Mich., Fla. Dilemma Consumes Democrats

Updated 3:40 p.m.
By Zachary A. Goldfarb
Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, warned today that a divisive nomination battle could cost Democrats the presidency in November.

"[T]he only thing that can beat us is that we're divided," Dean said on ABC's "This Week." "I have to run these rules so that the losing side feels they've been treated fairly."

With the Democratic nomination battle largely on hold ahead of the April 22 Pennsylvania primary, Dean was one of several officials who addressed today whether Florida and Michigan should hold new votes so that their delegates can take part in August's national convention.

Both states held primaries in January, in defiance of an election calendar set up by the committee Dean chairs. In response, the DNC said that Florida and Michigan delegates would not be seated at the convention. With Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) in a close race, those delegates now hold more significance.

Clinton wants the January elections, which she won, to count toward her delegate count. Alternatively, she wants new primaries in one or both states. Obama's camp wants the delegates apportioned, either 50-50 or by another standard, but hasn't ruled out favoring a new vote.

VIDEO | From CBS's Face the Nation: Howard Dean On Democratic Candidates

Dean expressed support for a new primary -- possibly conducted through the mail -- at least for Florida.

"It's comprehensive. You get to vote if you're in Iraq or in a nursing home," Dean said on CBS's "Face the Nation." "It's not a bad way to do this."

He said, however, that the Democratic National Committee would not pay for a second vote and that it's unlikely the Republican-led government in Florida would pay for it either.

"The Democratic National Committee is not going to pay for it because, right now, our job is to tell the American people about Senator McCain's record on Iraq and the deficits and so forth," he said, referring to presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Dean said any decision probably has to come by June 10.

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R), a McCain supporter, said he saw no need for a do-over, since his state's residents had already voted.

"They exercised that precious right," he said on ABC. "I think that the Democratic National Committee should come to the common-sense conclusion that the right thing to do is to honor that vote."

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said it would be very difficult to hold another vote in Michigan -- and even a mail-in contest would have problems.

"There's no way to have a primary. That's state law. That can't be changed, and that can't be paid for. ... It would be very difficult to have caucuses," he said. "The one possibility would be some kind of a mail-in caucus. That's being explored."

He continued, "But there's some real problems with that, too. Not just cost, but the security issue. How do you make sure that hundreds of thousands, perhaps a million or more ballots can be properly counted and that duplicate ballots can be avoided?"

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D), a Clinton supporter, said it would be disastrous for the party to hold a convention without Florida and Michigan represented.

"How can the Democratic Party go to Denver and deny the people of Michigan and Florida, two crucial states, a voice," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle (N.D.), Obama's national co-chairman, said, "We want to see this resolved," and "whatever fair approach that we can employ, we're for it."

But, he argued on NBC, the Obama campaign followed Democratic Party rules that called for no campaigning in Florida and Michigan, and the Illinois senator should not now be penalized for doing so.

The two camps also clashed over the votes of superdelegates and whether they should follow the lead of pledged delegates -- elected in the individual state contests. Obama, who expects to have a edge among these delegates, favors this approach. Clinton says that superdelegates should make up their own minds, while taking note that, with Pennsylvania still to be decided, she has won nearly all the key swing states.

"Hilary Clinton has won states with about 260 electoral votes and Barack Obama has won states with about 190," Rendell said. "We decide the president not by the popular vote. We decide it by the Electoral College. The traditional role of superdelegates is to determine who's going to be our strongest candidate."

"I don't see how we could do anything other than respect the will of the people who voted," Daschle replied. "What would it say to the world, to the country, that we overturned the verdict of those elections?"

Rendell also echoed recent comments by Hillary and Bill Clinton by saying that Obama would be "a dream" on a ticket as Clinton's vice president. But the Clinton campaign has also suggested that Obama is not ready to be president, and Rendell was pressed about whether these positions were inconsistent. "I think he's qualified," the Pennsylvania governor said. "I don't think he's as a good a commander in chief as Hillary Clinton is."

Daschle saw the running-mate argument as rather unusual.

"It's a rare occurrence that the person running number-two would offer the person running number-one the number-two position," he said. "Hillary Clinton was a great first lady ... but it would be hard for me to draw some degree of connection between being the first lady and having the experience to be commander-in-chief."

Obama supporter Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) reinforced the point on CBS.

"So on the one end, they are saying, he's not prepared to be president. On the other hand, they're saying, maybe he ought to be vice president. You can't have the argument both ways," Kerry said. "That's exactly the politics that Barack Obama is running to change."

CNN's "Late Edition," meanwhile, offered a glimpse ahead at likely debate points in the general election.

Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-Pa.) tied McCain's support for President Bush's policies to the current economic climate.

"President Bush has left us with a legacy of debt and deficit and drift and division in this country," Casey said. "And what Senator McCain has to ask himself, and his campaign supporters have to ask themselves, is do we want a third term of George Bush? And that's what Senator McCain is offering when he supports the Bush budgets, which
have taken us in the wrong direction."

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) disagreed, saying the issues of tax cuts and limited spending that are central to McCain's platform are not related to today's challenges.

Democratic criticism of "George Bush have nothing whatsoever to do with the economic situation we're in right now. And we'd be in a lot worse situation, if it had not been for the Bush tax cuts," Kyl said. "Everybody knows that housing got too hot, too much construction, too much -- too high on mortgages, people that weren't qualified to purchase those mortgages, and we've seen the whole thing collapse."

Kyl was pressed on whether McCain was being inconsistent by supporting President Bush's veto Saturday. The president blocked a bill that would have required the CIA to follow the Army Field Manual, which does not allow waterboarding. McCain has passionately opposed waterboarding.

"I think John McCain is being perfectly consistent," Kyl responded. "It may well be that the people captured in Iraq by our U.S. military forces -- we can find out everything we need using the Army Field Manual with those Army and Marine Corps personnel there. That's different from the specially trained CIA and other intelligence forces who may have access to terrorists captured somewhere. And while they don't torture, the kinds of interrogation they can engage in are somewhat broader than those permitted for the members of our military, when they capture somebody. And Senator McCain does support the president on the differentiation there. Neither permit torture, but there is some broader intelligence technique allowed with our special CIA interrogation."

By Post Editor |  March 9, 2008; 2:00 PM ET
Previous: Clinton, Obama Aides Tangle Over '3 A.M.' Ad | Next: Paulson Warns of Limits to Propping Up Economy

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



there is no easy way to do this.

i think they should just split the votes down the middle. at least it will get both candidates closer to the magic number.

i don't feel sorry for anyone. michigan and florida broke the rules. the DNC made it very clear what would happen.

what is stirring all this up.. or shall i say, 'WHO' is stirring this all up is hillary.

personally, i just wish she would GO AWAY. but since she refuses to.. split the votes and get on with the primaries.

besides.. the DNC ~certainly~ shouldn't shed even a dime for this process. and the states don't want to cough up the funds either...

SPLIT THE VOTES.

Posted by: presGWBfanclub | March 9, 2008 1:27 PM

Short Memories
I am an Independent who HOPE that real CHANGE will occur because the American people know that united ... YES WE CAN regain a leadership position within the human race.
I am puzzled by the number of people who fall for Hillary's "Negative" campaign tactics. Have American forgotten who Hillary Clinton really is?? If Senator Obama won't point it out, someone should.

Visit the following links for a refresher.

"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw"

"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMfUajhL24I"

"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sBL-sqe6zk"

Posted by: db | March 9, 2008 1:30 PM

They better solve this, fast, quietly and professionally, as the longer this lingers, the more it may weigh on Obama's "lead" in traditional pools as well as on the Internet;

Obama vs. McCain- the Google Effect:

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=48

Posted by: David | March 9, 2008 1:30 PM

They are going to have to redo. Without Michigan and Florida, the dems won't retake the White House. The states are too big to be shunned.

Posted by: jaywpat | March 9, 2008 1:30 PM

Nobel winner: Hillary Clinton's 'silly' Irish peace claims

By Toby Harnden in Washington
Last Updated: 9:30am GMT 08/03/2008Page 1


Hillary Clinton had no direct role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland and is a "wee bit silly" for exaggerating the part she played, according to Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former First Minister of the province.

"I don't know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill [Clinton] going around," he said. Her recent statements about being deeply involved were merely "the sort of thing people put in their canvassing leaflets" during elections. "She visited when things were happening, saw what was going on, she can certainly say it was part of her experience. I don't want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player."

Mrs Clinton has made Northern Ireland key to her claims of having extensive foreign policy experience, which helped her defeat Barack Obama in Ohio and Texas on Tuesday after she presented herself as being ready to tackle foreign policy crises at 3am. ...

Posted by: db | March 9, 2008 1:32 PM

If the rules are changed to favor Clinton, I will not vote democrat. If the FLA and Michigan delegates are seated, after they were clearly and unambiguously penalized for violating the rules, I will switch my affiliation back to independent, and not vote for Clinton, should she get the nod.

Posted by: Mo | March 9, 2008 1:33 PM

Howard Dean is not looking at the big picture; namely, to win in November. Not seating delegations from Florida and Michigan will likely cost Democrats the election.
Seating the delegates won in the early primarys will alienate millions of Obama supporters with disaster even more certain.
Seating delegations arbitrarily selected, perhaps equally divided, will satisfy no one.
There is no better use of Party Funds than to hold new primarys in June. If Howard Dean is concerned about the ability of the party to afford them, he should announce a special fund raising drive for that purpose: I doubt it would take a week to collect ample funds.

Posted by: Lee Sterne | March 9, 2008 1:34 PM

Just seat the delegates and work to make sure this mess doesn't happen again.'

No Obama shouldn't get a single delegate. He CHOSE not to contest those states. Too bad, so sad.

Posted by: Susan Nunes | March 9, 2008 1:36 PM

We Democrats agreed that Florida and Michigan would not count. Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton are both on record confirming that agreement. Now that she is hopelessly behind, the LYING, CHEATING, FILTHY HAG wants to change that agreement to her benefit, while claiming to be defending the rights of voters in Michigan and Florida. Hillary should forfeit the election right now for being a liar, a cheat, and just plain downright UGLY.

Posted by: sliver panda | March 9, 2008 1:36 PM

McCain is laughing all the way to the bank.

Posted by: Diogenes | March 9, 2008 1:38 PM

Obama folks including Daschle want the super-delegates not to be involved(did Daschle forget he is one?)but those were the rules going in and now they want to change the rules BUT they stand by FL being kept out.

They want it to work for them in one case but not the other.

Posted by: celticquuen | March 9, 2008 1:40 PM

Even a redo would not be fair because Hillary campaigned openly in Florida, and certainly spent money on Michigan. Assign all of their delegate count as unaligned super delegates and lottery them among democratic politicians and office holders. Florida and Michigan gambled and lost.

Posted by: omelas | March 9, 2008 1:40 PM

I don't have any thing to do with the presidential election, although I follow this every day. I am living in the Netherlands. The one thing I don't understand about the Michigan and Florida votes is, that peope are saying
this are the rules. Are the many people that went to the polls responseble for that early voting ??? If not, then you have to honeur the votes that came in.

Posted by: Wim van Breugel | March 9, 2008 1:41 PM

Michigan is an open primary. Does this mean that all registered voters, including republicans and independents, will be mailed a paper ballot in accordance with an open primary process?

Personally, I'm annoyed at all these politicians from MI and FL complaining about having to do a revote. They knew what the penalties were when they chose to violate the rules. It is these FL and MI politicans that the voters should be mad at for getting everyone into this mess.

Posted by: JT | March 9, 2008 1:43 PM

Obama supporters are wasting their good intentions on a really bad guy.

It may take a while to sink in but I'm confident most of them will come to their senses.

Its over for Obama.

He's never going to be President.

He has a history and a paper trail, and he'll be lucky not to wind up in jail.

The truth about the real Obama is coming out and its not pretty.

He's a really bad guy who only cares about himself.

