It's just a bad strategy - so bad, it seems like a republican strategy.

The CANDIDATES AGREED TO COMPLY!!!

HILLARY BROKE THE AGREEMENT!!!

LET HER PAY FOR HER PERFIDY!!!!

bottom line: you're shooting at fish in a barrel and you don't care which fish you hit because they're all democrats.

You're easy to understand.

Me too.

Smith v. Allwright was about the voting rights of Blacks

The Court overturned the Democratic Party's use of all-white primaries in Texas, and other states where the party used the rule.

"We count ALL votes in America."

Perhaps you can explain, if such is the case (which it isn't), why it was that the former Sec of State for Florida, Kathleen Harris, disenfranchised better than 90,000 democratic voters just weeks before the 2000 election and purged not a single republican. Sure All votes count, but the people have to be allowed to vote in the first place and not denied, as you republicans did, their right to do so!

btw sparky - Obama and Clinton both agreed to remove their names from the Florida and Michigan ballots and not to campaign in either State! Obama complied and Clinton lied!

btw - If I really had the desire to throw stones I would have used far more pejorative, yet highly accurate and descriptive, terms when referring to you and your ilk. At best I tossed a pebble or two and kept it simple so that it wouldn't be too difficult for you to comprehend knowing your difficulties in that area!

Whether the Court will choose to hear this case (if it ever gets that far) is yet to be decided. Personally, I'd bet against it.

You know I cant resist. Its kind of like driving by a train wreck, ya know?

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?article...

then this..

http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/arch...

We count ALL votes in America.

Those people came out to vote, and the votes should count. If Obama was so stupid as to not get on the ballot then why would I want the dummy for my President?

Just count the damn votes. Period.

The folks in Michigan and Florida are gonna be so mad if you don't count them that they will vote Republican in the general election. I know I would if I were them.

You have no interest in rules, so don't insult us!

Obama does better in the caucus system, and if those are Hillary states, well..she's win, right???

This costs the states/taxpayers NOTHING!!

EXACTLY!!

How can any nit wit vote against your comments that are so

true??

I have always respected her (to a degree), liked her (to a point) and respected her politics, but the world will see, once the dust settles that she handled this all wrong and is now compounding her failures to have been pro-active when the irons were hot! (as they say)

Nothing that you say will be helpful...

"let them eat cake!"

This shows poor advisors and poor reaction to a potential "crisis'..In this case the "crisis" is her very candidacy.

No foresight equals bad leadership!

Until now she has relied upon surrogates--Bill Shaheen, Bill Clinton, Geraldine Ferraro, etc.--to play the race card for her, now she's playing it openly and persistently herself. I don't think that she is in the least concerned about "her reputation with the party/voters" and it certainly doesn't look like she ever learned to be graceful.

PATHETIC.

This is YOUR problem, not ours.

He has said, from the beginning, that there need to be SOME solution, but that solution needs to come from the DNC (NOT the candidates).

Unlike Clinton, who has been 'campaigning' for HER solution, Obama has stayed out of it and said it should be decided by the DNC and should be as fair as possible given that his name was NOT on the ballot in Michigan and he did not campaigning in Florida. Neither of which Clinton can say.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Which in Florida (I'm not positive about Michigan) is REPUBLICAN. Since they KNEW that the RNC would NEVER actually abide by the rules they set down (history has proven THAT lack of consistency) then if the DNC doesn't fold also it makes the RNC look more voter friendly and the DNC look like it wants to 'pick and choose' who gets a voice in choosing the nominee. Then you ADD the position that no one would be willing to vote for a Democrat (in the General Election) in FL & MI and you IMMEDIATELY have 54 Electoral Votes.

The SAD part is that this way of thinking means the Republican ACTUALLY believe that most American think that changing (or IGNORING) the rules for the benefit of a few (2 million is a few when you are talking about a population of hundreds of millions) is OK.

Then maybe someone can tell me why G.W.B. doing that has given him a 69% DISAPPROVAL rating?

Hell, even the RNC choose to IGNORE it's position and decided to "PENALIZE" FL, SC, MI, NH, WY instead of not seat.

You know if the RNC HAD held it position (like the DNC) "Amazed" would be right "we might have had totally different (and better?) candidates left now."

say have debates for all Democrats, Then Republicans. Then for all the parties. Let them show their platform and ideas on the issues. Would save a lot of time and more time to see what the people really want and need. And less time fighting members of their own party. Also get rid of the super delegates.

There are voting methods that allow for a second choice, or perhaps there could be an elimination round of voting.

I do agree the current primary process is pretty whacked!

There is not one member I have ill-feelings for. None here had anything to do with 09/11! We should all be pounding on the doors in congress, and in the senate telling them we are flat tired of their greedy ways. I am not on anyone's side, save the truth.

Let's give them a time limit! If they can't or won't deal with it, I bet my life there are Americans who can do far better than anyone in Washington will do.

Airborne all the way...

Obama pledged, as did Clinton, not to count either the votes or delegates from any state that violated the rules put forth by the DNC and he has stood by that position. Hillary, on the other hand has not and kept her name on the Michigan ballot when she had the chance to remove it and actively campaigned in both Florida and Michigan.

Perhaps you can support an individual that reneges on his or her word, but I cannot!

Ratskii is dead on. It's wishful thinking on both ani AND Hillary's part! Just like the whole 'stealth Muslim' thing (on which ani seems to have given up), if you repeat 'unelectable' enough times, maybe the meme will stick.

