The debate continues about the legitimacy of Clinton's current position that the DNC-imposed penalty on Florida and Michigan is "disenfranchisement" akin to barring women and African-Americans from voting.  

Clinton, of course, did not publicly oppose the penalty until long after the decision was made.  Indeed, other than some mild and frankly vague comments in a New Hampshire radio interview (right after she famously said the Michigan contest "would not count"), I am unaware of any public statement by Clinton or her campaign against the penalty until after the Iowa contest.   As the Florida journalist asked her the other day, "Where were you when we needed you"?  (She had no answer).

One possible explanation for this is that Clinton believed that the problem would be solved by a revote.  Some have even suggested that this has happened in the past (though I haven't seen evidence of that).  This explanation, however, faces a serious problem:   Clinton opposed revotes until at least mid March, about 2 month after Michigan and Florida's contests.

Take, for example, these two quotes:

"And I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida. I think Florida should be seated." (Hillary Clinton 3/6/08)

"Our position is that the voters of Michigan and Florida have spoken." (Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson 3/6/08)

Here's more.

If she believed that the penalty was disenfranchisement, was a serious moral issue, opposing revotes that would let the voters in FL and MI have their say would have simply been wrong.  But that's what she did.

Let me be perfectly clear here.  I am afraid that Clinton's overheated rhetoric on this issue is not based on genuine concern, but rather political calculation.  Moreover, I am concerned that her rhetoric is poisoning voters in ways far more severe than the DNC's penalty alone ever could -- and thus sabotaging the party in November.  And I hope that her supporters will see that this is happening and tone it down.

Over time, HRC has now shifted to argue that the DNC-imposed penalty on Florida and Michigan is a great injustice akin to withholding the vote from women or African-Americans.

It cannot be disputed that Clinton agreed to the penalty, and until after her loss in Iowa, never said a single word to suggest it was wrong or improper.  Indeed, she was perhaps the most powerful individual in the party at the point when the decision was made, and if anyone was in a position to challenge the DNC on the penalty, it would have been her.  But she didn't.  She agreed to it without criticism.

I can see two possible explanations for her failure to speak up before about this "great injustice."  One is that she has changed her view about it for some reason.  Scouring her speech today, she hasn't said what that reason is.  And if the penalty is a violation of such critical and closely held values, it is hard to see a solid explanation for what could have changed her view.

The other possible explanation is that she saw the issue, understood its significance, and believed it served her interests.  After all, she had a longstanding relationship with the voters in Florida and Michigan, and was the clear front-runner.  So, the theory goes, she accepted the penalty, knowing it would help her and probably wouldn't stick and the election would likely count.  Thus, she would benefit because her opponents could not campaign.  And now she's playing that card in a last-minute attempt to win the nomination.  Again, I'm not saying that's what happened, but that's the only other explanation I can see.

If those HRC supporters out there have a different explanation for these facts, I'd love to hear it.  But I don't think one exists.  And neither of the theories I've come up with is really consistent with her current harsh rhetoric.  And, frankly, I'm very concerned that this overheated rhetoric is going to hurt the party far more in November than the original penalty decision would have otherwise -- a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Finally, I understand that many people believe that somehow this is all Barack Obama's fault.  The penalty wasn't his idea.  And whatever might have happened with a possible revote -- setting aside that Clinton originally opposed them and that they were never really practical after she started supporting the idea -- it still doesn't answer the question of why Clinton supported the DNC penalty before and now claims it is a great injustice.

The press and blogs are finally getting around to reporting that despite fairly impressive fundraising, Hillary Clinton's primary campaign is deep in the red. Since January, her campaign has been eating hand to mouth, spending more than it takes in and taking on increasing debts. Her campaign's primary election assets at this point are at least $1.5 million less than it owes to vendors, PLUS the $11.4 million the campaign owes Clinton herself. Moreover, since it is almost surely the case that her May fundraising has been worse than April, her debt situation is probably quite a bit worse than that. Her financial situation has deteriorated every month this year.

