What Clinton's campaign turning down that MI deal means is 3 things...

1. They don't want a resolution, not now, not ever. They want the SDs to swing it to her on the "argument" instead of it being decided on the facts.

2. They realize a 10 or even 18 seat margin is nothing, so they want their 55% and they want the rest to go "uncommitted" in the irrational hope that they can swing all of those to her as well.

3. Or, since they mentioned the number of votes when they declined the deal, they want any deal to come with the implicit agreement that the popular vote is the new metric by which this thing should be decided, and that, just like above, Obama gets none of the "uncommitted" votes.

It's craven and sad, but it's all they've got.

I just did this same thing in another thread, but what this shows, in rejecting the 69-59 split, is that she either wants an acknowledgement of the popular vote total, in effect blessing that metric for use by the superdelegates, or she wants the 45% she didn't get in MI to, rather than automatically go to Obama, be seated as "uncommitted," allowing her campaign to go after them (nothing says she can't go after them anyway, but in this case it might work if they get someone who truly is uncommitted...and why do I think they might have a few plants in mind for those "uncommitted" delegates?)

In other words, she's trying to get all 128. Which, unlikely though it may be, would put her right back in it.

One other thing...there's a blatant falsehood in this letter. Right at the beginning, she claims "I have consistently said that the votes cast in Florida and Michigan in January should be counted."

Hmmm, somebody forgot about that interview with NPR again, didn't they?

Along with that blatant falsehood, there's a lesser one, although this is sort of a nitpick. Obama supported a re-vote in MI, as long as there were no provisions that those who voted in the GOP primary couldn't vote in the re-vote. Doing so would have sparked lawsuits, but Clinton insisted on it. So while he never led the charge for a re-vote, he certainly wouldn't have minded one. In fact, had there been a re-vote, I think he'd have outperformed the 55-45 loss and maybe even won. That's why she never would've accepted a re-vote, and why this push now is disingenuous at best.

Well, okay, that's ONE of the reasons this push is disingenuous...

As others are no doubt racing to type, NH did not break the rules. They (and Iowa and SC and Nevada) were specifically exempted from the rules about setting a primary date before Feb. 5th. That's why it was called the 4 state pledge, because only those 4 states were permitted to schedule their primaries in advance of Super Tuesday.

The money you've already given to Obama won't be used to retire Clinton's debt...because it can't be. Ok, that's 99.9% accurate, Obama can donate $2300 just like anyone else. What they mean when they talk about him helping her retire the debt is holding joint fundraisers, him making appeals on his website or through the DNC, or some other mechanism to raise more money that would go to her.

I'm pretty sure he can't just hand over $10M in cash. Otherwise, it would be too easy to evade donation limits. All you'd have to do is have 100 people run sham campaigns with the agreement that they would "drop out" and "help you retire your debt" at the end of the campaign. So your big donors (I'm looking at you, Rob Reiner) could effectively give $2300 to Sen. Clinton, her cousin (also running), her uncle (checking in at .00000001% in the polls), her manicurist (whose slogan is "I'll drop out when Hillary needs me to! Yes I will!") and 96 other phony campaigns.

So if you don't like the way Clinton has run this campaign (and honestly, who does, including her supporters?) you don't have to worry that your $50 is being shifted from Senator Hope to Senator Nope (or his opponent in the general, Senator Mope).

Plus the 4 supers, it's a net +6 for Obama so far today.

To win the day as of now, Clinton needs 59%. The thresholds, according to Slate, in case more supers announce today:

8 net delegates: 63% (probably actually 62.5%)

10 net delegates: 67% (probably actually 66.7%)

12 net delegates: 70%

14 net delegates: 75%

It would be interesting if she got 67% and only won the day by a delegate or two.

NARAL endorsing a pro-choice candidate is somehow not "letting her finish?"

So when will she be finished? After Obama hits 2026? Or 2210? Or June 4th when the primaries end? Or at the convention? Inauguration Day?

You just tell us, Hillary supporters, when it's ok to endorse. Because we know what you really mean. Even more so than with the Richardson endorsement, you've shown your true selves here.

And to the person who said this would cause her to never donate to NARAL again, let me ask you...what's more important? That you get your particular pro-choice candidate (over another solidly pro-choice candidate), or that women have access to health care and reproductive services?

Good job by you...really.