He had no problem protesting the war when it was in fashion for his state to do so. When he became liable for his opinions in the Fed Senate, he promptly got in line.

Now, he has no problem with counting the votes in Florida / Michigan -- WHEN THEY NO LONGER MATTER TO HIM.

I find such arguments so absurd and insulting that I choose not to engage commenters who provide them.

My solution:

1. Strip MDP members of superdelegate status.
   
2. DNC, MDP, or private donors fund 2nd primary (closed)
   
3. Fight for national primary or 4 regional primaries for next election cycle.

from DK

You don't take away someone's right to vote because other people broke a rule.

by Step Beyond on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 05:12:06 PM EDT

also from DK because I like the quote

Please try and understand the difference between the FDP, the Florida legislature and the Florida voters. One agreed to the rules. One violated the rules. And the other got screwed.

by Step Beyond on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 04:34:13 PM EDT

from MyDD

Repubs are talking about taking away half of the delegates. Meaning their votes will still count. Had the DNC taken a portion (1/2, 3/4, a number less than all) then I wouldn't be refusing to vote Dem in the general.

by Step Beyond on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 06:42:59 PM EST

The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another. See, e.g., Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 665 (1966) ("[O]nce the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"). It must be remembered that "the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise." Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964).

and

An early case in our one person, one vote jurisprudence arose when a State accorded arbitrary and disparate treatment to voters in its different counties. Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963). The Court found a constitutional violation. We relied on these principles in the context of the Presidential selection process in Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814 (1969), where we invalidated a county-based procedure that diluted the influence of citizens in larger counties in the nominating process. There we observed that "[t]he idea that one group can be granted greater voting strength than another is hostile to the one man, one vote basis of our representative government." Id., at 819.

Point being, just because it's called a vote doesn't mean it's part of the legitimate nominating process. I could hold a primary in my living room, but if it's not authorized by the DNC, I have no business calling it part of the legitimate nominating process.