He's doesn't deserve support from anyone.

How could anyone even THINK of supporting a man who did what Obama did in Chicago to the poor people who made the mistake of trusting him and were foolish enough to buy his sales pitch and elect him???

Please Watch this report on Obama, Obama's slums, Rezko, and $100M of wasted taxpayer money, from Chicago's most respected TV news program.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feature=related

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but Obama's actually a really bad guy

Posted by: svreader | March 9, 2008 1:44 PM

Eventually the grown-ups are going to have to get involved with this. In Florida, the early primary was a Republican scheme from the get-go. Republicans drove it through the legislature and a Republican governor signed it. But whoever drove it in Michigan, a Democratic governor signed it. She should be willing to compromise or she will be tied to any defeats the Democrats suffer over this in November. Like I said, the grown-ups should step in soon. The only problem is, who are the grown-ups?

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 1:45 PM

"No Obama shouldn't get a single delegate. He CHOSE not to contest those states. Too bad, so sad."

Did you even read the article? This is a typical comment by a female Clinton supporter who has already rushed to judgement based on gender. Please get the facts right.

"...the Obama campaign followed Democratic Party rules that called for no campaigning in Florida and Michigan, and the Illinois senator should not now be penalized for doing so."

Obama wasn't even on the Michigan ticket. Why should those votes be counted? They shouldn't. These two rogue states deserve to be punished and to seat their delegates based on the previous primaries would be an injustice to the Democratic election process.

Posted by: Gavin | March 9, 2008 1:45 PM

Since both Hillary Clinton and Obama names were in the Florida primary, it is absurd to tell the people who voted that their votes don't count. Since neither Obama and Clinton campaigned in Florida, the vote was a fair reflection of the voter sentinments. Hillary Clinton did not campaign in many states that Obama won in caucuses, it does not mean that she can get a second primary. The rule set by the DNC on voiding Florida and Michigan votes is absolutely untenable in the context of the tight competition for delegates. In Michigan, Obama can get the uncommitted 40% of the votes for his delegate strength. If the rule can be changed to conduct new primaries, the earlier rule can also be voided to make the previous primary votes binding.

Posted by: vaidyatk | March 9, 2008 1:47 PM

The DNC "punished" Michigan and Florida without forethought.

As a result, the DNC should bear the costs of new primaries.

Next time, they'll think before they exercise their "power".

Actually, they won't think. The DNC is no different than any other political organization.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 1:48 PM

I think Dean is right. If we don't resolve this soon, we lose in November. That would be tragic for the country. The Supreme Court would swing far right; it's half there already. The Republicans know this and are sitting back and laughing at us.

I am not in favor of a do-over. As harsh as it sounds, Mich and Fla broke the rules (although it wasn't Fla's fault) and the candidates agreed not to campaign there and that the delegates not count. I think that should be remain. But that will please no one (particularly Clinton) and is perhaps unfair to voters. So what do we do? A 50-50 split seems fair, but I doubt Clinton will be pleased with that either.

The Democrats are close to losing this thing in November and I for one think it is the country that pay the heavy price because of this ridiculous bickering.

Posted by: elmundo6 | March 9, 2008 1:48 PM

svreader
You should really take a vacation or something. You sound as shrill and unrealistic as Hillary. If the scorched earth policy she is running ruins the Democrats' chance in November, it will destroy the party. She doesn't care because she thinks it's her turn, party be damned. If you feel that way too, then you should find another party, like maybe the Republicans. That's really more their style of politics.

Posted by: Electric Bill | March 9, 2008 1:49 PM

I am in complete agreement with Lee Sterne's comments (01:34 PM); I suspect that most Democrats would be willing to pitch in a bit to ensure an intelligent solution to this situation. On the other hand, Susan Nunes 01:36 PM) doesn't seem to believe in playing by the rules, which perhaps explains why she supports HRC. We all remember how Bill used to talk unceasingly about people playing by the rules. I guess it's just another case of how the Clintons will do and say anything to get elected.

Posted by: Preston Winters | March 9, 2008 1:50 PM

Hillary's eagerness for a revote may be her downfall. Who is going to pay for this if not the DNC or the state governments? The candidates? If the only viable option financially would be mail-in caucuses, Hillary could be signing up for the very caucus process she has derided time and again after losing caucus after caucus.

My bet is that she is smart enough not to take that risk until after the Pennsylvania primary. Depending on her margin of success (which is likely), she can determine exactly what she should advocate for in Florida and Michigan.

Posted by: Elizabeth Ross | March 9, 2008 1:51 PM

It is amazing to me how the comments above from ALL people simply reflect the position that is most favorable to the candidate they support. The comments above have NOTHING to do with fairness ... they reflect "business as usual" ... what happened to HOPE? what happened to CHANGE?

The primaries "held" in both Michigan and Florida were NOT fair, either to the democratic candidates who had agreed not to campaign in these states or to the people of the states who had no opportunity to meet and hear the candidates. Obama also was not even on the Michigan ballot.

BUT these Americans need to be heard, IN A FAIR MANNER. The ONLY way to approximate fairness is to do a "redo" of some type. One can never be totally fair with today's primary system anyway. The early primaries have an unfair advantage in the party nomination, hence the issue with Michigan and Florida. BUT a resolution to the current dilemma MUST be as fair as possible. A "redo" is the only answer.

The two main problems with this are time and money, as well as state laws. There is enough time if the parties involved get on the stick. State laws involve politics and, again, one can not expect fair treatment of the voters at this point. However, some mechanism for a "redo" of some type in BOTH states MUST be found.

As far as money, any "redo" should NOT come from state tax revenues. In my opinion, it is in the absolute interest of the other three parties involved to foot the bill; hence the states of Florida and Michigan should not pay for a "redo". The other parties involved are the DNC, the Obama campaign, and the Clinton campaign. The DNC has its "rules" arguments etc ... BUT the Democrats could easily wind up losing in November over this issue. It is critically important that the DNC do its share to resolve this issue. The importance of resolving this issue to the two campaigns is obvious.

So ... let's do it! A mail ballot, although not totally fair, is relatively inexpensive and relatively secure. Such would probably not violate any state laws. Such could be done in time. AND this would provide a relatively fair opportunity for the voices of the citizens of these two states to be heard.

Posted by: dnarep | March 9, 2008 1:52 PM

I think we should go for Michigan and Florida.
There are two reasons
1) Though Obama leads in delegates but he hasnot won big states.Remember,California who voted for Kerry lat election is a major democratic base.(Hilary Clinton has won states with about 260 electoral votes and Barack Obama has won states with about 190).
Again Obama has won those(red) states where Republicans will win in November.
2)If Barrack Obama is leading now why should he be afraid of Michigan and Florida re-election.
3)If clinton is doing negative campaign.isnot Obama also doing the same?
how about Monster?

Posted by: Bibs | March 9, 2008 1:54 PM

really,

what's going on is that there is a disconnect between the people that live in the United States and the people that prey on them.

you also have a media and a governemnt that rely sooooooooo much on spin that the truth never gets heard.

listen closely, what happens when you eliminate the very people that made AMERICA DIFFERENT from the rest of the world???


the middle class, 80 PERCENT of most of the PEOPLE in the United States used to belong to some version of the middle class, with wages and benefits that were commensurate.


When REAGAN took down the Air Traffic Controllers Union, he declared open season on union jobs.


Down sizing, followed by INTERNATIONALIZATION, led companies to shopping around for labor, since so many markets were available that were cheaper than AMERICAN laborers.


But hey, boneheads, take away those middle class incomes and replace them with retail/service sector incomes and the economic stream doesn't have enough water in it to float an inner tube, much less dependable commerce.


listen closely,


what puts more money into the stream:


1. A million people making a 100K

or

2. A hundred-thousand people making a million dollars?


number one. more households.

each household probably consumes the same number of big ticket items.

refrigerators, cars, computers...which generate flow, purchases...and if spent locally keep the flow moving.


for example: I currently live in a midwestern city, that has gone through a number of iterations of factory closings. I spoke with my lawyer the other day about how life was for him, he said lousy...no one was litigating. There wasn't enough money locally that people were willing to spend money on lawyers. Factory workers get hurt, need medical coverage, buy cars, houses, make loans, sue their neighbors....if they have money...working retail jobs they don't have any extra....they are running at the edge of surviving...

arguably the household with more money would consume higher ticket items...but middle income people tend to spend the bulk of their paycheck, 80 PERCENT with little savings...


bigger incomes tend to invest more.


GDP has been bumped form goods produced to goods produced by a company in any country, labor costs overseas is spent overseas, it's not reinjected in the United States Economy.

And GDP also stands for PAPER TRANSACTIONS...a falsely inflated view of reality...paper trades hands and nothing gets produced...but yet it's added into GDP, it's called your formulaes don't accurately reflect reality because your models no longer accurately capture flow.


and again.


the current administration uses spin to hide what is going on as a practice....


the bush families are KNOWN FOR MONEY LAUNDERING and BANKING SCANDALS...


do you need help thinking?


The United States isn't really making anything compared to where it used to be, and you can't figure out what's going on????


LISTEN CLOSELY, get out of Washington, walk around in

DETROIT MICHIGAN, GARY INDIANA, PITTSBURGH PENNSYLVANIA, CHARLOTTE NORTH CAROLINA, HICKORY NORTH CAROLINA...


talk to the people, they have to compete with a seamstress in Pakistan making 32CENTS an hour for Ralph Lauren shirts...

textile and furniture factories moved overseas... houses sold off, bankruptcies climbing and

CONGRESS passed a law saying a judge couldn't excuse a debt for a bankruptcy applicant even if they lost everything through no fault of their own...


as in their jobs left town for overseas, and there were no local jobs left...


catch a clue pentdayholse


.the repulsive swant to sell you the candidate that wants to "forget about the past,"

even though he will be knee deep in bushCO and CRONYs appointees, bureaucracy


and two new GOVERNMENT AGENCIES that never existed until the current regime:


National Intelligence AGENCY, that gives the president the right to appoint a head who can

1. over rule intelligence from all other intelligence agencies

2. excuse certain corporations from having their books examined

3. fire any intelligence officer from any other agency, w/o review or disclosure...


why would george w. bush, cheney, rice and rumsfeld to have such an agency exist?


it allows the President to over rule all the other INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES and spin his own story


which is what has been happening.


grow up learn to think AMERICANS, look past the vitrol from the fake republicans to what they are trying to obscure...


EXACTLY WHAT I AM POSTING ABOUT....

bushCO and CRONYs aren't going away unless you dig them out.

or spray them with weed b gone....


.

Posted by: WAKE UP AMERICANS !!!! the repulsive scammers are jobbing you.... | March 9, 2008 1:55 PM

Florida and Michigan should count, and Howard Dean should go back to Vermont. As long as the left wing liberal extremist continue to run the party of the middle class, they will indeed lose. The Democratic Party used to be for the working class; the party of FDR, and since then only one President has been re-elected; Bill Clinton, a centrist. Ted Kennedy caused Jimmy Carter to lose the 1980 election. Just tell me how many Presidential elections have the left wing liberal crowd won. Here in NC we have had only two republicans in the last century as Governor, and only four years the republicans ruled the house of rep. Why, you might ask,because we run middle of the road Democrats, and they win, because that's where the majority of this country is. Wake up middle class people; lets throw out the left wing liberals, or start our own labor party.
Greenville, NC

Posted by: aforeman | March 9, 2008 1:56 PM


WYOMING
Obama campaigned there for MONTHS
Senator Clinton campaigned there for DAYS

Obama outspends Senator Clinton at LEAST 2-1 just to keep even

Obama is a shooting star. All show, no substance.

He is now going to flip flop on his "I'm not negative" pledge.
Like he flip flopped on his "I agree to use public funding" pledge.
Like he flip flops in secret wink-wink political meetings about NAFTA and FOREIGN POLICY statements he's made to the voters.

