Thanks much for writing this as it clearly bears repeating,k since too many news outlets are not noting this one-among-several obvious flaws.

I remain in hopes that comments such as yours will hold certain columnists' feet to the fire to be more accurate.

For example, I would like Dan Balz to correct the misperception he allows to be fomented in folks' mind from his column today - that Hilary's claimed win in popular votes is _merely_ a product of 'including' Michigan & Florida votes';

As yourself and many others of us who are [apparently] more versed than than WaPo columnists, her false logic is also a product of _excluding four states_ whose votes could be estimated within a modicum of validity.

And it is also only possible by _excluding_ Obama in the Michigan count.

We know this - as does Hilary and Wolff et al - but so many readers and listeners do not, given the simplistic level of reporting going on.

Apropos of the 'zero votes for Obama' aspect of Hilary's 'counting all the votes' in Mich and Florida, I would be delighted if your or another TPM diarist could find cites for the articles quoting or summarizing Hilary surrogates who had originally conceded that 'everyone knew' that 'uncommitted' in Michigan meant 'Barack Obama.'

I recall reading it but cannot recall the source. Any takers on that project?

Do we want a president who is so willing to bend facts to fit her own self-serving perspective on the world? Doesn't this sound dangerously familiar?

That sums her up entirely. That also sums up why I would never vote for her. I don't want another byanymeansnecessary would be dictator running this nation into the ground. She clearly does not care about living up to her signed pledge, why would she care about living up to her oath as president? Last time I checked that is NOT what the dem party was supposed to be about.

My favorite is her continual citing of the popular vote as a metric when four caucus states don't report popular votes at all-- completely disenfranchising legitimate elections while going on and on about counting votes in a democracy.

Hillary just gave a 15-or-so-minute speech in Boca Raton Florida that was about a single subject: getting the Florida delegates seated. Her case is completely asinine and without merit, and it requires relentless dishonesty to continue to press it. Fortunately for Hillary, relentless dishonesty is an area where she truly excels.

I am so tired of the Clintons.

Had Hillary Clinton been so vocal on "disenfranchising" the poor voters of FL and MI, when the penalties were imposed, her claims would be convincing. Making herself the champion of FL and MI now just shows her dishonesty. And to answer the question in the post: had Clinton lost FL or MI, you can be sure that she would say the opposite of what she is saying now - and have McAwful as her crown witness. As one young but wise woman said not too long ago: "she will stoop to anything to get elected". Hope Ms. Clinton will next loose her senate seat, that the Clintons will loose their political clout and devote their retirement to cleaning up the mess of scandals they left behind after 1992-2000.

Last night, I listened to Chuck Todd from MSNBC, and he said something that made, I don't know, sense? The Rules Committee is not going to seat the states as is. That's thing. Hillary is definitely not going to get her wish. What the deal is going to be is to seat half of the delegation from both states and divide proportionately, which to me makes, um, sense. We're not sure though if they are going to divide the pledged delegates or the superdelegates. Because then, the numbers change, and it's not the 2210 that Hillary has been singing. It's 2131 or 2129, which either way still says that Obama has the majority of the delegates. So where is the rub? Hillary knows that's not going to win that popular vote argument. Because you can't bring millions of people to a convention. It's going to be people like me, a pledged delegate that decides with the superdelegates and determine our nominee. So if that's the argument, she will lose, and lose HUGE!

I don't knwo about this hand raising thing. Not the best way to be heard over the intertubes.

Of course she wouldn't because she cares nothing about anything but political posturing. She will say and do anything to get ahead, which makes for some pretty stellar hypocrisy generally. If you are interested, check out my blog where I call bullshit on all of her hypocrisy and lies:

http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/05/hillary-questions-principles-of.html

She keeps outdoing herself..

"It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything," Clinton said Thursday during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio's call-in program, "The Exchange." - The Associated Press Thursday, October 11, 2007; 4:21 PM

If Clinton was so concerned with having all the votes counted, why didn't she raise this stink when the punishment was being discussed or soon after it was handed down?

SHUT UP, that's why.

/clintonista

Let me post this here as well.
Michigan has proposed a split of delegates that favors Clinton by just 10.
Hillary's campaign balked at that; it's all or nothing, they say.
Someone in the Florida Dem party floated a return to the original penalty of cutting its delegation's votes in half.
I haven't read Hillary's reaction to that suggestion, but it doesn't help her enough.
In both cases, it's clear the state Democrats are looking for a way out that gets them to the convention; they aren't fighting for a mythical Clinton nomination any more.
On May 31, I predict the Obama camp will embrace compromise offers by the two states. Hillary won't have the committee votes to block that acceptance, even if she still wants to.
Over the next three or four days, the superdelegates will line up solidly behind Obama -- if they haven't before then.
Dean will announce the party has its presumptive nominee.
One silver lining to all this psycho drama (NOT a typo) is that Hillary's histrionics have made the case for Obama that she is unfit for any part of the presidential ticket.
He can pick whom he wants without apology.
All's well that ends well!

pantala:

Are you Connie Manes? I ask because you got every fact wrong, just like Connie does. It takes a lot of work to get everything wrong about Florida and Michigan at this stage of the game, so you get an A for effort. Congratulations.

Do we want a president who is so willing to bend facts to fit her own self-serving perspective on the world?

Why are you even asking this? I thought Obama was the presumptive nominee?

