything.

Yes, and now she is trying to claim not only those pledged delegates, but the popular vote as well. What ever happened to "not going to count for anything" Hillary? Or was that your other face talking?

Update: Apparently the results are still not completely in from PA, not that the media cares (as they are still reporting the false 10%), but several heavily pro-Obama precincts have yet to report, so her margin of victory will likely still shrink a bit more.

Update #2: Keith Olbermann isn't fooled, unlike most of the mutton media:

Obama Much More Electable In Big State Of Michigan Than Hillary, Despite Her Lies To The Contrary

The most recent poll out of Michigan shows yet again that Hillary is full of crap, on my fronts. First, she constantly claims that she is better able to win the "big states", and that she is better able to win the "meaningful states" (the states she won in the primary. Turns out, and not surprisingly as we have seen this over and over again, that neither are true. Even though Obama has never campaigned in Michigan, which Hillary "won" as she was the only candidate on the ballot, Obama beats McCain (42% to 37%) in this big state in November, while Hillary gets clobbered my McCain (45% to 37%), even though she was supposedly the only one who could win big states.

This also shows that her recent tactic of trying to blame Obama for the revote problems in Florida and Michigan, thereby hurting his electability in the general, has fallen flat on its face, as the people in Michigan are apparently smarter than Hillary gives them credit for.

New Hampshire's Walk Of Shame

[Here is an excellent article from New Hampshire's Union Leader explaining the post-election walk of shame every state must endure after being courted by the Clintons and then kicked to the curb. My commentary follows:]

Fair-Weather Friends: The Clintons Cut NH Loose
The New Hampshire Union Leader

REALLY, there are no permanent Friends of Bill. For the former President and his wife, a tandem of duplicity and ambition unrivaled in American history, there are only temporary alliances. New Hampshire is learning this now, as so many others have before.

Ever since Bill Clinton proclaimed himself "the Comeback Kid" for his second-place finish in the 1992 New Hampshire Democratic primary, he has portrayed himself as a stalwart defender of New Hampshire and its first-in-the-nation tradition. He championed this state's retail politics as a model for the nation and made sure he maintained his ties here in preparation for his wife's inevitable future presidential run.

Those relationships paid off handsomely in January, when Hillary Clinton, who had spent more than a year fawning over New Hampshire's great electoral traditions, won here with the strong backing of the Democratic Party establishment.

Now, having used New Hampshire as the launching pad for both of their presidential bids, the Clintons have no more use for us. And so it was that on Monday, Bill Clinton threw New Hampshire and our Democratic Secretary of State Bill Gardner under the proverbial bus.

To justify his claim that Florida and Michigan delegates should be seated at the Democratic National Convention, the former President said, "We let New Hampshire go out of turn. They had a Democratic secretary of state. The Florida voters are totally innocent. They asked to vote on time."

To the Clintons, rewriting history is as simple as repeating their own talking points until they become accepted as facts. But the truth is that the Clintons happily accepted the bumped-up New Hampshire primary at the time because they perceived it gave Hillary an advantage. Hillary Clinton even signed a pledge to not campaign or participate in the Michigan or Florida primaries. That pledge was meant to punish those two states for moving up their primary dates, and she knew it.

But it was not sincere. It was one point of the famous Clinton triangulation. And before you knew it, Sen. Clinton was participating in both the Michigan and Florida primaries, which, of course, she won by violating her pledge.

Now, needing those delegates, she and her husband innocently claim that it was the sneaky New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner who broke the DNC rules, victimizing poor, helpless Florida and Michigan. And the DNC let him get away with it only because he is a Democrat.

Never mind the historical record, which shows that Florida and Michigan moved up their primaries first, prompting New Hampshire to respond. If they stand in the way of the Clintons' march through history, the facts be damned.

And, if they stand in the way of the Clintons' march through history, their friends be damned, too.

