I used to be a lot more cynical.

It's not often that an old political hack can make a statement like that. Working professionally in the "arena" tends to make someone more cynical, not less.

But then, I learned a lot in eight years

Yesterday, in responding to the universal panning of the McCain/Clinton gas-tax holiday, Hillary said:

"I'm not going to put my lot in with economists," Clinton said in an exclusive appearance on a special edition of "This Week" from Indianapolis.

Compare that to how the Clinton's felt about economists in 1992:

Its B.S. like this that have driven me away from the Clinton's.  They think people who were with them in the 1990's don't have a memory.

FYI -- I did post this yesterday on a DKos with my handle there -- ILPundit.  So if you saw it there, this is not plagarism -- I'm both.

A lot of people are expressing surprise that Richardson has decided to endorse Obama, particularly now, after Obama's worst stretch of the campaign by far.  Not surprisingly, a lot of the people expressing shock are also supporters of Clinton who would have preferred the endorsement go her way -- which is understandable

But there is pretty simple explanation for this, which goes to the heart of the debate taking place on the blogs between the Obama and Clinton camps.

Jerome's front page post today, and many of the resulting comments, compels me to ask a fairly simple question of the MyDD community.

To all of the longtime Democrats on this board, who lived through the outrage of the 2000 election recount;

To all of the people who have worked on campaigns in the past and recognized first hand the importance of generating turnout and enthusiasm in the African American community to securing Democratic success,

To all of the people who, even grudgingly, have to admit that Obama has crossed a generational divide and managed to mobilize and generate youth turnout in ways we haven't seen in decades,

I ask you this....

I generally a lurker here, I rarely comment, but I have recently been spurred joining discussion by the ongoing crusade of Jerome, et al to insist that tomorrow's primary in Florida will somehow matter to the final outcome of the Democratic nominee.

I happen to believe that it is practically impossible for there to be a scenario where Florida and Michigan are both seated AND relevant to the outcome.  I believe this because the facts of what has already occured, and the process for reinstatement, virtually guarantee that the only way they are seated is if the nominee is already known.

Facts, however, have been short in this debate.  And the process is so byzantine that its easy for people to spin theories that have no basis in reality.  Fortunately, Ben Smith at the Politico did some nice legwork and has a nice summation why the Florida and Michigan results are almost certain to not matter...more after the jump