Having signed a pledge not to campaign in their states, or to seat delegates from MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA, the deviousness of HILLARY CLINTON sneaks out AFTER THE RACE IS RUN.

She celebrates her Florida "victory" and announces she will work to seat the very delegates she pledged not to seat. Are these kind of tactics what we want from a President??

Robert Dorff

St. Petersburg Times january 16th

Barack Obama doesn't care what Florida Democrats say on Jan. 29.

In a memo released Tuesday, he reiterated his long-standing view that their primary votes will be worthless. And he vaguely charged that Hillary Rodham Clinton may violate her pledge not to campaign in Florida by holding events here later this month.

"We signed a pledge not to campaign in Florida before Feb. 5, and we're not going to campaign in Florida," Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee said. "But it is disappointing that the Obama campaign continues to tell people that their voices don't count, that they continue to disenfranchise people. Hillary Clinton wants to be president of all 50 states."

The Illinois senator's memo stressed that the Democratic primaries in Michigan and Florida are meaningless because the states defied national party rules forbidding all but a handful of states from holding primary elections earlier than Feb. 5.

Not only did Obama fundraise in Tampa and St. Petersburg (at least) after signing the pledge, but he purposely ran TV ads that ran all over FL.

Pledge? What pledge? But all we every hear about is Clinton's fundraiser and her visit to thank supporters AFTER THE POLLS CLOSED on 1/29.

I didn't vote for either one of them, but fair is fair here, Prince Obama and his crew are liars and sneaks just like everyone else.

If the situation were reversed and Obama had won the popular Democratic vote in Florida, you can bet Tweety and Olbermann and all the jocks on MSM wouldn't be snickering about a meaningless beauty contest. I don't care one whit about the "snub" at the SOTU address, but I do care that Obama seems to be rather thin-skinned and sensitive about criticism. He seemed the same way even when Edwards challenged him at the last debate. How is he going to fare when McCain and the Republican hate machine really get going after the primaries? Remember what McCain said about Chelsea Clinton (when she was a teenager)?

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno." This revealed not just McCain's mean and ugly streak, but his homophobia and downright sexism. The MSM, of course, downplayed this remark at that time, and even censored itself so that few knew what was actually said. Salon was one of the few outlets with the honesty to report this in full.

You're also just wrong. The DNC has the legal right, I suppose, to nullify a primary if they don't like when the state plans to hold it, but it really doesn't seem very fair to toss out one of the most populous state's votes, especially when they voted so unequivocally for one of the candidates. To imply that there's something dishonest in Hillary's campaign trumpeting this as a win is just silly. Yes, it may ultimately make no difference in the convention, but it's still an expression of strong support by one of the biggest states in the country and one traditionally very reflective of national sentiment at large, so in that sense it's still very meaningful - much more so than Barack's win in South Carolina, a state that (a) doesn't have many delegates, and (b) voted for him along racial lines, and therefore, can't be said to be very predictive of what's going to happen in future contests, given that most states' Democratic primary electorates aren't so overwhelmingly black.

I fell like the media and the DNC leadership are determined to push through Obama.

In both states Clinton's connections seemed to get her story to the bulk of voters, even though the voters might not have gotten the whole story.

ie in Nevada: people noticed Hillary complaining about Obama'as campaign that said "Hillary is against our people" in a Spanish language ad. The story voters did not come away with was: Clinton supported a lawsuit which would have disenfranchised some of the Latino voters, when their union did not endorse her. The union ran the ad--it was not Obama's ad, and when she asked him to renounce it, he asked her to renounce the lawsuit which she did not.

So Clinton was able to play hardball and to look like a victim to "Obama's" smear campaign.

In Florida: the Democratic National Party stripped Florida of its delegates over a tassle over the Democratic primary date. Obama had nothing to do with it. But because Clinton won the popular vote she is of course championing Florida's "right" to be heard--while Obama is crushing the Florida electorate's voice. In reality--the decision of the Democratic Party will or should have nothing to do with Obama or with Clinton. It is the party's decision.

Bottom line: Floridians feel Clinton has been their champion while Obama is a sore loser. Even though the facts speak otherwise.

Is it just me or have the Clintons' campaigning techniques gotten worse and more obvious over the years?

Still--they are currently ahead in the polls (by a sliver) so I guess their supporters feel that the ends justify the means.

Even so....

Bottom line: Floridians feel Clinton has been their champion while Obama is a sore loser. Even though the facts speak otherwise.

What give you the right to decide how Floridians feel? You're 100% wrong. We saw the hypocrisy in Obama's blatant flouting of the pledge to avoid campaigning in FL. He made public appearances in FL then gave the coy answer that he didn't know he wasn't supposed to. He ran national ads WELL in advance of Super Tuesday that he knew would run in FL on the pretext that it was a "national buy".

He and the press kneeling at his altar made hay over Clinton's visit to Sarasota while conveniently forgetting his visit to Tampa and the above disengenuous response when challenged by the St. Petersburg Times.

Floridians (make that Floridian Democrats voting in a closed primary) Feel that Obama is a thin-skinned hypocrite and we turned out in huge numbers to support our candidate of choice. If he's turning out to be a sore loser, then what we don't feel is surprised.

I, personally, voted for John Edwards. Clinton is/was not my first choice, but after his petty and bullying behavior, Obama wasn't even in my top three.