ENOUGH people.  If you are a Democrat, feel free to support whichever candidate you believe in during the primary season, but once a nominee is found, support that nominee!  It doesn't matter whether I am an Obama supporter or Clinton supporter.  I am, first, a Democratic Party supporter.  If my person does not get nominated, I will vote for the other, even gladly.  I do not want 4 more years of McSame.  It would be devestating to this country.  So to those, on both sides, that say their person or no-one, or their person or McCain, really think about what you are saying.  What you are voting or not voting for, and the impact it will have for years on the country.  When we remain in this war and more die, when our economy stays in the tank, when we have no energy policy towards climate change, when we have no tax cuts for those who need it, when the Supreme Court is packed with ultra-conservative activist judges, you will be to blame.  Unite!  Either candidate is far and away better than what McCain represents.  I hope this is posted -- this is so important.

Obama is vacuous. He is a neoliberal. He has no experience, and has spent his entire brief political career in personal aggrandizement. A major reason Obama has succeeded has been the adoption of the right wing war against the Clintons - either in the passive form (Clinton has too many enemies to win) or in an irrational attack on her as Rovian. In fact, Clinton and Obama are largely the same on policy. It just so happens that Clinton could execute the job of President, and Obama is likely to be a one term disaster - the challenges we face are too large, and his promises too large and too empty, to lead to anything else.

The American people voted an empty suit in 2000 and 2004 The Democrats want one for 2008. It's a shame - we could have had a President instead.

Ickes got the smackdown from Wexler: "Clarify the concept of fair reflection??!" Priceless...Somebody get this clip up so I can watch it again.

Good grief.

"Uncommitted - The Candidate."  Sounds like a great title for the inevitable HBO movie!

So it becomes a fight over who is committed to who and not a fight over what is right for those 2 states AND the rest of the country.  

How are we supposed to believe in this process anymore?  

This is going to the convention, if people don't see that now, they are living in a dream world.  Clinton is going to go NUCLEAR and take it to the floor at the convention.

I don't see it any other way.

I agree with the Obama camp. It wasn't the voters fault, and the only reason why all this is in question now is because Clinton is losing. I think if the Clinton camp isn't happy with the allocation of giving Clinton 19 more, than don't count them at all, because obama's camp shouldn't penalized for following the rules.

Half of nothing is still nothing or

something for something is still nothing...

Moving the goal post is against the rules...

Obama and Clinton both know this....

No wonder my grandfather called them "dumbacraps"

Obama Yes
Clinton Maybe

This is who we should elect:
http://www.progressive.org/mag_reed0508

I think seating the the Michigan and Florida delegations is a hypocritical move any way you slice it.

From the DNC perspective what message does it send?

From Hillary Clinton's approach what does it say about her? If you can't win by the rules change them?

From Barack Obama's position possible alienation of key constituencies?

I think of all the positions to be in I'd rather be in Barack Obama's, he's got the flexibility in this situation. However he's also got the pressure. I personally don't think the PEOPLE of MI and FL should be neglected because of the actions of selfish, ambitious and arrogant party leaders in those states. Obama may do well to negotiate with respect to Florida's delegation (considering his name was on the ballot), but he should in no way concede anything less than a 50/50 split in Michigan.

The DNC should probably move to immediately fix their nominating process. I would suggest an alternating schedule of three or four successive "waves" of voting. Stage 1 - four to six states get their "influence" as the first primary/caucuses (however, they would go to the last two stages in successive cycles until it was again their turn). Stage 2 - a massive primary event akin to super tuesday where 40% or more of states hold their primaries / caucuses on the same day. Stage 3 (and or 4) the remaining states vote 6 weeks later. Over and done with, fair and revolving (almost like proportional allocation).

Senator Clinton however occupies the worst position in this conflict. She essentially turns herself into a hypocrite and puts her "say and do anything" approach to politics on very public (and I think humiliating if not self-deprecating) display. It really doesnt help her appeal in succeeding elections. I really think that we should take a step back and evaluate Senator Clinton's integrity in light of her about face on the DNC's action.

I agree with senator clinton that the delegates should be seated. But I think it's pretty clear that her only reasoning for it is because it helps her, not because the people of Michigan and Florida deserve representation. She wouldn't be singing this tune if the results favored Obama (I don't think Obama would be arguing it either).  However, you cannot deny the argument that the results were skewed because of the ruling. Voters DID stay home, Obama and Edwards' names were NOT on the ballots in Michigan. She didn't really win, considering their wasn't a real contest (and her move to keep her name on the ballot in MI was an attempt to rig the outcome).

