Jake Tapper has the story:

There was a tornado watch outside the Democratic National Committee’s Rules & Bylaws Committee meeting at the Marriot Wardman Park Hotel Saturday afternoon. And there was a brewing storm inside the hotel as well.

A group of public officials — allies of both Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and Barack Obama — walked out of the hearing room to discuss their willingness to come together on a plan to seat all their delegates, each voting at half-delegate status, but representatives of the Clinton campaign from outside Florida interrupted their press conference to dispute the idea that the Clinton campaign agreed with the plan.

The "Florida unity" group, which included Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida, a Clinton supporter, Rep. Bob Wexler, D-Florida, am Obama supporter, and Florida Democratic National Committee member Jon Ausman of Tallahassee, who filed a challenge to the DNC’s decision to not recognize any of Florida’s delegates.

They seemed to come around the idea that for now the DNC would agree to seat Florida’s entire 211-member delegation at the Democratic National Convention in Denver this August, though all the delegates — pledged and superdelegates — would have their vote count as half a delegate. The move would net Clinton 19 pledged delegates. Participants seemed to agree that the door was open to the eventual Democratic nominee seating them at full strength if he or she so chose.

Clinton campaign surrogate Lanny Davis stood outside the circle and interrupted, raising his voice in protest that the Clinton campaign had agreed to anything less than a 100% seating of the delegates at 100% of their strength.

Nelson noted that he was speaking "on behalf of the voters of Florida," not on behalf of the Clinton campaign.

"They’re misrepresenting our stance," Davis said repeatedly.

Then Arthenia L. Joyner, Clinton’s designated Florida representative, approached the circle.

"The campaign is only for 100%," Joyner said.

Davis and Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio, a fiery supporter of Sen. Clinton’s, exchanged some heated words with Ausman after the Florida DNC member suggested they had no business speaking.

Davis took issue with some from the Florida unity group saying the Obama campaign’s concession was "generous" since Clinton would net 19 delegates.

"That is not generous when they take away 50%," Davis said. "That is spin!"

What’s wrong with netting 19 delegates? "It’s 19 less than the people of Florida voted," Davis said.

This was more than Florida DNC member Ausman could apparently take. "I can say they’re being generous," Ausman said of the Obama campaign, "and I’m the one who filed the petition."

"Are you a paid staff member for Clinton?" Ausman asked Davis.

"Actually I’m just a friend," said Davis.

"Are you a designated representative of the Clinton campaign?" Ausman, who may be a foot taller than Davis, asked.

"I am not," Davis said.

"Why don’t you let the designated representative speak for Clinton and you be silent?" Ausman said, more a statement than a question. "Are you from Florida?"

"Why don’t you go about your business?" Jones asked Ausman.

"As a matter of fact I will not be silent," Davis said, "you’re not going to silence me."

"You had your interview," interjected Jones. "Why don’t you let someone else be interviewed? I am the designated representative for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. My name is Stephanie Tubbs Jones and I represent the great state of Ohio.

"We don’t expect that the Obama campaign will be so ‘generous’ as to ‘give’ us the 19 delegates," Jones continued. "It is in fact more generous and more appropriate to count all the votes as they were cast."

1. First, Sen. Clinton is more experienced and qualified to be president than is Sen. Obama …
2. Second, Sen. Clinton’s position on health care gives her an advantage over Sen. McCain …
3. Third and finally, there is recent hard data showing that, at least at the present time, Sen. Clinton is a significantly stronger candidate against Sen. McCain among the general electorate

[...] First, Sen. Clinton is more experienced and qualified to be president than is Sen. Obama. This is not to say Sen. Obama cannot be a good, even great, president. I believe he can. But Sen. Clinton spent eight years in the White House. She was not a traditional first lady. She was involved in policy and debate on virtually every major domestic and foreign policy decision of the Clinton presidency, both “in” and “outside” the room with her husband. She has been a U.S. senator for eight years and has a record of legislative accomplishments, including as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

[...]

