FL and MI will not, can not, be decided in Hillary Clinton’s favor

Regardless of all the hype by Hillary’s campaign, there is a long-standing principle that is intrinsically intertwined in our government and legal system. This principle is called ‘GOOD FAITH’.

Both Clinton and Obama signed a pledge with regards to FL and MI, before the elections were held in those two states. Their entire campaigns were based on the knowledge that these two states would not count.

This is called GOOD FAITH, and when it is all said and done, you can not change the rules of the game after the game has been played. This would never hold up in a court of law or any other reputable democratic organizational system in America.

To argue otherwise is absurd, unscrupulous and dishonest.

Hillary has already rejected a compromise that favored her for Mi. The idea that she will get all the popular vote and all of the delegates from state in which Obama wasn't on the ballot is laughable. It makes hillary and mouth pieces sound like raving lunatics.

Hmm....that sounds like someone i know but I just can't place it....

how fair is that to states that followed the rules?

Answer: not at all.

Sorry, Hilly. The party is far more important than your political ambition.

without any consequences, what is going to stop the rest of the states from breaking the rules the next time around?

but they should have no say or sway in anything.

that would be against the will of the leaders of the party - must remain elitist

I am not a Hillary supporter - but I believe in the spirit and the letter of the Democratic charter - all party members get an equal voice in candidate selection.

rules, there are consequences. This is the way it is.

No - I actually live in Florida and am one of the disenfranchised voters.

I repeat - I did not break any rules.

Representative democracy - you should probably look up that term sometime. It'd help you from looking like an idiot.

How do you know whether or not I have sent my representatives any comments?

Fact is though, they were elected by your state. They represent the will and desires of the people of that state (in theory - we all know how it goes). They went through with this decision - and I have a hard time imagining that the majority of Florida and Michigan dems were against it.

Your vote doesn't count, because you voted for people who screwed you out of your vote. Vote for smarter representatives next time the opportunity arises.

what a lack of reality in your thought.

oh well - takes all kinds to shape that bell curve.

When only ONE candidate was on the fucking ballot, AND many voters skipped the whole scam, because they were told, accurately, that the election WOULD NOT COUNT.

Where is their equal voice?

someone attempts to bully their way with profanity.

I prefer to engage in some dialog with someone who can display a vocabulary beyond middle-school profanity.

Take a look throughout the thread and you shall see numerous posts.

I wish you guys would find ONE thing that you don't lie about.

Obama chose not to run there - end of story.

End of story? Now who's lying? Oh, it's you.

"It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything," Clinton said.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULxxBz-PAjg

Obama choosing not to run there.

Try to stay on topic.

This one? "FL and MI will not, can not, be decided in Hillary Clinton’s favor" - Oh, I think I'm on topic. It's you who are topic-challenged. Try to stay on topic.

That is what he did. Clinton on the other hand - rules? what rules? Lookout - sniper fire.

that required him to remove his name from the ballot.

You guys keep saying it, but it's just not true.

But you already know that she agreed to the five state pledge.

You know that she agreed not to compete in MI.

Why do you insist on being so dishonest about this?

They agreed not to campaign there, but the rules never stated they had to remove or leave their name off the ballot...when you're lying, make it something that isn't transparent...it makes you look juvenile.

Now she wants to make a contest out of it, after the fact. It's deceitful to claim otherwise.

Why do you have call another poster a liar when all along you know that you are the one being dishonest?

Is that some kind of psychological projection that you've got going there? I see it a lot lately. Especially among those that are quick to call other out and accuse them of lying.

Hillary - who willingly broke the rules and refused to take her name off.

Dodd - who had already dropped out of the race by that point.

Kucinich - who attempted to follow the rules, but didn't get his paperwork in on time.

Who was the fourth? Gravel? La Rouche?

Let's not play semantic games here. All of the other candidates did the right thing and took their names off (or in the case of Dennis, at least tried to do so.) Hillary did not.

Why is that? Why does she believe that none of the rules apply to her?

