about the Clinton campaign's discovery of little-d democratic principles here. It's not the hypocrisy and lying that bothers me, it's the self-righteousness lathered on top. And, by the way, when did Clinton get the crazy notion that the Democratic Party itself was a democracy? It's crazy to believe that, when one considers that delegates are awarded more heavily to more Democratic areas in the states. And why not? Similarly, I don't get the objection to caucuses: shouldn't the candidate with greater organizational abilities and more loyal support within the party get some reward for that? These are debatable notions, and there is a trap: Obama has actually won more of the areas where Democrats generally don't do that well. Of course, he's won a lot of areas where Democrats do really well, too. That he managed to win landslide victories in states where Democrats generally don't do well but was closer to Clinton in Democratic states is either a travesty or good strategy and organizing, depending on what side you're on. After all is said and done, reform of the nominating process is probably in order.
I'm not so sure her threat of going to the convention is genuine--maybe it is, who knows, though she's been in a more subdued mood these past few days. Maybe the truth is sinking in, I dunno. I think that her die-hard supporters would respond more to "We're going to fight for Michigan and Florida until the convention," better than "We need some more cash because we're broke and Mark Penn's got to feed his iguana. So give us some so that we can keep the vanity candidacy alive, at least until we get stomped in North Carolina and have to exit gracefully. Whatevs, Hillary Clinton."
