I can totally imagine Ted Olson [1] laughing his head off while writing about the impending bit of historical irony that's in the making by the Democratic Party :
Would the U.S. Supreme Court even take the case after having been excoriated for years by liberals for daring to restore order in the Florida vote-counting in 2000? And, would Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, the dissenters in Bush v. Gore, feel as strongly about not intervening if Sen. Obama was fighting against an effort to change a presidential election by changing the rules after the fact? Will there be a brief filed by Floridians who didn't vote in their state's primary because the party had decided, and the candidates had agreed, that the results wouldn't count?
In short, the way things are going so far, Sens. Obama and Clinton will probably be so close to one another in delegate count by the time of the convention that all those primary votes may be tabulated, but will turn out to be irrelevant to the outcome. Those 796 superdelegate politicians will decide who the candidate will be. Maybe no cigar or cigarette smoke this time, but back-room politics all the same. All those primary voters and millions in campaign expenses locked out of the room.
Now the question is, who's to blame?
Hillary Clinton has actually intimated that her voters are too lazy compared to Obama's [2]. That would explain why they don't trudge through the snow to cast a vote for her Billaryness. And it would also explain why Billary kicked her campaign manager Patti Solis-Doyle to the curb [3].
Paul Krugman, who's turned into Billary's bitch, says in 'Hate Springs Eternal [4]' that Obama is to blame. Yes, because as Krugman sees it, Obama is a Magic Negro [5] who has Jewish leaders under his spell and has not voters behind him but a cult following of hatemongers who want to turn this country into a new Nixonland.
An ironic image given that Hillary Clinton was at one point a Nixon supporter [6].
Yet let me ask this again, one more time : Shouldn't Hillary Clinton have waited until 2012 to run for office?
Wouldn't it have been better for the country to have 4-8 years to wipe clean the stain of the Bush/Clinton/Bush years and then make a glorious comeback?
Why did it have to be now?
And by the way : Had Hillary Clinton divorced Bill, do you think we'd be in the place we are right now?
Discuss.
[7] | 
[8] | 
[9] | 
[10] | 
[11] | 
[12]