Clinton moves the goalposts again: OH/TX not the end

So Texas and Ohio are not her firewall now.

Maybe the Clinton campaign just needs to say this to buck up its funders and supporters. But this New York Times report looks an awful lot like Hillary moving the goalposts again:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed to carry her campaign beyond the Ohio and Texas primaries on March 4, despite the lengthening odds of her capturing the Democratic presidential nomination.

It was just a couple of days ago that former president (and former party hero) Bill Clinton told Texans that it was over if she didn't win in Ohio and Texas.

Perhaps her camp was panicking after many reacted to her maudlin closing remarks as a farewell to her own campaign and its flagging fortunes:

Aides insisted the remark was not an admission that she believed she would lose the race but rather an attempt to refocus the campaign from the drama of the two compelling and historic candidates battling for the nomination to the struggles of ordinary voters.

And from Clinton herself:

In an interview on the CBS "Morning Show," Mrs. Clinton was asked directly if her closing debate remarks meant she thought she was going to lose the race. Mr. Obama has won 11 straight contests since the Super Tuesday races on Feb. 5, all by double-digit margins.

"No, of course not," she said.

How many times do we have to go through this charade? First it was Iowa and New Hampshire that were must-wins. Then it was Super Tuesday. Then it was Texas and Ohio. Now Clinton says she intends to go the whole distance.

What is the cost to the Democratic Party for her continuing to waste Obama's time and funding on her increasingly longshot candidacy?

Of course, Clinton has every right to stay in the race. But she doesn't have the right to ignore the real-world consequences of staying in long after her chances have collapsed down to virtually nothing. She needs to stick to one statement and one firewall. If she doesn't win both Ohio and Texas, she needs to go, so that Obama can focus on November.

UPDATE: Diarist newyorknewyork pulls another quote from Hillary in which she says that Texas is not essential to Democrats winning the White  House, another instance of moving the goalposts.

•  It's like Ted Kennedy in 1980

  He lost primary after primary and still fought it out at the convention.

  by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:41:10 AM PDT

  •  I doubt this

    I think she will bow out after March 4th. But she needs to put on a brave face to keep her donors.

    by jenontheshore on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:42:07 AM PDT

    •  Yes, it could be about the money.

      I suspect they have much larger campaign debts than publicly acknowledged, and that at minimum they need to keep the cash flow going the next two weeks.

      It will be interesting to see if they spend heavily on Texas and Ohio advertising. If they hold back, then we know its just a ruse to pay off the debts.

      by Hudson on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:45:06 AM PDT

    •  I don't doubt it

      Her local supporters plan on fighting.  I know for a fact that Kathy Castor (FL-11) and her staff put in a lot of thought and a lot of research before becoming the 2d FL MOC to endorse Obama.  These almost personal attacks from Clintonites evidence a continued scorched earth approach.

      I'd like to think that Team Clinton would gracefully ride off into the sunset if she doesn't win big on 3/4.  Sadly, there's much more evidence contradicting that hope than supporting it.

      by RFK Lives on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:50:19 AM PDT

    •  I tend to agree

      Every other candidate so far has vowed to battle on all the way to the convention right up until the moment they dropped out. I don't think this statement means anything.

      by zbbrox on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:59:51 AM PDT

  •  Ted Kennedy in 1980

    won most of the later primaries, including California at the end.  The voters saw how ineffective Carter was at the time.

    by IhateBush on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:43:59 AM PDT

  •  He started winning a whole bunch

    toward the end.  And he at least had a good reason to keep on fighting.

    This would be more like Jerry Brown in '92.

    by slaney black on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:44:59 AM PDT

  •  Right up to the "open convention" thing.

    But then I heard him give the best speech I ever heard him make at that convention.

    On the way out.

    by rock the ground on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:45:07 AM PDT

    •  That was one hell of a speech

      I remember seeing the TV cameras panning the floor, and showing delegates crying. Then there was a long recess in the convention (Kennedy had spoken in favor of a minority report to the platform) which ended up with the minority planks being adopted by a voice vote. A really dramatic evening.

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:53:44 AM PDT

      •  My take on that speech...

        It was a good speech, but I wasn't as bowled over as most observers (though I am 100% behind Obama now).

        I felt that the Obama 2004 convention speech benefitted from the stark contrast with Bush's idiotic speaking style, and Kerry's labored monotone. So I thought it was a B+/A- performance, but in the context of the time it felt like A+.