This man is UnElectible AND UN"BELIEVABLE"

Great front page NY Times article - extremely well researched and written: Thank you NY Times! Truth and great investigative Journalism for the world to read!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09obama.html?ex=1205726400&en=cb0ece49adbd89d6&ei=5070&emc=eta1
He should be BEGGING for the VP spot.

God Bless America !

Posted by: Thinker | March 9, 2008 1:56 PM

All DNC votes and delegates from FL and MI for the 2008 presidential primaries should be voided.

Florida and Michigan delegates and superdelegates SHOULD NOT BE ALLOCATED for the presidential primary 2008.

FL and MI broke party rules by moving forward their election dates.

If the FL and MI voters are upset that their votes didn't count (and they should be) they should direct their frustrations to their state election officials who chose to break with DNC rules.

Posted by: David Williamson | March 9, 2008 1:56 PM

Fairest, simplest, least costly solution, taking into account all aguments for and against:

Florida and Michigan are to have no influence on the nomination because they broke the rules. But they are too important not to be at the convention. SOLUTION: Seat both delegations split 50-50, Obama and Clinton. Punished but present. No cost. Done.

Posted by: mauialoha | March 9, 2008 1:57 PM

I have often wondered how Thune Beat Daschle for his senate seat, I believe I can finally see why, Daschle is a phony, implying that Obama did not have the same opportunity in Mich. & Florida as Clinton did. When I say phony he is not looking for a fair way to settle their differences, He is simply looking to protect the job he was promised.So much for our good ex senate majority leader.

Posted by: James Smith | March 9, 2008 2:00 PM

The voters of Michigan and Florida did not break any rules. The politicians did but the people should not have to pay for the politicians' mistakes.
Michigan -- Hillary should get her delegates and Obama can have the Uncommitted;
Florida -- delegates should be awarded based on the Jan. results. Hillary and Obama were on an equal footing and the people voted believing their vote would make a difference.
All the posturing by the DNC will not change those facts.

Posted by: alee21 | March 9, 2008 2:00 PM

NAZIS IN AMERICAN POLITICKing

He's America's Joseph Goebbels.

As a 21-year old Young Republican in Texas, Karl Rove not only pimped for Richard Nixon's chief political dirty tricks strategist Donald Segretti but soon caught the eye of the incoming Republican National Committee Chairman, George H. W. Bush. Rove's dirty tricks on behalf of Nixon's 1972 campaign catapulted Rove onto the national stage.

From his Eagle's Nest in the West Wing of the White House, Rove now directs a formidable political dirty tricks operation and disinformation mill.

Since his formative political years when he tried to paint World War II B-24 pilot and hero George McGovern as a left-wing peacenik through his mid-level career as a planter of disinformation in the media on behalf of Texas and national GOP candidates to his current role as Dubya's "Svengali," Rove has practiced the same style of slash and burn politics as did his Nixonian mentor Segretti.

Many of us remember the Lincolnesque Senator Ed Muskie breaking down in tears during the 1972 campaign over Segretti-planted false stories in a New Hampshire newspaper that a

ccused Mrs. Muskie of being a heavy smoker, drinker, and cusser and accused Muskie of uttering a slur in describing New Hampshire's French Canadian population.

Rove's hero also forged letters on fake Muskie campaign letterhead,
disrupted rallies and fundraising dinners, and

spread false stories about the sex lives of candidates.

Segretti's brush also smeared George McGovern,
George Wallace,
Shirley Chisholm, and
McGovern's first vice presidential choice, Senator Tom Eagleton.

Segretti of course did not go on to a high-level White House job -- he was sentenced to six months in federal prison for distributing illegal campaign material.

In many respects, however, the apprentice Rove has far exceeded the chicanery and evil-mindedness of his mentor Segretti. Rove is a tech-savvy puppet master for Bush. Take, for example, last June's discovery of a "lost" CD-ROM in Lafayette Park across from the White House. Contained on the CD was a PowerPoint presentation given by White House political director Ken Mehlman to Rove on the strategy for next Tuesday's off-year election. The slide show showed First Brother Jeb Bush being vulnerable in Florida. Jeb Bush later joked that the disc was part of a plot cooked up by him and his brother to make it appear that he was vulnerable in order to rally an otherwise complacent GOP base in the Sunshine State. Or was it a joke? Jeb Bush and his political minions like Katherine Harris have shown us that if anyone thinks what the GOP has done in Florida is funny they have an incredibly sick sense of humor.

Rove's own tendency to be sick-minded originates with his mentor Segretti. The 2000 GOP primary was a chance for Rove to hone his skills in dirty tricks. His target then was Senator John McCain who appeared to be within striking distance of Dubya in South Carolina after the then-GOP maverick's surprise upset victory in New Hampshire. Rove's operation proceeded to target McCain with false stories: McCain was a stoolie for his captors in the Hanoi Hilton (this from a self-promoting Vietnam "veteran"); McCain fathered a black daughter out of wedlock (a despicable reference to McCain's adopted Bangladeshi daughter); Cindy McCain's drug "abuse"; and even McCain's "homosexuality." In the spirit of Segretti, Rove engineered a victory for Dubya but at the cost of trashing an honorable man and his family. Muskie, McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Hart, Tsongas, Clinton, Biden, Dole, Perot, and others had all seen the Segretti/Rove slash and burn tactics before.

And Rove's penchant for fascistic demagoguery and outright lying continues to this very day.

After Paul Wellstone's sons asked that Vice President Dick Cheney not attend the Minneapolis memorial service for their father, mother, and sister, the White House explained that the real reason wasn't the surviving Wellstone family's abhorrence for Cheney but the fact the family didn't want Cheney's Secret Service protection to interfere with public access to the service.

Of course, the Rove and Ari Fleischer disinformation machine forgot to take into account that two attendees, Bill and Hillary Clinton, had their own Secret Service details.

But such is the case with a White House that takes its lessons from Goebbels and the editorial staff of the old Soviet News Agency Tass.

Posted by: who is framing most of the media interpretation of events.... the DEMOCRATS ???? hardly | March 9, 2008 2:01 PM

Florida and Michigan should count, and Howard Dean should go back to Vermont. As long as the left wing liberal extremist continue to run the party of the middle class, they will indeed lose. The Democratic Party used to be for the working class; the party of FDR, and since then only one President has been re-elected; Bill Clinton, a centrist. Ted Kennedy caused Jimmy Carter to lose the 1980 election. Just tell me how many Presidential elections have the left wing liberal crowd won. Here in NC we have had only two republicans in the last century as Governor, and only four years the republicans ruled the house of rep. Why, you might ask,because we run middle of the road Democrats, and they win, because that's where the majority of this country is. Wake up middle class people; lets throw out the left wing liberals, or start our own labor party.
Greenville, NC

Posted by: aforeman | March 9, 2008 2:02 PM

svreader,

Could you please post something that isn't already common knowledge? Your vitriol attacks sound like Clinton herself and it's this mentality that's driving this party to the brink. His mistake is a drop in the hat compared to the Clinton's past. Whitewater ring a bell? How about Hillary's taxes from the past year? She's hiding something and what it is we'll never know. Just like their friends who did jail time for them to protect them from the truth.

We have the worst president in the history of the United States and for Clinton to be building her platform on character attacks instead of facing the real issues is charlatan behavior. She has no leg to stand on the real issues such as foreign policy and universal healthcare. If it wasn't for her, we probably would have a decent healthcare system in this country. Her agenda in the 90's was to promote her case at any cause. Even if it meant dividing the government into deep partisan rifts. Who cares about the common person as long as the Clinton's can save face? Who cares about the majority vote? Who cares about democracy? If you think this is hyperbole, please do some research about Hillary and what she really stands for. We're about to see the 2008 version of hanging chads all over again if she doesn't bow out NOW.

Posted by: Mike | March 9, 2008 2:03 PM

What a mess. Of course Hillary would be for honoring the primary votes cast in Florida and Michigan and of course Obama would be for a 50-50 split (since he is ahead in delegates, that would maintain the status quo). States should not be able to set their primaries whenever they want, and a state like Florida with a Republican leadership should not be able to push through a primary knowing it will penalize the democrats in their state. What a mess. A do-over isn't fair to those who voted before, and mail-in voting would be another way to get a do-over. What a mess that should have been foreseen and precluded.

Posted by: cb1 | March 9, 2008 2:04 PM

"Splitting" the votes is the equivalent of tossing them out. So, that doesn't work.

Re-votes with mail in ballots is the way this is going to go. Democrats cannot disenfranchise two of the top ten states. Forget it Obama-bots, ain't gonna happen. I know you have all been led into delusionally thinking that eveybody is going to lay down and cake walk Mr. O - but the Party takes care of the Party above all else - not like the media babying act and the rock star show business we've been witnessing. They care about the Party over everything else. Electability is EVERYTHING. And credentials.

ELECTORAL, GENERAL ELECTION VOTE COUNT - as it stands today

Hillary Clinton 263

Barack Obama 193


In other words, if this were NOVEMBER, Senator Clinton has won the States that would win more Electoral Votes than Obama against John McCain.

Electability is EVERYTHING.

NObama is a newbie not much candidate who has done nothing and should have waited until 2016.

He should be BEGGING for the VP spot.


Posted by: Thinker | March 9, 2008 2:04 PM

why do republicans hate america so?


they don't, they're simply put _ignorant_ of their effect.

they don't care about you or their eefects on the world.

because you're not real to them, they haven't encountered you...in some centuries. Do you think bush was feeling for the men and women dying in Vietnam? How could he, no one in his class was _over there_....Rummy Cheyney?


in a certain sense it is "business as usual,"


_they_

are old fashioned rulers.

They rule by ruleset, not by understanding what is happening.

Their words, and actions reflect a lack of appreciation or deeper understanding of what the world is going through...as a whole.

The prattling about democracy for Iraq as Africa is busy going up in flames and aids, and we sell them arms to further inflame their tribal wars....

the thoughtlessness, is evident in that they didn't realize that what the administration was saying was an _obvious_ lie, in light of what was going on in the rest of the world.

The mindset that they have and use is _inherited_.

It's olde European manipulation of wealth by the wealthy...they're not even American in a way...they are Stuarts...royalty. Bush Sr's uncle was part of the West Indies Spice company, which is multiple centuries old and why Poppy was involved with CIA in trying to depose Castro...in the early 50's...family business...not United States.


Rupert Murdoch is of the same molde even if he's newly rich...Austrailian owner of the media who attempted to monopolize it about 10 years ago...all he got was FOX and some others but not controlling interest in World media...they stopped that in California, as he tried to buy up several newspapers and some newscasting agencies.

Newer minds, unfettered by class belief, can see the effects that deals have on "the people," because in an enclosed society...one that has reached it's borders, we affect each other.


For the olde rich, the inherited,

part of the mindset is _they_ "the people" are not of our class and we are not affected by _them_ "the people."


ANY engineer can tell you that all parts of a ecological system affect each other.

Hell Heisenbergs uncertainy principle, tells you that.

.

this is like shooting fish in a barrel...


I would imagine that the repulsive scammers have infiltrated both camps and are ratcheting things up whilst the Obamanauts and the Hillary crowd try and make sense of it...


there is none. republicans have no character, no morality, and no agendae except to control


how do you identify a republican on these boards, find the people attributing _those_SLIMING_traits_ to Hillary.

and Bill


"bash the Clintons!" has been rushing limp bought's and Karls ROVES agendae for 16 years...expect to see it continue until they are imprisoned for treasonous conduct.

.

Posted by: EXPOSE THE FAKE DEMOCRATS !!!!!! | March 9, 2008 2:04 PM

Mike is a good example of a republican pretending to be a democrat.

Posted by: EXPOSE THE FALSE DEMOCRATS | March 9, 2008 2:05 PM

"In Florida, the early primary was a Republican scheme from the get-go. Republicans drove it through the legislature and a Republican governor signed it."

