tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078662512777171745.post4911537668591189398..comments2008-04-28T14:59:46.002-04:00Scott Cavanaghhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18274607025849615002scott@scottcavanagh.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078662512777171745.post-87741665886611439362008-04-28T14:59:46.002-04:002008-04-28T14:59:46.002-04:00Sigh, this again? If Hilary were really interested in acting according to party rules, she would've abided by the decision to penalize Michigan and Florida. Oh wait, I forgot -- she <I><B>did</I></B> sign off on that decision. She just changed her mind once she started losing.<BR/><BR/>Nice use of caveats here, too: "...when he has no legitimate lead in the popular vote and has lost the majority of major states?" Actually, he does still lead in the popular vote. And if you count Florida, he <I>still</I> leads in the popular vote. If you count Florida and Michigan, Clinton takes the lead ... only because Obama <I>wasn't on the ballot in Michigan.</I> That's because he, like Edwards, stuck to his agreement. If you count the people who voted "Uncommitted" in Michigan, he retains his lead in the popular vote. And that's not counting the states to come.<BR/><BR/>This talk of "overriding the will of the people" ignores the fact that the state legislators themselves are responsible for this mess, not the DNC and not any of the candidates. (And don't forget that the GOP also punished states, though not as harshly.) If the DNC <I>hadn't</I> punished those states, do you think Iowa or New Hampshire would hesitate to move their primaries up to December? It would be a mess. <BR/><BR/>Michigan has already ruled out a new primary, and Florida seems willing to do it ... only if someone else picks up the tab for their own screwup.<BR/><BR/>After three months of this, let's move on.Ken Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13545923862917750773noreply@blogger.com