Hillary did not break any rules. There was a pledge not to campaign there and she did not. There was no rule about having your name on the ballot. You were wrong.

Dodd had not dropped out of the race at that point. He was actively campaigning and participating in the debates. You were wrong.

Kucinich actively campaigned in Michigan. If he wanted to "follow the rules" why was he the only candidate to campaign there? You were wrong.

Another post by an Obama supporter which completely gets the facts wrong. It is not a mistake. It is intentional.

the latest lie out of Clinton's camp here is that the pledge only talked about campaigning. It did not only talk about campaigning, it also specifically mentioned participation. She signed a pledge that said she would not participate in Flordia and Michigan. Simple as that.

You are totally ignoring the OP's point. The simple fact is that trying to change the rules after the game has been played is dishonest and shameful, anyone suggesting such a thing knows they are full of shit but they are willing to rip away any moral fabric they might have left for Hillary's campaign.

This is a cluster of their own making. And I'd be saying the same if it was my state that broke the rules.

And how do you count votes fairly when all the names weren't on the ballot?

And how do you count the votes of those who would have voted if their votes were going to count?

Party Leaders, right?

I find both to have attempted a grab for power

is one of the 48 states that followed the rules that the 447 members of the "Democratic National Party, including the Super Delegates from all states voted on in August of 2006. I guess every state except for Florida and Michigan is "elitist" and "Power-grabbing". Florida and Michigan are obviously not part of the "Democratic National Party". Why do we keep acting as if they are?

I did not say any states were elitist. I did not say any states were "power-grabbing". My feeling is that the leaders from Florida and the nat'l party leaders are.

Sorry if that differs from your opinion. As you know - we are both free to believe as we choose.

My state's Super Delegates are a part of the 447 members of the "Democratic National Committee" that voted for the rules. I don't see the "power-grabbing" being done by my state party, but I'm looking forward to it. I kind of like the idea of holding the other 49 states hostage to my whims.

mine was - Florida. I cannot speak for Michigan.

I think the Florida state party leaders were grabbing for power.

I also believe the DNC was on a power-grab as well. The rule leading to a disenfranchisment of voters goes against the charter of the party.

My Democratic National Party did. And the 2 rogue states knew what the consequences would be in August of 2007. And yet here we are, held hostage by the " Democratic National Party of Florida and Michigan".

Michigan defies parties, moves up primary date
JAN. 15 DECISION COULD SET OFF STAMPEDE OF STATES
By Stephen Ohlemacher
Associated Press
Article Launched: 09/05/2007 01:34:57 AM PDT

WASHINGTON - Michigan officially crashed the early primary party Tuesday, setting up showdowns with both political parties and likely pushing the presidential nomination calendar closer to 2007.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm signed a bill moving both of Michigan's presidential primaries to Jan. 15. Michigan's move threatens to set off a chain reaction that could force Iowa and New Hampshire to reschedule their contests even earlier than anticipated, perhaps in the first week in January 2008 or even December 2007.
-------------------------------------------
The national parties have tried to impose discipline on the rogue states. On the Republican side, states that schedule contests before Feb. 5 risk losing half their delegates to next summer's convention, though some are banking that whoever wins the GOP nomination will eventually restore the delegates.
Democrats have experienced similar problems, but party officials hoped they had stopped the mad dash to move up by threatening to strip Florida of all its convention delegates for scheduling a primary Jan. 29 and by persuading the major Democratic candidates to campaign only in the party-approved early states.

The decision by the major Democratic candidates to campaign only in approved early states renders voting in the rogue states essentially non-binding beauty contests.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6804685?source=rss

As a Democratic party voter from Florida - I have been disenfranchised. I did not break the rule - the party leaders did.

Do not punish me.

