A Point Worth Echoing

Snarky, but accurate ...

The Obama campaign is upset that the Clinton campaign is attempting to potentially win the nomination based on Superdelegates, thus thwarting the will of the people. But I seem to recall the Obama campaign claiming victory in Nevada, because the inane election rules may have awarded them one more delegate there than was awarded to Clinton, even though Clinton won the state's popular vote. I also seem to recall Obama himself having trouble deciding whether each state's Superdelegates should vote with the will of their state's voters. I guess the Obama campaign has hope no one will notice the change in thinking.

Even if it means my preferred candidate loses out on the deal, I'd have a hard time explaining away the sh*tstorm that would be the inevitable result of party officials overturning the result of the elected outcome. But even that may not be entirely clear ... something pointed out above. It'll be curious to see how the actual votes bear out as well.

And if it's really this close after everything is said and done, what to do with Florida and Michigan? It doesn't strike me as proper that you'd seat delegates based on what amounts to uncontested races. But it seems just as implausible that you'd decide the fate of this nomination with their voices completely shuttered from the process.

If that's not bad enough, just watch recent Obama endorsee David Willhelm juggle the question of whether he would switch his vote as a superdelegate if Clinton wins his home state.

The bottom line for now, though, is that Hillary needs the trifecta of OH, PA, & TX. She can't afford to lose one. And Texas gets complicated by the split result from primary night to the State Convention. Even if Hillary loses the delegate count in Texas (go back to 1988 for some history here!), it won't be known for over a month after the votes are counted on March 4. Good luck to whomever has to sort it all out. I'll sit back and watch the experts do the work for me.