Hmmmph... "We'll let the DNC decide" doesn't seem an adequate position. Both campaigns should be fighting for the high ground here and the only high ground is revotes of both Michigan and Florida.

And no, Hillary, much as I love ya, "seat the delegates as is" ain't high ground.

Revote with no super delegates since they caused this problem in the first place.

This infuriates me.

Michigan would like to caucus. They are familiar with the caucus system. Hillary has proclaimed that she would not accept a caucus.

THere's a lot of conflicting information coming out of the Obama camp - remember the supposed 50 superdelegates that a surrogate on TV proclaimed would be shortly appearing, days after the Obama camp denied the rumour?
As for caucuses, I can fully understand why Hillary doesn't want one, as Texas showed that they give a 16% swing to Obama over primary (ie democratic) results.

I am not in favor of the mail-in revote because I think the concept is rather dubious and has the easy potential for fraud. I.E., I could easily vote for my neighbor who I know is out of town, etc.

I'm okay with a primary or caucus. It's up to Michigan and Florida to figure out how to get out of the mess they put their citizens in, though.

"remember the supposed 50 superdelegates that a surrogate on TV proclaimed would be shortly appearing, days after the Obama camp denied the rumour?"

Which Obama surrogate said that? The only report I heard about was from Tom Brokaw, the night of the OH/TX/RI/VT primaries and he (of course) didn't say who told him. I thought the campaign denied it that night or early the next morning. Was something more said? (FWIW, I suspect that they, or some significant number, were lined up, but then stepped back when Clinton won Ohio and Texas.)

MI and FL broke the rules! End of story.

Any individual who wants to change the rules in the middle of the game is an idiot! It is over. They lost their seats. Clinton signed off on this. Get over it.

Screw the mail-in revote, screw a new primary, screw a caucus, screw 50-50.

FL and MI should have a revote if they want to. But surely Obama should have some say in how it's conducted. The mail in vote in Florida--pushed by Hillary--smells fishy.

As if there would have been any tolerance for this immature nonsense if the roles were reversed and it was Obama who wanted to revise the rules after the fact. Don't you think she could have made more of a point about this earlier on in the campaign? Suddenly when she realizes she is losing it becomes important? Never once in any of those 20 debates did she so much as even mention this, and it would have made a difference then. She wouldn't have cared one iota about democracy or disenfranchising voters if those states went for Obama. She will obviously be a horrible executive - she relies much less on planning than on actually thinking through a strategy. God she is such a deceptive little crybaby.

Really, this is all just beginning to occasion even more voter fatigue. It's time for everyone to let it go. Clinton says no caucuses. Obama says no mailins (and he's right -- a mail in vote is a fraud waiting to happen). And there's no money for a proper primary. So enough. It's irrevocable, and we're tired of it, and it's time to end the discussion. That's what you do with children who just keep squabbling. You sne them to their rooms. Oh and p.s. - the delegates cannot just be seated according to the votes cast. It's not only Obama (or Edwards in Michigan) who thought these primaries wouldn't count. Plenty of voters stayed home too, so the results are absolutely invalid.

Obama sez we all should play by the rules. The rules were originally set by the DNC. Obama now sez let's STILL play by the DNC rules, whatever they may end up.

Hillary didn't take her name off the ballot in MI, like ALL the other Dem candidates that were playing by the rules. Hillary didn't play by the rules.

Hillary never raised much of a stink about MI or FL before Super Tuesday. Why? Because at that point, playing by the rules helped her. Now that playing by the rules doesn't help Hillary, she doesn't want the rules.

Can it be any more plain and simple?

Before Hillary started with (what I perceive is an attitude of) 'win at any cost' I liked her just fine, I just liked Obama more. If she had made any convincing arguments I could've changed back to her (note the *back to her*). But after all this, after the racism, after the bending and breaking of rules, after acting like a petulant Republican, after acting like someone who doesn't care if they bring down the Democratic party as long as they get the nomination...well...I just wonder how the heck can any real Democrat support her? If you're a woman, do you support a woman no matter how she acts? If you're a Dem, do you support a Dem no matter how she acts?

Two other large advantages of Obama over Hillary is that

--Obama helps more down-ticket Dems than Hillary
--Obama brings in more new Dem-leaning voters than Hillary

Is there a groundswell of support for re-votes? Are MI and FL Dems screeching to have their votes counted now? I haven't seen any evidence of this. And if they are, why didn't they make a fuss about this long ago, say, before the primary? Or over a year ago, when the decision to move up the primary was made? This s##t is exhausting. Move on.

This is bad. What is to stop other states from moving up their dates in the future? If they know the DNC will cave in and let them count/revote, then we could be having elections 18 months prior to November. What is so hard about following rules, anyway?

The DNC needs to hold its ground. Idiots in MI and FL caused this to happen, so they have to accept the punishment and STFU. And people like Wolfson, Ickes, Bill Nelson, and the like need to really STFU. There's no crying in politics (well, unless you're HRC).

It's really staggering to me how many of you are telling MI and FL voters to "STFU" about their deliberate disenfranchisement, and to read the arrogance of all of you "debating" whether or not our should votes count (uh, memo to all y'all - it's a right guaranteed to us by the Constitution). That's incredibly undemocratic, not to mention heartless and ignorant. I guess if it happened to you, you might be singing a different tune!

Regular voters had no say in what the MI state party decided to do WRT rescheduling a primary. I've seen only ONE poster on this thread acknowledge the fact that NH (and IA and SC, BTW) also moved up their contests IN VIOLATION of party rules.

And what happens to the traditional Early Three? NOTHING. But FL and MI? SMACKDOWN.

And why is that? Can ANY of you justify it?

*crickets*

Obama has said time and time again that he will abide by the decision of the DNC, provided they do not seat the delegates on the basis of the two primaries that were declared null and void by the DNC itself. His reasoning: you can't change the rules in the middle of the game. Clinton on the other hand understood the rules, agreed to them, and is now claiming both FL and MI (where she was the only person on the ballot).

She is claiming that not seating the delegates is disenfranchising the voters, but what about the millions of voters who did NOT go to the polls because they were told that their votes would NOT count? Are they not disenfranchised if the DNC does what Hillary wants?