This would seem to be an indicator of the civil war that is brewing in the Democrat Party, and it's not just the long-overdue (and delicious) class identity war between blacks and women. It's about a lot of Democrats finally, at long last, getting fed up and frustrated with the Clintons.

“What happened in Michigan is not very different from what used to happen in the old Soviet Union,” Riegle said. “The Clinton machine manipulated the ballot. They don’t care how they win, only that they do. It’s wrong and people need to know that.”

Riegle said the Democratic candidates had an understanding, after Michigan defied the party and tried to become the first state to hold a primary, that none of them would compete in Michigan. Obama and Edwards honored the agreement, but Clinton did not and put her name on the ballot, he said.

“People should not permit the Clintons—both Bill and Hillary—to have an unfair advantage in Michigan,” said Riegle.

Full disclosure: I used to deliver Don Riegle's Detroit Free Press (he lived a block away from me) and occasionally even collected payment from him at the door, and some of my grammar-school classmates worked on his first congressional campaign. But I gave up on him politically within a term or three of his congressional career (when he switched from Republican to Dem, and I was becoming a libertarian). He later (thankfully and appropriately) resigned as one of the five Senators in the Keating scandal that caused John McCain (one of the others) to go to war with the First Amendment. I agree with him on very little, politically, but if he's finally trying to flush the Clintons from his party, I'll cheer him on.

The Clintons are a floater that refuses to go down.

What I find more scandalous is that our party would disenfranchise Michigan voters for wanting to matter more in the early phase of the selection process.

Boo.
Hiss.

OK, where would it end, Alfred? What if a state decided to move its primary into the previous December? Or August?

The wheels are coming off the D party.

Good.

I'm not as hostile towards the dems as some of you are. However, I am positively thrilled that they are trying to flush themselves clean of the Clintons.

During the 2004 election, my democrat friends had the expression "anybody but Bush". My expression is "anybody but Hillary". I think we are finally seeing the nastiness and spitefulness of the Clintons in full colour before our very eyes.

I do not agree with Obama on many issues. However, he is handling himself as a repectful gentleman compared to the nastiness and venom of the Clintons. I say good for him.

For those of you here who are democrats, I will tell you that I think Obama is far more electable than Hillary. To be honest, the only republican candidate I like is Thompson. If he does not get the nomination, I am as likely to vote for Obama as I am for any of the other republican candidates and I consider myself to be a republican.

For anyone here who thinks Hillary is worthy, consider the above paragraph as fair warning.

The Clintons are slime. Unfortunately not too many people have woken up to the fact. It may be too late; the female half of the beast seems to be wrapping up the Democratic nomination in the folds of her underwear. And apparently the women of America weep when she weeps, on cue.

If it comes down to it, I hope Romney, if he gets nominated can stop her. McCain could, but I guess he's not very popular among you over here.

A fair system would rotate the lead among all of the states. I doubt any state would advance its primary if it knew it would be guaranteed its time at the head of the pack.

The wheels are coming off the D party

Not so fast. The Obama/Clinton/Edwards debate tonight is turning out to be a love-in.

I'm with Kurt in terms of Thompson or no Republican at all.

But then I look at Hillary and Obama, which makes me think about the war and our relationships with Iraq and Afghanistan, and the problems with Iran and Pakistan, and I just......sigh. And sorta put my heads between my legs and breath slowly.

I am the only one who feels like hyperventilating at the thought of Obama or Hillary being the face of our war against Islamic fanatics?

(grabs paper bag...)

"...go to war with the first Amendment." I thought I was the only one to remember it that way.

My gut tells me that Bill and some of the other Clintonistas sense the end of an era. I wonder what is going to happen to Hillary after she loses. Will she soldier on in the Senate like Robert Byrd, or will she retire and get her own talk show (Oprah wannabe)?

Pass the popcorn!

So you used to deliver Riegle's Freep? Does that mean you're a Flint boy?

BTW, Riegle didn't resign from the Senate -- he ... um ... er ... "retired" after the Keating scamdal.

Funny how in just a few short months Republicans can go from fearing a Clinton nomination to wanting to see one so badly it hurts. Another month of Dem on Dem and it'll be pretty easy to see how weak a candidate Hillary is.

A simple way to solve the problem of every state wanting to have their primaries first would be to use an election system at the convention that allows delegates to rank their choices in order (1,2,3...). Then it wouldn't matter who went first, because no candidate would be eliminated until it became obvious that he had little second or third place support as well as little first place support. Condorcet's Method would be best, but Instant Runoff would be almost as good.

A good ruck on the Democratic side will be fun to watch for all. I was wondering how long it would take before this sort of thing came up. The Clintons play rough when they get in trouble.

The Dems have but one play in their book.

Divide and conquer.

It's just that they've turned it on themselves now, because they know nothing else. The DNC as Ouroboros, let's just hope it's hungry.

I am the only one who feels like hyperventilating at the thought of Obama or Hillary being the face of our war against Islamic fanatics?

Yeah, this would really hurt, wouldn't it? Getting smacked around by a woman or a brown person. Talk about humiliation.

This year's winning campaign slogan:

Twenty years of Bush-Clinton is enough!

Yeah, this would really hurt, wouldn't it? Getting smacked around by a woman or a brown person. Talk about humiliation.

That's the problem with these two Mr No Nam. They'll slap us for eating cheese burgers or driving a vehicle they dislike. Then they'll want to TALK to Islamofascists about leaving us alone if they'll just agree to take billions of foreign aid from us, while we look the other way.

I'll ignore your intimation of racism and misogyny among those of us who don't like either of them.

The Democrats are stuck with the Clinton-grifters until Hillary loses an election. Then they can finally slough them off like an old skin. Unfortunately for the donks it still kind of looks like she'll win the nomination and then take a bunch of them down with her in the general election.

Obama is not much better - he's winning support simply because he's the New Thing this election cycle. The only real difference between his vapid ramblings and Hillary's vapid ramblings is that his spouse doesn't have a wandering eye.

On the primary issue, it's ridiculous that they have these things at all. The state parties should pick their delegates with NO instructions on how to vote and then let them decide the issue at the conventions. That would take the sails out of the "I wanna be FIRST IN THE NATION!" loons and make the conventions worth having again.

Steve,

I think the clear intimation was that it would even more humiliating for the Islamofascists to be slapped around by a woman or a brown person than being slapped around by a white man.

How could you miss that?

I'm not sure the parties would be best served by letting all states take turns at being first. Maybe the parties would do better to give the first primary election spots to those states that have most consistently voted in past primaries for candidates who went on to win the general election, and most consistently did NOT vote in past primaries for candidates who went on to LOSE the general election.

I guess I just got used to No Name commenters being snarky.

"I think the clear intimation was that it would even more humiliating for the Islamofascists to be slapped around by a woman or a brown person than being slapped around by a white man.

How could you miss that?"

Probably because Steve was hyperbolically suggesting how bad a Clinton or Obama presidency would be, and to take your comment the way you suggest would be suggesting how good a Clinton or Obama presidency would be, which doesn't really make much sense as a response.