well then they aren't getting counted, because it wasn't a fair election, and they broke the rules.

sorry Hillary, you can't switch up the rules this time.

Not that even if you got their delegates it would make a difference..

The problem here is that you can't agree and then disagree to rules based on what helps you out personally at that moment. There has to be some semblance of fairness to voters and candidates.

HRC agreed to the ban on delegates in these states, understanding that the votes wouldn't count, and now she's pushing for them to count? Would she make the same disenfranchisement plea if she'd lost MI and FL? OF COURSE NOT. So at some level, her opinion and Obama's opinion can't weigh in at this point. Not objective.

Isn't there a FAIR impartial way to resolve this? Why are caucuses so bad? It sounds like they are cheaper, but still allow people to vote. I'd sure as heck show up to vote again in this election, even if I'd already voted. But I think a lot of voters for each candidate stayed home because they'd been told it wouldn't count. Would you miss a day of work for a vote that was going to be discarded, or if your candidate wasn't on the ticket? Shouldn't those people have a chance to vote now, too? Just the people who ignored the rules get to vote and be on the ballot??? What a mess.

So, her position on Florida is just to let the results stand and seat them accordingly? Good luck with that.

Whoop-de-do, the Queen has spoken...let us all kneel in reverence since She Who Must Be Obeyed has now produced Her edict.

This is as convincing as her many explanations for why she voted to give Bush the war in Iraq he so desperately wanted from 9/11 on.

The Senator simply doesn't know what she's talking about. There will actually be more Michiganders in the state in the late spring/early summer than there were during the winter, given how many people head south in the bad weather. Timing will aid democracy, and elderly voters will make up a higher percentage of the electorate. You'd think that would be a plus for her.

As for rules? Does she think our state is full of morons? That wasn't her opinion up to this point. I guess she's implying that after a majority voted for her in January, intelligence just drained completely away.

Howard Dean said, yesterday, that both Florida and Michigan voted for the rules when they were proposed, so they knew full well what they were supposed to abide by, and had actually voted to enact the rules, that they later on decided to violate. Since it was party Leaders in both States that willfully ignored the rules that they had helped put in place, then let them rectify the problems that they created.

The DNC should ignore them until they repair the damage that they knowingly and willfully caused. It is not up to the DNC to rebuild the two houses that the owners burned down. Pay for your own repairs, Florida and Michingan, or stay homeless.

If the DNC were to pay for to restore those homes htatn the owners burned down, then none of the States will feel bound by the DNC rules henceforth.

The party instructed the candidates to remove their names from the ballot in Michigan. She did not. Perhaps it would be more fair for the party to split the Michigan delegates up amongst the remaining candidates who did remove their names from the ballot.

Would you "accept" caucuses now?

Perhaps she's gotten so cozy with the GOP these last few days that she's under the mistaken impression that she ran on their ballot.

That's one way to play it.

Any benefit she might have derived from championing FL and MI should quickly dissipate if she stands in the way of a compromise that will allow those states to participate in the nominating process.

I say take Florida and Michigan's delegates and split them EVENLY across the other 48 States. Who ever won that State -- gets those Delegates.

If I may paraphrase, "Any plan for including votes from MI and FL which is unfavorable to me would disenfranchise my supporters".

Of course she does not want cacuses. It takes leadership to get people to show up for them and she does not have any.

I am VERY disappointed in Howard Dean. He's been passive and behind the curve throughout this whole mess.

From a practical point of view, many voters from Florida are in old folks homes, living in Israel or off in the military - three constituencies likely to favor Hillary in a primary and likely to not make it to a caucus.

Of course old people don't count, etc.

He's said that the DNC won't pay and that the states (Fl and MI) will have to pay if they insist on having a re-do. Fair enough.

Or, they can follow the rules and appeal.

He's done all that he can publically, for the moment. I like his chances of sorting this out if the candidates don't try to bully the process.

"I would not accept a caucus."

Well, who gives a flying fuck what you would accept, Hillary? You'll accept what we decide, and like it.

Now, go back out and continue campaigning for John McCain for president.

I figured out what she likes John McCain so much.

She's in love with Cindy.

That would be "why" not "what".

I heard Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (congressperson from Florida) on Bill Press' show this morning (she's a Hillary supporter), and she was complaining about the fact that the Republican legislature foisted the early primary upon the poor unsuspecting Florida Democratic Party and, therefore, they shouldn't be penalized. What a crock of shit! The Republican majority in the State Legislature voted on it, but it was the Florida Democratic Party who requested the change in primary date, which brought to the floor by a Democrat and was backed by the democrats in the legislature. This is pure spin and very misleading. She makes it sound as if the Dems had nothing to do with the decision. If I hadn't been in the car I would have called in to his show and straightened that out post-haste.