With no disrespect or criticism intended, Sen. Obama has been an Illinois state senator for eight years and a U.S. senator for just four years. He has, understandably, fewer legislative accomplishments than Sen. Clinton. That’s just a fact. Therefore, it is reasonable to argue that Sen. Clinton would be less vulnerable to criticism from Sen. McCain on the “experience” issue.

Second, Sen. Clinton’s position on health care gives her an advantage over Sen. McCain. Her proposal for universally mandated health care based primarily on private insurance and individual choices is a stark contrast to Sen. McCain’s total reliance on private market insurance, HMOs or emergency rooms for the 45 million or more uninsured. Sen. Obama’s position, while laudable in its objective, does not mandate universal care and, arguably, won’t challenge Sen. McCain as effectively as will Sen. Clinton’s plan.

Despite the fact that Sen. Obama’s campaign made the Iraq war a crucial issue in the Iowa caucuses and early primaries, there has never been a significant difference between his position and Sen. Clinton’s. Sen. Obama deserves credit for opposing military intervention in Iraq while he was running for the state senate in early 2002.

But in 2004, Sen. Obama said he “did not know” how he would have voted on the war resolution had he been a senator at the time. That summer he told the Chicago Tribune: “There’s not much of a difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage” of the Iraq War. (This is a statement that Sen. Clinton would not have made.) While he served in the Senate, he voted 84 out of 85 times the same as Sen. Clinton on Iraq-war related votes. The only exception is when he supported President Bush’s position on the promotion of a general that Sen. Clinton opposed.

Third and finally, there is recent hard data showing that, at least at the present time, Sen. Clinton is a significantly stronger candidate against Sen. McCain among the general electorate (as distinguished from the more liberal Democratic primary and caucus electorate).

According to Gallup’s May 12-25 tracking polling of 11,000 registered voters in all 50 states plus Washington, D.C., Sen. Clinton is running stronger against Sen. McCain in the 20 states where she can claim popular-vote victory in the primaries and caucuses. In contrast, Sen. Obama runs no better against Sen. McCain than does Sen. Clinton in the 28 states plus D.C. where he has prevailed. “On this basis,” Gallup concludes: “Clinton appears to have the stronger chance of capitalizing on her primary strengths in the general election.”

The 20 states, Gallup points out, not only encompass more than 60% of the nation’s voters, but “represent more than 300 Electoral College votes while Obama’s 28 states and the District of Columbia represent only 224 Electoral College votes.” Sen. Clinton leads Sen. McCain in these 20 states by seven points (50%-43%), while Sens. Obama and McCain are pretty much tied. But in the 26 states plus D.C. that Sen. Obama carried in the primaries/caucuses, he and Sen. Clinton are both statistically tied with Sen. McCain (Clinton 45%-McCain 47%; Obama 45%-McCain 46%).

Gallup’s state-by-state polling in seven key battleground “purple” states also shows Sen. Clinton winning cumulatively in these states by a six-point margin (49%-43%) over Sen. McCain, while Sen. Obama loses to Sen. McCain by three points – a net advantage of 9% for Sen. Clinton. These key seven states – constituting 105 electoral votes – are Nevada, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Mexico, Arkansas, Florida and Michigan.

Meanwhile, Sen. Obama holds about an equal advantage over Sen. McCain in six important swing states that he carried in the primaries and caucuses – Colorado, Oregon, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin and Missouri. But these constitute less than half – 54 – of the electoral votes of the larger states in which Sen. Clinton is leading.

The latest state-by-state battleground polls (published May 21-23) by other respected polling organizations verify Gallup’s findings that Sen. Clinton is significantly stronger against Sen. McCain in the key states that a Democrat must win to gain the presidency. According to various poll data within the last 10 days:

- Pennsylvania: Sen. Clinton leads McCain 50%-39%; Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain are effectively tied.

- Ohio: Sen. Clinton leads Sen. McCain 48%-41%, Sen. Obama is down 44%-40%.

