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 | 7:40 AM ET | 06-01-2008

The Democratic Party has consistently shown timid leadership and poor decision-making, by creating these problems, and then allowing them to fester. Hence, a voter is left choosing between a mean-spirited, powerful, homogenous party, and a more inclusive, well-meaning, but ineffectual husk. I wish anti-trust laws applied to political parties, and we could break up both of them.

Sent by Bert | 8:19 AM ET | 06-01-2008

Just heard Ms. Anderson's comment on the radio asking how the RBC could award any Michigan delegates to Obama when he didn't appear on the ballot. Think, Ms. Anderson: it was a bogus election from the moment -- BEFORE the election -- that the DNC, including Hillary's folks, agreed that IT WOULD NOT COUNT. Many people undoubtedly did not take the trouble to vote in this meaningless election. To go back after the fact and try to endow this sham election with any meaning whatsoever is absurd. The RBC gave Hillary far more than the facts warrant.

Sent by Dean Littlepage | 9:43 AM ET | 06-01-2008

If the Democratic primary voters in Michigan and Florida want to vent their frustration at not being fulled counted in their states' primaries, they should aim their ire not at the Democratic Rules Committee but at their own state party leaders.
Those leaders were the ones who knowingly put their states' primary voters in jeopardy by not following party rules. They knew that their states would not be seated if they disregarded those rules.
What's more, the word, "disenfranchisement" is being misused here.
There is a huge distinction between a general election and a primary. A primary is simply a way for a party to nominate a candidate for office. The party can run its nominating process any way it wishes--primary, caucus, backroom manipulation. We cannot be disenfranchised in a primary, because a primary is a party's private way of selecting a candidate.
A general election, on the other hand, is public and run by the government to select our next president. In a general election, the one man (person), one vote ethos prevails.

Sent by louis berney | 9:45 AM ET | 06-01-2008

I continue to be amazed at the anger that is directed to National Committee instead of where it belongs- the local party which set up the primaries outside of the clearly stated rules. There has been little conversation about the local committees taking responsibility for putting their desire to make a statement ahead of the assurance that votes would be counted.

Sent by Helen Hutchison | 9:46 AM ET | 06-01-2008

I think the obvious problem with apportioning delegates based on the votes this spring is that, prior to the primaries, both candidates agreed not to campaign in those states and that the delegates from Michigan and Florida would not be seated at the National Convention.

I agree that it's now about winning "by any means" for the Clinton camp.

Sent by Ronia | 9:48 AM ET | 06-01-2008

As a Florida resident I counted on the DNC to remain true to their word and not count Florida. As a result I opted out, not wishing to participate in a "beauty contest" based solely on name recognition. Ickes' disingenous diatribe did not reflect a concern for an accurate representation of what the Florida vote was, but rather a cynical view of what this campaign is all about.
Power.
Clinton has continually called this race unfair, a vast left wing conspiracy I suppose. Until the voting began she was up by twenty or more points. Her failure to connect with educated white democrats certainly needs to be adressed. Why did she fail so miserably with this group? Much has been written about Obama's failure to connect with poorer white voters, but little about Clinton's failure with this democratic core. Her shrill calls of elitism only further isolated her from the possiblity of obtaining any support from these party loyalist.

Sent by steve | 9:58 AM ET | 06-01-2008

This whole thing is a train wreck. Michigan and Florida went outside the bounds of the DNC rules, they were sanctioned, and the candidates said they would play by the rules. Now, Senator Clinton is outraged that she will not be allowed to have the votes that she so "rightfully" deserves from an election that never should have happened. It strikes me as desperate and embarassing that she is floundering around for these votes. She should take the consequences that were spelled out and deal with the outcome.

Sent by Amy Mallison-Austin | 10:03 AM ET | 06-01-2008

I found Faye Anderson's comments today about the fairness of seating Michigan delegates baseless and without merit. She claimed in the interview that Obama received 50% of the delegates from Michigan which is not true. It was actually a 69/59 split in favor of Senator Clinton. Then while preaching of the unjustness of the way the Michigan Democratic party decided to split it's delegates, Ms. Anderson conveniently fails to mention the fact that the National Democratic party ruled not to recognize either of the elections in Florida and Michigan at the beginning of this primary. The fact that Democratic party is giving one candidate more delegates than the other based on what where supposed to be unrecognized elections is the bigger issue.

Sent by Mark | 10:13 AM ET | 06-01-2008

I was appalled by Harold Ickes's comments yesterday that only votes for Mrs. Clinton should be counted in Michigan - that to do otherwise would subvert the democratic process and deprive 600,000 voters of their choice. Incredible. What kind of democracy has a ballot with one candidate's name? Cuba? The Soviet Union?

