I was driving my friend to the airport so that he could catch a plane to France, and before I let him off in the Departures/Arrivals area, he said, “When I get back in the States hopefully we will have a Democratic nominee.”

Knowing him, it translated: Obama needs to be the democratic nominee when I return. Which could have meant: Superdelegates need to make a decision and soon. Or: Hillary needs to give up hope.

My friend jaunted through France for a couple weeks, and with no avail, there was no nominee. Personally, France sounds like a charming locale in relation to the situation here.

Tomorrow the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the Democratic National Committee will meet and discuss exactly how to, well, break the rules; or perhaps, how to bend the rules enough to make Michigan and Florida voters feel important while at the same time punishing their false start.

The Committee fears that leaving all the delegates unseated will cause the two states to exit from the Democratic fold (Michigan more so than Florida) thus advantaging McCain and the Republican Party. Instead the Committee will consider a rapprochement between an all or nothing dilemma that seats some or most of the Michigan and Florida delegates.

Regardless of the current relevancy of a rule qua a rule, I predict that the Pragmatician and the Politician will throw down their cards and the Washington Game will be replayed at the expense of the those who just want a simple straight game, one with rules, players and the like.

Along with many others, I feel the effects of a 18 to 24 month election season.

Changing rules in the middle of a game sounds alright. Wait, where have I heard that before. It was said in the 2004 election quite similarly, though negatively, we cannot change leaders in the middle of a war. Though it is a bit late for that situation, it concerns me that the workings of a party can be so, well, pragmatic.