Good for her. None of the candidates ought to have made their absurd pledges. Of course, FL and MI ought not to have skipped ahead of Feb 5, but this is a misdemenor, not a hanging crime. I think that the Republicans got it right, cutting these states' delegations in half, but not stripping them of all delegates entirely.

Hillary, today, in her own words (h/t Swampland):

"I don't need to go back and live in the White House. I've done that."

Good to have the response:

No one is more disappointed that Florida Democrats will have no role in selecting delegates for the nomination of the party’s standard bearer than Senator Obama.

When Senator Clinton was campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire, she made it clear that states like Michigan and Florida that wouldn’t produce any delegates, ‘don’t count for anything.’ Now that Senator Clinton’s worried about losing the first Southern primary, she’s using Florida for her own political gain by trying to assign meaning to a contest that awards zero delegates and where no campaigning has occurred. Senator Clinton’s own campaign has repeatedly said that this is a ‘contest for delegates’, and Florida is a contest that offers zero. Whether it is Barack Obama’s record, her position on Social Security, or even the meaning of the Florida Primary, it seems like Hillary Clinton will do or say anything to win an election. When he is the nominee, Barack Obama will campaign vigorously in Florida and Michigan to put them in the Democratic column in 2008.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/CGxpn

Both campaigns have known this was coming for a long time. The DNC has basically said that it would be up to the nominee to decide what to do regarding the delegates. Its the most poorly kept secret in Washington that most Dems have long assumed they would get seated eventually. HRC is just pressing this button now because it will help her in Florida and, more importantly, maybe get the media to give the Florida Dem race more play.

Obviously she wouldn't be saying this right now if she didn't have an advantage among these delegates, but the idea that this is a shock to anybody in either campaign or that HRC is undermining Howard Dean and the DNC is a joke.

This is not about the voters of Michigan or Florida. It's about one person and one person only.

Why would the dems want to stick it to two of the largest states in the nation? They are mad, because Michigan and Florida wanted to be heard rather than lumped in with a lot of other states. For the life of me I will never understand how Iowa gets so much clout in picking our niminee. If Florida and Michigan dems stay home in the general, because they feel that they don't matter, it will only hurt the democratic nominee. Why supress your votes in two of the largest states?

I hate to say it, but I am coming around to the view that Clinton will likely be our nominee with or without MI & FL, so why not be gracious and seat the Floridians and Michiganders.

I hate to say it, but I'm coming around to the view that the Patriots will likely win the Super Bowl, so why shouldn't the Giants be gracious and spot them a couple of touchdowns.

The Clintons may not know what the meaning of "is" is, but they sure define the word CHUTZPAH!

Oh, she is definitely undermining Howard Dean and the DNC.

People going around saying that these delegates are going to be seated eventually don't know what they're talking about. That's only true in the event that the nomination is already decided, which is what everyone assumed until recently.

But with the race as close as it is right now and the possibility of a brokered convention out there, then that goes out the window.

Hillary has now put the entire Democratic Party in the position of looking like the bad guys just so she can get elected. If she gets her way, this nomination might be decided by states that the candidates pledged not to campaign in. How does that make sense?

If Florida and Michigan dems stay home in the general, because they feel that they don't matter, it will only hurt the democratic nominee. Why supress your votes in two of the largest states?

Sure, sure, a fine argument, that. That said, in Clinton's case it really makes no difference. Even if she seats their delegates, she will not carry either state.

Care to make a friendly wager on that statement? She only has to win one of the two. I'll take those odds.

No thanks; it is not that I am chicken or anything. I just think that it would be tacky of me to bet against my own candidate. If she takes the nomination, I will want her to win, so I do not want to have a stake (however small) in her losing.

Why in the world should the DNC respect ANY request from Hillary?

Hillary did not respect the rules of the DNC, which is why her and Dodd's name remained on the ballot.

The other candidates DID respect the DNC names and asked to have their names removed.

Those candidates should not be penalized for following DNC rules.

The DNC needs to respect their own rules, ignore and deny Hillary's request.

Those delegates should not be seated nor should they be in play at the DNC.

When states do not follow the rules of the DNC they should not be rewarded and most certainly individuals who are rule breakers should be totally denied and ignored.

Good for her. None of the candidates ought to have made their absurd pledges. Of course, FL and MI ought not to have skipped ahead of Feb 5, but this is a misdemenor, not a hanging crime.

Greg D, I totally disagree with you on this one. It would have been one thing if all the candidates had skipped FL and MI, but whether they should have or not, it was quite reasonable for them to follow the DNC's orders, and since they did so, it would be completely unfair for the DNC to reverse it's decision and count the votes now.

I'm happy to count FL and MI if the votes don't end up mattering, but if the DNC were to reverse its decision, and if that were to give Hillary the win, I think it would tear apart the Democratic party, causing a huge rift with Obama supporters who would justifiably feel that Obama was cheated out of the nomination. I expect that there could be lawsuits as well.

As such, Clinton's new position recklessly endangers the unity of the party. I would also note that I might feel a little more empathy if she had been pushing this position from the get go. But now? With MI past and no one else on the ballot there, and FL almost upon us with her way ahead in the polls there? This is just more self-serving politics from Clinton.

I give her enough credit to believe that she wouldn't ultimately try to force the issue if it were to threaten a rift at the convention. I suspect that she's just posturing to get more votes at the FL primary. The timing is just too convenient. But it's still self-serving politics.

OMG!
There's politics in politics.

The woman is shameless. Utterly shameless.

I meant to say:
I am stupid! Utterly stupid!

If Hillary Clinton was already the nominee, this would not be a big deal as it is probably true that in the end, a clear nominee could have lobbied to have both MI and FL delegates seated. And this scnereio might be what Hillary wants us to think is the case....

However, she is NOT the nominee and this is a close race. In that light, her statement reflects very badly on her and reinforces her image as a politician that only wants to win - at any costs.

Let's say it again: She will say or do anything to win.

She agreed with the decision that their delegates shouldn't count. Now, well...

And at the end of the day, it would be WRONG to seat these delegates at the convention if the effect was to sway the ballot in her direction. In essence these states would be KINGMAKER'S by breaching the rules. That's not fair to the states that played by the rules and would GUARANTEE that in future primaries other states would jump the gun as well.

Allow them to participate once the nominee is determined, but in no way should they be permitted to be involved in the nominating process.

Obama really IS an idiot. All he had to say was that it should be decided at the convention, which it will be, period. But no, instead the Fool prefers to alienate a large swath of voters to no real purpose.

Clinton only made this demand earlier today. Obama has not yet responded. Wouldn't it be fair to let him actual respond before you criticize his response as foolish?

This is just more self-serving politics from Clinton.

