I'm watching the RBC meeting online at the moment, and what is truly dispiriting is how no one can make their case without a turn to sentimentality, at least if they are supporting HRC's cause. The argument to sit Florida and Michigan is proceeding through false, and absurd, analogies with Zimbabwe, Civil Rights, and Suffrage. These advocates then bring up the sentimental stories of individual voters whose voices should be heard. These arguments are so difficult to turn aside, but they are devoid of substance. They overlook real facts on the ground. If the right wing that brought Bush to power sneered at the reality-based community, they do so on ideological grounds. I fear that the turn to sentimentality is also depriving us of a reality-based view.

Dean's story and call for unity is interesting because though he participated in some aspect of sentimentality, he's cautioning us to turn away from the individual and think about the country. This isn't about individual sad stories or sentimental stories. It's about uniting the party to take back the country.

And who would that be?

Are the Republicans a united party behind Bush? Hardly. Winning elections is about getting swing voters to turn out. If the primary is any indication Obama will do quite well in terms of party turn out, and if Republicans cross as they did in Texas, he will win easily.

There is another factor, who stays home. Voters can be made to stay home on any number of counts, apathy, such as in the 2004 election, or if the campaign resonates emotionally. If for instance there was another terrorist attack, that emotional swing might favor McCain, while Obama has the presumptive charge, in his campaign of Change.

In the final tally some Hillary supporters may stay home, but that may only energize the Obama supporters. The only caveat to this is that in California at least, absentee ballots are considered mandatory by most Democrats. It's much easier not to stay home when you have an absentee ballot.

Dean, once upon a time, a competent Governor, had a choice. He could indulge his go and pander to the rabid left and encourage them to destroy the party by litmus testing out everyone who didn't tow the line 100% with their uber-left world, or he could have built a lasting viable coalition that would have chipped away at the Republicans base.

He obviously chose the latter. Like Obama he was all talk and no acton. He was going to build a 50 state strategy, remember that one? Most of us adults understand it's hard to build a 50 state strategy when you won't set foot in a church or synagogue and insist on litmus testing red white and blue America to fringe positions.

Well, Donna Brazille, that other big winner with all that success behind her such as Gore in 2000 and now, Nobama, says the left has a big base of new votes and doesn't need the traditional Dems.

Guess we'll see about that because as best I can tell she and Dean and nut left authors such as Shapiro and other Salon favs have put it on the line.

In the final tally some Hillary supporters may stay home, but that may only energize the Obama supporters

LOL. If there's one thing I'd say that the Nobama supporters have no lack of it's energy.

They've quite succesfully destroyed Rome.

But really, I'm sure Obama will win in a big landslide, you say so.

Fl Rep. Wexler - the Obama campaign spokesperson - has just conceded and agreed to the Ausman petition.

"They've quite succesfully [sic] destroyed Rome."

---

That's right people, Obama has unleashed his devious plan to invade Italy! The only reason you're reading it here first is that the MSM is too drunk on his Kool-aid to report it as such, and when they do they'll call it "diplomacy." Tune in here to learn about more Caligulian hi-jinx courtesy of my kin's whisper campaigns and Republican talking points...

I find it difficult to take anyone seriously who uses terms like "Nobama" "Obambi" "Waffles" and so forth.

Of course, I likewise find it hard to take anyone seriously who uses terms like "Hellary" "Shrillary" or dare I say it... "Repuglican."

It's just a good barometer as to whether someone is actually bringing something to the debate, or just parroting their preconceived notions.

You are aware that since Dean became party chair we regained control of the Senate and a House that had been under Republican control since 1995?

How about we compare Dean's record of getting Democrats elected to Terry Mcauliffe's. You know, the same Terry Mccauliffe that says that Hillary is more electable?

On another subject, it is unbelievable that Harold Ikes is sitting on the rule commitee. Furthermore he is arging to eliminate the sanctions HE VOTED FOR. Even further, he is rejecting the proposals that the states themselves are putting forward.

Imagine if David Axelrod was on that commitee instead. Bill Clinton would have had an stroke.

Why do you hate America so much?

This is pretty funny:

He could indulge his go and pander to the rabid left and encourage them to destroy the party by litmus testing out everyone who didn't tow the line 100% with their uber-left world, or he could have built a lasting viable coalition that would have chipped away at the Republicans base.

He obviously chose the latter.

In addition to never having been able to find support for even one of his cockamamie ideas about politics, ShawnWM doesn't know the difference between "former" and "latter."

Shawn, FYI, the "former" option is the one that comes first, the "latter" option comes second. Unless you're saying that Dean did in fact build a viable coalition that has chipped away at the republican base, with which I somewhat agree.