Hillary's Baseless Basis for a Campaign

Two arguments by the Clinton Campaign really bother me.

1) The argument that the delegates they won in Michigan and Florida should count. This argument is absurd for so many reasons. First of all, the Clinton campaign had agreed before the contests were held that Michigan and Florida's delegates would not count, and said so publicly. We have never allowed ex post facto laws in this country, and the same principle applying there applies here. It is unfair, as most anyone could tell you, to change the rules of the game when you're in the middle of playing. Second of all, Obama 's name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, so presumably he would get no delegates as a result, and he never got to campaign in Florida. As one has seen in Texas and Ohio, when he gets a chance to campaign he always cuts way into her lead.

2) The argument that it's somehow significant that Hillary has "won all the big states." This argument really only applies if she wins Texas and Ohio, so let's assume she does. Who cares? What possible significance is there in winning the "big states?" America has 50 states last time I checked, and voters in everyone of them. Why do the voters in the "big states" count for more? It's an absurd argument with absolutely no merit and I don't think anyone is really buying it. I guess it just bothers me that significant numbers of Americans support a candidate willing to stoop to this insane level of distortion. These arguments are the proverbial thread holding her campaign together. For all her polish and policy acumen, she stands on the brink of defeat. The absurdity of these arguments attests to her precarious predicament.