Rachel Maddow on HRC's strategery

written before the RFK quote, so also overtaken by events, but still..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rachel-maddow/clinton-to-the-convention_b_103078.html

I suspect she's right about this:

Here's my way: based on my read of NBC's delegate math, I think if the Clinton campaign won 100% of what they wanted on the Florida and Michigan dispute, Obama could still clinch the nomination -- even according to the most pro-Clinton math -- if 90 of the remaining 210-or-so undeclared superdelegates declared for Obama.

If they so declared before May 31st, the Rules and Bylaws committee would have no reason to take up the Florida and Michigan dispute because it would be a moot point -- Obama's camp could concede every Clinton demand on the subject and still win the nomination.

____________________________________________________

I'll go further. It doesn't really matter whether the supers reveal their preferences before 31 May. They only need do so before the convention. If that happens, Obama announces that he's OK with seating the MI and FL delegates on HRC's terms, because MI and FL are irrelevant. Or some other compromise offer that's too good to refuse in the Real World(tm).

I'm inclined to think that this will happen by mid-June, because a bunch of supers have said that they're going to announce their preferences after the last primary.

Interesting to note that HRC's campaign has turned down a split of the delegates in MI .. they want HRC to get all the delegates she won in MI and Obama to get none. I guess the 40% uncommitted are unallocated? Not sure how that works. But if her intention is to get the nomination, or even to create enough trouble to get the vp slot or patronage, then agreeing to split MI on what (ahem) some might feel to be a reasonable basis wouldn't make sense.. once the nomination is decided, then leverage evaporates.

Just my two Euros.