Just two small facts about this "Republican scheme"

The bill to advance the primary dates in Fl was proposed by Sen. Jeremy Ring (D) Dist 32. It was Senate Bill 1010.

2. The vote on the bill as it came out of committee was passed by the Florida house 118-0 with 2 not voting. It passed the Florida senate 37-2 with 1 not voting.

(I guess that every legislator other than Sen. Ring is a Republican!)

Posted by: to 1:45 poster | March 9, 2008 2:05 PM

i just got one thing to say... dont mess with texas

Posted by: unknown | March 9, 2008 2:06 PM

The courts have traditionally kept hands off political parties... But, I am amazed that a cheated democratic voter has not gone to court and demanded that the court either order the DNC to seat his states delegates, or declare the entire primary election invalid... In a representative democaracy, one man cannot be allowed to block the votes of millions of voters just because he feels his authority has been challenged...

Posted by: Dr. O | March 9, 2008 2:07 PM

"Obama, who expects to have a edge among these delegates"

a edge?

'"Hilary Clinton has won states with about 260 electoral votes...." Rendell said.'

Hilary?

Posted by: Rachel | March 9, 2008 2:10 PM

The Lying Right-Wing Media (LRWM) won't ask the question. According to those brave News Hounds who watch FOX so we won't have to, Gannon/Guckert's name has never even been mentioned on FOX [4]. Just imagine the wall-to-wall coverage on FOX if this had happened in the CLINTON White House!

But we'll ask it - and we'll keep asking it until we get the truth.

Did George W. Bush - and/or other top White House officials - have sexual relations with that man, James Guckert?

Lest you think this is an absurd question, I'll refer you to the widespread rumors that Bush had a long-term sexual relationship with his Ambassador to Poland ("don't forget Poland!"), former Yale classmate and Knoxville Mayor Victor Ashe [5]. As with every other Bush scandal (AWOL, Bulgegate [the president by fraud wired to a coach during debates], Harken Energy, etc.), the Victor Ashe scandal has been blacked out by the LRWM.

I'll also refer you to widespread rumors that GOP Chairman Ken Mehlman is gay [6]. Why has DNC chair Howard Dean been put under a microscope by the LRWM, but not RNC chair Ken Mehlman? Surely a party which used homophobia to "win" the 2004 elections should explain how it could tolerate a gay chairman at the same time as it militantly opposes gay rights?

Finally, I'll refer you to the "call boys" scandal of the Reagan-Bush White House [7], which made the front page of the Washington Times in 1989. (Thanks Necco!)


you democrats do need to understand that the


vitrol posted here is primarily Repulsive Scammers

trying to sway you with APPEAL TO EMOTION

name calling innuendo slime attempt to link to false stories


I have seen it play out since the 70's when they took McGovern down


it's what they do, to manipulate the tender hearted, and gullible


don't be polarized, learn to look through the steam to the true horizon.

.

Posted by: EXPOSE THE FAKE DEMOCRATS !!! | March 9, 2008 2:10 PM

Obama supporters --

Watch the Video. Obama didn't do his job and lots of poor people who trusted him suffered and some most likely died because of it.

How can you even THINK of supporting a man who did what Obama did in Chicago to the people who elected him???

This isn't about Clinton vs Obama.

Its about Obama's total betrayal of trust of the weakest and least fortunate, who trusted him to look out for them.

Please Watch this report on Obama, Obama's slums, Rezko, and $100M of wasted taxpayer money, from Chicago's most respected TV news program.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feature=related

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but Obama's actually a really bad guy.

Posted by: svreader | March 9, 2008 2:10 PM

The mail ballot is a good idea. No doubt it will have it problems No matter what anything makes more sense than the stupid voting system in Texas. Plus, the mail in system is much more fair than the caucus system. I doubt that Obama would like it though, because it gives Hillary's support group an opportunity to vote: Elderly, working class, etc. It would favor Hillary, but then again the caucus system by it's nature favors Obama...No one can get 100% of what they want, even though both canidates would like too.

What's the deal with Carl Levin? Is he going to endorse Obama? It sure sounds like it? It doesn't seem like he supports his state.

Posted by: Trudi | March 9, 2008 2:10 PM

The Obama campaign is so arrogant as to destroy any chances of the democrats winning the Presidency. His campaign ran an ad in Florida but it has gained little attention so in essence he campaigned there so where is the problem with seating Florida? Their argument is that rules are rules and it doesn't matter if we disenfranchize millions of voter because of the rules? What sheer arrogance and stupidity! That is why the democrats are destined to lose this and every upcoming election. Long live the the Republican party!! This comes from a hard core democrat who's seeing his party go down in flames by it's own hand!

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 2:12 PM

HILLARY'S FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE CLAIMS FRAUDALENT. "......... Clinton claimed that she "helped to bring peace" to Northern Ireland and negotiated with Macedonia to open up its border to refugees from Kosovo. She also cited "standing up" to the Chinese government on women's rights and a one-day visit she made to Bosnia following the Dayton peace accords.

But her involvement in the Northern Ireland peace process was primarily to appear before women's groups there, a contribution that the lead U.S. negotiator described as "helpful" but that an Irish historian who has written extensively about the conflict dismissed as "ancillary" to the peace process.

The Macedonian government opened its border to refugees the day before Clinton arrived to meet with government leaders. And her mission to Bosnia was a one-day visit in which she was accompanied by performers Sheryl Crow and Sinbad, as well as her daughter, Chelsea, according to the commanding general who hosted her."

Posted by: Katy7540 | March 9, 2008 2:12 PM

you think back


to 2000


people like Mike were telling

Al Gore to "give up," on demanding a recount...


pay attention SHEEPLE !!!!!!!!!!!!!


The Lying Right-Wing Media (LRWM) won't ask the question. According to those brave News Hounds who watch FOX so we won't have to, Gannon/Guckert's name has never even been mentioned on FOX [4]. Just imagine the wall-to-wall coverage on FOX if this had happened in the CLINTON White House!

But we'll ask it - and we'll keep asking it until we get the truth.

Did George W. Bush - and/or other top White House officials - have sexual relations with that man, James Guckert?

Lest you think this is an absurd question, I'll refer you to the widespread rumors that Bush had a long-term sexual relationship with his Ambassador to Poland ("don't forget Poland!"), former Yale classmate and Knoxville Mayor Victor Ashe [5]. As with every other Bush scandal (AWOL, Bulgegate [the president by fraud wired to a coach during debates], Harken Energy, etc.), the Victor Ashe scandal has been blacked out by the LRWM.

I'll also refer you to widespread rumors that GOP Chairman Ken Mehlman is gay [6]. Why has DNC chair Howard Dean been put under a microscope by the LRWM, but not RNC chair Ken Mehlman? Surely a party which used homophobia to "win" the 2004 elections should explain how it could tolerate a gay chairman at the same time as it militantly opposes gay rights?

Finally, I'll refer you to the "call boys" scandal of the Reagan-Bush White House [7], which made the front page of the Washington Times in 1989. (Thanks Necco!)


you democrats do need to understand that the


vitrol posted here is primarily Repulsive Scammers

trying to sway you with APPEAL TO EMOTION

name calling innuendo slime attempt to link to false stories


I have seen it play out since the 70's when they took McGovern down


it's what they do, to manipulate the tender hearted, and gullible


don't be polarized, learn to look through the steam to the true horizon.

.

Posted by: if | March 9, 2008 2:13 PM

The 50-50 split of delegates from Michigan and Florida is clearly the most reasonable response to this situation. Anyone who claims that it is unfair should remember that, unlike Clinton, Obama actually did what they all agreed to do and did not campaign in any way in those states. Clinton, wink-wink, didn't campaign either...though honestly she's essentially been campaigning nationwide since her husband left office. Obama didn't even put himself on the ballot in Michigan, for pete's sake. So how are the votes as they were fair? Obama didn't campaign, didn't get to make his case to the voters and voters weren't even ALLOWED to vote for him in Michigan. The 50-50 split allows the delegates to be seated without overly alienating either candidate.

By the way, I don't think this is as big a deal as everyone says. Do you really think that primary voters are going to vote for McCain out of spite about the primary votes? Get real. If you're someone who's trying to choose between Obama and Clinton, then you're probably not one of those (hopefully) few people who would be crazy enough to vote for a war-hawk with no economic plan like McCain.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 2:13 PM

If this were November, Hillary would have won more electoral votes, if she was somehow running against another Democratic candidate in the general election!

And also, she'd win if the states that were disqualified for breaking the primary rules weren't disqualified!

And if Obama blew himself up becuase he was a suicide bomber, she would also win by default!

So everybody forget the actual primary, which she's losing, and focus on these alternate universes where she's the winner, okay?

Posted by: Christoffel | March 9, 2008 2:14 PM

Wis Florida Governor, a Republican plotting to support Hillary's nomination. First he says he cannot pay for the re-do of the party primary. Once the idea of mail-in-vote was floated, he now says Democrats already voted once and it is PRECIOUS. He is indirectly suggesting that Obama should not get any delegates from FL. What I am not clear is, is he a racist or someone who wants Hillary to become the nominee so that McCain could beat her easily in NOvember. Either way, letting a Republican decide the nominee of this party is just ridiculous. The delegate should either be split or a redo is the other option.

Posted by: JJ2000 | March 9, 2008 2:14 PM

Doesn't anyone see Charlie Crist's ulterior motive? He's a Republican. He signed the bill authorizing the early primary. He hopes for the No. 2 position on the GOP ticket. He wants McCain to run against Hillary, because she would be easier to beat.

He's talking like a typical politician, but the real problem is that few challenge him.

Posted by: DualAg | March 9, 2008 2:14 PM

Howad Dean created the mess in Florida and Michigan and he is the one who is now doing everything he can to disenfranchise over 4 millions voters from revoting.He is incompetent,reckless,lack of ledership, and most important of all, partial in judgements, his partiality towrads Obama is so obvious. I don't know how the chairman is created in the Dem Party. I do hnow it is not elected. Fire Howard Dean immediate and have a revote before it is too late!He is incapable of being the chariman of our party.Don't forget the laughing stock he performed of yelling on top of his lung in 2004! the man is just a nut and an emotional idiot.

Posted by: johnycheng | March 9, 2008 2:14 PM

Personally I think the democrats will really hurt themselves if they nominate Hillary. If this happens I believe that McCain will win, which is fine by me. He isnt exactly the Republican I wouldve wanted but hes better than Hillary by a long shot.

Posted by: dfsadfd | March 9, 2008 2:15 PM

Changing the rules AFTER the game would be suicidal for Democratic party. MI and FL knew well that they were violating the rules; the candidates followed the rules (though Hillary left her name on MI ballot).

Hillary did NOT win MI, where both she and her opponent did not campaign because MI knowingly violated DNC rules; same with FL.
For Hillary to NOW demand that the delegates she claims to have 'won' be seated in Denver
is speaking from both sides of her mouth, sheer hypocrisy.

I have said this before: Seating MI and FL alongside the States that followed the rules will be like rewarding illegal immigrants with US citizenship.

As to Super-delegates, a lot of them sided with Hillary long before relevant primaries, assuming that she would have the nomination.
This allows back-door, 'smoked-filled-room' wheeling-dealing (with an ex-president trying to influence Super-delegates)--- NO PLACE in a modern democracy !

That a second-place candidate is now offering a run with her front-runner rival as her VP is preposterous !

With proportional allocation of delegates, NO candidate seems now able to get the required 2025 delegates. Wheeling-dealing Super-delegates can only make matters worse for Democrats.

This election is for Democrats to lose. They seem headed in that direction, this far in the game. I can see the Independents and youth votes drifting away en masse.

My suggestion for 2012: (i) Lose Super-delegates, (ii) Drop proportional allocation of delegates (no matter how fair it sounds to the contestants), and (iii) Negotiate FIRM election schedule with ALL States, and stick with it.

