Thank you for once again not responding AT ALL to the substance or argument of the diary.

It's quite obvious by now you're capable of nothign else but repeating Clinton camapign slogans and catch phrases. I wonder if you can even string together a coherent thought or argument w/out being fed the talking points first by hillaryis44 or No Quarter.

Again, I reply with the same example I've always used when people refuse to do anything other than repeat talking points.

I now officially and formally cast my vote fro Sen. Obama for President. To refuse to count this is to disenfranchise myself and all others who chose to vote with me. Voice of the people, etc etc.

Now explain to me how this is fundamentally different from what Florida and Michigan have done. Is it the number of people who chose to make their own rules? Do I need a formal title to make up my own election, regardless of it's relevance to actually making that decision?

Or are there social and legal criteria to what does and does not constitute a valid vote?

I understand the emotions involved, but mindlessly repeating a point and calling everyone who disagrees a mean name isn't actually hekping anyone.

Here is another TOXIC link to help the improve the mood of the Hillary whiners.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWQo0bktu AI

See I referenced TOXIC in my reply. So I must be addressing the substance of the diary like KnowVox is with his use of the word "hillary".

One candidate on the ballot isn't a "vote." It's not Democratic or democratic.

Clinton was supposed to take her name off that Michigan ballot, just like the others did.

She signed a pledge not to participate in that bogus "vote."

Some people have a peculiar (and highly selective) idea of democracy when their preferred candidate has only one last straw to grasp at.

Can you?

I'm all in favor of ending the IA/NH monopoly.  I've signed petitions and written e-mails to that effect.

But the fact of the matter is that the DNC sets the rules.  It's as simple as that.

Do you really and honestly care about things like closing primaries or changing/eliminating caucuses?

I'm not personally in favor of that - but I assume you are?

Because you cannot have it both ways... you can't - on one hand let individual states run amok, breaking DNC rules and jumping the schedule, while on the other hand -- wanting to universally prescribe at a national level how each state goes about playing its role in the nominating process.

It's just not logically possible to say otherwise.

What's more - if you DO want to end the IA/NH monopoly - the answer is most assuredly NOT to reward FL and MI for their jumping in line... otherwise - NH and IA will simply forever follow suit, and eventually -- we'll nominating toddlers for races 40 years before the actual election.

I'm fine with seating MI and FL at 50%.

But there has to be a penalty.

Is at least not a lonely one.

Josh has always been a straight shooter. Especially if you read him on matters other than this here primary

I know... this cracked me up!

Coming from Marshall -- remaining evenhanded about the Democratic candidates --

ROTFLMAO!

Your reply is as baseless as my posting of this link as a reply to your comment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFY5gBgbx SU

Only difference is my link is more entertaining.

josh is pretty objective. also greg sargent over at tpm is as pro-clinton as they come

so now he's on the enemies list too?

Josh has been a defender of both Clintons for decades and was on the sidelines long into this primary season.  

But, it got to the point where he couldn't just sit back without commenting on the disgusting tactics used by Clinton's campaign this season.

It stuns me that people can listen to her speech yesterday with anything but outrage; outrage towards her for making absurd characterizations that do nothing but ramp up anger and division.  She was completely shameless.

care to expand on this?  i find him to be probably the most informative blogger out there.

Do you have any links to demonstrate his bias?

That's a good point, and maybe the only valid part of the whole argument.  That is, it was never right to strip MI and FL of their delegates and just because Clinton is late picking up on this issue, it still is a "better late than never" situation.  OK, I can see the logic in that.  But that doesn't really change the cynical nature of this gambit and it doesn't put to rest any doubts some people may have about a "win at all costs" approach to the nomination.  Also, what's to say she's not going to change her position again if it suits her?  Universal healthcare?  Ending the war in Iraq?  Gas-tax holiday?  Is she serious about these issues or is she pandering to get the nomination?

for why she left her name on the ballot.  It has nothing to do with seating the delegates.  Marshall isn't the one doing the distorting here.

But she implies she accepted what the party did in not counting the election. She clearly says she left her nameon the ballot for PR purposes against the republicans. Her own guy Harold Ickes was on the damn committee.

Maybe he didn't expect the level of rhetoric Hillary is using now? The way she is inflamming people in those states, she is costing the Democrats more votes.

If Nader is persona non grata for doing his own thing outside the party , why would you respect Hillary for destroying the party from within? She had plenty of time to fight back on this issue and i concede that it is ridiculous that it has come to this. But blame is to be spread all around including the local MI party.