I'm going to get super delegates out of the way.   Barack Obama and his campaign have NOT called for the rules being changed.  They have not accused anyone of trying to change the rules by trying to use super delegates to win in the overall delegate count.  What they have argued is that the pledged delegate leader should be the front runner and presumptive nominee.

You know what?  They are right.  They should be unless some kind of ruinous scandal breaks out.  Many of you will point to Wright with the morbid hope that Wright-gate destroys Barack Obama, and proclaim that super delegates should abandon Obama for Clinton as her campaign has done( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/us/pol itics/20memo.html?_r=1&ref=politics& amp;oref=slogin ).

Apparently, that wasn't enough to convince Governor Bill Richardson, who Carville has compared to Judas(does that make Hillary Jesus Christ?).  It wasn't enough to prevent the Republican mayor of Camp Hill, Lou Thieblemont, from letting the whole world know that he's switching parties and voting for Obama.  It wasn't enough to stop a prominent conservative legal scholar, once head of the Office of Legal Counsel to Reagan and Bush senior, a man by the name of Douglas Kmiec.  Another Republican who is sick and tired by what his party has offered him, and who has instead endorsed a Democrat.   It wasn't enough to prevent other Republicans ( http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/2 0080324_Why_abiding_Republican_has_switc hed_his_party.html ) from converting to the Democratic party to fight back against the failed policies of the Republican Party.

I'll stop praising Obama to avoid scaring off anymore Clinton supporters.

Now.. before we delve into the mess surrounding Florida and Michigan, let's revisit.  Certain states were authorized to conduct a primary or caucus before February 5th.  They were Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina.   Michigan and Florida moved ahead(mostly Michigan, Florida was dragged along).

Everyone agreed to not campaign in Florida and Michigan.  No one can deny that.  Obama, Edwards, Richardson, and Biden took their names off of the ballot.  Gravel, Kucinich, Dodd, and Clinton kept their names on.  Since then, Dodd has endorsed Barack Obama.  Kucinich has all but endorsed Obama.  I think Gravel got confused and wandered into the Green Party.

Here is the final pledge in question;  http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sectio ns/news/070831_Final_Pledge.pdf

I quote;

..Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by the rules and regulationss of the DNC.

The sentiment is pretty clear, no matter what the definition of "is" really is.  Of course, Clinton's campaign is right to argue what they actually signed onto.  Now, as I mentioned earlier, Florida was dragged along for the ride.  Let's face it, the state party is horrendous down there.  So I'm going to detour from discussing both Florida and Michigan and will instead discuss Michigan first by itself.

"You know, it's clear this election they're having isn't going to count for anything."

Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, October 11th, 2007 on New Hampshire Public Radio, when discussing the controversy around Michigan's scheduled primary.

What's missing from here?  Outrage.  The outrage I encounter every time I come here.  From her supporters, from her campaign, from the lady herself.  Why was there no outrage then?  A fear of angering the people of New Hampshire, of Iowa, of South Carolina, of Nevada?   Probably.  Why is there outrage now?  We all know why.

From my perspective, the bottom line is what I see this outrage as.  Strategically delayed.  Delayed outage.  Fake outrage.   Hannityesque in its cries for freedom and equality.  I did not hear anyone arguing back then for Florida and Michigan, especially not her campaign.  In fact, I only heard this "outrage" when it was clear that Clinton would've done quite well in those states.  It became louder when she "did" do quite well in those states.

And there you have it.   My view on what is, at the very least, delayed outrage.   Now, don't get me wrong- Michigan and Florida need to be seated in some fashion.  Yet this constant harping about Michigan and Florida isn't just silly, it's outright foolish.  Like it or not, Obama has followed the rules that were agreed to.  Way back when before Clinton became outraged about all of this.  Back when she was tactically silent about it.  This notion that Obama should throw her a bone is pretty hollow of anything except bias.  He may not be calling her to drop out, but he like many others want this brawl of a nomination to end before either candidate is left politically bloodied and comatose.

So, I'm sorry to tell you that your "outrage" is too little too LATE.  Go ahead, continue claiming that Obama is the one disenfranchising Michigan and Florida.   Claim that his supporters "brown shirt" super delegates.  Claim that they take over caucuses with their young able bodies in a thuggish manner with thuggish lawyers as back up.

Continue indirectly making the hollow case for four more years of the failed policies of the Republican Party.   Just do me a favor and admit that your "outrage" is what it is- carefully delayed.