Posted by: cantabb | March 9, 2008 2:15 PM

Why not just halve the delegate count in Michigan and Florida like the republicans did? Obama would sill be ahead by well over 100 pledged delegates and lets get on with it.

This would be highly unfair to Senator Obama but may help get the democratic party over this.

Posted by: JEM4 | March 9, 2008 2:16 PM

hey "thinker". you've got a very ironic name. I'm sure there is nothing about the Clintons that we can characterize as flip flopping. Every word out of both sides of their mouths are contradictory, depending on the latest results.
obama is out-spending clinton for the same reason a dog licks himself-because he can!
is that somehow unfair against the "inevitable candidate"?
change your name to something more appropriate, like "bigot".

Posted by: alpaca | March 9, 2008 2:17 PM

These two rogue states failed to adhere by rules and should be punished accordingly. Justice done.Period

Posted by: TJ | March 9, 2008 2:17 PM

Go SCREW Howard Dean

Posted by: Glenn | March 9, 2008 2:18 PM

Susan Nunes:

It was not Obama's choice not to contest elections in MI & FL. It was decided by DNC and everybody has to abide by it. Offcourse, your crooked leader Hillary agreed to the rules but put her name on the ballot at the same time. That's called cheating. Do you want anymore proof the nature of your leader Hillary? Is that what you want in a President?

Posted by: JJ2000 | March 9, 2008 2:18 PM

Mi and Fla should count. BHO gets 40% to Hillary's 55% in MI, and each get their appropraite share of the Jan vote in FL. All thes rest is just the standard political game-playing.

BHO clearly does not want MI and FL to count, because the minute they do he loses this thing fair and square. The only way he can win the nomination is by disenfranchisng the two most important general election states after Ohio. He cannot win fair and square and so he needs to keep MI and FL out. That is why he has been silent on this issue from the get go. Whereas HIllary is standing with the voters and saying that their votes should count! She is on the winning side of this argument any way you cut it.

I totally agree with the person here who says Dean should go back to Vermot. Who put this guy in charge of the DNC? Well, that was pretty stupid! The Clintons are the only democrats who have known how to win a national election in generations. If we go with BHO and Dean we lose yet again. That is becoming quite clear. And anyone who things an african-american with the middle name of H is going to win states like Kansas, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah etc in a general election needs to have their head examined.

Posted by: alex | March 9, 2008 2:19 PM

repulsive scammers ARE SELLING YOU, that

"The Clintons," are to blame for everything that they are getting no profit from

but the Repulsive Scammers are profitting handsomely from...


the invasion of IRAQ and IRAQ's current occupation, and it's paying


is paying the Clintons "how much,"


DoodleySquat, nada, not a thing....not so of Dianne Feinstein though...


the NAFTA, crafted during Reagains time pushed through George H.W. Bushes efforts and finally signed during the Clinton Administration...has been subverted and the intent twisted purposely from it's original direction....


the Bush Family has relations with Central, South America y Mehico for various reasons...


most of the OIL and DRUG RELATED,


and they are profitting handsomely from NAFTA....they have the opportunity to correct any inequities, are they doing that or looking to increase it's influence in Colombia, drug capitol of the WORLD !!!!


so little peanuts listen closely,

what does a thief do? think in terms of your little sister or brother who just stole and ate all of the cookies,


they blame it on another sibling...

who profits from these things that the repulsive scammers are screaming about ????


they do. tax breaks and incentives to outsource manufacturing...


whose watch is it occuring on ???

who is encouraging it ?


why do republicans hate america so?


they don't, they're simply put _ignorant_ of their effect.

they don't care about you or their eefects on the world.

because you're not real to them, they haven't encountered you...in some centuries. Do you think bush was feeling for the men and women dying in Vietnam? How could he, no one in his class was _over there_....Rummy Cheyney?


in a certain sense it is "business as usual,"


_they_

are old fashioned rulers.

They rule by ruleset, not by understanding what is happening.

Their words, and actions reflect a lack of appreciation or deeper understanding of what the world is going through...as a whole.

The prattling about democracy for Iraq as Africa is busy going up in flames and aids, and we sell them arms to further inflame their tribal wars....

the thoughtlessness, is evident in that they didn't realize that what the administration was saying was an _obvious_ lie, in light of what was going on in the rest of the world.

Comment on: Downside of Obama Strategy at 3/8/2008 11:45 PM EST
look,

bush was never the president. he was the driver in the car that was robbing the United States of it's future.

he and his cronys have been filling their pockets non stop. setting up deals, trading influence, using the military as their personal business tool...

and AMERICA has paid for every cent of their theft...


when outsourcing should have been being rolled back as people started going in to bankruptcy and foreclosure years ago....


what did george do?


he asked congress to change bankruptcy laws to obscure the fact that AMERICANS were losing ground...


how did he do that, he made it so that a judge could not forgive a debt that was accrued through no fault of the debtor...


this was _routine_ in the past.


why was it a bad thing to do that?


it protects the corporation but not the individual from the effects of outsourcing....losing a job a future a resource...


why is that bad?


well, if you protect the citizens first, then the corporations lobby congress to keep the citizens from losing their jobs and not having to repay their credit card debt....that every family fighting to survive in today's economy _will_ do


I have seen entire towns states decimated by outsourcing


North and South Carolina home to the textile industry and furniture making historically have closed down all of their factories...


big name shoe manufacturing is overseas

automotive overseas

military aircraft building overseas


why is AMERICA giving up it's economy to INTERNATIONALs that have no stake in AMERICA's future...

listen up PENTAGON, it _is_ a NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE...


as the former USSR


how important the economy is

oh, they don't exist any more? why is that?


their economy collapsed because the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX spent them into oblivion and then moved to the USA as Bosnian refugees?


oy veh.

.

Posted by: SEPERATE and EXPOSE the fake democrats....aka REPULSIVE SCAMMERS.... | March 9, 2008 2:19 PM

Daschle sure seems starry eyed over Obama...

Posted by: Trudi | March 9, 2008 2:21 PM

why do republicans hate america so?


they don't, they're simply put _ignorant_ of their effect.

they don't care about you or their eefects on the world.

because you're not real to them, they haven't encountered you...in some centuries. Do you think bush was feeling for the men and women dying in Vietnam? How could he, no one in his class was _over there_....Rummy Cheyney?


in a certain sense it is "business as usual,"


_they_

are old fashioned rulers.

They rule by ruleset, not by understanding what is happening.

Their words, and actions reflect a lack of appreciation or deeper understanding of what the world is going through...as a whole.

The prattling about democracy for Iraq as Africa is busy going up in flames and aids, and we sell them arms to further inflame their tribal wars....

the thoughtlessness, is evident in that they didn't realize that what the administration was saying was an _obvious_ lie, in light of what was going on in the rest of the world.

The mindset that they have and use is _inherited_.

It's olde European manipulation of wealth by the wealthy...they're not even American in a way...they are Stuarts...royalty. Bush Sr's uncle was part of the West Indies Spice company, which is multiple centuries old and why Poppy was involved with CIA in trying to depose Castro...in the early 50's...family business...not United States.


Rupert Murdoch is of the same molde even if he's newly rich...Austrailian owner of the media who attempted to monopolize it about 10 years ago...all he got was FOX and some others but not controlling interest in World media...they stopped that in California, as he tried to buy up several newspapers and some newscasting agencies.

Newer minds, unfettered by class belief, can see the effects that deals have on "the people," because in an enclosed society...one that has reached it's borders, we affect each other.


For the olde rich, the inherited,

part of the mindset is _they_ "the people" are not of our class and we are not affected by _them_ "the people."


ANY engineer can tell you that all parts of a ecological system affect each other.

Hell Heisenbergs uncertainy principle, tells you that.

.

this is like shooting fish in a barrel...


I would imagine that the repulsive scammers have infiltrated both camps and are ratcheting things up whilst the Obamanauts and the Hillary crowd try and make sense of it...


there is none. republicans have no character, no morality, and no agendae except to control


how do you identify a republican on these boards, find the people attributing those traits to Hillary.

and Bill


"bash the Clintons !!!"


has been the rushing limp bought's and Karls kid Goebbels ROVE's agendae for the last 16 years...

expect to see it continue until they are imprisoned for treasonous conduct.

.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 2:22 PM

When did Daschle start sporting his new metrosexual look?

Posted by: Trudi | March 9, 2008 2:24 PM

As I understand it, the Republican gov and legislature of FL voted to move the date up for the FL primary...so why punish the Democrats of the state?

I would think it would be fair for a primary (no stupid caususes) and have a do-over with both Obama's and Clinton's name on the ballot. May the best man or woman win. And perhaps share the cost between the states, the candidates and the national Democratic party.

Posted by: Tim | March 9, 2008 2:26 PM

Great news. I hope they have to spend millions and that they destroy themselves. Good riddance for such a bunch of lowlife subversives, who value the rights of terrorists over those of our own military sevice members. Pathetic appeasing girlie men.

Posted by: LarryG62 | March 9, 2008 2:26 PM

sliver panda
It wasn't we Democrats who decided to disenfranchise the voters of FL and MI.

It was the party bosses.

Posted by: Bern | March 9, 2008 2:27 PM

The argument over the superdelegates is stupid. If they are simply supposed to vote with whoever has the majority of delegates already, they have no real purpose except to reach some arbitrarily assigned number.

Either give them an independent vote or get rid of them entirely and lower the number of delegates required to clinch the nomination.

Posted by: Melor | March 9, 2008 2:27 PM

svreader:

Rezko is looking for you right now. He is very pissed that you keep postings articles on him.

Posted by: JDK | March 9, 2008 2:27 PM

onething I observed that USA and england perhaps the only countres where old age people dump new generation( younger)'s dreams and hopes .....

I dont find a reason where the future of the country are the youth want change and seniors oppose it for their selfish and fearful mind .... remeber in USA the younger generation struggle the most whether its identity,education or WAR..... 90 % of the troops who died in iraq or afganistan are people under the age 40...

This is the time for OLD american people to recognize the sacrifices of the young generation and vote for the future not voting for dynasty building (bush-clinton) ...

Posted by: OLD america vs new America | March 9, 2008 2:27 PM

This whole thing, particularly Rendell's comments, smells completely rotten. If Obama fails to win the nomination because of these games it will be the end of the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 2:27 PM

Republicans contravening in the other party's politics: that's their MO.

This is about counting votes. The race is too close, so it's more important than ever.

It's illogical for the Obama campaign to claim a victory, on the basis of unreliable caucuses with cross over votes.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 2:27 PM

There is no greater circus than the Obama - Clinton election. Michigan and Florida would pay a fortune to have the Super Bowl come to their State - they would reap the economic benefit......
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/03/07/the-florida-michigan-vote-solution/

Posted by: Ohg Rea Tone | March 9, 2008 2:28 PM

Daschle caused considerable trouble when he was a Senator, which is why he is no longer a Senator, and he is at it again.
Florida and Michigan should have delegates at the convention. Whatever genius decided to take these delegates away in the first place should be thrown out of the party. No one plays God, disenfranchises FIVE million voters and calls it "rules". Democrats are hurting themselves at the polls by this childish gamesplaying. And, I'm no Clinton fan, but some of the comments made about her border on total lunacy as described in a psych textbook. I'd say some of these writers have a problem with their mother or wife and are displacing the hatred they feel. Women are such safe targets.

Posted by: zaney8 | March 9, 2008 2:29 PM

If neither candidate campaigned in Florida (although Obama's ads did run there), why is it wrong for Dean to allow the Florida primary results as-is? How was Obama disadvantaged?

Posted by: hitpoints | March 9, 2008 2:30 PM

A Florida citizen did bring a suit to have the Demo primary count in the convention. The federal court said that the Democratic party is a private organization and the courts have no business telling the Democratic party how to run its primary. (I am paraphrasing heavily, I only read accounts of the ruling, not the actual ruling itself.) This is within the long standing precedents that the court system does not interfere with political party dealings.

