That's really an offensively tendentious brief on behalf of the Clinton campaign. Obama and Edwards weren't "stripping the ... Michigan primary of its legitimacy" by staying off the ballot -- the primary had no legitimacy in the first place. They were honoring the pledge, which Hillary Clinton had also signed, not to participate.

Clinton is fundamentally dishonest and dishonorable in this matter as anyone with common sense can see. Shame on you.

There is no pledge; there was a push, by the Iowa Democratic party, to have th candidates refuse to legitimize Michigan, because it would hurt Iowa's (and New Hampshire's) traditional role as going first. Look, we're in a mess here because of a lot of factors; rather than continually looking for someone to blame (because frankly, the party itself desevres a considerable amount of it, not the campaigns), we have to figure out a solution. And leaving two of the most populous, and contentious, states out of our decision making strikes me as foolish and absurdly short sighted. That's the problem. Now the question - still - is what we do to solve it.

"There is no pledge; there was a push, by the Iowa Democratic party, to have th candidates refuse to legitimize Michigan"

And one that Clinton appeared, at least, to also agree to.

What kind of precedent will ignoring the mutually agreed-upon rules set? How many states in future primaries will recognize that the DNC rules can be flouted?

I hope a bunch! the rules suck!

I agree that the rules suck. There's lots of great ideas out there for future primaries that are way better than what we've got now. But there is no way to change the rules now that doesn't disadvantage one of the candidates or make the voters of Michigan feel like they didn't get to have their say.

Or better yet:

What she said.

The rules and consequences were set, Michigan's and Florida's dem parties knowingly violated them, now they complain about the consequences, and they get a sympathetic hearing from Dems in general and the media who blame everyone but the people responsible. sadly, this is an an object lesson about why you don't want dems running things.

Edwards and Obama being off the ballot had no effect on the legitimacy of the vote. If they had stayed on, Hillary would be using the same arguments in MI that she is in FL.

Your comment is very, very misleading, and quite frankly I am surprised at you and at TAP. You should fix it.

"First, they claim many Obama voters were siphoned off into the Republican electorate on Jan. 15 because their guy wasn't on the Democratic ballot."

Too f-ing bad! If the person is a Democrat, they should vote for a Dem in the primary, I'm sure there was a place to write-in names.

Excuse me: Hillary Rodham Clinton signed a written pledge not to participate in the Michigan primary. Personally. With her own hand. Holding a pen.

Define "participate."

See? I'm sorry, Michigan and Florida. There's ways to go about creating change in the primary calendar and there's ways to go about creating chaos. Your votes were pawns and they've already been swept off the board. To put them back now, wholly intact, would be unfair to the voters of other states who weren't used so carelessly.

Dana, the statement that Edwards and Obama pulled their names of the ballot because they knew Clinton was going to win is patently absurd.It makes sense only if you buy the argument that only popular votes count and not delegates, which is equally ludicrous.

They took their names off because they signed a pledge, along with Clinton, not to "campaign or participate" in both FL and MI.

It seems straightforward to me that keeping your name on the ballot when there is no penalty for taking it off is de facto "participating" in the primary.

Clinton knew all along, even when she was telling voters in IA and NH that MI and FL were meaningless, that she wanted to use MI and FL later to bolster her chances.

Her arriving in FL the day before the primary and announcing that she would be holding a rally after the polls closed was directly motivated to get her supporters to vote.

At least try to be somewhat honest in your writing.

Also, please note that Obama has always said that if the DNC allowed do-overs in FL and MI he would be willing to honor the DNC's decision. Expressing concerns about how a primary would be run is different from opposing it altogether.

Only in the past couple days has Clinton show any desire to push for a re-vote. As recently as last week both Wolfson and Penn said they did not want a revote, that they would only settle for the delegations to be seated based upon the original results.

Perhaps if she had pushed earlier for a re-vote something might have been accomplished.

The only pledges signed were between the candidates and the state party chairs in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. More to the point, they were not binding on the DNC, which is the only organization that has authority over seating delegates. Thus, these pledges are not controlling over the seating of Florida and Michigan delegates.