As a matter of fact - even DEAN has agreed that the delegates will be seated. He is admitting that the rule that you hold so dear needs correction.

to waive party rules. He has always wanted to work out a compromise between the DNC and the 2 rogue states. For almost a year now. You were disenfranchised in June of 2007, along with more than 4 million registered Democrats in Florida. Where was your outrage then? Or did it not 'matter' then?

in the press..including the Florida Newspapers that said anything about the people of Florida being 'outraged' about what the Florida Democratic Party was doing. Didn't hear anything about voters of that state demanding the Florida Democratic Party follow the Primary schedule they voted for. I watched the Florida State Democratic Party gleefully announce they were defying the very rules they agreed to. A big fuck you to the Democratic National Party. Don't worry..it doesn't 'matter'. Florida and Michigan voters are much more important than the other 48 states combined. When do you think your party will hold the elections in 2012? Maybe you all should start now, trying to figure out how you will fuck with the National Party.

I do not need to explain any of my actions to you - or those of any other Floridian. Are you from Florida?

Do you think that you will just bully your way through this conversation with your middle-school profanity. I don't know of ANY voter who has claimed that we are more important. We simply showed up to vote on primary day. If you want to exclude several million voters from the GE - then be prepared for a sad day in November. And don't assume you have a clue as to how I plan on voting.

that's rich. I am so sorry that you are offended because the Democratic National Party would dare to stand in the way of Florida's bullying. Good luck in your future elections.

I don't care how many huge blue boxes of text you include in your email. The term "rogue states" implies that they are third-world terrorist organizations.

What Obama supporters don't want to admit is that the way it worked out, the process vastly favored Obama. He won Iowa, a neighboring state to Illinois where he is strong, a caucus state. South Carolina was another state that gave him a huge bounce. Nevada in theory went to Clinton, but Obama got more delegates (another caucus state, where the union that endorsed Obama got to caucus on the job). Had Michigan and Florida even retained their original positions, Florida for sure, and possibly Michigan, would have gone to Clinton and the dynamics of the entire race would have shifted. This was why the Obama camp was so hot on trying to find a way to prevent give them a re-vote later on, when a lot of other people were trying to find a way to give those voters a voice.

Michigan apparently tried to move their primary up in 2003 as well, and got turned down. So they've been working on this for at least five years, it's not a last-minute power grab.

I know that the people who keep loudly saying that Michigan and Florida broke the rules tend to be Obama supporters. I can give lots of examples where voters supposedly broke rules - for example, in Ohio, when Kenneth Blackwell insisted voter registrations be returned on a certain weight of paper, because the rules said so - these new voter ID laws, where the rules now state that you MUST have a photo ID to vote, even if it's almost impossible to get one, in Florida in 2000, when people didn't punch the chad all the way through, but it was clear what their intent was - and the meme at DU was always that it was the voters who mattered.

You don't hear that now because Obama supporters became afraid of the Michigan and Florida vote, so did their best to quench it under a cloak of superiority about breaking the rules. It wasn't Clinton who hired lawyers to prevent a do-over in Michigan, BTW.

Now Obama actually has the nerve to be speaking in Michigan today.

that defy the Democratic National Party? I did not coin the phrase. It has been used in the press since June of 2007. Where've you been?

It's about making potential President's of the United States honor their agreements! I thought that was supposed to be a good trait. Or is it only bad when the Republicans break faith? If Sen Clinton really cared so much about fairness and seeing that the votes in FL/MI counted, then why was nothing said BEFORE those respective primaries?

I just want my vote counted.

I did not break any rule. The charter of hte Party clearly states that all party members have an equal voice in candidate selection. I just want to see that particular clause followed - regardless how the votes fall.

Sen Clinton agreed to the puniive measures taken, until she won the states. Then it became vital to her interests to seat the delegation. Had she not "won", she most likely wouldn't have said anything.

he has stated the delegates will be seated.

When they signed the pledge they assumed that the people in these states wouldn't even bother to vote since their votes didn't count anyway. But when millions of people DID vote, that changed everything. The vote is all the people have...and when they speak, they should be listened too.

I wonder which side of this arguement Obama supporters would be on if he had won big in those states.

