I hope it's "fixed" as in "fixed the problem" and not "fixed the cat."

I had exactly the same reaction.

Well, then we're fucked this November.

Here is the latest from the Rasmussen Report:

"The division in the Democratic Party is highlighted by the fact that just 71% of Democratic Primary voters now say they will vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election campaign. If Barack Obama is nominated, 64% of Democratic Primary voters are ready to vote for him. The way in which the Democratic Nomination is resolved will ultimately determine whether the nominee will enjoy stronger support from the party’s base."

Howard, Harry --- Please note that last sentence.

The entire thing isn't about Obama or Clinton, it's about legitimacy. Which only makes the DNC's apparent passivity regarding revotes in Michigan and Florida more puzzling. Of course, Obama doesn't want revotes, but why didn't the DNC pressue him more to accept them? It's in the party's interest to resolve this issue as soon as possible, as transparent as possible, and in a way that enfranchises as many people as possible instead of coming to some back-room split of delegates. Instead, they've let their moment pass and now we're stuck with the issue that's most likely to make either candidate appear non-legitimate. Which Obama might believe serves his interest (although I'd argue it only serves his short-term interest in securing the nomination and hurts him for the GE), but hurts the party overall.

I think this means that the pressure that is being brought to bear on Dean is starting to have an effect. Maybe Debbie Wasserman Schults did the trick by stalling on congressional candidates. Or maybe it was all of the donors to the DNC convention deciding they needed their money back because they were flying down to Rio for August. Who knows? I think this means that something is going to crack on FL and MI.
Come together at The Confluence

Hey, I have a real question...

Folks firmly in the Clinton camp keep saying the Obama blocked the FL and MI mail in primary mulligan, but I haven't found any real facts to support that.

The read I got was that the Obama campaign was doing exactly what the DNC did, hold off until the states offered actual plans. Given that they had more ways to potentially loose more the the Clinton camp, the 'devil is in the details' seemed to be the prevailing sentiment.

There was the BS 'questions' regarding running afoul of the voting rights act. I strongly disagree with that move, but I never saw a rejection or a block (just this one threat of doing so).

If FL and/or MI actually proposed a fair plan with the i's dotted and t's crossed, the Obama campaign would have had very little choice but to say 'sounds good to me'. But one can hardly blame them for not jumping on the bandwagon before it even got put together, especially with ratfuckers like Carville working feverishly to get the best possible 'result' for Clinton out of it.

Did I miss something, or is this yet another case of a complicated situation getting boiled down to a simple (and at best misleading) tag line?

Try this post plus the comments, even especially the comments.

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