My opinion is that only way the FL and MI delegates should be seated is in such a way that it does not provide either candidate with an advantage. This should be especially true with regards to Michigan. Florida is a slightly different story but I think that the argument about people not voting still holds water. The only negotiating going on should be with regards to Florida. Michigan should be 50/50 hands down. Give the people representation, but the "superdelegates" in MI and FL (those who probably had more to do with causing this problem) ought to remain duly chastised.

Obama camp calls for this. Clinton camp wants that. What is this garbage? These two do not make the rules! If they don't like the outcome, take it to court!

What is really lost in all this is that no candidate should have a say in the outcome. Rules are rules. So, just follow the rules. Players in football or baseball games don't get to say what the rules are. Officials make and enforce the rules. Players (candidates) follow them.

What the Democrats have now is nothing short of anarchy with the inmates running the asylum.

If Sen. Clinton wants to continue to make her case that she would be the best democratic nominee, then by all means let her do so. But let her and her surrogates do so using accurate and truthful means, without this kind of misleading hyperbole.

Talk about polls if you want to, but make sure to note that there as many polls showing Obama leading as Clinton. There are polls showing both get more than 270 electral votes (albeit in different ways). And general election polls five months out are pretty meaningless in anyway (just ask Bill Clinton circa 1992 when he was way down in the polls five months out).

Make your case than MI and FL should be seated. But stop blaming the Obama camp for it. Mention that your own advisor Harold Ickes was one of the people who voted to strip all the delegates. Mention that you agreed to it. Your own spokesman Terry MacAuliffe, as DNC chair, said the same thing. And for goodness sake, stop comparing an intraparty nominating contest to abolition, women's suffrage and election in Zimbabwe. Last I heard, no one was running around beating up teachers, clergy and jailing journalists. That's how they run elections in Zimbabwe.

Try to make you case for popular vote. But do mention that you knew (and said!) that delegates were what counted not to many months ago. Mention that while you count MI and FL, you also have to discount 4 caucus states to do. Mention that winning PR doesn't mean anything because they don't vote in the general election. And do mention that your opponent wasn't even on the ballot in one of those states and you won't give him any delegates (so who's blocking allowing MI now?).

My only request for Sen. Clinton (and I would ask the same of Sen. Obama) is the campaign truthfully. If anything, such obviously misleading, half-truthful and inconsistent arguments hurt her campaign. And people don't elect people they don't trust.

We can all see where real statesmanship, and Presidential presence resides.

So, everyone is operating on the assumption that all Americans have the right to vote in either state and national democratic party elections.  Well, the democratic party is a private organization and only members are guaranteed a vote in its nominating contests.  The rest of the American electorate has had the opportunity to help choose the democratic nominee, but it has never been a right.  ALL (ELIGIBLE) AMERICANS HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN STATE AND NATIONAL ELECTIONS!!!  VOTE FOR ELECTED OFFICE!!!  This is why most states have restrictions limiting citizens to vote in either party, but not both.

Why would anyone be concerned about the popular vote, like that is a measure of the 'will of the people?'  How can you even suggest that a contest that has only one parties candidates is the will of the people; disenfranchising everyone who chose to vote in the GOP primary process.

This coming from a man (Obama) whose entire race endured the pain of being regarded as three-fifths of a person. Now Obama says voters in Flordia and Michigan should be regared as half a person. They obviously didn't teach History at Harvard.

Because potentially some party hack, ie. Ickes,
should not count more than a duly voted delegate.
The votes, remember??? Ick.

We know what they want-to be Queen. Not going to get THAT either. But they DID want to sign off to strip FL and MI, RIGHT? And they did. Take it or leave it.

As goes FL, As goes MI, so go the supers.

It seems that the DNC cannot follow theirown contradictory and illegal rules.

Well, it is just sort of Tough for Ms. Joiner and the Clinton Campaign, They are NOT going to get what they want NO MATTER HOW BIG OF A TANTRUM THEY THROW.

 Watch this at YouTube:
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HG1LLTYkn4I

No Matter How Big of a Tantrum they Throw!!

While watching todays events unfold I was made aware for the first time that both Michigan and Florida lost their "super Delegates." I fail to understand this as these delegates are not in any way tied to the normal delgate vote. They are supposed to be "experts" in the political process that were created to "save" the Party's nominating process in case of the unforseen. I would argue if I was a Clinton supporter that that these delegates should be completely reinstated. The second issue that I believe shows Obama's short sightedness in that the fight to restrict these delegates, especially in Mich. where the Sate party has agreed to a plan which only gains Ms. Clinton 10 additional votes, hurts him with voters in two states where he appears to have serious problems. Yes, he would be giving up a number of delegates and he would have to make up, but still keeps him in a substancial lead. It may well be worth the trade off. He would be buying good will for the future and he may need every vote in the Presidential election.  

Hey!  Icckes is drunk!  He is drunk!  The man is slurring!  He is drunk!  He is drunk!  Oh, my word.  No none should listen to this drunk!  Get him to AA!

