The Clinton campaign has made the case that the Michigan and Florida delegates should be seated at the convention. This would give her a bump of over 200 delegates and put her in a safe lead. Over the weekend, Ted Olson called it "splendid theater" and I enthusiastically agree. Various spin machines are in high gear, making multiple--sometimes contradictory--arguments that the Michigan and Florida delegations should be counted. Here are some of them.

Seat the delegates because to do otherwise violates the principles of democracy.
This is the argument made by the Clinton campaign itself. The idea is that people voted and their vote should be counted even though they voted improperly (and were warned about the rules prior to voting). Somehow, Democracy Itself requires that all the circumstances of the vote be ignored. Set aside the fact that Obama and Edwards followed the rules and took their names off the Michigan ballots. Set aside the fact that none of the candidates campaigned in Florida. Under this theory, the fact that voters recorded votes is enough to overcome basic ideas about fairness and process.

This is similar to the theory proposed by Democrats during the Florida recounts in 2000: ballots which could not be counted during the initial count because of some flaw in the marking of the ballot should be added to the recounts and the "clear intent" of the voter upheld. Everyone is directed to ignore the fact that if the intent of the voter had be clear the first time, the ballots would have been counted regularly. It amounts to changing the rules after the fact, and that's exactly what Clinton is trying to do now.

Seat the delegates because to do otherwise is racially discriminatory.
A variation on the above spin, this one points out that black and Hispanic people voted in the Michigan and Florida primaries. Argued most recently by the NAACP, the spin is that keeping these delegates from counting at the convention brings to mind the "sordid history of racially discriminatory primaries." (I guess they're talking about the Democratic White Primary cases!)

It's a more, ahem, colorful way of saying that once votes are made, they must be counted, rules be damned.

Seat the delegates because the DNC didn't apply the rules fairly.
This is the ruleslawyer spin. It's most common among the Democratic "Netroots" who have largely picked Clinton to win, including Kos, Jerome Armstrong, and others. It goes something like this: any state that made their primary date earlier than February 5th without permission was automatically supposed to lose half their delegates. However, the DNC Rules Committee had discretion to take all of the delegates as sanctions for misbehavior. The DNC Rules Committee chose to exercise that discretion and take all of the delegates from Michigan and Florida, but took none of the delegates from Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina which also had primaries earlier than February 5th. Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina had permission to go earlier, but not as early as they did. Therefore, to be fair, all the delegates should be seated.

Like most ruleslawyers, their intent is not to uphold the rules but cajole some benefit from an exasperated gamemaster decisiontaker. For example, if they really want to uphold the rules then all of the early primary states should have their delegations automatically cut in half, not restored in full. Also, they have to ignore the fact that the DNC Rules Committee was entirely within its authority to sanction Michigan and Florida to deter other states from jumping the gun.

Don't be fooled. These are Clinton supporters desperately looking for some way to claim that it isn't the Establishment screwing Obama after he won. They want to "reluctantly" claim that they had no choice, that it's just how the rules work. Again, ignore the fact that the rules say no such thing and that, of the two, Obama was the only candidate who tried to follow the rules.

BLEG: I'm on the lookout for more delegate-seating spin. If you see some, be sure and send it my way. I'm especially looking for spun reasons why the primary votes in Michigan and Florida should not be retaken before the delegates are seated. (We, of course, know the real reason.)

UPDATE: Prompted by the commenters: wouldn't it be refreshing if we actually had riots in this country over high-minded concepts like democracy and political exercise? Now, let me be clear, I am not pro-riot. I just think it'd be neat to see rioting over elections rather than rioting over sports or the latest police beat-down.

Also, I should mention that I think a Democratic crack-up is highly unlikely. The superdelegates are not idiots; they know that their power and influence depends on the continuation of the Democratic coalition. Even the ones who have pledged support for Clinton will jump ship if it looks like they have to in order to preserve the party.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 10:04 AM | Comments (47)
Post contains 844 words, total size 5 kb.

World renowned psychopath and top Hezbolla terrorist Imad Mughniyah has been rendered to room temperature by someone.

Imad Mughniyah, the deputy head of Hezbollah killed Wednesday in a Damascus explosion, was responsible for numerous attacks on civilian and foreign military targets

Hit the link and check out this dirtbag's resume. This hit was a big deal. Kudos to whoever did it.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 08:17 AM | Comments (37)
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.

Having solved all the tough issues of the day, the House of Representatives has decided to revisit steroids in baseball. Today's star attraction is Roger Clemens.

This ridiculous hearing is underway and somebody has already perjured themselves. Clemens unequivocally says he never took steroids or HGH in his opening statement and about 30 seconds later, his trainer McNamee says he did inject Clemens with them.

