Heh.

Oh, Clinton supporters. Clinton never used MI or FL to her advantage politically, she's been the champion of the politically disenfranchised in Michigan. No Obama supporters (or Edwards, etc) stayed home and didn't vote because they thought the vote wouldn't count; Edwards obviously was playing the system, too (what a jerk!); only Clinton has been the paragon of virtue in this dilemma!

Seriously, if you had said "Both the candidates are trying to use this for political advantage, and that's stupid, but what they should do is XYZ. I know (candidate) doesn't agree with it, but considering the imperfect situation, it's what ought to be done."

Really. C'mon now, there, then, hey. My friends in Escanaba, Iron Mountain, and Ludington have all told me they take a pretty dim view of other people using their state for political purposes.

count the votes, we are democrats after all.

Yes, tell the voters ahead of time that their votes won't count, then count only the voters who showed up anyway, then retroactively validate that vote.  Sounds fair to me.  People who keep arguing about "enfranchisement" would immediately improve their credibility a hundredfold if they would first admit that the results we have are screwed up.

Would splitting them 55/45 satisfy you? Sen. Clinton would get 16 additional delegates into Obama's 160 odd lead. If you add Florida then she will roughly get another 30 pledged delegates.

Seriously, a solution doesn't benefit Hillary, but fighting for 'voter disenfranchisement' does. Perhaps it might make the popular vote lead a bit slimmer, but even that is a bit iffy and isn't likely to fly with Obama's supporters, considering every state he campaigns in the polls close radically (e.g. Texas, down twenty to down 4 with a bit of hindrance from Rush).

The worst consequence of seating the delegates regardless of DNC rules is that future states will see that the DNC is powerless and continue to flout the calendar, and then all chaos will break loose. If you want Iowa and New Hampshire's dominance of the primaries to be over, you ought to support the calendars being enforced by the DNC and petition them to change the states which are allowed to vote prior to super Tuesday with some sort of rotation. That wont happen if you just let people move ahead willy nilly.

he needs supers to win, and the only way he can avoid that is by  asking for some to be deeded to him.  This stuff is predictable, he can pretend he wants them seated, but it's cynical.  

We b*tch and complain about a few votes here and there in OH and FL, and then we disenfranchise millions of our own. I'm not proud to be a Democrat at the moment.

DNC = DO NOT COUNT

This solution really does reek. And it smells like elephant shit to me.

Obama apparently isn't very confident about having the most delegates in June if he wants 1/2 of the MI delegation.

I would find this all a little more genuine if even a fraction of time spent arguing this issue had come before the primaries.

Incidentally, I seem to recall a period earlier this year when Clinton supporters were insisting that students living in Iowa for college should not be allowed to vote in the primary.

Every vote must count! Except when they shouldn't!

...stop believing in democracy?"

When they started that lower road of NeoCon politicking that B O has seemed to have undertaken, because they are weak minded for power and End justifities Their means.

so sad.  Hey, look, Kerry now opposes Universal Health Care because the candidate he endorsed isn't offering.  Thank goodness we find out now, before they get in the WH what they actually would do, huh?

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/4/13648 /08234

This type of overheated rhetoric is neither productive nor fair.  It's going to hurt the party in November and the long run, no matter who wins the nomination.  This issue can be discussed without unjustified allegations of "vote stealing."  These contests were not fair or democratic because there was no campaigning; Clinton and Obama each agreed that they would not participate in them.  There are two sides to this issue.

I set out more detail here:  http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/5/4932/ 56020

... process before the primaries? Where was the outrage fropm Clinton's campaign about caucuses? About Texas' procedures? About the penalties imposed on Florida and Michigan for moving up their primaries?

Remember back when Clinton was inevitable and she told George Stephanopoulos, "It will all be over by February 5?"

And now Camp Clinton and her backers are screaming about how unfair caucuses are and how terrible the Texas system is and how every vote should count in two states that were sanctioned by the party before the states ever voted and all campaigns agreed with the sanctions, including Clinton's.

And then Camp Clinton and her backers want to claim that "Obama can't close the deal," when he is ahead in every category against the candidate who was a sure bet at the beginning of the process. She was a lock, a done deal. No one gave Obama a chance in hell at winning the nomination.

Except for Obama and his campaign, of course, and a few other folks who thought he would give her a run for her money.