        We were all yearning for a fresh, authentic voice.

        by Hudson on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:03:03 PM PDT

  •  Romney said 'We're going all the way to the

    convention' one day - and then the next day or right after that he pulled out.

    by RobertInWisconsin on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:57:30 AM PDT

    •  So did Edwards

      it's standard fare.

      by Superribbie on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:58:57 AM PDT

  •  the speech he gave @ the convention was great tho

    something tells me that isn;t going to happen this time.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:04:52 PM PDT

•  Tip jar/recs [n/t]

  by Hudson on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:41:16 AM PDT

•  someone please, put me out of her misery.

  make. it. stop.

  by jj24 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:41:32 AM PDT

  •  LOL!

    by rock the ground on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:45:39 AM PDT

  •  Other way around: Put HER out of YOUR misery.

    How about last week for that?

    by polecat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:11:07 PM PDT

    •  don't worry-she's oblivious to we the people.

      by jj24 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:19:54 PM PDT

•  She can't run without money

  If she loses OH and TX, she'll have few still willing to donate to her. Today's NYT story couldn't have helped the cause either. As it is, she's getting killed in ad spending by Obama.

  by lapis on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:42:02 AM PDT

  •  Plus, Obama is on pace to raise $60 million

    IN FEBRUARY ALONE !

    by RobertInWisconsin on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:58:11 AM PDT

    •  starve a cold, feed the fever!!

      by jj24 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:44:25 PM PDT

•  Who knows if that's true?

  Candidates say they will stay in all the time and then drop out two days later.  They can't very well admit that they'll drop out on X date or if Y happens -- looks too weak.

  by Katzy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:42:12 AM PDT

  •  Romney said it

    the day before he dropped out.

    by rock the ground on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:46:07 AM PDT

  •  Ha Ha..how true - Fred Thompson style! nt

    by Common Raven on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:50:45 AM PDT

  •  Yeah, she's in to the convention just like

    John Edwards was. Mm hmm.

    by Pegasus on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:53:43 AM PDT

•  She has to continue to

  try to raise money.  Edwards was sending out feelers for $$ a few days before he dropped out.

  If she loses both then she is done.  She knows that.

  by Kab ibn al Ashraf on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:42:37 AM PDT

  •  I donated to Edwards just a few days...

    ... before he dropped out.

    If it helped him settle his campaign debts, I don't regret it. He ran an important race and raised key issues.

    by Hudson on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:46:33 AM PDT

  •  She needs to keep fund raising

    Otherwise how can she pay for all those Dunkin Donuts, let along Mark Penn's $5 million or the $8 million to other consultants

    by dangoch on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:52:52 AM PDT

    •  mmmm, dohhhhnuts n/t

      by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:06:38 PM PDT

  •  How about Obama throws her some money

    to make her go away? He's got more than enough, and if she drops out of the race now, it will be better for the party as a whole.
    
    (Yes, I know he can't do this. Still, the thought is amusing.)

    by banjolele on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:02:08 PM PDT

•  trying to keep supporters, donors

  I know someone who saw John Edwards the night before he dropped out and have been told he sounded energized and not at all as if he was about to step off the stage.

  Often candidates do this sort of thing - Otherwise, her supporters would get discouraged and her fundraising would get even worse.

  by maineiac on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:42:50 AM PDT

•  Just when I start having empathy for her

  She pulls this crazy mess in the morning saying that she might go beyond March 4th and tell a TX newspaper that she never said that FL and MI shouldn't be counted and she will push this issue to DNC.

  Once again, she gets on my freakin' nerves.

  by toughcookie85 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:42:51 AM PDT

•  She can't say otherwise

  if she did, voters would end her campaign in TX and OH.  Even many Clinton supporters may switch over.

  She has to say that she would move on.

  by IhateBush on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:43:20 AM PDT

•  i was actually wondering

  if/when this would happen.  i just do NOT see her "giving up" until obama has the actual 2025 delegates - and maybe not even then.

  this is not about the democratic party, state and local elections, 50-state strategy, or even the united states of america.  this is about her.  

  by RSA TX on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:44:35 AM PDT

  •  Nah

    This is generic.  She has to say she will win or she will definitely lose.  Right now the odds may be 80/20 in favor of Obama but she still has that 20%.  If she says anything that sounds defeatist, she will lose - people do not want leaders who pre-admit defeat.

    Edwards was staying in to the convention the night before he dropped out.  I don't think he had a sudden change of heart, I think that until the 100% final decision had been made, he needed to stay on message.

