By way of Memeorandum, I note Sean Wilentz [1]already casting about looking for somewhere beside Hillary Clinton, her past, her policies, her politics and her personality, to place the blame for her loss of the nomination:
Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats in primary states choose their nominee on the basis of a convoluted system of proportional distribution of delegates that varies from state to state and that obtains in neither congressional nor presidential elections. It is this eccentric system that has given Obama his lead in the delegate count
Oh, come on. I mean, I rather expected this loss to get rationalized… (When, after all, has Hillary Clinton EVER taken the blame for something?) …but to blame the system that the Democrats themselves erected, is a bit much. Are we now to aver that the last several Democrat nominations were unfairly gotten because of the system? Are we now also on that basis, to assume that Clinton lost because Obama managed to game the system better than she did? (Someone gaming better than the Clintons, yeah, THAT’s credible…) What kind of image does this present going into the General election?
But, oh, what the heck, let’s take the Democrats at their word, and suggest with Wilentz that the system is the problem. Given that the Democrats themselves designed it, with the idea of being fair in mind, and came up such an abysmal failure at fairness, by Wilentz’ lights, should we take serously the idea that they’re going to be any more sucessful at designing and implementing a system for Government based healthcare, or taxation, or for that matter, anything else?
You’ll pardon me; It’s a bear to type when I’m laughing, and I have to clean the coffee spray off the screen.