You say that as if it were a bad thing. Your "self-serving politics" is my "enlightened self-interest" on this point. What is our overall interest in antagonizing MI and FL? Meanwhile, I suppose that if it really does come to the point where these delegates make a difference then your point is more forceful. At present, however, I guess that I am not expecting the final delegate counts at the end of March to be quite so close. Do you agree that it is pointless to exclude MI and FL if Clinton can win the nomination even without them? If so, then how is it wrong for her to call for them to be included now. It is a smart move, and you can hardly blame a candidate for making a tactically smart move to benefit himself or herself.

By the way, Billary Zombies, you are aware that the primaries are proportional right? The winner does not take all. The upshot? This thing could go on a LONG time. Hillary could lose this thing. Think about that. Hillary could LOSE.

I'll say it again, for emphasis:

Who are we no longer talking about?

Mission Accomplished, Clinton Campaign.

The Clintons must think all Democrats are mindless lemmings like Greg Sargent.

But isn't it supremely ironic, that the Clintons would so brazenly try to steal the nomination of the very party victimized by Bush v. Gore

Doesn't surprise me in the least. I just can't believe those hamhocks had the balls to pull their stunt this early

Well this is a battle between the Progressive Democrats of our party who support Obama or John Edwards and the DLC Democrats of this party who support the Clintons.

Did anybody doubt that she would go back on her word if it would benefit her? She seriously will do whatever she has to to get the nomination - including undoing all of the good that us Progressive Democrats have done over the past 7 years to rebuild this party and stand up to the Bush Administration whenever it counted.

While we progressives were flooding the streets of our hometowns to fight against this war in Iraq, Hillary and the DLC Democrats were voting for it. While we were flooding the streets to knock on doors and do all of the hard work to not concede a single state or a single race to turn Congress Democratic in 2006, Bill Clinton wasn't out there agressively campaigning and spreading the truth of our Progressive ideas to help.

Anyone who doesn't see this as an all out split in the party is just not very active in the party. And the idea that the Clintons can put a bandaid on the split by offering Obama a VP nomination after they have essentially spit on all of the hard working volunteers of this party, well then they are completely insane.

The danger is that if Hillary and the DLC old wing of the party win with all of this crazy lie telling, back pedling, and doing whatever the hell it takes to win the nomination, we stand to lose the November election, right along with a ton of the organization that has been finally winning us elections.

Good job Bill and Hillary - first you turned liberal in to a bad word and now you are attempting to kill the grass roots progressive wing of our party.

so now do i get my gwold star?!

Our memories are so fragile.
As fragile as mine is I remember
struggle for change and the rancor
not only to have Howard Dean head the DNC, but after. The real POWER against Dean, then and now came from here.
http://www.dlc.org/

When HRC is featured on the DLC website,
I really...really want supporters of HRC
to defend the DLC as the voice and direction of our Party.
I really want supporters of HRC to proudly embrace the DLC.
If you embrace the DLC as the core, if you embrace the DLC as change? Fine...
2006 gains were a direct result of DNC Chairman Dean's 50 State energy.

Obama supporters were universally outraged that Clinton supporters in Nevada went to court to challenge at-work caucuses.

Clinton supporters only took this action after the expected union endorsement didn't materialize. If they were so bothered by the caucus arrangement, it took them a long time to bring it up--since the arrangements had been in place since March 07....If Clinton had been endorsed by the culinary union, her supporters wouldn't have cared. It's all about winning, not principles.

Like I said: gotta appreciate the sheer viciousness of the campaign.

The more I think about this, the madder it makes me. Suppose that Obama wins the nomination but to do so, he has to force the issue on discounting MI and FL votes. Then he would face more anger in the general election in those states than the Dem candidate will as it is. So by pressing this issue, Clinton could conceivably cause Obama to lose the general election. And for what? So that she can get a few more primary votes from a state that won't make a difference at the convention. I repeat, it's self-serving politics.

What will be the excuse when she wins Texas, California, New York, New Jersey, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, etc. You Obama guys are ridiculous. How did Hillary win NH and Nevada, when Obama was a shoe in to win? White people will not support him. He can't win the nomination with only the black vote. I don't know why you all can't see that. The more black support he gets, the more white support he loses.

HUH??? Earlier this week, when Obama ran a national ad, she complained that it broke the rules as it ran in Florida - and every other state. http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/obama_airs_nati.html

Does she not think we notice these things? I hope Howard Dean stands his ground. Somebody has to show the Clintons that they are not in charge of the Democratic party.

This is ridiculous! You can't change the rules in the middle of the game. Why do the Clintons always switch positions for political expediency? Grow some backbones for crying out loud.

IMHO,she won't lose Michigan in the general, and might not lose Florida. Look what's happening in the Republican primary there.

Clintons, as principled as ever.

I agree that to grant Sen. Clinton's request would be utterly unfair to Sens. Edwards and Obama. Unlike her, they respected the DNC's request to pull their names off the MI ballot. To grant her the delegates would be most certainly undemocratic.

If anyone agrees with me, I urge you to contact the DNC at http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contactissues.

I'm a Hillary supporter but this pledge from her is unnecessary. She will win FL anyway and she should not need FL to win. If there is a brokered convention, which is highly unlikely, the FL delegates will certainly have their say. For once, I believe Hillary has over stepped the boundary. this is not nice to NH or Iowa. Of course, Iowans were not very nice with her but NH voters literally saved her.

If they were going to seat those delagates, they should have done it before.

You can't pull a George W. Bush and make sure that the counting is either started or stopped based on if you win again, after the fact.

I think it was wrong in the first place that they took the delegates away, but now I believe its too late to be fair.

That would be like say, um... you know, you can have these delegates so you can win Clinton.

That's a good political ploy though. Wait till after you win MI and right before you win FL and then yell, I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS! THOSE PEOPLE'S VOICES ARE BEING HEARD IN THE CONVENTION!

Voter disenfranchisement! Voter disenfranchisement! Voter disenfranchisement! Voter disenfranchisement!

This doesn't surprise me. It sickens me and I foretold she would do it.

Demunity08:

I see so when she agreed that these states (MI and FL) wouldn't count for anything, did she mean it? Or does she mean it that they should be seated now? In short, was she pandering before or is she pandering now?

Again, I don't have a problem seating these delegates after the nominee is decided. If she's got an issue with that, I suggest she take it up with the DNC. You know, that body that sets the rules and regulations for Democratic primaries. The ones violated by the Michigan and Florida Democratic Parties.

CT Voter says: "Even a five year old might grasp that this seems pretty low."

Yes, but fortunately for Senator Clinton, her target audience might not.

Is somebody doing the maths, and discovering that Hillary's going to need those two states?

I can't see stirring the shit up like this unless it's really, really necessary.

Real clear rules changes,here!
Stupid, as ever! Well?
A no issue is born, thanks Hillary or is it Bill! You are consistent!

Bret, I guess all those caucus goers in Iowa were black according to your brilliant statement.

