is the choice of failed executive candidates! The only successful presidential candidate, supports Hillary.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

We shouldn't be too worried that Mr. "Your jobs are gone forever" and "I don't know anything about economics" is going to win big union, shit economy Michigan.

Disenfranchise 'em. That's the way Mr. Hopey's gonna let 'em know what Unity is all about....

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Nowhere have I argued for disenfranchisement. Just pointed out some inconsistencies in the opportunistic outrage over MI/FL. Saying that MI won't vote for the dem if delegates aren't seated the right way fits the HRC narrative; but its just not true. I fear, however, that promoting this meme could become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Oh, come on.

1. All politicians are opportunistic. We want them to be. A politician who isn't motivated by opportunity is like a sales person not motivated by commissions -- not desirable.

2. Because a good principle (in this case, "count all the votes") is seized on for opportunistic reasons does not make the principle invalid. In fact, it makes it more powerful and likely to have an effect in the real world.

3. You can think of the two points above as "soft power" in action.

Now, many people, among whom I number myself, are, to put it mildly, upset with Obama on MI/FL not merely because we see opportunity, but because there really is soft power at stake here -- the perceived legitimacy of a nomination, and the perceived willingness of the Democratic party to stand for justice for voters in two major states. I've said before, and I'll say again, that I think the revote would have been good for Hillary, good for the party, and if, not ideal for Obama, with advantages for him too, and not something that would be decisive in any case. He has put himself so in the wrong on this, and now it's all dug in.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

I've said from the start:
a) I wish Obama was more supportive of a revote
b) He did not obstruct Florida; a revote was doomed without him.
c) Obama's objections to the MI proposal had some legitimacy.
d) Counting MI/FL as they stand is, in principle, wrong. "Count all the voters". Circumstances make these "contests" undemocratic and potentially bring the legitimacy of a nomination into question.
e) Revotes (the only fair solution) would have had a better chance if they were pursued earlier.
f) Doom for the Democrats in FL/MI has been overstated.
g) Obama is not the only guilty party in this fiasco. He should not bear the full outrage. He did not singlhandedly prevent legitimate contests, nor has he impeded democracy more than Clinton.

... nothing from Obama but "We'll get back to you."

I think it's pretty obvious where the primary responsibility for the disenfranchisement lies (I'll concede lack of sainthood for Hillary on this one, as long as the primary responsibility is placed on Obama.)

Carville, basically, called Obama's bluff. What Obama could and should have done was worked out the details--taken the high road. Done the "leader's lead" thing. Instead, nothing. And here we are.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.