We might as well stop here and let them refer the case to Department of Justice and be done with it. Yet, this whole thing will go on so the pompous congressmen can preen and pose for the cameras. It's all about the children, don't you know?

If you're interested in the background on this waste of time, here's the story.

Not to be out done, Arlen Specter is meeting with NFL Commissioner Goodell about the New England Patriots 'Spygate' tapes.

Your government at work.

Heh [Gabe]: We usually have ESPN on in the lounge here in the mornings. For a minute, I thought some politics geek had switched it over to CSPAN, but no, the Sports Center graphic is right there in the corner. My thoughts:

(1) Who cares about baseball?

(2) Was there no other sports news today?

(3) Doesn't the house have enough on its plate, what with the FISA reform and our impending economic collapse?

(4) There must be votes in baseball.

Posted by: DrewM. at 07:55 AM | Comments (57)
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, the votes are counted, the delegates awarded, and the Clinton and Huckabee teams have to be grinding their teeth behind their fake smiles. Obama swept yesterday's primaries, not just winning, but pounding Clinton in such a manner that she may just cry on national television (again). According to CNN's count, he has now taken the delegate lead with 1,215 delegates to Clinton's 1,190. Real Clear Politics has Obama even farther ahead, with 1,259.

McCain also cleaned up, with good numbers in all three states, though not so good as Obama's. Rumors of a Huckabee surge in Virginia turned out to be overstated. Even more importantly, according to McCain's campaign, it is now mathematically impossible for Huckabee to secure the nomination.

“He now needs 950 delegates to secure the required 1,191. But in the remaining contests there are only 774 delegates available. He would need to win 123% of remaining delegates.”

Huckabee, however, said heÂ’s staying in the race.

As you know, he majored in miracles, not mathematics.

Meanwhile, this seems promising. Clinton hasn't congratulated Obama for two recent winning days, a sign--I hope--that she's not willing to make nice and put an end to the possibility of a Democratic crack-up.

Clinton congratulated Obama and John Edwards after their first and second place finishes in the Iowa caucuses. Obama returned the favor in New Hampshire, saying Clinton “did an outstanding job.” That courtesy continued through the early states.

But as the race has shifted to a delegate chase with dozens of states in play around the country, the notion of congratulating oneÂ’s opponent seems, for Clinton, to have fallen by the wayside.

I don't think that Clinton is going to be the one to stand down. She'll fight to the end and it will be ugly. The solution to this problem lies in ObamaÂ’s hands. He can choose to end the possibility of a race-tinged Democratic civil war by offering to join ClintonÂ’s ticket. It would preserve the Democratic coalition. And it would put him in a strong position to run again in 2016.

But there's no chance of that if it looks like he'll be the winner of the primary contest, and on this morning it looks a whole lot like he's going to be the Democratic nominee. I say this option rests with Obama because there is only a slim benefit for Clinton if she were to do it other than the Vice Presidency itself and some derivative benefit from preserving her party, and thus no possibility that she would, in turn, offer to be ObamaÂ’s running mate. Clinton has already burned her bridges when it comes to reaching out to black Americans and it would be quite a surprise if he offered her the job.

More than that, this may be her last opportunity to make a creditable run for President. Unlike the Republicans, who most often select their candidates on a “you’ve paid your dues, now is your chance” basis (e.g. Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41, Dole, and apparently McCain), the Democrats like to see fresh faces at each election (e.g. Carter, Dukakis, Clinton, Kerry). On the Democratic side, once you’ve lost, your turn is up, just like what happened to Gore, Kerry, and Edwards most recently.

Is Clinton willing to play second fiddle, just for a chance to run again in four or eight years? I doubt it. This leaves her as the Senator from New York who took that job merely as a stepping-stone to the White House. This is her last chance and she knows it.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 11:55 PM | Comments (53)
Post contains 600 words, total size 4 kb.

Senator Clinton's campaign staff shakeup is still a work in progress, and it's a bigger deal than even I had realized. New details about Solis Doyle's firing (and it turns out it was a firing) and today's exit of deputy campaign manager Mike Henry are below. But first, let's talk about the gigantic race element in all of this, because that's what is really blowing my mind.

To start with, I hadn't even considered the ethnicity of Patti Solis Doyle or Maggie Williams, and I'm betting that none of you did either. When I wrote about Solis Doyle's connection to Norman Hsu back in September, it never even crossed my mind. And when I wrote on Sunday that Williams was replacing Solis Doyle, I didn't think about Solis' race either. What the hell does the race of the campaign manager matter?

