Voting law according to Sharpton

DRUDGE REPORT FLASH 2007®: "I write this letter as a former Democratic candidate for President of the United States and a civil rights leader who has fought his entire life for fairness and justice for all people regardless of the color of their skin."
Yeah right.
....I firmly believe that changing the rules now, and seating delegates from Florida and Michigan at this point would not only violate the Democratic party's rules of fairness, but also would be a grave injustice. ....
Okay...so why didn't you feel this way during the 2004 elections when the democratic party clearly tried to modify Florida election law?
...Some have said that not seating delegations from Florida and Michigan disenfranchises Democratic voters -- especially African American voters -- from those two states. That claim, if true, should have been made many months ago before the decision was made to strip these states of their delegates, and, once the decision was made, it should have been vigorously objected to and contested by those who felt it disenfranchised voters....
Umm, it was protested then...and it was turned down flatly because no one thought the race would be this close. I do not blame states for wondering why they are not considered as "important" as Iowa & New Hampshire--why do they get to be the first ones to vote?
....As a civil rights leader who is neutral in this presidential primary season and who highly respects both remaining Democratic candidates,....
He hasn't been neutral since the first time I heard of him (the NY case with the gal who claimed she was rape and branded--which she did herself). He has done more to cause civil unrest than he has to settle it. I know he has quite the background (he worked with Martin Luther King, Jr...if I remember correctly) but I just don't see it in his own actions.
....we have a responsibility to protect both candidates from charges that the process was tainted so that our eventual nominee does not start the general election campaign under a cloud....
Oops! Too late!

One has to wonder what his reaction would have been had it swung the other way....if Hillary had Obama's numbers and Obama had taken Florida & Michigan....my guess is, based on his past actions, is that he would be singing a different tune. But who knows--I don't like any of the candidates running but I agree the DNC really should stick to their rules.

One has to wonder why they (the DNC) didn't take action against Clinton at the time for campaigning in the area...some sort of formal public reprimand--but they didn't do anything about it. So I think people already have their answer.

So someone tell me please---

Why does Iowa & New Hampshire get to go first???
You know this whole thing would be mute if they just ran things like they do for a Presidential race---one night every state holds their caucus or primary (as their state does) and all votes are counted in a single night.
This would not illiminate the need for the conventions...in fact it may increase the need for them since the results in one state will not be effecting the voting in another state.

I also feel that the networks/news agencies shouldn't give out any national election results until after the very last polling center is closed in any place that votes are taken.
Why?
The 1996 (or was it 2000) FL fiasco where the networks started "projecting" FL for one candidate when polls weren't completely closed in the state yet because FL actually exists in two time zones. They don't know how that effected the data...people getting ready to go to the polls heard their race was already decided, people heard the polls in FL were closed (even though they weren't)...and FL isn't the only state that falls in two time zones...in fact there are 13 states that have two time zones--and two states which do not use DST so they actually switch time zones.

But I digress---yet again.

No I don't think they should count the votes either because the knew they were breaking the rules--but then if that was the case then the DNC should have taken a firmer stance against candidates from campaigning there.