And we'll once again hear them cry out at the injustice of Obama supporters in Michigan being denied (robbed, robbed I tell ya!) of their right to cast a vote for their candidate, again conflating voting rights with voting preferences, and in the process conveniently ignoring or smugly dismissing the fact that it was Obama (that's right, Obama, not Hillary, not the DNC, not Rush Limbaugh) who denied them their preference in order to humiliate Hillary and obtain tactical advantage in subsequent contests.

I am an American first and democrat second.  It is more important to me to preserve the rights of citizens to vote.

The only consideration here is VOTERS RIGHTS for Florida and Michigan.  The voters did not do anything wrong.  They voted in the only election available for them to cast their ballots.  This shows lack of leadership on the part of the democratic party.  If McCain wins, the fault lies with the party. It is their responsibility to preserve voters rights.  It is their responsibility to resolve the situation that is FAIR TO THE VOTERS.  Candidates should not have any VETO power over the resolution of this sorry situation.

If I think he stole the votes, I may t

If you want to quote vote totals, please quote the          933,000 more people voting for Obama than Clinton so far (813,000 not including the Texas Causus vote... I added in +100,000 for Mississippi).  I expect the same indignation about voter disenfranchisement when convention time rolls around when the superdelegate tug of war begins (assuming Clinton is still in).

The way the delegates are split (and I hoped you would know this by now), is through proportional representation.  Districts can have 4, 5, etc. delegates.  If it is 4, Hillary would have to have a 3:1 advantage in the voting to get the third.  If it is 5, a 3:2.  I have no idea how you think the 5% of her voters would get delegates?  Pieces of a delegate?  This error alone undermines the post, but let me add some background on some other issues:

The time for Michigan to get its delegates is at the convention.  The first vote was already disenfranchised before it started.  But it was with a wink-wink because everyone knew that the winner would magnanimously allow the delegates to be seated by the rules committee at the convention (with the support of his/her delegates).  I heard discussion of this before the Michigan vote itself.

The reason Edwards and Obama dropped themselves from the ballot was because they felt that name recognition would matter most when they couldn't campaign.  They felt that Hillary would win and if they were not on the ballot, the media would be forced to claim it the false primary it was.  I know this is unfair to Michigan and there are many posts/comments on why it happened in Michigan, but the rules are the rules.  Obama made a calculated decision within the rules.  However, Obama did not cause the disenfranchisement, nor did removing his name from the ballot cause it.  It just kept Hillary from getting a momentum bump (not delegate bump) from it.

The reason Hillary now needs those delegates before the convention is twofold.  She is well behind and she needs to be closer to have a better argument for the superdelegates.  Also, a late win, which she would have if there were a Florida re-vote on June 3rd, could be great momentum going into the convention for the superdelegates.  However, all the pundits and polls say she would lose in Michigan on a revote.  A 50/50 split would be the best she would get.  But that re-vote would cost close to 15 million and be a logistical nightmare.

There is a very simple reason Obama does not want a re-vote.  He is not afraid of losing (in Michigan), nor does he care about the few delegates.  They do not mean as much to him as they do to Hillary.  However, the longer this drags on, the more mud gets slung both ways.  And the more Democrats, such as those here, make declarations of not voting for this person or that person in the general instead of actually worrying about who the nominee is and working against the Republican.

I think he views Obama as being a "gate crasher."  Fine, so do a lot of blind followers.  But part of dkos and other prog blogs was to do things the right way--the anti-Rovian way.  He is completely oblivious to the fact that he has become Rove and his sycophants the propaganda arm.  I'd be fine with dKos, there are still a ton of great diaries and front page posts, save for the continued allowance and promotion of falsehoods, innuendo, and baseless assumptions.  Any poster can say what they want "Hillary is a racist, Hillary must bow out not..."  I don't care about that.  What bugs me is the FP'ers all helping to fuel the fire.  The blind leading the blind into a brick wall.

 Based on Dean and company not having made a clear plan that included the worse case scenario I think they should all resign right after the election.  This is disgusting policy, to allow such a gaping hole in bad planning.  

Holy crow what is the matter with people that can't see that? But, but Clinton did, or but, but Obama said... So What?

The DNC created this mess and they need to fix it. NOW!

