...then what's with all the outrage over Hillary's remarks this past weekend? Seems to me the whole thing is much ado about nothing. Likewise, if this were in the bag, where are all those SD ready and able to put him over the top? What's stopping them if we should already be in GE mode against the McCain/GOP machine?

The fact is however much Obama and his army of supporters like to believe otherwise, they haven't clinched anything. Not now, and not until the convention. Anything goes until then, ESPECIALLY if FL and MI haven't been fully seated. Over at TALK LEFT, they have a great analysis over the ramifications of applying the rules equally to all 5 states that decided to schedule their primaries/caucuses in total disregard of everything previously agreed to. Not only that, but it was written by an Obama supporter who has constantly been stating his belief in Obama being the eventual nominee. His bone of contention, however, is that Obama doesn't stand a prayer without a unified Democratic party.

Personally, I think that ship has sailed. I'm pretty sure it left the harbor during the night of the Indiana primary.

Obviously, many of the Obama supporters clearly haven't a clue how the convention works, since many of them have never experienced a convention with a floor fight. Obama doesn't enter the hall even the presumed nominee until a vote is taken and ratified by the assembled delegates. Since half the hall will be Hillary delegates, that means this thing is going to be decided then and there by the Supers.

Unless it gets past the first ballot.

After that, it's anything goes, as no one is committed to anyone and able to vote for whomever they want. At that point, it becomes a battle royale. The Clintons didn't get where they are by  being pushovers, and their supporters at that point will be dug deep into the trenches.

From my standpoint, as a Hillary supporter, if we have to throw Obama and his new voters out the window in order to nail this down, I know at least half that convention hall will have no problem doing so. Hillary's supporters have proven election after election they show up at the polls. His haven't. All this talk of expanding the map has been shown in recent polls to be nothing more than a lot of hot air.

As shown in this analysis, Obama is way too big a risk and, for my money, way too green, to gamble the next four years on.

For someone who only gave a speech when it was of little consequence as far his own career path at the time, and who has done nothing since to warrant the accolades he has received from said speech, I have a hard time rallying around the Democratic version of George Bush. And I know I'm far from alone in this.

Since Obama has basically won squat, forget the talk of unity.

Get ready for the floor fight.

I was watching the talking heads when Nora O'Donnell brought up an interesting poll number which Tweety and Co. casually remarked upon then let quickly sail over their heads the implication of that poll finding in order to stick with their current narrative.

Since I don't have a transcript or a YouTube clip handy for presentation, I'm basically paraphrasing here, but the gist was this:

Democrats voting for Hillary have no problem with the moving goalposts. One of the key reasons her support has been rock solid and continues to grow is that hardcore Democratic voters - not Dems-for-a-day, nor Independents or Republicans for Obama - want a winner in November, and with each victory Hillary keeps racking up, are more convinced she will be the Dem who won't go down with the ship.

In other words, they're convinced that she won't be another Al Gore or John Kerry, that McCain will have to pry the Presidency from her cold, dead fingers before she gives it up.

AND THAT'S WHY ANY TALK OF PLEDGED DELEGATES, SUPERDELEGATES, BLOODY FLOOR FIGHTS, STEALING THE NOMINATION, OFFENDED OBAMA SUPPORTERS OR ANY RELATED TOPIC NO LONGER MATTERS.

I'm not upset with Randi Rhodes calling Hillary a fucking whore. Nor did I throw a brick at my TV while watching Pat Leahy make an ass of himself telling Hillary to drop out.

As for the Obama supporters defending a candidate that gives "flim-flam" a whole new level of meaning, I quit wondering about their reasoning abilities or what planet they're from a long time ago.

Y'see, fair and nice went out the window a long time ago.

Say, around December 12, 2000, when five of the justices of the Supreme Court said to stop counting the votes. And I didn't see a single Democrat lead the charge for revolt against this gross abuse to our system of governance. Not a Senator or a Congressman. Not even a call to arms from Left-wing activists.

I was just over at TalkingPointsMemo.com, and Josh just did what I didn't think possible: he truly jumped the shark.

At the top of his site is a YouTube video of Geraldine Ferraro with the words SEND IN THE CLOWN superimposed over her image.

Folks, and I'm addressing Obama supporters here, you plainly don't get it. We may have just reached the point if we haven't already where the collective Sisterhood of America - especially those over age 40 - are so pissed that any poll showing Obama beating McCain in November is clearly unreliable at this point, as the Dem's biggest voting bloc is going to willingly make the choice to either sit this election out or give Obama a swift kick in the groin by voting for McCain.

