How asinine is that? The time to change the way you count the votes is BEFORE the election, not AFTER it. Does anybody seriously think BTD would be endorsing this Calvinball play if the situation was reversed?

Any attempt by party leaders to force her from the race, or to manipulate a win for Obama based on a greater "electability" argument that has not been proven by votes will be seen by me not as a detrimental move against a particular candidate, but as a betrayal of the party's once assumed commitment to women and their political equality. That, I believe, is an incredibly important issue -- which party leaders do not seem to have awakened to yet.

They need to allow this process to play out in the fairest possible way. So that women, whether they are Clinton supporters or not, can be assured that the party's stated commitment to equality in terms of political participation and representation is not just lip service, but something all the party's leaders -- not just women or Clinton partisans -- can be counted on to energetically defend.

I know a lot of people see this campaign merely in terms of which candidate is preferred -- which is "liked" or "hated" more than another -- but in terms of personal character, these are both fine people. In terms of judging how they would perform in office, one has a well-examined record on which to make a judgement, the other does not. Strong arguments for their success in the general election can be made for each one. Viable arguments against their success in the general election can be made for each one. Neither would be a shoo-in against McCain. Neither would be a disaster for the party in November. Both would represent social change that should be celebrated. Although the election of a woman would represent much deeper, and perhaps not yet achievable, cultural change, and require a bigger adjustment in deeply held cultural attitudes.

For me, the factors at play in this campaign that have been most disturbing are the ones that have made me doubt the commitment of the Democratic party to women. I am not as concerned about which of these candidates wins or loses as I am about whether I can continue to believe that this is a party that takes me seriously, respects me, and genuinely represents me.

I know I am not the only woman for whom questions about the party's commitment to women, and respect for their place in the party itself, have been raised this campaign season. I think party leaders must start answering those questions now -- by making it clear that the remainder of this process must play out with scrupulous fairness.

(A) There is absolutely no good reason why the SDs ought to ratify the pledged delegate count (Pelosi-style).  It would make no sense.  In fact it would not be an improvement, in democratic terms, over the supers their conscience, since, as we know, delegate lead does not = most popular candidate.

(B) Nobody is taking part in this process for the good of their health.  They are looking to select the most promising candidate for the GE.  SDs have a duty to choose such a candidate.

(C) How do they decide who that is?  All things being equal (i.e. no massive scandals for either candidate) two factors seem most important: ability to carry key swing states, and ability to win the popular vote.

(D) I have won all the key states except BO's homeground.  If I win the popular vote as well (inc. Flo. and Mich.) I ought to be the candidate, and SDs should do what they are meant to and vote for me.  If I don't win the popular vote, I understand it will be inappropriate for me to be the nominee - I'll step aside in that case.

But I'd hold firm on Florida and Michigan, while  demanding to know why Obama is in control of the final decision.

And since her name is first on the ballot and first in alphabetical order, I'd demand to know why she's always positioned second to him in the media, and party politics.

Then I'd call for a million women march.

For this nomination to mean anything for either candidate, the nominee must be perceived to have won fair and square.

Obama supporters will perceive that Obama won fair and square if MI and FL aren't counted. Why? Because fair and square means within the rules established for the game at the outset. The nomination process isn't Calvinball.

If the Calvinball principle applies, and Clinton wins, Obama supporters won't view the result as fair and square.

Talk about changing the rules in the middle of the game.  If the states holding caucuses were told at the beginning of the process that only the cumulative popular vote would matter, they would've held primaries, and Obama's strategy would have been different.  

why does not one bring up Edwards voters? if they voted Uncommited because he was not on the ballot and he gets no delegates is this not unfair to them? doesn't this equally disenfranchise them?

you can make an argument for all sides, because everything about this situation is unfair to voters, THIS is why we need a compromise, and why they need to sit down again agree.

but no FL and MI should not be seated as is, yes a revote would have probably been the fairest (if those who cross over were allowed to vote in the re-do, otherwise no)

but now they are out of time neither state really wants to hold a redo and they aren't fighting for it.

so to talk about it is a waste of time,

The MI D Party hasn't acknowledged this.  But, they haven't addressed the all of the legal and logistic issues.  I understand that some will argue that it is undemocratic to point out the law in this situation, I don't agree.  

Even if it is popular to ignore the legal and logistic problems, (which is not a tactic unique to one side) it is undeniable that the new MI plan would have left out BO supporters who trusted everyone (including HRC) who said that the D primary wouldn't count, so these BO supporters went into the R primary for a second or strategic choice (32% of R vote were Ds and Is.)  First time voters (a strong source of BO support, not to mention Party building, who wouldn't have been motivated for the first no-count, no-BO option, vote) would also be excluded from an absentee voting plan.  

Here is a link with the legal issues.  And, in the interest of honest debate, it gives the HRC view.   I can summarize the HRC POV, as I see it:

1. Both candidates promised not to "participate" in MI, but HRC kept her name on the ballot anyway.  (In FL it was impossible to remove BO's name, even though there was the same non participation agreement as in MI.)
   
2. Some rules are more important to HRC than others.
   
3. HRC supporters want to finance the plan they like.
   
4. Some rules are more important to HRC than others.

I don't think this will happen, though. What if Hillary loses by 100,000 votes? Or Obama loses by the same margin? Does that really show a clear winner? Especially given the obvious controversy over caucuses and primaries?

This is exactly why it should NOT be up to Obama and Clinton. The DNC should be the ones to dictate the terms - either accept a revote, or seat them as is. Anyone who thinks we can possibly prevail in November without seating FL and MI while it matters is living in a dream world. Clinton supporters are never going to accept Obama as a legitimate nominee without those delegates getting seated, either by a revote or as is. I have serious doubts that Obama could win in November WITH Clinton supporters on board. It will be an impossibility without them.