Incendiary

On February 2, I wrote,

But most of all, it does feel like it is a time of the over-used word, "change." Obama represents generational change, as Matt Bai will write in tomorrow's NYT Magazine. His youth, his appeal to youth gives the impression that we're witnessing a movement. Hillary Clinton's pragmatism certainly has much to argue for it, given just how broken our country is, but it's going to take more than a technocrat. If she wins on Tuesday, I'll support her whole-heartedly, proud that a smart, confident woman is our nominee. But in the meantime, I'm going to enjoy the moment and see if this is a wave we can ride right over the floating debris of the culture wars and the Bush and Rove Republican party.

That was before I read this:

With every delegate precious, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers also made it clear that they were prepared to take a number of potentially incendiary steps to build up Mrs. Clinton’s count. Top among these, her aides said, is pressing for Democrats to seat the disputed delegations from Florida and Michigan, who held their primaries in January in defiance of Democratic Party rules.

Mrs. Clinton won more votes than Mr. Obama in both states, though both candidates technically abided by pledges not to campaign actively there.

Mr. Obama’s aides reiterated their opposition to allowing Mrs. Clinton to claim a proportional share of the delegates from the voting in those states. The prospect of a fight over seating the Florida and Michigan delegations has already exposed deep divisions within the party.

Julian Bond, the head of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, called for the delegates to be seated, saying failure to do so would amount to disenfranchising minority voters in those states. But on Wednesday, such a move was denounced by the Rev. Al Sharpton of New York, who said many people in those states did not go the polls because they assumed their votes would not count.

[...]

Mrs. Clinton’s aides said they would also argue to superdelegates that they should give less deference to a lead from Mr. Obama because much of that had been built up in states where there were caucuses, which tend to attract far fewer voters than primaries, where Mrs. Clinton has tended to do better than she has done in caucuses.

“I think for superdelegates, the quality of where the win comes from should matter in terms of making a judgment about who might be the best general election candidate,” said Mark Penn, Mrs. Clinton’s senior campaign adviser.

I don't know if that's a promise or a threat.

I hope they think long and hard before they put their own interests ahead of the Democratic Party and the progressive movement.

Then there's something really egregious.