For these bloggers, a vast conspiracy of anti-Clinton media, party leaders and committees determined to "disenfranchise" the voters, and the personal intervention of the meddling kids on Senator Obama's campaign, have all conspired to "steal" this nomination. While I agree with DNC Chairman Dean that the media has acted absolutely disgracefully in this primary contest, I have a bone to pick about the other two contentions.

The truth is that Senator Clinton has, since 2005, held a 13 to 8 plurality of supporters on the Rules & Bylaws Committee, with 7 uncommitted members. (Source: New York Times) In fact, two top-level advisors to Senator Clinton's Presidential campaign and one of her national co-chairs actually had seats on the committee (Tina Flourney, Harold Ickes, and Don Fowler).If there was one place - one forum or semi-public adjudication - in which Senator Clinton had an opportunity to present her case regarding the Florida and Michigan delegation in front of a fair and impartial panel (with a plurality of her supporters, in fact) the Rules & Bylaws Committee meeting was that place.

It amazes me that there are bloggers on this site (front page bloggers, no less) who are either unable or unwilling to reconcile the plurality of Clinton supporters on the Rules & Bylaws Committee with this mildly entertaining theory that centers around a hyper-misogynistic election rigging conspiracy orchestrated by Howard Dean and Donna Brazille to deny Clinton the nomination in some secret smoke-filled room.

If Senator Obama was actually going to try to "steal" an election through a secret committee vote - he was going to have to hold in line each of his 8 supporters and convince every single one of the seven remaining uncommitted committee members just to achieve a narrow 15 - 13 victory (Jerome proposes that this would have been a 15-14 vote, but this is slightly difficult to for me to imagine, considering that there were only 28 voting members on the committee). Worse, Senator Obama would have been forced to reconcile to an angry public (including me) his capricious push for a highly partisan vote at a secret committee hearing with the rhetoric calling for party unity that his campaign has recently espoused. That, to me, would have been a difficult reconciliation.

The truth is that Senator Obama had the votes for 50-50 split of the Michigan delegation ( Source: Chuck Todd, MSNBC). His campaign could have made it a 15 - 13 vote. But after hours and hours of negotiations it became apparent that there were 4-5 Clinton partisans on the committee who were willing to put aside their allegiances and support the best available compromise between the positions of the two opposing campaigns. Sen. Obama threw his weight behind the MDP proposal because it had a better chance of attracting Clinton supporters on the committee. It wasn't about winning the vote - or "stealing" a measly four delegates from Senator Clinton (Come on people, some of the comments on this site are getting absolutely outrageous!) - it was about winning the vote with a solid margin, and showing a unified front for our party.

According to the conspiracy theories of a few prominent bloggers on MyDD, Senator Obama orchestrated the attempt to halve the delegations of Florida and Michigan and strip four delegates from Senator Clinton out of sheer spite for - and disenfranchisement of - the voters of those two states and out of a blatant violation of party rules. The truth is that Harold Ickes, Tina Flourney, and a unanimous Rules and Bylaws Committee voted to strip all of the delegates from these two states as a means of enforcing party rules which are which are designed to prevent a chaotic primary calendar. Seating delegations from the two states with any voting power whatsoever - especially after going forward with beauty contest elections in which neither candidate campaigned and one wasn't even on the ballot - was a reasonable effort to respect the input of the voters in Florida and Michigan without engaging in a partisan hatchet-job to erase a delegate lead which was established in fair contests in which both candidates participated.

The truth is that the halving of state delegations was a plan supported by the Florida Democratic Party as a means of enforcing - and not bending - party rules. The plan to use the number of uncommitted votes in addition to exit polling data in order to create a 69 - 59 split in the Michigan delegation was agreed upon by Senator Levin (uncommitted) and supported and proposed by the Michigan Democratic Party as a means of creating a fair compromise between the positions of the two campaigns. When Don Fowler - a prominent Clinton supporter and not some Chicago-style election-rigging expert (Again...what is with these ridiculous comments on this site?) - threw his weight behind the Michigan plan - Ickes and Flourney knew that it was over. It wasn't a 15 - 14 back-room decision, Jerome - in fact, the vote wasn't even close.

These prominent bloggers demand to "Count Every Vote!" - yet at the same time, the Clinton "popular vote lead" - which is cited in conspiracy theories to justify the notion of a "stolen" nomination - excludes the votes and participation of people in no less than fourteen party caucuses where activists who are the heart and soul of the Democratic Party chose to express their Presidential preference. I agree wholeheartedly with Senator Clinton that every vote should count in the primary, and I agree with Senator Levin that the vice-grip on the nominating process held by Iowa and New Hampshire needs to go. But if we're going to count and respect every voter's input, let's do so in an intellectually honest manner.

A number of prominent bloggers on this site have led themselves to believe that it was Senator Obama who, by removing his name from the Michigan ballot, disenfranchised voters in the State of Michigan. As this particular conspiracy theory goes, the campaigns of Senators Obama and Edwards conspired together to take their names off the Michigan ballot.

These particular bloggers seem more willing to engage in the Chewbacca Defense than any reasonable discussion of fact. "THIS is Senator Obama. Senator Obama is a wookie. Wookies are from Chicago. Chicago is the Windy City. Wind blows away ballots. Ballots were cast for Senator Clinton. Therefore, the election was rigged." Game. Set. Match.

While it is true that Senators Edwards and Obama both filed paperwork to remove themselves from the Michigan ballot on Tuesday, October 9th, 2007...we would have to include Senator Biden's campaign in that vast conspiracy as well! And New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson withdrew his name from the Michigan ballot in a letter written on Monday, October 8th! (Source: Chicago Tribune) While Senator Clinton decided to remain on the Michigan ballot, she was careful to assure voters in Iowa and New Hampshire that " this election they're having is not going to count for anything," during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio's call-in program, "The Exchange."

In the end, the utter beauty contest that was the Michigan primary ultimately did not "count for anything". Fortunately, however the clearer heads on the Rules and Bylaws Committee - one whose make-up was downright favorable to Senator Clinton in terms of relative support - acknowledged the obvious need to respect the input of the voices of Florida and Michigan without arbitrarily throwing the delegate count toward one candidate or another...and while maintaining an enforcement of party rules.

I'm fine with the biased opinion...in fact, for a while, I preferred it. It was nice for a while that I could read the writing of a number of prominent bloggers on this site and finally feel comfortable that a progressive could support Sen. Clinton and not be attacked constantly. But I'm sick of the misinformation, especially when it seems to be both deliberate and deceitful. These myths have already been rebuked, and, in the fairest forum yet.