I heard this interview this morning (Mar 13) and I was shocked when she cackled at Obama???s experience to be commander in chief. That really was a cheap shot.

Sent by Phyllis Rozema | 10:42 AM ET | 03-13-2008

"That was his choice," she says. "There was no rule or requirement that he take his name off the ballot." And it was her choice to leave her name on the ballot even though she knew the delegates wouldn't count. Who can't see through this spin? Does she not seem afraid that she won't win a revote? Also, is she suggesting that Obama receive no delegates in Michigan at all? What about those who voted "uncommitted"? How do those people feel about their vote not counting at all? If Clinton wins the nomination, I'm voting for the Green Party.

Sent by Drew | 10:46 AM ET | 03-13-2008

I nearly choked on my breakfast listening to that interview. Of course it's only one more installment in the Clinton self-destruct mode regarding this election -- not any more convincing than earlier cheap shots, but still depressing because with every step she and Bill are making it less and less likely that a Democrat will make it to the White House in '09.

Sent by George de Man | 11:03 AM ET | 03-13-2008

In January she said it didn't matter if she leaves her name on the ballot in MI since it won't be counted when asked why she didn't take her name off in accordance to DNC wishes. Now she says it should be counted. That's why I can't trust what she will do if elected as president. With the enormous power the prez has she can cover up a lot. To have any wrong doing to surface, it will have to be very big and smaller damaging acts of hers will go unnoticed by news media or public. If she had won as much as Obama did so far, the race would have been over a while ago. Instead, Obama gets "He got that far because he's black".

Sent by IG | 11:04 AM ET | 03-13-2008

Clinton cannot stick to an agreement. The fact that this has to come up is an indication that she cannot be trusted on anything she says.

Sent by TY | 11:17 AM ET | 03-13-2008

If Senator Clinton was so instrumental to foreign and domestic policy decisions during her eight years in the White House as First Lady, why doesn't she authorize the release of all documents held at the Clinton Library for the public's review? What is she hiding?

Sent by Jim | 11:20 AM ET | 03-13-2008

As I see it this is just another example of Clinton being more experienced than Obama. She knew enough to leave her name on the Ballot, he didn't. He figured it out by Florida.

Sent by William Howard | 11:21 AM ET | 03-13-2008

Extra bravos to Hillary Clinton for speaking the truth, and definitely not mincing the truth.

Back last summer I gave Hillary Clinton no respect. Zero. None. She has since shown me she has a toughness I never gave her credit for.

I sincerely look forward to a good fight between Hillary and John McCain.

When we get through the inexperience of the Barack Obama debacle, we in America can get down to some serious issues.

I look forward to dealing with serious issues.

I look forward to a tough as nails fight between Hillary and McCain.

Fortunately the superdelegates have more than enough justification to solve the Obama anchor problem.

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 11:22 AM ET | 03-13-2008

Looking at the previous pattern, it seems obvious Obama gains when he campaigns. As recently as in Texas where he lost poplar vote, he closed the gap of some 20% to 4% in two weeks. So how do you let Florida result stand as it is where he didn't get to campaign while she had a name recognition advantage? Do you call that fair?

Sent by IG | 11:25 AM ET | 03-13-2008

10/10/07 - Hillary Clinton asked by New Hampshire Public Radio why she wouldn't take her name of the Michigan ballot: "It's clear this election they're having is not going to count for anything."

03/13/08 - Hillary Clinton asked by National Public Radio whether she thinks it is fair to count Michigan when only she had her name on the ballot: "But we all had a choice as to whether or not to participate in what was going to be a primary. and most people took their names off the ballot, but I didn't."

As a 47 year old white woman, I'd just about give my eye teeth to have a female President. Not HRC. Sorry.

Sent by Jennifer Montgomery | 11:26 AM ET | 03-13-2008

Clinton is a disgrace with her overt intent to cheat.
How anyone can honestly support her without resorting to dated gender allegiance or ignorance of her campaign of crude dirty tricks is beyond the pale.

She is a monster intent on destroying hope and unity and integrity while being consumed by the green-eyed monster of envy that destroys the party rather than have someone else be the life of it.

Why would anyone vote for more of the same?

Sent by RdV | 11:33 AM ET | 03-13-2008

Can any of these Obama supporters tell me: HOW IS OBAMA going to change everything? Sounds like another FRAUD salesmen to me just making BIG PROMISES!

Sent by EJ | 11:35 AM ET | 03-13-2008

More pure, unadulterated BS from Hillarity. There was an agreement amongst all the candidates and the DNC going into MI. Remember, there were more candidates than her and Barack at that time. She broke an agreement that every other candidate respected. Which is just further evidence that she could care less about the Democratic party when it's inconvenient for her to do so. Does she think we're that stupid? If she somehow slimes her way into this nomination, she's right: enough people are *that* stupid.

Sent by TJ | 11:41 AM ET | 03-13-2008

Jennifer, I am with you 100% I'm a 51 year old white woman. Not HRC.

Sent by Anita | 11:44 AM ET | 03-13-2008

There truly is nothing Hillary won't do to win the White House! Seriously thinking about voting for McCain if she becomes the nominee based on her antics in the primary. She and Mr. Clinton are a disgrace to the party!

Sent by TJ | 11:46 AM ET | 03-13-2008

The Clinton campaign disgusts me, constantly moving the goal posts and attempting to change the rules at every turn. This has revealed a lot about her character - a will to power that overrides all other concerns. The candidates should abide by the rules they agreed to. That's the fairest approach.

Sent by Anthony | 11:52 AM ET | 03-13-2008

The audacity of Hillary to say that she won "fairly" in Michigan and Florida! It is exactly this sort of nonsense that makes Hillary unattractive to many Obama supporters. She will certainly not hold on to the young people that Obama has brought into politics if she continues to behave like this.

Sent by Michele Mancuso | 11:55 AM ET | 03-13-2008

Hillary is a boldfaced liar:

NHPR???s Laura Knoy: ???So, if you value the DNC calendar, why not just pull out of Michigan? Why not just say, Hey Michigan, I???m off the ballot????

Hillary Clinton: ???Well, you know, It???s clear, this election they???re having is not going to count for anything???

Here???s a link to the short (edited) sound byte with the interviewer???s question and the response:

http://www.jabberwonk.com/flinker.cfm?cliid=zydzt

Here???s a link to the unedited longer byte with her full answer:

http://www.jabberwonk.com/flinker.cfm?cliid=u01y4

Here???s the link to the full original NHPR interview on 10/10/07 :

http://www.nhpr.org/node/13858

I think that is it pretty clear that she has ???changed??? her position on this now that she is not winning.

Sent by Jimmy Crackcorn | 11:57 AM ET | 03-13-2008

The key question, which unfortunately Steve Inskeep did not ask, is "What were the voters in Michigan and Florida told BEFORE the vote was held?" The answer is that they were told that their votes would not count. So how can anyone claim that the results of those two elections are representative? Why bother to vote when you know in advance that it won't matter?

