TIE BALLGAME!

We have an offense! Down two in the bottom of the eighth, two on, no outs - we might just pull this thing out. I've got a taste for Post Toasties!

Steyn on the Democrat circular firing squad:

Alas, Senator Sir Edmund Hillary Danger Rodham Clinton couldn’t have foreseen that the Democratic primary season would dwindle down to the Palm Beach recount replayed as a civil war...

Best journalist in the world.

The Democrat primary process keeps getting more and more interesting:

Michigan’s Democratic governor and her Republican counterpart in Florida today called on the national committees for their respective parties to seat all of their states’ delegates for this summer’s nominating convention.

In so doing, the two - Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist - are fueling a fire that could lead to do-over elections or caucuses in the two delegate-rich states.

That quote is straight out of Team Clinton. Hugh Hewitt notes:

What's "the community" going to think of this digit-by-digit deconstruction of the charismatic adopted son of the South Side? They were expecting it from the Republicans, but from establishment Democrats?

It is finally their turn, but they have to watch 50 days of attacks on Obama simply because the Clintons want another eight years of power?

The Democrats are now dancing on a cliff unlike any they have been on since 1968 when the demands for new voices and change ran straight into the entrenched interests of unions and special interest groups that have long made common cause with the D.C. Dems.

The Dems shattered 40 years ago. The sequel may be even more destructive of the left.

We can only hope...

Wouldn't it be awesome if we could have a 2000-style election fiasco, except involving only the party that has been insisting that 2000 represented a stolen, illegitimate election in which all the votes weren't counted? Yes. Yes, it would be awesome.

How ironic. For over seven years the Democratic Party has fulminated against the Electoral College system that gave George W. Bush the presidency over popular-vote winner Al Gore in 2000. But they have designed a Rube Goldberg nominating process that could easily produce a result much like the Electoral College result in 2000: a winner of the delegate count, and thus the nominee, over the candidate favored by a majority of the party's primary voters.

Imagine that as the convention approaches, Sen. Clinton is leading in the popular vote, but Sen. Obama has the delegate lead. Surely no one familiar with her history would doubt that her take-no-prisoners campaign team would do whatever it took to capture the nomination, including all manner of challenges to Obama delegates and tidal waves of litigation.

Indeed, it has already been reported that Sen. Clinton will demand that the convention seat delegates from Michigan and Florida, two states whose delegates have been disqualified by the party for holding January primaries in defiance of party rules. The candidates agreed not to campaign in those states. But Sen. Clinton opted to keep her name on the Michigan primary ballot, and staged a primary-day victory visit to Florida, winning both of those unsanctioned primaries. Her campaign is arguing that the delegates she won in each state be recognized despite party rules and notwithstanding her commitment not to compete in those primaries. Of course. "Count every vote."

As the convention nears, with Sen. Clinton trailing slightly in the delegate count, the next step might well be a suit in the Florida courts challenging her party's refusal to seat Florida's delegation at the convention. And the Florida courts, as they did twice in 2000, might find some ostensible legal basis for overturning the pre-election rules and order the party to recognize the Clinton Florida delegates. That might tip the balance to Sen. Clinton.

We all know full well what could happen next. The array of battle-tested Democratic lawyers who fought for recounts, changes in ballot counting procedures, and even re-votes in Florida courts and the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 would separate into two camps. Half of them would be relying on the suddenly-respectable Supreme Court Bush v. Gore decision that overturned the Florida courts' post-hoc election rules changes. The other half would be preaching a new-found respect for "federalism" and demanding that the high court leave the Florida court decisions alone.

Would the U.S. Supreme Court even take the case after having been excoriated for years by liberals for daring to restore order in the Florida vote-counting in 2000? And, would Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, the dissenters in Bush v. Gore, feel as strongly about not intervening if Sen. Obama was fighting against an effort to change a presidential election by changing the rules after the fact? Will there be a brief filed by Floridians who didn't vote in their state's primary because the party had decided, and the candidates had agreed, that the results wouldn't count?

Just laying out that scenario makes my mouth water. The fact that the scenario is even realistic should give some of the die-hard hyper-aggrieved dems cause to cut down on the complaining about 2000 though, right? One can hope...