Hillary was leading in NH by double digits for months and he came pretty damn close in the vote count there (and in NV) anyhow. He actually won in rural districts in Nevada that are not exactly overflowing with African Americans.

You want to base you idiotic assumptions on the white red-neck voters of South Carolina? Sorry but not every white voter is going to get "freaked" out that Obama has some black people supporting him - in spite of the fact that the Clinton camp will try their best to spin an Obama win in SC with the support of blacks as evidence of some sort of "fatal" racial divide.

The Clinton's divisive, cynical tactics are just repellent.

I am on record
Sargent's on Notice

Note the dates
Nota bene

TPM CAFE Exchange - Marshall Ganz post
On January 21, 2008 - 1:42pm cloudy said:
A very good column. I would like to see SOMEONE grapple with the issue of how the primary schedule is structured, with a "MONSTER TUESDAY" coming up Feb 5 that acts as an almost insurmountable firewall defending whoever started out as the presumptive nominee (HRC) as against any reasonably effective insurgent candidacy (Obama).
WHERE ARE THE PUNDITS WHEN YOU NEED THEM?
On January 21, 2008 - 1:49pm jexster said:J. McCutchen
You're preaching to the converted here! Monster Tuesday was supposed to render the Clintons inevitable and eliminate all effective opposition months before the first vote was cast. We saw an unrelenting campaign unfold precisely along these lines last fall.
But something happened on the way to the coronation. Barack Obama happened, and when it became clear that his was a viable "insurgency", the Clinton machine responded by taking out some coronation insurance. The Michigan and Florida primaries were moved up.
The DNC didn't stand for the scam but the result is nearly as effective. If this nominating process should fail to produce a presumptive nominee, the Clintons have insurance in the unseated delegates they "won" in Florida and Michigan.
This is their hole card. Don't for a minute think that they will hesitate to play it
On January 22, 2008 - 10:10am destor23 said:
If Hillary beats Obama it's not going to be the result of some zany conspiracy.
On January 23, 2008 - 5:54pm jexster said:
J. McCutchen
Nothing hidden about the conspiracy. Bill Clinton's been building this machine since 1986
If Hillary beats Obama, it will be because of Bill's rolodex of party officials
On January 25, 2008 - 3:28pm jexster said:
J. McCutchen
First the Clintons Machine created Tsunami Tuesday hoping to bury insurgent candidacies before the first vote was cast.
Then, when that didn't work, the Clintons machine moved up the Michigan and Florida primaries for 2/5 Disaster Insurance
Then, when that didn't work......
The Clinton's Michigan/Florida Scam
Mrs. Clinton Calls for State Delegations to be Seated
I thought she'd have the decency to wait until at least March before she sprung the fraud

There are no do-overs in politics

It is time for The Clintons to go

It is time for Greg Sargent to go

Just so everyone knows what is at stake; whoever has the most delegates going into the convention is going to control the delegate situation:

Under convention rules, a credentials committee controlled by the presidential candidate with the most delegates will verify the legitimacy of delegates.

http://www.11alive.com/news/article_news.aspx?storyid=107361

So, just know that if Clinton is ahead by one delegate, she will seat Michigan and Florida to put herself over the top.

There is a certain poetic justice in this. This is the death knell of the NH primary. Great slap at those NH clitonistas who worked their fingers to the bone to save her campain.

What an arrogant, narciissist.

The anti-establishment candidate sides with the establishment while the supposed establishment candidate goes against it.

Come on Obama supporters, I thought you never disenfranchised anyone.
I would agree that Mi delegates are sort of out-of-step, but FL where all three candidates are on ballot, come on? For once show that there is more to Obama than just talk.

The inane arguments made by Hillary supporters here sound just like the inane arguments made by Bush supporters elsewhere. Maybe that nonsense will work for getting elected, but it doesn't do much for the country.

Here's an idea. If after February 5 there is no nominee, tell Florida and and Michigan that they can have their delegates counted, if they hold an additional primary or caucus, after the 5th. It would probaby have to be a caucus since that is party run.

If they wanted attention, it seems like the later the primary/caucus this year, the more attention they will receive.

What do you think?

Ezra Klein has some good points on the ramification posed by this latest Clinton tactic:

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=01&year=2008&base_name=clinton_tries_to_reinstate_mic

The anti-Hillary cognitive dissonance here is just sad. Serious Kubler-Ross stage behaviors.

The Michigan and Florida delegates were and are going to be seated anyway, duh.

So...guess what. The Clinton campaign is now playing you whiners and the enabling media outrage artists into Total Outrage Overload.

I don't know why folks are trying to have a rational discussion with any HRC supporter on this issue. If they cared about integrity, rules, regulations, etc., they wouldn't be supporting the Clintons (who've demonstrated time and again, that it's about THEM, not anyone else). They won't acknowledge the absurdity of the Clintons tactics, no matter what. They've got their marching orders from the mothership. Resistance is fuitile.

The fact is, the DNC instituted these rules and 48 other states complied with them. Rules are rules. Seat them AFTER the nominee is decided. Allowing them to participate in the nomination process only benefits the Clintons.

With all the BS that Hillary is engaged in to win the nomination, I think she’ll eventually secure it for herself, but at a great price. There is a lot of anger coming out of NH and NV right now because of the tactics Hillary’s supporters employed in those states to win:

*throwing Obama’s volunteers out of voting stations in NH, thereby interfering with their get out the vote efforts
*telling Hillary’s supporters at the NV caucuses to arrive early, then shutting the doors on Obama’s voters before they were supposed to be closed (complaints at HUNDREDS of caucus locations)
*voter suppression
*suing the culinary union that endorsed Obama in NV because Hillary didn’t get their support
*floating allegations of “voter intimidation” against Obama in NV
*last minute attack mailers to women in NH and NV
*lying about Obama’s positions
*floating the “Obama is a radical Muslim” emails
*playing the race card; etc. etc.

Granted, even in democratic primaries/caucuses, there’s bound to be the odd robocall, attack mailer, or efforts to misstate an opponent’s positions/votes, but the voter suppression and voter intimidation tactics speak of corruption from the top down, at higher levels in the state parties themselves. I don’t think people understand yet how upset a lot of those voters were and how upset a lot of Obama’s supporters are – not just about losing (it happens), but about all the voter suppression/intimidation tactics that were used. I KNOW Hillary will only step up these antics as she proceeds state to state, and there will be A LOT of angry democrats left in her wake, who won’t be coming out to support her in the fall – black, white, brown, and everything in between.

Hillary may win the nomination, but I think she’ll lose the election because (among other reasons) she will have so demoralized the base that many of them will stay home rather than support her. However, the republican base will be energized by getting the democrat they want to run against. I KNEW democrats would find a way to blow this thing. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Thank you, Sarah. I agree!

Don't blame Hillary, blame Howard Dean and the national party!