Sent by Michael in Seattle | 11:58 AM ET | 03-13-2008

What kind of experience is Hilary Clinton touting in this campaig?. Is she bragging about being first lady? Since she did not have enough influence then to get more done for health care reform, surely her experience is not something she should count. I am also getting the impressing that some people support Hilary Clinton because Bill Clinton is her husband and see some kind of co-presidency between the two of them. That is not appealing. I am not sure I want Bill Clinton running loose in the White House. Although I voted for his re-election, his personal conduct made it a tough choice. What is there to say about Michigan and Florida? I say that since they did not follow the rules they either vote over or all the delegates go to the convention uncommitted. Finally, it seems the democrates have courted the votes of African Americans for years and took for granted that one day there would be a candidate who would appeal to not only African Americans but Americans in general. That is what we have in Obama. Why can't some people understand that it is alright for an American to run for president who is black but who is qualified, articulate and able to inspire people to vote. I am excited about the length of time the campaign is taking. More people are a part of the process. Why should just the big states make an impact. I am not tired of the process. Hilary Clinton should be wary of discounting the states with fewer delegates. We have a voice now that is being heard around the country. IT IS MARVELOUS.

Sent by DTC of Shreveport, LA | 12:09 PM ET | 03-13-2008

Hillary Clinton should be disqualified to be even nominated for Presidential candidate by trying to cheat and steal the election. What has she become? Where is Clinton's legacy? I am utterly shocked to see her indescency in this election.

Sent by Hayato | 12:11 PM ET | 03-13-2008

As usual, Hillary Clinton is lying. When she says, ""... we all had a choice as to whether or not to participate in what was going to be a primary. And most people took their names off the ballot, but I didn't. And I think that was a wise decision because Michigan is key to our electoral victory in the fall." The fact is Sen. Clinton signed an agreement with the other Democratic candidates that said, "I (Hillary Clinton), Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules, pledge to actively campaign in the pre-approved early states Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina. I pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window (any date prior to February 5, 2008)."
."

It's shame NPR can't get a qualified journalist to conduct an interview. Hillary Clinton can't win the nomination legitimately and now is trying to change the rules to steal it. That's the story. maybe you could try telling it.

Sent by Brian Wade | 12:12 PM ET | 03-13-2008

I was not born in the US but I am a US citizen. I have traveled quite a bit (not 80 countries, sorry). I thought I had seen it all. I was wrong. What this interview shows is a person who would anything to gain power. That I have seen in other countries and they dont look good at this point. I hope people see what she really stands for: power for herself, by herself to herself. I am very dissapointed in HRC.

Sent by Federico Castillo | 12:13 PM ET | 03-13-2008

How troubling that Hillary Clinton models such weakness as the inability to stand by her word.

As an attorney, she more than anyone would know what the meaning of an agreement is and what is implicit in giving your word to an agreement.

As one poster noted, why would a United States Senator running for the office of President of the United States, who knows that the first act a president takes is to give their word, their oath to uphold and defend the constitution, want to use the BREAKING of an agreement and the violation of a pledge as her reasoning for wanting votes in Michigan and Florida to count?

Does Senator Clinton have no respect for honor, integrity and decency to the ethics involved in making an agreement with others?

Does Senator Clinton believe that she can suddenly break a pledge she made with Senator Obama and the Democratic National Party, and that such conduct would be acceptable in the minds of Americans?

Where is Senator Clinton's sense of ethics?

Where is her sense of integrity and honesty to her pledge?

What does such conduct reveal about a person who wants to run for the highest office in our land, and wishes to put herself in the realm of being considered - by violating a pledge, violating her word, violating an agreement she made?

Is there no shame in conducting herself in this manner? How can Senator Clinton be entrusted with upholding the Constitution of the United States - if she can't even keep a simple pledge she made with Senator Obama to the Democratic Party - of which she is a member!!!

Who can Senator Clinton be trusted with upholding the promise to protect the Constitution, when she can't even keep her word over a simple pledge she made that she gave her word to - only MONTHS ago?

Senator Obama has demonstrated himself to not only have the composure needed in a President, but the wisdom and the judgement necessary to lead this nation.
And - he clearly is a man of his word.
He keeps his promises, which in my view is reflective of his character, who is is, the ethics, integrity and honesty he brings to the table of democracy...qualities which we must have in our next President.

Sent by Hope | 12:13 PM ET | 03-13-2008

@EJ I think Lawrence Lessig has captured best why Obama is the right person to lead us through this critical time in our nation's history:

http://www.lessig.org/blog/2008/02/20_minutes_or_so_on_why_i_am_4.html

Sent by TJ | 12:17 PM ET | 03-13-2008

The media channel that allows ridiculous comments like Ms. Clinton saying that she wants MI and FL to count because they are key battleground states should stop pandering to politicians. The only reason she wants them to count is because it is her "hail mary" pass to catch up.

Sent by G. G. | 12:25 PM ET | 03-13-2008

I am shocked at the notion that Hillary Clinton would even suggest counting the contests that were given earlier in Michigan and Florida. That would not only be unfair, that would taint her nomination, if she is indeed the Democratic nominee. I am totally disgusted at how she is running her campaign. It appears that she would do anything to become Commander in Chief. As the so called "experienced one", she should show more class and character like her opponent Barack Obama, who has been consistent in his tone and posture thus far during the campaign. Even his comments about her have been respectful, not to mention his earnest attempts to stay positive in a negative campaign. Either candidate will be a plus for America. Having said that, I must say that Barack Obama would not only be a positive for America, he would be a plus for the world.

Sent by Frank Levi | 12:27 PM ET | 03-13-2008

William Howard,
Hillary's behavior certainly is another example of her experience in manipulation and dishonesty. If you consider those qualities to be requirements for the presidency, then I guess she is more qualified.

Sent by Erin | 12:33 PM ET | 03-13-2008

Hillary Clinton is showing her true colors in not only the words she uses but the tone of her voice when responding to questions in interviews. Inskeep should have pressed her harder about her original commitment to the DNC rules and her about face now, as well as her remarks about Obama's being less fit to be commander-in-chief than McCain. He let her off the hook too easily. She has no integrity.

Sent by Hana | 12:39 PM ET | 03-13-2008

Years from now, pundits will discuss the fall of the Democratic party and when did it start and what started it. It will all point at the Clintons and this election.

Nice legacy Hillary.
Si se puede!

Sent by Elizabeth | 12:44 PM ET | 03-13-2008

Can't everyone just accept that Hillary Clinton is entitled to be the Democratic nominee? Her first political contest entitled her to the New York Senate seat. George Bush was entitled to be the Republican nominee in 2000. This is how party politics works. It's her turn. Primaries, caucuses, delegates, and votes really are clutter in the way. Who does this black guy think he is anyway?

Sent by Kyle | 12:55 PM ET | 03-13-2008

The fact that Clinton betrayed her party by endorsing Republican McCain over a Democrat, has sought to divide Democrats and race, blew her record lobbyist donations on 5 star hotels and has blocked release of her records, make it clear that this woman is unfit and to lead our country . Obama is a honorable man that would make any Democrat and our nation proud.