[Little in this campaign has been made more obvious than the fact that the Clintons will jump on any bandwagon and woo any person or group when it is in their interest to do so, but as soon as they can no longer get anything out of the relationship they waste no time in burning that wagon and stabbing those they previous wooed in the back.

To me the Clintons are like some asshole guy, who will say the sweetest things to a woman while out on the town, get her drunk, take her home, and then the next morning (no, more like right after he is done getting what he wants out of her) he throws a crumpled up $5 bill at her and crawls out the window, leaving the victim feeling cheap, dirty and violated. Now all vulgarities aside, that is essentially what they do, in state after state, to voter after voter, they use them up and kick them to the curb without a second thought. After doing this to 4/5 of the states you have to wonder how Hillary thinks she would even have a chance in the general election.]

Hillary's Only Path To The Nomination: Disenfranchise Hundreds Of Thousands Of Voters

I wrote previously about the hypocrisy of Hillary's doublespeak about being so concerned that every voter's voice is heard in Florida and Michigan (just as long as they didn't have much of a choice when they cast their votes), while basing her path to the nomination on hijacking the will of the voters via superdelegates and switching pledged delegates, essentially overturning 10,000+ voters with each delegate gained. Well now she is at it again, saying that pledged delegates are just like superdelegates, and they can switch at anytime (and implicit in this, is that they should switch, and switch to her, since that is the only way she has even the faintest chance of winning):

I just don’t think this is over yet, and I don’t think that it is smart for us to take a position that might disadvantage us in November. 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.

After that, she defends her position that that is a fair way to win (notice there is no acknowledgment of what she is saying really means, which again is disenfranchising 10,000+ voters for each superdelegate, and anywhere from 4,000 to 12,000+ voters for each pledged delegate, depending on the state and turnout), because the rules allow it, and she is suddenly a big fan of following the rules:

There are different ways to become a delegate, there are delegates from caucuses, there are delegates from primaries, and there are the appointed delegates, they’re all equal, they all have an equal vote – those are the rules of the Democratic Party. Now if you don’t like the rules, change them going forward but those are the rules. And they are there for a purpose...

Please notice that she wasn't a fan of the rules that allowed students in Iowa to vote even though they live in Iowa at least 3/4 of the year, work there, pay taxes there, fund their university system, and are legally allowed and encouraged to vote. She also didn't like the rules that she had previously agreed to that gave workers on the Las Vegas Strip access to caucus sites, as soon as the union endorsed Obama, and her surrogates filed a lawsuit on her behalf to change the rules and shut the caucus sites down. She also hasn't been a fan of the rules in any of the caucus states, because even though they have run that way for a long time, and even though they run by established rules, she consistently claims they don't count, except for Nevada of course, which she won. She also wasn't a big fan of the rules in Texas, which she constantly complained about, and even considered filing a lawsuit to protest the rules and delay announcement of the caucus winner long enough that the media would ignore it and say she won Texas, even though she only narrowly won the primary, and Obama blew her away in the caucus, netting him 3 or so delegates, a clear victory. She has also not been a fan of the DNC rules concerning Michigan and Florida, rules that she agreed to in advance, yet she now wants to change because doing so would benefit her. Now does that sound like "those are the rules of the Democratic Party. Now if you don’t like the rules, change them going forward but those are the rules. And they are there for a purpose."?

No, that sounds like the ugliest kind of hillpocrisy.

And now Clinton strategist Harold Ickes backs up Hillary's position:

I think what Mrs. Clinton was trying to make clear is that no delegate is required by party rules to vote for the candidate for which they're pledged. Now obviously circumstances can change, and people's minds can change about the viability of a particular candidate, and that's permitted under our rules ever since the 1980 convention.

