Watch NAACP-Democratic delegate story on CNN's The Situation Room at 5 p.m. EST!

Carol Costello will be doing the story.

Here is the transcript of what Bond told her for her story:

"I thought it wrong, particularly for Florida Democratic voters, that they had become the victims of their Republican legislature and the victims of an attempt by iowa and new hampshire to minimize the effect of these states with heavy minority populations. And there are alternatives to just simply excluding the delegates. Those states could have caucuses, which many people in those states agree to, and the outcome of the caucuses would determine who got the delegate votes from Michigan and Florida, and everyone would be happy.

"This is not changing the rules in the middle of the game, this is finding an alternative way to have those states' voters, democratic voters, have a choice.

"It borders on the edge of ridiculous to have these minute states with overwhelmingly white populations, so different from the rest of the country, and I'm talking about Iowa and New Hampshire, to have them exercise this enormous influence in this process has been wrong for years and years, and it is only because they insisted on this that the present situation involving michigan and florida has arisen.

"I'm inserting the naacp in a fight to have votes counted, and that's a fight we've been fighting for longer than most people have been alive, and one we'll continue to fight.

"I'm the chairman of the board, I'm empowered to speak for the NAACP between meetings of the board of directors. We'll have a board meeting in new york this weekend, and we'll see whether or not there's any fallout from this. I doubt there is. I think most people support it.

"There are 64 of them, and it's a little hard to discuss every public statement I make before I make it.

"The day before yesterday I was accused of authoring an op-ed whose title was '10 reasons not to vote for hillary clinton', and as that got wide distribution on the internet, I became an obama stooge. Now a day later I've become a clinton stooge, and of course I'm neither. I have not endorsed either candidate or any other, I don't intend to. The naacp never does, we never have. But we believe that in a democratic system every vote ought to be counted, and hope that the democratic party finds a way to let democrats in michigan and florida express their will and have their state represented at the democratic convention, that's all we've done.

"I think because partisans have become involved in it, and people who are trying to make a name for themselves by inserting themselves in every controversy that comes along."

Comments

[nic]

"that's a fight we've been fighting for longer than most people have been alive, and one we'll continue to fight."

Yeah, ok Mr. Bond...I honestly don't remember the NAACP fighting too hard in 2000, or in the aftermath which revealed widespread wrongdoing in Florida. I don't remember them fighting in Ohio in 2004 when, basically, the same thing happened. You aint fooling nobody.

Also, I don't think it's fair to say that Iowa or New Hampshire have any more influence than any other states. It might've seemed that way before Super Tuesday, but if you erased the results from both states, you'd have the same situation as we do right now - mainstream media outlets trying very hard to make it look like Clinton is still in this race...

[Karen]

Mr. Bond,

I will start out by saying I am an Obama supporter.

I feel very badly that the MI and FL voters have not been able to participate in this campaign. However, I disagree that they should be allowed to vote in a caucus or a different election.

That is because they will not be voting with the same equal approach from the candidates that the other states have had. Hillary left her name on the ballot in Michigan, when Obama and Edwards followed the DNC rules to have it taken off. In FL, Hillary supported the people angry at having lost their vote, again, while other candidates followed the rules, and she was repaid with loyalty.

We can not go back to an even playing field in FL and MI again. To let FL and MI vote now, would not be fair to the rest of the country who has been playing by the rules, and have had fair and full access to the candidates to decide their votes.

If Hillary had not played unfairly, if she had followed the rules, I would be more inclined to agree. But, her very attempt to game the system and protect the voters is actually the base of the argument for not letting these states vote.

I appreciate your defense of allowing people to vote, but being fair to all the voters, in this instance, is more complicated than just the process of voting. It's about fair access to the voters. Obama has not had the same access to the people in MI and FL, because he played by the rules. And, it isn't fair to the rest of the country to let a heavily delegate endowed state influenced by unfair access overturn the rest of the country.

Please, Mr. Bond, consider the larger picture of fair elections when you consider your bid to open up the votes.

[Callie]

Well said Karen!!!

[SJAY]

I have had sincere respect for Mr. Bond over the years, but this stinks to high heaven. His slip is showing and it says "Hillary Clinton" on the hem.

[Reecie]

To suggest that Iowa and New Hampshire have extraordinary influence on the election process when after 33 states voting there still isn't a Democratic nominee! Also to say that the minorities haven't had a say in this election process is absolutely absurd and totally contrary to the facts. This whole fake outrage is disgusting.

