Okay, I was wrong--partially--when I speculated that the meeting of the Democratic Party's rules committee would be anti-climactic. There was a climax--even if it was possibly a faux climax. It was not produced by the committee. The panel did the predictable thing: it seated Florida's disputed delegation, giving each delegate half a vote, and it did essentially the same thing with Michigan, assigning the uncommitted votes to Barack Obama. So at the end of the (long day), Hillary Clinton netted more delegates, but Obama maintained his seemingly insurmountable lead in pledged delegates. That was what was expected of the Democratic insiders on the committee. What was unexpected: Harold Ickes' reaction at the end.

After the committee voted 19-8 in favor of the Michigan plan, Ickes, a top Clinton aide and a member of the committee, issued what will from now on be known as the Ickes Proclamation. He declared that the committee was hijacking delegates from Clinton. "I am stunned that we have the gall and chutzpah to substitute our judgment for 600,000 voters," he said. He presented a threat: "I submit to you that hijacking four delegates is not a good way to start down the path of party unity." And he dropped a bomb: Clinton reserved the right to appeal the decision before the credentials committee at the convention.

It was as if Ickes was saying, "Watch out, we're going to the mattresses." Too bad he's not heavier; otherwise, James Gandolfini could play him in the HBO movie.

But his threat was odd. It could only put off the superdelegates that Clinton still hopes--against hope--to convince. It also undermined one possible Clinton game plan: be a good soldier, do everything possible to help Obama win, and then, should he lose to John McCain, proclaim, "I told you so" and automatically become the Democratic front-runner for 2012. And with all his talk of "hijacking" and top-down elitism, Ickes was questioning the legitimacy of the process that is on the verge of handing Obama the top prize. Ickes was pushing a rhetorical point--Obama's win ain't legit--that Clinton herself has made.

Then there's the substance of Ickes' outrage. He pilloried his fellow rules committee members for supposedly overriding the will of Democratic voters in Michigan. They really hadn't. It was impossible to know the will of Michigan Ds because Obama was not on the ballot for the state's disputed primary contest. But handing delegates only to Clinton would have been patently unfair. That aside, Ickes' argument was situational, not principled. His campaign's overall strategy (and its only chance) is to persuade superdelegates to choose Clinton even if Obama has won more delegates in the primaries and caucuses. So who's the true fan of voter-first, small-d democracy?

Ultimately, Ickes' threat may not matter. If Clinton suspends her campaign shortly after the primaries end on Tuesday and (after a period of mourning) gets on board the Obama express, Ickes tough words will be forgotten. Clinton even could raise the issue at the convention as the losing candidate in a fashion that would not be too disruptive--that is, if she has endorsed Obama and does not tie the Michigan fight to any outcome in the nomination process. But if she and Ickes and the rest of the Clinton posse continue to question the legitimacy of Obama's victory, there will be problems. For the moment, they can play it both ways. But they soon have to decide if their threats are empty or real.

When was the last time that cable news shows provided extensive coverage of a party rules committee meeting? If memory serves correctly, never. There's been a big media buildup to Saturday's Democratic Party rules committee get-together, where party insiders will hash out what to do about those disputed Michigan and Florida delegations. But the all-day long affair is likely to be a bust as media spectacles go.

First and foremost, as many others have noted (and noted), the outcome will not affect who's ahead in pledged delegates. If any delegates are approved--and the likely scenario is that at least half of the chosen delegates in each state will be okayed by the party--Hillary Clinton will cut Barack Obama's lead in delegates chosen by voters. But she won't overcome it. So Obama's camp can afford to be generous and compromise. Clinton, though, is insisting there be no compromise. She is playing the role of Moses, proclaiming, "let my people go"--that is, declaring that all the disputed delegates from these two states ought to be freed from DNC purgatory and afforded full rights at the Democratic convention. (Days ago, I explained why this is a phony argument.)