    -Fred

    by FredFred on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:46:50 AM PDT

    •  maybe so

      i hope you're right.

      by RSA TX on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:49:42 AM PDT

•  If she loses Ohio and/or Texas she is out

  whether she knows it or not

  by mattk on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:45:08 AM PDT

•  unbelievable Texas poll, Obama up 14

  check this out...I was checking DocuDharma and pinche tejano linked to it.

  I doubt this

  but if it should be anywhere close to accurate and if the Clinton internal polling shows anything like it then yeah, I think some goalpost moving is in order.

  by Shahryar on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:46:34 AM PDT

  •  Given his ground operations...

    ... and her lack of organization and money, I can believe he may win solidly in Texas or Ohio or both.

    by Hudson on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:48:45 AM PDT

    •  I've seen ads for them in trade mags

      and always wondered how accurate they would be, since they're an online company, apparently specializing in market research.

      This will be an interesting test for them.

      by Shahryar on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:06:21 PM PDT

      •   Say who are these guys? n/t

        by shaharazade on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:20:31 PM PDT

        •  they advertise in Quirk's n/t

          by Shahryar on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:55:11 PM PDT

          •  hummm ... a lead? n/t

            by shaharazade on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:17:45 PM PDT

  •  Who is this polling outfit?

    Never heard of this one before.

    by Hudson on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:52:48 AM PDT

  •  Sample size is waaaaaaaay too small for Texas

    We have sometimes had wildly misleading poll results from a sample size of 600-700 in my local city and county races.

    I'm with you, I strongly doubt the poll, too. But it would be nice!

    by autoegocrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:53:35 AM PDT

    •  The devil is in the details

      "at a 90% level of confidence"

      this is the catcher... anyone who knows statistics knows they have just lowered the accuracy bar by a significant amount in order to get a number. Usually these test are done at 99% or 95% accuracy levels, thus requiring much higher sample numbers or drastically increasing the margin or uncertainty.

      This poll is bunk.

      by Aike on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:13:11 PM PDT

  •  That's an online, poll, and it's bunk.

    My heart did go pitter-patter for a moment, though.

    by Pegasus on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:54:46 AM PDT

    •  online poll*

      I, love, me, some commas.

      by Pegasus on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:55:09 AM PDT

•  The budget will dictate her exit.

  Trust, after Mississippi and Wyoming, she is going to have six weeks of tremendously expensive campaigning with no ballot box victories to show for it leading up to Penn. If she is beaten soundly and Texas and Ohio is close, she's going to facing a long hard slog that is just going to grind down her finances. Her campaign will essentially have to park in Pennsylvania.

  At that point, if im Obama, I ignore her and move on to McCain. I begin visiting key General election states and begin engaging one on one with McCain, both on the air and in speeches.

  Let her park herself in Pennsylvania and wither on the vine. Her donor will be beating a path to Obama with the quickness.

  by brooklynbadboy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:47:55 AM PDT

  •  And she doesn't even have a full delegate slate

    in Pennsylvania.

    by Hudson on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:50:45 AM PDT

•  Actually, I think there's some ambivalence

  in her message today.

  The storyline out of her morning show appearances was that she didn't decisively commit to carrying on after March 4. That got some legs, and now she's had to address it.

  But this whole moment for her campaign is similar to watching a relative in the hospital on his deathbed. You know the time is approaching when things will be beyond hope, but you still hold out that smallest of hopes that something miraculous will turn things around. You don't give up that hope until circumstances force you to.

  Given earlier statements, if there's not a surprise in her favor on March 4, I believe she'll make the right choice at that time.

  by QuestionableSanity on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:48:17 AM PDT

•  EVERY candidate says "I'm in till convention"

  ...not long before they drop out of the race a week or so later.  It's one of classic premortum stages of denial during a terminally ill campaign preceding its death.  Richardson.  Edwards.  Romney.

  IF HRC loses Texas or Ohio, expect to see the white flag within 48 hours.

  by cmoreNC on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:49:03 AM PDT

  •  except huckabee

    who is surely insane. But when your opponent is 99 years old, maybe it's smart to play for 2nd if you know what im saying...

    by glutz78 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:18:46 PM PDT

•  It gets worse--check out her interview--

  As reported at The Field  here's what Clinton said at today's taping of Texas Monthly Report

  “I think it’s important for the DNC to ask itself, Is this really in the best interest of our eventual nominee? We do not want to be disenfranchising Michigan and Florida. We have to try to carry both of those states. I’d love to carry Texas, but it’s usually not in the electoral calculation for the Democratic nominee. Florida and Michigan are.”

  The Field, for once, is speechless.

  I had a few hours last night of thinking, kindly, that Senator Clinton did, after all, have integrity.

