On Florida and Michigan

It would be an understatement to say that I have had a lot to say about the Florida primary that was held in January. Unfortunately, it seems that what I stated back in February is now coming home to roost as the Clinton campaign is prepared to make the argument that Florida voters showed up because they were passionate about voting in the primary.

The problem is that this is not in fact why voters showed up in January. What drew voters were the slot machine and constitutional amendment increasing the homestead exemption for homeowners that drove up the vote.

What really bothers me here is the disingenuous nature of the Clinton campaign's arguments in both Florida and Michigan. The case in Florida is obviously muddied by the fact that everyone was on the ballot, however in Michigan the case is very clear based on the commitment in writing that everyone made to not participate or recognize Michigan.

However, Clinton is now claiming that Obama removed his name from the Michigan ballot because he knew he would lose, the problem is that there is no evidence to back this claim up. The state has a large African-American population is a neighbor to Illinois and was very likely to be his as much as hers. Not for nothing, in being the only real candidate on the ballot HRC managed to outpoll "Uncommitted" by 55-40, which is hardly impressive when you consider she ran against no one.

It is also of note that Florida's Republican Governor was on TV this morning pushing the Clinton talking points including that Obama (who had bought national cable news advertising time) had been advertising in Florida prior to the vote (a huge distortion).