OK, I do realize that everyone is already sick of the term "cromnibus." I'm no exception -- I was sick of it the first time I heard it, in fact. But seeing as how we've only got one more week of talking about it (before it becomes an answer in political barroom trivia games of the future), I felt it was time to stretch the inane metaphor once again. Because today the subject on Capitol Hill is riders. That's right, the riders on the cromnibus.

I paused there, in my typing, to allow time for everyone to cringe. Just to let you know.

The House has just passed their "We hate Obama! Obama sucks!" bill (I'm sure it had some formal name, but that's what it amounts to), to appease the Tea Partiers. It will be completely ignored in the Senate, as it should be. Boehner only rounded up two votes more than a majority, which is kind of a weak showing since Republicans have a much bigger caucus than that. Which means that more than one Republican must have objected to what amounts to "government by tantrum," but that's a subject for another day.

Boehner is now whipping votes for the cromnibus budget bill. He has said he'll release the text of the bill next Tuesday, and it must be passed by Thursday or the federal budget turns into a pumpkin. A reported 30 or 40 Tea Partiers may not vote for it, though, which would leave Boehner short of the votes needed for passage. Which is why he's already courting Democratic votes.

The Washington Post ran an article today on the state of such negotiations, which contained the following passage:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that she is open to backing Boehner if Republicans don't shift the legislation to curry favor with conservatives in the coming days.

"We want to work together to pass a bill to keep government open as we had to supply the votes last year to open up government," Pelosi said at a news conference. "Let us supply the votes to keep government open. But we can't do it unless we have a bill that is worthy of our support."

With congressional appropriators continuing to negotiate details of the spending bill, senior Democratic aides have warned that it will be difficult for Republicans to earn bipartisan support if the bill includes policy "riders" that strip away funding or the powers of perennial GOP targets, including the Environmental Protection Agency and smaller regulatory bodies. Any attempt to block the District of Columbia from legalizaing [sic] marijuana also would earn the ire of Democrats, aides warned.

Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) also cautioned in an interview Wednesday that packing the spending bill with GOP-backed riders could reduce Democrats' willingness to offer a hand.

Pelosi is essentially saying: "We've saved John Boehner from his own Tea Partiers in the past, and we'll do it this time too -- but only if he bars them from loading up the bill with odious veto-bait that Obama's never going to sign into law anyway. If he can be responsible, then so can we."

But one phrase in that passage really leapt out at me: "Any attempt to block the District of Columbia from [legalizing] marijuana also would earn the ire of Democrats, aides warned." This is heartening, to say the least, and if true represents a turning point of sorts in how Democratic politicians handle the issue of marijuana legalization.

Some historical context is needed here. First, there has been a notable timidity from Democrats when it comes to standing up for both "the will of the people" and (more directly) for marijuana legalization. We're not talking medical marijuana here, but full legalization for adult recreational purposes. Democrats are roughly where they were on gay marriage in 2008 on the legalization issue right now -- they know in their heart of hearts which way the arc of history is going to bend, but they are terrified to show some actual leadership because highly-paid political consultants warn them it might cost them votes. Which is why this could be such a notable turning point -- if Democrats hold firm on the issue in the midst of high-stakes budget games, then perhaps it signifies a real turnaround in their political calculus.

But we're not done with the historical context yet, so I'm getting ahead of myself. Washington DC is not a state, it is a federal district (it's right there in the name, in the "DC" part). What this means is that the federal government (or Congress) has the final say on its laws. Back in 1998, the District put a medical marijuana initiative on the ballot. Republicans (aided and abetted by some Democrats, to be fair) absolutely freaked out, and passed some of the most anti-democratic (small "d") measures ever seen in America. Don't believe me? When it became clear to everyone that the initiative was going to pass with an overwhelming majority in the District, Republican Bob Barr (who has since seen the light and is now a marijuana-rights lobbyist) pushed through a measure, known as the "Barr Amendment," that not only declared that medical marijuana couldn't be legalized in DC, but also prevented the counting of the votes. Yes, you read that right. It took a lawsuit to even release the vote tally, because the bill specified that the DC elections board could not spend any funds counting the votes. It was a desperation move, but it worked for a remarkably long time. It wasn't until 2002 that a judge ruled that the vote count could be officially released (69 percent voted in favor of it), and it wasn't until 2011 that the Barr Amendment was thrown out by Congress and medical marijuana was officially sanctioned in the District. For 13 years, Congress blocked the will of 7 out of 10 DC voters, to put this another way.

Jump forward to the present. DC voters -- again, overwhelmingly -- just passed another ballot initiative in the 2014 election, which would legalize the possession of marijuana in the District for recreational use. Once again, a conservative Republican has sworn he's going to do everything in his power to block the will of the DC voters. The question now is whether John Boehner will allow such a rider to be attached to the cromnibus bill. If this rider is added and becomes law, Congress could once again thwart the will of the voters for years to come.

This is why it is so important that the issue is being raised now. Democratic aides are signaling that this is a deal-breaker -- that if such a rider is added to the bill, Democrats will leave Boehner twisting in the wind without enough votes to pass his cromnibus. That is an impressive stand for Democrats to make, on a touchy political issue.

The ball is now in Boehner's court. Marijuana legalization is a peripheral issue to the big budget fight and the even-bigger immigration fight that Republicans are itching to have. In other words, it shouldn't be a deal-breaker for Boehner, really. If he listens to Democrats' concerns (many of whose votes will be needed to pass the cromnibus), then he won't allow another "Barr Amendment" rider to be added to the bill.

This won't be the first time Democrats in Congress have stood up for marijuana rights in such notable fashion -- they did, after all, manage to get the original Barr Amendment overturned a few years ago. But that only dealt with medical marijuana. What is new this time around is that Democratic officeholders will be standing up for recreational marijuana, which would be notable indeed.

The times they are a-changing. This rider needs to be left behind at the bus stop. The cromnibus should not allow this rider to board. It's pretty easy to come up with the metaphors, actually, since "rider" and "bus" fit together so well. But what will be remembered for a long time to come (long past when everyone forgets what the term cromnibus even referred to) is that the Democratic politicians may have finally realized that the people are leading on marijuana legalization, and that they'd better follow or risk being left behind. Politically fighting the people's will on marijuana legalization is soon going to be just as toxic for a Democrat running for office as being against gay marriage has now become.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant