When did I say that?

rstephen,

if Hillary's supporters 'don't' vote for Obama in November I'll then introduce you to Supreme Court Justices Ted Olsen and Ben Ginsberg.

It wasn't about the candidates. It was about the Michigan and Florida Democratic Parties.

"they chose to instead throw rules out the window"

Good grief, give me a break. Hillary was the one who wanted to throw the rules out the window, and she succeeded in part, by getting a net +23 delegates out of this whole sham. A fair result would have been to keep the delegations at zero, or to seat them only after Hillary concedes.

I have no doubt that there are many Hillary supporters who will refuse to show any class or dignity by accepting this very generous compromise, which is actually an affront to the other 48 states. Remember them? But that's not what these deluded supporters are all about - they simply can't accept that their candidate, who has acted as though she were thoroughly entitled to the nomination since Day 1, has been defeated, fair and square.

Way to go Dijamo! Your efforts are helping my master John McCain. Keep up the good work.

You do realize that the Levin proposal was splitting the difference between what the Obama and Clinton campaign said they wanted, right? And that it was the most popular and accepted remedy amongst Michigan's lawmakers?

And that Florida's delegates were split *EXACTLY* as Hillary Clinton wanted them, to her advantage, and that Barack Obama was not allowed a chance to campaign in Florida and get to know the voters, right?! At that point of the election, he typically gained 10% in the polls after campaigning for a few weeks, but he was denied that chance.

...and that only a few days ago, the lawyers said specifically that the lettering of the penalties for states running their primaries early was a manditory half-vote penalty, right?!

In what way, then, was this decision in any way biased towards Barack Obama? All we've seen today is a fair interpretation of the DNC rules in a way that gives the legal interpretation and the state lawmakers themselves the most power.

You know, I don't think it was Constitutional to penalize MI and FL for having their primaries early. It was ridiculous for the parties to do so. But what’s done is done. I think it’s shameful for Clinton to demand the full count. She cannot have it both ways. She agreed with the party’s decision. Then later cry “count all votes” when it was clear she was losing. If she was winning, Obama might have been crying the same thing. I do not agree that any delegates should be seated. But if it meant to resolve this whole thing, then so be it. Clinton should just sit down and shut up!! Quit being a sore loser. She’s hurting her reputation (or what’s left of it) and the party. Look at the facts ~ her campaign has been a disaster. She is in the red, financially speaking. There is no way she would be prepared to take on McCain without the funds. Let’s be realistic here!!! I’m by no means an Obama supporter. I just look at the facts and make an educated decision. I think this whole mess has the liking of Rove.

My wife and I were talking about this issue as the vote was counted. Her conclusion is that Florida and Michigan shouldn't get any delegates at all. My wife is a pretty level headed Democrat and not really wedded to any candidate.

There are a lot of just plain regular folks out in the other 48 states who believe that playing by the rules is important. As she said, what is going to happen in 2012?

She also told me that she started moving away from Hillary when Hillary started whining about Michigan and Florida. I know people are passionate about their candidate, but Hillary lost fair and square. It is time to move on. I know I did. My first choice was Bill Richardson. My second was John Edwards. I simply accepted their losses and moved on. It is time for Hillary supporters to do the same thing.

How in the world is this "throwing the rules out the window" when the rules are that none of these delegates should have been seated at all? Anything that Clinton gets out of this is a bonus over what she should get, if it's the "rules" we're talking about, here.

I only slightly prefer Obama to Clinton and would have been perfectly happy to see Clinton get the nomination. I don't really have anything personal at stake, here. My criticism of Clinton and your arguments is not partisan.

And I just cannot understand how she or you or anyone can justify reversing her position on the Michigan and Florida delegates—especially when, in doing so, there is a complete disregard for the fact that Obama took his name off the Michigan ballot as part of the agreement, which Clinton was a party to, of the implementation of the punishment of Michigan. To act as if it's fair to seat the Michigan delegates with no consideration for Obama's massive disadvantage is simply amazing to me. The Clinton campaign, represented by Ickes, wanted to seat all the Clinton delegates at full votes and give none of the "uncommitted" to Obama. That's absurdly unfair.

Finally, this notion that it's grossly unfair to Florida and Michigan voters to be disenfranchised is just plain wrong. I read one Clinton supporter from Florida quoted as saying that it wasn't her decision, as a "citizen" [sic] of Florida to move the date of the primary. But the truth is that it was, in effect, her decision because it was the Florida legislature, put in power by she and her fellow Florida voters, who decided this. That's how representative democracy works. You can't disavow responsibility for what your elected leaders do, it's our responsibility as citizens to elect the right leaders.

"Don't blame me, I didn't vote for X" is BS. It's an understandable sentiment, but it's wrong. If it were true, then if elected representatives we didn't vote for in a legislature passes laws we don't agree with, it would be reasonable to not aide by them. But it doesn't, and shouldn't, work that way.

The Michigan and Florida legislatures made bad decisions. The residents of those two states are rightly punished for these bad decisions.

Seating, not sitting. With a primary that Clinton herself said wouldn't count for anything, there was no basis to award delegates. So short of the 50/50 proposal that Obama wanted, there was no other basis for seating them. And remember, prior to this meeting, neither Obama or Clinton had any delegates from Michigan since their delegate selection plan was not approved. You can't take away something that was never given/earned.

So was I actually. I believed MI should have been split 50/50 and Florida at full strength as a compromse based on some semblance of rules and fairness. Would have had approx. the same outcome but would clearly not be trying to advantage or disadvantage either candidate. But to do this crap where you actually take delegates that senator clinton won and give them to Obama and give him 100% of the uncommitted vote -does that sound like effing compromise to you? Soounds like bullshit to me.

Margs? Yes, please!

Sorry I'm late. Had to shower and take a nap.

That long hearing was simply exhausting!!