The point is, when you have that many people come out to vote for you even though it won't count, you can't just ignore them.

that she wouldn't campaign in MI. She did not.

Unlike Obama, who promised to not campaign in FL but did.

More lies

It seems to me many Obama's followers have lost their concept of absurd, unscrupulous and dishonest.

Now it does?

There's no outrage in Florida save 50 old ladies who support Hillary at an event in Miami to count the votes.

Newsflash- Your girl lost and won't get the nomination in 2012. :)

Enjoy your day

Newsflash - your boy lost both states.

asshole. You'd be wise to check your fucking "boy" shit at the door.

"boy" denotes a racists connotation. But your to fucking bright to realize that right?

How bright of you to question another's intelligence when you can't even use the right word!

Welcome to ignore, where low posters and morons live...

are unscrupulous and dishonest. You continue on with your trash and bash of anyone who mentions the facts about Florida and Michigan, while pimping the same old lies.

in either of them, affected voter turnout and outcome of those primaries? It's not as if they held a full on primary and then changed their minds later.

It's not even about state party versus national party.

It's about counting the votes of voters who showed up to vote on the only day they could possibly do so.

were not the case, we would be living in a dictatorship or in total caos. That is the way it is and I would suggest that this a good thing, if you think about it.

So my state could run a new Democratic Primary Election tomorrow, and those 'votes' would count?

Same thing goes for me.

I had one day to vote, and I voted, as is my right. And my vote ought to be given proper effect.

and 47 others voted according to the rules. I don't like those rules anymore. I think we should just have another election, and demand that those results be counted. I'm sure Obama would get way more votes now. It's only fair.

No? Neither am I.

So I'm sad to say what you think about having another election or not having an election means diddly-squat.

I'm sure if we really felt it was issue number one (over Iraq, the economy, healthcare, etc.), we could lobby our legislators real hard about it, but the fact remains most ordinary Democrats don't give a hoot one way or another as to the exact day of a primary. All they know is when the polls open, they go and vote. And that's what everyone did in the situation, regardless of what state party official did what.

expressed their "outrage" in June of last year, we wouldn't be here, would we?

You're the one who's so outraged about the possibility of our votes counting, after all.

That of all the issues and topics pertinent to the country and its well-being (the economy, the Iraq War, health care, etc.), that the most outrageous and horrific thing imaginable that could ever occur is **GASP!** delegates being seated and proper effect being given to fellow Democrats' votes.

When the the voters were told that the election was for the distribution of 0 delegates = in essence not counting - and some candidates were not on the ballots in one state - determining whats proper is a bit of a problem.

She's bluffing. So maybe she should be called on her bluff:

"Hillary. The Democratic party makes rules for good reasons. It's our duty to uphold the rules and spirit of fair play. Your request to allow MI and FL to be seated "as is" is denied. Don't like it? Sue us."

I used to be scared that she WOULD try to get some sort of court injunction and drag this thing out even further. But you bring about a good point - there's no court that would rule in her favor. Her people will know that and won't even file.

THEN once she finally drops out, the DNC will end up seating the delegates from both states and we will be unified.


She is BULLYING the DNC and the process. She needs to be called on it and shut down.

the Supreme Court couldn't possibly rule against a fair recount?

they voted for Hillary, and it should be awarded to Hillary.

Her opportunistic post-hoc-posturing reeks of rank hypocrisy.

will be seated, you can count on that.

:eyes:

In the very best possible scenario - FL will only count 50%. MI has already been thrown out by a judge - so the rules committee will be deciding on that. My guess they'll go with either a 50/50 split, or the proposed 69-59delegate split.

in some configuration, but if you think the RBC and Credentials committee are going to give Obama 0 delegates from MI, think again. It simply isn't going to happen. In any case, Hilly is well done toast, so now it's simply about placating the FL and MI voters, and still maintaining order in the process through some punative measure like only giving SDs half a vote.

