Are they now conceding that FL and MI are important swing states?

Also, is she actually calling for the Obama campaign to be punished?  I haven't heard anything of that nature.  There's no way the Obama campaign could be punished anyway.  What would she do?  What could anyone do?  Issue every vehicle involved with the campaign a speeding ticket?

I wonder how many of his supporter's have thought through the implications of her dropping out and him still not winning the remaining states?

Its like the impatience of youth that these rules were in place before they were born but now they want to move on and get over it. Please. The fight for civil rights wasn't an overnight phenomenon and voting rights too. But they didn't live through that, so it doesn't matter anymore. Never mind opposing views, the bedrock of democracy.

If we in Florida do not like Obama and his stance on our primary votes, he has only himself to blame. HE took the stance we are blaming him for. Now he wants to make nice and get our votes in the GE??? I DON'T THINK SO!!!

If Barack Obama wants Florida's votes in the GE, he will have to beg to have our delegates seated, and voting, at the convention. Nothing less will be enough. We are way past the "take our punishment" stage, we are into the "who the hell are you creeps to disenfranchise us??" stage. Obama started this fight, and Florida will finish it. And him.

as madamab posted today  Honor the Votes:  Salon

"While Sen. Clinton will honor her commitment not to campaign in Florida in violation of the pledge, she also intends to honor her pledge to hear the voices of all Americans," the campaign says. "The people of Michigan and Florida have just as much of a right to have their voices heard as anyone else. It is disappointing to hear a major Democratic presidential candidate tell the voters of any state that their voices aren't important ... Sen. Clinton intends to be president for all fifty states. And while she will honor the pledge she signed and not campaign in either state, she intends to continue to give every American a voice during this election and when she gets to the White House."

From Jan 15.  The logic makes sense, doesn't it?  We're not going to get on board with that?

I've tried to transcribe some highlights for you:

Reporter: "Today on your first trip back to Florida in a long time uh when you were up there why didn't you some time to the delegate situation at all. Either take it off the table by saying we should count them or we should compromise on them but you didn't address them at all.

Obama: "Well for two reasons, one I knew you'd be asking about it. Number two frankly, uh I don't think it's an issue that is burning in the minds of ordinary voters. I think they are much more interested in my plan for healthcare or ending the war in Iraq. But what I have said in every interview since I've been down here is that I'm absolutely committed to making sure the Florida delegation is seated. It was not my preference to be away from Florida for so long. At the time I was following the rules that the DNC had laid out. But I'm now in a position where I'm likely to be the nominee. I want to do everything that I can to make sure that not only that the delegation is seated but that it has a voice at the convention. And my belief is that it's going to get resolved in an equitable way sometime in the next couple of weeks."

Reporter: "Let me ask (garbled). You said you were following the rules set forth. The DNC had punished the state by stripping the delegates. The DNC though never told candidates 'Don't go there.' That was something you all were three could do"

Obama: "I understand but"

Reporter: "out of deference to the four early states."

Obama: "Well it was more than that. It's also you've got you've got not only those four early states but 23 states on February 5th and you're in a very tight contest with a very formidable candidate. Devoting time to campaigning in a huge state that's very expensive that will award you no delegates it's just not a realistic option. Especially for a candidate who at the time who wasn't very well known in Florida. For us to get well known could have cost us 10 million dollars and it what we were competing for was delegates that just wasn't a realistic use of limited resources that we had. Obviously the situation has now changed. We're pivoting to a general election and I intend to compete vigorously. Spend a lot of time and a lot of money and devote a lot of staff resources in Florida. And I intend to win Florida."

The fact that many Obama supporters seem to hate Hillary so much that they are willing to parrot that lie does not make it any more true.

From the outside you all look extremely deranged, pushing that sort of obvious misinterpretation.

 
Revotes?

Not practical and couldn't be worked out in any event. Clinton herself was against re-votes until recently.

Validating those rogue elections and accepting their results when everyone agreed they wouldn't count?

I was only 20 in 1964 so I couldn't vote in that election (yes, Virginia, you used to have to be 21 to vote). I also was a precinct delegate candidate in 1972 in Michigan pledged to Rep. Shirley Chisholm (if you don't know who she was, shame on you). I remember the 1960 campaign when the fight for the nomination between John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson was bitter and went all the way to the convention. A lot of Johnson supporters were prepared to bolt the party or sit out the election until Kennedy chose Johnson as his running mate. Without Johnson, Kennedy would have lost the election. Like a lot of us to came of age during Camelot, it is still the golden age (I was in organic chemistry lab on that fateful day in Dallas).

What I learned from these two events is that blind devotion to a cause can be the recipe for disaster. Vince Lombardi understood politics better than a whole bunch of ideologues on both the left and the right;

         "Winning isn't everything; it is the only thing."

Most democrats forget, that ONLY three democratic presidents won reelection during the twentieth century, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and William Clinton.

Senator Obama has displayed the ability to give speeches like John Kennedy but he still needs to show the qualities of leadership that John Kennedy displayed. The next step he needs to take is to say that we must seat the Florida delegates based on the votes in the Florida primary. Showing respect for the 1.7 million who went to the polls in January would be a sign of a leader not an individual who only wants to advance his own political advantage. If he truly is, as appears likely, the nominee, urging that all of the delegates from Florida be seated before the party hacks decide the nomination would be a sign of leadership and respect for the opinions of the voters.

As a Floridian, I did not vote for Senator Obama or Senator Clinton. Based on the endorsement of John Edwards, my vote would probably go to a delegate who would vote for Senator Obama. So be it. But the votes must count to show respect for the democrats of Florida where he will need the work of local individuals to win election.

You don't REALLY want your votes to count, do you, Florida? You liked it enough last time, didn't you?

Since Obama has already won the nomination, we all agree this will not alter the outcome.

Therefore, I would like to hear why Obama would not thwart Clinton's evil plan and thus jeopardize the General Election.

People in Zimbabwe are getting KILLED due to their votes.

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/5/22/17641/2352/1#c1

"Four Democratic presidential candidates - U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, U.S. Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) and former U.S. Sen. John Edwards - filed affidavits with the Michigan Department of State requesting that their names be removed from Michigan's Jan. 15 Democratic Party Primary ballot.

This means four Democratic candidates are still on the Michigan ballot: U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton D-N.Y.), U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich and U.S. Sen. Mike Gravel (D-Ala.)."

Is this not pandering to Iowa?

"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process.

And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.

Anyone ever feel like we've all stepped into:

"National Lampoon's.... E L E C T I O N!"

It's just freaking hillarious.