Disenfranchisement. Some is bad, some is good.

We all know the meme.  Despite agreeing to the rules before hand, Hillary and her camp are now faux outraged that the party would think of disenfranchising the Michigan and Florida delegates.

It's a pretty solid argument actually.  But here's the problem with it.  They seem to only be against disenfranchisement when it suits their needs.

We saw this in Nevada.  Again, despite having no problem with the rules as outlined until they saw it might hurt them, they suddenly didn't care about workers on the strip being disenfranchised via an inability to participate in the caucus due to the demands of their jobs.

But peeling back the hidden nuance of Hillary's current arguments for the nomination and sticking in the race reveals nothing more than a call for disenfranchisement.  Let's look at these arguments, and note how they embody disenfranchisement:

1.  Hillary won the big states - So what Hillary's camp is saying here is that we need to ignore the votes of a large swath of America and only pay attention to a few selected states when determining who the nominee should be.  In other words, what we need to do is disenfranchise a large swath of America.

2.  Obama can only win in caucus states - Again, this is an argument of exclusion.  For some reason, we should only count one type of system and not pay attention to what the voters in a certain group of states determined.  In other words, what we need to do is disenfranchise about a dozen and a half states.

Now I understand the argument that caucuses disenfranchise people who don't have time to dedicate to caucusing and that favors Obama.  But here's the problem with that argument:  the rank and file of the Democratic party membership is largely behind Hillary.  Thus, the very people who should be making the time to turn out at the caucuses to back their candidate aren't doing it.  Therefore, this is not disenfranchisement.  This is party members not putting in the effort that should be required of them.  In other words, it is disenfranchisement by choice.

3.  If Hillary is close in the popular vote, she has a legitimate argument to have the vote swayed by the Superdelegates at the convention - So what they appear to be saying here is that California and New York should be able to choose the nominee, with the rest of the country disenfranchised.  The fact is, the only reason that Hillary is with 2 million popular votes is because so many of the big Obama victories came is caucus states.  Let's look at Washington state.  Only the caucus counts in the popular vote, and Obama has an 11,600 vote advantage.  Should we disregard his 38,000 edge in the non binding primary?  In other words, the voters that probably would have voted for Obama in a primary system should be disenfranchised, and the only thing that is important is large margins in two states.

4.  The Superdelegates should be allowed to decide on their own without regard to the popular vote - No nuance here.  This is a flat out call for disenfranchisement.

So as with many things, we must call on Hillary to make a stand.  Either you are against disenfranchisement, or you are for disenfranchisement.  We are Democrats.  We reject IOKIYAR, and as we can see with Spitzer v. Vitters, it's not ok if we do it too.