Corzine wants to disenfranchise 13 states for Clinton

The Clinton surrogates, like New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, are on message:

Corzine had previously touted the popular vote as an important deciding factor and said he might switch his superdelegate vote to Obama if Clinton does not win the popular vote.

Presuming the popular vote is an important metric for how superdelegates should base their decision, I asked how caucus states which don't report their raw vote totals should be accounted for in that popular vote total. The response was surprisingly dismissive of caucus states, saying that counting their votes would be as "unfair as trying to count Michigan" since their voting process is less democratic.

Corzine repeated that the eventual Democratic nominee risks alienating voters in the 4th and 8th largest states if Florida and Michigan's votes are not counted, yet minutes earlier completely dismissed the results of 13 states that vote by caucus.

That's not just dismissing the four caucus states that didn't report popular votes, but all of them, all 13 of them. And arguing that the caucuses are "less democratic" than Michigan, with its one-candidate ballot, is beyond laughable.

But really, the Clinton campaign is left with nothing but absurd hypotheticals -- IF we count Michigan, IF we ignore 13 states, and IF Clinton then leads, then that's important. But IF Obama wins the popular vote despite disenfranchising a quarter of our states, then maybe I'll change my vote.

Like I said earlier today, a new and particularly audacious level of chutzpah.