Remember, this is an election for and sponsored by a private organization, not a general election

I also understand that there is another case still pending in the US district court to force the Democratic party to recognize the primary election results.

Posted by: to Dr. O | March 9, 2008 2:31 PM

HOW TO PULL THE DEMOCRATS
OUT OF THE ALLIGATOR PIT

SNAPSHOT ANALYSIS OF OBAMA AND CLINTON PRIMARY VICTORIES
IN THE 2004 SWING STATES, AND A PROPOSAL ON HOW TO END THIS THING

George Frost, Esq.


The Democrats are up to their eyeballs in alligators these days. There are dire warnings -- mainly from Obama backers like MoveOn and Chris Mathews -- of a brokered convention, back room deals, and the death of democracy in the Democratic Party. The two leading candidates each appeal to powerful identity and interest groups, and feed on a sense of aggrieved entitlement, pitting blacks against Hispanics, young v. old, men v. women, and the working class v. the latte crowd.

The candidates each have strong claims to the Democratic mantle.

Obama says he has won more states and racked up more delegates and raw vote totals, and so it would be "undemocratic" for superdelegates to award the nomination to Clinton even if he has failed to clinch the 2,025 delegates needed for victory. Obama makes this fairness argument while at the same time trying to block the staging of new primary contests in Florida and Michigan, important swing states that may determine the outcome of the general election on November. Obama appears ready to poison the well if he does not get the nomination.

Clinton counters that she has won the big states that will count most in the general election, that Obama wants to change the rules so that "close" gets the cigar, and that the superdelegate system was created to serve as a tie-breaker in just this kind of deadlock. Yet Clinton wants to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations even though Obama did not even appear on the ballot in Michigan, and neither campaigned in either state. (Clinton won 870,986 votes in Florida compared to Obama's 576,214), a difference of 294,772.) She says she is ready to fight on to the bitter end, even though many Democrats fear that her increasingly negative campaign tactics will do lasting damage.

Many Clinton and Obama voters will stick to their guns no matter what. Cries of "Monster" and "Ken Starr" will fly. There will be blood. But the majority of Democrats (and many progressives), will gladly support either candidate against McCain, and are looking for a principled way to assess the relative strength of the Democratic primary contenders and award the nomination to the strongest candidate.

According to current AP estimates as of March 5, 2008, after her big wins in Texas and Ohio, Clinton has a total of 1,391 delegates -- a net gain of 115; Obama has 1,477 -- a net gain of 91. This is a difference of 86 delegates. But these numbers are not themselves conclusive of anything, except that the primary system is a mess. Under the "proportional" voting system there is a perverse math at work that, as Clinton correctly claims, penalizes wins in big states that matter, and rewards wins in little states that do not matter.


Caucuses: are Obama's caucus victories a lot of hot air?

A few liberal commentators, such as Obama-backer Chris Mathews, have been quoting Thomas Jefferson of late on the crucial importance of listening to the will of the people, and not overriding the popular vote. This means, Mathews says, that superdelegates must vote for Obama even if Obama is just one vote ahead of Clinton in the "earned" delegate count. This argument assumes that every delegate's vote is equal, and each has been earned fairly. It has a certain superficial "just desserts" appeal: Listen to the real people, not the party bosses. Victory should go to the winner of the delegate race, played by the rules. The popular expression is, "every vote should count."

But what if the process is so unfair, and yields such bizarre outcomes, that these assumptions do not hold? What if some voters - even voters in states that will never vote Democratic in the general election - have 10 times as much voting power as voters in states that will matter? What would Jefferson say?

For example, consider two states that held Super Tuesday contests on Feb. 5: the Democratic stronghold of New Jersey, with 107 pledged delegates at stake, and tiny conservative Idaho, with 18 delegates up for grabs. Clinton handily won New Jersey's primary, a large state that will make a difference come November against the Republicans, while Obama won Idaho's caucuses, a small state that is solidly Republican and very very unlikely to go blue. But because of the rules of proportionality, Clinton netted just 11 more delegates than Obama from her New Jersey victory, while Obama gained 12 more than her by winning Idaho. A resounding18,880 people voted for Obama in Idaho; only 3,655 voted for Clinton - a "blowout" that gave Obama a plus-twelve delegate triumph in a state that is absolutely meaningless in the general election.

The delegate math: In Idaho's caucuses, one delegate equals just 1,174 actual voters; in New Jersey, 107 delegates were chosen, with each delegate representing 10,368 actual voters. This means a caucus voter in Idaho is nine times as influential in determining the Democratic candidate for president of the United States as a New Jersey primary voter.

Obama's February roll continued as he racked up substantial margins in almost all the caucus contests on Feb. 5 and Feb. 9, again collecting delegates in numbers that belied the relatively small size and/or partisan insignificance of most of the states. Eight states held caucuses during this period -- Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and Washington -- and together awarded 305 pledged delegates. By the Obama team's calculations, the split out of those states is about 209 for Obama and 96 for Clinton -- an advantage of 113 delegates.

Most recently, Clinton won Ohio by a 10-point margin - a major victory in which she rebuilt her strength among women, Catholics and white male working class voters - all whom McCain would appeal to strongly if Clinton was not his opponent. Yet again, this Clinton victory was eclipsed by Obama's earlier caucus win in red state Kansas (which went 67%-32% for Bush in 2004). Similarly, Clinton took Texas by four points - and an approximately 100,000-vote plurality. Yet she netted only 4 delegates more than Obama in the primary, and it is likely she will net out overall with fewer delegates than Obama in Texas because of Obama's double digit edge in the ensuing caucus. Obama is already declaring victory in Texas, which ought to set off the alarm bells for superdelegates. Consider:

The Texas primary vote:

Clinton: 1,459,814 or 51%; Obama: 1,358,785 or 47%.

Total votes: 2,818,519.
126 delegates awarded.

Vote total per delegate awarded: 22,371 / 1.

The Texas caucus vote:

With 41% reporting: Obama 23,918 / Clinton 18,620.

Total votes: approximately 100,000.
67 delegates awarded.

Vote total per delegate awarded: 1492 / 1.

The math: Each delegate chosen through the caucus process in Texas is 15 times as influential as a primary voter in determining Texas' choice. Is this a fair and representative way to pick the winner in Texas? Should Obama be bragging that he won Texas, given this grotesque denial of the will of the people, as expressed in the popular vote?

Caucuses are great for party building and recruiting an activist base, but they are not as inclusive or "democratic" as a primary election - my 76-year-old Mom would never miss an election, but she would never attend a political meeting with a bunch of activists and argue all night. The disproportionate weight given caucus contests - particularly in small red states that do not even bother to hold full primary elections, or as part of Texas' hybrid two-step process - means that Democrats are at risk of choosing a candidate who does not capture the Democratic base, whose victory margins are attributable to fickle crossover voting, and who may be more likely to get beat come November. The smaller political point: demonstrating you can run a strong caucus campaign does not mean you can run a strong, broad-based general election turnout effort.

Electoral College scorecard.

The Obama campaign always showcases the number of primaries and caucuses it has won v. Hilary ("two to one") as though all are equal; however, they are not equal. A more strategic way of looking at the significance of these victories is in terms of their electoral college votes ("EC").

U.S. presidents are elected by 538 Electoral College voters, one per senator and representative from each state, plus three from the District of Columbia. In 38 states, the voters are required by law to vote for the candidate who won the popular voter in their state. A candidate must receive a majority (270) of electoral votes to win the election. Al Gore proved that a candidate can win the popular vote and lose the election.

The EC values so far: Clinton: 150, Obama: 118.

If Clinton is awarded the Florida delegates, where all candidate names appeared on the ballot and she won overwhelmingly, that increases her total EC value to 177.

Swing states - a better scorecard.

Obama backers will say that he would easily win the same big Democratic states that Clinton has captured in the primary, and so an EC analysis is misleading. But there are troubling indications that this may not be so. Truth be told, no one knows at this point which voting bloc - Clinton's or Obama's - will be more disaffected and stay home, or find an alternative in John McCain.

Another, and more neutral, way to assess the relative strengths of the two candidates in the primary season is to look at how these two are doing in "swing states" that neither party can count on as a lock, but must contest in the general election. Here is why this matters:

Obama has shown he can bring in large numbers of independent voters, particularly young people, the educational elite, high earners, and even some Republicans in a new coalition for change. He also can count on a bigger than usual black turnout in the general election. No question that Obama would do better than would Clinton in vying for these groups. But this relative strength v. Clinton won't matter in states in which the Democrats do not have a real chance of capturing (the swing states) in November. For example, Obama's big victories in the Southern states of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina and coming Tuesday - Mississippi - are impressive, but are not nearly big enough to take them from the Republicans in November. And of Obama's 23 state wins to date, 10 are in red states that Democrats are highly unlikely to win in the general election.

Clinton has shown she can deliver the women's vote, older voters, Latinos, white male working class voters (except in Wisconsin and Virginia), and a significant number of young people and independents, but not nearly as many as Obama has. In the last presidential race, the Republicans peeled away close to 40% of the Latinos and many women concerned about national security - two groups that were pivotal in the 2004 general election loss. Catholics are another group Clinton has so far dominated that Democrats lost in 2004. The voting dynamics of the primaries so far suggest that John McCain will do much better against Obama, than against Clinton, in vying for Latino and national security moms -- an issue cohort pushed to the forefront by Clinton's red phone ad, but one that is likely to materialize in a much more hard hitting form in the general election if Obama is the candidate. But similarly, a high capture rate in these groups just won't matter unless it comes in the crucial swing states.

2004 swing states:

Here is a map of the 2004 swing states, in green. (This map will undoubtedly look different in 2008, but this is the most reliable roadmap prior to any solid polling in the actual general election matchup.)

As we know all too well, Bush trounced the Democrats in most of these contests. The biggest and most important swing states in the 2004 election were Florida, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. John Kerry took Michigan and Pennsylvania, but lost both Ohio and Florida. This proved fatal. Various other (but much more difficult) combinations of these swing states could have delivered victory to Kerry in the general election. Among these smaller swing states are Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota (+K), Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire (+K), New Mexico, Oregon (+K), Tennessee, and Virginia. Here are the results of the 2004 general election, with the respective electoral college ("EC") numbers for each state:

McCain match-ups in key swing states.

In the next few months, the superdelegates will be inundated by polls of hypothetical general election matchups between Obama/Clinton v. McCain. For example, a new ABC Washington Post poll shows either Obama or Clinton beating McCain, with Obama doing slightly better. A new Newsweek poll shows Clinton doing marginally better against McCain than does Obama.

These polls are at best very primitive thermometers to take the national temperature, but the numbers are not very useful for diagnosing particular geographic ailments. Al Gore won the popular vote, but was edged out (maybe) in the key swing state of Florida. The same holds true for polling. A slightly better test of relative strength v. McCain is found in matchups in the key swing states, where the outcomes will tip the EC vote one way or the other. In mid-February polling, Clinton does marginally better than Obama v. McCain in three of the key swing states that largely decided the last election: Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Florida: McCain 44 percent - Clinton 42 percent; McCain 41 percent - Obama 39 percent;
Ohio: McCain 44 percent - Clinton 43 percent; McCain 42 percent - Obama 40 percent
Pennsylvania: Clinton 46 percent - McCain 40 percent; Obama 42 percent - McCain 41 percent.

Obama has shown greater strength than Clinton v. McCain in other smaller swing states - including Missouri and Wisconsin -- but it is too early to project how either would do in an actual election. No one knows which issues will dominate this fall, or whether the Democrats will self-destruct.

Here is a primary and caucus scorecard for Obama and Clinton so far, focusing on the swing states of 2004. The number following each state shows the number of electoral college votes up for grabs in each state.


Obama swing state wins:

Obama has done well in several smaller and mid-sized swing states, but has not yet demonstrated he can win a big one.

