Leveling the most sensible argument at the absurd DNC Rules meeting, one of the most ridiculous displays of political nonsense ever, Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, who is neutral, made an impassioned and eloquent argument for his state...

Levin angrily pointed out the absurdity of two small states, Iowa and New Hampshire, who are not by any means representative of the proportions of minorities in the rest of the nation, has achieved some kind of preferred status they do not justly deserve...it is time to end the primacy of these two minor states in the beginning of primary season.

"it is time to end the primacy of these two minor states in the beginning of primary season."

NH and Iowa are poor poster children for the nation as a whole. But what state would be a perfect representation? A national primary is the way to go.

However, if there was _any_ indication that the rules commitee were going to do anything other than honor their ruling that both states be stripped of all their delegates no candidate would have agreed to not campaign in those states.

The Florida and Michigan primaries were nonbinding. It is ridiculous that the same committee that made those contests nonbinding is the same one where the Clinton supporting members are now insisting that they be made binding.

Look at the situation: a 30 person group that had 13 _declared_ Clinton supporters took the unprecedented step of stripping two states of all their delegates, asking that all candidates pledge not to participate in the primaries of those two states. Predictably, the two unsanctioned, nonbinding contests favored the candidate that had the highest name recognition. Five months later that same group has Clinton supporters insisting that the results of those illegitimate contests be honored, creating a chimera position that the rules of primary timings should not be honored but that the rules regarding the status of undecided votes be honored.

In my old hometown of Chicago we would say the fix was in.

All the pissing and moaning and booing amounts to blowing smoke up the asses of the rules committee. Anyone with a third grade education or higher knows this is just bullshit.

The question isn't the primacy of Iowa or New Hampshire, that's irrevelant right now. The question is whether to honor the delegates. Any moron, again, knows that the elections in these states were bogus and illegitimate. The DNC owes nothing to these states. All the candidates agreed, and everyone knew the sanctions months ago. If I were the committee chair I would tell Clinton to shove it and stop her fucking whining (and then I would have to resign but I would feel better for having said in plain language).

Levin angrily pointed out the absurdity of two small states, Iowa and New Hampshire, who are not by any means representative of the proportions of minorities in the rest of the nation ...

I'm going to assume that Levin isn't an idiot, which means that he's instead merely being disingenuous.

Nobody thinks that Iowa and Vermont are representative of the nation. That's not the reason they're at the front of the primary schedule. Who ever said it was? Seriously, find me one credible political leader who has put forward the view that Vermont and Iowa are somehow representative of the nation as a whole.

Iowa and Vermont have the status they have because they're relatively small states which are geographically disparate and (for various reasons) traditionally involve a lot of stump campaigning. If they represent anything, they represent the commitment of the national parties to small states in general, to permit them a center stage position that is (yes) disproportionate to their numerical influence. Otherwise the primaries would be "decided" by California every election.

In point of fact they aren't really decided by any one state early in the primaries (as the 2008 Democratic campaign should have demonstrated if anyone needed a reminder). Everyone says they are but there's no actual evidence that early success "locks in" a particular candidate. Rather, the early primaries are diagnostic — and if anything they stretch the contest out by permitting some breathing room to small-time candidates who might have a lot going for them but need some ramp-up time and field experience in a few relatively small campaign environments before they can hit full speed.

Basically, if you can't cut it in Vermont and Iowa, you can't cut it at all. And if you're coming in shaky but have a lot of potential and just need some warm-up time (as Obama did this year), the early small-state primaries are vitally important.

But most of all, right or wrong, the parties arranged this schedule for whatever their reasons, and they have a procedure for changing it if their membership wishes. Michigan and Florida staged wildcat schedule strikes instead, and are now complaining that the Democratic party (at least) had the backbone to slap their hands.

Personally, I say a vote split is a great idea but do it this way: state party superdelegates like Levin get 0 votes. Everyone else gets full votes. That may not come out exactly 50-50, but it's just dessert.

The DNC must abolish the current undemocratic system. The only way to choose a presidential nominee is to have all states vote on the same day, tally up all the votes, and the candidate with the plurality of votes becomes the nominee. The same system should apply to the general, but that would entail a constitutional amendment. The DNC could do it right now for the Democratic primaries.

when I hear Clinton's campaign arguing "we believe that Mr. Obama knew he wasn't going to win in Michigan, and that's why he took his name off the ballot..." It makes me wonder, will anyone ever react with SANITY to the Clintons?

People either react with overly harsh anger, or they ride along on these seriously flawed logical wavelengths. I wish someone could just say, " you know that's a dumb argument. If I followed that argument I'd believe that Clinton left her name on so that she could later take votes in a primary that she said at the time wouldn't count....so motivations aren't really an argument. Let's stick with the issues. And if we're counting every vote, how do we count those who voted AGAINST Clinton and for uncommitted? We can't willey-nilley assign these delegates, so let's logically let them vote for any of the candidates whose names were left off of the ballot, because the voters clearly meant their vote to be for a political candidate who was NOT Hillary Clinton...since they had an opportunity to vote for her and chose not to, their vote against Hillary Clinton should be counted too..."

Oh, lawyerese....trying to go down those roads are exhausting for us amateurs.