They don't care about votes or voters. They want to disenfranchise MI and Fl. The next time they shed tears about GOP efforts to disenfranchise this or that group of voters, we would know that those tears are crocodile tears.

It is not about principle, it is about partisan advantage.

If the situation were reversed and it was Obama who needed Fl and MI to be counted they would all be crying 'voter disenfranchisement' to the moon.

Hypocrites, opportunists, and con men. All of them.

Once she quits, Obama can generously agree to seat the MI/FL delegations as selected by the primary votes.  

That way everyone's votes will count when they all unanimously elect Obama!

We'll all drink the kool-aid and get a unity pony!

Happy! Happy! Joy! Joy!

1. Not willing to submit to a 50-state test for the nomination.  Trying to sneak in with 48.  An undemocratic maneuver that will backfire.  Florida treated as second-class - again??

2. Increasing fearfulness regarding legitimately scheduled primaries that go on through June.

3. The "favorite" is now headed to a significant defeat in Pennsylvania.

4. Surrogates trying to bully Clinton out of the race before Obama loses more primaries.

5. The groups that Obama doesn't play well to - working class whites, women, Jewish voters, elderly - are a huge bulk of the Democratic electorate in November.  Math, people, math.

1. Obama can assure himself of the nomination, based upon his current lead, by instructing his delegates on the Credentials Committee to vote against the inclusion of Michigan and Florida.

2. Winning the nomination by shutting MI and FL out of the process would be a divisive power play that would alienate many Democrats and very likely cost us both those states in November.

3. Accordingly, it is Hillary's obligation to drop out so that Obama will not be forced to use that divisive power play against her.

And Gallup confirms what we all but Josh knew ...
back to that 30 percent breaking swing point again. The Dem primary and the apparent lack of appropriate criterion to select a Peoples nominee vs a male Party leader was obviously built into the rules and math inclusive of an appalling lack of integrity and no sense that a creditable executive could emerge from the smoke.  

Interesting, and it is also my view this is past the point of adjustment if Clinton does not secure the nomination the rejection of Obama is an anti vote not just a not enamored, I have no belief Obama or any Democratic leader can rally this disaffected group to any ticket that has Obama as a player.

From Gallup:
Black Democrats appear loyal to the party regardless of who wins the nomination.
...
There are clear differences by subgroup in self-reported vote for McCain under an Obama-wins-the-nomination scenario. In other words, it appears that if Obama is on the ticket, some groups of Clinton-supporting Democrats are more susceptible to bolting the party and voting for the Republican nominee next falls than are others.
The average "defection rate" of Clinton-supporting Democrats away from Obama and to McCain in the general-election match up is 28%. The two groups of Clinton-supporting Democrats who are significantly above this average in defection to McCain are independents who lean Democratic and conservative Democrats.

..

Very comprehensive.  In fact, I wasn't aware that the Republicans stripped New Hampshire of half its delegates too, for moving their date!! A must read for everyone.  

What a pair of hacks Howard Dean and Donna Brazile are:

But Florida party officials said the $880,000 would've only covered the cost of 150 caucus sites, with the capacity to draw a maximum of 150,000 voters out of the state's 4 million Democrats. "It wasn't a real offer," a spokesman said. Michigan's party would have had to self-finance caucuses, which, even with added Internet and mail voting, drew only 165,000 voters in 2004, a fraction of the 600,000 who voted in 2008. Stripping both states of their full delegations because the state parties in each refused to run these limited-participation caucuses--which would have occurred a couple of weeks after an official, state-financed primary -- is a bit like punishing Democrats because they like democracy.

1.  Longstanding animosities deep in the party.   Northern Liberals are not comfortable with Southern populists.   You'll find little love between the Kennedy/Dukakis/Kerry camp and the Carter/Clinton/Gore side of things.  Plus, it galls the heck out of the northerners that only the southerners seem capable of winning Presidential elections.  

2. Northern liberals love African-Americans in principle but don't actually know very many.   In some sense, that even goes for Obama who, although he knows plenty of white people, is severely ambivalent about them if we can believe his recent comments about his grandmother and his longstanding affinity for Rev. Wright.    Southern populists both love African-Americans and know them intimately.   Clinton was jokingly noted by Andrew Young to have "slept with more black women than Barack Obama has."   Ouch, now that hurts.

3.  Sexism is alive and well in our culture.   For the past two years (long before the campaign heated up) CNN has been pushing the Paris Hilton/Britney Spears/Lindsay Lohan stories like some kind of "National Inquirer" wannabe.   And conveniently forgetting certain male stars (Keifer Sutherland, I believe?) who've actually done time for DUI.   So Hillary has given this latent woman-haters club a big chance to "shine."