  Now? Not so much.

  by cultural worker on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:49:23 AM PDT

•  It's about the money

  I really want to buy a vacation home.  No, you don't understand, I really, really want to buy a vacation home in Hawaii or up in Mammonth Lakes.  I want that vacation home so bad....

  BUT...  I can't afford that vacation home.  No matter how much I want it, if I don't have the funds, I will never get that vacation home.  I can talk about it, tell everyone I want it and how great it'll be, but until I hit the lottery, it's not going to happen.

  Today's parable is brought to you by Countrywide Mortage

  by davepez on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:49:29 AM PDT

•  What is she really up to?

  Even if she were to win both TX and OH it's very unlikely that she would do so with a sufficiently large margin to catch up with Obama - already at this stage simple arithmetic seems to say that's it's all over for Hill.
  If she loses TX and OH, or wins them with too slight a margin to make her viable again, and she continues with her campaign thereafter, she'll really be doing McCain's work for him.
  Why would she want to do that? 2012?

  Actually, I think she'll withdraw gracefully after TX and OH.

  by Lepanto on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:51:21 AM PDT

  •  If she wins either even by 1/2 of 1%...

    ... I suspect she will start using that as a cudgel with the Superdelegates to say, "See, I made a comeback, I should be the nominee, now you have cover to vote for me," etc.

    by Hudson on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:54:38 AM PDT

    •  I doubt that

      If she gets killed in Texas and wins Ohio by a very very slim margin i think she's still out.  About the only thing i'm worried about is that she wins both of them by slim margins, in which case she might try to stick it out until PA (though it would be VERY expensive for her to do that -- and 6 weeks between the two races is a long long time).  But I imagine in that scenario (wins both narrowly) she would make an argument to superdelegates along the lines of "i'm the stronger candidate in the general b/c the electoral college is all or nothing, and i can pull it out in a very tight race".

      My prediction is that Obama will bury her in TX and that Ohio will be very very close (no idea who will win it, but neither will get a landslide)

      by Samantha Jones for President on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:02:14 PM PDT

•  It's possible...

  ... that the Clinton folks have finally grasped that they'll have to win by margins they haven't seen since Arkansas and New York to stay in this race.

  by droogie6655321 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:51:39 AM PDT

•  I am glad she isn't droppin out.

  This will motivate Barack supporters and it will take away the sympathy and empathy votes.    This was taken from an earlier diary.

  That’s not the case at all. I signed an agreement not to campaign in Michigan and Florida. Now, the DNC made the determination that they would not seat the delegates, but I was not party to that. I think it’s important for the DNC to ask itself, Is this really in the best interest of our eventual nominee? We do not want to be disenfranchising Michigan and Florida. We have to try to carry both of those states. I’d love to carry Texas, but it’s usually not in the electoral calculation for the Democratic nominee. Florida and Michigan are. Therefore, the people of those two states disregarded adamantly the DNC’s decision that they would not seat the delegates. They came out and voted. If they had been influenced by the DNC, despite the fact that there was very little campaigning, if any, they would have stayed home. But they wanted their voices heard. More than 2 million people came out. I mean, it was record turnout for a primary. Florida, in particular, is sensitive to being disenfranchised because of what happened to them in the last elections. I have said that I would ask my delegates to vote to seat.

  http://www.texasmonthly.com/...

  by jamaicanblood on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:52:38 AM PDT

  •  I buy that, partially at least.

    I suppose these are great party-building and infrastructure-building enterprises. But the money necessary is enormous, and could be used to build that infrastructure for November instead...

    On the other hand, the primary generates tons of free "earned" media for Obama. McCain is on the margins, except for his scandals. I even think that Hillary's opposition to Obama may actually help him with independents in the long run.

    So I suppose it might be a wash.

    by Hudson on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:57:10 AM PDT

  •  Yeah and how about . . .

    those disenfranchised voters is Michigan who didn't get to vote for Obama and Edwards because their fricking names weren't on the ticket? The press infuriates me because they never seem to know enough to ask the tough next question when somebody stakes out a claim to pious fairness that an idiot should see through.

    by txdemfem on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:57:58 AM PDT

    •  Excellent point n/t

      by Hudson on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:09:48 PM PDT

•  She has to say she's in it for the long haul.

  Donors aren't going to fork over big checks unless they think she's committed to going the distance and has some sort of "plan" to win.

  by jeepdad on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:57:09 AM PDT

  •  and right now they are asking their big donors

    for six figure sums to set up the anti-Obama 527 in Ohio.

    they won't give if they think it will be all over when if HRC loses Texas.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:08:18 PM PDT

•  Her superdelegate lead is down to 64.

  link is here.

