(Preface: I am an Edwards supporter who voted for Obama after Edwards dropped out. As you can see from my DKos page and comments page I've stayed out of the online Clinton-Obama wars. I'm not 'trolling' over here to stir the pot.)

As an a Obama supporter I just have to make this clear to Clinton supporters and the Democratic party: If a disputed Michigan delegation provides the margin for a Clinton nomination, that is simply a bridge too far for me. An election with only one name on the ballot is no way to choose an nominee, let alone be the determinative difference.

As I see stories of how supposedly Michigan is becoming Clinton's secret weapon, with Clinton trying to get some of the uncommitted delegates in addition to her tainted, one candidate election, pledged delegates, I say this in candor and sincerity to my Clinton supporting friends -- Be very careful, because you're playing with fire.  Michigan cannot provide the decisive delegate votes.

In California, Democrats are running to unseat Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a political persona so ungenuine that he had his minions create a street pothole for a photo op (!); who continually claims to be above special interests while rolling in their money; a man who had his entire agenda soundly rejected by the electorate less than a year ago -- in short, an opponent who has provided ample material to discredit him on his own merits -- and yet this is what the California Democratic Party is running on television right now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKSFTqz7w DU

Whatever media firm did this ad should be fired immediately. If the entrenched Democratic consultant class in Sacramento can't see that this race should be about Governor Pothole, not George W. Bush, they should all be fired.

If this is the best the CDP I certainly hope some heads roll if we lose this November. Rank and file Democrats deserve better.

(If someone in comments could how to embed Youtube in these posts I'd appreciate it.  Placing the embed code alone in the post didn't seem to work. Thanks.)

I didn't see (haven't read the transcript of) the voice vote approving the lynching apology bill, but usually votes are followed by a motion to reconsider made by someone on the prevailing side, followed then by a motion to table.  Both motions are routinely agreed to by unanimous consent.

Here's the question: Couldn't any Senator make a motion to reconsider the bill and request a rollcall vote?  If so, why not do that and make the pro-lynching faction declare themselves? It really is an outrage there wasn't a rollcall vote on this measure.

Now we're back on track. Atrios links to this gem from Dean today:When Democrats and their supporters appear on Fox they only enable Fox to perpetuate the charade that they're "fair and balanced." Democrats never get anything close to a fair shake, so other than a craven need for publicity I don't know why they continue to enable and empower Fox. As I written before, why don't we just cut them off?Dean's on the right track here. I hope he'll seize on the example of the behavior of Fox's Brain Wilson the other day to convince other Democrats to follow his lead.  Let's show we have some balls. Let's cut off Fox News.

Before you all hit the comment button to flame me give me a little room to make a principled, non-mushy-DLC-type argument about why Howard Dean's loose lips are hurting the progressive/netroots cause.  Please, hear me out...

The netroots/progressive wing of the Democratic Party has over the past months been developing a narrative that the GOP leadership and elected members are corrupted by big business moneyed interests, out-of-touch with average Americans and under the control of radical Christian clerics.  It's a narrative designed to separate the GOP electeds from moderate segments of their constituency -- to illuminate the GOP agenda and its leaders as radical and divorced from the values of moderate America - so that we can move the middle to us, rather than the DLC strategy which requires us to move to them.  Let's be clear:  The strategic objective is to separate independents and moderates from the corrupt, radical GOP electeds.

Now let's look at Dean's two recent "controversial" statements: "Republicans, I guess, can do that because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives" and Republicans are "...a pretty monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party." In the rush to spin the truth of these statements as a defense of Dean we lose sight of their negative impact on the larger strategic objective.  Truth is not an adequate defense -- true or not, the both of these statements equate Republican voters with Republican electeds.  Rather than divide and separate, these statements conflate and insult. This is completely contrary to what we in the progressive netroots, who help put him in power, are trying to accomplish.

Whether the filibuster has been preserved -- that is, did we win or lose in the compromise -- depends on Lindsey Graham and Mike DeWine.  So here is the poll that will show whether we really believe we came out ahead:

Circumstance:

It is not the background, writings, rulings or qualifications of a particular nominee that must be "extraordinary," but rather the "circumstances" "attending an event and having some bearing on it"  that must be "extraordinary." For example, the fact that Justice O'Connor often carries the balance of the court with her vote would make her resignation and replacement in and of itself an "extraordinary circumstance," even before someone is nominated to replace her.  In the current context of the agreement there appears to be agreement by the seven GOP members that the "circumstances" surrounding the Michigan seat to which Saad has been nominated are "extraordinary." In the coming Supreme Court fights the GOP is going to focus on the people -- the nominees -- as not meeting the "extraordinary" threshold, so we need to start more broadly and properly defining the "circumstances" under which a filibuster would be allowed.

Shorter Josh Marshall:

If the President's plan won't add any new funds to Social Security all we're left with -- and all he proposes -- is a reallocation of static resources and of the cuts required.  His plan doesn't fix anything.  Furthermore, to the extent he can move up the timing of the cuts to expand funding of the Trust Fund he will have more resources available for tax cuts.  In short, he's taken a plan to avoid repaying the money he's transferred in upper income tax cuts and devised a way to expand funding for his transfers.