Sent by Margaret | 12:57 PM ET | 03-13-2008

Sen. Clinton is not a liar, nor is she a cheater. She is a strong, capable, experienced politician, who has twice the credentials to be President than Sen. Obama. Moreover, she is much more of a Dem. party player than Obama. He's the one who is out for himself only. Did any of you know that Sen. Clinton raised funds & campaigned for Obama's senate race? Then, the minute he got to the Senate, he tells her he's going to run for President. This is one ambitious, ruthless, self-serving guy! I don't trust him one bit!

Sent by ee-baltimore | 12:59 PM ET | 03-13-2008

There was an understanding and agreement on the part of all candidates that delegates from Michigan and Florida would not be seated. It would follow that there would be no reason to have names on the ballot. Hillary clearly reneged on her agreement with the other candidates. To say it was Obama's choice is ignoring the fact that there was an prior understanding and agreement. Hundreds of thousands of Obama supporters will have their hard work disenfranchised if Hillary is allowed to change the rules after the fact and make some back room deal. If elected this ruthless, dishonorable woman will continue the fascist leadership carried on by the Bush administration. A revote is not justified, and Americans across the country will revolt. Unlike the super delegates, we are not afraid of the Clintons' threats of revenge.

Sent by Sarah McDonald | 1:04 PM ET | 03-13-2008

I am shocked I say; shocked! If Hillary Clinton wants to ignore her parties rules, she should start her own. Call it the Mad-Hatters Party!

Sent by owen | 1:14 PM ET | 03-13-2008

Thank you Steve, for a great interview. It is refreshing to hear an interview where the interviewee is truly challenged. This interview revealed Hillary for the person that she is : an evasive politician to the end. She could spin anything in her favor. Unfortunately for her, most Americans can see through her and her motives.

Sent by tpd | 1:19 PM ET | 03-13-2008

She confirmed a year ago that she knew the delegates wouldn't count, I mean Dean and the DNC made it well known that those states wouldn't count, but only now that she is losing the race does she want them to count. She is dirty and uses tactics very similar to conservatives and our own current president, sickening.

Sent by Ben | 1:38 PM ET | 03-13-2008

Hillary Clinton has abandoned all integrity and principle in her quest for power. She is following the lead of Bush and Cheney when it comes to spin and the end justifying the means, and I'm ashamed to admit that I actually considered voting for her in the California primary.

Sent by april | 1:42 PM ET | 03-13-2008

If the fl and mi. vote by mail theres going to be a lot of people thinking about fraud and lost votes. remember what happened before in Fl. I feel the rep. wants a vote cause they feel Clinton will win and their chances of winning white house are better..I don't like any of them, to many lies and deciet are coming out.. Oh by the why does anybody remember that a useless war is going on? Scandal in N.Y., 2 of them, seems more important than the kids in Afghanistan and Iraq...I will not vote this time around

Sent by dan traylor | 1:44 PM ET | 03-13-2008

So Hillary is trying to cheat her way to the nomination. How stupid does she think we are? In a democracy, the people decide. What are you going to tell all the folks who played by the rules and worked for their candidates and WON! Too bad! I should be president.

Sent by ROBERT YEATS | 1:47 PM ET | 03-13-2008

I'm a mother of five children, looking to support a candidate who will best defend, support and uphold the ideals of this great country. I've listened carefully to the notion that experience matters most as we look to elect the next president. After hearing this morning's interview with Hillary Clinton, a different defining characteristic became implicitly clear: integrity. When asked why the results in Michigan and Florida should count even when Obama's name wasn't included on a ballot, Clinton answered, "He made that choice not to put his name on the ballot." "He and his campaign aggressively campaigned for the "uncommitted" vote." Is she serious? She should be ashamed. I don't know what the correct answer is for Michigan and Florida, but I do know the early January results should NOT count as they stand. Why? The rules were established, the candidates agreed to play by said rules, and the results were thrown out based on those very rules. I deal with these issues each day with very young children. As I say to my sons and daughters, you play by the rules and you win and lose by them. You don't change rules just because things aren't going your way. Ask any six-year-old and he/she will tell you this is golden. Does it hurt? Do you get angry? Sure. But you don't change the rules or your interpretation of the rules when you feel like it suits you. Clinton seems to be exhibiting behavior that is less than honest and lacking in fundamental character. Do I want a leader with experience? Definitely. Do I want a fighter? Absolutely. But, certainly NOT at the expense of honesty, integrity and character. Hillary Clinton should not get these delegate votes just because it works in her favor. She should be big enough to stand for the principles she said she'd adhere to, even if it hurts. All my children could tell her that. Michigan and Florida (and the rest of the states left to vote in primaries), as you look at Clinton and Obama as candidates to lead this country, look closely for those characteristics that we're all teaching our children to learn and obtain: integrity, honesty, and the ability to play by the rules. Your choice, after hearing this interview, should be all the sudden much easier to make.

Sent by suzanne stroup | 1:49 PM ET | 03-13-2008

Well, isn't this a GREAT IDEA?! Don't pay attention to the rules, do what you want and then turn around and show that the rules didn't really even matter after all. Sounds like a great way to change the nation, doesn't it?

Sent by Elaine Peterson | 1:51 PM ET | 03-13-2008

I was shocked to hear HRC laugh when discussing Obama's credentials. How disrespectful!
--- from an "older" woman who has been voting democratic for the last 40 years but is wondering if that will continue.

Sent by Joan | 2:06 PM ET | 03-13-2008

This is the pledge that all candidates were supposed to sign. It clearly states that the candidate agrees not to participate in any of the primaries not agreed to. That would include Florida and Michigan.

Didn't she sign it?

http://www.fladems.com/page/-/documents/THREE_pledge_versions.pdf

See the whole story
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/13/11136/3289/192/475758

Sent by Yerba Buena | 2:28 PM ET | 03-13-2008

We were long time fans of the Clintons. We are now appalled at Sen. Clinton's tactics in this campaign. We have been Barack supporters from the beginning, but at this point, (with the Ferraro mess and)listening to this interview (thank you NPR), my husband and I have decided that regardless of what happens we will NOT vote for Clinton. She flat out lies! She DID say that she is ready to be commander in chief, and that McCain is, and Obama is not. She nows claims that she did not say that--she wants everything both ways.
AND We are from Michigan and want people to understand that all other major contenders had their names taken off our ballot. It was wrong of Clinton not to. AND we could not even write in Obama's name due to voting changes. Our only option was to vote "uncommitted" which many voters did not realize at the time they wrote in Obama's name. Moreover we know many people simply did not vote. We need to take our state leaders to task for this mess, but the MI and FL delegates should NOT be seated. The fact that Mrs. Clinton thinks that they should is a clear indication of her inability to lead fairly!
The Clintons really are taking a whole chapter out of the Bush/Rove playbook--they say outlandish things and then cry foul when anyone calls them on it. It is Alice in Wonderland. We don't need more of this divisive, hateful, manipulative distraction from our genuine goals!
The Clintons have NO BOTTOM LINE!