  ...and CBS apparently has it as low as 56.

  Obama got another 4 superdelegates today, so at this rate it would be just about even on that account before the 3/4 primaries!

  Hillary's statement is basically just to keep the donations coming in, but she knows what she will do in 12 days...suspend her campaign.

  by jeroly on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:58:29 AM PDT

  •  NYT had it down to 40-50

    in a survey a couple weeks ago.

    I'd say it's even less than that.

    The superdelegate count always was tenuous at best all along.

    WHO is keeping track of the super-d count anyway ?

    CNN's doesn't seem to have changed at all, yet I have heard of instance after instance of super-d's endorsing Obama, switching to Obama, and switching from Clinton to undecided.

    I don't think anyone is really keeping track of this on a regular basis, which means the overall delegate counts are probably somewhat inflated for Clinton at this point.

    In any event, Obama has won 26 of 38 contests to date, leads by 1 million in the popular vote and has a virtually insurmountable lead in the pledged delegate count.

    This is shaping up to be a slo-mo denoument for Clinton.

    by RobertInWisconsin on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:03:49 PM PDT

    •  Obama picked one up in Massachusetts yesterday

      Can't remember the name, though.

      by Hudson on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:05:49 PM PDT

    •  the S. S. Hillary Clinton

      IMHO Clinton's 'ship' was fatally torpedoed on the Saturday after Super Tuesday.

      It's just taking a long time to finish sinking

      by ScrewySquirrel on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:46:41 PM PDT

•  Buck up its funders and supporters

  You are dead on.

  Greg Sargent:

  Two Hillary campaign sources -- an adviser and a major donor -- have provided to me the argument that Hillary's advisers and pollsters are privately making to donors and supporters as to why it's too early to count her out of the race. [..]

  First, the hope is that such an outcome would put an end to Obama's winning streak and start the difficult task of turning the narrative of the race around (though it would leave her with a still-steep upward climb).

  Second, the hope is that halving Obama's lead in pledged dels could make it at least conceivable that she can draw a good deal closer to Obama in overall delegates -- supers included -- in the following contests.

  Third, Hillary advisers are hoping that narrowing the delegate count will enable the campaign to change the subject from a discussion over their need for super-delegates to a conversation about what's going to happen with the Michigan and Florida delegations. In an interview published today, Hillary herself reiterated that she'd make an aggressive push to get them seated.

  "We're hoping she can ultimately tighten up the delegate race dramatically enough to shift the focus away from super-delegates and back to Michigan and Florida," the adviser tells me.

  by Eloy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:58:32 AM PDT

•  Let's impeach her now!

  What right does she have to take her campaign to the Pennsylvania primary?

  After what she did to Vincent Foster, this is the final straw!

  by wtu on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:58:52 AM PDT

  •  ö

    by banjolele on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:00:57 PM PDT

•  her closing remarks

  did not move me. I felt she was flipping into her this is my good hearted side routine. Turn off the water works Hillary they just don't move me no more. (A little plagiarism from Johnny Burnett) Lordy talk about getting real.

  by shaharazade on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:13:14 PM PDT

  •  As a diarist last night put it,

    She callously voted to send them to war. How can she use their suffering to generate sympathy for herself?

    by Hudson on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:28:54 PM PDT

•  She's done on March 5th

  What's she gonna say?  

  by glutz78 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:16:51 PM PDT

  •  Same thing she's said after every victory.

    After conferring with my staff, we have come up with a convoluted reasoning for why our previous statements no longer apply, and for why the State where we just competed doesn't actually matter. I have a clear path to victory.

    by Hudson on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:30:05 PM PDT

    •  [ ^^^ Every Obama victory, that is ^^^ ]

      by Hudson on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:30:36 PM PDT

•  I think she'll still bow out...

  if she loses TX and/or OH.  But she still needs to appear as though he will not for two reasons.  First, as many have already pointed out, she can't give the appearance of defeat or else she will hemorage support.  But she also needs to put herself in a position to broker the best deal for herself in exchange for bowing out and not dragging the party down.  Many have floated the idea of Senate Majority leader.  If it appears that she will concede anyway, then she has no leverage to make such a deal.

  by SaintCog on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:25:30 PM PDT

•  I seriously wonder

  Whether the convention is even the end of the game.  I mean, if she's going to keep moving the goalposts, why not engage in a protracted legal battle post-convention?

  by barath on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:51:45 PM PDT