It has been obvious for months that the Clinton campaign's strategy of claiming Florida and Michigan is a desperate attempt to overtake Obama's lead. Had Obama led in those states, the Clinton campaign would have been just as desperate to repress the vote in Florida and Michigan.

Sent by K. Conlin | 10:17 AM ET | 06-01-2008

I also heard Ms Anderson's comments this morning. I couldn't wait to hop out of the shower and write this. I have heard lots of opinions from outsiders (to Michigan) who don't seem to fully grasp what happened in Michigan.

In a game of political chicken, Barack Obama and John Edwards removed their names from the Michigan ballot. Although she, like them, vowed not to campaign in Michigan, Clinton's camp just kind of left her name on the ballot, and then made it seem like a faux pas.

As a result, the state party, the governor and people interested in electing Obama and Edwards encouraged voters who did not want to vote for Hillary Clinton to go to the polls anyway and vote uncommitted. This was a very concerted effort, with the folks you saw and heard about on TV yesterday calling the local radio talk shows and showing up on local TV news and political affairs shows. It was in all of the newspapers.

I have five specific stories about what Democratic voters actually did

I, a local Democratic party official, regret the decision I made. I would have voted for Obama. Since I didn't feel that my preference for Obama would register, I instead grabbed a Republican ballot and voted for John McCain. At the time, I saw him as a decent man. I also felt my best choice was to help prevent any of the other Republicans from becoming nominee for fear they might become president.

My 19 year-old son, who wanted to exercise his right to vote, and who wanted to vote for Obama, voted Clinton because she was the only name on the Democratic ballot. He wouldn't dream of voting Republican, and did not understand the concept of voting 'uncommitted'.

Friends at work in Detroit, including several African-Americans, decided not to vote at all because they only wanted to vote for Obama. They felt an uncommitted vote was a throwaway and a waste of time.

I had family members who said they were going to vote Romney as a sabotage vote, because they didn't think he could beat of the Democrats in November. I don't know how they voted. Regardless of what they decided, I think they were mostly leaning Clinton.

My wife wanted Clinton, and got her way.

So how can anyone assert that the party could give Clinton the 73 delegates and Obama none as a result of an election that was a total sham? It was not a fair fight. The only real fair choice would have been to not seat the Michigan delegation. I think most Michigan voters would have understood that choice more than the unfair choice presented by Ickes and the Clinton people.

Sent by Paul Bowen | 10:48 AM ET | 06-01-2008

As a Florida voter whose party has failed her, I've decided to just opt out. My next stop is the voter registration office to change from a Democrat to an Independent. So I can't vote in the next primary. Big deal. A lot of good it did me this year. I may or may not support the nominee, depending upon which candidate in November best represents and addresses my basic concerns: education, the environment, energy conservation, women's rights, human rights, etc. I was appalled by the recent video of the priest in Sen. Obama's church, not so much by all the racist hate he was spewing, but by the audience's enthusiastic support of his comments. Right now I am very nervous about the apparent nominee of my late party.

Sent by Jackie Kersh | 10:50 AM ET | 06-01-2008

Mark is right -- I misspoke. The RBC adopted the Michigan Democratic Party's position and awarded 69 delegates to Clinton and 59 to Obama. A 50:50 split would have given each 64 delegates. The "50 percent" refers to the delegates' voting strength.

That said, the Michigan Democratic Party's delegate split was based on the election results, exit polls and "guesstimations" of 30,000 unopened and uncounted ballots.

The intent of voters who voted "uncommitted" was divined and delegates arbitrarily allocated by party leaders behind closed doors.

So give me a break. As it was noted, I had yet to have breakfast, let alone my first cup of coffee.

Sent by Faye M. Anderson | 11:04 AM ET | 06-01-2008

Like many others, I see this whole flap as a last ditch attempt by the Clinton's (both of them) to get back into the game when they've already lost. If the purpose for Democrats is to unseat the Republicans, the absolute worst way to go about it is to run Hillary. First off, the hard core right, many of whom don't like McCain will stay home in November, UNLESS they can go vote against Hillary. Second, all of the Democrats and Independents who like Obama will likely stay home, rather than vote for a continuation of either the Bush or Clinton monarchies.

Sent by cjon | 11:13 AM ET | 06-01-2008

I'll state it very plainly. Clinton supporters who say that they will vote for McCain before Obama are either so conservative they should be Republicans, or they're not "ready" to vote for a black man ... and there's a name for that.