Missouri (toss up with Clinton) - 11
Minnesota (caucus) - 10
Colorado (caucus) - 9
Iowa (caucus) - 7
Virginia - 13
Wisconsin - 9

Total: 59 EC votes

Obama's Virginia and Wisconsin wins were the most impressive of his swing state victories because in these primaries, he showed strength among lunch-bucket white male Democrats, and women, Clinton's core strength. Remaining Obama wins:

Five of Obama's victories came in solid blue states, including one large state: Illinois, plus Connecticutt, Washington, Maryland and Delaware. Of the 11 hardcore Republican states that have held primaries or caucuses in which John Kerry lost by 15 points or more, Obama has won 10: Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, North Dakota, Alabama, Alaska, Kansas, South Carolina, Georgia and Louisiana. Obama took a net advantage of 109 delegates over Clinton through these wins. Here are the numbers from 2004:

Alaska: 61% / 36%
Alabama: 63% / 37%
Georgia: 58% / 41%
Idaho: 69% / 30%
Kansas: 62% / 37%
Nebraska: 66% / 33%
North Dakota: 63% / 36%
South Carolina: 58% / 41%
Utah: 72% / 26%

Of the upcoming contests Obama is now favored to win, Wyoming (3), Montana (3) Mississippi (6) and South Dakota (3), none are battleground states come November. These are all fiercely red states. (They went for Bush as follows: Wyoming: 69% / 29%; Montana: 59% / 39% Mississippi: 60% / 40%; South Dakota: 69% / 29%.)

Toss-up North Carolina (15) is also a red state (56% / 44%) but Democrats have a long shot chance there his November.

Clinton swing state wins:

Nevada - 5
New Mexico (toss up with Obama) - 5
Arkansas - 4
Tennessee - 11
New Hampshire - 4
Ohio - 20

Total: 49 EC votes.

Clinton's strength among Latinos and Hispanic voters is most important in swing states Florida, New Mexico, and Nevada.

Five of Clinton's victories came in solid blue states, including four of the largest and most important (California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts).

One of Clinton's victories came in a red state highly unlikely to flip: Oklahoma (66% / 34%), one big state unlikely to flip: Texas (61% / 38% Bush) and another in which Democrats, led by an energized Hispanic vote, may have a shot, Arizona (55% / 44%).

The re-do states:

Florida* - 27 (both on ballot, no campaigning; no delegates awarded)
Michigan* - 17 (Obama not on ballot, no campaigning; no delegates awarded)

Many Obama and Clinton backers will object to new primaries in Florida and Michigan. They will charge this is "changing the rules" after the game has been mostly played. Nobody is changing the rules. Both Obama and Clinton obeyed the rules by not campaigning in either state after these states were penalized for moving up their primaries. And the contests that took place were not recognized as official Democratic Party primaries. It is as if they did not take place.

Scheduling Florida and Michigan now does not change the rules, it follows the rules. And it is profoundly fairer to both campaigns than the alternatives. How can Obama argue he is entitled to be awarded a victory because he is ahead (but has not clinched) in the committed delegate count, while refusing to count the vote in the two most important swing states?

How can Clinton make her case to superdelegates that she is the stronger candidate in the big important states, without demonstrating she can beat Obama in actual contested primaries in these states?

Bottom line:

Neither Obama nor Clinton has demonstrated dominance in the critical swing state contests so far. Neither Obama nor Clinton has the upper hand in the "fairness" fight, due to the inherently disproportionate delegate selection process. And neither Obama nor Clinton will have enough pledged delegates to clinch a victory absent the deus ex machina intervention of the superdelegates. But this does not mean that party leaders must therefore throw the contest to whoever happens to be ahead -- but who has failed to cross the finish line - in this deeply flawed process.

Superdelegates are party leaders. They have a special duty to look out for the interests of the party overall, and not just anoint whoever wins their district. They must do the math that matters. How many Idahos (4 EC votes; 69% / 30% Bush) does it take to equal an Ohio (20 EC votes; 51% / 49% Bush)? Shouldn't we find out who is stronger in the states that will determine the victor in the general election?

There is a better way than abdication to the vagaries of a messed up-selection process. The remaining 448 uncommitted superdelegates (NYT count) should avoid throwing this primary to either candidate until all votes are counted from the states that will truly matter to a Democratic general election victory. This means staging new primaries in the big swing states of Michigan (17 EC) and Florida (27 EC), whoever pays for it, and resolution of the remaining swing state contests:

Pennsylvania- 21 EC
Indiana - 11 EC
Kentucky - 8 EC
Oregon - 7 EC
West Virginia - 5 EC

Total (with Fl and MI): 96 EC votes

This is a big pot of electoral college votes - and along with the solid blue states, enough to win the general election. The winner of these swing state contests will have demonstrated the strength and political skill needed to beat John McCain in November. I believe the fairest and most meaningful test for Obama and Clinton will be this: who can deliver wins in a majority of these key contests?

The best way to prove you are a winner is to win when and where it counts.


Posted by: George Frost | March 9, 2008 2:31 PM

The electoral college numbers comparison is utter rubbish. All those big states Hillary won are democratic states and they will always vote for a democratic nominee, whoever it is. The states won by Obama are battle ground states. Let's not forget that the party nomination requires delegate count, not electoral college count. Can Hillary go down any more lower to twist the results to her convenience? When did we look into the electoral college count for party primaries? Hillary is just not leadership material. It's proven several times already.

Posted by: JDK | March 9, 2008 2:33 PM

Seating the Michigan and Florida delegation or re-doing the vote will disenfranchise all those other States and millions of voters that played by the rules.

The DNC will have to decide if they wish to change the rules because Barack is black or because Hillary is behind.

Posted by: Maddogg | March 9, 2008 2:33 PM

I love it how you liberals turn this article into a Republican bashing contest. Its about Michingan and Flordia breaking the rules and whether or not we should let their delegate count still. This article has nothing to with Republicans. You simply like using us as scapegoats because our President has low popularity right now.

Posted by: L | March 9, 2008 2:33 PM

Yes, I agree with L the ignorance of the liberals posting here is boundless.

Posted by: Truth | March 9, 2008 2:36 PM

Thinker:

It is not November yet. We are still in party primaries. You are such an idiot that you don't know the difference between party primaries and general elections.

Posted by: ABC | March 9, 2008 2:36 PM

What dilemma could there possibly be between legal and illegal ? Legal is legal and illegal is illegal - no matter what HRC decides.

Posted by: ratl | March 9, 2008 2:37 PM

If Howard Dean thinks not seating the MI/FL delegates would lose the November election, then I would think there is no better use of the DNC's money than to help pay for a solution for MI/FL. But the Democrats in MI/FL need to pay SOME price for willfully flouting party rules. Perhaps the Republicans had the right solution: give them only 50% of their delegates.

Alternate solution: let Florida and Michigan's SUPERDELEGATES be seated at the national convention, while the regular pledged delegates get to stay home and watch the circus on TV. The Superdelegates can use their own judgement as to which candidate would best represent the interests of their states.


Posted by: egc52556 | March 9, 2008 2:37 PM

If the Democratic Party elects Obama, by not counting all the votes, there's going to be a horrific back lash. Let's not forget the difference between the two candidates is miniscule. Obama Camp thinks it's okay to disenfranchise votes because they're not for him, how hopeful is that. When are people going to see through the veneer?

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 2:41 PM

ok I fail to see how you came to the conclusion that I do not know the difference between primaries and the general election

Posted by: L | March 9, 2008 2:41 PM

McCain will have a walk in November because the Democrats have once again managed to bring each other down. You're kidding yourself if you think what happens with Florida and Michigan matters.

I am so disappointed because it didn't have to be this way. I had so hoped that for once we would have an election on the real issues instead of who can be the meanest and tell the most lies and engage in the nastiest character assassination. Stupid me.

The best the Democrats can hope for is to hold the Senate, because there's already been enough nastiness to ensure that whoever gets the nod won't be able to turn out the vote. You can all be proud of yourselves; don't blame the consultants. Blame yourself for buying into it.

Posted by: sickoftheinfighting | March 9, 2008 2:43 PM

Another point: Since Obama and Clinton are attempting to get elected to be the de-facto head of the Democratic party, shouldn't one (or both) of them attempt to take on that mantle by crafting the ultimate, best, fairest solution to this dilemma for the good of the party?

Is either able / willing to step into these big shoes?

Posted by: egc52556 | March 9, 2008 2:43 PM

The goal is to make sure that the voices of Democrats in both Florida and Michigan are represented and heard at the Convention. The voters in those states should not be punished for a decision that was made by the legislators. Democrats across the country are going to have to figure out a positive solution to this problem. One that brings people from both the Clinton and Obama camps together fighting for a common cause; to make sure their fellow Deomocratic voices are heard. If you guys keep bickering then before you know it we'll be at the Convention and no solution will have been found. And the Paarty will be split, My suggestion is that instead of fighting about why the Democrats can't allow those voices to be heard, start working together as a Party to find a way that they can. If Democrats can't work with each other to solve this problem, then how in the world do they expect to work Republicans? We all know that it's going to take the Democrats to clean up after the last 8 years of Republican rule, but first the Democrats have to show that they can work together if they really want to lead the country and move us forward.

Posted by: Rebekah | March 9, 2008 2:46 PM


This is a problem created by republican and democratic legistatures who got called on their bluffs. If MI and FL want their delegates seated then either pay for a recall or split the vote in half...the rest of us who played by the rules will not tolerate continued stupidity by these states

Posted by: Young Voter | March 9, 2008 2:46 PM

gc52556

It's not the voter's fault, it's party leaders. Should the voters be penalized because the party is, as usual, a joke?

Dean better get his act together or there will be a major deffection of half the Democratic party to an Independent or McCain.

Let's not forget, if McCain won, he might actually get a huge result of it disenfranchised Democrats and I'm not just talking about Fl/MI Dems.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 2:47 PM

Jewish voters here in South Florida who are very liberal are saying that McCain is preferable to a political party that will not let them have a say in the election. Jews are angry as are most of the other democrats.
The dream ticket should be renamed I have a dream of a monster with visions of Bolshevism, Communist Chinese financial contributions, military secrets being given to Communists repeating Loral Corp giving Chicoms missile technology. Yes, I have a dream ticket in mind and it is not the Monster leading it. Amen.

Posted by: mascmen7 | March 9, 2008 2:47 PM

This one's easy. If those delgates didn't matter to HRC going in to Feb. 5, why now? Can everyone please asks themselves that question? It's like when you're a kid and you set up the rules for tag and there's that one whinny kid who gets tagged, but doesn't want to be "it" so they try to change the rules? That's HRC! Can we nominate Obama and start looking toward November, already? The Republican's already have their man so now they are just sharpening the knives for the donkeies. Democrats are laughable. That's why I switched parties.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 2:48 PM

Hillary wants to work together. Obama is an egotist.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 2:48 PM

Contrary to what observers say, the Democrats are not stuck between two wonderful choices here. On the contrary, they're stuck between two pitiful choices and are trying to settle on the lesser of the two evils. If the Democrats truly wanted to win this election, they would not have opted for a social experiment by trying to get the first black man or woman elected as President. They would have run a moderate white candidate, such as former Virginia Governor Mark Warner who would likely win in the kind of scenario the 2008 election finds itself. But they instead traded him off for a Senate seat.

But instead they chose to run two impalatable candidates, neither of which I believe can defeat John McCain. I'm not sure which way the Congress or the governors or state legislatures will go come November, but I must absolutely predict that John McCain will be elected President of the United States.

Posted by: Steve | March 9, 2008 2:49 PM

Republicans are REPUGNANT!

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 2:49 PM

Like most Republicans, I'm really enjoying watching this clusterf*ck. HA HA

Posted by: HankTheCat | March 9, 2008 2:50 PM

We're waiting on Florida once again. LOL

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 2:52 PM

I'm a total dumbass for posting that stupid you tube link about Obama... sorry guys... I completely forgot about Hillary's involvement in WHITEWATER. Or the Clinton's connections to donors like Norman Hsu and Bernard Schwartz. Oh what about the close clinton ally who commited suicide? Yeah come to think about it, its really would be really stupid of the campaign to start dragging skeletons out of closets.

