Legal Commentary

For The Record . . .

By Big Tent Democrat

Hunter writes (Let me give credit to Oliver Willis for a shrewd reaction to the PA results ("Yes, Clinton won. Doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things.") Calm and cool is the approach for Obama and his supporters imo.)

The overall delegate margin has barely budged, however, and it is now even more assured that there is no reasonable scenario where Clinton can pull out a primary win absent intervention by the superdelegates.

(Emphasis supplied.) There also is no reasonable scenario where Obama can pull out a primary win absent intervention by the superdelegates. Hunter is offended that the Clinton campaign is arguing why the superdelegates should support Clinton. I am hard pressed to understand his outrage. Would he have them argue for superdelegates supporting Obama? Of all the blog outbursts at the Clinton campaign, being enraged at the Clinton camp for arguing for support from the superdelegates strikes me as among the most unreasonable. More . . .

Hunter continues:

If Clinton wants the superdelegates to overturn all the voting up until now, fine: she's got every right, according to the rules of the contest, to campaign for that. All I'm asking is for her surrogates to come up with rationales that aren't absurdly premised and/or dismissive of the electorate. Given that I can't think of any such non-absurd arguments, that may pose a problem.

(Emphasis mine.) As to what constitutes an absurd political argument, I'll leave us all to our own thinking, but I do think it is dismissive of the electorates of the upcoming states to ignore the fact that there are elections still to be contested. I can not think of a more dismissive argument to the electorate than to tell them their votes do not count. That goes for the upcoming contests and for Florida and Michigan.

Full post as published by TalkLeft on April 23, 2008 (boomark / email).