If I had any reservations about changing my registration to independent and not voting for Obama, that's gone thanks to Donna Brazile and her ilk. At least she is good for something other than pyrotechnics, a clear conscience.

"no one in the state of Florida has championed voters' rights more than I."

i hope they enjoy it, it will be the last one for a while. i believe sat. was a pyricc victory for sen. obama, at the cost of the GE.

yeah, it was a good day for Obama supporters

unlike jeralyn and BTD, i can't vote for him. he isn't a real democrat, and god only knows what havoc he would wreak on the country and party in 4 years.

It seems that yesterday HRC got +19 from FL and 5 from MI. Without the penalties she would have got +38 from FL and +73 from MI (with BO getting 0 due to removing himself off ballot). That's a difference of 92 so if the eventual margin is less than 92 his legitimacy will be tainted i.e. given to him by the DNC/RBC as the 2000 election was given to Bush by the Supreme Court and Kathleen Harris.

"In an interview Friday, committee co-chair Roosevelt told me he could not envision a scenario where his committee would reverse who's losing here, which means Obama wins."

The interviewer is Margery Eagan, Boston Herald

So, htat means no matter who voted for whomever in whatever numbers, there was no way the Rules Comm. would ever disturb the status quo.  

Obama took himself off the ballot voluntarily. He and his surrogates (as well as Edwards' people) told his supporters to vote Uncommitted. If you do not vote, you do not have the right to complain about the situation. No matter whether someone tells you it doesn't count or not. Let them fight with Obama for disenfranchising them, let them blame HIM for his disinterest in having their voices counted. His ploy. He should not have been rewarded for his gaming the situation in order to screw over HRC.

As it is, the majority of the Uncommitted would probably vote for him anyway in Denver. However, as Terry McAuliffe pointed out today, some of those Uncommitted were going to vote for HRC at convention -- they'd already pledged to. That's the real reason Obama had to be handed delegates he didn't earn on a silver platter. The DNC were afraid he might not win.

Taking delegates that Clinton won away from her is flat out vote theft.

Whose fault was it that Obama wasn't on the ballot? He's the one who removed his own name.

And there was a better solution: give Clinton her delegates and let the Uncommitteds vote for whomever they please at the Convention. Since by all accounts, all those Uncommitted delegates are actually Obama supporters, he'll get them eventually.

Instead they chose to disenfranchise.

Obama took his name off in a gambit to try to hurt Clinton. It was his campaign that reached out to Edwards', etc. and got them to take their names off, too.

But one miscalculation was not enough. Let my Tupac Hunter, Obama's MI peeps went "Biggy" on the voters and blew the state's desire for a revote.

Obama blew it, twice. And the DNC simply made roolz up -- ones which go against their actual rules which Ickes sought -- to try to save their anointed one.

And in so doing, they have shattered any possible legitimacy for Obama or unity for their party. This was the fatal blow for an Obama candidacy come November. It was one long, ugly, Wexler-stained GOP campaign ad.

The whole debacle was an Obama creation. He should live with the consequences just like anyone else who makes a poor decision.

I don't like the idea of any American's vote counting for only half.

If the VI votes counted and Gore took his name off the ballot, then no, he is not entitled to anything.

And this has nothing to do with my candidate. Had the RBC turned around and handed Clinton more uncommitted delegates for no known reason because they wanted her to have them, I'd have been just as pissed off. Because the people who voted for her voted for her. The people who didn't clearly did not and since there is no way of actually measuring what the intent of the voters were in the uncommitted category, the delegates should have been free to go where they wanted -- as they are in every other state in the union.

Also, your argument is fallacious because you're also mixing popular votes in a general election with primary votes for delegates. The same number of delegates from MI would be going to the convention regardless. It's just whose pocket they have been put in to.

I'm sure YOU would be screaming bloody murder if YOUR candidate had had 4 delegates taken from him in another state for absolutely no reason other than political machinations and fixing an already heated primary season.

Rock and a hard place my @#$.  He'll never be considered legitimate. Respect, never. This will be written up in history books as vote stealing.

a pres. mccain would, by a (hopefully) veto-proof democratic congress, have his nominee's feet held to the fire. he would be handcuffed.

i'm afraid a pres. obama wouldn't be, by this same democratic congress. they would feel compelled to approve, or risk being called racists.

in short, a pres. mccain is less likely to have the freedom to destroy that a pres. obama would enjoy.

