As a Michigan democrat I find the rhetoric of 'counting all the votes' absurd. I did not vote in the Michigan primary because I was already told that my vote did not count, and because most major candidates were not on the ballot. How can oe protest now. If people were so interested in having their vote count Michiganders should have demonstrated when Michigan illegally moved up it's election date, or perhaps on election day, rather than months after the fact fracturing our party.

By betraying her pact with the democratic party, Clinton got her voters out in full force with a name they could support. Now Obama and his Michigan supporters are being punished for following the rules and taking the DNC at its word

Sent by Yaniv | 1:55 PM ET | 05-31-2008

Anyone really interested in knowing how, (by whose actions) the voters of Michigan and Florida were "disenfranchised" needs to examine who was behind the measures in each state to move up their primary election dates. Do a little research.

The Democratic National Committee was very clear about the rules long before the states of Michigan and Florida chose to move up the dates of their primary elections. When Mrs. Clinton then chose to campaign in those states it was a slap in the face of the DNC, as well as a clear sign that the Clinton Campaign intended all along to later force the DNC to seat the delegates that were "won" in what amounted to uncontested primary elections.

Sent by David Limmer | 5:50 PM ET | 05-31-2008

I'm another Michigan Democrat who thinks this story is a joke.
I did vote in the primary. While I wish my vote would have counted towards something, the ones I blame are my state party leaders. They made the selfish decision fully informed of the likely consequences. We got what we deserve.
I don't know who is stirring up this disenfranchisement story, it doens't exist "on the ground".

Sent by Marty Morgan | 9:29 PM ET | 05-31-2008

A combination of actions, the DNC rules committee deciding that it "knows" what the voters in Michigan "meant" when they voted and Barak Obama resigning from his church, have handed the Presidential election to the Republicans. In a year when, supposedly, no Republican could be elected as President due to the current President's policies, the DNC and their probable candidate have made decisions that will make the Nixon/McGovern race of 1972 look close. Two very large states' voters have been disenfranchised; women have been told to sit down and shut up; and all the Republicans will have to do to retain the religious, independent voter (without whom no one can be elected President) is to point out that the (probable) Democratic Party candidate resigned from his church for political gain. Will it be true? Who knows? Just like the swift-boaters, it won't matter if it is true or not. It will get results; and in politics, means are much less important than results. With four more years of failed policy in Iraq and at home, emigration just might replace immigration as a political issue.

Sent by Cynthia Buehling | 10:29 PM ET | 05-31-2008

Forida and Michigan were totally separate issues and should have been handled differently.

It appears that everyone succumbed to the media's constantly ignorant comments that both states should be handled the same way.

Anyone who could listen and and read knew that the Floriday Demo party had little or nothing to do with changing the primary date: the Florida Legislature changed the date! The votes in Florida should have been allotted as they were cast!

It is a sad day in America when the Demo party strips its own delegates of votes that were honestly cast. When were they to cast the votes if not on the date set by the Legislature?

I am sick of what the press and party officials will do to keep a WOMAN from becoming the nominee of the Democratic Party.

Sent by Claudia Stravato | 11:32 PM ET | 05-31-2008

the response by Hillary supporters on the committee and in the audience shows it was not about seating voters but about her desire to ignore here mistakes and weaknesses and win by any means.

Sent by johnbridges | 7:41 AM ET | 06-01-2008

I wrote the Michigan Democratic Party, the DNC, and Clinton's campaign when Senator Clinton's was allowed to leave her name on Michigan's ticket when all other major candidates honored the DNC's ruling. I knew it would come back to haunt us if her name stayed on the ticket but the others were not.

Sent by Fran Olesen | 9:53 AM ET | 06-01-2008

This victim thing coming from Hillary and her supporters is neither accurate nor helpful. Please, folks, take a deep breath and consider carefully and objectively what you're saying. Other people can be for the other candidate and not be trying to "keep a woman" from being president.

Please commit to winning the election, regardless of who the nominee is. Think what will happen to Roe vs. Wade if McSame is elected, not to mention workers' and consumers' rights, the air we breathe, the food we eat, the water we drink, and what little prosperity this country has left.

Sent by Dean | 10:02 AM ET | 06-01-2008

NPR's account this morning re MI-FL, and some comments here, make me wonder if I live in a parallel universe.

There were RULES for the primary game. Michigan and Florida broke 'em. Hillary Clinton, who piously backed 'em back when it suited her, smashed 'em to flinders as soon as smashing them became her last desperate refuge. And now HRC has the nerve to claim a victim's privileges and a victim's sympathy on the grounds that otherwise "she wuz robbed"?
Well, she wasn't. And the DNC Saturday did way more than enough to pacify her. If anyone got robbed, it's Barack Obama, who FOLLOWED the rules, stayed out of MI and FL, and now sees his opponent awarded delegates she wouldn't have if she hadn't kicked the rules aside.