Sent by Barbara Krenz | 2:29 PM ET | 03-13-2008

The audacity of Hilary Clinton in claiming votes that every democratic presidential contender (herself included) agreed should not be counted is appalling.

She is acting like a trickster, not like a president. It is a disgrace for the democratic party that does not bid well for the Fall elections.

Sent by Davide Verotta | 2:44 PM ET | 03-13-2008

It was widely publicized, even here in Minnesota, that the Florida and Michigan Democratic Primary votes would not be counted. Why should Clinton be rewarded and Obama punished because Obama supporters were smart enough to not waste two hours of their day to cast a vote that would not be counted?

Sent by Al Pierce | 2:45 PM ET | 03-13-2008

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/us/politics/02dems.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1205431259-VAq1W3xTFvd8gk/2ikNrKw&oref=slogin

PORTSMOUTH, N.H., Sept. 1 ??? Three of the major Democratic presidential candidates on Saturday pledged not to campaign in Florida, Michigan and other states trying to leapfrog the 2008 primary calendar, a move that solidified the importance of the opening contests of Iowa and New Hampshire.

Hours after Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina agreed to sign a loyalty pledge put forward by party officials in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York followed suit. The decision seemed to dash any hopes of Mrs. Clinton relying on a strong showing in Florida as a springboard to the nomination.

???We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process,??? Patti Solis Doyle, the Clinton campaign manager, said in a statement.

Sent by Charles Osborne | 2:54 PM ET | 03-13-2008

Split the delegates 50/50 in those states or not at all. Obama's name wasn't on the ballot in Michigan---his choice. Yes, it was his choice to respect the wishes of his party, his choice to honor the rules, his choice to show some class in the process. Does it suprise anyone that Hillary wants those delegates to count? In 1992 we were asked to take a chance on a Washington outsider that would bring us a fresh voice and enthusiasm. Now, apparently experience matters. Dick Cheney is qualified on paper too, but it doesn't mean I want him there. If she gets the nomination, I'll abstain or vote for anyone who isn't her.

Sent by Omega Concern | 3:06 PM ET | 03-13-2008

Forty Percent of people who voted here voted for NOBODY over Clinton. Many of us didn't vote because it didn't count, we took our names off the ballot.

However a LARGE number of people voted where it DID count, in the republican primary; for our second or even third choice. If we can't have Edwards or Obama we'd rather vote republican than for Hillary Clinton.

A revote will almost certainly not allow those people to participate. I can't agree to a revote, or to the vote "counting" until I know how that issue will be handled.

Sent by John Jones | 3:10 PM ET | 03-13-2008

Steve Inskeep, thank you for your interview this morning. How refreshing to hear challenging questions being asked as well as the "calling out" of ambiguity as an answer. I think we all heard what we needed (and probably expected) to hear.

Sent by Kelly | 3:16 PM ET | 03-13-2008

It is well established that political parties have the right, not subject to review or overturn by the courts, to establish their own rules and procedures. The Democratic National Committee made it clear to all that, except for a small handful of states, including Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, no states would be allowed to process delegate selection before Feb. 5. The parties in Florida and Michigan understood this ahead of time, as did all of the candidates who originally asked to be considered for the nomination. That is why none of the Democratic candidates campaigned in Florida, and why all of them except Clinton removed their names from the Michigan ballot. The rules cannot be changed now, in the middle of the game, for a do-over. That would be unfair to Clinton and Obama, and also to Kucinich, Richardson, Edwards, Biden, and Dodd. It is unfortunate that Florida and Michigan chose to disenfranchise their people and their rights to elect the delegates of their choice. At this stage of the game, a fair compromise -- in order to allow these states a "presence" at the Democratic convention -- would be to divide the delegates in both states evenly between the two remaining candidates, Clinton and Obama.

Sent by Gary Peterson | 3:19 PM ET | 03-13-2008

52-year-old white woman here. Wonder where I can find an "anyone but HRC" bumper sticker?

Sent by Michele Stapleton | 3:20 PM ET | 03-13-2008

I was going to chime in about the "intellectual dishonesty" that I had heard this morning, but I can see that my opinion does not stand alone, a point that has been documented ad-nauseum on this blog. Several months ago I held the opinion that whether it be Clinton or Obama, the country would be headed in a better direction. Now I'm not so sure.

Sent by Guy Browne | 3:22 PM ET | 03-13-2008

FL and Michigan should count just as all states should count. Every voter should get their say in this election with the following exceptions:

1. Republicans who casts votes for the democratic nominee should be discarded all around as well as those cast by the independants. And each voters should be allowed only one vote not multiple votes (i.e caucuses). That way we can truly identify the Democratic party nominee based on the voters registered to vote for the party.

Sent by alleyoopvolley | 3:25 PM ET | 03-13-2008

Obviously the Obama supporters are afraid of a re-vote too. If you are so confident in your nominee why not be for the revote.. Afterall he needs a big state for his argument, perhaps Florida would provide that.

Sent by alleyoopvolley | 3:27 PM ET | 03-13-2008

It seems that Hillary has what it takes to win against the Republicans. She tough and tenacious. Its what it takes today to win. Do you think that the Republicans will not go after every advantage? Do we Democrats want to win in Nov? Its great to say that you want to play nice, but in the end, that will be forgotten when the Republican win again. Think about Nov and get it together.

Sent by Linda H. Latimer | 3:46 PM ET | 03-13-2008

Is it me, or is Hillary Clinton becoming more bazard in her statements, John McCain would make a better commander in cheif that Barack Obama. It it her goal to win at all cost? I guest she feels that she will win and then mend fences later. I think she left her name on intentionally even though her campaign agreed to the rules. The figured that so what,if they leave their name on. They would spin it later if it did not work out. Well they got their wish and they are spinning it well. I hope the voters look through all of this BS.

Sent by Rosemary | 3:46 PM ET | 03-13-2008

It doesn't seem like Hilary Clinton has any respect for the rules. It's clear that she will bend them any which way she can to win. Every move that she makes now demonstrates that she will sell her soul (well at least her integrity) to win.

Allowing these votes to count when everyone was told that they wouldn't would be not only another embarrassment for our election process but a kick in the face to voters. The Michigan and Florida primaries should be done over and paid for by the states themselves - after all it was their selfish decision to disobey the rules putting every Democratic voter in these states at risk of NOT counting.

Sent by Eric A | 3:57 PM ET | 03-13-2008

The dems can do this without a redo. seat the delegates. give sen. clinton all that she won. give sen. obama all the rest of the votes. strip both states of superdelegates. i imagine that sen. clinton would not agree to this b/c she needs the superdelegates more than the delegates.

Sent by DC in DC | 3:57 PM ET | 03-13-2008

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who was incensed by HRC's declaration that the Michigan vote was "fair" even though Obama's name was not on the ballot.

We've suffered enough with a president who interprets reality to fit their own selfish goals. We don't need another one.

Hopefully this will get exposed more widely before we're led into another mistake like Iraq. Once people see the facts, we can make the appropriate choices.

