This talk about "placating the people" is condescending. Why would the people be "placated" with a meaningless 50/50 split? Do you think the "people" to be idiots?

The half-vote in Florida is much better, if a revote isn't possible. The vote still counts but it counts less.

And as for Michigan, only a redo of the vote is meaningful.

What's wrong with a 50/50 split?  It is grossly undemocratic, even worse than not counting delegates at all. Why?  Because none fails to count your vote.  50/50 steals your vote from you and gives it to somebody else.  

Exactly...  For anybody that doesn't have their mind made up right now for how they're going to vote in Nov is probably a low information voter that could care less if "delegates are seated" or not.  Delegates Shmelegates.  They probably don't know what a delegate is and don't care.

This comment is brimming over with arrogance.

I'm a Florida Dem and saw that yesterday. I haven't decided what to submit yet. I'll be leaving for a little bit but will sit down to write my comment to the FDP when I get back.

Anyone have any suggestions?

Why was it that Dem votes in Florida was lower than GOP votes? This was so disproportionate to the results in all other states that it proves the assertion that most voters did not take the election seriously.

Why did the Clinton supporters not complain sooner? It's been a year since Florida knew what would happen. Only after Hillary began losing was this issue a problem.

Bottom line is that rules were broken and consequences should result. If a disproportionate vote in Florida is approved, you have effectively negated my legal vote in another state.

"Nobody thought it would be a close race and the delegates would matter one way or the other. The winning candidate would seat them.

The DNC tilted the playing field as far to Obama as they could but he is a weak candidate. Even with all the help and money in the world he hasn't been able to put Hillary away."

I can't see how Sen. Obama could be called a "weak candidate".  Romney, Huckabee, Edwards, Gravel -- those are weak candidates, with an excess of spending and not much to show for it.  Sens. Clinton and Obama have both raised incredible amounts of money, mobilized hundreds of thousand volunteers, and brought many new Democratic voters to the polls. (The huge D turnouts are an obvious sign of this.)

If I were testing for bias in the nomination process, I'd go back six months and look at how the campaigns regarded the DNC rules. I don't think you'll find Sen. Clinton's campaign objecting much in late 2007 -- instead I remember seeing her on George Stephanopolous' talk show proclaiming that the race would be over by midnight on Feb. 5.  Inevitability was everywhere.  

Nope, Sen. Clinton has run into a candidate who has run a historic campaign -- the first successful grassroots presidential campaign in the mass media age -- and has been quite effective. Sen. Clinton, despite the constant media/online sniping, hasn't run a bad campaign.  She's been wonderful at raising $$ from large & small donors, she's a good stump speaker (as is her husband!), and the media strategy has been solid (until recently IMO).  She just happened to run into something new.

And, please, stop with the argument "Obama is so weak, he can't put Clinton away".  It's illogical and reflects poorly on Sen. Clinton.  She's a fighter, remember?  It should be hard to put her away!

Hillary had three chances to "put him away", too.  Iowa, NH, and Super Tuesday.  She failed in every regard.  By your metric that makes her a weak candidate as well.

It's only because of her name recognition that she gets to lose 12 contests in a row, and still be in it, while Barack Obama has to literally go undefeated to even be considered as the de facto nominee.

until Hillary started winning

The DNC tilted the playing field as far to Obama

...he is a weak candidate. Even with all the help and money in the world he hasn't been able to put Hillary away.

The DNC allowed IA, NH, and SC to skate

The DNC should just revert to its automatic sanctions and not Donna Brazille's draconian ones.

Of course this common sense solution nets Hillary more delegates so it is "unfair"

If Obama has some big corporate donors ready to step in, that would indeed be the option. He shouldn't let his grass-roots supporters pay for it though, no way.

I just don't get that perspective on health care.

If she was proposing universal, government-supplied healthcare/insurance - fine.

But she's not.

She's proposing universally mandated insurance purchases.  Sure - she's proposing tax breaks, but there is nothing in her plan that is going to do much to curb the expenses for a family or person comfortably above the poverty line.

If you make less than 20K?  Sure... maybe you get covered under Medicaid (note that even covering 20K basically means DOUBLING the federal Medicaid minimums).

But what if you're making 30K?  or 40K?   If you live in a major metropolitan area - you are most certainly struggling to meet all your bills as it is.... now you suddenly have to find some way to buy insurance that's gonna cost you 3-4K per year?  

How is that more progressive than an opt-in program that also seeks to lower costs?

To my dying breath, I will rail against any mandated insurance purchases.

Put a plan on the table that calls for a Social Security type program where we all pay into a system, and, providing the details make sense - I can probably get behind that.

