The votes as cast, in a contest that Clinton said would not count.  So I defer to Clinton's stance from when it was fair to object to the way the delegates were being treated.  This is BEFORE the primary began, not after voting had started and all of a sudden it was evident she would need these votes.

To say that this election was anything other than a sham or a beauty contest and should count for something is disingenuous.

The states knew what they were doing would result in the loss of their delegates.

Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and the rest agreed to the rules as set forth by the DNC

Harold Ickies voted to strip the delegates.

The delegates SHOULD NOT BE SEATED as is.

FL & MI Broke the rules and should be punished for their transgression.

If any delegates for these states are to be seated there should be broad agreement as to the penalties and how they are applied, barring that they should not be seated at all.

Dems the facts,
Read `em and weep.

It's thuggery...?  

Seriously, both states violated the rules.  Both states knew the consequences.  Both states violated the rules knowing the consequences.  All of the candidates were both aware of and in agreement with the DNC's decision.

And now, because it might mean something to someone, hat decision should be tossed?  And you accuse other people of thuggery?  You want the votes counted as won or not at all too apparently, I do not see how your position is any different.

Personally, as I was in Florida when all of this transpired... I do not think the delegates should be seated.... Period.

Then don't vote Dem. You behave like a Repug and use Repug talking points all the time, so go ahead and leave the party. Who cares. I am so tired of Clinton supporters threating to leave the party of vote for Mc Cain. Go ahead cut off your nose to spite your own face. But tell your sisters and daughters, and grand daughters how you helped McBush take away their rights to govern their own bodies. Tell them how you helped in killing the constitution. Thell them how you helped start another war int the middle east. GO FOR IT!

It was a binding agreement. The agreement that she signed referenced the DNC rules in which they were agreeing to by signing the statement. Period. Agreements written on napkins are considered just as binding as those written on paper. I've read the DNC rules and the agreement that she signed.  She is trying to void a binding agreement and since she is considered a stable individual with the capacity to make decisions for herself, the agreement stands.

Legal argument:

1.  Retroactive rule making is an abuse of law.

By now counting the "disqualified" vote, after Hillary and the other candidates jointly agreed not to campaign in FL or MI, and agreement amongst all candidates that the vote would not count, you would be changing the rules part way thru the game (or at the end of the game, depending on your assesment of Hillary's chances).  The law frowns upon same.

Because in order to be removed from the Florida ballot he would have had to drop out of the presidential race entirely, and clearly he wasn't going to do that.

The entire agreement is posted just a few posts above, it says nothing about a specific meaning to participate. Which is exactly the problem I suppose. Most people see participate and have a very good idea of what it means, anyone confused can pick up a dictionary. Is she participating? I suppose that depends on what the meaning of 'is' is...

She signed an agreement to not campaign, not participate and that stated that the states would receive no delegates. She further made a public statement that said the election wouldn't count. In my opinion by keeping her name on the ballot she participated by any simple and fair meaning of the word. She has also since gone against her public statements by trying to get the contests counted after the fact.

I was unaware of the McDonalds - Burger King agreement not to sell burgers in a specific area.  Even more shocking, I was unaware that McDonalds had violated the agreement.  

The point here is that in order for you comparison to make any sense you have to have an agreement at the outset that states.

Neither McDonalds nor Burger King shall compete for profits in this case (in Michigan).

Now McDonalds clearly violated that agreement by selling and making profits while Burger King didn't.  Hence if McDonalds makes ANY PROFITS it has violated the agreement and should be sued by Burger King for all the profits it gave up by abiding with the agreement they had mutually made at the onset.

The 50/50 split is an attempt (although flawed) to give the delegates from the state a chance to participate in the convention, including the decisions of what needs to go on the platform and other such things, but it is an even split because it should NOT indfluence the outcome of the primary one way or the other.  This abides with the spirit of the DNC ruling that they should not count, while at the same time not completely eliminating the influence that the delegates may play in the convention.

The sanction the DNC (and Harold Ickies) approved is much harsher in two ways:

1. No super delegates will have a vote (the 50/50 split allows SDs to represent their state independently of what occurs with PDs)

2. The delegations from the states in question do not get to participate in the process(they do under 50/50, albeit without any influence in the outcome of the primary)

The principle of sanction here needs to be adhered to, or the DNC will not be able to control the calendar for the primaries.  This is one of the central missions of the DNC, to define the process by which the nomination is selected.

The argument that we should posthumously include results of unsanctioned contests will be percieved as unfair by the states that bothered to follow the rules and keep their contests sanctioned.

The time to make this argument about the penalty or the seating of delegates has long since passed (unless you are talking about 2012 or some other future contest)

IF including the states of MI and FL with the 50/50 split is unacceptable, then they shouldn't be included at all, or a third process by which they are allowed to be included should be agreed to by ALL parties involved.  This is unlikely since the two campaigns aren't likely to agree on a compromise.

You're ridiculous.  If my vote is not counted by the DNC, I may as well not have voted.

So then you just made the case as to why they can't have a re-vote and why you can't count the election as is.

Go back and read the agreement. It clearly states that the election results of those two contests will not count in accordance with DNC rules...