And I reiterate, climbing into the weeds of who knew what when and who signed what pledge ignores a broader point - are we prepared to make a decision about the Democratic nominee while refusing to include the input of two major states? Are you prepared for what that will say to people in those states and the kind of opportunities it will open up for the GOP? There's plenty of blame to go around here, in a deeply flawed process that forced candidates into blackmailing arrangements with the Chairs of the state parties in places that should not, debatedly, have the kind of power they do over this process. But this blame game is getting us nowhere nearer a solution. That's what we need, and it seems to me we need a solution, a workable solution, that seats some delegation from both of these states. The alternative, which will satisfy, truly, only the most rigid process-oriented partisans, seems like a disaster. And I say that not as someone who prefes Clinton (though I am), but because I'm far more concerned about the implications of calling a 48 state selected nominee the right way to make this choice, in a close and contentious year, with so much at stake. Focus, people. Focus.

If Senator Clinton cannot win the Democratic nomination except by playing Calvinball, what makes anyone think that the nomination, under those circumstances, is worth having?

are we prepared to make a decision about the Democratic nominee while refusing to include the input of two major states?

Better than making a decision based only on the input of two minor states (c.f. 2004).

Weboy, I agree that the optics are rough, which is why NOT changing the rules is the last best defense against GOP attacks.

Any other compromise at attempted seating is going to smell funny to one group or another, and then the charges of nominee legitimacy get much harder to defend.

Unless! Someone comes up with a solution that makes everyone feel like somewhat of a winner. I just don't think that's possible.

Having an Iowa styled caucus would avoid a lot of the problems that a state run primary would have; but, of course the Clinton camp would veto it.

Too f-ing bad! If the person is a Democrat, they should vote for a Dem in the primary, I'm sure there was a place to write-in names.

Actually, there wasn't, which is why Clinton lost in several districts to "Uncommitted."

you're wrong about Michigan - its demographics being so similar to Wisconsin make it a likely win for Obama on the whole. Edwards and Obama removed their names from the ballots because they agreed to do so, along with Clinton, when then curiously 'forgot' to do so. she then gave a radio interview defending her flip-flop on the issue in which she said it was "clear" that the "results aren't going to count". why do people feel the need to make her duplicitous case for her? anyone else who engaged in these tactics would be murdered in the press. but silence for Hillary, and even, as we see here, just silly manufactured info.

The Obama campaign's short-sighted strategy amounts to dragging their heels on MI and FL, then running out the clock.

If he is the nominee, how does he propose to win without MI, FL, OH, and PA?

Obama and Edwards were not required to remove their names from the MI ballot. They did so to curry favor in IA which they both felt they needed to win and delegitimize a probable Clinton win.

Why do Obama supporters refuse to concede that during a political campaign, politicians make political decisions? In this case, it appears to have worked out quite well for Obama, especially with Conyers' active Obama=uncommitted campaigning.

What kind of dummies are running the state parties in FL and MI? For that matter, why haven't the geniuses on the national level figured out how to stop the damage by now? There's lots of bad buzz on this with the party looking bad in the national media and alienating lots of Democratic voters in those 2 big states. It's the Democrats' circular firing squad all over again. Is the white house supposed to be republican forever or what? Somebody better wake up and smell the coffee or whatever and just settle this business once and for all.

I've been an Obama supporter from the beginning. I, like a great many others didn't vote in January because my vote didn't count and the primary wasn't sanctioned. By the Clinton sponsored new rules, I wouldn't be allowed to vote even though by MI law, I am elegible. WHAT A CROCK!! She rants about us poor Michiganders, but she means she wants to limit who she allows to have the right to vote. As for the writer who said we should have done write ins--There is a place on MI ballots for write ins, but if you write in a name, your ballot is thrown out. Cute huh? Go home Mrs. Clinton. I'm tired of you trying to use us and take advantage. If your supporters had wanted a revote under our regular MI laws, maybe, as long as poor, broke MI didn't have to pay for it. But even in this you tried once again to cheat and tilt the table. Go take advantage of someone else's misfortune. There was a pledge signed by all parties including Mrs. Clinton. I read it. It promises not to "campaign" or "participate" and the promise is given on the person's "HONOR". Guess whose honor apparently situational? Go home.