As for Josh suffering from CDS, sure, nothing new there.

and like DK, he has written off all notions of traffic from Clinton supporters, just as MSNBC has.

and even worse, these Obama surrogates are demonstrating extraordinary skill in turning off Clinton voters which will ensure that Obama loses in November.

All he can do is fall back on his own interpretation of "the rules".

He thinks the way kids in grade school might about the decision to include or exclude FL and MI: it's just "the rules", no nuance, no logic, no overarching explanation of why rules are put in place to begin with, whether they fairly apply in the case at hand, or whether even the interpretation of the rules is in truth correct.

If he can't engage this question thoughtfully, of what earthly use is the man? If he can't put out the objections of the other side, and meet each of them squarely, why should anyone continue to respect him as any kind of pundit? And, clearly, it is exactly on that score that he utterly fails.

Whatever people may think of BTD and Jeralyn, and their "bias", what can't be denied is that make a very serious attempt to engage the basic arguments on both sides. If they see a logical objection, they have their response. One may or may not agree with their response, but they take seriously the obligation to meet the argument.

there's a portion of the blogosphere that has ignored that and there's a portion that has encouraged that. It's dangerous because the media criticism has to be consistent and relentless, and we can't very well say, "You can't go after our candidates ... except this one." I get nervous about pushback regarding disingenuous coverage - our response needs to be, "You can't treat Democrats this way." When people in the left blogosphere are quoting an anonymous Matt Drudge source, it makes me nervous.

I think I've demurred from discussing or rather defending Kerry's position on this issue because I have an element of bias, since it is also my position. But as Kevin notes, whether or not you agree with that position, it is really not difficult to understand so long as you are not being willfully obtuse.

Sometimes in baseball a batter decides to take a pitch. He's decided in advance that he's not going to swing no matter what comes down the pike. But in most cases, when a batter steps up to the plate, he doesn't decide whether he's going to swing until he sees the pitch. Only an idiot decides in advance not knowing what he's going to face. And yet this is roughly what the Bush camp says was the only reasonable, or I suppose manly, approach to the Iraq war.

I see the war decision in very similar terms to this baseball analogy. Voting for the war resolution was not remotely the same thing as going to war at the first possible opportunity.

Forcing inspections meant seeing what inspections would yield. And seeing what inspections would yield was the best insurance against getting ourselves into the current situation and finding that the WMD, which constituted the premise for the whole endeavor, didn't even exist.

The truth is that Josh has to ignore what Clinton is saying, because if he doesn't, it makes Obama look really, really bad.

Clinton knows something that Obama either doesn't know, or cannot see: that the legitimacy of the nomination depends on resolving the Florida and Michigan primaries before the convention.  In fact, the very outcome of the general election may depend on a pre-convention resolution.

In my opinion, Clinton knows that whichever one of them is the nominee will need that nomination to truly be the will of the people - why is it so awful that she is willing to stay in it until the people have spoken?  I have seen nothing that indicates that she will not accept that decision, and do it with her usual grace - but I cannot say the same for Obama.  He's whining now, he's been talking out of both sides of his mouth for weeks about this, and I see him as being unable to swallow defeat and accept the will of the people if that is what happens.

Clinton's being the adult - Obama's being the bratty kid having a tantrum because he's not getting his way.

Pledged delegates are more important than the popular vote.
Number of states is more important than state "weight."
Caucuses are as legitimate as primaries.
MI/FL do not need to revote because it's just a primary and this is a DNC thing and what the DNC wants to do it should do.
Independents and Republicans should help choose our nominee.

The last two are what is most confusing to me.  Arguments against revotes in MI/FL boil down to DNC rules and DNC authority.  It is treated as some kind of 'in-house' problem.  And yet our primary process has not been a strictly 'in-house' affair.  Independents and Republicans have added themselves into the mix.  They have no affiliation with the party.

