First, as a Michigander and usually a Democrat I find it insulting that Clinton's people, after refusing to campaign in Michigan or speak out against the Democratic decision to ignore Michigan's votes, would try to use her hollow victory here to push their cause. If they're going to ignore Michigan, they should ignore it altogether.

That said, I see a lot of people criticizing Clinton for leaving her name on the ballot as somehow "disloyal". As far as I know, none of the candidates were asked to remove their names from the ballot, but only not to campaign here. When the other candidates agreed not to run, they also removed their names from the ballot, presumably because early polling favored Clinton and they did not think they could change that without campaigning in the state. While Clinton did very little for Michigan voters in this primary, she did do more than the other candidates.

Finally, as some previous posters have said, I am very surprised that this complete disenfranchisement of Michigan's primary voters is getting so little coverage. I'm very angry about it, and many Democrats I've talked to are angry about it as well. We will see what impact it has on Democratic fundraising in the coming months, and if it has any impact in November. If you think this primary was a fiasco that should never happen again, you can learn more about how we got into this mess and what you can do to make your voice heard at http://WhoStoleMiVote.org/

Hillary won – who cares if no delegates were awarded.... Michigan voted - well at least those who cared enough to be heard / involved in the process...and the exit polls showed where people's votes went.... not to mention that the number of people that voted for her was pretty similar to the GOP Michigan winner, Romney (around 320k voters).

people saying that if Edwards and Obama were on the ballot, it would have went differently? Not really...once again look at the exit polls. And for those that didn't show up to vote, it just shows that "change" does not matter to them.... the people that care showed up, either to oppose Clinton or to support her.

uncommitted votes were in the 200k's and that shows that they were expressing that Clinton was not their candidate and that they wanted delegates to go to Obama and Edwards if they are allowed.... the who would have voted for who was broken down in the exit polls ....

Take into account the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary... how many uncommitted votes were made in those states.... not many at all...

so to say that the uncommitted votes were not made by Obama and Edwards supporters, makes no sense....

"uncommitted" does not mean "nobody" it means Edwards and Obama followers that decided to come out and vote and show that they want someone else than Clinton.

obviously not enough Clinton opposition came out to vote uncommitted and since the results were not favorable to Obama or Edwards, they are now being dismissed as meaningless.... that makes a lot of sense... that's like saying that the votes made by people who cared enough to voice their opinion / vote in Michigan, regardless of delegates, are meaningless... that's just wrong.

I mean Edwards and Obama could have easily allowed themselves to be written in by their devoted followers...or they could have left their names on the ballot just like the other democrats did...there was nothing wrong with that....but they chose not to because they were going to lose anyway...and they knew that and they stayed off the ballot completely to avoid the shame...and now we know that because of the exit polls.

To silence a whole state's democratic voice because of some party rule is nonsense. Robbing Michigan Democrats of their voice is inconceivable... and obviously CLINTON was the only frontrunner to see this.

Michigan knew what uncommitted meant. Obama and Edwards both poured resources to make people know.

As far as floida and campaigning

First you are allowed to have fundraisers, as a fundraiser it is something i follow just a bit. For the record I have attended an Obama rally in Miami and know of one in Tampa.

Furthermore, as I understand it Obama cares very much about voters rights. WHY IS HE NOT TAKING A STAND FOR FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN? His campaign has said that our states our not important. Note more people voted in Michigan than NH and Iowa combined, Florida will dwarf Nevada, SC, NH, and Iowa.

in 2000 a large portion of our electorate was denied the right to voice their opinion for president. I never heard obama say anything about that. Now that he cant win hes made a POLITICAL move (so much for ideals) to ignore millions of americans on january 29th. This guy is such a hypocrit

I am from Michigan and I am an independent voter. Since it is an "open primary", I know many democratic voters who voted Republican (because they could not stand a vote that was meaningless–since Demos got No delegates in Mich)...so the numbers are just off. We have no idea what the results would have been. I personally voted McCain, but would have considered Obama if his name were on the ticket and if the votes actually counted. I also know many who just didn't vote at all. From many in Michigan, It is laughable that Hillary's campaign even pretended to have "won".

Not to mention that by 2012, assuming that John Kerry had done a half-decent job, his VP, JOHN EDWARDS, would then have been running for president, and that would also have not boded well for the Clintons.

Comments such as "she's pathetic" and "Clinton barely gets a majority" are blatantly ignorant. How about looking at the numbers before you embarrass yourselves further?

Clinton 328,151
Uncommitted 236,728

Exit polls show that Obama got 172,811 uncommitted votes (with 73% African Americans voting for him) and Edwards got 63,917 uncommitted votes. So, here are the real percentages:
Clinton with 328,151-55%
Obama with 172,811-29%
Edwards with 63, 917–11%

So actually Hillary finished 26% points ahead of Obama. That's way more than the percentage that Obama got in his Iowa victory over Edwards and Hillary (who were seperated by only 2/3 of a percentage point for second and third place).

It appears that the lady is picking up steam and people are willing to brave ice and snow to get out and vote for her.

The Clintons expect loyalty from everyone including the DNC but when they should be loyal they are not.

