Good...last time I checked Michigan and Florida voters are still part of the American population...hopefuly the DNC Committee will make the right decision and make gains in restoring these voters back into the American Process...it's the right thing to do...

Sent by ard | 6:05 PM ET | 04-25-2008

A "committee" is a life form with six or more legs and no brain. Good luck to us.

Sent by Chiclettooth | 7:35 PM ET | 04-25-2008

Perhaps this meeting will be an opportunity for the Democratic Party Leadership to show that the party's strength is based upon integrity, honesty, and the desire to do best for the American People and not upon blind loyalty, intimidation, and the desire to win at all costs.

Sent by Joe | 9:44 PM ET | 04-25-2008

ard, are you kidding? They have a right to vote in November when the election for the office is held. These are party primary contests we're talking about. Their state representatives did them a disservice by changing their primary election dates in contravention of party rules. Clinton said last fall that the delegates should be excluded as punishment; she agreed with the party's position. She shouldn't be allowed to go back now and change her position merely because it's convenient for her to do so after keeping her opponents from campaigning against her name recognition in those states. The Dems would destroy all confidence in their party if they changed the rules after the fact.

Sent by Sweetie | 11:16 PM ET | 04-25-2008

The super delegate process was created by the DNC because, using it's own words, the people might make a mistake.
This is liberal elitism on display.

Sent by Karl Ott | 5:36 AM ET | 04-26-2008

Sweetie,

No...so you agree that the people (voters) were done a disservice...so how should the voters protest...now or in November...perhaps if these voters aren't able to be fairly dealt with (keep in mind that equal is not always fair...this ideal of 50/50 is subtly a strategy to benefit Obama) should they not exercise their vote at all (since they've already cast a vote that didn't matter), or perhaps vote for the other guy, McCain (The DNC doesn't seem to care much about them, let alone fellow Dems...(as partly revealed in your statements)? Probably, the BEST thing to have done would be to mitigate damages quickly (DNC/Obama failed at this)...the way the DNC has handled this is what has caused IRREPARABLE damage, NOT the issues that Mr. Clyburn wants to suggest. Unfortunately, thus far, many Superdelegates are either acting as puppets by succumbing to pressures from their constituency or at the very least are ill equipped to make this very difficult and important decision...the DNC needs to scrap this process, it is intrinsically flawed and has too many factors that contradict (popular vote vs delegates vs superdelegates vs electoral...ridiculous). Without having a matrix or something similar for the Superdelegates to base their decision, this process is failed at best...simply saying Supers can vote anyway they want doesn't sound thoughtful or intelligent, no wonder people are saying "what does that mean"(no consistency of standard...therefore, no rules to follow, how interesting and contradicting)...Lastly, I hope that America will not lack the courage to make the RIGHT decision, EVEN if that decision means overturning the decision based on those conflicting factors I mentioned previously. The DNC may be concerned about the "terrible outcome" that Political Leaders, the Media, etc. attempt to subliminally "seed in our minds" but, I hope that America will stand up and resist being bullied by innuendo and rhetoric and instead take the time to educate people AGAIN on the role of Superdelegates so that when the decision is rendered, everyone will at least be able to accept the ruling (again, I say, if the Democrats had the Republican system, Clinton would have the nomination, allowing Clinton and McCain to debate the real issues that effect us all. (Obama debating about real issues in really concrete ways...have not seen to date)

PS: Have you noticed several Superdelegates obviously are not exercising "independent" judgement when they express they are following the vote of their constituency(that's not to say that a Superdelegate couldn't come to the same conclusion independently...but probably more the former)...then why the Superdelegate requirement...Perhaps the Dems should scrape this whole process and use the Republican Math...now that's an ideal...or perhaps Obama should come forward and confess the other skeletons that are lurking in his somewhat controversal past and give us all a break...I'm an Independent and I'm getting a little tired of all this, although it's proving to be better than anything on the telly lately...

Sent by ard | 10:52 AM ET | 04-26-2008

Ard, I feel sorry for folks like you that have to put up with the interlopers that are going to destroy your party. If you find yourself partyless, you might try to look closely at the GOP; you might discover that there is plenty of stuff to work with and parties get transformed from the inside. Thoughtful folks are always welcome. Keep it in mind.

Sent by deek | 12:30 PM ET | 04-27-2008

Deek,

I used to be a Democrat quite a few years ago..but got fed up...and became an Independent and would vote for McCain should Obama become the nominee...McCain seems a safer bet than Obama and it is MY vote to cast anyway I choose...isn't America great!

PS: Maybe I am slowing becoming a Republican...

Sent by ard | 5:16 PM ET | 04-27-2008

Interesting thread here....

FACTS:
FL and MI broke the rules.
ALL Candidates pledged not to campaign in these states.
CLinton did not take her name off the ballot in MI and made a campaign stop in FL the night before the primaries.
Obama and Edwards were not even on the ballot in MI.

So I just want to be clear when I hear people saying that Obama supporters dont want everybodys vote to count that we are talking about the same election here. If Clinton tries to ram through the results from these two states without a properly conducted primary where all candidates are not bound by a signed pledge to not participate, then I think you would see a different story altogether.

If both states run about the same as the rest of the election has, then you might see Clinton have a 5 delegate gain, but not by any chance a 55 delegate gain like she would unfairly get if the RBC voted to include it as the results stand now.

And one last point, Clinton only got 55% of the vote in MI with Uncommitted receiving 40%. Hardly a convincing win for a contest with no opponents.

Sent by Chris | 6:12 PM ET | 05-04-2008