Let's boil this down to the simplest argument, shall we? Florida and Michigan were well aware of the rules. They decided to ignore them and move their primaries up anyway (probably because they assumed it would be all over by Super Tuesday and they wanted to be kingmakers). The DNC gave them ample warning in December, 2007, to alter their plans. They chose not to, in direct violation of the DNC rules. NONE of the candidates objected to the sanctions placed upon the 2 states, although Bill Nelson and the Dem Party in Florida tried to sue (they took it to the US District Courts, which ruled against them). In fact, all of the candidates signed pledges agreeing not to campaign, and most of the nominees even removed themselves from the Michigan ballot.

Why is this so difficult for people to understand? Florida and Michigan ignored the rules. Why should they not be penalized? We can argue all day about the validity of the rules, the fairness of the rules, etc. etc., but the fact remains that there were rules in place and they broke them. Many, many voters stayed home on primary day because they were told that their votes would not count. The state parties disenfranchized their voters, not the DNC. I mean, come on, do we want to have primaries in October or November, a full year before the election? Because that's what's going to happen if there aren't at least some rules regarding primary dates.

The funny thing is, if Florida and Michigan had abided by the rules and held their primaries in February or March, they would have had a huge impact on the nominating process. In my opinion, they screwed themselves because of their (now misguided) belief that Hillary would run away with it. I'm all for a revote this summer (either caucus or primary), but I don't think the DNC should pay for it.

Hillary: Ready to change the rules on day one.

What does turn-out have to do with it? Aside from GOTV operations, I don't see how Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama have any control over how many people choose to attend the rescheduled caucus.

Maybe you are trying to make some point that I am not appreciating, and if so, I'd love you to elaborate. In my opinion, with the record turn-out for primaries and caucuses all across the board this year, my guess is, "if they hold them, they will come."

I guess the Clinton's are all about transparency.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/the_daily_muck_521.php#more

So much for being able to see what Hillary ACTUALLY did in the White House and what her REAL responsibilities were.

She won't accept? Did she "accept" the DNC rules on not counting their votes in the first place?

I believe Obama doesn't want a redo and will only accept a caucus. I fear he may have shot himself in the foot by being so adamant that Florida's votes don't count; it's why the numbers are the way they are (55-39, much like the last time 55-33). In light of previous elections, not including Florida will carry it's own peril.

To simply not count that many Democrats would be very similar to giving her the nomination now over Obama. It wouldn't make sense, it will rupture the party, and it will be detrimental to the nominee in the General Election.

Democracy's fundamental rule is 'all votes count'. It seems neither Hillary, nor Obama, want to truly respect this fundamental principle. Shame. Where's Mike Gravel now that we need choices?

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/obama_campaign_responds_to_cli.html

"The second point is there are no delegates at stake, so we will not be campaigning in Florida."

To me, assuming there will be no delegates AT ALL and that Florida just won't count, you're subjugating a true democratic process. Do Obama supporters believe the GE will be based on caucuses and not, to some degree, total votes? His 'get all the small states' strategy will work only if we had a true count of how many of what class came out to vote for whom. I still believe that Republicans voted for Obama only to betray him in the GE. Same for Hillary, which the fault then goes to the DNC's chaotic rulemaking. Remember, Hillary would be the nominee if it was winner take all, like in the General, than this proportional delegate distribution (which is why Obama won more delegates in TX besides losing the popular vote by 4%. Than don't work in the GE.)

Remember, Harold Ickes voted for the disenfranchisement of FL and MI:

"Ickes also said Clinton didn't vote on the DNC rules.

But Ickes did. And he voted in August to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates as a sitting member of the Rules and Bylaws Commission.

“There’s been no change,” Ickes said, adding that he was then acting as a member of the Rules and Bylaws Committee “not acting as an agent of Sen. Clinton. We had promulgated rules -- if Florida and Michigan violated those rules” they’d be stripped of their delegates. “We stripped them of all their delegates in order to prevent campaigns to campaign in those states.”

In fact, however, that was not why Florida and Michigan were stripped of their delegates. They were stripped of their delegates because they violated party rules by moving up their contest dates before Feb. 5. A pledge to not campaign in those states did not come about until one was put forward by the four early states allowed to go before Feb. 5 by the DNC -- Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. Clinton was the last to sign this pledge.

“Those were the rules, and we thought we had an obligation to enforce them,” Ickes acknowledged today on the call...."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/16/671358.aspx