Congressman John Conyers was big in the vote uncommited movement in Michigan.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art icle?AID=/20080115/POLITICS01/801150390

Last week, Rep. John Conyers Jr., a Detroit Democrat who supports Obama, began running radio commercials imploring party members to vote uncommitted.

Point of clarification.  I am referring to the diary written by DHinMI cited in THIS diary in my comment above.

If not mysogynistic, it is at least degrading.  

L'est we all forget that while Bill did humiliate Hillary in a very public way, they are still together.  Couples who have an affair happen all the time in this world, and yes, sometimes, the cheated on actually forgives the other person.  I believe the Clintons are in love, and that should make Hillary above degradation.

I think he's suggesting that the affair might have made her bitter and more willing to be negative (I don't think she deserves that excuse, because she chose to stay with the wretch).

typical bitter woman.

There is no reason for this type of diary.  It's pretty bad.

As long as it is based on the results of an election then fine.

Any sort of bizarre 50/50 split is totally unacceptable.

We shall see how it plays out.

But THIS election has some issues in play and some people are not going to be happy because the Party has ridiculous rules contrary to Democratic Principles.

Because of the rules, there is going to be a huge chunk of people unhappy with whichever outcome plays out with MI & FL.

I'm not calling for any kind of retroactive changing of the rules.  Just saying that 35 million people in two major states need to be involved with the decision, one way or the other.

Who wants to be a delegate who was not elected?  One who was just chosen based on some "fair" compromise?

Your point is well taken.

Sometimes you do go with the flow though when it seems like it doesn't matter.  (No, I'm not talking about Hillary inevitability.  I referring to the fact that nominations are usually won handily by the ultimate nominee)

But the answer to your direct question is:  I don't know.  Honestly, no candidate should have agreed to boycott MI and FL.    

IMHO.

The closeness of the election is just showing what an unreasonable and unnecessary sanction they imposed.

Why do you think the DNC has even bothered trying to come up with a solution at all.

If they really felt their decision was a sound one they wouldn't even be talking about it.

I, personally, am "COMPLAINING" because I feel that my own vote was rendered useless.

There hasn't been a nomination battle this heated in a long time (if ever).  The DNC did not fully think out the consequences of these kind of actions against states because they figured that, like most years, the nominee would be the overwhelming, consensus choice and MI and FL wouldn't matter.

Well the battle is tight, and MI and FL MUST have their voices heard.  The sanctions imposed are absolutely unacceptable, and I bet they will never be employed again without a lot of thought.

I agree.  The States Governments in Michigan and Florida held an election for its citizens.

It was a fair election.  In Florida all candidates were on the ballot and in Michigan all candidates qualified to be on the ballot.  Some candidates decided they didn't want the votes of Michiganians, and withdrew from our ballot.  That's their ass.

When it was all fun and games at the beginning and the Party had not had to actually utilize all of these arcane nominating rules in many years it seemed acceptable to "punish" two states for holding their elections early.

Now that it does matter, we need to work that much harder to make sure that nobody is left out.  If it didn't matter it wouldn't even be a topic of conversation right now.

MI/FL were protesting the DNC and their smug favoritism towards Iowa and New Hampshire year after year.  

After this election some serious changes are going to have to be made, and simpler rules where everyone votes and the winner wins, is what I'm hoping for.

You can read into my comments how ever you like, but I certainly do not imply that this decision was made after the elections.

Glad to see other people find this diary, snarkish as it is intended to be, to be completely ignorant.

We're talking about a pretty big decision people have to make here ladies and gentlemen.  George Bush is going to be gone soon and we need to move the U.S. quickly beyond this horrible presidency.

Laughing about people who paid for an election with their tax dollars, participated in that election, and were told BY A POLITICAL PARTY that they, and all of their fellow statesmen's, votes will not count.  

Yuck.

I posted a similar comment above before I read all of the comments.

I couldn't agree more!

Wow, making light of 35 million people - probably half of which are Democrats - being rendered impotent while electing the President who will succeed the worst President in the history of the country.

Seems like we should be concentrating on getting as many people to vote as possible.  

I didn't realize the Michigan/Florida situation was a funny one. It's bad enough that there is enough political calculus being played to make one sick to their stomach.

Not quite.