Democracy used to mean something in this country. Counting votes fairly, having results that were fair representations of the votes cast, making sure that an election process was unimpeachable used to be foundations of our republic

An election that was widely reported not to count, in which most major candidates were not on the ballot...is highly impeachable.

A compromise was the only fair solution.

But by that logic, Clinton also gets no delegates! After all, MI broke the rules and could technically have forfeited ALL delegates.

So, your point was...

Hey, whatever Jerome and Alegre say is what I believe.  I'll wait to hear their opinion.

Just show you know 4 Clinton supporters sided against the campaign's desired outcome.  8 sided with her.  

All Obama supporters sided with him.  All the Indi's sided with him.  

And, the Obama people turned down the option to have it 50-50, which they had the votes for, as to not rub it in.

You mean the one that used to be controlled by the Clintons?  Thank God that today's outcome was proof positive that those days are over.  

Obama won the game, both outside and inside.  Deal with it.

I agree. They should have stuck to their guns and counted ZERO delegates for MI & FL.

Why do you care?? You're not even from Michigan! The proposal put forth was by the Michigan Democratic Party (subject to 1/2 penalty by the DNC), who know more about what Michigan wants than someone from Arkansas!!

I refuse to acknowledge any argument that these delegates from Michigan rightfully belong to Hillary in any way.

She took advantage of an unfair election.

I received the following email from the Clinton campaign:

Today's results are a victory for the people of Florida who will have a voice in selecting our Party's nominee and will see its delegates seated at our party's convention.  The decision by the Rules and Bylaws Committee honors the votes that were cast by the people of Florida and allocates the delegates accordingly.

We strongly object to the Committee's decision to undercut its own rules in seating Michigan's delegates without reflecting the votes of the people of Michigan.

The Committee awarded to Senator Obama not only the delegates won by Uncommitted, but four of the delegates won by Senator Clinton. This decision violates the bedrock principles of our democracy and our Party.
We reserve the right to challenge this decision before the Credentials Committee and appeal for a fair allocation of Michigan's delegates that actually reflect the votes as they were cast.

The Clinton campaign has a good point. Those who did not favor Clinton pushed Michigan voters to vote uncommitted. The allocation assumes that all uncommitted voters voted for Obama, and gives him an additional four delegates.

Now, I realize that fighting over 25 delegates may not seem very practical, but it is unprecedented not to allocate a delegation by caucus, convention or popular vote results. If I were Obama, I would have allowed for the 73-55 delegate split. We'll see in the upcoming month whether the Clinton campaign will appeal this decision to credentials committee.

Assigning delegates to someone who received no votes (of his own volition) is an assault of every basic tenet of democracy as we know it in this country.

Running an election with two of the three top candidates not on the ballot, then pretending that contest is free and fair, is an assault on every basic tenet of democracy.

As for why he took his name off the ballot--he signed a pledge, which Senator Clinton also signed, that said he would not participate in the Michigan election.  Not only not campaign--not participate.

Senators Edwards and Obama interpreted that to mean that they should remove their names from the ballot entirely.  When asked why she didn't do the same, Senator Clinton didn't disagree with their interpretation.  She claimed she didn't remove her name because it wouldn't matter, because the election wasn't going to count for anything.

Clinton reneg'ed on her pledge not to participate in the Michigan election and left her name on the ballot, then once the fake primary was done and she'd won (but not by much, even against "uncommitted"), she suddenly became a champion for counting every vote.

The question we should be asking isn't "why did Obama remove his name?", it's "why didn't Clinton?"

It is a violation of the rights of voters. It diminishes the already too-complicated process into a free-for-all.

The ironic part?  The DNC imposed their sanctions to prevent a free-for-all.

It has all the appearance of the DNC working (further) to assure their desired outcome.

First off, the proposals that were adopted by the DNC were effectively identical to the proposals offered by the states themselves, plus the 50% penalty.

The Rules and Bylaws Committee was stocked heavily with Clinton supporters back when they made their ruling last year; those Clinton supporters voted in favor.

The committee is still stocked heavily with Clinton supporters, several of whom voted in favor of the compromise that was adopted.

You can argue that the DNC was wrong in their rulings, both last year and today, but don't try to pretend they're all hopelessly in the tank for Obama.

Does anyone else take issue with the diarist's attempt to liken the DNC to the Burmese Junta?

Yes, the DNC is just like the junta, and the Florida and Michigan elections were just like Zimbabwe.  It makes perfect sense.  Because what the people in Michigan and Florida are going through is exactly comparable to the struggles of the Burmese and the Zimbabweans.

Hyperbole much?

in my opinion: integrity.  It can never be said of HRC that she didn't stand for all the votes being counted, for the working people of this country.  It can never be said she was a quitter.  It can never be said that she lost the popular vote.  It will never be said that she didn't fight for every single vote.

I also think that the exposure of "the back room deal" on national TV--which Obama has decried from the beginning-- will further undercut his credibility and could eventually become an achilles heel.

smoking is banned indoors now- but it is still there."

uh, wha?