she want's their "voices heard" and fla and mich delegates seated. the other candidates play by the rules but Billary get to change them when they want. Either desperate or getting very bad advice. I can't imagine the party leaders will like this.

And she's campaigning here now. No, I'm sorry, she's "fundraising". I guess it depends upon what the definition of "campaign" is.

She supported stripping our delegates back when the issue was actually being debated. Maybe if she'd been on our side all along she'd actually be getting our delegates.

" other candidates play by the rules"

You mean, the Democratic Party disenfranchised Michigan and Florida because their precious Iowa and New Hampshires needed to come first?

Thats disgusting.

It's even worse than that.... the Florida Legislature, which is overwhelmingly Republican, is the entity that decided the date for the primaries. After it was too late to change the date, the DNC announced their punishment.

So Florida Dems couldn't even have changed the vote if they wanted to. And Ms. Clinton had no problem with that at the time it was decided.

At least she bothered with Michigan and Florida, unlike Obama. The holier than thou is too cruel for the innocent voters.

"At least she bothered with Michigan and Florida..."

I was under the impression (and, please, correct me if I'm wrong) that none of the candidates--not Hillary, not Obama, not Edwards, not anyone else--campaigned in either Michigan or Florida. And I know that all three of the Dem. frontrunners had their names on the ballot in Mich., but Edwards and Obama did what their party leadership told them to and pulled their names off the ballot. All three have their names on the Florida ballot.

I do think it's a bit hypocritical of Clinton to (post facto) say that Michigan should have its ballots counted. If she had lost to Uncommitted 55-38 instead of the other way around, would she feel the same? Doubt it. Also, I don't think it's fair to Edwards or Obama to seat delegates from either MI or FL: had they been allowed to campaign there, the votes might have been different. Since they weren't allowed to campaign there, they shouldn't get punished for following the rules. And if those delegates could tip a brokered convention in Clinton's favor...no. If they *really* want seated delegates, there should be a redo of the primaries in each state so all candidates are allowed to campaign there.

I do think it's silly that Iowa and New Hampshire have free passes at early primaries (okay, one primary and one caucus). They're hardly "representative" states, but I also think that the DNC has the right to set the rules for their own party's primaries. I personally support either a lottery system where the states are drawn from a hat (or cage of ping-pong balls) and randomly assigned dates, or a primary system where the smallest states vote first, followed by successively larger and larger states until we end with a California/Texas/New York trifecta in May.

That having been said (and I don't know about Republican-controlled legislatures setting Democratic primary dates...sorry), I feel like the DNC had to do *something* to "punish" FL and MI for violating the rules. If they hadn't, well, then the rules don't have teeth, and what was to prevent, say, Idaho from moving their primary to December 20th?

So, the florida and michigan delegates will come out of the convention, what is the issue?