What exactly is this rule of fair reflection that Harold Ickes raised? And how does fair come into play when a group has clearly stated supporters for either candidate?

I really hope this event turns out to be a unifying one for the Democratic Party.  But with the rhetoric and obvious intentions of many on the panel (read Ickes, Joyner, Karmack, Flournoy and Huffman), to uphold the case of their candidate rather than appeal to logic I fear it won’t.

That said I feel compelled to interject some logic into the rhetoric.  I'll admit to being an Obama supporter but what I'm about to say is more of a logical critique than a political attack.  Were Obama to rely on arguments supported by fallacy as does the Clinton camp I would be calling him out on it too.  I just want some common sense from my candidates.

I'm tired of the lack of critical thinking and analysis evinced in the latter part of this nominating process.  We've heard that Senator Clinton is the stronger candidate because she won the "Big States."  However, this ignores the fact that Democrats turned out in far greater numbers than Republicans AND fallaciously ASSUMES that Obama will not win those states in the general election.

There is a difference between two democrats running against each other and a Democrat running against John McCain.  Does anyone here believe that if Obama is the Nominee that he will not win CA,WA,OR,NY,NJ or any other Democratic stronghold?  I believe Obama puts more states in play than Clinton does.  Clinton Vs. McCain = same old political map, Obama Vs. McCain = something new entirely.

The other point I'd like to make is that Senator Clinton is advocating "counting every vote."  But every vote wasn't cast in these primary contests.  People voted in the Republican primary to have an impact somewhere or stayed home.  They deserve to be counted do they not?

Yet despite all this, the move to "count every vote" is being used to bolster a position that still puts Clinton in a delegate disadvantage, where she can attempt to claim a "popular vote" majority that discounts/ignores Caucus results and participation.  This faulty position will be used to try convincing enough Superdelegates to get her the nomination in spite of the massive nationwide turnout for Obama.  Also note Senator Clinton thinks Obama should not be awarded any delegates for Michigan, do you think she wouldn’t be lobbying those “uncommitted delegates” in the same way she plans to lobby “superdelegates?” How is that in anyway reflective of the purported concern of having a primary outcome representative of the American people?  Easy.  It's not.

I don't blame Senator Clinton for using fallacies to pursuade the argument in her favor.  It's the simplest way to win an argument, if your opponent or audience is simple enough to fall for it.

We deserve better, but we won't get it until we start thinking critically ourselves.  So rather than point the finger at Senator Clinton let’s start taking responsibility for our own complacency.

Can someone please tell me what the difference is between not counting my vote and casting it for me in a 50-50 65-45 split?

Let’s face it there is no fair solution the best would be not to allow Florida and Michigan to be seated and deal with the consequences.

Should have thought of that earlier Mr. Dean
Maybe i should change to disgruntled in Michigan

Eric, Salinas, CA ---> These plans seem fair and equitable so that each candidate gets a fair shake. <---

Said the wolf to the sheep. It's always an "equitable outcome" when the wolf gets to eat the sheep. At least to the wolf.

It's tragic watching these "Democratic leaders" lead this once great party right off a cliff.

Can someone please tell me what the difference is between not counting my vote and casting it for me in a 50-50 65-45 split?

Let’s face it there is no fair solution the best would be not to allow Florida and Michigan to be seated and deal with the consequences.

Should have thought of that earlier Mr. Dean
Maybe i should change to disgruntled in Michigan

Can MSNBC "not" interrupt the proceedings with analysts comments - I think we have lot of time to do after the meetings.

CNN and other are showing the telecast - unless MSNBC wants us to switch to those channels- Thanks

So the Florida delegation welcomes Obama's concession that their delegates and superdelegates each receive a half vote.  It still gets them seated, serves as a punishment for breaking the stated rules, and the voters who did not show up know they only missed a half a vote.

Yet the Clinton campaign will not concede anything?  After agreeing at the beginning that NO delegates for any candidate would count, and after taking absolutely NO stand against the ruling of the DNC before she was losing, Hillary is not willing to be fair at all?

As an Obama supporter, I have a couple of friends who are Clinton supporters all the way and we have had many spirited debates over both candidates.  But even they are shaking their heads to wonder why Hillary believes that this blind ambition with no integrity for right or wrong is going to be ok with the American people.  

Democrats are know for turning funerals into campaign events. Looks like they are doing the same thing with these proceedings. Little do they know though, this is their party's funeral.

This is disgusting. What happened to playing by the rules? A compromise of any sort by Obama or the committee sends the wrong message to all Americans. Tell all of the Clinton supporters to suck it up and go home. They lost. Period.

Stick by the the rules or die by the rules..

This is Change We Can Believe In?

