He could have shown leadership and said "let the people's will be done", allowing all votes to be counted.  That would have been admirable.

But that's not Obama.  He dragged his feet, he stalled, he made up reasons why it could not work.  He proposed Michigan be 50/50, when he didn't earn 50% in the votes - giving him all of Edwards' votes at that.

No, he managed to subvert the vote.  Now, his backers want Hillary to quit (and she's no quitter) so even more votes won't count.

Who is this guy?  What kind of Democrat doesn't want the votes to count?

One thing we know, he is no leader.

A clear sign by all that he feels threatened by Hillary and those who rally behind her.

Hillary Clinton understands she serves her party best only when she serves her country best.

So, as long as 62% of the citizenry seek to partake in the nominating process, it is to her credit that she stays in the race -- and to the discredit of those who oppose her.

Indeed, it's the courage and perseverance of Hillary Clinton that best demonstrates respect for the voice of the people. And the citizens of the final 10 states to vote would do well to remember that.

Unfortunately, state party leaders in both states were unwilling to compromise with the DNC, so they got penalized.

Nothing unfair here.  Just those who play by the rules and those who don't.  I was offended when Hillary Clinton did not take her name off the Mich. ballot -- since it implied a two-faced attitude towards the DNC and NH and Iowa- i.e. saying she was in favor of the rules, but then not really doing everything in her power to back up that statement.

The fact that these state primaries collapsed into meaningless contests is not the fault of the Obama camapaign -- it is the fault of those states not being willing to abide by DNC rules.

Not a word about tricks like the Clinton campaign saying they weren't going to challenge Texas caucus votes, then dumping a wholesale challenge at the last moment.

Perhaps this is a case of IOKIYHC.

to address the comment to which you responded...

for the past several decades, but I just don't recall the caucuses being "finessed" to the degree we've seen from the Obamans.

'Finessed' seems to be giving too much credit. Caucuses previously worked for serveral reasons, one being low voter turnout, another being that these were generally considered regional elections where the outcome was typically predictable. I suppose that we should credit GWB and a very inept Congress which has motivated voters across the country and in turn, exposing the fact that the caucus based system is not a very good way to go when people actually want to participate.

But most significantly, the Obama campaign tapped into the years of anti-Clinton rhetoric and there clearly are a significant number of Democrats, for whatever reason, who would prefer to have anyone but a Clinton as the nominee. The impact of this became apparent when John Edwards withdrew and there was only one choice left for these people.

The only Democrats presidential candidates to win during my voting career (since '72) are Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.  There is a reason why:  we are the state that has the son of Roy Blunt as our governor, our past governors include John Ashcroft (remember him) who was also our attorney general and is responsible for much of the erosion of Roe v. Wade during the 1980s.  There is a vast swath of land between St. Louis and Kansas City and it isn't pretty out there for Obama - and Claire knows that.

Of course Obama's donation from his PAC explains why, although Bill Clinton, stomped for her in 2006 as well as Obama, she threw Hillary under the bus for Obama.  

Where these elections fair and free? Depends on your definition of free and fair. Mugagbe did raise salaries of all public employees in the last week or two, tractors and seed were distributed to "like-minded" voters but there were plenty of ballots available (perhaps too many if you are of suspicious mind) and polling places were open. In the stations I monitored in Harare, voters seemed able to voice their opinions pro and anti but everywhere we went we were accompanied by a not so subtle Zimbabwean guard. Results should trickle in today (now Sunday AM) and we will see how well the opposition fared. If Zimbabwe feet are any indication, Mugabe should lose but no hero of independence apart from Senegal and the Cote d'Ivoire has ever surrendered power willingly.

A note to Oculus: I read the op-ed in the NYT you suggested. The road to peace in Darfur runs through Beijing. Dismantle that relationship, peace in Darfur becomes plausible. Still that op-ed by Mark Halpern argues that a little force in the right place would end the genocide.  The article raised an important question, which is more important respecting Sudan's sovereignty or ending genocide. Hard to believe that this is a question but a state that cannot protect its own people in my mind has little right to normal rights of sovereignty.

As per Obama, this is nothing new. Remember Alice Palmer and the four others he disenfranchised in his first run for office in 1996. He used electoral procedures to knock them off the ballot. Remember Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) who was threatened with a stiff primary run. None of this is illegal, immoral or unethical however is a question that each of us should decide for ourselves.

It is unfortunate that they would take this opportunity with so much at stake to jeopardize the only thing that is really important: keeping a republican out of the White House in order that they (all the big shots such as Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, Feingold, Richardson, etc.) can play their foolish power game.

The study found that the presidential candidate who gave more money to the superdelegates received their endorsements 82 percent of the time. That's based on a review of elected officials who are serving as superdelegates and who'd endorsed a candidate as of Feb. 25.

In cases where superdelegates received money from Obama's Hope Fund but none from Clinton's PAC, Obama got the superdelegates' support 85 percent of the time. And in cases where superdelegates received money from Clinton's Hillpac but none from Obama's PAC, 75 percent backed Clinton.

Some superdelegates, such as Democratic Sens. Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, received $10,000 from both Obama and Clinton. Neither senator has endorsed a presidential candidate.

Whatever the outcome if Obama wins or Hillary wins---it will be good for them in the general election.

Obama just has to close the gap between him and Hillary.

Why is Obama winning the framing everytime---this tells me that Hillary campaign is not a strong campaign.

EVen in Talk radio--Air America is anti Hillary,  blogs are anti-Hillary,  MSM is anti-Hillary.

If this is triangulation in reverse---every side is anti-Hillary.

A vote for you counts as two because it simultaneously deducts a vote from your opponent.  Asking your opponent's supporter not to vote subtracts from your opponent's vote only.

In MI BHO supporters thought that the new plan was unfair.  As we know HRC folk believed that it was fair.  Can we put that aside for a moment?

In FL the D leadership said that the thing fell apart because it was not feasible.  This is not at all a BHO problem.

"We researched every potential alternative process - from caucuses to county conventions to mail-in elections - but no plan could come anywhere close to being viable in Florida."

From the Chair of the FL D Party

Before that, the only statement, "HUBdate" or other campaign material on her website specifically dealing with Michigan in the title was a short statement on January 15, 2008 -- the day of the Michigan primary, and that short statement didn't mention a re-vote.  

Can someone point me to the exact re-vote plan for Michigan promoted by the HRC campaign? How did it deal with Democrats who voted in the Republican primary? Would it grant them amnesty from state law to allow them to vote in two primaries that year? Did her plan include a way to keep Republicans from voting in the re-vote? Was it a mail-in vote or something else? Can someone point out exactly what Obama's criticisms of the plan were? Did the Michigan legislature actually pass a re-vote plan? Did the Michigan Democratic Party actually pass a specific re-vote plan.

"In addition to the need for general election prep, Obama added that after the June primaries there will not be any further information to be had.

'We will have had contests in all 50 states plus several territories," he said. "We will have tallied up the pledge delegate vote. We will have tallied up the popular vote, we will have tallied up how many states that were won by who. And then at that point I think people should have more than enough information to make a decision.'"