The party insiders who end up on rules committees are the type of political operatives who can work through the arcane details of party rules to strike decent deals. So it's likely that some arrangement will be hammered out. It won't be all the Clintonites are demanding. But will she then continue her campaign as a crusade for Florida and Michigan? That's doubtful. She seems to be winding down--perhaps coming to terms with a hard-to-face reality.

The DNC rules meeting is part of the step-by-step drawdown of her campaign. Think of a deep-sea diver who rises from the depths in phases so as to not get the bends. First, she had her good showings in West Virginia and Kentucky. Then she was a faux defender of democracy at the rules meeting. Next she will be Queen of Puerto Rico. Finally--finally?--she will cross the finish line with the South Dakota and Montana primaries on Tuesday. But then the race will be done. She may need a few days to confirm that her argument to the superdelegates--choose me because I have the better chance of beating John McCain--is not carrying the day. And she will have to end--or suspend--her campaign.

I've noted before that Hillary Clinton and her crew are probably now playing for 2012. (See here.) She's setting up a gigantic I-told-you-so, in case Obama loses to McCain in November. And imagine how much stronger her case will be if Obama goes down by losing Florida and/or Michigan. So her game plan, I'm guessing, is to do everything possible to rack up as many popular votes (and as many blue-collar voters) and to do all she can for the disputed delegates of Michigan and Florida--before she exits the race. That will put her in a rather strong (and, to some, an irritating) position should Obama flame out.

Which means that the DNC rules committee meeting is political theater, a show that likely won't mean much--and won't do much for Clinton in the current race. But it could become quite relevant if she ends up running for president in 2012.

I have to admit it: I'm not smart enough to follow Hillary Clinton's line of reasoning. In an interview on Saturday, she declared she was in the race until the convention. And in making this vow, she cited Florida and Michigan:

"We cannot go forward until Florida and Michigan are taken care of, otherwise the eventual nominee will not have the legitimacy that I think will haunt us," said the senator from New York. "I can imagine the ads the Republican Party and John McCain will run if we don't figure out how we can count the votes in Michigan and Florida."

Clinton and her spinners keep saying that Florida and Michigan could be lost to the Democrats in November if the Democratic National Committee does not accept the delegates elected in those states (in early primaries not approved by the national party) or if there is no do-over in those states (as now appears unlikely). But do they have any basis for saying this? Presumably, the Republicans and independents in Florida and Michigan won't give a damn that the Democrats (with help from Republicans in the legislatures) screwed up the primary elections in these two states. The Rs and Is who can be won over by either Barack Obama or Clinton (whoever is the nominee) are not likely to be swayed against the Democrat because Democratic delegates from their states were not recognized by the national party. What sort of ads can change that? ("Republicans, the Democratic Party doesn't care about Democratic voters in your state.")

As for the Democrats, HRC appears to be suggesting that if she is the nominee she will not be able to excite the Ds in Michigan and Florida--where she did well in the unapproved primaries. (Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan; and neither he nor Clinton campaigned in Florida.) Does she truly believe that Democrats eager to punish George W. Bush's Republican Party will vengefully vote for John McCain or stay home because of a procedural matter? Will they really respond to a GOP ad that says, "The Democratic Party did not want to count your vote, so you should vote for the Republicans"? Would that play with Democrats in, of all places, Florida, where GOPers shut down the 2000 recount? And if Clinton was not the nominee but campaigning hard for Obama, could she and Obama not rally the Democratic faithful in Michigan and Florida in the general election?

It seems that Clinton's argument is predicated on the assumption that Democratic voters are peevish, resentful grudge-holders willing to cut off their noses to spite the national party--and hand the White House back to the Republicans. Are they really sooooo sensitive and beyond the reach of the persuasive powers of Obama and/or Clinton? If Clinton believes she cannot win over the Democrats in Michigan and Florida in November, maybe she shouldn't be in the race.