No one has the right to remove 50% of any one's vote. I thought this kind of crap was why so many of us loathed the Republicans? Now many progressives think it's all right to disenfranchise voters in order to give their candidate a boost? Or to keep the hated/evil rival from getting a boost? This hypocrisy needs to stop now. It's not about who is ahead or who stands to gain; it's about what's right.  

That sure seems where HRC wants to go with her quote on NPR:

"'That was his choice,' [Hillary Clinton] says in an interview.... 'There was no rule or requirement that he take his name off the ballot. His supporters ran a very aggressive campaign to try to get people to vote uncommitted.'" (emphasis added)

I believe the bolded portion above is simply not true. Look at the plain meaning of "participate" in the context of an election. The first thing you have to do to participate in an election is to get your name on the ballot. If you don't get your name off the ballot you are effectively "participating" in that election. Clinton's current actions in trying to count the stolen Michigan votes is, in itself, proof of her "participation" in that primary contrary to her pledge.  

Seating delegates based on a vote that everyone knew didn't count, and in which one candidate didn't even appear on the ballot, is as arbitrary as using "Rock, Paper, Scissors" to divide the delegates. To do so in favor of a candidate who violated the Democratic Party's rules to gain an advantage is to reward that candidate with the use of "Rock" and "Paper," and "Scissors," too.  

There is a basic reality to this situation that I have not seen Jeralyn recognize, which is that there is a difference -- a BIG difference -- between having a candidate's name on a ballot vs. not having a candidate's name on the ballot and having to organize a special thing like voting uncommitted.  And there is a HUGE difference between a primary or a caucus with a real campaign preceding it, and one that doesn't have a real campaign, especially when one candidate is going in with much greater initial name recognition than the other.

Any state with a governor or senator up for reelection will fear any threatened drop in their voters due to shenanigans in the national primary. Any state with significant anti-Democratic ballot initiatives will fear any threatened drop in Democratic voter participation.

This would be cheaper than spending $30 million on hasty contests.

    Michigan's 156 delegates would be split 50-50 between Clinton and Obama.

    -Florida's existing delegates would be seated at the Denver convention--but with half a vote each. That would give Clinton a net gain of about 19 elected delegates.

    - The two states' superdelegates would then be able to vote in Denver, likely netting Clinton a few more delegates.

Split them all 50/50, and you've got a deal.

===

In the mean time, George Bush is still trying to see how much EVIL he and his Dark Master Dick Overlord Cheney can create before the American people finally rise up and drive the Bush/Cheney crime families into the sea with pitch forks and torches . . .

What if the final agreement is along the lines of

Florida -  seated as is but with a 50% penalty,  i.e. each delegate received a half a vote.  All super delegates count fully.

Dear Phil McNamara,

In support of re-votes in Florida and Michigan, I am writing to express my concern about the status of the Florida and Michigan delegations.  

My concerns regarding this issue have been growing throughout the winter as everywhere I looked the possible votes from Florida and Michigan were completely disregarded.  At first, I argued against a wide-spread belief that because "Rules are Rules" the two states wouldn't be seated at all.  Can you imagine that, I'd ask?  The commentators would look over the convention floor and talk about how HISTORIC this convention is -- NOT because of our two candidates -- but because for the first time ever two states are missing from the convention floor.

It's shocking:  There are people in this country who are prepared to keep the Florida and Michigan delegates off the floor in support of the DNC Rules!

Are we seriously considering disenfranchising the voters of those states?  I can't tell from public reports of compromises that include:

   1. The audacious idea of splitting the Michigan delegation in half for Senators Clinton and Obama
   2. Punishing the Florida delegation by cutting their delegation in half.

Governor Dean might have said, we can do better than that.  What I want to know is, why aren't we?

As Democrats in the oldest democracy on the planet, are we compromising voter rights for rules and process?  Are we going to nominate a candidate at a convention tainted by second-class delegations?  For what else could the delegations of Florida and Michigan be if they don't represent voters in officially sanctioned elections?

Last week, James Carville announced that he had donors committed to contributing half the cost of new primaries in Florida and Michigan.  This week I'm hearing talk of "simply half's" dividing the Michigan delegation and cutting the Florida delegation. This is unacceptable.

The Democratic party is better than these shenanigans indicate.  We can hold primaries in those two states, we must.

Even in Kansas, people are talking, Mr. McNamara -- and it doesn't sound good.  Please  ask Governor Dean to speak for us.  Ask him to get primaries on the schedule for Florida and Michigan.  In this year when every vote counts, let's count every vote.

