When Connecticut Democrats united to defeat incumbent Sen. Joe Lieberman in their party's primary in 2006, there was no question he deserved to be unseated. Lieberman had been a rubber stamp on Bush's reckless war policies for years. When he was not satisfied with the election's results, the lifelong Democrat vainly started his own political party -- entitled, shamelessly, "Connecticut for Lieberman." After winning reelection he continued his scary slide rightward. He endorsed Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) in the Republican primary and Lieberman was ultimately stripped of his Democratic superdelegate status. Which is one less superdelegate for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.).
Now, I'm not going to suggest that Hillary Clinton is considering starting the "America for Clinton" party, but she shows the same ugly disdain for voters. Clinton surrogate Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) couldn't give a clear answer Sunday morning on "Meet the Press" when asked if Obama "was ahead at the end of this primary season in elected delegates, states won and popular vote," should he be the nominee. His Putinesque answer bizarrely hinted that Obama needed to beat Clinton by even larger margins before the superdelegate party elite would follow the will of the people.
What percentage would make Sen. Schumer happy? Obama currently leads by over a half-million in the popular vote, and he's won more states. Someone should let the voters know exactly how large Hillary Clinton's handicap advantage is. If Obama gave Clinton a million-vote head start, would that be enough? The Clinton campaign seems willing to change the rules in their favor; they've already flip-flopped on seating Florida and Michigan. Will they have the nerve to go to the convention in Denver and flip-flop on the very idea of a Democratic primary? That whole pesky letting people vote for their leaders thing ...