- Florida: Sen. Clinton leads Sen. McCain 47%-41%; Sen. McCain leads Sen. Obama 50%-40%. (Sen. Clinton has a net advantage of 16 points!)

- North Carolina: Despite a substantial primary victory, Sen. Obama is down 8% vs. Sen. McCain, (51%-43%), while Sen. Clinton leads by 6% (49%-43%).

- Nevada: Sen. Clinton up 5%, Sen. Obama down 6%.

Even the theory that Sen. Obama can open up significant numbers of “red” states has not been borne out by recent polling. For example: in Virginia, which Sen. Obama won substantially in the Feb. 12 Democratic primary, he is currently down in at least one recent, respected poll by a significant 9% margin – one point greater than the 8% margin Sen. Clinton is behind Sen. McCain.

[...]

READ ALL.

We’ve written FIVE stories on Obama’s fear of debating Hillary again — because she whupped him in the last ABC News debate. All of our stories are listed below, along with the most choice quotes (and snarky imagery). Let’s begin with the extremely snarky “A Lincoln-Douglas Debate? But Obama Just Isn’t Up To It” …

When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Obama turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
  - From Riverdaughter’s blog

Barack Obama is cowering in fear of another embarrassing debate performance. In contrast, a confident Hillary Clinton is petitioning Obama to honor the debate he reneged on in North Carolina (originally scheduled today) and challenging him to more debates in Indiana and Oregon.

Today, Hillary Clinton upped the ante, proposing a 90-minute Lincoln-Douglas style debate before Indiana’s primary. Obama is sure to refuse.

“[I]ndescribably stupid” is what Tom Watson calls Obama’s repeated refusals to debate in North Carolina or Indiana. In “All the Wrong Moves,” Watson observes:

For one, running and hiding from Hillary looks, well, like running and hiding from Hillary. It cements that growing perception in the press that she’s tougher, and that he’s a brittle political actor - all smiles when the polls are moving upward, quite another story in stormy seas. When you’re running against a beloved American war hero and the Republican attack machine, this is never a good posture.

Secondly, it leaves Obama’s terrible performance in the last debate at the top of people’s minds when they think of the two Democrats duking it out. For all the hand-wringing about the inane ABC News questions in the debate’s first half, it was Obama’s sullen and seemingly lost persona that was the Philly battle’s real story. …

HERE ARE MORE NO QUARTER STORIES CHALLENGING OBAMA:

Sign Hillary’s Petition to Make Obama Honor His Promise to Debate in North Carolina — in which we pick up on Lanny Davis’s suggestion that it was HOWARD DEAN HIMSELF who got Obama out of the scheduled North Carolina debate:

Here are some of the series of stories we’ve done on Barack Obama’s failure to honor his commitment to debate in North Carolina (abetted, many suspect, by DNC chair Howard Dean), and his disinclination to debate in other important primary states such as Indiana and Oregon (not to mention Kentucky, West Virginia, Puerto Rico, and more primaries yet to come):

• “Hillary Asks Barry to Debate, Much More Nicely …” (in Oregon)
• “Lanny Davis and Evan Bayh Throw Down the Gauntlet” (on Obama’s running away from the North Carolina debate — and a video of Lanny Davis expressing his suspicion that Howard Dean was behind getting Obama out of the debate — and his failure to give the people of Indiana a debate on their soil), and
• “Obama Congregants: Waaaaa! Leave Barry Alone! No More Debates!” (on Obama ducking out of the No. Carolina debate).

FROM the APRIL 23 story:

Lannie Davis today, on Fox News, lowered the boom on Obama and Dean:

Barack, are you really that afraid of Katie Couric? (We know you’re scared s–tless of Hillary, but surely Katie will be easier than the ABC News team, right?) Are you that much of a wuss, Barack? If you are, let us know now. We can’t afford a president presidential nominee (because that’s as far as he’d get) who’s a wuss.

