The DNC sent me two fundraising letters today. I wrote a nasty note on both of them and sent them back. The GOP used to send them to my husband and he sent them a nasty note too and told them he never wanted to hear from them again. Do the elites of either party really realize how upset and mad the voters in this country are with both parties? Honestly, I used to think that it was just the GOP that was this bad but, gosh darn, we've been proven to be just as bad as they are.

Gosh, maybe just seat the delegates, since it seems to make no difference in the results anyway?

Apart from that though -- if Obama gets the nomination, I will not vote this year.  I will not vote for McCain and I will not cast a vote for president (unless I can write in a name) although I realize that by not voting in my purple state, I am essentially casting my vote for McCain.  I will not vote for the Dems because I no longer believe that they have anything to offer me.  The performance of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi over the past two years has been nothing less than pathetic; Howard Dean, for whom I would have voted for president, has disappointed me greatly with his muddling of the primary process; Kerry -- what can I say?  I gave money to him specifically so that he could fight the thefts at the end,  only to see him give a gentlemanly wave as he left the scene;  Obama -- I do not feel the magic, perhaps because I am too old.  

I have decided that I will refrain from political activity now and in the future until there is a political party in which I can believe.  The Democrats certainly are NOT it.

Other than that, I'm with BTD ....

The Democrats are just like the Republicans--it turns out that we don't want to count all the votes, only the votes that are for us. I thought that the whole time we were opposing these voter ID laws, it was because the right to vote was sacrosanct. That most of the voters who would benefit from our opposition would vote for us was a happy side effect.

But no, that wasn't the case. The political benefits were the motives, and the principle was just a cover. If those laws made it harder for the wealthy and conservative to vote, we probably wouldn't have opposed them.

The right to vote is sacrosanct. I don't care if the legislatures that moved the primaries were controlled by Democrats, Republicans, or Martians. Even if every single legislator was acting under direct orders from Hillary Clinton, and every voter in Michigan and Florida wanted to move the primary date up, you cannot take away their votes. Ever.

Glad to oblige ya lady.  I will take my Hispanic a55 over to the GOP and ask them if they would like my vote, since the DNC wants only two kinds of voters:  Black and elitists.

Hmmmmmmm...wonder why they would want THAT combination?

And spare US your melodramatics.  Clearly you're one of the many who see no difference in the Clinton years vs the Bush ones.

The Constitution puts all the control of elections in the hands of the state legislatures, and when a state establishes an election for some thing, any thing, a school levy, then all of the protections of the US Constitution & the Code of Federal Regulations & the Voting Rights Act (for some states) & the race, sex & age amendments come into full force & bearing on the election.

It is only the caucuses that are not covered by the Constitution.  The primaries are elections put into force by the states.

It's also unfortunate that the false posts can stand as if they are facts while a low-info voter like myself has to go search references from the fact-based reality.

Washington Secretary of State (link)

News Release
Issued: February 23, 2004   [note the date]

OLYMPIA...The United States Supreme Court today upheld a federal court decision that declared Washington's blanket primary unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court denied Washington's petition for "writ of certiorari" killing the state's nearly 70-year-old blanket primary.

"This is the end of the line for Washington's blanket primary," said Secretary of State Sam Reed. "But it is not the end of voters' rights in this state. I will work tirelessly to protect the privacy of our citizens' political preferences and to ensure their right to vote for the person, not the party. These rights are the foundation of Washington's democracy, and we must preserve them."

The constitutionality of Washington's blanket primary was most recently challenged in Washington State Democratic Party, et al., v. Sam Reed. The lawsuit, filed in the summer of 2000 by our state's major political parties, followed a U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled California's blanket primary unconstitutional.

Washington Secretary of State (different link)

U.S. Supreme Court reinstates Washington's Top Two Primary  

News Release
Issued: March 18, 2008   [note the date]

Calling the decision an extraordinary victory for voters, Secretary of State Sam Reed and Attorney General Rob McKenna today applauded the U.S. Supreme Court for upholding Washington's wide open, Top Two Primary. The 7-2 decision handed down today follows years of court battles over the primary and the rights of voters to choose any candidate on the ballot. In a Top Two Primary, voters do not have to declare any party affiliation, and can vote for any candidate, regardless of the candidate's political party preference.  In today's decision, the Court rejected the political parties' claims that this type of primary is unconstitutional.
[snip]
The Court concluded that the Top Two Primary is not a nominating process, is not intended to pick each party's nominee for the General Election.  Rather, the purpose of a Top Two Primary is to winnow the number of candidates to two, allowing voters to select the two most popular candidates to advance to the General Election.  The two candidates with the greatest support advance to the General, regardless of party preference and regardless of whether they are a party's nominee or preferred candidate.

MI did not have a contest, as only one candidate was listed on the ballot.  In what competitive endeavor do we only have one competitor and still call it a contest?  To apportion the MI delegates based on those results is to deny that there is a single Obama supporter in the entire state - not a likely scenario.

Every vote in Florida will be counted.  That has never been in question.  The only Florida question is "how will delegates be apportioned according to these votes?"  It goes without saying, but this is not a comparable situation to the 2000 Florida Presidential election.  In that case, actual votes were not counted, due to overvotes/undervotes and a host of other balloting shenanigans.  Whomever was declared the winner in Florida in 2000, was always going to be granted the entire slate of electoral college delegates.  

Any penalty that is nominally applied to both MI and FL does not disenfranchise a single voter,  as the overall delegates needed for the nomination are also adjusted proportionally.

Benen fisked Lowry earlier today:
Carpetbaggerreport

The irony here is, if Clinton had removed her name from the Michigan ballot, Michigan would have had to hold a second legitimate contest, as it did in 2000 when Gore and Bradley took their names off the ballot.

If Ickes and the other 11 Clinton supporters on the Rules committee had really been concerned about the voters in Florida, they would have let there be a real contest in Florida with reduced delegates.

While Hillary is defending the right of voters in Michigan and Florida to be counted it is simply amazing that Republicans continue to fight against the will of the people with voter ID laws and caging efforts.  Republicans have no standing for commenting on voter enfranchisement, nor our internal problems.

This is a political talking point that should be turned around on the Republicans, because no matter what our internal matters are, they don't get to comment.  The response is basically the same as when Bush went to Israel and acted the fool.  If outsiders attack us, or one of our own, we should be fighting them off.

I'm a Florida voter, and if we get delegates in whichever way, shape, or form I'll be grateful. I personally am happy with any plan so long as it strips all Supers. (for MI too, my home state) The Superdelegates in the state made this mess and they should be punished. As for the regular delegates, I've never felt disenfranchised about it, so like I said I'd be grateful for whatever we get. But we don't "deserve" them. In a primary, voting is a privilage, not a right. In a general election it's a right. That's why the 2000 thing isn't a fair analogy. Completly different vote. I've yet to meet anyone who won't vote in the general because of some primary. I've never liked the primary results in any previous election, and I still vote in the GE. What about Independants in closed primaries? Are they disenfranchised because they can't vote in the primaries?

What they don't get is that it doesn't matter whether her championing of the votes is self-serving or if she's doing it from pure naked ambition rather than a desire to uphold voters' rights. Her motives are completely beside the point.

It is entirely possible to do the right thing for the wrong reasons, and be on the side of moral right. If a governor issues a last-minute death penalty reprieve only because he's bowing to political pressure, and not because he's had a genuine change of heart, it doesn't matter to the guy on the death row -- he's still alive, and the governor still did the right thing. Similarly, if Hillary gets the votes counted, it DOESN'T MATTER WHY: the voters still get their votes counted and the principles of democracy still get upheld.