John McCain, the war ain't helping you. That is, all the war advocates who have recently been mouthing happy talk about the Iraq war are not doing McCain any favors. And he can include himself in that group.

Look at the Michigan primary. Mitt Romney finally won a gold medal last night and whooped McCain by 9 points. Half the voters in Michigan said that the economy was the No. 1 issue. Only one-fifth pointed to Iraq. Among those who cited the economy, Romney bested McCain 41 to 29 percent. Of course, Michigan is in a near-depression, and it comes as no surprise that GOP voters there are looking more for an economic savior than a military commander who can keep Iraqi insurgents from coming over here to attack our malls. And during the campaign Romney did his best to pander to Michiganders, promising to bring back the golden age of automobile manufacturing. McCain, though, told 'em to suck it up and get with Plan B (retraining and education for non-automaking jobs). Thus, the candidate of national security was trounced by the candidate of economic miracles.

McCain and his strategists can dismiss the Michigan loss as inevitably due to the specific circumstances of the Michigan economy. But that might be whistling past the shutdown factory. The meta-narrative these days is this: the war is going well, the U.S. economy is rushing toward a recession. It doesn't matter whether this is an accurate depiction of reality. After all, the war in Iraq has hardly turned the corner, and even the recent passage of a de-Baathification law in the Iraqi parliament was not much of a true success. (Almost a half of the body didn't turn up for the vote, and its passage pissed off Sunnis and Shias alike, with many of the former remaining unconvinced this legislation will change much for them.) But if GOP voters believe--or hear repeatedly--that the surge is working, they have less reason to fret about the war, and less reason to feel a need for McCain.

What other issue is McCain known for these days? Maybe pork-busting. But he's never had much of a profile on grand economic matters. Conservatives still hold a grudge against him for not being a passionate tax-cutter. So if the pending--or already-arrived--recession is now the worry of the moment for GOP voters, McCain doesn't meet the demand. Enter Romney, Mr. CEO. The guy who gave us Staples and cheap paper clips. In Michigan, his economy-first message triumphed. Could he do the same elsewhere?

For months, McCain has been proclaiming that the surge is succeeding. And with such pronouncements filling the media, Iraq has become a less salient issue for voters in both parties. McCain might end up a victim of his own success.

DEMS DO NEVADA. It was a rather low-key debate in Las Vegas on Tuesday night for the Democratic presidential contenders. They all played nice. They all looked exhausted. Here's my report from MotherJones.com:

What did the umpteenth Democratic presidential debate, held in Nevada on Tuesday night, demonstrate? That Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton each need a nap. The trio looked worn out. Perhaps that was why few punches were thrown. The Iraq war, the politics of race, tears (or near tears)--the Democratic contest had become rather heated in recent days. Clinton, using misleading information, had accused Obama of being a disingenuous hypocrite regarding the war. Obama's camp had seized on a comment Clinton had made to Fox News and assailed her for supposedly dissing Martin Luther King Jr. And Edwards had snidely insinuated Clinton might not be strong enough to be president (after she became emotional at a campaign stop in New Hampshire). It was getting nasty.

But in Las Vegas, there was relative calm. And no one hit the jackpot. Sure, there were a few pokes. Clinton declined to state that Obama and Edwards are prepared to be president. Edwards noted that Clinton and Obama had pocketed campaign contributions from corporate executives. Obama suggested that Clinton was using the specter of a future terrorist attack to scare people into voting for her. Overall, though, the three stuck to their positive scripts. Obama: I can inspire, mobilize, and bring together a divided nation. Clinton: I have the experience to be ready on Day One to solve problems for you and your children. Edwards: I will fight to my last breath for middle-class and low-income Americans. (Clinton did have a Clintonian moment when she acknowledged that she had voted for the anti-consumer bankruptcy bill of 2001 but "was happy that it never became law." In other words, I voted for it but didn't inhale.)

The major clash of the night came over...energy policy....

You can read the rest here.