Both Hillary and Barack agreed, from the very beginning, that they would not count the votes from any State that violated the rules set forth by the DNC. Now, with her back to the wall, Hillary wants to change the rules and that is just wrong. If a re-vote is out of the question then the delegates from both States should be divided equally between them. That is the fair and equable solution.

Besides Obama rejected past attempts to deal with the problem in Michigan and Florida because he was afraid it would help Clinton but now that Obama's ahead it's a different story and these two states should be dealt with NOW. So now he's ready to agree to solve the problem. Change? Sounds like old politics to me. So what's with all the whining. It's her turn to reject a plan to fix the problem. Fair is fair.

Take a hint, Mrs. Clinton.

Were she to bow out with class she could be a powerful mover in the Senate. As she is going, she will be soon buried under the mud that she is creating.

With this garbage, I can't even imagine any New Yorker voting for her for the Senate next time.

If Hillary is indeed the most 'electable', why (oh why) does she keep having to inject her own money into her campaign? She's up to $11.4 mil. now! Meanwhile, Obama chugs along with primarily grass roots contributions. What does THAT tell the superdelegates?

Hillary wants the votes counted as is, even though Obama wasn't on the ballot in MI. As stated before, she was perfectly fine with those delegates being unseated when she thought she was 'destined' for the nomination. This is the only shot she has at the nomination: Hold her breath until she gets the votes counted the way she wants, which would narrow the delegate count and virtually eliminate Barack's lead in the popular vote. She could then make a better case to the superdelegates.

But she's going to work the politics for all it's worth

I just hope she doesn't ruin her (and Bill's) reputation.

http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/05/09/...

Face it, your great white leader, Howard Dean, shot the democratic party in the foot by threatening not to count the Florida and Michigan primaries and, now, the DNC is in a no-win situation. Despite what the Obama crowd says, there is no clear cut winner yet, they are neck and neck by many measures and there are two huge states (with lots of electoral votes) that are either going to be kicked to the curb, so they're peeved at the democratic party, or they are going to be counted, which is going tick off the Obama supporters to no end.

Go Howard!!

(and you guys think the dems are going to do much better than we've got at running the country when they can't even run a set of primaries?)

It is also quite obvious that you haven't got the first f*cking clue what you are talking about for you assume, incorrectly, that Obama is unelectable when every poll for months has shown just the opposite.

Just run the primaries again and let the chips fall where they may

Then, if these states want to have their primaries on Super Tues, have it changed legally.

The primaries are run by the parties under the rules the parties establish

I do agree that the voters are being punished for the stupidity of politicians in MI and FL

They simply should have run the primaries in those states again

I don't think it is ever a wise idea to ignore the voters in these states

Your clarity indicates that you come from a very different area of outer space than planet Obfuscation, the putative birthplace of aniokly.

b) Spoken as a true Democrat?

c) Both of the above?

d) Neither of the above?

I'll check d.

Bull. Hillary and Dennis Kucinich were the only ones who left their names ON the ballot there.

If you throw out all rules in the primaries, you end up with total anarchy, not absolute democracy.

"Give me those chips because I might have had 5 aces!"

Would she get shot from in front or from behind!

Or should we see it as slow-motion hara-kiri rather than nobly falling on her sword - with the possibility of resurrection to fight another day..

It's an idle threat anyway. Obama has raised enough money in small contributions over the internet to buy Harvey Weinstein and ship him off-shore.

But if you want types like this running things behind the curtains, elect Hillary or McCain. Fat cat donors, lobbyists and big bundlers give both of them the build of their money. Either one will give you business as usual, the best leadership money can buy.

There should be some compromise to seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan. Let the two campaigns find a solution both can live with.

But there should be consequences for those two states breaking the rules. If everyone knows you can ignore the rules, then next election it will be the Anarchy Party.

Obama was the one that didn't put his name on the ballot in Michigan so he only has his own stupid self to blame for that.

The people must be heard. All of the people.

It should go all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.

If EITHER candidate had a problem with the rules they should have voiced their opinion AT THE TIME. Waiting to see the outcome of further contests THEN protesting is simply political shenanigans.

And this entire primary process is horrid. I love when people now keep telling me they are happy that they matter in this primary season. Can you imagine that? Having the choice between a no contest vote on the GOP side and two candidates on the Democrat side makes people thankful that they have a "choice." I have a more important choice every time I go to the grocery store and have to choose between paper or plastic.

New rule - Pick, vet, watch debates for all candidates for President through the first year of the midterm elections. We then have A primary in January of an election year for each party. We then spend the rest of the year watching the candidates slug it out until November. EVERYONE can count that way.

the suggested split in story was reasonable compromise that slightly favored hillary and its still not enough

You're very welcome tex.

Thanks not2needy!

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday rejected a compromise plan to seat Michigan's delegates to the national convention that would give 69 delegates to Clinton and 59 to Barack Obama.

Clinton's campaign has maintained that the delegation should be allocated according to the vote in the Jan. 15 primary (73/55) but Obama's campaign had argued the delegation should be split between the two candidates (64/64) because he was not on the ballot.

How can she demand the majority or all of the delegates in Michigan, when Obama wasn't even on the ballot? This woman has constantly cut her nose off to spite her face, and her mean spiritedness is ripping the democrat party to shreads.