David Brooks suggested in the “New York Times” yesterday that Obama’s lawyers are somehow to thank for the fact that there won’t be a do-over Democratic primary in Michigan. Here’s the clip:
…Obama’s lawyers successfully prevented re-votes in Florida and Michigan. That means it would be virtually impossible for Clinton to take a lead in either elected delegates or total primary votes…
I had, of course, heard that we wouldn’t be voting again, but I wasn’t aware that there was any role played by Obama’s attorneys. I thought, perhaps naively, that it just came down to time and money. I thought the cost of having a mail-in primary, or a caucus, was just too much… Has anyone else out there heard that Obama’s attorneys somehow played a part? Or is Brooks just making shit up?
I’m not terribly encouraged that the Pennsylvania primary will resolve anything. Word on the street is that Republicans are registering to vote in the Democratic primary there in record numbers. The consensus seems to be that most of them will vote for Clinton in order to prolong the battle and put McCain in a better position come November. Some are even suggesting that Hillary and Bill are encouraging this, seeing it as their last chance to get in front of Obama, who didn’t implode over the minister scandal the way some thought that he would. Like Brooks and others are saying, however, the math, even if Clinton wins the next few, doesn’t look terribly encouraging for her… As for Michigan and Florida, it’s looking more likely that our delgates will be split down the middle, which is probably what we should have done to begin with.

Fetching comments