And even tho' Detroit will solidly support Obama, the rest of Michigan doesn't even know him. Better tell him to bring the checkbook. He has a lot of catching up to do.

IF OBAMA GOT THE RESULTS HILLARY DID IN FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN WOULD SHE BE FIGHTING FOR THOSE VOTES TO BE COUNTED?

And chances are that Obama and his supporters would be fighting tooth and nail to get them counted.

And chances are Obama, as the likely nominee, will soon switch and argue that the delegates from Florida and Michigan should be counted. Because it would be counterproductive for him to argue otherwise going into the general election.

Welcome to politics, hon.

That's why I've always said this is not about the candidates.

It doesn't matter if one is right for the wrong reasons (or for selfish reasons), right is still right. And right is not collectively punishing over a million voters over a petty rule violation by state party officials.

This is brought to you by a John Edwards voter from Florida.

I don't see much to back it up though.

And calling it a petty violation is a bit easy, given that we are talking about the organisation of contests in 50 states and a number of districts.

I can totally understand that its problematic to bar so many people from having a say.

But given that it was said not to count, and the candidates were not even on the ballot in some cases - just counting them anyways is dishonest and far removed from the spirit and correctness that should prevail in such contests.

And the people you talk about must also take some responsibility for the representatives they have elected that decided to break the rules.

That being said, I am pretty sure they have been trying to come up with a solution that all parties deemed fair.

Not so sure that all the parties have an equal sense of fairness, though.

It's politics. If you are in a race, you are going to do what you think will benefit you in the end.

I'm not criticizing Obama if he changes his tune (and I think he will, as he's already hinted that he might.). I'm just saying he's going to do what will benefit him in November. And I'd rather see him change his tune on this ridiculous issue, than stay pure to the suddenly-oh-so-revered DNC rules and lose to John McCain in the general.

And I think once he changes his tune, all this manufactured outrage about "But 'they' broke the rules! How dare 'they' get seated!" from some of his supporters will suddenly melt away. As it should have a long, long time ago. Because it is hardly an issue to be concerned about when it comes to what direction this country should be lead in the next 4 to 8 years.

Face it, the ordering of primaries has always been something of a random creature. That's why they get moved up and back all the time. The system needs vast revision anyways.

But honestly, I don't care one way or another if the primary was on January 29th or February 6th. It's not a pressing issue in the long scheme of things. All I know was that I voted and I want my vote counted, and I don't want to be punished for something I personally did not do.

... is that they were going to be seated no matter who wins. This isn't going to be close enough that those delegates will make the difference. It seems to me that what she's actually fighting for is the manufactured "momentum"/media spin that would accompany an announcement that they'll be seated.

Did you do anything to stop them?

were you aware of this problem before the actual primary? You should have been. I was aware of it in Ohio. If you were aware, did you say anything? Letter to the Editor? Letter to your state rep? Or even a letter of protest to your local party HQ? Before the primary is when this SHOULD have been an issue! I've not seen any evidence of a protest before the fact. If there had been, I'm sure there would be a little more sympathy with your points.

As to Obama possibly acting the same if the situation were reversed.... I really don't see it. But, we'll really never know. I hope he wouldn't. Because that would then show that he has a flagrant disregard of the rules as well.


When children break rules, are they punished? Or do we negotiate with them so that they can get the best deal for themselves? Rules is rules(sic).

....and pretended against my honest beliefs that this was the most ultimate and important issue of all time as to which exact week our primary would be, and things would have still happened as they did, my delegates would still have been stripped and my vote would have been given no effect.

Unless your sympathy gets my vote counted, I'll pass on getting your sympathy.

Again, all I know is that I had one day in which I could vote, and I did so. If the DNC had any issue with what any state party officials did, they could have taken that issue up with those state party officials, and not me, the voter who simply voted.

The DNC had the final call. They blew it. They get the blame from this Floridian's perspective.

that you don't change the rules after the game. If there is something questionable, you bring it up beforehand. Not after the fact. If it wasn't important before the primary, it shouldn't be important afterwards.

