You're a baaad man. Lol.

I hope your not saying that the John in this campaign is going to flush our bad-ass cat.

The 2008 DNC rules proscribe certain punitive measures that can be taken against the states.  This process, as far as I can tell, is not meant to be punitive to either the voters or the candidates.

Maintaining the same differential maintains the will of the voters and is punitive to neither candidate.

2008 DNC rules
http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/dem ocratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/pdfs/2 008delegateselectionrules.pdf

It is just good form.  Plus the relationship to his campaign was a little less casual than you imply.

giving over $200,000 taxpayer dollars to this racist hate monger! What about Axelrod doing a documentary on this guy?

Good for Michael Pfleger.

And I attend a church just like it, and there is nothing racist about it.  Perhaps you'd like to share what you think is racist.  I feel racism=power+bigotry+prejuidice.  The message of that church and ours is racial reconciliation.  

My support for Obama is irrelevant as he could suffer a stroke tommorrow, and I would still need my church.

Winning with class means making the losing team feel like a winner as well.

I'm sorry that I don't have time to pamper the feelings of a bunch of wound up thugs who divide their time between circulating crazy theories and making noises about how they're going to vote for McCain.

You should be more unhappy about it than I.  You're not; what does that say?

I don't know what it tells you, but for me, it is a manifestation of the fact that I've heard enough bullshit for one year. Particularly from falsely so-called Democrats.

"Her campaign's results since Texas have been anything but miniscule.  To imply so is somewhat dishonest"

Did she cut down on his lead, in any significant manner? If not, then by definition "miniscule results".

"unaware that, at this point, the Obama campaign and likely victory were so very fragile, that maintaining the un-punitive differential would put it in jeopardy"

Let's cut this "so fragile" crap. We both know how far ahead Obama is in delegates.

The point is that your argument of how "to make nice with Hillary Clinton" is illogical. If they'd given everything to Clinton (but necessarily halved) and punished Obama, then Clinton would merely take it to Denver to double her reward, and to double Obama's punishment as well.

"There was no being nice to the Clinton campaign noticeable in the decision made."

To validate Florida and Michigan in any manner was being nice to Clinton.

But Clinton was arguing that all 55 Michigan unconfirmed superdelegates should remain in play for her, she was arguing that there should be no halving, she was arguing that everything was spiffy -- so at this point there's no reconciliation possible with her. We ought crown her Queen of the  Universe or she'd take it to Denver.

delegates since she hardly campaigned in the caucus states.  Obama got delegates when he declined to run at all.  She should get at least half the caucus delegates.  And in all of the states with primaries and caucuses, she should get the delegates  from the Primaries and the popular vote.  The RBC can give Obama the pop vote from the caucuses.

PLease explain in delegates - because this makes no sense to me.

So, you're openly stating that its not the actual fairness of the decision, but that they should have given her those four delegates - and even past that, Obama should have insisted that they be given to her?

That's like saying not only should someone benefit from breaking the rules, but that they should be given more than what they already are unfairly getting because they're still going to come in second place. That's some sore-loser tactics.

And the pure chutzpah of holding that up as a price for unity is just slimy. You or anyone else with that mindset doesn't have other concerns they're basing their vote on? Are people supposed to applaud this gesture? I'm not saying this an an Obama supporter, I'm saying this as an adult that's more than a little appalled at this kind of behavior from other adults.

To try and get a little perspective on where this talking point is coming from, I zipped over to Taylor Marsh's site and lo and behold:

Let me enlighten you. Senator Obama is ahead in delegates. A gracious split of Michigan would not have jeopardized his lead. But instead, the RBC, in your infinite wisdom, decided to adjust the delegates just enough to infuriate the entire Clinton contingent that is now set on Defcon Activist Revenge.

The perception problem created is beyond comprehension. Honestly, you have no idea the fuse that's now been lit. But to give you an idea. I'm in the minority on my own blog when it comes to pushing back against a McCain presidency. This didn't happen because of anything Clinton did, my friends. You all cemented it all by yourselves. Oh, with the help of some eager, power hungry people thinking they can push the Clintons out of the Democratic Party and take over without half of the people who support the Clintons signing on. Good luck with that one. Trust me, everyone knows what's really going on.

Does this accurately sum up the jist of things? Because I'm seeing a lot of overly emotional, irrational things in these paragraphs. She freely admits its about perception. Any supporters that have the perception that this will be perceived as a slight against Clinton by the general public is mistaken, so you can stop worrying about that. But I have the feeling its not about that - Taylor doesn't seem to think so. Its about the perception of being slighted that you're projecting onto it. Everyone else is just happy its over and done with and we can move the hell on. The single-minded absorption over how this all revolves around a tiny subset of outraged supporters is ridiculous. And the revenge talk is truly childish. I'd expect this kind of mindset out of a junior high schooler, not grown women.

I seriously doubt there is anything the Obama team could say or do to win over the diehard Hillary supporters - if the ones protesting yesterday were anything to go by.  They hate Obama - they aren't reachable, and they will shortly be irrelevant.

Frankly, I'm not worried about a few hundred people that went off the deep end and behaved like children. I'm not going to kiss their behinds either for their behavior - its disgusting. What's to coddle up to? That kind of behavior? No thanks. Grow up, sober up, gain some perspective, and come back and behave like an adult.

...is this really the analogy you want to use for the Clinton campaign? I'll run with it if you want, but if I'm calling Hillary and the rest of you a hungry stray dog, I can't imagine there aren't people who are going to find it insulting.

What about supporting Obama after next week because he's the party's presumptive nominee?  I mean, obviously he's very good on a lot of issues that I care about...I feel like you might be trying to view him in some kind of vacuum rather than in comparison with, oh, I don't know, perhaps his republican counterpart?

Fact of the matter is, Clinton lost this election by not campaigning enough in Obama's strong states, allowing him to rack up an insurmountable pledged delegate lead and many supers have said they'll go with the pledged delegate leader.  Even Hillary's huge wins in West Virginia and Kentucky ultimately pale in comparison with Obama's February streak of blowouts.

If you think the RBC decision was a bad one, fine, but just keep in mind that Hillary wouldn't have won it anyway.  She lost back in February.