Of course not -- as Clinton's campaign chair and preposterous stooge Terry McAuliffe actually did say to Carl Levin when McAuliffe was the DNC chair and threatened not to seat Michigan's delegates if Michigan jumped the DNC primary schedule, Hillary would have said you can't have one state defying the rules that bind them all.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/mcauliffe-04-michigan-will-not.php

It makes no sense to complain about her sleazy tactics blogging. What we need to do is flood the DNC with these beliefs. It's time for the remaining Supers to be leaders and endorse. It's time for some of the Supers that should be outraged by Clinton's tactics and lack of honesty and decency to switch. What do they stand for? We are either better than the GOP and Clinton Campaign tactics or we are wasting our time even paying attention.

Her argument is disingenuous on so many levels that it is actually disturbing that she continues to make it. I think she is within her rights to try and get these delegates seated, but do it with an honest and open determination to win and to compete - not by evoking the civil rights movement or Women's suffrage.

If that is really the case than she needs to account for her earlier statements re: vote in Michigan ("it’s clear this election they are having is not going to count for anything") and her complete lack of outrage with the DNC for the original ruling.

But this was of course back when she was the presumptive nominee. Before her campaign imploded. Where was her outrage then? And what would the level of her outrage be now if the tables were turned?

The answers to those questions reaffirm and reinforce every negative image and association most people carry of the Clinton brand.

What prissy twaddle by the original poster. Let's get real with a couple of basic facts:

1) The whole MI/FL imbroglio arose out of an Iowa pander. (Yo, Liz II Windsor - want that one back?) But mostly because no one expected most other primaries to matter, either, and certainly not that superdelegates would matter. The pretty universal assumption going in was that Iowa and NH would settle the race. So it is all about the law of unintended consequences.

2) Given where we are now, the only fair for both MI and FL would be full do-over primaries. And the only reason we won't have them is that the Obama campaign doesn't want them, because Hillary would whip his ass in both states and we all know it.

If the roles were reversed, Clinton and the Clintonettes would be screaming bloody murder.
They would be telling us that Obama must be stopped. She has lost, and she's a sore loser. The "arguments" she makes for her candidacy are all based on distortions of the facts and she only need "arguments" because factually, she has lost the primaries. Her continuing quest is deceitful to voters, destructive of her own status and damaging to the Democratic Party.

"Tale of the Michigan Voter"

(Sung to the tune of "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald")

Twas 30 degrees, warm for January, when I went out to cast my Dem ballot.

Yet the snow it was cold, fell into my good shoes as I crossed the street by the brick schoolhouse.

The ladies, who were old, said I had to choose one, a Republican or a Democrat ballot.

I took the Dem ballot, proud and true, though I knew it might all be for naught!

For my state had violated party rules, and moved the vote up from the warmness of spring time.

I could mess with the GOP ballot, even vote for Ron Paul, but the Dem one was gonna be worthless.

But I could not stand aside and see the only major Dem on the ballot get the most votes of my statesmen!

Hillary Clinton was her name, a proud woman, too, but as a candidate I found her lacking.

My first choice and second, Obama and Edwards, their names were not found, font or back!

(wailing lonesome guitar solo)

There's Gravel, Kucinich, but no, I was pissed, and I wanted my vote to matter.

So Uncommitted I chose, to send a message to those who'd be dealing with this shit come the summer.

If delegates were seated with the rest of the states arrayed in Denver proud and noble,

I'd want some to not be in Clinton's hands, to not give her a boost to the White House!

A new day needed dawning, it's not the '90s any more, and a new honest voice had stepped forward.

His name was Obama, he struck sure and strong, at the shitstains of the Bush White House.

He was inspiring and stirred the souls of people who wanted a change, someone who'd take care of the wreckage.

(more guitar... ok, that's enough)

When I got home I wondered if the 15 minutes was wasted, at least the place was right down the street.

But I was heartened, amazed and astounded at the number I saw when the news came on with results!

Clinton had won 55 per cent of votes, the winner she was, over the minor and absent major opponents.

But 40 per cent of Michigander Democrats felt the same way as I did.

They saw the name Clinton, and searched for something more, and decided to choose UNCOMMITTED!

(harp solo... what is this, Dylan? knock it off!)

Four months they have passed, most other states have voted.

And Obama is clearly the winner.

Hillary Clinton has fought like a tiger, tis true, and got a good share of the delegates.

But the math doesn't lie, she'd need more states to win, states that as of yet don't exist!

"But what about Michigan!" she desperately cried. "Those people's votes must be counted!"

We in this fine state felt the deep warm fuzzies that she suddenly cares so intensely.

When back in the winter she'd said we'd not matter, she was sure she could win without us!

If it's an important cause of democracy and freedom, to seat her share of elected Mich dels,

That she has won by not following national dem's punishing rules and leaving her name on the ballot,

Give 40 per cent of the dels who were chosen by people who wanted Obama or Edwards,

To the man backed by Edwards, the man who'll take back the White House, the man they call Barack Hussain Obama!

To hear Clintonites wail and cry over poor Michigander voters,

Makes me vomit a bit and wish they were beside me,

So I can tell them to stick their rotten sanctimony as far up their ass as it will go.

And the same goes for their leader who, with each daily outburst, proves she's not presidential material!

Now the song is done and the mess still lives, but the answer it blows in the wind.

Or it's just blowing smoke up your ass and mine, as it goes on, with no end!