redblueamerica.com

Remember when H. Clinton said that Michigan and Florida don't count?  A remember when during the run of caucuses she never said anything about them counting less than primaries? (And when he ran for president, did Bill ever insinuate that caucuses were less valid than primaries?)

Now, according to her, Michigan and Florida do count, but thecaucuses don't.

It's math by Alice in Wonderland.

When either candidate talks about contests won, or popular vote won, it's meaningless gobbledygook.

Thomas Jefferson

Theodore Roosevelt

Franklin D. Roosevelt

John F. Kennedy

...among others

Until now I was annoyed by H. Clinton. Now I'm scared. In the debate last week she spoke of "massive retaliation" should Iran attack Israel or one of our Arab allies. Now she says "we would be able to totally obliterate them."

As anyone who has read my posts knows, I;m a strong Obama supporter. Yet on the question of Clinton droppin g out at this time -- which is a moot question anyhow -- I'm not convinced.

You see, I believe in playing by the rules. The rules include:

Michigan and Florida don't count, unless the credentials committee decides otherwise.

Caucuses do count.

Popular vote isn't the deciding factor.

There are nearly 800 Superdelegates who get to make their own decisions.

James Carville write in the Washington Post that Bill Richardson's disloyalty in endorsing Obama is worthy of insult.

I find this curious on two accounts:

Was it not "disloyal" for Richardson to actually compete with Hillary Clinton for the nomination?  Evidently not. But it is disloyal for him, now not a candidate, to endorse someone other than her.

from the NY Times (posted 3/24/08):

Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, who backs Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for president, proposed another gauge Sunday by which superdelegates might judge whether to support Mrs. Clinton or Senator Barack Obama.

He suggested that they consider the electoral votes of the states that each of them has won.

The Clintonistas are going crazy over criticism of Billyboy's recent comment in North Carolina.  Here it is:

"It would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interests of this country."

Obama supporters have rightly taken exception to this in very strong terms.

The Clinton camp doesn't see the point.

Many Americans were understandably upset to see the clip of Rev. Wright seeming to put blame on the US for the Sept. 11 attacks. "America's chickens are coming home to roost," said he.

Since I haven't seen the full sermon, I don't want to comment further on Wright's point of view, but I'll say this:

It is possible to argue that America's policies did contribute to the attacks and the continuing desires of some Muslims to hurt us without excusing them.

Remember in Wisconsin, when Obama declined to debate Clinton?  She gave speeches and ran ads excoriating him for it. "The people of Wisconsin deserve a debate," she said.

Now, CBS has proposed a debate in North Carolina moderated by Katie Couric to  follow the one both have agreed to in Pennsylvania. Obama accepted immediately.  No response from the Clinton camp.

If Clinton believes the people of every state deserve a debate, why is she hedging?

Here's Hillary strategerist Mark Penn on Bill Richardson's endorsement of Obama:

“The time that he could have been effective has long since passed. I don’t think it is a significant endorsement in this environment.”

I'm glad to know Penn would have said that even if Richardson had endorsed Clinton.    Right.

Even better is James Carville:

“Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic.”