A New Level Of Audacity

As of Tuesday, the Clinton campaign has been trying to make the case that the pledged delegate count should not carry as much weight as the popular vote when superdelegates are facing the difficult choice of who to throw their support behind. But at the same time the ground work for an even more audacious claim is being laid. According to yesterday's National Journal Online, Geoff Garin, Hillary Clinton's chief strategist, recently told the Washington Post...

"We don't think this is just going to be about some numerical metric. When we get to those days after June 3rd, we think the real choice is who's proven themselves to be the best candidate."

Now, it is important to realize what Garin means by "some numerical metric." He is, of course, referring to that little thing that we use as the fundamental basis of our democracy known as voting. He is in essence saying that regardless of the outcome of the pledged delegate count and, yes, even the popular vote, that the remaining undecided superdelegates should make their decision as to who to support based upon who has "proven themselves to be the best candidate."

If this argument were carried out to its logical conclusion, one could easily ask, Why even vote at all? Why not have candidates campaign for over a year and then have around 800 party insiders decide who has proven themselves.

I find it immensely ironic that the reason Clinton claims she is pressing so hard for Florida and Michigan to be counted into the total popular vote count is that to not include them would disenfranchise voters. But isn't the statement above made by her chief strategist suggest that they believe such numeric metrics shouldn't mean anything?

This is truly a new level of audacity.