I guess you can carry on about how unfair the whole process is (after the fact), but where was your outrage before the process began?

It seems that Camp Clinton and her followers were fine with everything back when she was the easy favorite.

It's only after getting their asses handed to them repeatedly that Clinton and her campaign team started whining about the process.

After-the-fact whining amounts to sour grapes.

Its truly rích, that while the MyDD frontpagers are criticizing Daily Kos for Anti-Hillary vitriol, they are doing exactly nothing against Anti-Obama vitriol on their own site. This diary is a case in point.

A diarist accuses one of the candidates of vote stealing. I would consider this a criminal offense. Is it not? So why does the diarist write a diary instead of going to the DOJ and filing a criminal complaint?

The answer is obvious: There is not "vote  stealing" going on. The diarist has a hot temper and is just venting. So far so bad. And not that significant. But now this diary has been recommended so many times, that it sits on top of the recommended list.

That really takes every moral authority of MyDDs front pagers away to criticize the so called "Orange satan".

To the diarist, because I am really stunned, how one can come to his/her conclusion:

Lets make a little mind game, ok?

1. Exchange the name "Florida" for your local city, lets call it "Pleasantville".

2. Exchange the "primary" with a vote on "Which neigborhood should get a new modern school building?" in your city.

3. Now exchange the DNC for a local district court.

4. That district court calls the proposed vote on the new school unconstitutional. As a consequence, you and hundreds of other parents stay home on a sunny election day, not bothering with a vote that doesnt count anyway.

5. Later on, and now lets substitute "Obama" with city councillor 1 for neighborhood "Fairview" and "Hillary" with city councillor 2 for neighborhood "Deep Bronx", councillor 1 who initially supported the courts decision to make the vote invalid, changes course and asks another court to rule the vote valid, since he now really likes the result of that vote, to build the school in his district.

6. Since you live in "Deep Bronx" you get really upset, since you would have voted for a school in your neighborhood, would you have known, that the vote is important.

And the moral of our little tale or mind game or whatever you like to call it?

If there actually is/was any voter disenfrachisement going on, a case could be made just as clearly, that voters who didnt vote in the first place were disenfranchised. Not
the other way round.

Now, I am gonna say something controversial: In Cuba, Zimbabwe and Russia, an election is called fair, even if not all candidates are on the ballot, the candidates cant really campaign, dont have free access to the media and the result is more or less the mirror of current name recognition. Nobody ever in the Democratic party ever argued, that those elections should be considered fair and valid - or democratic.

Now one candidate says: These elections were just fine. Count them. No problemo.

Well, I do have a BIG problem with that!

And even if I set the anarchistic nature of that claim aside for a moment, I still cant square the basic democratic principles I thought this party stood for, with the silly and outragous claims made by this diarist and in essence by the candidate herself.

And to all those people who place all blame on Barack Obama for revotes not taking place in MI and FL: Both states were given ample time and opportunities to decide on another course. They had many months to reconsider. They chose to break the rules. And when it became clear, that their vote would not stand, and they watched a protracted and close dem primary race, they still chose to be defiant instead of making a serious play at a revote. Only after March 4th they came up with detailed plans, with very little time to actually implement them and many concerns about voting irregularities (esp. in Florida) if the vote takes place by mail ballot for the first time. Now also remember, pretty please, that the Clinton campaign outright rejected any such revotes in both states (!) while the Obama campaign also reacted lukewarm to those efforts. Those efforts came late, too late, were rejected by Clinton herself and might have also been struck down by the voting rights division of the DOJ or a court due to its experimental nature, especially in light of Floridas total incompetence at holding fair and glitch free elections.

YOU DONT CHANGE THE RULES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME. PERIOD.

50/50 is a new kind of politic per Obama's book.

Teresa,

You've nailed it. Thank you. This primary has not been about the people, it's been about BO. The democratic party needs to start being more democratic! Or I'll be leaving soon. And I don't think I'm alone in this view...

Everyone who's sees Florida and Michigan not having a delegation to the convention, and who's outraged by it (however ridiculously belated), should direct their anger at Harold Ickes, one of Hillary Clinton's chief strategists.

You may even consider directing your outrage at Clinton herself.  She alone, among all the major candidates, had her staff play a direct hand in the unseating of Florida and Michigan.

I have the contact info for both, should you want your voices heard.  Tell Harold Ickes that in America, every vote counts!