I don't like this but voted yes. Obama is entitled to zero delegates in Michigan and that is what he should get. It is as close to "fair" as we will see given the Obama's decisions in these states. Why would anyone listen to Howard Dean?

This is outrageous. Why should Obama get so many delegates? He took it upon himself not to put his name on the ballot.. Therefore, he should face the outcome of his decision. Hillary should get all the delegates, I repeat all the delegates. There is no need for compromise because there is no reason for it. I find it very disturbing that we are eager to talk about compromising in a situation that is very clear and simple. There is no misunderstanding or logic in this matter.

Florida is okay, but the 40% of uncommitted have to be split between Obama and Edwards.

Obama's handling of these two primaries was and is despicable and he should not be rewarded for kicking the voters of these two states.

Obama should get "NONE" He is suppose to be the one with "GOOD JUDEMENT" he made BAD ONE. No one told him nor forced him to take his name OFF. He is of sound mind and made a choice , HE MADE HIS BED.

Michigan and Florida broke the rules. All candidates agreed to not campaign in the states. Many voters did not vote because they were told their votes would not count. What about disenfranchising all of them Hillary? Hillary was quoted saying not to be concerned about Michigan because the votes meant nothing. Now that she needs them she backtracks. What a disgusting woman. A compromise was offered for Michigan favoring Clinton. She turned it down. Both state broke the rules and should be punished. Split the delegates 50/50.

Hello? All of the voters in Florida and Michigan who chose not to vote because it wouldn't count will be disenfranchised under this scenario. I'm glad that Obama is has the integrity to follow the rules and honor his pledge unlike Hillary. So, this will be over very soon and I will be dancing in the streets once President Barack Obama has won the whitehouse. It doesn't matter how Florida and Michigan are seated, the race is OVER! We all know that cheaters NEVER EVER win.

Senator HRC didn't seem to worry too much about the voters in MI and FL when she agreed that their votes would not count according to party rules. She signed away those states without so much as a second thought. She publicly stated that 'those votes don't matter'. However now she needs you, it's all spaniel eyes and crocodile tears over the poor abused electorate, deprived of their voice by the evil machinations of the establishment. The voters in those states were disenfranchised by their own political leaders, not team Obama. The rules may not be perfect but everyone knew what they were before the start. To change them now to the detriment of one party or another would be a travesty.

I'd hate to play soccer against the Clinton's, they'd kick the ball out of touch and then try to claim it as a 'home run'.

It maybe a compromise but not necessarily a fair one depending on who you support. Florida seems to be a better representation for both candidates, but it would be a stretch to say that all of the uncommitted belonged to Obama in Michigan. Overall I would say Yes, a compromise. Though anyway you dice this the ultimate benefactor of this is Obama, S.D. are going to nominate him and without Michigan and Florida in the general he stands to lose.

Why is it that it's always Hillary's fault//? She tried to get a recount and Obama said NOOOO! So therefore the votes should stand as is!!! ALSO EVERYONE KNOWS OBAMA CANNOT WIN THE GENREAL!!! SO WHY R THE OBAMA PEOPLE TRING SOOOOO HARD TO CHEAT IN THIS PRIMARY? DO U NOT WANT TO WIN BACK THE WHITE HOUSE OR NOT? I mean look at the bigger picture!!! IT"S HILLARY OR MCCAIN TAKE YOUR PICK!!! OBAMA HAS NO CHANCE!!! AFTER BITTER GATE

The last line is the best one. It says that Dean & Obama are fools! That their ideas are stupid and they have put the party in the hole. Florida Democrats are in active revolt and see almost zero chance of being able to campaign in NOV.
Obama came to Florida and got a big "oh well". Dean isn't even being talked to by the state party leaders.
Florida knows this is not something the Republicans did to the Democrats but something the DNC did to the Democrats.

Thank you shadowbee, mml127, and JBGB: hillary supporters tend to conveniently forget that Hillary was against counting those votes before she was for them, and in fact only decided they should count when she started losing.

Senator HRC didn't seem to worry too much about the voters in MI and FL when she agreed that their votes would not count according to party rules. She signed away those states without so much as a second thought. She publicly stated that 'those votes don't matter'. How many of the states has she lost that also do not matter, but I digress...

Her campaign guru, Terry M also stated in his book that only 50% of the delegates should be seated (and he helped draft the DNC rules back when he was Chairman), and he agreed to that on Meet the Press a few weeks ago.

So seat 50% at a 60/40 split for Clinton - it is a moot point at this time anyway.

When we look at opinion polls like these, keep in mind that we're discussing a Political Party aka Union where leaders of that party make the rules. These rules are not subject to supreme court actions.
States aren't forced to have democrats or republicans. People in those states choose to be part of these parties, put them on state run ballots and vote.

While people can argue for or against seating Florida and Michigan delegates. Either way it's not fair to the actual voters. The parties in those states poorly represented the people.

The primary system itself is what needs to be changed. Contact your congress and senatorial representatives and voice how you would like to see this system change. Currently they are discussing a rotating primary that would each 4 years allow a different segment of the country to hold their primaries on the same date.