Why do HRC supporters request full votes for FL?  She wants it all.  She always has had just herself on her mind.  Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing.

This is all incredibly ridiculous.  You can not except the primaries as reliable data.  The contests were flawed and votes were cast under false pretenses... VOTERS WERE TOLD THAT THE VOTES WOULD NOT COUNT.  Because of this - those who did not vote are disenfranchised.  Many who did vote did not take the contest seriously (or didn't have their candidates name as a choice).  DATA IS INCONCLUSIVE!!!!!!!!!!!! AND CAN NOT BE COUNTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As Communist troops were pouring into Korea crossing bridges on the Yalu River General Douglas MacArthur was told he could bomb only the Korean side of those bridges. MacArthur responded by asking, "How do you bomb half a bridge?"  The same goes for votes.  How do you count half a vote?

Domenico,

Can you explain the comment about fair reflection?  I have never heard of it.  But I imagine if I haven't most voters haven't.

Richard, Chicago:

Why is Sen. Levin giving a history lesson?

____________

He's engaging in what is called the fine art of CYA. He's one of the Michigan leaders that led the voters of his state into this mess. If those voters can remember things for more then 2 seconds, they'll let Sen. Levin know what they think next time he's up for election.

Why isn't it unfair for campaign staffers to maintain a seat on any of the party's committees? Seems like a stacked deck to me. Is there anyone on the Rules and Bylaws Committee that is a co-chair or high staffer for Obama? AND, who is the woman sitting to the left of Harold Ickes? She seemed to be almost hostile sometimes during her questions. Great coverage by the way! I'm fascinated by the process that is usually overlooked.

Oh poor Hillary.  

Despite saying that Florida voters don't count, despite believing herself to be the inevitable nominee, despite "saying" she will support the nominee... and on and on.

She is showing that she will come out on Tuesday (or Wednesday) and declare that she is going to take it to the convention.  I hope she takes her political career with her into the toilet.

This is too funny. It's like playing a Super Bowl, and after the end of the game, the players sit around arguing about how many points each teams touchdowns were worth.

Shouldn't all the members of "ANY" rules committee be independent?

It scares me that a system like this exists within the democratic party.

Would love to get a look inside the republican party at this depth.

count every vote

I know this will not make it to the comments, but I will try once again.  
Yes, I guess rules are rules, just as long as they do not hurt Senator Obama's chances.  Please tell me why someone who voluntarily removed their name from the ballot should be awarded any delegates?  Uncommitted means "no choice", right?  Yet Senator Obama's supporters call for him to be awarded HALF of the delegates?  So very democratic!  Let this whole thing go to the convention.  By then, a few more of Senator Obama's "associates" will have appeared and the people will have a clearer picture of the character of the man.  Whether or not you like it, a person is judged by the company they keep.  Senator Obama keeps some very strange company.  

Why are they conceding to this infraction of the rules.  A decision was already made. Go away go away Hillary!

Doesn't the fact that the Clinton supporters want everything they ask for proof that this isn't really about party unity for them, but only about possibly winning?  Obama is conceding the number of delegates she  netted in both OH and PA combined.  Seems very fair but of course it's not good enough for Hillary.  And she had the nerve all these months to blast Obama as not being willing to find a FL/MI resolution.  Typical bull s*&%.

When the states have agreed to the concession, Clinton supporters look downright stupid to continue to push. They should call it a day and go home with their pantsuits!

We need to resolve this so we can prepare for November.  Clinton has lost the nominating contest and they need to accept that.  I live in Florida and the only reason I and many other voters went to the polls that day was the property tax referendum.  It was a hot topic with city and county employees, such as teachers, police officers and firefighters lobbying against the proposal.  The articles were in the local news that the democratic primary vote would not count and the candidates would not campaign here.  The absolute majority of voters in Florida were concerned about their property taxes.  Ask us.  The Obama camp has offered a generous concession.  Now we will see who is really cares about democratic voters or their own self serving interests.

Come on Ms. Joyner, everyone knows that you can't have full votes.  Let's agree to what appears to be a compromise, at least on part of the Obama camp, and move on.  McCain is sitting there continuing to grow while we argue over something that everyone has already agreed would happen.  Including even the Florida delegation.

Clinton people are in the same posture on Florida as they are on Michigan - no longer pushing for what the delegation wants - no longer "standing up for" Florida Democrats. It's clearer than ever that the Clinton position is simply standing up for Clinton.

Like i have said before the Clintons doesn't care about Florida but their selfish ambition

So, what do I tell my young children. "it's OK to break the rules as long as you are a Democrat".

It's obvious the DNC is at fault and needs to win back Michigan.

It seams to me that the proper thing to do would be to to 1/2 and 1/2 on the deligates both States.
That's only fair to both Barack and Hillary .

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):