I don't know Geoff, you seem to be focusing on Dean on this - at least, that's what I assume by "leadership of the Democratic party" - I blame the party leads in Florida and Michigan.

They broke the rules and their states suffered.  If I lived in either state, I'd be more mad at them.  At least Dean, though in retrospect, incorrectly, was trying to keep order.

Keep in mind - who could have forseen this?  Every election cycle since I've been able to vote - I lived in states that were further along in the process and by the time the democratic primary circus breezed through town, we already knew the candidate - I hear where Florida and Michigan were coming from - they wanted a voice - even if it didn't count - but who on earth could have forseen such a tight race? 

I grant you - some decent forsight would have set things up differently, but who could have forseen this.  As it is, this primary will be like all others where Florida and Michigan don't get a voice.  The status quo is not changed - they didn't get a say before and they don't now.  It's just a legal difference this time.

Oh, well, that I agree with - but... again, I believe it's a little more complicated than that - most elections we don't have to worry about them - they serve as a tie-breaker - how many times in our lifetimes have we had such a close primary?  Who saw this coming?  You know - according to the media, for the last 4 years, Hillary was to be brought in, crowned and seated at her throne.  The way it's played out no one saw coming.

Maybe because I am lawyer I tend to think that laws (or policies as is the case here) are considered before they are enacted.  I submit that such is the case with the DNC's superdelegate scheme.

The fault I see in your logic Mike is that you think "no one saw it coming."  Thats not true.  The DNC did.  They set the delegate count at a high number so they had a candidate who could get it by running away with the primaries or if there were multiple candidates within in a hundred points or so of one another the party heirarchy could select "the most electable."*  The DNC created this system so party insiders/players could ignore the wishes of the people and select who they think is the best candidate.  The superdelegate scheme is not some fly by night idea.  It was created for a real, political, purpose.

*This was probably done because there was a fear that left wing nut jobs from San Francisco would marshall behind a candidate who could win the communist wing of the party but lose in the general election. :o)

Well, touche, Geoff - I agree with that.

I still don't blame Dean, though...

Does anyone at all buy Matt Taibbi's thesis (from some months back) that
Pelosi and Reid have not pushed to end the war because they see it as a
good election issue?

I am not too fond of Nancy Pelosi -- she seems too much like a paper
tiger to me.

I'm dissapointed in Peolsi in terms of getting results on the national level - I was always happy with her locally, however.

I don't buy that particular thesis, though - I always enjoy Taibbi's articles however... not sure why the war isn't being pushed more... the explanation is that, you know, we civilians can't comprehend the military reasons why we can't pull out now, and considering that I come from a military family, I understand that, but still.. we were sold a bill of goods by Pelosi.

Having said that, here's a funny.... maybe more funny for like... Simko, and David and I, but...

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2008/05/02/badreporter02-95 0x313-carto.gif 

Tom French:
"I wonder how much of this is manufactured by the media to "keep it interesting" and thereby "keep themselves working"?"

I keep seeing things like this and always wonder why people are wanting to blame the media on the troubles of the Democtatic Party?  "Keep themselves working"?  Hate to burst anyone's bubble but the media works every day, election year or not.  And if nothing else, they end up having to work harder during times like this.

So, why exactly do folks think it's the media's fault?