As they say, it's all over but the shouting.  The Democratic Party Rules and Bylaws Committee approved compromises over seating the Michigan and Florida delegations.  And many hardcore Clinton supporters are bitter and clinging to the notion of voting for John McCain.  To them, Barack Obama is the Anti-Christ. 

A reporter for The New Republic went to the protest outside the meeting hall.  There, some supporters lobbed accusations that Obama was a murderer and engaged in gay sex.  They proudly had their pictures taken with a man who has been peddling a story that he had oral sex with Obama in a limo.  Classy stuff.

I wandered over to Taylor Marsh's blog, which is a primary outpost for the Clintonistas.  They are indignant over the notion that every vote should count.  Or rather, every vote for Clinton should count.

Until a couple of days ago, it didn't dawn on me that when you see those stats regarding the so-called popular vote in the primaries, in which Michigan and Florida are included, the only reason that Clinton overtakes Obama is because she gets a 327,000+ vote cushion from Michigan.  Where Obama was not on the ballot.  So her popular vote argument is premised on the notion that not a single person in Michigan would have voted for Barack Obama had he been on the ballot.  On the Disingenuousness Scale, this has to be a 10 (assuming that: a) such a scale exists, and, b) it would only go from 1 to 10).

Of course, as most folks who've considered this issue realize, the whole ginned up controversy here is premised on disingenuousness.  If this delegate issue were a lawsuit, Clinton would not even be able to put forth the arguments made on her behalf.  It would be due to the legal principle of estoppel.

Estopple precludes a litigant from taking one position during litigation and then taking the opposite position later on in the litigation.  Here, Clinton's people, including Harold Ickes, who was breathing fire yesterday, voted to penalize Florida and Michigan.  Consistent with that position, Clinton did not campaing in either state.  As we all know, she was one of the few candidates to keep her name on the Michigan ballot.

In the days leading up to the Michigan primary, Clinton unequivocally stated that the Michigan results would not count.  This is something that no Clinton supporter that I've heard has been able to explain away.  Clinton did not take the same stand on Florida, where Obama was on the ballot, largely because Obama was ahead of her at that point.  She even had a victory rally in Florida, in an attempt to deflect some of the attention from Obama victories in states that held legitimate primaries.

Clinton supporters never offered an adequate response to a point made by some of the spekers for Obama:  the turnout in Florida and Michigan was extremely low in comparison to the record numbers in other states (in the bottom 5, with two of the other states being Utah and Arizona, where Mitt Romney and John McCain, respectively, skewed the vote).  The evidence is quite clear that many simply stayed home. 

This hurts the disenfranchisement argument, because it shows that many voters didn't bother to vote, respecting the Democratic Party's ruling.  It is simply impossible to claim that either primary reflected the intent of all of the voters.

Yes, caucuses always keep people out.  But at least everyone knows that going into the process.  And everyone in every caucus state knew that his or her vote would count.

Regardless, as Donna Brazile put it, her mom told her to follow the rules.  And someone who tries to change the rules midway through or at the end of the game is a cheater.