How can you deny people's votes, especially in the case of Florida? Those poor people, the party is so destroyed that they cannot choose their own primary date, how can you deny them? Those people are basically squeezed by both the national Democratic party and the local republican party. And mind you, they have already turned in more absentee votes than all votes casted by people in NH, IA, and NV. Are you going to tell them their votes don't count and they should not bother to vote at all.

The Republicans are much smarter! They halved the delegates from all states holding primaries ahead of Feb.5. Why the Dem. don't have this common sense?

ObamaPost-Senator Nelson (FL) to endorse Clinton.

My guess his endorsement was the reason why Hillary's camp came out with this statement. ObamaPost ``speculates'' that the Senator may asked Hillary to fight for the delegates.

Let me repeat what I just wrote to the DNC.

I've contributed a lot to the DNC since Howard Dean rolled out the 50-state strategy. If the DNC gives in to this obvious power play, they will never see another dime of my money. period.

Once again, Hillary is bound and determined to destroy the party. Pathetic. I am so done with the Clintons.

Dateline Denver
Clintons Steal Nomination
SuperDelegates Fall in Line and Seat Renegade Delegations

They'll break the Democratic party and they could care less

Clinton supporters: it's not too late to do the right the thing.

It's past too late

Do you think The Clintons care for their supporters any more than they care about honesty or the Democratic Party?

Ask Barney Frank

He won't tell

If Obama is our nominee I'll be happy to vote for him, but I hope he's not as big a crybaby as his supporters. We need to win an election not listen to speeches.

What are the obama supporters intending to tell FL voters? They should not bother to vote at all? I saw somewhere that more absentee votes have been casted than all votes casted in the other three primaries. Should you Obama voters go and tell those people: stop wasting your time and your postage, your vote will never be counted!!!

By the way, the FL Democratic party is so weak that it cannot back out of the early primary date. As I said earlier, they get squeezed by the local republicans. Now they should be squeezed by national Democratic party as well?

Hillary has counted up the delegates and has decided she doesn't like those "uncommitted" votes which keeps delegates from her.

Florida needs to vote or caucus or whatever they are doing there and write in "uncommitted". This is a vote against Hillary and against fixing the primary.

I would urge everyone in Florida to vote in whatever mechanism has been arranged.

Thanks.

Florida needs to vote or caucus or whatever they are doing there and write in "uncommitted".

Er, wouldn't we rather that Floridians vote for Obama rather than "uncommitted." Unlike MI, his name is still on the ballot down there (FL law does not allow it to be removed once the candidate has filed papers).

I'm curious why Florida and Michigan become news now, the eve before South Carolina.

Because Clinton called today for her delegates to insist that FL and MI be seated at the convention. Did you not see the post to which all of these combox responses are addressed?

So hillary's campaign tried (really hard) to get her name off of the Michigan ballot but since they couldn't (darn!) she is now saying she deserves those delegates? Which idiot in her campaign thought that this tactic was a good idea? And to make matters worse, hillary actually LISTENED to them and ran with it.
As Teddy KGB said "bad judgment".
Does not bode well if she is the president. Just like george jr., whatever I want, I get.

This is another scramble, as was Hillary's infamous "breakdown" in New Hampshire, to lock up a Clinton win.

If these two continue thier dishonesty, it will bring both of them down and Bill can forget his "legacy". It appears that we will remember the "I did not have sexual reations with that woman". Thanks for memories!

Siberian writes

And I'll bet in the end if that would decide the nomination, they will get seated and Obama's pandering to NH/Iowa by withdrawing his name from the ballot might just cost him the nomination.

No way. If it comes down to that, and the vote isn't counted, some Clinton supporters might be pissed off, particularly in FL & MI. But if the DNC reverses it's rule, despite having made the candidates sign pledges not to campaign in those states, it would tear apart the party.

Thanks, Josh, for taking a hard line at TPM.

Hillary is one dihonest person. After breaking ranks to register for the ballot in Michigan and claiming to support the Democrat ban on delegates, she now collects delegates with no competition and wants them counted.

Heaven save us from the Clintons. What a mean, dishonest, vicious pair. A life-long Democrat, I believe I would support Satan himself againts Hillary Clinton.

Do the Clintons have any idea the damage they are doing to the nation?

Matthew, you are a typical hillary sheep. According to you, she is safe because she's not 'really' behind this and even if she is behind it, it's no big deal.
Grow a brain and pick a candidate who you BELIEVE in.

I have never been a supporter of Hillary, but today I have had enough. The dangerous, lying Clintons must be stopped. America cannot elect this liar as president. Please count me now officially as a Hillary and Bill hater, and change my registration from Democrat to Independent.

Hillary is a selfish, selfish woman who cares more about her own political fortunes than even her own party, much less the common good.

I remember when I heard she was the only one on the ballot in Michigan that I smelled a conspiracy. Now, it appears so.

Bill and Hillary--its time to go away. Leave the country alone. After the last seven years of kakistocracy the last thing this country needs is a third Clinton term with these disingenuous pricks.

This is a Democrat FINALLY fighting back as the Republicans continue to disenfranchise Dems in Florida. Remember, this schedule was set by the Republican legislature, and signed into law by Gov. Jeb Bush, with the rank-and-file Democrats fighting against the schedule all the way.
She'll get accolades from the long-time-active Dems in Florida, and their votes, too.
Quitcherbitchin', and tell Howard and the rest of the DNC how you feel about Republicans running the Democratic convention...

There is no reason to fear another Clinton presidency. She is already hated by all RepubliCons and Independents and half of the Dumbocraps. Fear a McCain presidency, or worse, a Romney or Giuliani dictatorship. Hellary will not win the general election.

All of this hate for Hillay. She will win the nomination regardless. Obama can come back in 4 to 8 yrs and try again. Hillary is an intelligent, goal driven, successful, strong, capable woman. She has been dealing with people underestimating her and calling her every name in the book for years. Politics is no place for the weak. It is rough and tumble and if you can't handle it, get out. No one is going to hold Obama's hand if he makes it to the whitehouse.

The whining is getting really old. Grow up! This is politics and Hillary is in this to win. I do not see that Hillary is behind the timing of the seating push, but that she is is good. That she gets these folks seated is good. That others chose to sit aside is just sour grapes.

Hillary will very likely be the Democratic nominee. She is no wimp like Kerry, no push-over quiter like Gore, no traitor like Leiberman. She is a scrapping win-at-all-costs candidate that deserves all of our support--now and once she wins the nomination.

It is sickening to read all of the whining shock among commenters. This is politics and if you can't play with the big boys and girls, well... Or, would your rather have some sniveling candidate and party up against a grown-up like McCain? Or and of the others.