Sent by RJH | 4:05 PM ET | 03-13-2008

As a Democrat, I assumed I would vote for whomever was the candidate in November. Clinton's antics this last week, however, have given me second thoughts.
It's clear that Hillary Clinton will do ANYTHING to get elected. I no longer trust her.

Sent by Bob Michaels | 4:09 PM ET | 03-13-2008

Sent by Michele Stapleton: 52-year-old white woman here. Wonder where I can find an "anyone but HRC" bumper sticker?

Michele, I hear there is a small cigar shop in Old Towne, downtown Chicago, where they are geting them from a small print shop located on the corner of Western and Belmont.

But not too many other places.

But there are a lot of cities and places where you can get bumper stickers that say: "Obama Is Qualified To Play With Leggos, Not America's Nuclear Arsenal."

Voters are becoming increasingly aware of Barack Obama's inexperience and his need to keep the racial issue alive to buoy his name.

Which isn't working well in his favor.

So, you may not like HRC, but there is a growing number of people dubious about BHO.

And thanks for letting everyone know you are white. Seems that's an important distinction with the Obama supporters.

You got to let everyone know what color you are to qualify. It's getting very, very strange out there.

fred camorra call

Fla. presidential primary re-do unlikely
State chairwoman to make a decision by Monday on whether to proceed
updated 1 hour, 19 minutes ago

Karen Thurman, chairwoman of the Florida Democratic Party, offered a mail-in/in person proposal for voting and urged state leaders.......The estimated cost is $10 million to $12 million.

Asked if the plan will be implemented, Thurman said, "I have a feeling that this is probably closer to not, than yes."

Sent by fred camorra call | 4:16 PM ET | 03-13-2008

As a friend of mine said of Sen. Clinton, "She might be a good President, if she were trustworthy."

Or as a one-time uber-fundraiser and friend of Sen. Clinton and her running mate Bill, David Geffen, said, "All politicians lie, but they do it with such ease, it's troubling."

It was hard to have my intelligence insulted by Sen. Clinton's rationalizations, distortions and outright lies. Lies lies lies.

Sent by Glenn Backes | 4:21 PM ET | 03-13-2008

Sen. Clinton signed a pledge not to "campaign or participate" in any state's primary that broke the DNC rules. She is breaking this pledge and I fear she will stop at nothing to steal this nomination. She is putting her own ego above the good of the country and the Democratic party. Enough already, please withdraw Sen. Clinton.

Sent by Ruth A. | 4:40 PM ET | 03-13-2008

I was appalled when I heard Sen. Clinton this morning. "That was his choice. 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." Say again??... I would expect this kind of "reasoning" in a high school election.

Where's the statesmanship? And hasn't she just given the Republicans another ready-made cudgel to beat her with if she's the Democratic nominee in the fall?

Sent by KW | 4:43 PM ET | 03-13-2008

While I find HRC's continued theme of divisive and distorted polotics to be quite Rove - like, I am almost equally disturbed with NPR for neglecting to scrutinize HRC's remarks regarding MI / FL.On various shows the moderators have neglected to mention that it was HRC who agreed to not participate in the primaries in both states. It seem that you are aiding her in pushing such propoganda that insinuates that only she cares about MI / FL votes. I have allways valued NPR as a dependable source of news, If you're not for the truth, you are obviously against it.

Sent by Sonny | 4:45 PM ET | 03-13-2008

Mrs. Clinton made a choice, many choices in her life. Now it is clear that her motivation is usually not fairness or honesty or integrity. Just the opposite. She is motivated by power and position. Honesty and integrity take a back seat in everything she does. She and her cohort husband will stop at nothing to secure the nomination for her. Be wary - they will stoop to anything - nothing is below them in this quest for Power.

Sent by Don Lindberg | 4:45 PM ET | 03-13-2008

This just sounds like more anti-Clinton propaganda. I am just sick of all the pitting Dem VS Dem...by Dems and Republicans....lets get back to what this country needs....a strong economy at home (i.e. jobs, housing, gasoline)and healthcare for everyone. As a veteran, I would expect everyone's vote to count.

Sent by G2B | 4:51 PM ET | 03-13-2008

Obama and his supporters are not afraid of a redo. We are simply appaulled that Sen. Clinton believes that her votes in FL and MI were actually ligitimate and fair. How anyone rational and educated can come up with such a conclusion is beyond me.

Sent by tpd | 5:14 PM ET | 03-13-2008

Mrs. Clinton's divisive behaviors in this election remind me of the old story about King Solomon.

Two women are fighting over a baby so Solomon tells the guards to cut the baby in two. The real mother begs Solomon to let the baby live rather than divide it whereas the impostor says, "It shall be neither mine nor yours; divide it."

Hillary Clinton would rather see the Democratic party divided than won by someone else. Her ambition eclipses any semblance of authentic concern for the common good.

Sent by Carrel | 5:18 PM ET | 03-13-2008

I was distressed that Steve Inskeep did not ask Hillary anything about the most disturbing development in the campaign's recent days: the noxious comments and tone of Geraldine Ferraro.
Her remarks were bad enough, but when she added to them, "How's about that?" as if she were daring the whole country to disagree with her racial interpretations, I was deeply offended. And, for news judgment, I was disappointed that host Inskeep did not even ask Hillary about this terrible episode, so that she could disown, distance herself from, or even take exception to this view of Ferraro's remarks.

Sent by Philip Turner | 5:19 PM ET | 03-13-2008

I just want to congratulate NPR on finally asking Clinton questions other reporters seem reluctant to ask. I only wished it went further into her past controversies (what I suspect her supporters adoringly may call experience?) Your interview revealed her indefensible positions, her true stripes. I hope it will get people thinking.

Sent by James | 5:43 PM ET | 03-13-2008

Sounds like a good time for John Edwards to make an endorsement. He was also not on the ballot in Michigan so he should have a strong opinion about how this is going.

Sent by Gina | 5:46 PM ET | 03-13-2008

Until this interview, I was committed to vote for either Clinton or Obama as the party nominee in November. Today, I changed my mind. She successfully avoided answering any questions except the one about her foreign policy experience, which if she answered it truthfully, the white house travel agent, also part of the team could claim similar experience. Any republican strategist must have been beaming to hear her so skillfully execute from their playbooks.

Sent by paul Forbes | 6:24 PM ET | 03-13-2008

"Voters are becoming increasingly aware of Barack Obama's inexperience and his need to keep the racial issue alive to buoy his name." Get over yourself "fred comorra call" no one is listening.

Sent by JJ | 6:45 PM ET | 03-13-2008

Att'n NPR: You have no choice but to address Hillary Clinton's distortions on Morning Edition tomorrow. It must be done. I am a contributor to my local station (KCRW). I make that contribution in order to continue what I perceived in the past to be incisive news coverage, not tainted by the need for ratings or party approval/affiliation. My feelings in this regard would be deeply jeopardized were Clinton's blatant distortions not addressed in a follow-up to this revolting interview. If the show's hosts do not address it directly, let them point out the avalanche of outrage that appears on this page. It must be addressed.

Sent by GM | 7:06 PM ET | 03-13-2008

Your word is your bond. How can I trust someone to answer that 3:00am call who I can't trust to keep his or her word?

