If Obama and his DNC pals hadn't told me to sit down, shut up, and play happy while they stole half my vote, I might still be listening. But I'm simply not that amenable to being told to act like I like it while I'm being disenfranchised. Until the Party stands for counting all votes, I don't think it's morally healthy to stand with the Party. Masochism has limits as a community organizing tool.

Both parties halved the votes in Florida and Michigan.

At least the Democrats have the decency of awarding delegates on a proportional basis. Of course if the Republicans adopted that method, we might be looking at Mitt Romney as their nominee, and I'm not sure how I feel about that.

Let's just say I'm more comfortable with McCain as a "worst case" scenario.

Obama didn't "steal" anybodies vote in Florida or Michigan. They did it to themselves knowing the consequences. Since they used to come later in the nomination process the states democrat party decided to make a statement of throwing their votes ahead of everyone else. They though that since their counts wouldn't matter they wouldn't mind throwing them away. This was politics at a state level where the Florida and Michigan shot themselves in the foot. The DNC said "we can't and won't count your votes if you jump in line" and florida and michigan said "So what?" I'm sure if they had known their votes would matter so much they wouldn't have acted that way.

The way to avoid it would have been to have gotten more involved in your states political party and had a voice on throwing your votes out or not. Now my mother wass active in the Michigan Democratic party and she had to step down from her position this winter because she disagreed with the Michigan political leadership on disobeying the national party.

It isn't Obama's fault and it isn't the DNCs fault. They tried to compromise as best they can but if they don't enforce the rules than it is unfair to every other state who played by them. I'm also sure that if Hillary had been ahead and Obama behind I bet that Hillary would have pushed for them to not count and Obama would have been more supportive of a revote.

The people ie voters had to vote when the state set it up for them to vote. They had no control over that. Has anyone answered the question of why O'Bama & Edwards removed their name from the Michigan ballot & not Florida's? It was of course to make themselves favorable to the Iowa voters. They did not think they had much chance to win in Michigan & so no skin off their back. So how fair was it to give O'Bama credit for votes he did not earn & on top of that 4 of Hillary's earned delegates??? This was a rigged vote count against Hillary & we all know that.

Florida election law would not allow Obama or Edwards to remove their name.

"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process," Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle said. "And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role."

Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Dodd, Richardson and Biden all signed a pledge to the effect that the MI and FL contests wouldn't count.

In the end, Clinton changed her mind and went back on her pledge. The DNC tried to find some way to accomodate her wishes. But Michigan had a very low turnout compared to every other state. It is difficult to work out what the contest would have looked like. Obviously a lot of Obama voters did not get to vote for their candidate. The Rules and Bylaws was trying to work out what the contest would have looked like if it had been run normally, based on available data.

It wasn't Obama's choice that things worked out this way. First off it was the DNC's choice to try and keep control of the primary process. Otherwise where does it end? Then you can't complain if all the states keep trying to jump the gun, and it becomes a game of chicken as to how far back the start of the primary season goes. After a very early start, you would get a rush of states all bunched up together. Whoever was the best known candidate would always win. The media coverage would be limited to one or two weeks, and then you'd have a year or more of getting bored with the candidate, picking holes in them, and all the rest of it. There has to be some form of central control over when the primaries are held. Otherwise it's just anarchy.

Obama and the others removed their names to make the pledge more binding. Yes, it was aimed at supporting the primacy of the first four states. But they all pledged to that. If Clinton didn't agree with it she shouldn't have signed the pledge.

Not counting the two states was a net positive for Obama, but he didn't create the situation. It was lucky for him. In the end, though, it didn't change who got the majority of pledged delegats, which was what determined the nomination (because the superdelegates didn't feel it was right to overturn the pledged delegate count). I think even if you took the contests as they stood, with no delegates for Obama in Michigan (which would be crazy) he still won on pledged delegates overall.

This was a tough situation, but in the end it wasn't Obama's fault. People have a duty to make an informed vote. If they support McCain over Obama on the issues, then of course they should vote for McCain. But the DNC will never let states choose themselves to start the primary season in July or whatever, no matter what message you try to send to them by voting for McCain. They are never going to give up centralized control over the primary calendar, and that's why it panned out as it did. That's why the six candidates signed a pledge supporting the DNC back in October.