Hillary is real, she's ready, she's got good ideas, she's a politician that will compromise when needed, will stand fast when not. I make no bones about supporting her. Compared to her competition in the Democratic primary, how can any not? If not now, then in the general election? For those who would rather go home and pout, or even vote for a Republican or a potential third party candidate, go for it. (I do not think your numbers mean much, your votes won't make a difference. I am especially heartened in this to see the VERY high approval ratings even today for Bill in South Caroline despite all of your ranting and raving about his role in the campaign against Obama. I look forward to seeing him there for Hillary in the fall and stuffing this election and her CLINTON win down the throats of the Republicans.)

NoBoy writes

And think of it this way: she has knocked the Obama meme of HRC as Big Fat Reagan Liar off the front page.
Game.
Set.
Match?

Uh, yeah, by doing something even more disingenuous and hypocritical and getting that on the front page. I think they call that a double-fault.

Maybe I don't understand the process as well as TPM does, but it is my understanding that the decision to seat those delegates will be made at the convention. She's just letting them know she's going to fight to seat them. Why not? They're her delegates. If she sews up the nomination without them, no one will object to seating them. If she doesn't sew it up, Obama can make a fight of it at the convention. It has always been understood that the party could seat those delegates if they chose to. Why make it sound like some kind of surprise attack? There is a lot of work to be done between now and the convention. I favor keeping the troops engaged and motivated in Michigan and Florida. We don't need to be giving Romney or McCain a head start. TPM really should endorse someone. At least that would provide a context for their tortured reasoning.

Ni Daye (and all others making the same bizarre point):

Obama didn't create the rules to disallow FL & MI delegates. The DNC did. Months ago. Go argue with Howard Dean if you don't like it.

All Obama did was be a good little Democrat and go along with what the party said. Now Hillary is trying to change the rules in the middle of the game because she would reap the benefit from Obama's loyalty to the party.

I guess you can't get past your desperate, obsessive love of Hillary to recognize the ludicrousness and unfairness of it.

If the situations were reversed you'd be shouting that Obama is proving how he's really a Republican because he won't follow the DNC rules, You guys are really hilarious.

Or should I say HILLARYOUS?

Matthew says: "Hillary will very likely be the Democratic nominee."

If she is, you will see at least 40 percent of the Demcratic party bolt. McCain, Bloomberg?, stay home? Anybody but the Clintons!

Mathew writes

She is no wimp like Kerry, no push-over quiter like Gore, no traitor like Leiberman. She is a scrapping win-at-all-costs candidate that deserves all of our support--now and once she wins the nomination.

It is sickening to read all of the whining shock among commenters. This is politics and if you can't play with the big boys and girls, well... Or, would your rather have some sniveling candidate and party up against a grown-up like McCain?

Yeah, she's a fighter all right. Maybe she'll swiftboat her way all the way the White House, just like another president I know. Remember what George W. Bush did to the "real man" McCain in SC? If victory at any cost is your thing, go with Clinton, but it makes me kinda sick. I think that it can get her into office, but the partisan squabbling will get worse. It's bad for the Dems in the long run and bad for the country in general.

for all of you Clinton-supporting people out there: the issue is not whether the Florida and Michigan delegates count in the the Democratic primary, which was decided last year.

THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE.

the issue is that Clinton, along with all of the other candidates, agreed with the DNC months ago and PLEDGED to not campaign or involve themselves in the primaries of those states. except that, when it became politically useful for her to do so, Clinton abandoned her pledge and is now pushing to include these delegates after winning the first state (by being the only Democrat on the ballot) and being projected to win the 2nd.

the issue here is not disenfranchisement, its dishonesty.

Noboy said "HRC does not have the power to seat the FL and MI delegates. Do you understand that?"

Do you understand that this is not about delegates, it's about honesty and integrity?

Do you undertand that voting for the Iraq War was not about one vote, it was about a clear lack of honesty, integrety and sound judgment?

Do you understand that many Americans want a president who doesn't lie, not more Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton?

Do you understand that, Noboy, or are you content to let the Clintons damage the Demcractic party, the democratic process and the nation for their own personal gain?

I don't understand how anyone could seriously say that this latest move by Hillary is intended to enfranchise voters.

With tactics like these, Hillary is alienating so many people that a lot of the standard assumptions about an election could unravel before Nov. '08.

If she continues playing dirty like this and becomes the nominee, I wouldn't be shocked if there are massive write-ins for Obama or even Al Gore which could dwarf Nader's effects on 2000.

I am one of thousands if not millions of registered Democrats who has been repeatedly feeling that it could very well be impossible for me to vote for Hillary. It seems a lot of others have already made up their minds never to vote for her.

Henry writes "Hillary haters are bunch of cowardly pussies."

Interesting. Perhaps you should start a 527 group with a slogan whose initials spell out PUSSIES.

As others have noted, Obama recently began to run campaign ads in Florida contrary to his pledge. That Hillary now one-ups him is good and any complaint otherwise is sour grapes. Obama loses this round.

BTW, all of this 'I don't like politics this way, I don't want any part of this devisive, win-at-all-costs campaign'. Okay, do you prefer the alternative where we have such a wimpish, afraid of their own shadow and upsetting folks group of Democrats as we have in Congress now that are afraid to pull funding from Bush's war and are afraid to start overdue impeachment?

We need Hillary and Bill back in the White House. Clinton wasn't afraid to even let the Republicans shut down government in his battle over his policies. I'm really tired of the whining and sniveling 'let's not pay rough or offend anyone, nor take a risk' politics.

I trust that Clinton will take action and make hard decisions. Obama hasn't shown the same--can't even explain his present votes or 'wrong' votes except 'I goofed.'

Finally, Rove and Bush won because they played politics better than the Democrats. Obama and you supporters of him are proving to be second best in this. Hillary is not a loser and won't shrink from a fight. She will clearly play and beat the Republicans at their own game. Yes, as I wrote, I think only she can win this election. (I haven't heard anyone suggest otherwise--all I hear is whining, not that he will likewise play hardball. In fact, all the whinning is to support his NOT playing hardball to win. How pathetic for him and the party.)

As others have noted, Obama recently began to run campaign ads in Florida contrary to his pledge. That Hillary now one-ups him is good and any complaint otherwise is sour grapes. Obama loses this round.

-----------------

pay attention, dolt, as you evidently have not been so far.

Obama has run NATIONAL ads that have also ran in Florida, as it was not possible for him to run a national ad that NOT run in Florida, according to the networks who carried the ad. Clinton's national ads run in Florida as well.

this is not the same thing as "running an ad in Florida contrary to their pledge", and neither of them should be faulted for it.

Goodness. Someone needs a nap. I haven't heard anyone say Mrs. Clinton's ads are running in Florida. Source?

You know, these guys might be crooks, but they are good ones. They know that this is not going to fly, the party can change the rules now. But this is going to stay over the weekend, and is going to distract people from a meaningful SC victory from Obama with a meaningless squabble over Florida.