While technically true, the Clinton campaign misses another opportunity to point out what this actually means to voters. Say, for example you have a pledged delegate from a fairly populous district, and this pledged delegate is given the position of being the caretaker of the people's will, say 12,000 voters, from the ballot box to the DNC. So say this delegate chances his or her mind, and switches support to the other candidate. Instantly 12,000 voters who went to the polls not only didn't vote for their candidate, they voted for the other one. It is worse than just disenfranchisement, it is stealing their vote and giving it to someone else. I for one would be sick to my stomach if I knew my vote cast for Obama got changed after the fact and cast for Hillary, as any voter would in a similar situation, no matter if you support Obama, Hillary, McCain or Ralph Nader. THAT is what all of this smooth talk about "pledged delegates can switch" really means. The cold ugly truth isn't as palatable as the euphemisms and distorted doubletalk coming from the Clinton campaign, yet no one seems to be talking about what winning an election via superdelegate or pledged delegate coup would really mean for democracy. We certainly can't count on the media to connect the dots, but I hope if the blogosphere and the netroots keep the issue alive, and keep pointing out how blatantly Hillary is trying to hijack democracy, maybe people will start to see through her two-faced rhetoric.

Update (3/26): Now this is pretty crazy, today the Clinton campaign has gone even further, basically saying that pledged delegates are expected to use their own judgment to pick whichever candidate they want, meaning the will of the voters should have nothing to do with how the pledged delegates vote:

In an interview with Mark Halperin, Hillary Clinton again put out the idea that pledged delegates do not have to stick with the candidate they were elected to back: "We talk a lot about so-called pledged delegates, but every delegate is expected to exercise independent judgment."

They are essentially saying now that the will of the voters is meaningless, or should be meaningless, and that the entire race not only can, but ought to be decided undemocratically! That is crazy!! They are saying there needn't be any relationship whatsoever to what the voters want, and what the pledged delegates do, meaning the whole system in their minds is nothing more than an empty gesture, completely meaningless! This really shows how little they care for democracy and the will of the voter.......yet Hillary continues to cry foul about every voter in Michigan and Florida not having their voices heard.

I'll just give you a second to let the astounding hillpocrisy of that sink in......

Democracy Is Apparently Overrated When You Are Behind

For the last few weeks there has been a plot slowly unfolding in the background of the Democratic primary. This subplot, if you will, is Hillary Clinton’s most flagrant attempt to hijack the Democratic process to date. The scheme I’m referring to is of course the Michigan-Florida delegate controversy, which she is currently in the process of shamelessly exploiting for her own political gain, to the detriment of the Democratic Party and the entire Democratic process.

For those unfamiliar with the situation, let me give you the quick and dirty. Last year Democratic Party leadership in both states decided to defy the rules set down by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and move back their primary dates earlier than February 5th which, according to the rules, was supposed to be the earliest date for states not given special permission to hold their primary sooner. The purpose of the rule was to keep some semblance of order in the primary, so that the whole thing didn’t become a mad race to January 1st. 48 states followed these rules, 2 did not. The Democratic leadership in both states was warned of the consequences in advance: if you break the rules, your state will lose its delegates at the Democratic Convention where the eventual presidential nominee is chosen. Michigan and Florida broke the rules anyway, and so the DNC stripped their delegates of their right to vote at the Convention. All of the presidential candidates promised not to campaign in these states, and it was agreed, by everyone, that Michigan and Florida would not count in the election. So Michigan had its primary, Hillary won Michigan with 55% of the vote, to “Uncommitted”, who got 40% of the vote (Hillary was the only 1st tier candidate to not take their name off of the ballot). In Florida Hillary won with 50% of the vote, to Obama’s 33% and John Edwards’ 14%.

So okay, they held elections that everyone agreed didn’t matter, because they had no delegates, thus no say in the nomination, because they had broken the rules, which were established for a very good reason (to keep the Democratic Party from total chaos), even though they knew the consequence of this would be every Democratic voter in those states being disenfranchised. Seems pretty cut and dry. It was. Even Hillary agreed:

I personally did not think it made any difference whether my name was on the ballot. You know, It's clear this election they are having is not going to count for anything.

That is until it was in Hillary’s best interest to change the rules mid-game. After her loss in Iowa, and her big loss in South Carolina, Hillary was in desperate need of a “win”, so she looked for one in