I specifically think that Bill Clinton's support of the lawsuit that would have closed the satellite caucus sites on the Las Vegas strip was wrong.

Bill Clinton supported a lawsuit that, had it succeeded, would have COST Hillary Clinton support in Nevada since she won the Strip.

I wasn't alone in thinking that the Nevada lawsuit echoed Republican "voter suppression tactics;" Josh Marshall made much the same argument in opposition to Bill Clinton.

Does the Nevada lawsuit have anything to do with MI and FL and "the pledge?" No.

Hillary Clinton violated the pledge and has taken three different positions on MI/FL. First she said MI/FL clearly wouldn't count and her adviser Harold Ickes voted exactly that way. Second, she said they did count in violation of the pledge and even held a "victory party" in Florida. And third she rejected caucuses in MI and FL and held out for rich benefactors to hold privately funded primaries that would be "revotes" in MI and FL.

There's no comparison here. There is accountability, however.

Are Clinton, Edwards and Obama responsible for signing the pledge and accepting those faulty terms from the DNC? Yes. Was that, ultimately, an error that we can regret in this nomination battle? Yes. We can all agree on that. The pledge was based on the idea that we'd have a clear outcome by Feb. 5th. We did not.

Does this reflect well on the DNC and MI and FL state Democratic parties? No. The DNC and the MI and FL state parties, in particular their legislative delegations, grossly mishandled this.

But to talk about "voter suppression" in MI and FL as if my position is advocating for suppressing voters in those states is just flat out wrong at best, and a demagogic smear at worst.

I'm not for what you say I'm for, BTD. I have always been for a negotiated solution that would be acceptable to all sides and pass the significant legal tests that any revote would entail. Barring that, I am for the delegates to the convention to vote to seat MI and FL under some new rubric.

With the MI and FL state legislatures both having bodies with GOP control, there was never a good chance of achieving a publicly-funded primary for a revote in MI and FL.

Since Clinton rejected caucuses out of hand (the only fully Democratically controlled and funded option), that meant some kind of privately funded revote was the only alternative for a revote. For reasons of precedent and fairness, I personally am not in favor of a privately-funded primary revote, especially one that relies on John Corzine and Ed Rendell setting the terms. There might have been a solution, however, if all parties had donated the funds to the DNC and come up with mutually acceptable terms. However, realistically, any primary would have had to pass through the FL and MI legislatures which both have bodies with GOP control.

There is no realistic way that the Democratic nominee was going to be chosen by rules written by Republicans.

The Nevada lawsuit and MI/FL have nothing to do with one another.

My position on Nevada was of a piece with Josh Marshall's. Bill Clinton's advocacy of that lawsuit was improper and riddled with inaccuracies. Further, it would have cost Hillary votes in Nevada! We agreed, as Democrats, to hold those caucus sites. Advocating for a lawsuit to close them was a moment of gross hypocrisy from Bill Clinton.

BTD, you should get off your campaign to smear and defame me and stick to writing about developments in this primary season.

I'm not perfect, but my positions are nowhere near how you have consistently mischaracterized them.

We need to come together to find a mutually acceptable solution that works for the voters of MI and FL, but ALSO for the voters in all the other states that followed the rules and where so many millions of voters have volunteered and given their time and money.

Speaking for myself, this white voter has been depressed for a while now.

And speaking as a woman, any female of a certain age will take one look (or listen) at what Obama is doing and saying about Clinton and gladly pull the lever for her.

I didn't agree with the pundits that NH came about because of all the ganging up on Clinton, but I think if you accept that Obama can keep folks at home with his negativity, then you also have to entertain the obverse, which is that his negativity can actually drive people to vote for Clinton.