The DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee has made its decision about the Florida and Michigan delegates. I'm not going to bother with the details, because the vast majority of those who have been screaming about the roooooolz have no actual understanding of them, anyway. So, I'm going to keep this simple and straightforward: those of you who have been screaming about the rules, please show me where the rules provide for the DNC to simply allocate pledged delegates to a candidate who was not by any of the absurd allocation rules voted those pledged delegates. I don't care about what you think was fair, or what you want people to believe someone once said about the two states and their alleged rules violations, or who you think has won or is more electable or is nicer or more honest or whatever some of you love to rant about, no matter whether or not it relates to the actual posted topic. I want you to show me the rule that says a candidate who was not voted pledged delegates from a state can simply be awarded pledged delegates by the DNC. Because the rules were changed, today, in the middle of the game, but not by Hillary Clinton or her supporters.
Anyone who truly believes that our nominating process is honest and democratic has no idea what they're talking about. That doesn't mean that we won't have a legitimate nominee, because when the party is run by adherents of Calvinball, there is no such thing as legitimacy or illegitimacy. But legitimate does not mean democratic. Which the Democratic Party is not.
UPDATE (and a h/t to commenter NR): Kagro X, in a post titled "I'm wearing armor right now. And Harold Ickes was right"...
Now, everybody knows that a substantial portion of the people who came out to vote for "uncommitted" in Michigan did so because they really wanted to vote for Obama, but he wasn't on the ballot (which was his own doing, whatever you may think of his motivations for doing it). But the bottom line is that the consequence of that withdrawal is that the only facts that can be definitively stated about those votes is that they were for "uncommitted." They could mean this. They could mean that. But they do mean "uncommitted."
Or at least they did, until they were sprinkled with magic pixie dust over lunch this afternoon. Because when the RBC came back, they were magically transformed into votes that said, "Yes, we said 'uncommitted,' but we really meant 'Barack Obama.'"
And maybe that was even true. The point, though, is that the RBC had no mechanism under the rules by which they are entitled to make that decision. No mechanism, that is, except one: the prerogative of the rules committee to say -- provided it can muster the votes for it -- that the rules can go jump in the lake.
And that's what they did today.
Nobody in the comments has answered my question, because it can't be answered. I hope some of you will listen to Kagro. Because hardcore Clinton supporters have every right to be upset, tonight. I'm going to vote for Obama, in November, but he's not going to win unless more hardcore Clinton supporters also vote for him. The DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee today made that a much more tenuous prospect.