You can't change the rules AFTER the game

[ButterflyBlood]

Which is exactly what seating the delegates from FL and MI would be doing. Imagine an exhibition game held before the regular season. As a result, one team's best players opt to sit it out for various reasons or to prepare for the main season. That team loses the game. Then after the game is held, the league decides it was a real game and will include it in the record anyway. Is that fair?

Of course not. Neither would be ex post facto declaring the FL and MI elections valid. In one state Obama wasn't even on the ballot, with many of his supporters (and probably Clinton's as well) figuring to vote in the GOP side instead to influence their primary as there'd be no point in their side. Florida was one of the few states where GOP turnout in the primary beat Dem turnout. Why? Many Dems didn't think it was worth the time to vote in a meaningless election. Now declaring that a valid election is unfair to all those who sat out.

Furthermore there was no campaign. Voters were not exposed to the info most voters do before making a choice. The fact is clear: The elections held in FL and MI were not fair or valid. If they want delegates, then they can hold new ones, which would be held under fair circumstances. If they aren't willing to do this, then they go without delegate selections. But there is nothing fair about about legitimizing the results of an unfair election.

[TexasObserver]

1. Great analogy and dead on right. It's like she won a Monopoly game & wants to get real $ and realty

[lligrd]

2. That Is How I Always Played The Game

Rules up front and no changing them during the game even if they do suck.

[John Q. Citizen]

3. They won't be seated so as to effect the race. Dean, Pelosi, and the DNC are all clear about that.

They are speaking with one voice.

[frogcycle]

6. which makes the whole thing pointless

[NMMatt]

4. The only way Clinton would have any credibility on this

Is if she had resisted the penalties when they were put in place. She not only didn't resist, but agreed to the penalties, because like everyone at the time, she was more concerned about voters in Iowa and New Hampshire than Michigan and Florida. It was Iowa and New Hampshire who were demanding the strict penalties.

The more I think about it, the more I think it is just a matter of spin. First of all it makes her more of a viable candidate that we are even talking about it. It puts some doubt on Obama's delegate lead. Secondly, the average voter has no clue about the penalties, why they were assessed, the fact that Clinton actually supported the penalties, and on the face of it, it may sound like she is standing up for voter rights. The Clinton campaign likely knows it will not be able to use them to win the nomination, but they feel they are winning PR points by making an issue out of it.

Remember, these are the people that turned, what was it, a 3rd or 2nd place finish in New Hampshire into a "win" for Bill Clinton. It was that PR coupe that kept him viable until a later date.

[grantcart]

5. They will end up giving each delegation half. Problem solved

[Yossariant]

7. Which is what they should have done all along. This mess has given the GOP a big

advantage, making the Democrats look like incompetent bunglers.

Then, if they resolve it this way which I agree they should do, we are following the lead of the GOP.

This is not going away in the general election.

Mess.

[johnnydrama]

8. or my analogy

Flip coin

coin lands tails

Hillary: "Tails"