The "Clinton campaign supported the calendar, and the sanctions against Michigan and Florida, until Clinton won those states and needed to have their delegations seated."

In fact, "Last August, when the DNC Rules Committee voted to strip Florida (and Michigan, if it persisted in clinging to its date) of its delegates, the Clinton delegates on the committee backed those sanctions. All 12 Clinton supporters on the committee supported the penalties."

The truth--as Meyerson points it out--is that "Not a single Clinton campaign official or DNC Rules Committee member, much less the candidate herself, said at the time that the sanctions imposed on Florida or Michigan were in any way a patriarchal plot or an affront to democratic values."

On top of having the audacity to point out such trivialities as the fact that all of Clinton's loyalists on the DNC RBC supported the penalties, Meyerson pooh-poohs sexism by noting that "it's certainly true that along the campaign trail Clinton has encountered some outrageously sexist treatment."

How he can live with himself after simply calling the sexist treatment of Sen. Clinton "outrageous" is beyond me.

 And how can he cite Harold Ickes and Patty Solis-Doyle?? As if Clinton's campaign manager and one of her top strategists actually represent her thinking on the issue at that time!?!?!???!!

Clinton's supporters have every right to demonstrate on Saturday, of course. But their larger cause is neither democracy nor feminism; it's situational ethics. To insist otherwise is to degrade democracy and turn feminism into the last refuge of scoundrels.

What crusading idiocy.

I wasn't aware that the (Meyerson-endorsed) right to demonstrate was limited to the (hollowing Meyerson standard) that this right simultaneously endangered not only democracy but feminism itself!

In that order!

And Great Thundering Goddess only knows where scoundrels like Meyerson could turn were feminism to lose the @ss-sunken threadbare La-Z-Boy recliner with his name on it!

It's frightening to me that not only does the media NOT inform us adequately, they now usurp the people's job of choosing.

Just for me but I don't want the likes of Olbermann, Tweety, Andrea Mitchell, Rachel Maddow, David Shuster, Tucker Carlson, Dan Abrams or Joe Scarborough making my choises for me.

Don't want O'Reilly, Hannity or Colmes doing it either.

And God no to Wolf Blitzer, Jackassjack Cafferty and the predictably awful Gloria Borger.

It is clear that he did not even bother to familiarize himself with the facts of this situation - his goal was to smear Hillary Clinton and there was no need for facts.

Regarding MI:
The basic issue is that party rules leave little room for granting the uncommitted delegates to Obama, because there's no way to verify that the voters were specifically voting for him.

But, the memo argues, "it can be argued that the voters expressing the 'Uncommitted' preference were expressing a preference for at least one of the candidates whose names did not appear on the January 15 ballot, rather than rejecting the entire field.

"Therefore, following the principle of fair reflection of presidential preference, it can at least be said that the "Uncommitted" delegate positions should be considered as being allocated collectively to the candidates whose names did not appear on the ballot: Senator Barack Obama, former Senator John Edwards, Senator Joseph Biden and Governor Bill Richardson."