All the voters did was vote when they were allowed to by state law. That's not something to be punished.

If the DNC rules were so sacred, they should have punished only the people responsible. Not the voters.

If you don't like what they do, vote them out or change the laws another way (protest, LTTE, etc.). It is unfortunate that a wrong has to be committed before it can be corrected, but that's the way representative democracy works. You did have voice. Where was the indignation before the primary?

Otherwise, you are just left with an oligarchy.

The interests of the individual voters always comes first. Always. Without that, the whole system breaks down.

Those interests outweigh the interests of the candidates, the state party, the DNC, whoever else. If the Democratic Party wants to be truly democratic, then it needs to conduct itself in a way which is not unduly burdensome on individual voters.

You will have a vote in the GE. Remember, the primaries are party elections, not governmental. The party makes the rules. Neither the Dems nor Repubs can take away your GE vote (only the Supreme Court can do that ;)) But you still voted on the people that made the decision to move your primaries. Your arguments should be with them. They broke the rules (in your name) and now you must pay the price. Make them pay the price. Let them really understand how upset you are by voting THEM out of office.

Which means issues of due process and fairness in voting and counting the vote will inevitably come into play.

Honestly, because I know my legislators personally, and I like both my state rep and state senator, I don't see a need to vote them out. And even if I did want to vote them out, it wouldn't do anything to get my vote counted by the DNC, so why should I bother? Why should I be angry at them? (Plus the fact my state rep is term limited this year...)

Who changed the date. In knowing violation of party rules. When youknowingly break a rule, you should expect to be punished.

The thing is, Florida is in bad shape on various state issues and it needs all the help it could get. My Democratic state rep and state senator are two of the "good guys" and I'm not going to vote them out on account of them voting for a bill on paper trails which included the infamous provision on moving up the primary a week. Sorry, but I've got priorities in making my vote.

The DNC is the party that overreacted to the situation and speaking as a Floridian, I can affirmatively say they are the party with the lion's share of the blame here.

I don't think would have really accomplished anything. Many states have been trying to move their primaries up to make them more relevant. If this trend continues, campaigning will officially begin the week after the inauguration! The campaign season is already waaaay too long. The party tried to put a limit on moving it forward. Some states ignored that and moved forward anyway. If these states aren't punished, what's to stop other states moving theirs forwrd, and then other states, and then .... I'm sure you get the idea. A line has to be drawn somewhere. This year that line was drawn at February 5th. Two states ignored that line and warnings not to ignore that line. The states thought the warnings were bluffs. They were not.

Now, if the good citizens of these states choose not to replace the people that put your state in this unfortunate situation, that's your problem.

Burn the village in order to save it.

As I remember, not really the best strategy.

Face it, these rules are really a dead man walking anyways. The primary process needs some serious reform, and will likely be reformed for 2012. I'm not going to get that outraged over something that is essentially a moot point.

Do you make rules for your kids and then ignore them? Do you get frustrated and amazed when you see other people do that?


Disclaimer: I am not a parent.

...although my little girl being only 4 months old, I still haven't gotten to the discipline stage yet. :)

Really, this situation is like a multiple sibling family, and if one of the kids acts up, everyone gets punished for some reason.

Listen, I actually appreciate that you've been reasonable and civil with me. Other posters have simply told me to "Get over it!" or insulted Floridians for being stupid, and for avoiding those traps, I sincerely thank you.

But the bottom line is that being someone who has firsthand knowledge of what's going on in Florida, and that I am one of those voters whose vote will essentially be worthless if the delegates are not seated, I'm going to assign blame where I think its appropriate. And needless to say, I think the DNC dropped the ball by exceeding its punishment and acting recklessly.

It doesn't mean I'm going to quit the Democratic party. And it doesn't mean I'm not going to vote for our nominee come November. But I'm not going to lie and say I'm not angry at the DNC for doing what they did. And it might be easy for someone outside the state to say, "Well you should be more angry at so and so," but the fact remains from my judgment the DNC has acted out of line in essentially ordering a collective punishment.