4.  Fear.   This is the controversial one that might get my comment hidden or troll-rated.   It started a month or two back, when Obama first pulled ahead with all those red-state caucus wins.   Pundits and talking heads started hinting darkly that if this nomination were "stolen" from Obama, terrible things could happen.   What terrible things?   Well, some were specific:  A generation of young voters will be irreparably alienated from politics.   The African-American community will be so badly affronted that they might bolt from the party.   That alone is sufficient to suspect a little bit of "fear mongering".  But wait, it gets worse.   To the seasoned ear of a person old enough to have lived through the 60s (and most Democratic Party elders fit that description to a 'T'), to this seasoned ear, there was a far greater threat implied.   At the 1968 convention, who rioted?   Students.   Throughout the 60s and into the 70s, who rioted in the urban north?  African-Americans.    The slightest suggestion of riots in Denver in front of all the TV cameras is enough to bring a sickening sensation to the gut of Democratic party leaders.   And the thought of riots in heavily African-American Atlanta is likely to do the same for the executives at Atlanta-based CNN.  

The anger, the outrage, the name calling, the "evil" characterizations, the over-heated exhortations for her to please, please, please leave the race only make sense as a kind of desperate panic. This is NOT politics as ususal.

This is fear of the unprecedented.

Just to have a woman taken seriously as a contender for such power appears to be too unprecedented for many. If a woman actually wins the nomination, it will, of course, be world changing. It changes our political narratives, our notions of power, heroism, leadership, and our ideas about how much attention and respect must be paid to women in general, and to the work they perform in the public arena.

I know people will say that there are other powerful women in politics -- but none have ever before straight-forwardly stepped up and asked for this kind of power and authority in their own right.

Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton struggling against each other for every superdelegate, every pending state primary, every vote is the best thing America has had going for it in some time on the "global public diplomacy" front.
...
The world is seeing Americans struggle about who U.S. citizens want in the White House. There is no stacked deck, no automatic succession, no heir apparent -- and this political experience of dramatic uncertainty and the pairing of an elder pro-Iraq War POW torture-victim turned leading Senator vs. either the first African-American or female candidate has the feel of a presidential election of a life-time -- the kind that won't be forgotten for a century.
...Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama can win the Democratic primary through pledged delegates. Now, superdelegates and the candidate's nuanced strengths and weaknesses in the eyes of party elders could show those around the world another dimension of America's electoral system that few -- even in America -- get to see.
...
Do the entire thing.

The world is watching, learning. And American popularity in the eyes of global citizens watching us is surging because of the excitement and uncertainty of this fascinating election.

and pay attention to the WaPo:

...We don't see why the process should be short-circuited when millions of votes are yet to be cast and two qualified candidates believe themselves to be the best potential Democratic nominee.

There is no lack of excitement in the Democratic Party. States that have cast ballots have reported record turnouts. Registrations are through the roof. Just last week it was announced in Pennsylvania, which holds its primary April 22, that since November the number of registered Democrats increased by about 161,000. Altogether, Democrats now outnumber Republicans there by about 830,000. And this contest is far from over. While Mr. Obama leads Ms. Clinton in the popular vote and in the number of pledged delegates, it's assumed that neither candidate will win the 2,024 delegates needed to secure the nomination.

...No doubt the Democrats have gotten themselves into a fix with rules that may leave the final decision to unelected superdelegates -- but why is the answer to that less democracy? Why not give as many voters as possible a chance?

We'd all well to remember, the Clintons are the only Democrats to win a Presidential election in modern history.  She doesn't think her withdrawal is good for the party.  

Come on you guys, you are just as bad as the Clinton Haters.

If you think Hillary, if she were in Obama's shoes, would be doing anything different than what Obama is doing now, you are dillusional. They are both utilitarian politicians, not saints.

I keep saying this, but the goal is to defeat McCain. He is the enemy. Clinton-haters and Obama-haters both are doing the Democratic Party a disservice.

Now it seems like he's re-interpreting again that she isn't even pledging to stay into the summer and this is just rhetoric to stay through the spring.

Name one presidential candidate that has received as many second chances to come back as Clinton?

I don't hate Hillary Clinton at all. I rather like her. I just happen to believe that Obama has the potential to be a better president. But if Hillary wins the nomination, I'll happily work for her and vote for her.

In fact, I personally don't know any Democrats who would vote for McCain if their own first choice...Hillary or Obama...didn't win the nomination. I sometimes think the only people who harbor those sorts of vitriolic feelings are the folks who leave comments in the various blogs I read.

But I'll tell you what I DO hate. I hate the fact that instead of debating the policy differences between Obama and Clinton, so many people are focusing on trying to destroy the character of the other candidate. I hate the fact that instead of demonstrating how either Clinton or Obama would be a better president than McCain, so many people are engaging in slamming the other candidate.

A compromise of a 50/50 split in Michigan and counting half the delegates in Florida, as did the GOP, would be more attainable.

"c'mon, if the positions were reversed, <blank> supporters would be saying the same thing"

Then you have made the case that the "calls" should be taken with a pinch of salt, and treat as political disingenuous garbage.