Clinton's cash on hand spendable in the primary is less than her outstanding debts, even excluding the $11.4 million she has loaned her campaign. She is in the red. But the picture is worse than that.

Look at the trend revealed below:

Date	Primary Funds	Vendor Debts	Net Cash	HRC Debt	Net Position
End February	$11.7M	$8.7M	$3M	$5M	-$2M
End March	$9M	$10.3M	-$1.3	$5M	-$6.3M
End April	$8M	$9.5M	-$1.5	$10M	-$11.5M
Now	??	??	??	$11.4M	??

We can only guess at how she's doing in May, but here's what we do know. We know she loaned her campaign at least $1.4 million more. We know that much of her fundraising (supposedly $10 million) in April came shortly after her win in Pennsylvania, and that pace obviously did not continue through the end of the month. We know Clinton has reported nothing about her fundraising successes in May, which suggests she's probably not doing as well.

This raises serious questions about Clinton's ability to meaningfully compete between now and the convention in August. Even assuming that, as Garin has said today, Clinton intends to push forward past June 3, what kind of candidate can she be sinking deeper into debt? Barack Obama, on the other hand, has a massive $37+ million primary war chest, ready to unleash on John McCain and starting turning his primary campaign into the best-ever general election apparatus that we should expect.[Ed Note: Obama's number updated]

The reality is that, absent some world-shattering event, Clinton will have no real choice but to bow out after the voting is over. If she resists, it will be time, for the good of the party, to start applying serious pressure -- which, to date, have been withheld.

Update

As a commenter notes, the TPM source says her cash on hand is only $6.7 million, while the AP says $8 million. If TPM is correct, then her current position is $1.3 million worse than the chart indicates.

Nomination fights within a party are hurtful because they make mountains out of molehills with regard to differences between the candidates and tend to overlook entirely the vast areas of agreement between them.  This long, difficult campaign is proof of it.

Now is a challenging time.  The contest is not over, but time is running out.  It is becoming increasingly clear who the victor will be.  And, in the end, someone must lose.  If my candidate were to lose, I would be frustrated and tempted to focus on all bad things that have happened in the campaign.  

Let me make this appeal:  In November, the country will make a decision between John McCain and a Democrat.  McCain will continue four years of George Bush policies, and may well be even more of a cowboy in foreign policy.  He will appoint one or more anti-choice Justices and may well lead to a reversal of Roe v. Wade.

Our country's future depends on defeating John McCain.  I understand that some of you don't like Barack Obama, and that many of you particularly don't like the tactics and statements of some of his ham-fisted supporters.  Many of you have reasonable doubts about Obama's experience and policies.  Fair enough.  But please, if you are considering walking away from the fight, take some time.  Give it some thought.  Give Barack a fair hearing, removed from this difficult family fight that is the primary season.  And, above all, consider the alternative.  

My daughter and son deserve better than a future tarred by another Republican in the White House.  My daughter deserves to come of age in a nation where choice is respected.  And so do your children and grandchildren and nieces and nephews and everyone else.  I'm asking you to consider supporting the Democratic candidate and helping protect our county's future.

Here is episode 3 of the countdown to finally ending this primary. The "magic number" is the number of delegates that either candidate needs, above those already earned and currently projected, to close this thing out.

Delegate "Magic Number" Tracker
(FL and MI Excluded)

	Obama	Clinton
Current Pledged Delegates	1416	1253
Current Super Delegates	228	250
Total Delegates to Date	1638	1501
Needed for Nomination	386	523
Projected Pledged Delegates	272	294
Projected Add-On Delegates	37	25
Pelosi Club	6	-1
Total Current and Projected Delegates	1959	1821
"Magic Number"	65	203
% of Remaining SDs Needed	25.1%	78.4%

Here is episode 2 of the countdown to finally ending this primary, now including projected add-on delegates.