This rational discussion began March 31st on Lou Dobbs Tonight. A segment of the show was dedicated to the negative media bias against Hillary. [The VIDEOS are BELOW.] Perhaps most significant was the fact that Dobbs actually presented hard evidence that proved that the media was biased in favor of Obama.

LOU DOBBS TONIGHT

Those voices in favor of Senator Obama say Senator Clinton should end her campaign for quote “the good of the party.” And that a long campaign would quote “tear the party apart and ensure a Republican victory in November”, but when it comes to the largest audiences the three nightly broadcast newscasts, the bias is seemingly most pronounced. The nonpartisan Center for Media and Public Affairs has found that since last December, 83 percent of the reporting on Senator Obama was positive. Only 53 percent of the reporting on Senator Clinton was positive.

30% is a significant difference!
It seems clear that this pro-Obama media bias (Obamedia) is an intentional strategy concocted by the Obama campaign and the Obama media supporters.

Howard Kurtz, the Host of CNN’S RELIABLE SOURCES explains the strategy best. By keeping these all these calls for Hillary to drop out of the race in the news, it makes it impossible to use her best weapon in the arsenal: discussing the issues and presenting her solutions for America. If all people are talking about is how Hillary getting out now would be for the good of the party, or if she stays in and prolongs this nomination process it will tear the party apart and ensure a Republican victory in November then people won’t even listen to Hillary’s great progressive solutions to move our country forward. Because the solutions won’t be covered. And that is exactly what has been happening.

I think that should be up to the voters to decide and I think that by making this topic (A) in the race, it means that her message can’t get through on the economy or… Well, some of the stories have made that clear apparently, for example, calling on her to bow out. But look at my newspaper, “The Washington Post”, on Saturday front page headline, Clinton resist calls to drop out; Sunday front page headline, Clinton vows to stay in the race until convention, although that was an interview initiated by the senator saying that she is not getting out, but we won’t let her talk about anything else.

Get that? She won’t be able to talk about anything else. Her plan to fix the economy… means nothing. “She should do what is right for the party.” Her plan to provide for everyone to have health insurance… “but she can’t get enough delegates for the nomination”. Hillary up by double digits in PA, WV, KY and IN… “she is giving this election to McCain.”

See how easy this strategy works?

Lanny Davis had the courage to say what many of us have been thinking and writing about not so quietly for so long: This dreadful obvious double standard.

The second point, very quickly, Lou, is the double standard. We had this tremendous media frenzy, because I believe she made an honest mistake where news reporters at the time described and this is from the “Charleston Gazette” at the time in Bosnia that there were snipers protecting the first lady in a combat zone. She made an honest mistake when she said she was fired upon and we had two days or three days of media frenzy.

Now in the last three days we had Barack Obama on the front page of “The Post” yesterday where he misrepresented his father coming over to America through the use of Kennedy money. We have him taking credit for an immigration bill which he actually according to Senator Dodd had very little to do with. We have him saying that he didn’t know that Rezko was involved in wrongdoing…

So you all see how this double standard works now, Right? It is a very simple strategy.

First of all smear Hillary as a racist and a divisive figure who is only interested in herself and doesn’t care about the party. Gloss over the fact that Obama has a 20 year intimate relationship with a racist and a bigot. Kill that “typical white person” story. Next, make the case that she is a liar and reinforce that Republican meme by finding a single mistake she made and blowing it up as if it was an international incident. Cover up the fact that Obama lied about Selma and about his father’s relationship to JFK. Ignore the fact that Hillary has actually been all over the world and has met with countless foreign leaders while Obama couldn’t even find the time to convene an important meeting concerning NATO and Afghanistan. Facts hardly matter. Then, harp on the facts everyone already knows. She cannot win enough pledged delegates to win the nomination outright. But ignore the fact that Obama can’t either. And finally make her appear evil to actually want the entire country to decide who the nominee of our party is rather than do what traitors like Bill thirty pieces of silver Richardson, Pat democracy only when it makes me look important Leahy and Chris will you please convince the people of Connecticut to love me again.. here Dodd suggest.

