The New Republic is even less impressed with Clinton right now than I am

This hardly seems possible. But here Jonathan Chait makes the case, that with her latest actions--equating the "disenfranchisement" of the Florida and Michigan primaries with slavery (I am not making this up)...

She is proving herself temperamentally unfit for the presidency.

Chait also reminds us that, in a phrase that has become common coin over the past few years, Clinton was for this "disenfranchisement" before she was against it.

What we have here is a case where one candidate (Obama) agreed to the rules and played by them consistently and fairly.

Another (Clinton) agreed to the rules and played by them only and until it became apparent that without those states, the race was over for her.

(Actually, even with them, the race is over for her, still, it's no wonder she wants to count these states, in at least one of which Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot)

Moreover, it's obviously true that Obama not campaigning, organizing, or advertizing in those states hurt him, and helped the more familiar candidate in Clinton.

I don't know if any Clinton supporters still read this blog. I would understand if they don't. But can anyone answer these questions?

Do we really want another president who thinks the rules don't apply to them, and changes their position with the winds of opportunity?

Do we really want another President with no apparent sense of shame?

Do we really want another President who puts their party into freefall?

Do we really want another President with basement-level ethics?

Isn't there a saying about finding out who a person is when their back is against the wall?