But Clinton's plan does NOT do that.  An awful lot of Americans who aren't quite poor enough to qualify for fully subsidized programs are going to be left to at the mercy of the glorified "free market" of insurance providers.

When your rent is due in June - a tax subsidy that might mean a bigger return in next April doesn't help much.

I have to say, I don't think Hillary's health-care proposal is more "progressive". It does cover many more people but it itself will not be universal. it does provide more business to the insurance companies though. Obama's plan falls flatter IMO.

Mandating coverage is dangerous at a political level. Allowing choice may not be the best short term approach but it's one that allows folks to trust government on health care until single payer can be implemented. The problem with this reasoning is not knowing if Single Payer will ever come to the U.S.

in many regards, Obama pushing his plan forward while decreasing the lobbyist stranglehold on D.C. is possibly the best long-term solution to health care. Hillary's is the best short-term "fix".

pick your poison. But don't call either plan "progressive" until the government takes the responsibility on itself to provide for everyone.

>"I am passionately dedicated to her for her health care plan and other economic proposals, and I tend to be more centrist on foreign affairs, so her views are a very good fit for me as a progressive."

Having experienced the repeated disappointments of the 2006 democratic congress, it's time to be realistic about the possibility of actually getting health care reform PASSED. The small differences between the two plans are subject to be changed, both for the better and the worse.

Hillary was completely humiliated in 1992. What Obama has that she doesn't is the weapon of oratory and he'll need that MUCH more when he tries to fix the healthcare system than he needs it now to beat HRC and McCain. The only way to get the health care system fixed is to speak loudly and passionately and convincingly about it until the whole nation is chanting FIX IT NOW! That's what it'll take to scare our horribly corrupt democratic representatives into disobeying their corporate masters.

That's when the power of words will start to really mean something.

Well, macro vs. micro and all...

But I've been lower middle class/middle class all my life.

I'm personally having a much better time of it financially in the aughts than I did in the 90s.

I spent a good portion of the 90s really struggling at times to be able to afford an el ride to work, and the 90s for me was a constant decision on whether to keep my gas, my electric, or my phone on -- I couldn't afford all 3.

I'm doing much better in the aughts -- all my bills are paid, my debts are manageable, and I'm finally even eating into my student loan principle.

I don't blame Bill Clinton for my tough economic times in the 90s any more than I credit George Bush for being more financially secure in the aughts.

The deregulation of capitalism and destruction of the middle class has progressed unabated from Reagan to Bush to Clinton to Bush. The Clintons are just playing "good cop".

Your stock portfolio went up under Clinton and your house went up in value, but the chances of your kid being able to buy a house or afford health care went straight to hell.

The Clintons and the Bushes are part of this. Epty words? Compare what Bill Clinton said to the bills he actually signed. He was deregulating and outsourcing as fast as his little legs could carry him. And health care costs at least tripled under his watch.

But can that be attributed to Clinton?  This is an honest question.  The effect that presidents have on the economy has been debated for decades.  Plus, things were going south as he left office (which hurt Gore).

The largest economic expansion in US history is what you're calling a war on the middle class?

Hell yes I am. Look at the results. The middle class is dying before your eyes.

Get thee to thomhartmann.com. You guys are not playing with a full deck.

Regardless, including FL and MI would pad her total considerably.

Obama is ahead around 800,000 not 80K. There is no hope of catching him on the pledged delegates so Clinton is not going to care about the half a vote. For the purposes of making her case she will use 100% of the popular votes from these 2 states.

Hillary's only hope is to crush Obama in PA. A win like Ohio won't cut it. Picking up 15-30 more delegates and 100-150,000 more popular votes will mean it's over. She can't go into the convention down in every metric, states, popular votes and pledged delegates.

So be ready in the last days leading up to PA for Penn to go all out dirty, it will make the lead up to Ohio will look like patty cake. Only this time Obama will know it's coming and his response will likely to be equally as damaging. I imagine after PA the negatives of both candidates and the party will be much, much higher and the party will be much more polarized then it is now whatever the outcome.

I'm sure the Republicans who were hopeless and resigned to a humiliating defeat a few months ago are looking at this like a divine intervention. It looks like hope will survive the Democratic primaries, in the electoral chances of the Republican party. McCAin is probably wondering what good deed he did in his life that has got both sides of Democratic partisans threatening to vote McCain if their candidate loses.

The Democratic party once again pulling defeat from the jaws of victory once again.

If you include MI and FL, she will trail the popular vote by 80K. But if she wins big in Pennsylvania, she'll lead be close to 200K-300K.  It's a smart plan on her part.

And Obama F***d up too, by removing his name from the ballot - which was his intention all along.

thanks to stupid Dean