See article here regarding the fundraising "edge" that the RNC/McSame have over the DNC/Obama.  A few things in there confused me, I was hoping fellow Kossacks could help.  Most of my befuddlement comes from the whole "primary election" funds vs. "general election" funds distinction, though media bias in general also had me scratching my head.

CNN reports that three more superdelegates have endorsed Sen. Obama today -- Reps. David Price (NC-4) and Mel Watt (NC-12) of North Carolina and newly-elected André Carson (IN-4) of Indiana.

I may be a political junkie, but I have other interests as well.  I'm a huge hockey fan, and even though I live in the Detroit metro area, my favorite team is the Dallas Stars.  I grew up in Kalamazoo, and for thirteen years, we were the home of the primary minor-league affiliate for the Minnesota / Dallas franchise.  I also think it's fun to make fun of Red Wings fans. :)  I never figured these two main interests of mine would ever converge.

I can't vote for a Repub.  I'm sorry, Kos, I just can't do it.  I understand the logic; yes, it would help us out if the GOP race lingered on and stayed a 3-man race.  Winning MI would certainly help Romney's campaign.  But he doesn't need our help and dismissing tomorrow's Michigan Democratic primary as a "straw poll" is bad strategy for Democrats.

Update: Oops, looks like I type too slow - none other than the Bob Alexander mentioned in the story scooped me.

Update #2: Forgot to mention, CNN had this AP article as front-page news on the politics section of their website.  MSNBC now does as well.  I'm no fan of the MSM, but this would indicate to me a pattern; perhaps we'll see some coverage by the talking heads later today?

There may be a possible chink in Hillary Clinton's expected landslide victory in Michigan's otherwise irrelevant Jan. 15th primary.  Although she's the only candidate currently polling nationally in double-digits who will actually be listed on the ballot, Obama and Edwards (and Richardson and Biden) supporters now appear to have another option.  As a CNN/AP story reports ("Clinton faces unusual opponent in Michigan"), Michigan votes will have the option to vote for "Uncommitted."  If enough people vote this way, these "Uncommitted" delegates could later go to another candidate.  Even possibly Al Gore, Democratic activist Bob Alexander hopes.

The Democratic National Committee's decision to bar Florida's delegates (and possibly Michigan's) from participating in next August's convention needs to be reversed.  Immediately.  Not only does it effectively disenfranchise primary voters from these two very important swing states, it allows the GOP to gain exposure in otherwise blue-leaning states.

While the leading (and some 2nd-tier) Democratic candidates have signed a "Four State Pledge," caving in to IA, NH, NV, and SC (great diary, BTW, okamichan13), the GOP has planned a primary right here in Dearborn on October 9th, according to WDIV's "Click on Detroit" website.

Let me preface this diary (my first one, I might add :) by stating that I will vote for the Democratic nominee next November, no matter what.  This diary should not be read as just another anti-Hillary diary, as I personally have nothing against Senator Clinton, nor do I think she would make a "weak" candidate, as many pundits on both sides of the aisle have stated repeatedly (though I have to admit, I do think she'd hurt us downticket).  I simply do not want to see the level of corruption, cronyism, and deception that is present in the Republican Party seep into our party.

It has been nearly 32 years since a Republican-controlled Executive Branch has not contained a fellow named Bush as either the first- or second-in-command.  We have to go all the way back to the Ford/Rockefeller administration--even then, a Bush influence still appears.  While looking up the name of Ford's VP on Wikipedia (forgive me, I'm only 24), I learned that when Ford nominated Rockefeller as VP, "Rockefeller's top competitor [for the nomination] had been George H.W. Bush."