My question is this: how much did he get paid to sell out the NAACP?

Roland, PLEASE point out that Julian Bond does NOT speak for the Black majority.

[Mary Lynn Smith]

Well said Karen!

[DivideNConquer]

Julian Bond, if you did not see how this would be seen as an endorsement by the NAACP for Hillary Clinton, then you are woefully unfit for your position; and board members as well as NAACP member need to demand your resigniation.

[Michael Davis-Dallas Progress]

Karen basically summed it up. Where were y'all in Ohio 2004 and Florida in 2000?

Florida and Michigan blew it by rolling the dice and losing their power, as well as Hillary for trying to have a built-in insurance policy in case the election got close.

We need everyone that lives in Texas, NC, and Ohio to go to the polls for Barack. Let's crush Hillary and send a message to all of the haters!

[Marc from NYC]

Actually I think this is GREAT news.

It is entirely possible that neither candidate will get the 2025 from the primaries/caucuses. That leaves the nominee to be decided by superdelegates.

The aforementioned is a serious problem. Because we have two strong candidates with ardent followers, should the nominee be chosen because of back room dealing needed to secure superdelegate commitment, there will be potentially a lot of very unhappy voters.

Unhappy voters may lead to a nightmare scenario where supporters of the candidate that lost RESENT the winning candidate and they either refuse to vote OR worse, vote for McCain.

This is a very unique election, interesting as hell. Here are two candidates representing groups in American society who have felt that they have long been excluded from consideration for the presidency. It's like two people, a sinking ship, and one life preserver. People are very engaged but they are also becoming very loyal to their candidate and hostile to the other candidate.

The DNC doesn't want any blood on their hands, they would rather avoid a scenario where superdelegates decide the election. I feel they were going to find some way to include Florida and/or Michigan in order to cover their rears and give one candidate enough votes to make the 2025 mark.

Looking at it that way, if Florida and Michigan were going to be counted in some way regardless, why not hold a caucus (versus a primary) and allow the candidates time to campaign there? That final point is very key...Obama does better in caucuses so he would be better off having a race decided by a caucus versus one where a primary would be held...or worse...allow the results as they are be translated into delegates and we can all hand Hillary the nomination on a silver platter...

Keep in mind that this move would also be very key in the general election. By having had the opportunity to campaign in the states for a primary/caucus and by having penalized them so harshly in taking ALL of their delegates away...you may have alienated a lot of the voters in these states and given Republicans an edge in the general election. The DNC made a terrible miscalculation by stripping all of the delegates,... they should have done what the Republicans did and taken only half of their delegates away.

The aforementioned brings me to my final point. The DNC would look toothless if they sought to penalize states for moving their elections early and then rewarding them by giving them all of their delegates back AND making the offending states pretty much an elevated role in essentially deciding the party's nominee. Therefore, a token sign of punishment is in order here and we should take away only 25% of their delegates. BUT the DNC should proclaim that after this point, any state that moves their primary/caucus early will be penalized by losing all of their delegates (or half) of their delegates.

I only hope that Obama upsets Hillary in either Ohio, Texas or Pennsylvania to such a degree where all this talk about counting Florida and Michigan would be moot. But the possibility remains that he may not and should he lose both Ohio and Texas Obama should publicly endorse Bond's suggestion.

[Nikki]

Voters in Florida and Michigan that are for Obama are being proactive...we need your help. Please flood the DNC with your emais and phone calls.

email the DNC by going to
http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contactissues
or call at

Main Phone Number:
202-863-8000

See Example letter

"I urge you to be fair and stick to the rules that the candidates agreed upon before the Florida and Michigan primaries. Making changes after the results are known will not talk very favorably of our conduct as a party seeking to lead our country for the next 4 years”

It is not appropriate that Senator Clinton wants to go back on her word now that the results are known, and Senator Obama did not campaign extensively on these states due to the rule enforcement.

As Democrats, we need to demonstrate that we are the party that respects the rules and not the one that bends them according to convenience.

