Who is Nedra PIckler and why is she saying all those terrible things?   The bias and dishonesty of the press in this entire nominating process has been well known. But it still needs to be pointed out and names named and people held accountable whenever it rears its ugly head. The latest example is from an Associated Press writer named Nedra Pickler.   Her most recent application to rise in the ranks of America's journalistic and politburo is a piece about Florida and Michigan on May 28th.   In an article under a byline by the Associated Press (which is showing every day the need to rename their wire service the Disassociated Press since they are getting further and further away from reality) Pickler tells us that according to Democratic lawyers seating the entire Florida and Michigan delegates may be illegal.   I don't know how much thought Pickler has given to the proposition that in 1789 the Constitution gave the sole power to make laws to the Congress and not the Democratic Rules Committee, but that is the case.. The DNC rules have nothing to do with the law. In fact Arlen Specter has already said he thinks the DNC punishment in question is probably unconstitutional and wants a congressional investigation if the DNC does not seat all the delegates. But Pickler, who has a history of seeing things through Obama colored glasses reports to us that it might be illegal to seat all the delegates.   Picker also writes that it would be a real problem to fully seat both delegations because, not only might it be illegal, but how could anyone figure out how to divide the delegates? How oh how could it possibly be done?   Obviously Pickler and her editors haven't considered using the results of the elections as a way to do it since that is what the elections were there for in the first place.Fore some reason this possibility eludes them.   Then Pickler adds:: "That's especially true in Michigan, where Obama had his name pulled from the ballot. He didn't have the option of removing his name in Florida, but all the candidates signed a pledge not to campaign in either state."   That is what she said. And her editors let it go. Obama had his name pulled from the ballot.   One imagines Pickler trying to convey the image of a gallant Obama, engaged in a struggle with Democratic party leaders in Michigan who were trying to pull his name from the ballot, engaged in a monumental tug of war with Obama on one side, party leaders in the other, pulling hard against overwhelming odds. Yes in Pickler's mind there was a real knock down drag out fight,in Michigan with Obama putting up the good fight, fighting tooth and nail to keep his name on the ballot, but alas to no avail as the gallant warrior bruised but not bowed, clothes tattered and torn, hopelessly outnumbered, had his name pulled from the ballot.   At this point one imagines Pickler dabbing her nose and eyes with her hanky, then soldiering on to finish her article.   I suppose this astute political journalist never saw the story in the Des Moines Register of Oct 2007, that Obama, as a political ploy because his internal polling showed he was going to get buried in Michigan by 20 pts, did his own pulling, He did it both to pander to Iowans and their first in the nation status before the caucus, and in the hopes that others would follow suit ( only Edwards did) and embarrass Clinton as the only name on the ballot. What Pickler also doesn't seem to know ( or maybe knows and chooses to ignore) is that Obama arranged to have his name on the ballot represented as "Uncommitted" and made sure it was well publicized throughout Michigan. Every voter in the state knew it which is why "Uncommitted" drew 40% of the vote (combined with Edwards). John Conyers even financed radio commercials to get the message out.   As for dividing the vote, it seems to be beyond Pickler's ability to see, ( or maybe she just doesn't want to) But it's fairly simple and straightforward to give Edwards the 14% he averaged in all his primaries and give Obama 26%. Given that Obama's own polling showed him losing by 20 pts and that Clinton received 56% of the vote, my formula seems to have a lot more validity than Pickler's fantasies.   But our intrepid journalist wasn't finished. She wrote this - "As it becomes clear that Obama likely will win the nomination.."   The question of course is clear to who? The majority of people in the Democratic Party who have voted for Clinton to be the nominee? Is it clear to them? Is it clear to the pollsters and the people who do the electoral vote projections that shows Clinton beats McCain handily in electoral votes while Obama gets crushed by McCain? The projection as of May 28th shows Clinton beating McCain in the electoral college 327-194. What the projection also shows is that Clinton wins Kentucky and W.Va. and Obama loses both. But Pickler says "it's become clear that Obama will likely win the nomination".   Is it really clear ? Or is Pickler thinking about her future, trying to show the same collection of people who called Bush's case for war in Iraq "irrefutable" that she can be as inept as biased and as corrupt as they are?