To twist this into "what the press and party will do to deny a woman the nomination," as one commentor above does, is beyond absurd.
I'm an older woman, a retired journalist. I've lived feminism. I know about inequity and glass ceilings. I've had a lot of empathy with and admiration for Hillary.

But there are limits. Her barefaced hypocrisy about MI-FL, and especially the fraudulent claim to victimhood, make her someone I no longer either admire or respect.

Sent by Ann T. Berry | 10:02 AM ET | 06-01-2008

Florida's officials were so interested in "having a voice" in the primary process that they voted have their election ahead of both party's rules. Both parties subjected the state parties to sancations. That was decided five months before the election. Florida Democrat party officials did nothing to stage a vote that would result in a vote that could be translated into delegates. They could not forsee a primary that would go all the way to the wire. We Florida voters knew in January that our votes would not produce a delagation. There was no outcry.
If we are ever to become a nation of laws again we must learn to accept the consequences brought forth by our actions. Stand down Senator Clinton. Your actions reflect a position that is the same held by this administration that the end forgives the means.

Sent by steve | 10:11 AM ET | 06-01-2008

I heard NPR's Ken Rudin this Sunday morning claim that "Clinton won" the Michigan and Florida primaries handily. I expect that kind of distortion from some of Sen. Clinton's supporters, but not from an NPR political analyst.

The DNC Rules Committee disqualified the Florida and Michigan delegations last fall. Harold Ickes, the same man who argued on Saturday that Sen. Clinton was entitled to the lionsshare of Michigan delegates, voted for the sanctions as a member of the Rules committee last fall.

Sen. Obama (along with other Democratic presidential contenders) withdrew his name from the Michigan ballot. He did not campaign in either state. Both senators and their campaigns agreed to abide by the sanctions levied against the Michigan and Florida Democratic parties by the Democratic National Committee. Sen. Clinton began to demand that the committee change the rules only after she realized she could not win the presidential nomination without the votes of the disqualified delegates.

And yet Ken Rudin claims that Clinton "won" both primaries "handily." That's advocacy, not accurate analysis, and not appropriate for a "neutral" NPR analyst.

Sent by Dani R. Newsum | 10:12 AM ET | 06-01-2008

Pardon this please, however the constant drumbeat about "keeping a woman out of office" rings hollow.
Clinton is asking for a rules change that only benefit her campaign. Would these claims of disenfranchisement be put forth if the outcome of the Florida election been different. What if Obama had been the only name on the Michigan ballot? I for the life of me can't imagine Clinton petitioning the rules committee for the votes to be counted in these circumstances. Nor can I imagine that those of you out there claiming that this is a machination created to keep a woman out of the White House would allow that same claim under these circumastances.
Rules are rules.
Victimhod is an illfitting garment for Senator Clinton. I am truly sorry that she has made this the cloak of her campiagn.

Sent by steve | 10:31 AM ET | 06-01-2008

I want to second the comments on the parellel unioverse NPR commentary seemd to be immersed in this morning. I was deeply disturbed. These were not primaries, and anyone paying attention knew they did not count. Clinton did not "win" anything in these faux elections. This is not disenfranchisement. This is how a party has the right to set up their own rules to choose their own nominwee, and the state parties have to play by those rules.

The last 96 hours of this campaign have deeply disturbed me. Much of the deep respect I have gained for Sen. Clinton over the last two months is melting away faster han the polar icecaps.

I cannon even imagine the deep disgust and permanent revulsion fron tens of millions of people that would come if she did someone steal this nomination. The Democrats are doing there level best to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Sent by Larry S. | 10:35 AM ET | 06-01-2008

Voting rights should supersede rules of the DNC; they are not the law. Why so sanctimonious anyway? Where is the (by some)revered spirit of opposition to stupidity and selective commitment to rules and indeed many actual laws?

Sent by Pamphylla McCarron | 9:12 AM ET | 06-02-2008

Terry McAuliffe is a Clinton staffer and supporter. He was also on the DNC a few years ago. During his time there before the 2004 campaign, he was confronted with states (I think Florida or Michigan were among them) who wanted to move up their primary dates. In his own book, he quotes himself as saying that these states' delegates would and should be cut in half according to the rules of the DNC. I paraphrase from memory, but he said something to the effect that "Rules are rules and you have to abide by them". Why does that apply then and not now? If anybody should be punished, it is the political leadership in Florida and Michigan, not the DNC. However, creating Obama votes out of whole cloth in Michigan was unecessary and muddies the issue. That particular decision did not decide the race.

Sent by Wyoming Bob | 3:20 PM ET | 06-08-2008