The DNC hardly has a leg to stand on as far as considering their punishment to MI/FL just.  As someone else said above, the ethical thing to do now is revote.  Make this bigger than the Party squabbles.

no matter how many times and how many different ways you try to restate the same thing in different ways, Hillary stays in until she decides not to stay in.

The selection isn't official until the convention.

If it is Obama's desire to prevent the seating of the FL and MI delegates, he has ever right to do that but he does it at his peril.

If his surrogates believe that they can bully her out of the race, she made it clear in the Washington Post today that she has absolutely no intentions of doing so and DEEPLY resent the efforts from those doing so.

Since BTD has mentioned no less than 5 times, in the original post, that Obama has blocked the re-vote plan, can someone please:

1. Tell me the name of somebody other than an "unnamed source" who is claiming that Obama is blocking a Michigan re-vote?

2. What is the exact re-vote plan for Michigan promoted by the HRC campaign?

3. How does that plan, promoted by the HRC campaign, if one exists, deal with Democrats who voted in the Republican primary?

4. Would such a plan, if it exists, grant amnesty from state law to Democratic voters who voted in the Republican primary to allow them to vote in two primaries this year?

5. Does her plan, if it exists, include a way to keep Republicans from voting in the re-vote?

6. Is the HRC re-vote plan, if it exists, a mail-in vote or something else?

7. Can someone point out exactly what Obama's criticisms of the plan, if it existed, were?

8. Did the Michigan legislature actually pass a re-vote plan?

9. Did the Michigan Democratic Party actually endorse a specific re-vote plan?

Regarding your statement:

    Clinton wants revotes. Obama does not.

In FL the Chair of the D Party said that revotes were impossible, regardless of BHO or HRC.  

In MI the BO side is open to revotes, e.g. a caucus.  But, they do want to minimize the harm done to their supporters who trusted everyone (including HRC and Ickes) who promised that the MI vote wouldn't count.  This motivated them to go for a second choice or be strategic in the R primary (don't forget BO wasn't even on the ballot.)  32% of the R vote in MI was Ds and Is.

Remember HRC has evolved.  At first she was for not counting MI and FL at all, then seating as is, then she was AGAINST a revote (USA Today interview), then fifteen minutes later she was for a revote.

He doesn't write dishonestly "objective" opinion pieces (at least to the degree certain self-described nonpartisan bloggers do).

Josh is right, though, that Clinton seems to be promising to go to the convention unless FL and MI are resolved "on terms the Clinton campaign finds acceptable."  Because they cannot be resolved before the convention unless both campaigns agree.  

What Hillary seems to be saying, then, is if after the primaries there is any chance that she could still win the nomination through some combination of FL, MI, and super delegates, she will take the matter to the convention.  

As Obama pointed out to Anderson Cooper, "I understand the politics of it, but let's be clear that it's politics."

What are the chances that Clinton would make such an admission? As Obama points out, Sen. Clinton had no issues with FL & MI when she was going to be the nominee on Feb. 6. It was not until it became clear that she could not win without them that her sudden deep and entrenched passion for their voices bubbled up.

In FL, the state itself determined that a revote was not possible since state laws essentially forbade any outside group from running an election, and the state refuses to run their own re-vote.

In MI, Sen. Obama pointed out that with only one major Democrat on the ballot, lots and lots of Democrats voted in the GOP primary, a contest that did count, because their own contest did not. To hold a revote would disenfranchise all those people, but they are clearly not important to Sen. Clinton. There were lots of other hurdles to holding a revote, including the legalities of having the elections paid for by private citizens or the campaigns. If Clinton or the DNC or MI can come up with a reasonable solution, Sen. Obama has said he will sign on. He has also said he'll abide by the rulings of the credentials committee if it comes to that.

For ionstance, do you question that a revote in Fl and MI would avoid a convention fight? Do you question that Obama blocked revotes?

Can you think your way out of a paper bag or is the kool aid to effing strong for you?