I was disconcerted to read coverage in today's WaPo of Saturday's Rules and Bylaws Committee fight, both the main story and Dana Milbank's Sketch.  My issue is that a great deal of attention was paid to the fight, while little was given to why - if these people are sincere about fighting for voter right - this is a little late coming.

I found Neil Sinhababu's argument convincing, that there were legitimate reasons for what the DNC did. But you might feel otherwise.  You might find the DNC's decisions to deauthorize the Florida & Michigan primaries to be draconian.

But the time to argue about this was last year.  Check the timeline.  This didn't start in January.  Each candidate knew what the rules were in advance.  If Clinton supporters felt so strongly about disenfranchisement and civil rights, they've had seven months to make this case.  I'm pretty sure we haven't heard a peep out of them until the issue threaten Senator Clinton's campaign.

I'd love to push these people back on this point. This is like Africa & Selma?  Then where were your efforts on this front back in late 2007?  Where was the fight?  If this is a legitimate issue, then it shouldn't matter who benefits from the results.  And if you truly care about the voters, then what were you doing to protect them before their primaries took place, when not only the rights of those who voted would be protected, but also those who chose to stay home because they knew their vote wouldn't count?