Look at who is to blame for this debacle:

• The Democratic Parties of Florida and Michigan. They knew the rules. They pulled off their stunt anyway, gambling that they could argue their way back onto the convention floor.
• Hillary Clinton. Her people in the DNC Rules Committee voted to ban 100% of these state's delegates, when she thought it would be to her advantage to do so. And despite the National Democratic Party ban on participating in these outlaw primaries, she went ahead and did so anyway. see http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/28/131524/628)

Who benefits from seating these delegates? You got it, the same people who made this mess: The state Democratic parties, and Hillary Clinton.

It is clear that the big losers are the Democratic voters of these states. There is no way now to fix this for them, not without a re-vote. But the DNC needs to make sure that those who created this mess don't benefit from it in any way.

They need to scrap the entire process. There should be regional primaries, rotating the voting order every four years so no state's "feelings" get hurt.

I did not say that the system is fair, or that it shouldn't be scrapped. I'd like to see a lot of scrapping and revamping. But there are two separate issues here: First, whether the system is fair and workable, and second, whether those in the Democratic Party should follow their party's rules. Your beef is with the first, and thus orthogonal to my comment, which was on the second. HRC and her campaign, and the Democratic parties of the states of Florida and Michigan, knew the party rules before they acted. HRC and her campaign were fully ready to severely penalize the two state parties when it was in their interest to do so. Now that they surprisingly find themselves trailing in the process they wish to re-write the rules and play Calvin Ball.

If Democrats think that their nomination process is flawed then they should work to fix it within the rules. If we can't agree to this we will have a mess that will make the current system look good. It is perfectly legitimate to work for rule changes for the next go-around, as former Virginia Governor Doug Wilder did to bring us proportional voting in Democratic primaries. To demand self-serving rule changes that would apply during the current nomination process, i.e. moving the goalposts, is not legitimate and is indeed fundamentally corrupt.

But if not, my choice would be Mark Warner of Virginia. He would complement Obama very well. For those who would say that this ticket would not bring much foreign policy experience, think about all the trouble our "experienced" foreign policy experts have gotten us in. We need something different, and what matters most is what you intend to do, not how much experience you have.

Didn't Sherrod Brown vote for the Military Commissions Act? I remember being keenly disappointed by that vote. If there are two votes that can be used to call into question the judgment of a Senator, this one and the authorization to use force in Iraq are it. Sherrod Brown should have seen the moral issues inherent in that Act. All the data was there, in real-time, for anyone to wanted it.

Even if Bush had 2 weeks left it would be worth impeaching him. The issue is not Bush and how much time he has left. The real purpose of impeachment would be to send a clear message to future presidents that they are not dictators who are above the law; that failure to uphold the oath of office will meet with consequences; that the Constitution is not a mere rag to be interpreted as he/she sees fit.

Broder is corrupt to the core. It is he who should in all good decency step down.

So Comcast wishes to avoid defaming others. How noble of them. Not! Do they really expect us to believe that? What a bunch of crooks. This is the same Comcast that has been interfering with their customer's communications (by disconnecting peer-to-peer transactions). This is the same Comcast that paid people to pack an FCC public hearing to prevent supporters of Net Neutrality from participating (see http://www.philly.com/inquirer/front_page/20080228_Comcast_admits_paying_attendees_at_FCC_hearing.html) These are the actions of a fundamentally corrupt enterprise.

Gitmo detainees win round at Supreme Court

Suspected terrorists and foreign fighters held by the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay have the right to challenge their detention in federal court, a closely divided Supreme Court ruled today. The "nation will live to regret what the court has done," Justice Antonin Scalia said.

This is how the MSM sees it. "Detainees" win. Not us, not our Constitution, not our principles. And who do they quote right there on the front page? Why, their buddy Scalia, who would sell all our liberties down the river to make us Safe From The Terrorists. The same Scalia who put Bush in power. That we will regret, my friend. Have regretted it for some time now, in fact.

And then:

Bush: I disagree, but 'we'll abide'

Well, Dubya, in a Constitutional Republic it really is not up to you whether you'll abide. But thanks for the promise.