Thank you.

I emailed him and wanted to know if by "they all" he meant the candidates or just the Party Chairs.

His reply:

And the candidates in the sense that they didn't have t run if they didn't want to.  And they agreed not to run in MI and FL.

THAT is the issue here.
Hillary is trying to change the rules to suit her.

Burns wrote

"Oh wad some power the giftie gie us To see oursel's as others see us! It wad frae monie a blunder free us, And foolish notion"

Dear Senator Clinton,

At the time of the Michigan and Florida "primaries", there was widespread agreement that the votes would not count toward the election of convention delegates.  You yourself said in New Hampshire that the Michigan primary would not "count for anything."  But now it seems you are going back on your word and attempting to seat the Michigan delegates.

After eight years of George W. Bush, we need a President who will keep her word.

Which election do you think she was talking about?

Florida and Michigan tried to jump the line, and did so expecting sanctions for their behavior.  They figured they'd lose half their delegates, but that what they'd gain in importance from moving up their contest would outweigh the punishment they expected to receive.  If this were a criminal, who broke the law blatantly in front of a police officer, saying "Well, I know I'll get 30 days in jail, but, man, that was TOTALLY worth it", how would you expect a judge to react to that, especially given that 30 days is a standard sentence but not the maximum allowed punishment for the crime?

Sanctions are supposed to be in place so that they dissuade people from violating the rules.  If the sanctions handed out are not sufficient to do that, then the sanctions need to be increased.

That's not that I'm saying I'm a fan of the incredible criminal sentence enhancements that are ongoing throughout legislatures across the nation, but that's not quite comparable, because most people who commit crimes expect not to get caught, and don't consider the sentence.  Florida and Michigan, on the other hand, knew that they'd be caught and thought they knew what would happen to them if they broke the rules by holding a contest before 2/5.  They tried to game the system.

Florida and Michigan thought they'd be more important by holding their primaries before they were allowed, and thought that the importance they'd gain from having early contests would be worth losing half their delegates.  The DNC, then, needed to come up with a solution whereby Michigan and Florida did not gain in importance by scheduling their date outside of the allowable period.  So long as the MI/FL primaries were worth even a single delegate, they would have candidates coming in and campaigning in the state.  So, in order to strip MI/FL of that importance, the thing they so desperately hoped to gain by gaming the system, you need to take all of their delegates, to make sure that everyone understands that any nominating contest held outside of the DNC rules is illegitimate.

If Florida and Michigan would like to now hold legitimate primary contests under the DNC rules, I'm all for seating the delegates that result from those contests.

If Florida or Michigan do not hold legitimate primary contests under the DNC rules, then we're left with just two options: let them stay home and watch on TV, or give them an honorary delegation of some sort.  The latter can be accomplished either by seating the delegates from the illegitimate contests without the ability to vote in the contest, which I'm not sure can be done, or by assigning their delegates 50/50 to ensure that they cannot influence the race one way or the other.  If they refuse to hold legitimate primary contests, then they cannot be allowed to interfere with the results from the rest of the states who did.

With that said, I don't like the 50-50 split.  It simply doesn't make sense.

But as someone mentioned above, it really is all about negotiating right now.  These are both candidates who want to win.  And they will negotiate for their best position possible with the mess that the DNC created.

I am also pretty disgusted with the continued attacks on Obama, even though Obama has done little/nothing wrong, and instead has gone along with what the DNC said/decided.  It has been Clinton who has wanted to change the rules, not Obama.

I mean a 55/45/50 split -- that is, a 55/45 split applied to a delegation reduced in size by 50%, as that is the minimum penalty provided for in the DNC early primary rules relating to violations thereof.

And that 22.5% resulting from halving the 45% should be seated as uncommitted delegates, not Obama delegates.

But without a new primary or caucus, there's no way that the whole delegation should be seated.

Michigan Democratic leaders knew they were violating the rules when they scheduled their abomination -- they need to get heat from their constituents for having done this.

I don't see a problem with applying the same approach to Florida, too, and for the same reasons.

Sloppy reporting, and not uncommon for that newspaper.  The only people I can find who have actually advocated this are Hunter and Tupac, Michigan state campaign chairs.  I can't find anyone from the national campaign who has actually said this.