The NYT has a front-pager up about the 'endgame' being planned by the here-to-fore incompetent Clinton advisors.
I think it's pretty disturbing, because, along with other accounts of what they're cooking up, it appears to hinge on a strategy involving a credentials fight (FL and MI) and deal-making (we'll never know what the deals are) with superdelegates--how they can be bought, or intimidated.
Isnt this 1968? Aren't we in the middle of a war? and don't we have a candidate winning the popular vote and the delegates that party elders are being invited to ignore?
But the Clintons want to go around the popular vote, and manipulate in the back room.
They scare me. They really scare me. I don't want anybody like that in the White House.
Here's the bottom line: If they try to pull a coup in Denver, and managed to split the party, I won't vote for her.
You heard it here first. I will not collaborate again. I voted Democratic in 1968, but I was in Chicago -- I remember how that catastrophe led to more years of war. It could happen again, with McCain's "Iraq Forever." And he's so old, he might bomb Iran, because he figures he has only one term.
I'd like to know if anyone out there has better information about what the supers are saying--so little has come out.
UPDATE: Look Matt Bai's blog in NYT, also just up:
We’ll be hearing a lot more about Florida and Michigan now that Hillary Rodham Clinton has yet again steadied herself on the precipice of disaster and seems poised to take the Democratic contest through the last round of primaries, if not all the way to the convention. Mrs. Clinton, of course, won the nominal primaries in both Florida and Michigan, where party officials long ago voted to disqualify the delegates. Getting those delegates back into play would make a huge difference to her chances of emerging victorious, and her campaign has until the end of June to persuade the party’s rules and bylaws committee to reverse itself or cut some kind of deal. (After that, it goes to the credentials committee, which is controlled by the candidate with the most delegates.) The principal argument for such a maneuver is that too many voters — 1.7 million, in the case of Florida — will be disenfranchised if the party proceeds on its present course.
See what I mean?
