Those states were permitted by the DNC to move up their primaries.
IA and NH have a traditon of going first; NV and SC were added to give more regional diversity in the early contests. The reason they kept moving the date of their contests was because other states were threatening to move ahead of them and they just weren't going to let that happen. Besides, it was part of the rules that states couldn't have primaries before IA and NH...so...
I will just point out that in 2004, DNC chair Terry McAuliffe told Sen. Carl Levin that if MI moved its primary up, he(McAuliffe) would have not choice but to strip them of ALL of their delegates.
I think in the future it is probably wise for state parties to coordinate with the national party and set aside their ambitions and designs.
If people want someone to blame for MI and FL, then blame the people who moved up those primaries in spite of the rules and what they were told would be the consequences. They knew what would happened and chose to disregard the parties rules. Those are the folks that screwed this up - not Howard Dean, not Barack Obama, but the folks who moved their primaries ahead with full knowledge that they risked rendering those contests meaningless.
You Clinton folks are so off-base on MI/FL it's nto even funny.
2004 - Terry McAuliffe tells Carl Levin that if he moves up MI primary, he'll strip them of all their delegates. He seems to have changed his tune.
Fall 2007 - The DNC strips FL/MI of their delegates, with the support of Clinton supports at the DNC. Hillary also publicly acknowledges that she'll abide by the parties rules, as all the other candidates did, and also declares that she understands those primaries will not count.
Dec. 2007 - Hillary predicts the race will be over on 2/5. But it wasn't...and then she starts to lose, fails to compete in a number of states that are dismissed by the Clinton camp and changes her position on MI/FL.
You're missing a big factor on MI/FL and that is that no one's rights were infringed. Party nominations are the province of the political parties; they don't even have to have a selection process for a nominee if they don't want to. The party was well within its rights to do what it did.
We all knew for months that FL/MI weren't going to count. And the Clinton camp didn't take up that fight until after 2/5, because before then, frankly, I don't think any of you considered for a moment that she could lose. So it's a little more than convenient that all of this moral outrage has only emerged when it became absolutely necessary for her to have those two states.
I'd be more inclined to believe that the Clinton camp was sincere in its outrage had this been something you folks had been fighting for before it became a matter of political gain. The simply fact is that this is a fight the Clinton camp should have picked up long before it did. That delay belies the sincerity of your outrage.
For months, the Clinton camp was perfectly fine with not counting MI and FL. Where was their outrage before 2/5?
Clinton didn't give two shits about MI/FL until she needed them.
In December, she said the race would be over on 2/5. It was with the help of her supporters at the DNC that MI/FL were originally stripped of their delegates. She supported that, until she didn't win on 2/5 and had to actually compete for the nomination.
You can keep blaming Obama if you want, and you most surely will, but you're just flat out wrong.
Why it is so difficult for the Clinton camp to be apologetic is beyond me.
It's just the "Mr. Fuji" defense over and over again. They hit you, mock Obama followers as cultists, deride his oratory skills(because she doesn't have any and his dwarf Bubba's), propogate one b.s. attack after another(thank you SusanHu and Alegre!) and then turn around with righteous indignity because people stand up to them or hit back.
The sun is setting on the Clinton legacy of mediocrity and duplicity and thank God for that.
It takes a special kind of person to turn the outrage at his/her comments into they who have been wronged.
What's over is her campaign. And whether you agree with it or not, people were offended. Couldn't she just have apologized for it? How utterly disgusting is it that she turned it around as an affront against her?
Why don't you acknowledge that this is a very real concern of many people and that it should not be discussed so flippantly by an experienced leader of the Democratic party?
And it's not that she wants him killed; it's the notion that she's staying in because we just don't know what might happen.
The Clinton folks can dish it out but they sure as hell don't like being held accountable or taking responsibility.
It all kind of makes sense - I guess we know who the blind followers of a cult of personality really are now.
If you're going to use sports metaphors, they should at least be accurate.
Winning the second half doesn't negate the fact that you've been out-scored by your opponent.
But a touchdown when you're down 21 with time running out is more or less a hollow victory; it's like inflated stats when a football team has to throw the ball because they have to advance it quickly to catch up.
It just makes the game look closer than it may have actually been.
Unfortunately, some times all you're left with is a moral victory. And then you put your foot in your mouth and you cost yourself even that...