To Schooloflife: The electoral law of Florida actually prohibited anyone from removing their names from the ballot and that is why neither Edwards nor Obama (nor any other candidate) did so.

To the original poster: It's already been said here, but Obama did not 'steal' your vote. Both Florida and Michigan violated the Democratic Party's rules with full knowledge of what the consequences would be. If there are to be no consequences for breaking rules, then what is the point of having rules in the first place? These states did not have to move their primaries up before Super Tuesday, they were told they wouldn't have their votes count if they did so yet they went ahead and did it anyway.

What makes this even more troubling for your argument is that Hillary Clinton didn't have a problem with this when it first happened. Indeed, she apparently agreed with the decision to strip both states of their votes. After all, she openly supported the decision and chose to not campaign in either state. Even more damning is the fact that the Rules and Bylaws Committee, the very committee which stripped the two states of their votes, consisted of 13 Clinton supporters, including Harold Ickes who would later be one of the most vocal critics of the decision after it became apparent Clinton needed Michigan and Florida to have any chance of winning!!! Clinton's supporters made up almost a majority of the committee which stripped Florida and Michigan's votes and she did nothing to persuade them to act otherwise. She openly supported having the two state's votes NOT count and went along with the agreement to not campaign in either. Only once it became apparent that she had no chance of winning the nomination without them did she suddenly flip flop and start calling to have their vote reinstated, despite the fact that they had openly defied the rules of the party! I would love to see how you defend this.

Even more problematic is the fact that Obama allowed the states to have their votes reinstated, albeit with each only counting half. Obama had enough supporters on the Rules and Bylaws Committee when it met on May 31st to force it to vote to NOT count either state AT ALL, but he still allowed them to go ahead and give them a partial vote.

All of this doesn't matter much anyway; even if both states were to be seated with full voting rights, instead of half votes, Obama would STILL have enough votes to secure the nomination.

I do believe that the original decision (a decsion made with support of Clinton and her supporters and, to be fair, as well as with support from Obama) to strip the two states of their votes was too harsh. The DNC should have seen the problems this would cause and should have done what the Republicans did and give each state half a vote in the first place. But the fact is that all campaigns agreed when the decision was made and the states were aware of what the consequences would be for moving their primaries. It is unfair, therefore, to blame Obama.

All this is in the past, anyway. If you really, honestly did support Clinton then that implies you support her positions on the issues. If you care about the issues Hillary Clinton cares about then you would stand behind the Democratic Party and support Obama, who agrees with Clinton on virtually every issue. McCain stands for everything that Clinton is fighting AGAINST, Obama stands for almost everything that Clinton stands for.

Tina Trent:

If Obama and his DNC pals hadn't told me to sit down, shut up, and play happy while they stole half my vote, I might still be listening. But I'm simply not that amenable to being told to act like I like it while I'm being disenfranchised. Until the Party stands for counting all votes, I don't think it's morally healthy to stand with the Party. Masochism has limits as a community organizing tool.

I hate to rain on your parade by the rules as applied to Michigan and Florida were understood and agreed to by everybody, including her Majesty, prior to the beginning of the primary. It was only after her Majesty was no longer "inevitable" that she wanted to move the goalposts midstream, to mix metaphors. To throw in another metaphor, votes "not being counted" was simply grasping at straws by a drowning campaign.

If you have a beef, take it up with the party organization in your state.

Or should we simply crown Hillary the nominee as we were supposed to and end this silly charade?

This is turning into another "Iraq attacked us on 9/11, so we need to go to war!" situation.

Not to pile on, but I just want to second all the posters who have pointed out that the only entities that stole anyone's vote in Michigan and Florida were those state's Democratic parties, who moved their primaries forward in violation of party rules. All candidates were aware that the delegates from those states would not be allowed to vote at the convention going in, including Clinton and Obama. In fact, Clinton agreed with the DNC's decision early in the primary season; it was only after she started losing that she started talking about stolen votes, etc. I won't rehash what previous posters have said, except to say that they are correct.

I'm going to add to the pile-on, and say that this argument of the "DNC not counting votes" is completely pathetic and childish. I cannot believe that it's being made by supposed adults.

Here's a link to accurate information regarding the delegates and the agreement of all the candidates to strip the delegates from both states.

<link>