OPTION 1
Seat half the delegates as the people voted on 1/15 (Clinton: 37.5, Obama: 0, Uncommitted: 27.5) and the other half based on 8/5 votes (64 up for grabs)

OPTION 2
Seat all the delegates as the people vote on 8/5 (128 up for grabs).

Option #1 would not have made that large an impact on Obama's delegate lead (netted her 37.5), and would have probably satisfied 95% of Clinton supporters (you know the people he needs in the general).

Option #2 would have been more difficult to swallow for Clinton supporters, but was a heck of a lot better than the solution derived.

Yesterday's DNC decision to award Obama delegates in Michigan even though he was not on the ballot surely seemed plausible to Democratic leaders trying to find a way out of their dilemma. The idea of splitting the baby in Michigan and Florida, seating the delegates while cutting their voting strength, was always a natural one, and in and of itself will cause little problem.

But the Michigan decision is a jaw dropper. By setting aside election results to Hillary's disadvantage, the DNC has saddled its likely nominee with an enraged opponent who now has every incentive to carry the fight through the summertime. Simultaneously, it has told Michigan voters that the DNC - and by extension, its nominee, Obama - is willing to set aside election results it does not like. That cannot have a positive effect on Michigan swing voters - and Obama needs to carry Michigan in the fall to have any shot at victory.

The Clintons' unwillingness to accept defeat is legendary. Yet the DNC has thrown sand in the face of a candidate who is already claiming sexism underlies the opposition to her campaign. Never underestimate the fury of a woman scorned, the adage goes.

Now she can stay in the race with yet another rationale for her candidacy - she is fighting for democratic principles. And her working class voters in Michigan will hear that message.

When it comes to competence, and figuring that out based on who one is surrounded with, while I think there are some loyalties involved between Clark and Clinton (and that's a GOOD thing), I don't think it supercedes Clark's consideration for the safety of America.

You are free to take a different view.

As for slash and burn, Obama attacked Clinton's character.  In his view, she is a liar and she should NEVER be president.

Clinton attacked Obama's readiness.  In her view, he wasn't ready and could be one day.

Did Clinton show too much cleavage or leg for you in those pantsuits?  Or did we wimmen, y'know, ask for it?

Here to make friends and influence people for your candidate. Just a friendly word of advice.  You are doing neither, IMHO.

In fact you are doing Obama a disservice by reinforcing the sorry impression that many of us have of the run of the mill immature and rude Obama supporter.

Was over at DK.  Read some diaries on "Hillary supporters".  There was actually one good one, but the others were some flavor of "This is what Hillary supporters are like and why.".  They weren't flattering portraits mostly because they left out one little morsel - Clinton supporters think Clinton is the superior candidate and Obama is the inferior one.  That would go against the narrative that Obama is just plain the best and couldn't possibly be any better.

So if Obama is the bestest, then anyone who supports the inferior candidate has judgment problems to say the least.  So you see, it's not Obama's fault.  It's not Obama's supporters fault.  It's Hillary's fault for leading Dems astray and it's her supporters fault for following Clinton and not seeing the greatness of Obama.

I can't even agree to disagree with that.  The framing is false.  Never accept a flawed premise or you've lost already.

Obama's supporters think he is the best candidate.
Clinton's supporters think she is the best candidate.  They are all rational, fallible people.

The most equitable solution was to leave the uncommitted delegates as uncommitteds. They are mostly for Obama anyways. In the county conventions Hillary stayed out of their selection. She could have ran a slate of uncommitted delegates but honored the election and didn't.

What the hell is "a real democrat"?

a real democrat believes all votes should be counted. a real democrat doesn't waver in their support of woman's right to choose what to do with her own body, and to make her very own reproductive decisions. a real democrat doesn't cry wolf about social security, because they already know the republicans are full of it. a real democrat would never even think of voting to confirm, to the USSC, a judge with justice roberts' history. a real democrat stands firmly for the right of all people to expect equal treatment under the law, regardless of their race, creed, gender or sexual orientation.