I had to re-post my email due to typographical errors...
As a resident of the State of Florida, I can shed some insight on how democratic congress members, i.e. Corrine Brown, Alcee Hastings, Kendrick Meek, and Florida democratic congressional members Dorothy Bendross Mindigal, Ronald Brise, Jennifer Carroll, Senator Tony Hill, Senator Gary Siplin, Senator Arthenia Joyner, Senator Al Lawson and a HOST OF OTHERS failed us. The Florida legislature, which is a republican majority, passed a LAW to hold our primary on January 29, 2008. I sent a letter to Corrine Brown back in September of 2007 questioning the democratic leaders' lack of urgency on this issue. Shortly after my letter was sent to Mrs. Brown's office, she issued a letter; similar to my own thoughts, however, it was too little too late. The democrats in the Florida congress failed us. Although Florida legislative rules do not allow the minority party to filibuster, the minority leaders allowed this bill to pass into law without notifying us. They should have been protesting this issue with great vigilance. This should have been major news prior to the bill becoming a law; not after it became a law. (I guess that's what happens when you're in congress and you sign bills without reading them thoroughly.) After the law was passed, the focus then turned to the DNC. If the DNC is in favor of hearing the democratic votes in Florida, why did they not alter their own rules to ensure that our votes would be heard and counted? With that critical question going unanswered, the DNC stood their ground and made each democratic candidate pledge not to campaign in Florida and Michigan.
The DNC also ruled that Florida and Michigan delegates will not be counted. Irrespective of Mr. Bond's notion about which candidates refused to sign the pledge to remove their names from the ballad in Michigan, ALL OF THE CANDIDATES agreed not the campaign in Michigan and in Florida. Now that Clinton won due to her name recognition, she wants to have Florida and Michigan delegates seated at the national convention. Rules are rules. It was not a miscalculation on Obama's campaign. Mr. Bond questions if Obama had won Michigan and Florida would he oppose their delegates being seated at the national convention, my guess is no because he's winning WITHOUT Florida and Michigan. Obama followed the rules and since Hillary is trailing him, she wants to bend the rules in her favor and spin it as though she's on the voter's side and wants to have the the delegates counted. My question to Mr. Bonds is, would Hillary be an advocate of having Florida and Michigan seated if she had lost those states? My guess is no.

[Val McCall]

Julian Bond's (and Mary Frances Henderson and Wade Berry) public outcry on behalf of disenfranchised voters is a day late and a dollar short. Why now? Moreover, if Henderson and Berry assisted in writing the letter to the DNC together with Mr. Bond, why did they not sign it with him? Why hide in the shadows if this is indeed a sincere effort to bring about justice and equality for Florida and Michigan voters? Why did these three individuals feel it necessary to come out without the full knowledge, and more importantly, the full support, of the NAACP Board and the organizations that they head. Doing so surely would have had a greater impact and, were it done in a timely manner when the battle was at hand.

Quite frankly, Mr. Bond's public outcry on behalf of all the disenfranchised voters is so far after the battle, it is disingenuous and embarrassing, at best.

This is exactly the kind of politics that folks all across America are demanding a departure from. This is why one hears over and over again, "We Want Change! Change that We Can Believe In!"

Further, this begs the question: If Florida and Michigan voters were allowed to go first, would their voters -- the people not the party leaders -- be any better off than if they stuck with the party rules? What is in it for the people -- the orange grove pickers, the working folks, the service industry employees, the school bus drivers, the firemen, the policemen, the garbage collectors, the teachers? What do they get out of all of this? Is this going to increase their wages, improve their living conditions and provide them with decent health care? No. It is just politics as usual.

As for Hillary Clinton -- first we had hanging chads, now we have illegal delegate gathering. Sen. Clinton's statement saying that she was going to do everything she can to get Florida and Michigan delegates seated -- but without a new primary -- speaks well of her campaign tactics to date.

DNC Chairman Dean's offer of a new primary is, under these circumstances, fair and equitable. If Sen. Clinton is so concerned with the people being disenfranchised, she would have jumped at this opportunity. Instead, she wrongfully claims that she won these two contests. What contests? In the case of Michigan, we all know that she was the only candidate on the ballot -- that's not a contest, that's stealing delegates. It is obvious that Sen. Clinton is not in tune with the people she so desperately is trying to become Commander in Chief of. People want change from this kind of politics.

There is an old saying that if you want to know the true nature of a person, watch what they do when faced with seemingly insurmountable obstacles. To date, when faced with seemingly insurmountable obstacles, Sen. Clinton has either cried or stretched the truth into something that is not recognizable as anything of truth or value.

This is exactly why people all across this nation are voting for change that they can believe in. I am confident that given the opportunity, the people of Florida and Michigan will also vote for change that they too can believe in -- and not just on a national level.