My college-age son and I talk pretty frequently, especially now that he's living across the country in NH. After the recent primaries in which Hillary had won TX, OH and RI, he expressed amazement on how I had called it, just as he had expressed similar astonishment after seeing Hillary win in NH. "Son," I said, "age and treachery will always overcome youth and strength."

"But, dad, he's got more delegates."

"Big deal. He can't get the magic number 2025, and no way will the Party elders take that leap off a cliff with him."

"But what about the will of the people? All the young voters?"

I then explained to him that like me, the Party Elders don't trust them, or anyone else who labels themselves as Progressives, to be there in the trenches when needed. As a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, I've been burned way too many times counting on my fellow Lefty to fight until the bitter end. Not to mention being amazed at the total reversal of earlier expressed opinions held throughout the Progressive-blogosphere for the longest time.

The 60's. Those were the days. Classic Trek. Kubrick's 2001. Armstrong actually walking on lunar soil, thanks to a liberal political figure committing his nation to the goal of landing a man on the moon and returning safely by the end of the decade.

Naturally, blood had to be spilled along the way. Change never comes easy. Or without cost.

As a kid growing up in white suburbia, I was drawn to anything sci-fi related, especially if it had anything to do with the future or space travel. It wasn't long before I was also drawn to like-minded people, who believed in multi-cultural societies that all got along working for the benefit of each other.

I didn't know it back then, but already I was a dyed-in-the-wool liberal to the core. We didn't have the internet to communicate with kindred souls, nor were the terms "liberal" and "conservative" tossed around to define which side one stood on. The divisions in those days were much starker, as in "black " and "white" as well as "young" and "old".

Well, well, well, whaddya know? Looks like Obama's man David Axelrod is rethinking his team's stance on Superdelegates. Why am I not surprised?

The details can be found on Taylor Marsh's site, but it boils down to the following:

Concerned that Hillary was going to wrest the nomination from him via the Superdelegates, Obama voiced the position that the voters should dictate how the Superdelegates cast their votes for the Dem nomination.

As a result, such diverse figures within the Democratic Party such as Chris Bowers and Donna Brazille literally threw temper tantrums in public forums in support of this position as being reflective  of "the will of the people", pointing to Barbara Boxer's example prior to Super Tuesday as she stated she would support whoever the voters of her state supported the most.

But now, when confronted with the reality that Obama supporters such as Senators Kennedy and Kerry and Gov. Deval Patrick would now have to switch their votes to reflect the will of the people, Obama's people are now saying "Waitaminute. Not so fast there."

From my perspective, all's fair in love and war, especially politics. If Hillary's team kneecaps Obama one way or another, I have no problem with it. I want her to win, not handicap her campaign playing by some bullshit rules where the goalposts are being moved by her opponent to suit his campaign.

On the other hand, this is where Obama has boxed both himself and his supporters into a corner they can't get out of. Either he's leading a new non-partisan style of politics and thus sticks to his supposed principles, even if it costs him, or he shows his true colors and plays the game like any other politician, thus forcing his supporters to either justify the hypocrisy or throwing him overboard as a result of their disillusionment with both him and the process.

Now excuse me while I grab the popcorn to watch the fun.

Over thirty years ago, before I was about to vote for the first time, I picked up a book written by a true American original, Harlan Ellison. The book was titled PAINGOD AND OTHER DELUSIONS, and Harlan had written an introduction that included the following passage:

Understand something: I am not a humanitarian. I distrust selfless philanthropists and doers of good deeds. When you discover the black natives of Lamborene hated Schweitzer, you begin to suspect noble individuals have some secret need to be loved, to look good in others' eyes, to succor themselves or dissipate their guilts with benevolent gestures. Rather than the sanctimonious bullshit of politicians about "the good people of the fair state" I would joyously vote for any candidate who had the courage to stand up and say, "Look, I'm going to steal from you. I'm going to line my pockets and those of my friends, but I'm not going to steal too much. But in the deal I'll give you better roads, safer schools, better education and a happier condition of life. I'm not going to do it out of compassion or dedication to the good people of this fair state; I'm going to do it because if I do these things, you'll elect me again and I can steal a little bit more." That joker has my vote, no arguments.

Harlan then went on to explain how he was snookered by both Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern when they ran for the President.

I considered Harlan's words when I voted for the first time, casting my ballot for Jimmy Carter, fully believing his promises to change the tone of Washington. Considering he was supposed to lead us out of the darkness that was the Watergate era, that was a tall order, but still a lot of people clung to the hope that he would deliver as promised.