Sent by Bernie - Fairfield County CT | 7:10 PM ET | 03-13-2008

The Republicans are reading this and laughing at all of us.

It's not that we won't see nasty vicious attacks from Republicans once Obama is selected. It's that now the nasty attacks will be quoting a leading Democrat, Clinton. We are a house divided, and Clinton divided us. The Republicans, who deserve to lose this election more than any since, well 2004 isn't that long ago, but without a doubt they deserve to lose. And we're talking legos? Saying "the black man is getting special treatment"? Yes, he's a black man, but that's not why he's getting special treatment. He has shown good judgement, good character, and good manners -- he's a good Democrat. Better than Clinton, and that's why he's getting more support.

The Republicans are laughing. But they'll have to stop laughing when Obama overcomes their hate ads, just like he is overcoming Clinton's, and is elected President in November. We shall overcome these difficulties and prevail in November. To those who wonder if we really will, if we really can:

Yes. We can.

Sent by Clyde in NY | 7:25 PM ET | 03-13-2008

I've been following this discussion, from michigan, all day. I commented earlier and looking now I have only one question: Consensus is overwelming, will NPR report on this discussion soon?

Sent by John Jones | 7:32 PM ET | 03-13-2008

Everyone so far has voiced my opinions and thoughts about Hillary Clinton's words and attitude in this morning's interview. I was getting ready for work and can't miss a second of prep time but as I listened to Mrs. Clinton, I stood in front of the mirror with my mouth open, completely still, amazed and appalled by what I heard coming out of her mouth.

The only thing I am going to add is that we had 8 years of someone leading this country who consistently lied to the people to follow his own agenda. An agenda that had nothing to do with the best interest of this country and only benefitted a small minority of Americans. And sometimes he just seems self delusional.

We don't need anyone like that again.

Hillary Clinton should understand where her campaign is headed, accept it and make the most of her situation. At this point she is buringing bridges and I don't think that even the voters of New York would consider re-electing her. We have all seen and heard enough.

Sent by Dora in Seattle | 9:23 PM ET | 03-13-2008

I think it's noteworthy that the vast majority of comments are against Clinton's comments. The few that are pro-Clinton don't address her comments at all - they are only generalizations about her being a good fighter or Obama's perceived weaknesses.

Sent by Steve C | 9:27 PM ET | 03-13-2008

By the way.

Will Obama be given equal time on the same subject?

Sent by Dora in Seattle | 9:30 PM ET | 03-13-2008

My regards to Steve Inskeep for probing questions that allowed the majority of us to see right through Clinton. ee-baltimore is right in stating that she is an experienced politician; so smooth that she thought she could get away with avoiding every single question without us noticing. I vomited in my mouth with the thought that she may be our next president.

Sent by Chris | 10:08 PM ET | 03-13-2008

We need a president with ethics, one who will abide by their word. To change one's position merely because it is self-serving, as Hillary is doing with the Michigan and Florida delegate issue, is a warning of what her presidency would be like. I enjoyed Steve Inskeep's interview with Hillary on this subject, but wished he would have pressed her even harder on her dublicity.

Sent by Dennis Dykstra | 10:21 PM ET | 03-13-2008

I have a novel idea !!! Make Hillary, for once in her life, abide by the agreement she signed to NOT HONOR or validate the Michigan and Florida primaries!!

Wouldn't that be interesting? Hillary behaving ethically for once, and not going back on her pledge just because it's to her advantage to do so.

There is no way the primaries in Fla. and Mich. are valid. NO WAY. Obama's name wasn't even on the Michigan ballot because he honored his pledge. His name would not have been on Florida's ballot either, except that Fla. would not allow him to take his name off the ballot there.

Many thousands of voters in both states STAYED HOME THE DAY OF THE PRIMARY because they were told their votes would not count.

Lastly, both states WILLFULLY disobeyed the Democratic National Committee, and the national committee is the body that sets the rules for primary elections. They were told their primaries would not count if they pushed their schedules ahead, but they did it anyway.

You CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT change the rules after the fact, ESPECIALLY in the election process. If you do, voters will never again trust elections in this country. PERIOD. END OF STORY.

Sent by Marcia Kennedy | 10:53 PM ET | 03-13-2008

"We'll wait and see where the voters go," Clinton says, when asked if she thinks the superdelegates should follow the lead of the popular vote. "I want to see what happens in Pennsylvania and Puerto Rico, Michigan and Florida."
So, Mrs. Clinton is planning to define the role of the superdelegates as she sees fit? She'll define it in whichever way that favors her? Who's given her the power? Who's given the Clintons the power to RUN the Democratic Primary, instead of running their campaign according to the party rules?

Sent by Constance | 11:02 PM ET | 03-13-2008

Why would I want a candidate that voted for a war that has done nothing but help bring down our great country?

Why would I want a candidate that then turns to the wounded veterans of that same war and have the gall to behave as if she cares?

Why would I want a candidate who only thinks some of the states and the people who live there count for her presidential bid?

Why would I want a candidate who wants to change the rules in the middle of the game so it benefits her AND then twists the truth against her opponent to say he does not care for all voters?

Why would I want a candidate who has the experience of the Washington machine?

Why would I want a candidate who seeks to win at any cost, even at the cost of dividing the country?

Why would anyone want HRC as our next president?

Frankly, I want an amateur in office. I want Barack Obama. I am not afraid of his "lack" of experience. Who needs HRC's experience? Experience at lying? Experience at talking out of the side of her mouth (well as far as I know, he's not a muslim), experience at twisting the truth, experience at cultivating fear? I do not want that. I want Barack Obama as POTUS.

Sent by Lynn Schumacher | 11:09 PM ET | 03-13-2008

I am a 51 year old feminist, mother, grandmother, and lifelong Democrat. I decided to support Obama early on because I had a son who was a Marine in Iraq and my #1 issues is stopping this senseless war. I figured though, that I would support Clinton if she won the nomination. I voted for Bill twice and have respected Hillary for years. And of course it would be a great triumph to have a woman in the white house. But this lifelong Democrat will sit out the November election (for the first time in her life) if Hillary wins the nomination through such manipulative tactics. I am horrified by her "win at all costs" mentality. This morning's interview was just another nail in her coffin. When she said Michigan and Florida were "fair" I was stunned beyond belief. I hope you follow up on this issue by quoting her earlier statements on this subject. This campaign, and Hillary's ever moving goal posts are ripping our party apart. It must be stopped.

Sent by Laura Davis | 11:15 PM ET | 03-13-2008

Appalled indeed. But, the Clinton supporters are right: Mrs. Clinton is tough!
She can speak rubbish and laugh at the same time.
She can spit in the face of her party and demand its support at the same time.
Of course she can knock down McCain - her tactics are more Republican than his and her tone can "outfox" Fox.
Is there any hope for American politics?

Sent by Constance | 11:24 PM ET | 03-13-2008

...and we are to take it that her conduct regarding this issue of MI and FL is a perfect example of her "experience" and her "being ready on day 1" to be the commander-in-chief and run things.... into ground!