Obama's current lead in pledged delegates is 115.  Goving Clinton the other 19 advantage from FL if tey had full votes and it goes down to 96.  Then adjust MI to to give Clinton the 73 votes she earned and put back the other MI to Uncommitted and his lead in pledged delegates end up at 29.

That would give Clinton a very GOOD argument to make to the super delegates.  Especially if you add in the debacle that is called Texas and consider she won NV and got fewer delegates and that some of the delegates that are now in Obama's column are Edwards delegates from Iowa.

I believe this will be the first time in the nomination process since McGovern, that the nominee with the most PV will not be selected and we know what happen in the McGovern choice.

Oh, and the idea of demonizing the greatest Democratic hero in living memory--brilliant!  Really got the Republicans on that one.  Yah, the Republicans WOULD NEVER TRASH A PAST REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT IN A NATIONAL CAMPAIGN. But the Democrats are enlightened equalizers. Bwaaahaaa!

...to redeem itself the Democratic Party will have to change its delegate and caucus system because this primary season completely exposed that, in truth, the votes of the democratic voters do not elect the nominee...the elite insiders of the Democractic party do...

...as for Bob Wexler of Florida, an Obama representative...I found him to be his passionate self but to me, he was a tragic figure arguing against himself...as Dana Milbank put it, Bob Wexler pounded the table saying that...

 "no one in the state of Florida has championed voters' rights more than I" and yet,

when Tina Floutnoy asked him if he would oppose his home state of Florida receiving 100% of their votes and delegates you could see the look of horror and fear in his face and he sat there for those moments with 'the deer in the headlight' look...

I think a good deal of my exasperation has not been focused on you, really, it has been the simple realization of how completely exaggerated the HRC campaign was when it came to BHO.

The arguments she made really goaded me into thinking during the end of the Iowa campaign that she was going to say things that were not true about Obama and hurt all of the Dems general election campaign hopes.

Certainly there were some things that came up that were eyebrow raising, interesting campaign tidbits, but when she started saying that he was not qualified to be prez due to outlandishly exaggerated circumstances, exactly something that GOP-ers do, I was shocked, then pissed as the days wore on.

No one can be prepared to be president was something HRC reflected early on, as she was the almost unchallenged front-runner. and stories and problems arise...

I thought to myself, just because HRC had LOTS of known problems did not mean there weren't new problems that could pop up for her, as well as OBama.

Anyway, I was really a Clinton fan for a good part of 2007. But seeing the divisiveness and warlike atitude that HRC's campaign carried...which I at first was inclined to endorse...

I realized that what I wanted all along during the decades was to be able to work in harmony together. obviously on particular issues I was settled in for the long haul, but since almost all of the candidates were conjoined on those issues, I was interested what type of leader these candidates would be.

After the Obama win and seeing the old guard Bill delegates sharing the stage with HRC, I was fearful that this  would be the harbinger of old and new.

As for MI, I can't believe we are arguing over 4 delegates. Does it really matter? This was a totally invalid primary process and defies any definition of legitimate. The fair thing would have been to invalidate the primary on its face. But there may be other options now, especially if Clinton wants to make 4 delegates her big fight at the convention.

I think the DNC and the state of MI should just fund another primary real quick and set the date for July. That would settle matters, right? I know the legislature killed the plan but if MI voters are so enraged at the split, just pay for another. I hope Granholm makes another run for this idea.

so we better brace for McCain no more Roe versus Wade and more deaths in Iraq more pbs with Israel/palestine, more danih embassy bombings etc
more Rove spins more of all the nightmares
I am quite glad to be living in Europe as I read all those obama/clinton voters enting out their frustrations and I cant but wonder if my living abroard I can get more easily the bigger picture
 and yes each camp voter is now resorting to pettiness and childish rage

is it really what you want deep in your heart each and every of you: more Bush more white crosses in arlington
because that is the likely outcome of those feuds
you, I vote badly and our sons die
as simple as that
sorry guys but this morning, listening at the islamabad bombing I am reminded of the real targets
and at my age I have learned it is better to swallow willingly the bitter potion because not doing it will only get things worse and having to swallow twice as much

Understand that I have given this very careful consideration.  Having NEVER voted for a republican presidential nominee, this is not a decision I've made lightly or based on emotion. That's not to say that I am not furious, because I am.  I haven't been this angry since 2000 and it's actually worse this time because the assault has come from the Democratic Party.  That said, here are some things to consider when deciding whether to simply not vote, vote for a 3rd party or write in a name:

 - Anything but a vote for McCain could result in an Obama victory.  It is important that Obama not win for a few reasons.  First, a loss would send the proper message to the DNC.  If Obama squeaks out a win, the DNC will believe that their actions were justified.  Second, he is bad for the long-term success of the Dems (though that matters less and less to me by the hour) because he will be Jimmy Carter 2.0 and look what that did to the party.  Third, and most importantly, an Obama presidency would be bad for the country.  He has proven time and time again that he will shy away from anything too difficult or anything he might not win.  He lacks the strength and fortitude we desperately need in a leader today.  Our country and our economy are in shambles.  We cannot afford to elect an ineffectual leader.

 - McCain is a moderate with a history of working with Democrats.  Electing a moderate is something that any reasonable person should all be able to embrace.  Extremism is offensive regardless of which side of the political fence on which you sit.  It will send an even more important message to the RNC than the one we would send to the DNC:  No More Bible-Thumping Candidates.  If McCain loses this election, the RNC will undoubtedly swing way back to the far right.  This is not good for our country in the long run because, if we've learned anything about the Republicans, they know how to win elections.

 - McCain is not a warmonger.  He has a healthy respect for and knowledge of the military.  He has a child currently serving in the military.  He wants to end this war as badly as anyone else, but I believe he would do it the right way.  Obama and HRC have both said they will listen to military leaders and begin withdrawing troops immediately.  I think this will be the first broken campaign promise - not because they don't mean it, but because it's impractical.  I would trust McCain to end the war in an effective manner over Obama any day of the week.

The nomination of McCain was the greatest gift the Republicans could have ever given us.  If they had nominated any other candidate, I could never consider voting Republican.  

You get to go on every blogsite you've visited and paste: "TOLD YOU SO!" when Obama doesn't deliver.

Obama's failing to come through on most of his big CHANGE ideas will teach the younger crowd who backed him about ideologies and the real world of politics.

The Democratic party will have egg on their face when their "Chosen One" doesn't come through even though Hillary supporters did help him get elected after all.

Since Obama is going to need an awfully lot of help, we still need to vote other Dems on the ballot into congress. The more the better because Obama will need them desperately.  

If we don't vote, it will all be blamed on us and Hillary. That's already started.

If we don't vote, we'll have another mini-Bush to deal with and that's not currently going well  even with a Dem congress.

The wealthy already rule. They just haven't put their crowns on yet. Putting another Repug in office will have them polishing those crowns in front of us.

Another Repug in the White House and everyone in middle class America and lower will be reduced to the 1/2 vote status relative to the slavery vote, because that is what we'll be--slaves.

I will gag to put my pencil mark by his name, but I refuse to be blamed for his ineptitude. I want Obama to have full responsibility for his losses.

because someone needs to slap you  and get you to open your eyes

I listened to all the candidates early on. I distinctly remember Obama's big gaffs like switching the troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. That's not bringing them home! I saw him advocate a single payer health care system then deny it. I read the article in the NY Times about Obama telling Iowans he was glad he passed a nuclear bill relative to safety. The bill never passed. It was waylaid by the Repugs, watered down and died. I remember a very reluctant Obama that really didn't want to run for president yet. He knows he's inexperienced. I read the U.S. govt. website on how many times each and every senator voted in Congress, and that Obama has failed to vote far too many times compared to his peers and especially Hillary. I also read and heard more than once that Obama is known as a radical in congress. He writes bills that will never pass.

What this shows me is that Obama is well aware of his shortcomings. He was a tentative candidate from the beginning. His record for voting, where he represents his constituents is poor compared to other senators, so relying on him may not be so smart. He flip flops and lies about it. He has a tendency to overinflate what he has actually accomplished. And that if he doesn't know the ropes well enough he can easily get sidelined by very crafty Repugs, like that nuclear bill. You know he's pro-nuclear now, got a donation? HMMM.

Nearly 18 million people have stood with us -- the most votes cast for a candidate in the history of presidential primaries in either party. We've defied the skeptics and answered an important question: Which candidate best represents the will of the people?"

But on Yahoo's home page where I pick up my mail it says "Obama nears win amid signs Clinton may admit loss."