A couple of dumb Op-Eds in this morning’s New York Times: one by Bill Kristol, which is actually not that dumb, but includes this infuriating remark:

Some voters might think it would have been nice if Obama had been as angry in March at Wright’s disrespect to the United States of America as he was in April at Wright’s disrespect to Barack Obama.

Kristol is referring to Obama’s annoyance that Rev. Wright had attributed political motives to the distance Obama has now forced between them. I was originally going to equivocate as to the merits of the sentence quoted above, but let’s not. I’m tired of politicians taking umbrage on behalf of the United States of America abstracted, or telling us what the “American people” think, or telling us who’s “out of the mainstream.” Republicans and Democrats alike persist in this kind of nonsense, but when a pundit tries to pass off such stuff as analysis, it’s enough to make you upchuck the HuckaBurger you had for lunch. I don’t think that Obama was ever “angry…at Wright’s disrespect to the United States of America;” if he had been, his anger would have been unjustified. Obama was, however, very justifiably concerned with Wright’s disrespect to the growth of the American people, who have contended with the persistent evils of racism in every generation, and in every generation anew. Those who were outraged by Wright’s disrespect towards the United States in abstract were abstractly outraged. Let’s call it the Flagpin Fallacy: If one proclaims adoration for American symbols, and defends every slight against them as they were idols, then one must be especially attuned to the spirit of the people of America, and be their most resolute defender. Right? Wait, shouldn’t that go the other way? What was the American flag worth when Benedict Arnold rode beneath it? And is George W. Bush, flag pin firmly fitted to lapel, more of the spirit of the republic than Abraham Lincoln, who so boldly eschewed the stovepipe hat-pin? If you ask me, one of the few things about which Barack Obama can take legitimate umbrage is Barack Obama. Most anything else, and it’s a bit patronizing, which I’ve written about before.

The second piece, also admittedly not that dumb, is by Rhodes Cook, and tells us all why Hillary Clinton can win by amassing a lead in the popular vote. (Quick aside: she can’t, at least not without the Elder Wand, or perhaps some magic beans.) Well, I agree that it sure would be helpful as far as convincing superdelegates is concerned, but unfortunately for Senator Clinton, most superdelegates can count. Cook can, too, but oddly:

…Mrs. Clinton boasts that she has the lead already, but her count includes the votes in the unsanctioned primaries in Florida and Michigan. A fairer calculation would eliminate the ballots cast in those two states, as well as the votes from caucuses where no statewide tally of the actual vote was compiled. (Those states are Iowa, Maine, Nevada and Washington; Mr. Obama won three of them.) Territories that do not possess any Electoral College votes should be ruled out, too.

Time for a list:

1) In the first place, Cook conflates the unfairness of counting states whose vote tallies were not compiled with the manifest injustice (yeah, it’s really bad) of counting a state in which Obama was not on the ballot (Michigan) and one in which, by Democratic party rule, no campaign was allowed to take place (Florida). While it might not be possible to add their tallies to the popular vote total, the Iowa, Maine, Nevada and Washington caucuses were all legitimate primaries under Democratic party rules, and can’t be left out of consideration just because it’s inconvenient.

2) As for the last little part about ruling out “territories that do not possess any Electoral College votes.” Why? This isn’t the general election, and the Electoral College doesn’t apply. It’s true that it would be awfully smart of the Democratic party to calibrate their primary system in order to deliver the best general election candidate, but they are under no obligation to do so. So why not count them? Cook doesn’t justify it.

3) 1) and 2) add up to this: it becomes pretty clear that when you have to qualify a popular vote total by not counting certain caucus states and territories, the popular vote doesn’t mean much anymore. Wait–isn’t the race decided by delegates? Oh, yeah: the popular vote never meant anything to begin with! There’s really no fair way to tally the popular vote, because nobody ever agreed on any rules to do so in advance. Fortunately, we did agree on how we’d count delegates, and we also agreed that the candidate with the most of thosewould be the nominee. Of course, we also agreed that superdelegates could choose their candidate based on whatever criteria they choose–and if the bogus method proposed above does it for them, may they live and be well, but they were asking to be sold.