HILLARY, SHUT THE HELL UP!

It's one thing to lose a race gracefully. It's another thing to compare a train wreck to the civil rights struggle. Why is it that the Clinton campaign cannot accept the fact that they ran a horrible campaign predicated on an early knock-out strategy? Her nomination became neither inevitable nor successful when Obama showed the Democratic party how to raise funds away from Wall Street and big boosters and how to organize effectively and storm the early caucuses. It is true that Mrs. Clinton has campaigned well in the large states. She has a solid core of supporters. And, I would not wish for her to bow out before the voters in Montana and South Dakota had their say on 3 June, as well as the voters on Puerto Rico on 1 June.

Still, it is difficult to contain one's fury when the Clinton campaign bends over backwards to adopt the Karl Rove perspective that she has a majority of the popular vote - if we count Florida and Michigan for Ms. Clinton and do not count the undecided vote in Michigan, where Mr. Obama's name did not even appear on the ballot. Ms. Clinton, you are in this situation because you ran a campaign badly. You might have had a legitimate shot, but that was squandered when you went for a knock-out blow. It's not sexism to acknowledge that you will probably lose the nomination. It's not 2000 redux when the DNC attempts to enforce its rules vis-a-vis Michigan and Florida, rules that you agreed to back in the snows of winter.

That was then, and this is now. The only way for your twisted mathematics to work is to repudiate past deals and declare the attempt to deny Michigan and Florida delegates proper seating as a failure to count all the votes. What it does not do is improve your image. Indeed, it does the opposite. You act like a child who wishes to take home all of his or her toys when friends don't want to play according to your rules.

There is a case to be made for reform of the primary process. As I noted in my previous blog, the length of the primary season needs to be shortened. Caucuses should not be allowed to allocate final delegates to the party convention. They can and should still be used early in the season to vet a lengthy list of would-be nominees. But, as the effectively organized Bamistas demonstrated, good local organization can hijack the caucus process and cause a majority vote in Texas to be overturned. If we truly wish to democratize the nomination process, then all states should have primary elections restricted to party registered voters for state-wide races.

As for the current situation: the Florida situation is perhaps the easier of the two to decide. Unfortunately, the Democrats in Florida were placed in a difficult position by Republican Governor Charlie Crist. Either vote for paper ballots and a primary election in January that would violate Democratic party rules or vote against paper ballots in order to abide by Democratic party rules. Given the horrible mess that Florida has presented the nation in 2000 and 2004 with its sloppy election process, it must have been extremely difficult for Democrats to vote against paper ballots. Though this put them in direct conflict with the DNC, their actions are understandable. As a result, let them attend the convention and apportion the delegates according to the results of the primary election where neither candidate campaigned.

Michigan, however, deserves some form of punishment. It willfully sought to violate DNC rules in order to have an impact on the election. Unfortunately, just as New Jersey and California would have been better off this year to leave well enough alone, Michigan's impact would have been greater had its primary been scheduled in February. There were no Republican machinations in Ann Arbor when this was done. It was the result of a short-sighted Democratic party leadership in Michigan who deserve derision and some form of punishment.

How should Michigan be punished? After all, it is an important state whose voters cannot be ignored or treated as second-class citizens. It's unfortunate that Mrs. Clinton's name appeared on the ballot while Obama's did not. There is no way to disentangle the uncommitted vote to see how many supported Obama or Edwards. In a sense, it doesn't matter at this stage. One could simply assign all of the uncommitted voters to Obama since he is the only candidate other than Mrs. Clinton left standing. To apportion delegates in this way treats the voters of Michigan with respect.

If the Michigan delegation is seated at the convention, should they be forbidden from casting a vote until the second or third ballots perhaps? It is a suggestion worth considering, at least in the abstract. Once again, however, it treats the opinion of Michigan voters with disrespect. Whoever went to the polls in January surely went with the expectation that they were casting a valid ballot. True, Obama's name was not on the ballot. Nor was Edwards' nor other Democratic party candidates at that time. Hillary's name was and voters who cast their ballots for her surely felt that they were casting a valid ballot.

Perhaps the Michigan delegation should be denied attendance at the convention as delegates. They could just show up as invited guests. True, the Democratic nominee might need their help at election time. However, if Obama is the nominee, he has shown a willingness to break the rules of traditional politics. His campaign refused to pay street money in Philly and in other metropolises. And, Obama's campaign has developed its own, non-traditional leadership. Maybe candidate Obama would not need the Michigan leaders who made this mess in order to succeed in the Fall. But wouldn't this also punish the voters who had a role in shaping this delegation? Do we really wish to so anger Michigan that McCain has even the slightest chance of carrying this state in November? I, for one, think attendance denial is too extreme as punishment. It does not just target the party leaders, but any delegate - no matter how trivial a role he or she played in that ill-fated decision to move up the February primary - and thus risks overkill.

Still, some punishment for violating DNC rules seems in order. Whatever the ultimate punishment is, it surely should target those who placed Michigan squarely in this mess, namely, those party leaders who tried to sneak Michigan onto center stage. It should not target voters who trudged to the polls in January to cast a vote in a primary that never should have been held in violation of DNC rules.

One can hear the anger of the Michigan bosses who might have to pay a price. You gambled and lost. Move on. And why should we kowtow to Senator Levin anyhow? Isn't it bad enough that we are slow to compel Detroit to increase fuel standards just to please GM and Ford and not to anger Senator Levin? At some point, you need to consider the greater good. And, the greater good is to allow the DNC to have some teeth as it tries to bring order to the presidential primary system. Yes, it's a mess. But, it's not as undemocratic a mess as the Republican process with its winner take all primaries.

Is it too pie-in-the-sky to hope that perhaps the Michigan party bosses could suggest their own form of punishment rather than have their cake and eat it too? If they don't like what the Storm Sewer would mete out, then what would they accept as punishment, for there should be some consequence for willfully violating DNC rules. Isn't that what good parenting is all about?