Sorry blackstar, Clinton has not run national ads. She may now, since Obama has, thus negating their pledge not to run ads in Florida.

the 'I had to run them in FL because I got a national ad buy' excuse is pretty lame. Who said he had to get a national ad buy?

I personally think the whole thing was stupid from the start. Let them all buy ads and campaign, and count all the votes. This whole "Iowa and NH have to go first" thing is ridiculous.

She is nothing without the feminist bloc and Bill.

HA! Thats a good one. What Dem candidate in the last 30 years would have been anything without the feminist block? Bill has been pretty darn good for Dems running for office as well.

If Obama wins the nomination, I will put my country before anything else and vote for him over the warmongering, constitution-shredding Republicans.

Too bad he is incapable of leading his supporters to do the same thing if Clinton is the nominee.

I guess you will enjoy the Romney administration.

Man, the Clintons are like those cheesy people who try to cheat at Scrabble.

"ABD is a word! It is! It is, uh, a Latin Acronym of a Medical Term, uh ... it's in the rules, it's how we always played it in Arkansas, uh .."

They are just so craven and desperate, pulling rules straight out of their butts in pursuit of any advantage, whether its honest or dishonest.

I don't think it ever occurs to them to win by ... actually putting down good words.

No votes for them.

Dawn and others are making some pretty weak one-sided arguments for HRC.

Look, the bottom line is this: the three candidates have agreed to support the party in it's right to manage when state party organizations may have their primaries. They all said they wouldn't campaign there. HRC got weasely and left her name on the Michigan ballot, and easily got more votes because of it.

Then, HRC sees she's way ahead in FLA, and decides to break her agreements for political gains.

What makes you think she won't do more of that later. Everything she promises now must have an asterisk:

End the war in Iraq*
Healthcare reform*
represent you*

* unless I decide later that I have more to gain by not doing it.

Hmmm... that's powerful leadership for ya.

Bret wrote on January 25, 2008 4:30 PM:
"Clinton was not the only name on the Michigan ballot. It is not her fault that Edwards and Obama pulled their names off. They did however ask their supporters to vote uncommitted to try and embarrass Hillary. She still got over 50% of the vote. Does anyone think that she would not have won even if their names had been on the ballot? 80% of the blacks voted uncommitted for Obama. She still won. So please stop acting like she won by default. She will win Florida too. What will be the excuse then?"

Bret, this is too easy. The voters in MI & FLA want their votes to be counted, so anyone who overtly (FLA) or covertly (MI) supports their point of view will get the primary votes.

Maybe you disagree with the DNC decision, and that's fine. Some good arguments can be made that the party should've allowed the delegates to be counted (and there are good arguments for why not too). But, in the end, the candidates agreed to abide by the DNC decision, and only now, when it becomes apparent that HRC doesn't have a lock on a nomination by Feb. 5, does she suddenly "hear" the voters.

Yeah, she "hears" a lot of things lately it seems. I think she even heard Obama say he likes Republican policies, when, in fact, he didn't say or imply anything of the sort.

Save the dirty tricks for the general, HRC.

The DNC's position is that the presumptive nominee at the convention will have the choice of deciding, by getting asking their delegates to support, seating the FL and MI delegates. It would have been a gesture of unity for the delegates to seat the other delegates, even if the delegates were not all for that candidate.

It is not a dirty trick to say now that you are all for seating all the delegates. Shrewd political move, sure. But there is nothing dirty about it.

Obama can counter it, as he is, by standing up for...what is it exactly? No one but HIM is breaking the pledge not to campaign in those states.

The real reason why Clinton is arguing for delegates of FL and MI to be seated is because she wants to gavanize the FL voters. By stating that their Obama and Edwards does not want their votes to count, Hillary would therefor gets the angry votes from FL voters. Hillary will win by a landslide therefor taking the glory and momentum to super tuesday. After she wins she'll go back and agree that FL votes should not count.

Hillary is EVIL!!!!!! I want the best candidate, not the one that can manipulate the best.

How to rig an election – By Hillary Clinton:

(1)Tie up all the money so opponents can’t finance their campaigns:
Hillary’s camp called ALL donors and threatened them that they’d better not contribute to Hillary’s opponents, even if they had already maxed out their contributions to Hillary. The hope was that Hillary would win the “money primary”, giving her early momentum going into the early contests (and hopefully help in the polls), so she’d be established as the “front runner”. However, that pesky Obama was able to grab some of those donors anyway and raise lots of money on the Internet.

(2)Arrange for the DNC to cram all the early contests together and create a MASSIVE Tsunami Tuesday. With such a front loaded schedule, the advantage would go to the candidate with a well recognized name and lots of money – Hillary Clinton. If that candidate secured some early wins, they’d roll into Super Tuesday with ALL the momentum and be unstoppable. Once again, enter pesky Barack Obama! When Obama won Iowa, it freaked the Clinton’s out because HE wasn’t the one who was supposed to benefit from the early momentum, and if Hillary hadn’t stopped him in NH, she’d be toast – so out came the daggers! They went ballistic on Obama in NH, sent out attack mailers and robocalls, and engaged in voter suppression at the voting stations by having their supporters in NH throw Obama’s volunteers out of several voting locations, interfering with their get out the vote efforts. That’s why NH was her firewall – she knew her pals there would engage in ANY underhanded tactic to help her win that state, particularly if she lost Iowa.

(3)If the race is tight, try to get the MI and FL delegates seated, after successfully getting the DNC to ask Obama and Edwards to remove their names from the MI ballot and agree to NOT campaign in MI and FL. Since Obama and Edwards haven’t campaigned in MI and FL, Hillary’s lead is solely based on being more well known in the state. In any state where all three of them compete, it’s a much tighter race and the distribution of delegates is really close, so in MI and FL, she gets that lion’s share of the delegates without having to compete for them. This scam has obviously been in the works from the beginning, and it won’t fly. There will be WAR at the convention if the DNC agrees to give Hillary the bulk of those delegates when Obama and Edwards didn’t compete in those states AT THE REQUEST OF THE DNC. This would most certainly split the party.

If Hillary was such a great candidate, there’d be no need for all this sh*t. This is an effort to prop an WEAK, UNelectable candidate.

I see trouble down the road at the convention.

please will someone out her as a lesbian, or some other scandel that will end this awful arrogant destruction of the country's best chance to move beyond bush/clinton.

What Josh said. No way.

Hey libs or progressos how is Ruddy Gulianni lying when he says HClinton was for the war before it went wrong ????Stepup up .

Look into why Obama and Edwards removed their name from the MI ballot. It had nothing to do with following the rules, or pledge, or whatever. They knew they faced steep odds in Michigan anyway, and were trying to look good to the Iowa voters, who guard that 'first in the nation' thing like Bill with a bag of fries. No one called them dirty when it worked. Hillary chose to keep her name on there and risk alienating Iowa and NH voters, who knew all about it.