Does anyone remember 2004 when the Clintons would NOT support John Kerry even though Kerry was the Democratic choice? The Clintons didn't support Kerry because they wanted Bush to win (yes I said it!!!) so that Hillary would have the chance to run in 2008. If Kerry had their support he may have won and the country would not be in the mess it is in today. But the Clintons did not care what would happen to the country - as a matter of fact, they thought, if the country was really bad off, Hillary's chance of winning would be greater in 2008. They didn't think that there would be a Edwards or Obama to challenge Hillary. That's why they were so shocked after Iowa - from day one the Clintons thought Hillary would have no competition within the Democratic party.

If Kerry had won the 2004 election most likely he would serve 2 terms until 2012 and no democrats would have had the chance to run against him in 2008. Running in 2012 would not have worked out for the Clintons because maybe the Clinton's support system would have eroded by then. 2008 was their only chance and they are not going to let anyone get in their way.

The will attack everyone and anyone and then throw the blame on the person THEY attacked because they are single minded in their objective to make Hillary President so they can make history and have the ultimate 'power' again. They don't care who they have to kick or slander to get what they want. They talk out both sides of their mouths - just listen. It's all about them - the Clintons are very selfish and disloyal people. Hillary: Me. Me. Me. Bill: Me. Me. Me.

its frightening that senator clinton's supporters are so naive as to assume that she would have received the same percentage of votes had the other candidates actually been on the ballot. its also statistically ignorant of them to state that she would have won because the "uncommitted" vote would have split down the middle with 20% to edwards and 20% to obama. we have NO way of knowing how this would have turned out had it been a regular and fair primary. senator clinton should have won at a MUCH higher percentage for her to feel this was a landslide or at ALL telling of future successes. if ANYTHING, this should be a warning to her campaign that people realize her decisive and polarizing nature and are willing to turn out in droves to vote for NO ONE over her. now tell me how she'd win in a general election against an actual person who would be campaigning? exactly.

Starting to sound like Obama's campaign theme.

When will you stop the calculations and run a clean campaign???

CW

But what is more disturbing is that Hillary won a meaningless primary by only 6pts over the "uncommitted vote", which means people went out in the cold and snow to vote against Hillary. Hillary should have easily won the Michigan primary by 40+ pts based on her being the only candidate on the ballot.

I'm not defending Bush at all, but people seem to forget that Bill Clinton signed and supported NAFTA which is one of the biggest lemons ever sold to the American people. NAFTA is why Flint , MI looks like a ghost town today. All those auto jobs waived "bye bye" and moved to Mexico thanks to Mr. Clinton. Outsourcing and vast foreign trade deficits went unchecked under the Clinton administration.

Yes we all benefited from the initial economic boon, but the bottom eventually dropped out and now here we are.

Yes Bush has practically and single handedly brought this nation to it's knees, but you Clinton romantics need to get a grip and recognize that Bill Clinton played his part in the mess we have now and that Hillary represents the "old school" baby boomer politics. The baby boomers have sold this country down the river to big business for 30 pieces of silver.

The country just suffered thru eight years of a "Father knows best" administration I don't think we can afford another four years of a "Mother knows best" administration. We don't need another Bush and we don't need another Clinton we need a change from the last 20 years. It's time to take this country back and stop living in the past; the 90's are over and they're never coming back.

Only the Clinton camp would spin a non-story like this.

oh and to all you Hillary supporters why do we hate hillary so much you ask
She is untrustworthy in many eyes far more than any other dem out there. Does that not mean something to you when an overwhelming number of people just do not trust her. Do you not remember the scandals from her law firm then got one of her assoc in jail and another killed himself.
Why does she not release the notes from the archives from that time??
We do not want someone with such baggage staying any longer in Washington.
That alone is a serious enough issue to not vote for her. GET IT

Oh and the DNC are idiots for skipping MI and Fl just you wait till Nov rolls around. We will not forget this.

I did the math for you…MICHIGAN RESULTS…100% counted…

Uncommitted……236,723
Kucinich…………… 21,708
Dodd……………………3,853
Total………………..262,285 45% Hillary……………328,151 55%

Difference of 65,866 10%

What color do you think the other 65,866 are? It doesn't matter.!!!! Analize it all you want the numbers speak for themselves. Like it or not.

Since when can we put uncommitted on the ballet anyway and actually count the votes? That's like voting for your imaginary friend! I'ld like to see them pull that trick on the Presidential ballot. Maybe we can get an Obama/Uncommitted as running mates. If you are the least bit honest, you would have to admit that if it had been Obama or Edwards on the ticket instead of her, the media and a lot of you would have said hooorayyyy!!!! After her obvious win in N.H. they didn't even show her victory speach. I had to watch it on the British Broadcast station.

This is mass media manipulation and way too many are falling for it. Do your homework and read each candidates website. You'll see that they all have good and bad. What it all comes down to is each individuals preferance. The only thing that really matters is the actual vote. Not race, gender, polls, reports or media opinions. I can't believe that Obama and Edwards suggested they vote for the imaginary person and over 250,000 people actually did it.

Please look at the Democrat record and the Republican record over the last 16 years and your would have to GIVE the Democrat's the right to say the country was much better off in all aspects that American have to face daily.

EX: health care, jobs, the economy etc.

The American's had hope – that is clearly being lost under the Republican party!!!