Are you still upset about Obama losing Michigan and Florida? Get over it.

P.S. I concur with the Connie, not Otto. To the latter all I can say is, please read the rules, and try to get over being upset about Hillary losing the nomination. We need everyone on board for November.

Our nation's children are an important reason that the DNC should vote in favor of sticking to the rules they established, that both Obama and Hillary Clinton agreed to...before she didn't.. For more than twenty years, basic ethics have been anathema, a source of ridicule rather than pride: GenX was treated to the example of a president redefining what "is" is, and getting away with it. The next group has come of age watching Bush/Cheney lie with impunity about WMD to justify an soulless war, as they have been offered , as the justification for torture, the bold-faced lie that "America doesn't torture." Countless defense lawyers have been publically lauded for finding the clever loophole that often makes a mockery of justice. In short, children now grown, have been treated to a steady diet of people who successfully play the rules rather than abiding by them. These children, now young adults, are the future of this party and the nation. What will happen if they value the cleverness of rule bending over winning with legitimacy? Sorry if I sound stuffy, but I have my own 30-something on the ethical line.

We are a nation of laws - those that want to IGNORE the rules are advocating our children to break the rules if they don't happen to agree with them.

Voting by name recognition has nothing to do with stupidity. Instead it's about going for those you are FAMILIAR with or most trust at the time.

Thanks for reminding everyone of Baracks inexperience.

Does anyone really believe that if Clinton's name wasn't on the Michigan ballot and if she hadn't garnered more votes in Florida (I have friends in Florida who didn't vote for and Presidential candidate because they were told there vote wouldn't count) that Senator Clinton would be taking this stand? Would she take this position if Obama had the most votes? Can anyone honestly state that she is doing this for the voters of Florida and Michigan as opposed for her own agenda? Anyone?

I MUST SAY HILLARY IS TRYING TO CHANGE THE VOTEING IN THE CAMPAIGN. WELL FIRST OF ALL
SHE SOULD HAVE TAKEN HER NAME OFF THE BALLOT, IT WAS A TACTICAL MOVE FOR VOTES IN MI. SECOND IN FL THEY ALL WERE ON THE BALLOT BUT PEOPLE DIDNT VOTE IN EIGHER STATE IN MI SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND VOTERS DIDNT EVEN VOTE BECAUSE THEY KNEW THEIR VOTE WOULDNT COUNT SO WHO IS THE FOOL HERE? ITS HILLARY AS USUAL SHE TRYED TO MAKE THE COUNT GO IN HER FAVOR.

THEY SHOULD SPLIT THE DELEGATES 50/50 IN BOTH STATES AND SHOULD ONLY SEAT HALF OF THE DELEGATES BECAUSE THE PARTY KNEW THE RULES AND WANTED TO VOTE EARLY.

END OF STORY

Yep. I plan to get over it by voting for McCain since Obama won the nomination by making people believe phony charges of racism. I disgree with McCain on policy about 90% of the time but McCain is good on global warming and has shown that he can put the good of the country ahead of his own political advancement.

Also, Connie, do your homework. Obama signed to take his own name off the ballot. In Michigan enough people know that that everytime Obama said nationally that the rules required that they knew Obama was lying again.

The DNC rules violate the principle that every citizen has the right to vote. Obama was happy to go along with denying the citizens of Michigan the right to vote as long as it gave him an edge in Iowa. That's what he and Edwards were up to.

The claim is made that Florida and Michigan agreed to these rules. What they agreed to was a schedule which New Hampshire violated. At the point Michigan went ahead scheduling their primary. New Hampshire was given a waiver: Michigan and Florida were not.

Then Obama tried to recoup his position by convincing Michigan Democrats that they should re-do for him by holding caucuses. Caucuses are a poor idea because they do not reflect how citizens vote in a general election but rather the sophistication and energy of a candidates supports. The clearest example is Texas where Clinton won a majority of the voters but Obama got the most delegates from the caucuses.

When Obama failed to get the caucuses in Michigan he and his forces blocked a re-do primary.

Obama does not care about small d democracy. That by itself is enough reason to refuse to vote for him.

I hope that when Obama goes to Iowa he explains to them why he lied about his failure to pass legislation blocking nuclear leaks.

Many of my fellow Democrats are showing the same willful suspension of disbelief that the Republicans showed about Bush.

the Democratic leadership in the state went along with it. Maybe that is who we should be mad at -- unless reality to too hard to follow.....

I think several people on this post should do THEIR homework.

Facts are facts -- read the fine print of the DNC rules.

Lastly - it was Hillary that REFUSED the last DEAL Michigan offered - not Obama.

No, your article is laughable. First and foremost, no one was to campaign in Florida, per DNC rules, and Obama did. No one else did, but Obama ran TV spots for maybe two days, against the rules. Second, Hillary's name was not the only name on the ballot, all names were on it, except Obama and Edwards, and Obama urged his supportes to vote uncommitted or undecided, or smoething like that. SO this whole article blows.

1) Even though Michigan and Florida violated the DNC rules most people expected the delegates to eventually be seated at the convention.

Additionally, Florida's change in the primaries wasn't at all due to any actions of Democrats in that state.

Nelson and the state Dem party voted to support that date:

http://jacksonville.com/apnews/stories/061107/D8PMVAUO1.shtml