It is a very undemocratic strategy to be certain. And in fact it is reminiscent of some of the most heinous Republican smear campaigns ever enacted. This makes Bush’s McCain sired a black baby campaign look like child’s play. People like Robert Gibbs and David Axelrod should be proud to have taken this Democratic party into the realm of fascism, party bosses, henchmen and thugs that this Chicago style Obama campaign prides itself on. They will certainly go down in the history books as the most vile campaign managed in recent history.

But here… have a look for yourself what was said on Dobbs show Sunday night.

Pretty cool eh? Well, maybe not if someone is an Obama supporter.

The best thing to all of this is that Dobbs didn’t just let the story go. It wasn’t a token gesture of actual journalism. No, Dobbs brought back what I consider to be a forgotten time, when journalists actually reported the news and did so in a manner that merely reported the cold hard facts accurately. Dobbs is not a talking head. He is someone that Murrow would be proud of. And to those who don’t know who I am referring to, it doesn’t surprise me in the least.

For the second night of examining the Obamedia anti-Hillary bias Dobbs decided to level the playing field. He started out stating the obvious point that no one else seems to be discussing.

Clinton Makes Declaration to Fight Until the End

As an Independent and I’ve got no view one way or the other on the Republican or the Democratic side of this thing. But what you said was she can’t win the nomination. Neither can Senator Obama.

Neither can Senator Obama! It’s about time someone actually said that. And it explains exactly why they want Hillary to get out of the race. Because in their eyes, Hillary is standing in the way of the Democratic party of making history. God, what a bunch of undemocratic, misogynistic, fascist hacks.

But Dobbs wasn’t satisfied just to state the obvious point that no one has even been whispering, he lays the whole thing out in a manner that even Axelrod and Plouffe won’t be able to explain away. Nor Saint Obama the Unifier, for saying it was ok with him if Hillary stayed in the race. So kind of his arrogant, pompous, privileged ass don’t you think?

And she has the lead in super delegate votes, so why in the world is there this compulsion, this absolute insistence in the national media to talk about the fact she can’t win the nomination? Neither can Senator Obama. And I have never seen in my career greater favoritism being applied in the national media broadly speaking than in this campaign in behalf of Senator Obama and against Senator Clinton.

You know something Lou? I have never seen anything like this in my lifetime either. Not in over a half century. And frankly, it seems more like fascism than democracy to me. Pure propaganda. While the current bias of the media does not violate the letter of the law because it is not Congress that is suppressing the press, we are surely witnessing a concerted assault to the spirit of the law. And it is a grave insult and injustice to all those gallant patriots that have sacrificed their lives and limbs to protect our Constitutionally guaranteed Freedom of the Press.

And what of our voice? Our votes? Yes, that guaranteed expression of our voices has been suppressed as well. But not by the Congress. It has been suppressed by none other than the Democratic National Committee. Coming soon to an oxymoron near you. Yes Howard I am from the Autocratic wing of the Democratic party Dean has determined that the unfair rules that three states (IA, NH and SC) are allowed to violate are more important than the votes of every state.

There is nothing more unfair than not, not to have those votes counted in Michigan and Florida. And if this is decided by super delegates without recognizing and counting and enfranchising those voters in Michigan and Florida, that’s when we’ll hear something unfair is it not?

Well a division of the delegates is not a vote. And a vote is required to be Democratic with both a small “d” and a large “D” in both in Michigan and in Florida. Can we agree on that, gentlemen?

That bears repeating: A division of the delegates is not a vote. I don’t know how anyone could have spoken this clearer.

In closing I leave you with the Mr. Dobbs himself. Because these printed words cannot possibly describe the absolute clarity and relevance of this wonderful American’s voice. Our country needs a lot more journalists like Lou Dobbs.

He is beginning to cause me to reexamine my objection to human cloning.

Thank you to C.S. for getting these videos to NoQuarter.