Sent by EB | 11:28 PM ET | 03-13-2008

Clinton cannot win after what she has done, and the Clintonistas won't let Obama win.
Further, the nastiness of the Clinton campaign is to reduce all to soundbytes and invectives. The Republicans are waiting for this, and delighted by it.
The decison to destroy the Party rather than allow the process to work itself through in an honest way, because it is so unthinkable that Clinton might lose the nomination, means that we will have at least four more years of Bush-Mccain, and frankly, a Party this shattered will not be able to pull itself together by 2012, so we can expect another four years of whoever the Republicans choose to follow McCain. That is disgusting.
Can any Clintonista please explain how they think a Democratic win plays out after this? If it's Obama, McCain's talking points have all been made for him. If it's Clinton, the black vote will not come to her after Ferraro, the young idealists who attend Obama's speeches will not come to her, there's no way she can win any 'Red' state since her disapproval ratings there are above 50%, and there a number of pretty obvious scenarios losing her important 'Blue' states as well. The notion that all Democrats and progressives will 'have' to vote for her is just wrong - they can stay home; and in a small-turn-out election the odds would be for McCain, since this is when the 'Red' states become important.
So, okay, Hillary fans, after you've patted yourselves on the back for your triumphal cynicism, tell me - now what?

Sent by Emmanuel Winner | 11:45 PM ET | 03-13-2008

This lady has no shame. Both she and her Lady Macbeth husband would walk over dead bodies if that helped them to get to the White House again.

Sent by Pavel | 11:46 PM ET | 03-13-2008

Ridiculous! The agreement, which Clinton agreed to, was that Michigan and Florida would not count because both states violated the rules on voting days. Because she won both states, despite Obama not on the ballot in Michigan, and needs the delegates, now she is pushing for the two states to count. A lack or integrity and honor in Clinton's part which is one of teh main reasons why I would never vote for her. It is dishonarable and despicable politics that should not be rewarded.

Sent by P. O. | 11:47 PM ET | 03-13-2008

Given Obama's current lead among pledged delegates after his Mississippi win, Clinton will have to win an average of 61% of the vote in all the remaining contests, even if Florida and Michigan conduct new elections. This means that her only course to victory is to persuade the Superdelegates that she is more electable than Obama. One way to do that is to win the popular vote over Obama, but given the poll numbers in the remaining states, that is looking increasingly unlikely, even with revotes. That leaves her only one last chance, do whatever she can to destroy Obama's credibility and cast doubts about his electibility. At the end of the day, is that really a nomination she finds worth having? Doesn't she risk tarnishing her legacy and what's left of her husband's by taking this course of action? Even if she manages to win the Presidency, does she expect to have the trust of voters and members of Congress if she wins in this manner?

Clinton's interview with Inskeep reminds me of the post-Lewinsky half of her husband's administration. And frankly, as much as I admire the Clintons for what they accomplished during their time in the White House, they never regained my confidence after the Lewinsky affair. Hillary Clinton's behavior in her own campaign for the White House leads me to believe we'd be in for 4 more years of everything we hated about her last time in the White House. And personally, I can't stomach it. Your interview reminds of exactly why.

Sent by John Taylor | 11:51 PM ET | 03-13-2008

Do we really want such a person without any integrity whatsoever to be our leader?

Sent by Joe | 11:52 PM ET | 03-13-2008

While listening to this interview today, I made up my mind that if Hilary wins the Democratic Party nomination that I am voting for McCain. Her stunning refusal to answer questions about super delegates, her "cackle" and more have convinced me that she is truly a "back room" politician of the worst persuasion and we would be better off with a more moral person, like McCain. As for her C-I-C capabilities - I haven't seen any. She cannot even command her husband. Both Hilary and John will keep us in Iraq but he has proven command experience.

Sent by Bill Derrig | 12:18 AM ET | 03-14-2008

Tough interview. Hope your treatment of Obama is similar. Democratic convention without Michigan or Florida? Clinton says if you don't honor the votes then only a redo is fair. Makes sense. Defended strong questions about experience. It's sounds like politics not lies. Personal attacks about integrity from the Obama people are becoming common.

Sent by Tim O'Brien | 1:36 AM ET | 03-14-2008

I could never figure out why all my republican friends just hate Hillary. Now I'm beginning to see the light.Ralph Nader I be voting for you after all.

Sent by Mark Songey | 2:35 AM ET | 03-14-2008

To settle the situation of the Florida and Michigan to me is quite simple. Seat the delegates but do not allow them to cast votes until the second or third round; therefore, they will not be "committed" to either and will have a chance to hear all the debates. Should a problem arise over which person to send, have a random drawing of all potential delegates. Everyone wins.

Sent by Frank Spinden | 9:55 AM ET | 03-14-2008

Hillary Clinton's comments are reasonable, given that this is a political campaign.

It is also reasonable for her to advocate for a re-vote in both the FL and MI primaries. She could concievably lose one or both of those elections, after all.

Many who express outrage here don't seem to care what the voters of FL and MI think. If those voters feel so overwhelmingly angry toward Clinton about this matter, then perhaps that anger will appear in the revote results (with an Obama win).

What is the Obama camp afraid of?

Sent by John | 12:06 PM ET | 03-14-2008

What impressed me about the interview, was when pressed, Mrs. Clinton's so called experience sounded less participant and more observant.

Sent by Brent Ditto | 12:06 PM ET | 03-14-2008

I think it is a shame that any place in our country "doesn't count". If either party cared for more than delegates, they would have been in those two states listening to the people regardless and this debate wouldn't have happened.

Sent by Catherine Nemeth | 12:08 PM ET | 03-14-2008

It was crystal clear to me as early as the beginning of February that Clinton had every intention of trying to game the situation in Florida and Michigan to her advantage. I was disgusted then, and I remain disgusted. I will not vote for Clinton under any circumstances. While it might be naive to hope for a pristine politics, it is fully realistic to expect that our politicians have at least a minimal decency. Clinton plainly does not. Thank you for doing an interview that makes this clear to all but the most self-deceived partisans.

What I cannot understand (at all) is why the superdelegates haven't put a stop to this by declaring for Obama. The results in the remaining contests will not change the basic result, which is that Obama will have a decisive edge in elected delegates. That result along with Clinton's obvious lack of integrity should make the decision obvious.

That it is not makes an Independent like me wonder if there really is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. At some point the willingness to tolerate the mockery of the democratic process that is the Clinton campaign starts to cast a very negative light on those who do the tolerating.

Sent by Maggie | 12:15 PM ET | 03-14-2008

I think Fla should count the way it was voted - seat the delegates along with the votes. MI is another situation. Unless they revote I don't think this should count.

Sent by dot | 12:59 PM ET | 03-14-2008

It was obvious the Clinton was lying about several matters in the interview, for example, her "instrumental" role in Northern Ireland.

While Inskeep obviously did not believe many of her answers to be accurate or truthful, while I didn't expect him to say point-blank "I don't believe you," I did in fact expect NPR to run some type of follow up for listeners that identified precisely the false (unsupported or contradicted by evidence) or misleading statements that Clinton made. There is far too much avoidance of clear verification of true/false statements in today's media. I don't know whether the media feels that's the price that must be paid for 'access' or whether it is their idea of 'manners.'