I hope you understand my position. It has nothing to do with any candidate--as I've said before, I voted for neither Clinton nor Obama. It has everything to do with the fact that I'm a Florida voter, and I simply want my vote to be worth something of a damn.

I do understand; and, I think we agree to disagree. I'm glad you understand that it's still important to vote for the Dem nominee in November. I think that most FL/MI Dems will also feel that way (at least I hope so.) But one final thought. In this silly game of brinksmanship, who crossed the line first? The DNC? Or the states?

I have been saying the same thing for weeks. I cannot believe there are "Democrats" on this forum that are ok with people being disenfranchised. That is a cornerstone of the party. The charter even clearly states that all members will be afforded equal rights in terms of candidate selection.

Makes me truly wonder about where our party is going. We are becoming a party of elitists.

Obama and Clinton are both politicians running for office. They will do what is in their best interest to win. Obama and his supporters would have almost certainly demanded those votes be counted. I can put the house on it.

This is not about any candidate, period.

Or perhaps that Obama is dishonest. Either way that question is insulting, and moot.

I wouldn't be, and I'm in Michigan.

The "primary" was invalid.

Period.

We tell the voters of FL and MI to fuck off now, that they don't matter and their votes are worthless in the eyes of the party, they will tell the party to fuck off in Nov, and we can kiss those states goodbye, along with the White House, and would probably see some long term damage - deservedly so. The voices of those voters, the will of those voters, have to be recognized. You don't do that with a 50/50 split, because that is not how they voted, that does not reflect the will of those voters. So they have to be recognized, their delegates seated, in a way that respects the voters' will.

I find it hard to believe anyone thinks it is a good idea to alienate and disenfranchise millions of voters, Democratic voters at that, not just in large, key swing states, but in any state.

There has to be a solution to allow those voters' voices to count toward selecting a nominee, otherwise we betray our own principles, and court disaster in Nov.

and THAT seems to be why it's an issue. Had it gone the another way (there were more than two candidates then), would you still be kicking and screaming?

had Obama not lost FL, but won instead, would YOU still be stomping your feet and demanding they not be counted?

But my point was, that beyond all the spin and the innuendo (like you just threw at me), lies a simple question - do we tell those millions of Democratic voters who came out in record numbers to vote that we, their own party, don't give a damn what they think, that their votes are worthless to us? And if we do, what logical repercussions will we face? Why would voters come out and support a party that told them to fuck off just a few months earlier? And do we really want to start the GE campaign by disenfranchising millions of voters in two large, key swing states? Is that a smart first step on the road to victory?

Again, it is really simple. It's not rocket science.

If the situation were reversed, I would still want to see the rules followed.

In response to your second question-- Why did this only become an issue after the fact? Quite often primaries don't mean anything. I live in Ohio. This was the first time in my voting life that my primary vote DID mean anything. The States played a dangerous game and lost. Do you play poker? Sometimes a bluff isn't a bluff. And if you call a bluff and lose, you still have to take the consequences. The states were warned, and ignored the warnings. The millions of voters who came out knew their votes were purely symbolic. The proper reaction to this is to vote the bums responsible out.

As for the Democrats losing MI/FL in the GE: I'm sure Michigan at least will see an unusually high presence of the Dem nominee. And I'm also sure that MI/FL Dems will still see Sen Obama as preferable to Sen McCain.

The ONLY thing to be decided at this point is the amount of punishment they receive. All or half their delegates. There's no way they are going to get a pass on this, and they shouldn't. We have rules in every aspect of our lives for a reason.

The problem is that nobody was supposed to show up for an election that "would not be counted". But surprise, surprise, surprise...They did show up. There were two elections and those votes must be counted as is.

You cannot punish members of the Democratic Party because of idiocy by state party hacks. Besides, those DNC rules violate the Democratic Party Charter which states that ALL members of the party are guaranteed fair and equal participation in the nominating process.