Delegate "Magic Number" Tracker
(FL and MI Excluded)

	Obama	Clinton
Current Pledged Delegates	1416	1253
Current Super Delegates	222	248
Total Delegates to Date	1638	1501
Needed for Nomination	386	523
Projected Pledged Delegates	270	296
Projected Add-On Delegates	37	25
Pelosi Club	6	-1
Total Current and Projected Delegates	1951	1821
"Magic Number"	73	203
% of Remaining SDs Needed	28.2%	78.4%

There are a lot of delegate counters out there.  Still, the unanswered question is "What needs to happen to have this nominating contest be officially over"? Here's my effort to track that. Further explanation and analysis is below the fold, plus a FL and MI included variant.

Delegate "Magic Number" Tracker (FL and MI Excluded)

	Obama	Clinton
Current Pledged Delegates	1416	1253
Current Super Delegates	222	245
Total Delegates to Date	1638	1498
Needed for Nomination	386	526
Projected Pledged Delegates	270	296
Pelosi Club	6	-1
Total Current and Projected Delegates	1914	1793
"Magic Number"	110	231
% of Remaining SDs Needed	34.3%	72.0%

A constant refrain in the increasingly bitter and unhelpful rancor over what to do about FL and MI is the suggestion that the contests in those states were full and fair elections.  This is a key premise in the HRC argument that not only should FL and MI delegates be seated, but they "must" be seated based exactly on the primaries conducted in those states. Today, for example, Phil Singer wrote to Politico that, "The votes that took place in Michigan and Florida were fine. They weren't beset by any problems and count even if the DNC isnt seating delegates at this point."  (link:  http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0 408/How_to_count_the_votes.html)
The same point is made here repeatedly.

If you have an open mind at this point in the primary (and hopefully everyone should) please just consider the following points.

First, there was no local campaigning, voter registration, or get-out-the-vote efforts by either campaign in either state.  These are vital components of a full and fair election.  Imagine if Bush had used the DOJ to prevent Kerry from local campaigning, conducting voter registration, or using get-out-the-vote efforts in 2000?  Would any of you have said it was a fair election, even if the voting itself went relatively smoothly?  Of course not.

Second, the voters were told that there votes did not matter to the nomination.  Over and over, in the press, the folks in MI and FL were told that the contests would not count.  As a result, it is undeniably true that many folks who otherwise would have voted instead stayed home.  It's true there was a relatively high turnout in both states, but there are other reasons for that -- a big property tax issue in Florida, for example.  And no matter how high it was, it was still much lower than it would have been in a real contest.  

Third, these limitations on the elections impacted Obama much more than Clinton.  In virtually ever state that has voted, Obama starts in the polls with a huge deficit, and then closes the gap with local campaigning and organizing, voter registration, get-out-the-vote, and extensive advertising.  Clinton is well-know and well-liked among democrats, so she needs these things less.  

It is true that in Florida (but not Michigan), Obama had a few ads on the air as a result of spillover from national cable ad buys leading up to the Feb. 5 mega-primary.  But these ads were a fraction of what he's done in states where he's really campaigning.  And they absolutely did not make up for Clinton's name-recognition advantage.

Finally, of course, in Michigan Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot.  Clinton argues this was Obama's fault.  But she (like he) agreed not to "participate" in Michigan or Florda, and Obama (as well as Edwards, Richardson, and others) understood this to mean to get off the ballot where possible.  It was possible in MI but not FL, due to local rules.  And, as is well remarked, Clinton told the voters of New Hampshire, to court them, that the Michigan primary would not "count".  To use that MI contest against Obama in these circumstances is hardly Democratic.

I'm sympathetic to the loss of a meaningful vote for FL and MI.  But let's not overstretch and pretend that the contests that happened were full and fair elections.  The blame here lies with the FL and MI governments, who were line-jumping, and perhaps the DNC but not with Obama. And both sides should be open to a compromise that helps the party in November and treats both campaigns fairly.