Sent by Jamesaust | 1:09 PM ET | 03-14-2008

Count the votes. Obama withdrew his name willingly. Hillary did not withdraw her name. It is an election and so the votes should count. Making the voters re-vote is ridiculous.

Sent by Rosie Is At Home Now | 2:38 PM ET | 03-14-2008

Rules are rules--period! Florida & Michigan KNEW that moving up the dates was against the rules and DID IT ANYHOW! Both candidates agreed, which is the only reason Obama removed his name from Michigan ballot & didn't campaign in those states.
What floors me the most Mrs. Clinton. Make agreement to not seat the delegates, changes her mind when she is losing and needs those votes. She did NOT care about the voice of the voters not being heard UNTIL she needed those votes!
Her comment that Michigan (without Obama on even on the ballot) counting is absolutely ridiculous! There will be some very serious uprising from voters across this nation should Michigan and Florida be allowed to participate at all.
While I understand their anger, they need to put the blame where it belongs and blast the idiots who decided and did move up the primary date for their states knowing full well the consequences!
At this point, not much can be done to satisfy either side--judges make decisions every day based on the laws governing this country. The decision makers trying to sort out this mess need to FOLLOW THE RULES AS LAID OUT because any other option is changing the rules midstream and will only cause complete chaos.

If Clinton manages to steal the nomination based on this decision...

I will personally start a nation wide campaign to WRITE IN BARACK OBAMA for President on the ballot in November. His supporters are all grassroots, we are all connected on a daily basis and have done the work of campaigning for Obama to date.........YES WE CAN WRITE IN OBAMA AND WIN IN NOVEMBER!

Sent by Cherie | 2:39 PM ET | 03-14-2008

NPR/Steve Inskeep: thank you for a thoughtul interview; I think the responses from both sides in these comments show that few to nobody on either side perceived the interview as unfair. That's pretty hard to pull off these days.

I'm a little disappointed that almost no Obama supporters or media types have had the courage to take a "no deal" stand on the MI and FL primaries. The introduction (by the Clinton campaign, naturally) of the term "disenfranchised" into the discussion was in my view insidious. Why isn't the same term applied to 1) the very existence of superdelegates or 2) the fact that HRC supporters (McAuliffe and Rendell, among others) state in public that taking the pop. vote, delegates, and state count STILL wouldn't necessarily give Obama the nod? I understand how the HRC folks would avoid the term for these last two topics, but I'm aggravated to hear it parroted by the press only for MI and FL. If those states don't get delegates and miss the chance to influence the choice of nominee, then they have nobody to blame but their own state Democratic leaders. Period end of story. Obama owes them nothing, Dean owes them nothing, and we pander to their selfish interests to consider their non-impact on the nominee a "disenfranchisement."

Remember that the right to directly (or indirectly) elect party nominees is not guaranteed or even mentioned in the country's constitution or federal laws. It's a brand-reinforcement strategy on the part of the two parties that has only recently (post-72) started to meagerly approximate a democratic process. The "franchise" is guaranteed by the Constitution and its amendments, and it has nothing to do with primaries whatsoever.

I say these things as someone who would like the primary process to be as democratic as possible, but who recognizes the many asymmetries in the game and who, most of all, believes you CAN NOT change the rules mid-game.

Sent by Alex | 3:54 PM ET | 03-14-2008

Steve deserves kudos of the highest degree for this interview. He was respectful to Sen. Clinton, while still asking the important questions. She had every opportunity to explain her logic on the MI and FL debacles and also to solidify her ever morphing stance on superdelegates. He did not let her off the hook once, but remained professional throughout. An amazing and thoroughly revealing interview.

Sent by Derek | 10:47 PM ET | 03-15-2008

Up to very recently, I had confidence in both of the democratic candidates in being great presidents. Clinton's recent actions, however, have caused me to prefer and now root for Obama for the first time in this campaign. Nonetheless, I plead with all of you; if Clinton actually becomes the nominee, don't take any chances of losing the White House to the republicans yet again. It was disgraceful and damaging enough the last time. Our country can???t take four more years.

Sent by IZD | 10:54 AM ET | 03-16-2008

If Hillary Clinton can not keep promise to DNC, how can she be trusted on anything?

Sent by Punter | 7:41 PM ET | 03-16-2008

I am happy the large majority of the NPR audience saw through Clinton???s old-style politics full of duplicity, lack of character and her changed position on FL & MI after having signed agreements and made statements Sept - Oct. 2007 clearly respecting the DNC decision not to count these two primary votes. I have never heard anyone even attempting to count a winning pre-season football game in the regular season but have been disappointed by how many of Clinton???s surrogates (and now Clinton herself) have been trying to do exactly that.
Clinton has obviously analyzed the impossible math that she must win 59% of the remaining 902 delegates (566 in 10 states + 334 superdelegates) after Obama gained 9 of Edwards delegates in Iowa and WON Texas by 5 delegates (after he swept the caucuses to be confirmed in the Texas convention 3/29). She realizes that her last chance is to try to unfairly steal the FL & MI delegates that everybody agreed would not count or do whatever she can to destroy Obama's credibility and electibility so the superdelegates will vote for her. This ???torch-earth??? strategy will hand the White House to McCain. Obama has caught up tremendously to Clinton???s lead among already committed superdelegates and is now only 36 behind. I hope you will all contact your state???s superdelegates to convince them to put an end to her contentious candidacy that clearly demonstrates that she is not the leader this country needs. Hopefully, we can also spread the message to Clinton???s base support groups (the hispanics, the older women and the blue collar workers) that Clinton???s policies and lack of integrity will hurt the country.
I sincerely hope that if re-votes are agreed to in FL & MI that these state parties are not rewarded for breaking the DNC rules by being pivotal in the primary. This can be done by simply splitting the delegates in half (or other formula), reduce their delegates by half (like the Republicans did), not allow them to cast votes until the second or third round or other reduction of their delegate???s power. This is not a punishment of the people of these states but to avoid total anarchy in the next election.

Sent by Claes in Seattle | 1:37 AM ET | 03-17-2008

How can any American reasonably argue that the vote of another American should not count based on rules that were put into place withouth their input or consent? Where has this self indulgent, self serving response to another citizen of this country come from....very sad...especially from those whp purport to be voting for a candidate espouing unity.

Sent by Terri | 3:16 PM ET | 03-17-2008

Since our votes (Florida) won't count, I decided to change my affiliation. I also intend to let the Florida legislators know what I think about the "winner take all" farce. Representives should go to those who win, not all to one candidate. Why should Clinton be able to demand all the reps from Florida and Michigan? Some of us voted for Obama.

Sent by Judyrose | 10:08 PM ET | 03-22-2008

Every adult knows to prepare for the worst and hope for the best. Obama should have had his name on the MI ballot and followed the rules of no ads in FL.

Sent by Sue | 7:29 PM ET | 04-10-2008