Iowa, NH, Nev, and by tomorrow SC will all have voted. They got to keep their political thunder and disproportionate attention - in fact Nevada and SC got a lot more than they usually do because of the close race.

No one is doing anything dirty or illegal here. It is all just political gamesmanship.

Marc is right - she is just trying to make a big splash in Florida to get some momentum for Super Tuesday. This week Hillary also emphasized her support for some NASA work here in Florida. No one is whining about that, but the night is young.

So again the Clinton group shows they are smarter then the Obama group and the Obama group cries foul. Cries dirty politics as if there is such a thing.

anyone know what Edwards has said about this?

Dawn,

The DNC made it clear that MI and FL had to move back the dates of their primaries or they would be stripped of their delegates. They were both given a deadline by which to comply, and they did not.

www.IowaIndependent.com didn't write that part.

Ken, It was impossible for Florida Dems to comply - the republicans run the legislature and they moved the primary. They are only being punished by the RNC by losing half their delegates, plus their candidates get to campaign here. If anyone is being unfair in this mess, it is the DNC.

little ole jim wrote on January 25, 2008 9:20 PM:
"Why is there so much outrage in so many of these comments? You should be outraged when you know what you are talking about.

Michigan I don't know about.

But Florida? All of the candidates are on the ballot here in Florida, there is no advantage."

Jim, I think it's bad that FLA voters aren't i this thing. Being from California, I understand the desire of the other states to not have the outcome of the primaries be 'decided' by one or two little states which don't represent the full diversity of the nation. The system could be better. Party officials on the national and local levels could've handles this better.

But all that has no bearing on the fact that the candidates agreed to one thing, and now that HRC sees an advantage, she wants to change the rules.

Speaking of advantages, here's why the situation is an unfair advantage for her. HRC is the most high profile candidate in the country... she's more of a known quantity than the others. State to state, she has enjoyed a wide margin of lead until we get close to a primary for a particular state. As the other candidates gain exposure and have a chance to differentiate themselves from HRC, they gain ground on her. In FLA they don't have that opportunity. Keep in mind that delegates are divided among the candidates, based on the votes a candidate receives - it's not 'winner-take-all'. So, the difference between a 60/25/15% share of the delegates vs. a 40/35/25% share of delegates in a state as big as FLA is HUGE! In a race as tight as this, it could tip the balance. Throw in MI, and the other candidates can throw in the towel.

Reality check time: Whatever the fairness or lack thereof of the DNC arrangement, if HRC were truly upset about the 'disenfranchisement' of MI or FL voters, she had plenty of time to raise the issue before now-- heck, she could have refused to join the pledge (you know, "giving ones word") in the first place.

So can we all agree that she is saying this *now* for some reason that benefits her and to heck with the voters? What is it? Why now?

-- To have a 'hot' story going on this weekend that may take a little attention from SC primary which she expects to lose?
-- To curry favor with FL voters so that she will get a bigger number of votes in that uncontested primary next Tues? Maybe she's even smarting just a bit because of the fairly high number of votes that went to 'uncommitted' in MI? And this time she might lose even more because the other candidates' names are on there.

I'm pretty sure the 2nd one is at least part of it. Like a lot of bullies who pummel others, the Clintons sure seem awfully thin-skinned. Bill is still whirling like a Tasmanian Devil at Obama's rather dispassionate (and accurate) statement about Bill and Nixon not being as transformational as Reagan.

If it works out that she can claim those votes in the end, I'm sure she will. But suspect there is a more short-range motive for bringing it up right now.

I agree in part with the comment that alluded to the fact that just because Obama isn't the one being quoted as stating he wants to see the delegates seated, the claws come out and aspersions cast about how Ms Clinton is a bushwhacking hornswogalling, conniving horny toad, deceiver that should be lynched then crucified the transylvanian way.
This woman is a hard working honest public servant, as opposed to voting your misogyny to favor the Republican crime cartel we have now, and run a real risk of handing it to them in '09' by voting for an ideal that I feel is a wee bit wet behind the ears yet.
Another commenter stated that this is a betrayal of Howard Dean etc etc etc. Nothing could be less true. Howard Dean wants to see a Democrat in the Whitehouse in '09'. And as far as Josh's synopsis .... The people of Michigan have very little understanding of what happened to begin with regarding the shifting of dates and the "non-appearance" of candidates on the ballot and the whole technical jibberish connected to the rules change. Needless to say they do want their vote and they do want their delegates and representatives seated at the convention I assure you without any doubt what-so-ever. Demonizing, for what ever reason, a woman who is willing to work hard and do a good job for you is like saying you prefer the mafia to take care of your governmental affairs because the honest candidate drinks "green tea" instead of the accepted standard budweiser/coffee latte' blend
Grow the fuck up! This is Serious! Democracy is serious and winning IS important, not the attitude that "Oh well, my life won't change much, but I sure showed that "woman" who wears the pants".

Pat,

I would be for that. I'd rather see the people get a more direct vote than whatever their congressman prefers. I hope Obama or Edwards suggests it.

There are a couple of misconceptions here, probably because the headline mentions the DNC.

1. It has always been assumed, and at the very least hinted by the DNC, that the presumptive nominee at the convention would ask their delegates to seat the MI and FL delegates.

2. Clinton's statement does not ask the DNC for anything. It asks her delegates to consider seating the MI and FL delegates, just as she would at the convention if she were the presumptive nominee.

If she wants to start acting like her nomination is "inevitable" again, that is a risk she takes, and it may cost her more votes than it gets her.

There are many ways to talk to voters without stepping foot in their state. One is to break a pledge and run a national ad that happens to play in the banned state (Obama), another is to do what Hillary just did.

Another way to see it is as a shot across the bow that she is not going sit idly at the convention and lose the nomination because these delegates do not get seated. It is a warning to the DNC to come up with a more equitable solution, since it was their miscalculation that there would be a clear nominee that causes this. They would not have made this 'punishment' if they thought it would really matter.

Would Obama really go quietly into the convention knowing the delegates that would make the difference for him were not allowed to count? I sure hope not - that would not bode well for him fighting for every vote in November. Will he say to poor neighborhoods in Ohio, 'Sorry you don't get as many polling places, but those are the rules', like Kerry did? Or will he do his best to make sure they are treated fairly?

If Edwards were to drop out now and ask all of his delegates to switch to Obama at the convention, would that be unfair, even though the other candidates based their strategies in part on Edwards being in the primaries they entered? Of course not. Happens all the time. It's called politics.

And yes, most politicians are hypocrites - they don't bring any of this stuff up unless it benefits them.

