The DNC and state parties knew when they held the votes that the results wouldn't be counted. That's hard to spin as fair.

I have no problems doing a revote, but claiming that  vote results are fair when one of the candidates wasn't even on the ticket is a hard case to sell, especially when you use Russia as an example.

I also call foul on the talking point that it was Obama's "choice" to remove his name from the ticket. One simply can't change the rules at the last minute, and then claim that anyone else that assumed the rules were actually, you know, rules, is S.O.L.

Additionally, she also signed a pledge not to "campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window (any date prior to February 5, 2008)."

Its very, very difficult to sign a pledge that you will not participate or campaign in a primary that you knew was going to be invalidated, and then later try to say that the results from the invalidated campaign should count.

People were told their vote wouldn't count. Many of those people didn't vote. Do you think those people would think it was fair "as is?"

Can Clinton supporters make an argument that doesn't overreach or have basis in total nonsense? How does Obama have the uphill battle? As of right now, Michigan is, get this, NOT BEING COUNTED. It is incumbent on HILLARY to make the case that they be counted at all. I know, it's a shock. As for fairness, you are suggesting that Hillary Clinton get 71 free delegates on a contest where she was the only major name, no one campaigned, and everyone pledged that they would neither campaign or participate. Those delegates, mind you, would be weighted more than the decisions of ANY state contest thus far, and count for more than Wisconsin, Maryland, Maine, Virginia, and Nebraska combined. This, in spite of the fact that those states were blowout wins against an ACTUAL candidate, rather than a 10 point win against NO ONE, and that Michigan has a total population a mere 44% of those states. All this ignoring the fact that if you compare Michigan turnout to other states this primary it comes out AT LEAST 30% short of expectations. Yeah. Fair. Sounds real democratic to me.

I for one feel a re-vote would actually come with some unfair advantages, mainly the new voting ticket.  We would remove candidates, such as Dennis Kucinich from both tickets and Joh Edwards in FL, who at the original time were fair and viable candidates.  Even though in Michigan, both Obama and Edwards WILLINGLY removed their names off the ballot, an allowance of uncommitted voters were tallied and can have their say on who they side with at the convention. Florida is a different story and a point that is being missed is Obama did have campaign meesages playing in that state. He claims it was unfair because he didn't campaign in Florida.  He purchased National ads which aired in Florida and to all fairness, that was breaking the party rules that the candidates agreed to: No Campaigning of any kind in MI and FL.

Why can't we just seat them the way they are?  It pretty much ties up both candidates, and run the final 10 states asking the voters to pick the top spot and second spot.  Both are ready, both are willing.  Let's get past this drama and talk about real change AND real experience in the White House. With thsi solution, it brings the party together, we start fighting for a common cause and we can have Hill and Barack taking on McCain and his party.

Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton...I am so happy with either combination.