The rules that were in place before the candidates started their -way too long- campaigning are what the democratic party are going to emphasize. Next they are going to look at electability using details you and I can't even imagine. They are going to weigh the benefit of the candidates to the democratic party as a whole.
Think of this as a favorability rating, did either nominee bring in actual new voters and money to the party or just opinions of swing voters who say they would vote for a candidate.
This alone is one of the reasons the democrats like the Caucus system. They can truly judge the impact either candidate has on the party. Obama leads on this by a huge margin.
Senator Clinton has the swing voices which are not a good measurement of those that actively get involved in the democratic party come November. Not good for Hillary here.

The democratic leaders don't look at the candidates the same way we might. They think about the potential of the party. Who has brought in NEW and avid supporters who donate money, time, activism and long term retention. Senator Obama is leading on these indicators.

The party leaders also have their inner power struggles. The Clinton's and the people like Tom Daschle don't see eye to eye. Clinton's use political strategies from the past. Daschle and his people see a new way of political thinking.

Fair to give Obama more votes than those who voted for him? Now that is fuzzy math. Obama chose to take his name off the Michigan ballot. Therefore, let him get a porpotion of the undecided. Hillary actually received votes so give her what the voters voted for.

Yes, we can say that Hillary agreed to not count the votes prior. This would be untrue, however. She agreed to have the primaries in the order the DNC decided. She agreed in good faith that this would be worked out. When she realized the DNC was not doing their job, she stepped up and began to advocate for counting the votes. What she agreed to was not to campaign in either state.

Now, Obama agreed to the same thing. BUT, he did campaign in Florida and Michigan by putting out ads. He also held a press conference in Tampa, campaigning for himself. Now, since he did violate the rules, he should suffer the consequences and have the votes counted as is.

NOt one voter broke any rules!! It is a right that we have fought for...the right to vote and have our votes counted!!

THE BOTTOM LINE IS, NO MATTER HOW NASTY BILLARY AND HILLARY SLICE AND DICE IT, HER POLITICAL CAREER IS OVER BECAUSE SHE HAS MADE A SPECTICLE OF HERSELF.

THE ONLY STATE THAT SHE IS WINNING AS DAVID LETTER SAID "STATE OF DILLUSION"

I MEAN REAL DILLUSION......SOMEONE GET HER THE ZOLOFT......FAST

PLEASE TELL ME THAT EVERYONE WATCHED MSMBC ON FRIDAY NIGHT.

KEITH OLBERMAN GOT OFF ON THAT NASTY BITCH.

SHE COULD NOT HAVE PUT IT BETTER, SHE HAS BEEN FORGIVEN FOR ALL LHER BULL SHIT DURNING HER LOOSING CAMPAIGN TRAIL BUT RFK........NOT.

SUPERDELAGATES GALOUR. 6/5/08 OBAMA! KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK MSNBC

CALL THE BITCH AS YOU SEE HER. RIDING DIRTY AS BILL RODE MONICA

I am a Floridian female latina Democrat who voted on Jan 29 for John Edwards, and the so called outrage of FL voters is really the outrage of Hillary supporters who are sore losers. Most Florida Democrats are not outraged. Don't be fooled by the vocal Hillary supporters.

This is what really happened in FL. BOTH Republicans and Democrats were giddy about moving the date up, acting like little children who wanted to be first in line. There was only token opposition from very few Democrats.NO WAY was this imposed by the Republicans. That is a flat out lie. There was NO massive outrage from the Democrats, but instead, a defiant attitude, that there is no way that the DNC will follow thru with not sittting the delegates. They were playing the game of chicken with the DNC. Plain and simple FL Democratic leaders broke the rules and there should be some penalty as a natural consequence.

Voters here were told that the Jan 29 primary would not count, and many did not go out to vote. I know for a fact many parents in the AA community that did not vote for this very reason.There was a property tax referendum and THIS brought out property owners in droves, especially the affluent, who wanted their property taxes down, t. Who stayed home? The poor, the renters and minorities.

To count the Jan.29 primary as is, becomes a civil rights issue and one of voter supression.To change the rules mid-stream smacks of voter supression since the poor, renters and others not interested in the referendum stayed home. I

The proposed solution is bascially giving in to a cry-baby who cannot lose gracefully, so she doesn't create havoc. As a woman myself I find Hillary an embarrassment., who has set women backwards, not forwards. I wholeheartedly supported both Clintons and now I am disgusted by their behavior.

As for MI, both Obama and Edwards removed their names because the primary was not supposed to count. The question is why did Hillary knowing it would not count leave her name on? She left it on because she wanted it both ways and was playing games.

The fair solution? Wait until everyone in the country votes and then seat all the FL and MI delegates according to the percentage both candidates received nationally. The compromise? Only count 1/2 based on the Jan29 results and seat the other half 50-50.

No Compromise!.......no freebies for Obama, Give Hillary & the other candidates what they've won & send Obama packing............what is right IS ONLY RIGHT!!! If Obama got no votes then he gets ZERO!!!!

Or by the same logic...

No Compromise!.......no freebies for Hillary, Give Hillary & the other candidates what they've won under the agreed and existing rules that all candidates signed up to before the process began & don't allow the MI and FL to be seated............what is right IS ONLY RIGHT!!! If those states were excluded then they get ZERO votes!!!!