It was exactly at the point when the Obama campaign and Josh Marshall had cried moral outrage over the Nevada situation and then completely dissed the FL primary that I realized that neither of them felt the slightest pull of moral principle when it came to their guy.

Either disenfranchisement means something to you on principle, or it doesn't. It was 100% obvious that it meant nothing to either the Obama campaign or Josh at that point.

This is just plain and simple a matter of principle not politics; the Party that marched alongside Dr. King and stood up with President Kennedy to open the schoolhouse doors in Alabama needs to be the Party of enfranchisement not disenfranchisement in Nevada this Saturday. Some convictions are just too important to be bent and broken to try and tip a few votes this way or that.

I know--he's just playing the political game....

I don't think folks care too much about this kind of statement.

I think this comments by Obama have fueled quite a bit of division and set up the stage (and his nod) for an open boycott should he lose the nomination.  

You'll have the first black man winning one (pledged delegates) only to have a bunch of primarily white party elders take nomination away and give it to someone else and tell him, hey, you can be the side-kick!

OR

You'll have the first woman winning one (popular vote) only to have a bunch of primarily male party elders take the nomination away and give to some man and tell her, hey, you can be the side-kick!

Pols have to pivot and semi-backtrack all the time.  A medium-sized and surmountable problem for her in a HRC/BHO scenario.

Also here, we'd have to see who McCain had as his #2.  If it's Charlie Crist or Sen Hutchison, well, the Rs are going to get the questions about national security preparedness and gravitas thrown back at them.  Most folks would see that Obama is no worse in terms of readiness than Gov Charlie or ex news anchor Kay Bailey.

The whole 3am/CIC argument is scaredy cat stuff. When Dems win they change the argument to something besides the reactionary rambling. (Yes, reactionary. When you are scared or angry, you react.) That last two Dems to successfully win with that argument were JFK and LBJ: JFK with his phony "missile gap" and LBJ with a reverse scary, making people scared of crazy Goldwater starting a nuclear war. Since then scaredy cat tactis have belonged to the Republicans. You can't beat them for scariness.

There have been so many instances in this campaign where Obama gets an "attack" (and I quote it because, let's be honest, these "attacks" are nothing compared to what the big boys will bring out) and he has to harp on it and harp on it until the dead horse is beaten all the way to China because he cannot stand to lose an argument.  His advisors and surrogates are the same way because it comes from the top down.  They are so insulated and have to this point been so coddled, that they have completely lost the thread on how they are being perceived outside their inner circle.

Ithink it qualifies her more than "community organizing", which is the lowest of the jobs in the community development continuim.  Obama was not a community developer bringing funds to a neighborhood, structuring complex projects with multiple resources.   Community organizing is the entry level job-- he was not the executive director of a community based non profit, responsible to a Board or putting together a budget, dealing with implementing programs.  

Clinton agreed, AGREED that those primaries would not count.

Why is Clinton now for counting those primaries? Hmmm. It must have been with her last two months of her thirty-five years of experience.

Admit it. On January 1 no one in the Clinton camp was shedding a tear for the failure of democracy in Michigan and Florida. She agreed to uphold party rules/kicked the citizens of MI and FL to the curb.

Now she desperately needs those delegates to get anywhere near Obama's totals. That's hypocrisy based on desperation. You people see it as a moral stand.

There will be some kind of primary in those states if all parties agree to the specifics. Considering that Clinton's position post-faux primaries was to count them, I don't see why everyone here expects that the Obama camp should immediately agree to all details without negotiating.

She will need him because of his base of supporters (youth, independents), campaign power, and money.

He will need her for her experience, base of supporters (base dem, women), and party savvy.