Good reply. I see that lately X. Hutman & Co. are in "reunification mode" -- now that Obama's won. lol. Pretty slick.

Not changing my mind, though. Will not reward bad behavior.

-- red_gti2000

I've been mightily turned off, too, by Clinton's tactics, not just because I support Obama, but because I actually do believe that we deserve a principled and intelligent political process (now and in the future).

So I'm queasy about forgetting. Let's not ever pretend that fear- and bias-mongering are legitimate or constructive tactics.

But let's do reconcile, and resist the urge to become bitterly partisan or scream "I told you so."

Call it posturing if you like, but I think Obama was right when he said that this process isn't about him or Senator Clinton—rather it's about us, the people, and how we can make government work for (all of) us; its function is to solve real problems, not be a symbolic identity-politics prize.

Clinton planted seeds of anger and division, and Obama is trying to cultivate (oh dear this metaphor is threatening to overpower me like kudzu) a garden of unity, respect for all, and a sense of real connection between citizens and the govt. that serves them.

Which should we tend to?

So why are these Dems planning to vote GOP in the fall?

Because they believe straight-shooting John McCain is lying about what he really plans to do.

Go figure.

-- Pesky details

McCain will get more Americans killed needlessly. Is there there still a lustrous kernel of idealism somewhere in this GOP puppet? Perhaps, but it's a damned dangerous bet with little apparent upside.

Renegade Iconoclast

Spare us the dumb tooting tin horn of your divisive bombast.

-- manos99

Yes, it was satire, but very well done, and it can be tough to tell these days...

In this letter of what led to these elections not being counted.

I can understand why these states felt under-represented in the process and so decided to hold protest votes.

But I can also understand why the DNC would want final say in how the DNC operates.

It's tough.

-Do we stick with rules/procedures and not let ordinary voters (who didn't choose to break the rules) be unrepresented in the primaries?

-Or do we reward states who decide to write their own rules and muck up the process for the rest of us? What sort of precedent does this set?

This issue needs to be discussed and resolved before we even start thinking about how to count these votes.

If we do arrive at the decision to recount votes, Obviously Clinton and Obama will be seeking a process advantageous to their candidacies.

If Obama wants to argue against superdels (Up, Up, and Away!)overturning the will of the people, shouldn't he be for a re-vote?

If Clinton is into the popular vote, why is she banking on superdelegates? (Clinton's previous proposal to count results in a contest in which Obama wasn't even on the ballot gives me a lot of pause.)

Who will mediate a fair resolution? It's kind of tough now that we've almost finished the primaries, isn't it?

Why, it's almost as though someone should've thought of this before the voting started and gotten the candidates together to agree on an imperfect but working solution!

There's not even a MENTION in this letter of what ...

"Will someone please explain to me what the other option was? Honestly. What would the consequences of any candidate not agreeing to the rules have been? Exclusion from debates? Lack of party support? Does anyone know.

Until I hear otherwise, I will assume that the statement 'she agreed to the DNC rules' is pretty meaningless in terms of finding her solely at fault for the rules being such a mess and the outcome as well."

This is a good point, and I'd like to know more about how that all went down, too.

[Salon: this could be a relevant article; can Greenwald write it?]

I think the reason so many of are directing this observation at Senator Clinton is that she's the one who's now arguing for the votes to be counted.

I would say that the time to contest this issue was before the race, not once she started falling behind.

But maybe this "agreement" was a coercive necessity that she now has the political capital/insight to challenge? Well, one could make that case, I reckon...

Just trying to give food for thought and balance some of the invective.

-- Drewonimo