Apparently it matters a great deal. The New York Post reveals that Clinton is losing the support of the Hispanic Caucus because she fired "the most prominent Latina" in her campaign. Support among Hispanic voters was the key to Clinton's success in Nevada and California. She's depending on it in Texas next month, too. But it looks like Hispanic superdelegates are having second thoughts, all because Clinton fired Solis Doyle:

"Apparently, loyalty is not a two-way street," [Steven Ybarra] wrote. "Latino superdelegates like myself . . . will have cause to pause."

Ybarra told The Post yesterday that the loss of Solis Doyle, a child of Mexican immigrants, just weeks before the Texas primary, where 36 percent of the population is Hispanic, was "dumb as a stump."

The New York Times' blog reprints the letter New York assemblyman Ruben Diaz sent to Clinton. His letter also recasts the firing as a betrayal of Hispanic supporters, but it goes much further and delivers a threat directed at President Clinton. One commenter wrote the other day to say, "Get the popcorn. This is getting good." They were right:

It is hard to understand how the Hispanic community that has been there to keep your campaign alive could remain in your corner when the first Hispanic woman to serve as your presidential campaign manager has resigned from her post.

[...]

Although we are inclined to believe that Patti Solis Doyle did resign, we would like you to realize that it will be very troubling to many if somehow we later find that she left her post under pressure because of the recent primary losses your campaign suffered. If so, we will have many questions about why a Hispanic woman who has helped to build Latino support for you throughout the nation would have been the one to take the blame and resign from her post instead of others involved with your campaign, including former President Clinton, who have caused serious problems and embarrassing situations for your campaign.

Did you notice what was missing from the letters? There is no mention that perhaps, as campaign manager, Solis Doyle was properly dismissed following the poor showing in the past month (and keep reading for information on Solis Doyle's failures during the past seven years). It apparently doesn't even occur to these writers that Solis Doyle should be evaluated based on anything other than the color of her skin. She's Hispanic and Clinton wants the Hispanic vote, therefore, she cannot be fired. I have only one thing to say to that: these people should be embarrassed to show their faces in public.

There is another elephant in the room and I didn't even realize it until I sat down to write this post. Maggie Williams is black. Who knew? For that matter, who cares? But every article I've read about this has mentioned it, so I guess it's damned important for you to know that Clinton swapped out a Hispanic woman for a black one in her campaign's top spot. Women and minorities hardest hit, I guess.

Both letters claim to accept the Clinton campaign's protestations that Solis Doyle is staying on as an adviser and that this was an amiable decision. (Ignore, I guess, that Solis Doyle said she was quiting to spend more time with her very young children.) But, as you see in the second letter, that explanation is not going to fly for long and it's going to alienate even more voters when it is revealed that Clinton lied to them.

Which brings me to the latest: the Atlantic's Joshua Green has a must-read, inside look at Solis Doyle's role in Clinton's senatorial and presidential campaigns. Green recounts Solis Doyle's numerous failures over the years and claims to have been informed of the firing by campaign insiders. But the real creme filling is the revelation that it took several other staffers' decision to quit their jobs last week which forced Clinton to act. A taste:

Solis Doyle, who began as Clinton’s personal scheduler in 1991 (and who, as it happens, coined the term “Hillaryland”) was Clinton’s alter ego and was installed in the job specifically for that reason. Her performance in Clinton’s past races and especially in this one reflects all the good and the bad that the alter-ego designation carries. I’ve always felt that the most revealing thing about Solis Doyle is her oft-repeated line: “When I’m speaking, Hillary is speaking.” It is revealing both because it is true and because it conveys—and even flaunts—an arrogance that I think is the key to understanding all that has gone wrong for the Clinton campaign.

As the man says, read the whole thing.

One last bit of Clinton campaign news: Deputy Campaign Manager Mike Henry has announced his resignation. Henry joined the campaign after managing Virginia Governor Tim Kaine's victory in 2005. In May of last year an amusingly prescient memo he wrote, arguing that Clinton should skip the Iowa caucuses because she'd lose, was leaked to the press amid a quiet civil war between Clinton staffers. Now he writes:

Our campaign needs to move quickly to build a new leadership team, support them and their decisions and make the necessary adjustments to achieve the winning outcome for which we have all worked so hard for over a year now.

The emphasis is mine and represents what I believe is the truest part of Henry's note. Clinton's campaign is still in breakup mode.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 10:52 PM | Comments (27)
Post contains 1054 words, total size 7 kb.

1:

Background/more.

2:

Posted by: Ace at 04:49 PM | Comments (177)
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.

Drudge has exit numbers posted:

Maryland: Obama beating Hillary 2:1

Virginia: Obama beating Hillary 2:1

D.C.: Obama beating Hillary 3:1.

