Great diary.  Virtual rec.

I support Senator Clinton going to the convention, which is her right under the laws and rules of our country and our party.

I reject the talking point being pushed by the Obama campaign and others that it's against "unity" for Clinton to continue to pursue the nomination.

There are 3 main reasons she should go to the convention, in my opinion:

1.  Given that Florida and Michigan have been recognized, she now has the popular vote lead, which will be even more compelling after tomorrow's vote in Puerto Rico.  

2.  Neither candidate will have enough pledged delegates before the convention.

3. She is more electable against John McCain, primarily because of her strength in a few key states, especially Florida.

You can call me whatever names you want -- I've heard it all. You've called me racist, repug, traitor, bitch, and other things I can't repeat here. Like my candidate, I am impervious by now.

This is a Democracy, and under democratic principles I urge Hillary Clinton to use the convention for its god-given purpose -- to select the best nominee for our party and best potential president for our country.

There is too much at stake to walk away.  And I am sure, after today, that she will NOT be conceding any time soon.

Sorry, it's not what you want to hear.

But this is about something much larger than a manufactured sense of "party unity."

Senator Clinton:  Please make your plans to take this nomination battle to Denver.  The people are behind you.

See you there.

P.S. -- Please do not troll rate me for this comment -- which is a matter of free speech and falls within the myDD guidelines.

Please do not attack me personally, call out personal information about me, or direct nasty hateful "snarky" comments AT me rather than at the substance of the discussion.  Abuses will be reported.  It is not okay to act like a thug towards other users.  And by the way, it only motivates me to be tougher.

In case you forgot, Democrats are permitted to dissent.  That's one of our bedrock principles.  I am NOT required to be a sheep to belong to this party.  Debate civilly, or keep your mouth shut.

I look forward to meeting you all in Denver this summer.

I'm on board.

MI & FL shouldn't have moved their primaries.

indeed democrats aboard have been yelling this for years, why do they have to be only for 1/2 when no one else is?

and why don't you HRC supporters care about them? almost as if you only care about that which can get hillary the nomination and NOT about the actual voters.

hmmmmm

Fine, go vote Republican.   Oops, they did 50% too.  Oh well.

How are we disenfranchising them again, remind me? Kentucky had more people turn out than Michigan and still got less delegates than they did at the penalty.

This is starting to sound like that radio host on Hardball who kept shrieking "appeasement!" over and over but couldn't even begin to explain what it meant.

I did not get a real vote in MI.  They threw out an invalid election with only one candidate on te ballot.  I was told my Uncommitted vote would count.  

I know others who did not vote at all, as they didn't think it would matter.

I follow rules every day of my life.  Today is no different.

I was not disenfranchised, I was vidicated.

Thank you RBC

So valid of a point you make.  Clearly Hillary should get all the votes from MI and FL.

They didn't disenfranchise half the voters.  The delegates those voters selected count for half.

Also, as there hasn't been too great a concern expressed about the millions who didn't vote in what was supposed to be a meaningless election -- voters who get NO voice in choosing our nominee -- please forgive me if I'm not willing to buy into the "democracy" meme.  It lacks the weight of honesty.

This is the mentality we have to put up with...

Did you hear Don Fowler(who is a Hillary supporter) at the meeting today?  He stated he didn't like the MI compromise, but considering time factors and the restraints they are under at this point, that it was the best available option.  The perfect thing would have been to have a revote but that won't happen, sadly.

I respectfully disagree.

1. Each of the two settlements was based on something the states proposed, rather than the O proposal in MI, which I think was thrown in more to counter Ickes and the MI people knew it, or the Ickes revised proposal which did give O the 55. Neither state parties were slapped away by the outer structure.
   
2. It treated voters and SDs equally. So the probably guilty did not get away scot free, leaving the electors of the electeds holding the entire hit.
   
3. The committee members were plainly concerned not only about those who got to vote, but equally about those who did not. After all, the way Southern voter mechanics worked in the old days was not to steal the votes after, but make sure that those they did not wish to vote never got near a ballot or a voting machine at all. I think the 30,000  MI write-ins that got pitched had a good bit to do with that. Outright ballot pitching.
   
4. Once you gave one delegation a half haircut, both had to get it. I was afraid they'd be so mad at MI that it would get nothing at all.
   
5. I think the only one Ickes reserved on was MI, which is the harder one for him to defend anyway.

All in all, not a terrible day, except for the deadenders who made HRC and all of her diligent and dignified supporters who would not do that, look bad unless we make the distinction early and often.

I think this was the fairest settlement they could come up with.  You really couldn't seat them fully based on the January results.

The idea solution would have been new primaries, but that never happened.

The rules have been applied fairly. Obama will almost certainly reach the magic numbers (is it 2118 now?) on Wednesday.  I think it is in everybody's best interests that we accept the results and move on.

The war with is John McCain about to begin.

The repubs took 1/2 of FL's delegates too, so there's no high ground for the GE there.

Nonsense.

Any disenfranchisement occurred last September-January when candidates were barred from campaigning here and we were told that Florida's delegates would not be seated at the convention (and when we elected delegates in March, those delegates were told they couldn't even reserve hotel rooms!)

Today the situation was rectified...our delegation will be seated, all of them. We didn't get to choose the nominee, true, but that is the fault of the dips***s in Tallahassee who moved the primary to January instead of March. It worked out great for the Republicans, who had their delegates cut by half but were allowed to campaign here. The difference, I think, was that the Republican nomination was not believed to worth much in 2008 while the Democrats assumed their nominee had a virtual lock on the White House this year, hence the vicious battle over the primary schedule.

But so did the Republicans. And you don't see them crying like babies about it. They move on. We should too.

I'm seeing more of a move against her because there's a feeling she's ignored us over the past six months and should get out and come back to being our Senator...but should she chose to go to Denver, that would be three more months of not being a Senator.

We want our Senator back, if she chooses to keep going this routre, we'll get ourselves a new Senator.

It's less about the primary than about how long she stays in this race.

Maybe there's a similar feeling in Illinois and Arizona, and I wouldn't blame them if there is.

no place in this diary.