That part of the Charter can only be changed by a National Convention and...I doubt if that part of the Charter that guarantees fair and equal participation can ever be changed at all - it would trash the basic dogma of equality of rights for all citizens - especially the natural right to participate in self-governance.

This is not about Obama and Clinton. It is about the equal rights of Democrats to participate in the nominating process as clearly stated and guaranteed in the Democratic Party Charter.

besides the piddly Democratic National Primary Election..which was obviously not important enough to ensure the votes be counted. Otherwise why defy the Democratic National Party? 1.7 million Florida Democrats voted out of over 4 million. What happened? Will Kucinich, Edwards, Richardson, and Biden be awarded any delegates from Michigan? After all, their names weren't on the ballot. Couldn't the election have turned out much differently? I say we have a do over of the entire country. Fair is fair.

I voted because I was told that our delegates would be seated at the convention when the DNC and Michigan got it all sorted out!

How is it possible that articles from June through the day of the voting explained explicitly what the consequences would be, and the very people it effected did not know?

The Governer of Michigan said that this would be worked out before the convention!

...guaranteed full and equal participation in the nominating process.

The DNC doesn't get to decide which members or states get to participate. The Democratic Party Charter does.

and which one's don't?

If they violate the Democratic Party Charter which guarantees ALL members full and equal participation in the nominating process then those rules are null and void.

DNC rules cannot eliminate the rights of 2.3 million Democrats who showed up for elections that were scheduled by the Democratic Parties of their states.

Those 2.3 million Democrats were making a statement - ignore our rights as Democrats at great risk to the Party.

had over 4 million registered voters as of August in 2007. How many registered Democrats are in Michigan? Do you think the other over 2 million voters might have cast a ballot? Or, do you think the voters of Michigan would have liked to vote for someone other than "uncommitted"? Never mind. It doesn't matter. I kind of hope you get your way. Who needs the Democratic National Party?

That would mean ALL 50 states and the rest? Yeah, who needs all that inclusion and all that confusion?

You would think we are real Democrats......!

and my state will decide what we will do, and when we will to do it. And you better just be quiet, and do what we say, or else my entire state will not vote in the General Election. I can't wait for the next Primary Season!!

...allowed by the DNC! Why only those states?

We need a national primary day like most countries on the planet have and then a runoff to decide the finalists.

So the candidates only campaign in the big states? Why not just have an election day, and have all the candidates run then. Why even bother with a primary? Hell, at this point I'm wondering why bother at all? No one cares about the truth, so why does anything else matter?

10 or twenty or more candidates appear on the ballot and then there is a run-off of the top four for the Presidency. Second place becomes Vice-President.

No electoral college. Just one national election with paper ballots. The nation's 8th Graders can count the ballots by hand on live TV.

easy peasy. Sounds good to me.

The "Good Faith" argument isn't even relevent, since the plaintiff in any suit won't be Sen. Clinton or her campaign. It will most likely be the Florida Democratic Party making a 14th Amendment argument on the basis of unequal treatment.

However, the DNC will win. Decades of court precedent are on their side, ever since the National Committees of both parties made sweeping changes to their nominating processes in the seventies. A national political party's right to determine their own processes supercedes the interests of individual state parties.

They've helped so much in past elections.

I hope we don't have to settle this in the courts.

Obama had tons of ads running.

:shrug:

in effect, a fresh new crop of SD's.

That way, no one gets disenfranchised, and no candidate gets to benefit from state parties breaking the rules.

  All bets are off, have been off, since then. Clinton will try anything and everything she can, and her fabulously-wealthy backers from the DLC- you know, the ones who threatened Pelosi not once but twice will be right there with her.

  Changing the rules of the game during play is politics.

  Don't let anyone convince you otherwise.

PB

to favor Hillary, because that will be an olive branch to her supporters. The real story is the grilling that the FL and MI legislators will take on national TV on 5/31. I expect for them to walk into the room scared facing tons of video cameras and walk out holding their heads down in shame.