McCain and Huckster: Too close to call in Virginia.

I think Senator Clinton may very well be hearing this in her sleep tonight:

Sweet Dreams, Hillary.

Update [Ace]: Not only is Virginia too close to call on the R side, but with 20% in, Huckabee is 2% ahead.

Huckabee's The Conservative, Now? I thought neither was. Seems very conservative Virginians think differently:

Huckabee wins really, really big, 70 percent to 21 percent, among the largest single group – the 34 percent who call themselves very conservative.

Hmm... does that mean Huckabee's going to win? Would seem so.

Thanks to CJ.

McCain Wins Virginia: Yipeee.

Posted by: Jack M. at 03:43 PM | Comments (79)
Post contains 132 words, total size 1 kb.

Still has to go to the House.

Phone companies that took part in President George W. Bush's warrantless domestic spying program would receive retroactive immunity from lawsuits under a bill approved on Tuesday by the Democratic-led Senate.

...

Passed by the Senate on a largely party line vote, the bill would replace a temporary spy law set to expire this week that expanded the power of U.S. authorities to track enemy targets without a court order.

In addition, the Senate bill would bolster the protection of privacy rights of law-abiding Americans swept up in the hunt for suspected terrorists.

...

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman John Rockefeller of West Virginia broke ranks with many fellow Democrats in pushing to immunize phone companies. Yet he criticized Bush for starting the spy program without congressional or court approval.

"Anger over the president's program should not prevent us from addressing the real problems that the president has created," Rockefeller said. He warned that without immunity some private firms may decline to help protect the nation.

Right sentiment, I guess, but what do they have to be "angry" about? Quite frankly I'm not sure if FISA even contemplates a large-scale wiretapping of dubious suspects, few of whom are so clearly dirty as to grant probable cause.

And further, this wasn't a domestic-policing act, not primarily. It was a foreign intelligence act during a time of war.

Democrats always claim they would have done "everything that Bush did" to protect us, except when they're not obviously arguing the opposite.

Posted by: Ace at 03:05 PM | Comments (21)
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

Unexpectedly, Clinton leads among men.

More on "women falling for Obama.

You guys can make your own joke about men supporting Hillary. It's beneath me. I'm Blogger of the Year, for crying out loud. I don't do the cheap stuff.

Posted by: Ace at 02:08 PM | Comments (34)
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, Hillary and her supporters have been playing the race card under the table for a while.

Now it's slapped down on the table, face-up.

The Democrats and Democrat-leaners have managed to deliver Pennsylvania's rich trove of delegates to the Democratic candidate in the past, what, four elections? At least?

But now, it seems, red-gone-purple-gone-blue Pennsylvania may not be able to manage this again. At least not if the Democratic nominee is a schvartze.

Can't pin this on Republicans, Rendell. Democrats have managed to carry the state for twenty years. Republicans are, obviously, not an important part of the Pennsylvania Democratic coalition.

So just who do you mean is too racist to vote for the darkie?

Is anyone else mildly amused that Republicans are scared to death of Obama because we think that many of our fellow Republicans may vote for Obama, partly because he is black, while Democrats fret their fellow Democrats won't vote for him for just that reason?

I'm reminded of Sarah Silvermann's joke. "I just had a terrible break-up with my boyfriend, who's half-black. Oh, I guess I shouldn't put that in such a bad way. He's half-white."

I guess Team Hillary can rationalize that we racist Republicans aren't as against Obama's race as the tolerant Democrats are, because we're responding positively to the fact he's got some white blood there, standing proud and taking charge, presumably keeping the dark blood in line. Maybe we view him as a walking microcosm of how the world should be.

Again, I'm all in favor of this newest line of Hillary Democrat attack... as long as My Gal gets the nomination, have a party. Whatever you have to do, guys.

More: From Gabriel--

I have enjoyed watching the Democratic response to this. For example, one of the cobloggers at TalkLeft posted in response to Rendell's statement:

"Is this true? Undoubtedly. Should Rendell have said it? Undoubtedly not. He is the Governor of Pennsylvania and a prominent supporter of Hillary Clinton. He does not get to say this. It is inflammatory."

Democrats: The Truth Shall Not Be Spoken Party.

I'm not going to pretend the Republicans have never played the race card before. But the Democrats play it too.

Maybe from now on the Republicans can play it the Democratic way: Look, sure, personally I want to give lots of benefits to suspiciously-swarthy Welfare Queens, but I have to cut funding for it, otherwise the Democrats will murder us for it!"

Seems to work when the Dems play it that way. At least the MSM thinks it makes sense.

Posted by: Ace at 01:17 PM | Comments (79)
Post contains 467 words, total size 3 kb.