Sent by Dana Honn | 11:17 AM ET | 06-01-2008

The only fair way to take care of the Florida/Michigan Fiasco brought on again by the fumbling, bumbling, means-well democratic committee would be to spend the money on another primary in both states. This would satisfy Hillary's contingency as well as Obama's, and the votes would HAVE to be accepted. This should be done as soon as possible. I know that many rich contributors would then start to give to the party instead of giving it to the candidates.

Sent by Deanna Alpert | 12:14 PM ET | 06-01-2008

I agree that the the citizens of Michigan and Florida deserve representation for the party of their choosing. They have done nothing wrong.

It is important to recognize that the local state party officials were aware of the rules and the consequences of their failure to follow them. If there is to be outrage, it should be directed toward those who caused the problem by flagrantly disregarding these rules. One penalty was that any votes cast would not be counted toward apportionment of delegates. In effect, there has been NO VALID primary race. All candidates were very aware and in agreement with that decision at the time.

Now, there are some who would like to rewrite the rules to serve their own interests. I am embarrassed by this bulling. In any case, if either candidate wants to advocate in this way, they should do it in person, not through "swift boat " like proxies who cannot be held responsible for the flip flop. ( A very effective play from the Republican playbook.)

I have no dispute with the seating of delegates from MI or FLA. How they are apportioned is more sticky. If the national committee has a challenge to resolve it is this. Compromise is a slippery slope and guaranteed to engender even further controversy, as you can see.

The proper thing to do is to follow the rules and penalties as they were stated BEFORE the primary. These people would make very bad parents.

Sent by John Buckley | 12:42 PM ET | 06-01-2008

Hillary Clinton's behavior with regards to the Florida and Michigan so called primaries is appalling and dishonorable. She agreed with the original decision not to count these votes and now she's determined to create chaos, division and hatred within the Democratic electorate to further her own ambitions. It has been said that this presidential election is the Democrat's to lose. If it is lost to the Republicans, Hillary and Bill need look no further than their own bathroom mirror. That is, if they're not already blinded by their own ambition.

Sent by Susan | 2:22 PM ET | 06-01-2008

Smacks of playground pacifications...deeply demoralizing as this is to reverberate through our country and around the world. The primary rules are clearly laid out and why any circumstance should alter these is shameful.

Sent by cb | 5:26 PM ET | 06-01-2008

The Democratic Rules Committee did the best that they could with a tough situation. It was not a fair election in either Florida or Michigan. The rules were broken by Republican legislators, but rules are rules, (especially if you agreed to abide by them as Senator Clinton did).

Didn't Florida and Michigan Democratic primary voters receive the same respect (voting strength) as did Republican primary voters?

Sent by Byron | 5:42 PM ET | 06-01-2008

When Obama first started winning, the Clintons (Bill and his wife) calculated the odds. They're not fools.

Bill told his wife to start repeating his black-man-can't-win screed.

Mr. Clinton and his wife did that specifically to improve their own 2012 White House odds in the event McCain won 2008. If Obama wins they'll switch to GOP, to join their Limbaugh-inspired supporters.

If his "health" holds, Bill will still be Bill after 4 years of McCain...and Bill's wife will still be able to run for him.

Sent by Terry Kelly | 9:46 PM ET | 06-01-2008

I would have been pleased to support Clinton, Edwards, or Obama for president. I admit that McCain is a vast improvement over Bush and the rest of the Republican field. It seems now that Obama has "worked hard and played by the rules" and I believe that he deserves the Democratic party nomination. I am disappointed that Sen. Clinton and her supporters have reduced themselves to sounding like comedic parodies of the sleaziest lawyers imaginable in the Michigan-Florida argument.

Sent by Mike Fleissner | 10:00 PM ET | 06-01-2008

As NPR and the AP reported, Hillary, while campaigning in NH, a state that values it's first in the nation primary, was asked why she was the only candidate who did not remover her name from the Michigan primary. In order to pander to NH voters, Hillary said "It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything," during an interview on a New Hampshire Public Radio's call-in program. (See AP story Thursday Oct 11, 2007.) Clinton should have received absolutely no delegates from that event which in her own words was not suppose to count for anything. Subsequently she has the unmitigated gall to become the champion of the Michigan voters and advocate to super delegates that those votes for her "prove" that she has received the most popular votes. This is exactly the kind of alternate reality her husband created when he defended his cover up of his involvement with Ms Lewinsky by saying "it depends on the definition of is."

The animosity directed at Clinton has little to do with sexism. Rather it is because she and her husband continue to insult our intelligence and further their personal ambition at the cost of a Democratic victory in November. I am a white female 58 year old lawyer disgusted by the chaos the Clintons have created and by the media that repeatedly fails report their hypocrisies.

Sent by MMSDen | 12:49 AM ET | 06-02-2008