Just now there was new footage of McCain denouncing Obama's comments.  The consensus:  It brings up the Wright controversy again.

As for uncommitted, well, to Obama I say, hoisted by your own pitard.  Why everyone has to acknowledge his little gambit, I don't know.  What is clear is a primary happened, and the same number of delegates as usual should go.  Unusually, some will go as "uncommitted."  Delegates are just representatives.  We know how little and how inaccurately they reflect the states they represent.  The delegates given to uncommitted, they should go to the convention uncommitted - they're delegates after all.  That's when they actually commit.  They can do as they please anyway, as the recent pledged delegate of Hillary's who defected to Obama shows masterfully.

and who would choose the 'uncommited' delegates - i understand the governor of the state is a Clinton supporter.

One of the cornerstones of our democracy is that we have open, free, and fair elections.

Unfortunately, because of a series of screwed up circumstances, the simple fact is that our primary was totally flawed and was in no way a fair, democratic election.

I simply can not see how a reasonable, fair-minded person, who believes in our basic democratic principles, can possibly claim that the results of our primary should be used in any way.

It's clear that if we'd had a real election, the results would have been totally different.

However the DNC has guidelines on how a state may apportion their delegates and when they can do so.  These 2 states violated those guidelines.  

You can argue that the punishment was unreasonable but to suggest that MI and FL did not violate the DNC rules, is a bit silly.

LA TIMES

There must be appropriate disciplinary actions that can be taken.

The FL primary came after all of the above.  So it followed the intent if not the letter of the rules.

And SC could have held their primary before MI, and been granted a waiver, but chose not to for whatever reason.

If you accept the argument that Ickes made today on the conference call that waivers were granted so that IA, NH, NV, and SC "could take full advantage of their early timing status," then where is the real violation?

I was hoping the dialog here would be more constructive, less partisan, less snarky. These are complex issues and they deserve a reasoned debate. Given the intensity of the campaigns, I guess it's not surprising that passions would be so high.

The contenrious clamor seems a little ironic to me. As an independent, I believe this is the most critical election we've had in my lifetime. I think it's essential that we get a democrat in the white house to start undoing all the damage done by the bush administration. Whether it's Hillary or Obama, we need someone who will preserve our principles and ideals and someone who will restore our standing in the world.

As to the dates: they were legally established by Florida and Michigan.  Voters had the choice -- either (a) vote, or (b) don't -- just like every election day.

As to people staying at home by their own decision: if they stayed home thinking their votes wouldn't count -- they simultaneously and tacitly voiced total apathy on any local ballot measures.  If you don't even care about what goes on in your own backyard, well, that I guess speaks of a lot about a lot of Americans, no matter what state they live in.

As to Obama pulling his name: he just told all of dem-MI that he believes local MI politics are so unimportant that voters won't show up at all if it's [just a local vote].  600,000 felt it was important enough to show up.

As to people voting opposite party to boost up non-electable candidates: shame on every last one, no matter whether Republican or Democrat at heart.  I've heard of this more and more often in recent elections, and it just boggles my mind.  It's as though people actually believe no one in the opposite party could possibly have the exact same idea!

I suppose we can always hope a few more Obama pastors could say really idiotic things about Hillary and America...

Everything else is a convoluted and complex system for choosing the candidates. The DNC is not a government organization. They are a private group, and they can choose their candidates any way they want to. Mr. Dean can pick his own kids. We can toss a dice. We can draw a card. We can take a vote of all the democratic governors. There is nothing that says the people have to be involved in it at all. The constitution does not call for political parties, it does not give us rules on how they may operate. So all of you that are crying about your rights and your right to vote in the primaries or the caucuses need to take a civics class. There is no voting right to vote in primary elections. (If there were, then all the Republicans could vote in them, too.)

What we have is a whole bunch of greedy power grubbing cowardly people that are trying their best to set up the game in their favor.

Whoever you support, you have to recognize that Mr. Obama as played by the rules. He has studied the rules. He has used the rules to his advantage in a lot of ways. Some of these might even seem to be unfair. But he didn't write the rules. Quit blaming him for that.

Mrs. Clinton on the other had has stumbled in many cases because she and her group did not understand the rules. They seem to not have studied the rules. They seem to have accepted them without reading them too closely. Now that lack of preparation is coming back to bite them.

As a result, Mr. Obama may well come out the winning candidate and this primary season will be a textbook case for what to do (and what not to do) if you are running for president.