After four decades as a Democrat, I changed my voter registration last fall after the FISA capitulation. Still, I certainly qualify as one of those Independents extremely likely to vote Democratic in November. This gambit by the Clinton camp might cause me to stay home if she is the nominee. Not that it matters: I vote in NC, and a vote for Hillary Clinton here will be wasted anyway, Obama might just carry NC (remember, Harvey Gantt nearly unseated Jesse Helms), and Edwards would be competitive, but Hillary will be driubbed. Mark my words.

I won't vote for anyone who does not support my right to have my vote count. The voters were not even consented about changing the primary date yet we are the ones being punished. We were robbed of our votes in 2000 and we were pissed. Now our own party screws us. I was going to stay home on primary day but now that Clinton has spoken out to have our votes count I am going to vote for her. I know that Hillary wants them to count because she is ahead in Florida but by the sane token Obama doesn't support having our votes count because he is behind in the polls so don't give me any crap. If Obama omes out before the primary in support of having our delegates count then I will vote for him because that would show real integrity. This is not about party unity. It's about our rights as voters.

I know that Hillary wants them to count because she is ahead in Florida but by the sane token Obama doesn't support having our votes count because he is behind in the polls

Liam, You wrote

First: It may be a move to take control of the party away from Dean, Emanuel etc. You know that the Clintons want to put their own people in charge of setting the campaign rules etc.

I live in FLorida and the voters here want our voices to be heard. The DNC is penalizing us in the most important election of our time. We have a black man and a woman running. This is historic. What has happended to the constitution? Every voice should be heard and frankly I don't care who makes it happen as long as it happens. No one on here knows exactly what happened anyway. The facts are that Florida moved its primary up (agreed by dems and repubs). The DNC was informed that if it didn't push it back a week our delegates would be stripped. The democratic party than wanted to move it back to avoid the penalties. The commitee who votes on that issue is made up of dems and repubs. The dems are outnumberd 2 to 1. When the vote was taken to move the date back it was voted down by the republican side. They had control and the dems lost.

Clinton and her supporters are utterly pathetic and ruining this party. There is NO chance that Obama or Edwardw ould have done anything like this or what happeed in Nevada. Thats the classic Clinton approach: "I may be shady but you would have done the same thing." Actually no. They wouldn't have. That's why there has been no evidence of Obama or Edwards trying to change rules to their benefit only after it is clear that it will, in fact, benefit them. Utterly shameless.

i think the DNC and the whole party is way off base .......caucus and proportioned delegates instead of winner take all states prolong the primary season and cause a lot of tension in the party....in 1980 the candidates beat on each other so much they were wounded and reagan won the election.....in this election with one winning the pop vote and only getting a portion of the delagtes will keep these 3 pounding each other possibly til may or june and in a year when a potted plant can beat the GOP..we could possibly end up losing because of this stupid DNC decision to strip delegates and trying to have 4 states get all the advantage of picking our candidate.....its not helping the party or the candidates or for that matter the voters ....obama wins iowa and is only 1 delegate up......hillary wins NH and the D's are tied ....she wins nevada obama get one more D....this is stupid....he wins SC and wont gain anything ......that means they have to get meaner and meaner to try to separate themselves and all we do is give the GOP ammo to beat either one of them

No, No, No, No.
As a Michigan voter, I will be outraged if our delegates are seated. There has been no real primary here, no real democratic process. Having those delegates seated for Hillary will not gloss over that problem.

All of this simply highlights the need for primary election reform. This is too important to leave for the power-hungry insider's club of the national party to make and change the rules as they go along.

It is funny. A few months ago Edwards would be screaming from the rooftops. Remember how much he took on Hillary? Now it seems there is a deafening silence. Come on Edwards! Stand up to this. You've been giving Hillary way to much slack lately.

Jesus, will you Obama supporters stop being such whiners? Yes, the Clinton campaign is making a move that would help her campaign. So what? This is politics. And please tell me how Hillary is "cheating." The candidates all agreed not to campaign in Michigan and Florida. Has Hillary campaigned in either state? No. She has followed her pledge to the letter. All she has done is issue a statement saying that the delegations should be seated. Jesus, they haven't even had the Florida primary yet, which you knee jerk idiots don't seem to realize. The only reason you're talking about Florida as being "her" delegates is because you know damn well she'll win that primary. She has said she thinks the party should seat the delegations. If the party disagrees, then they won't seat them. How is her saying she thinks the decision should be changed akin to "cheating"? She's followed the rules to the letter. Is she somehow ineligible to say how she thinks the process should work?

You people need to grow up. Do you really think your constant crying does anything to help Obama or the party?

"Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it."

I am a resident of Tampa Florida and am ashamed of what may very well be the most incompetent state Democratic Party in the country: the Florida Democratic Party. The present early state primary system lessens the influence of wealth, media conglomerates, and large state political machines. In small states grassroots support has a much greater impact on elections than in large states.

To be competitive in large state-wide contests requires a great deal of money. The discourse is mostly that of 30 second ads, because it is impossible to speak with as large a percentage of the population directly in the way you can in small states. Bringing large states up in the primary calendar would mean that presidential candidates would be even more dependent on large contributors than they are now. The likelihood of what Huckabee did in Iowa would be even less likely. As much as I disagree with Huckabee's positions, I am glad that outsiders can still upset big party boss favorites.

In early states local papers and media personalities can have as much if not more influence than the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, or major tv network programs. It must be really frustrating for the big media players, who are accustomed to greater influence in the national political scene, to have to endure playing a smaller role in the presidential primaries. I'm not surprised that so few of these media conglomerates are educating the public about the importance of early small state primary schedule.

How unfortunate for large state political machines, used to commanding so much national attention normally, to watch small states have a chance at influencing who the next president is. How much time and attention would small state issues get, if the presidential candidates had all state primaries even closer together? It is a frightening thing for me to see a United States Senator actually sue the national party for having the integrity and wisdom to preserve the small state preference. That a major candidate act to endanger this system should make plain where their priorities are and what kind of president they would be. As a resident of a large state, where the impact of every voter is proportionally less than in small states, I am overjoyed that the DNC is is preserving the influence of citizens over these other interests.

The horrible thing is that there so few understand the importance of the early small state primary system. I really had hoped the the Republican Party elders would have shown greater fortitude against this foolishness. I am amazed that the Florida Democratic Party machine is so stupid as to allow itself to aide and abet in the disenfranchisement of the voters of so important a state. That more are not outraged by what Florida Democratic Party did is at the heart of what is wrong with American politics.

I'm happy to count FL and MI if the votes don't end up mattering

Gee, thanks for the condescension, Genghis. Piss on you too for failing to recognize THE VOTERS IN THESE STATES ARE BEING DISENFRANCHISED NO MATTER WHAT THE REASON.

Piss on the party's failure to make one nationwide primary day, too - states like Iowa and New Hampshire, while quaint enough for photo ops, do NOT represent the majority of the country in many, many ways. How about other folks get a say sometime? hmm?