. . . is the Clinton campaign. How else to interpret delegatehub.com--the new website the Clintonites have set up to make the case that the rules of the Democratic nomination process should be changed? As Jake Tapper notes:

Among many "facts" they declare are some accurate ones, such as the idea that superdelegates, which in true nomenclatural dexterity they now term "automatic delegates" "are expected to exercise their best judgment in the interests of the nation and the Democratic Party."

But then comes this juicy non-fact:

"FACT: Florida and Michigan should count, both in the interest of fundamental fairness and honoring the spirit of the Democrats' 50-state strategy."

That's not a fact, that's an opinion.

Matthew Yglesias gripes:

[T]his sort of bullshit isn't the kind of thing they need to be wasting their time on. Persuade some people to vote for you!

I agree, but I'm beginning to think that the Clinton campaign might just be incapable of that. I remember after the Steve Glass and Jayson Blair scandals, some people made the argument that if Glass and Blair had put as much effort into their reporting as they did their fabricating, they actually would have been great journalists. But I never bought that line of argument, since real reporting is a lot harder than just making stuff up. I'm starting to wonder if the same lesson doesn't apply to the Clinton campaign. I mean, coming up with clever arguments and spiffy websites for reporters is a lot easier than organizing a good ground operation or fielding a full slate of delegates. For all the complicated and even psycho-social explanations being offered for Obama's success, one simple explanation for it may be that his campaign is just outworking hers.

--Jason Zengerle