Posted by: svreader | March 9, 2008 2:52 PM

Obama has the popular vote and the delegates. Hillary has her political machine. If the superdelegates vote with the machine instead of the people, how can they possibly expect the people to support them in November? To the mind hypnotized by power politics this thing might look complicated but it isn't. It's government of the people, for the people, by the people. Obama is the people's choice. Let him have it.

Posted by: BG | March 9, 2008 2:52 PM

If you can't cheat, lie and commit crimes against your fellow man, get a Republican, he'll do it for you.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 2:53 PM

As a Michigan voter, I've been disgusted with the DNC since roughly November. In the process of writing this article

http://www.thebiggreen.net/article.php?id=1004

right before Michigan's farce of a primary, I realized that roughly NONE of my peers even knew who would (and wouldn't) be on the democratic ballot. It's disheartening to think that those suprised voters will be held to their impromptu decision.

If this election comes down to the elite (superdelegates/DNC) deciding on a candidate, I will have forever lost my faith in the Democratic party. If my vote counts for more with the Republicans, they can certainly have it.

Organization is key, dems, and you're sucking it up.

Posted by: Emily | March 9, 2008 2:53 PM

Here is a suggestion for how the Democrats can solve the FL/MI dilemma.

Both parties should agree that the FL and MI delegates can be seated at the November convention.

In order to determine the number of delegates to be divided between each candidate - wait until ALL of the Democratic primaries and caucuses have been run in all 50 states and territories.

Divide the MI and FL delegates based on the AGGREGATE number of voters from the ENTIRE Union at the end of the primaries and caucuses.

For example, if Obama ends up with 50 million votes and the Clintons end up with 45 million (or vice versa). The delegates would be divided using the existing formula used to divvy up delegates in each of the states.

This aggregate total would also include the total number of votes taken in the MI and Fl primaries, thus those voters would be counted and Queen HilLIARy can conversely be placated, because she won't lose anything in this process. (In the case of MI, Obama should be assigned the uncommitted votes.)

This formula would also SAVE THE TAXPAYERS MONEY, because you won't need to hold new elections.

If agreed to early, and done at this time it would be fair, because even though Obama has a lead at this time, this plan affords the Clintons an opportunity to gain lost ground during the remaining primaries, so both candidates would proceed with equal footing.

Posted by: Gerald W. | March 9, 2008 2:53 PM

"The Democratic National Committee is not going to pay for it because, right now, our job is to tell the American people about Senator McCain's record on Iraq and the deficits and so forth..."
____________________________________________

Let's see, the Democrats can't fund a "do over" to prevent disenfranchising their voters because they have to get the message out to the public how their going to surrender in defeat and how the Democrats and "moderate" Republicans fritter billions on the myriads of wasteful and ripe for fraud unconstitutional Big Government programs that the Democrats, who dominated congress for 60+ years since FDR, had inflicted on Americans and who Obama and Hillary would expand and waste even more. If it wasn't so serious it would be damn funny...clowns.

Posted by: Mike | March 9, 2008 2:54 PM

The DNC and RNC both agreed on a calendar for primaries - Michigan and Florida, for selfish, largely monetary reasons, decided to violate that schedule. They therefore lost their delegates. End of story.

I have never voted for a Republican in a general election in my life, but if HRC wins the nomination by getting these delegates, I might just stay home this time - which would also be a first.

Posted by: Paganus | March 9, 2008 2:54 PM

To svreader: check out today's Washington Post, front page article, where the Clintons are linked to DC developer Adam Kreisel, who is accused of doing much the same thing as Rezko in Chicago--telling low-income residents their buildings will go condo, then letting them deteriorate, etc. Of course Kreisel's ties were to Bill, but since the Clinton camp wants us to consider Hillary's experience as First Lady when voting for president, it is fair to impute any wrongdoing to her as well, while First Lady.

Posted by: Dave | March 9, 2008 2:54 PM

Obama has caucuses, Hillary has the largest wins in the race; it's Obama who has the grass roots organization, what does that have to do with anything, it hasn't won him the states that John Kerry won. Hillary is the people, when you can count. She has the popular vote.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 2:55 PM

Well I have had enough of this crap. Just let the Clintons back in the White House. They are threating people at this point and I don't want to see anyone else killed by the Clintons.


As a Black women I'm sad to see what is happening. I hope everyone can see that America is still a RACIST COUNTRY. We have not been crying foul for no reason. Some of you have always said for Blacks to get over it and know it's all coming to the front. Right before your eyes and you White people know it true. You can see what really going on in our country.

WHAT WE REALLY NEED AFTER THIS IS A DEPARTMENT SET UP FOR RACE RELATIONS. WE NOW HAVE WHITE AND HISPANICS AGAINST THE BLACK RACE. WE ARE NOT GOING DOWN THIS EASY. WE WILL RISE AGAIN. PLEASE DON'T UNDER ESTIMATE OUR CAUSE. YOU WILL SEE A LOT MORE AFTER THIS BULL CRAP.


IT'S ON...GET READY CAUSE HER WE COME. PROTESTING FOR OUR RIGHTS.40 YEARS AFTHER THE DEATH OF MARTING LUTHER KING.


5% of blaks will vote for Clinton because she cheated. So our next President will be John McCain and he will build the fence as most Blacks want so we can be viable again.

McCain 08

Posted by: MsRita | March 9, 2008 2:56 PM

I am so heartbroken. I once was proud to be a Democrat. Now I am a bit ashamed.

Obama followed the rules. He should not be punished for that.

Hillary did not follow the rules as she campaigned (albeit a little) in Florida. Conversely, Obama followed the rules and stayed out. His name wasn't even on the Michigan ballot --

Howard Dean is correct that the Democratic Party is fracturing, and that we risk losing in November. A great moment in history squandered.

Just read some of the hate in this thread --- It may already be too late to mend, but I say the negative campaigning on the Clinton side has done nothing but make the fracture wider. Her desire for a Clinton-Obama ticket is crazy -- especially since a) she's claimed he's not ready; b) she's behind in delegates; c) she's arrogant enough to pose the Clinton-Obama option only -- but not Obama-Clinton. It's not about bringing the party together. It's just another example of "do anything to win" strategy. She's the polarizing figure, and because of that, cannot win in November. But at this rate the party may blow it before then anyway...

The Clinton's type of negative, manipulative politics is exactly why our country is in the mess it is now in.

I once truly admired Hillary Clinton. I am a 45 year old woman: her demographic. I cannot say that I admire her anymore. This country needs positive leadership. Not manipulation.

If this divisiveness continues, the Dems will once again set the stage for a Republican win in November.

Good luck, Howard Dean. Good luck, Democratic Party leaders... It's up to you to right this sinking ship.

John McCain must be loving this.

Posted by: Voice of Reason | March 9, 2008 2:57 PM

what is the biggest danger to the Clintons and Obamas campaigns???

the repulsive scammers controlling them.


evidence:

maq1 wrote:
I can't believe anyone buys into the Clinton fanatic's propaganda....

A. BigOne replies:

this is pure ROVIAN SPIN. Period.


ALLLLLLLLLL of the


"vileness," here today, nicely exhibited by most of posters here....is repulsive scammer based....


IT's NOT OBAMA SUPPORTERS, you're not going to believe this buy Charles Krauthummer is not an Obama supporter, he's a NEOCONARTISTE....for example.


during the 1972 McGovern Nixon challenge, McGovern was considered the stronger challenger


and so the repulisive scammers used character assassination to defeat McGovern, much as you see Hillary being attacked now...

Hubert Humphrey was put forward as "the more reasonable," what they really meant was Hubert was the "more defeatable,"


Obama is the weaker candidate.

SEARCH on 1972 KARL ROVE, McGovern.


Plus for every degree of anger between people voting for either Hillary or Obama the repulsive scammers can count on a swing vote or a non vote if their candidate doesn't get nominated.


I would say that about 40 PERCENT of the VILENESS and INNUENDO from posters here is repulsive scammer based.


I recognize a lot of the posters as being repulsive scammers, you can tell from their mode of attack....


it's usually spin and "appeal to emotion," very little logic


just name calling and playground tactics...slime, innuendo, impugning character,

EXAMPLES: purple lips, ankleless Annie


that kind of thing.


it's what they do. They have been doing it here for the last 4 years.


as bushCO and CRONY _supporters_

just because george w. is gone doesn't mean bushCO and CRONYs disappears.


the BUSH FAMILIES AND SAUDIS

Carlyle Group is going to buy part of Booze-Allen-Hamilton and Sprint

Rumsfelds' Bechtel is still a heavy player in the world of Consulting/Contracting

Cheneys Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater is going gangbuster and just got two new congressional lobbyists

LOOK:
Among the Womble Carlyle lobbyists

representing Blackwater

are: John Mashburn, former general counsel and policy director for Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H.,

who is the top

Republican


on the Senate ?Budget? Committee;

and Mark Harkins, who was chief of staff to

Rep. Brad Miller, D-N.C.,

chairman of the Investigations [ ha ha ha !!!] and

???Oversight???

subcommittee of the House Science and Technology Committee.

Posted by: EXPOSE THE FALSE DEMOCRATS..... | March 9, 2008 2:59 PM

The only hing Hillary has in mind is winning the nomination, by eyery rule which suites her. Doesn't matter whether the DP will tear apart.
If all the other pupets on the string, like Rendall etc will be so inconsequent, they ruin the party within 6 months.
If Obama carries the lead in votes, it would be impossible votes to be changes by the delegates. The whole world knows that. I can not understand, why it is going to be discussed, apart from Hillary's dreams to be President.
The Vice argument is a world record, never ever I heard, that No 2 is offering No 1 the vice job. What would Rendall think, if his running mate in the next goveror election offers him the deputy.
Can only come out of Billarry.
I think she gets drazy not being nominated.

Posted by: sieweke | March 9, 2008 2:59 PM

"Mich., Fla. Dilemma Consumes Democrats"

Don't think so! It consumes Clinton and Co. Obama has said let the DNC decide, Clinton's approach, my way or no way. In short this dilemma reflects the dilemma that is her political campaign. Like in the inevitable candidate! Yes, possible! Probability? Can't get much closer to zero!

Posted by: adleed | March 9, 2008 3:01 PM

Someone please respond to this post:

It's been 2 months since FL and MI. Why all the discussion and demands for recounts now? Where were you all the day after those elections? Where were the demands for recounts in late January, pre-Feb 5? Oh, that's right, Clinton was expecting this all would be over by and and she would be the democratic nominee, right? Can you all PLEASE stop lying to yourselves. But, I do want to hear what you have to say so, weigh in please.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 3:02 PM

I'm a FL Democrat.

I had no opportunity to say yea or nay to the plan to move up the primary -- that was a plan dreamed up by the Republican Governor and legislature. The voters who would be affected by the decision weren't consulted.

I feel very disenfranchised by this debacle. I voted anyway -- for Obama -- but many people never went to the polls because they figured their vote wouldn't count. The candidates had no chance to campaign here. Obama was relatively unknown at that point --there hadn't been many debates or chances to listen to policy statements -- while Clinton had instant name recognition. I think the outcome might have been quite different if there had been a normal campaign down here.

There should be a re-do of some sort. If a mail-in vote is the cheapest, then do it that way, I don't care. I don't care who pays for it, either. Just do it. It really tees me off that people say "oh, well, Florida made its choice, too bad for them." It was a Republican choice that was railroaded through. It is unfair to punish the Democratic voters of this state by denying them the chance to make an informed decision.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 3:02 PM

I'm getting this sinking feeling that the Dems are going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I'm from Michigan and like many others here want to have more of a voice in the primaries then we have previously. I can understand how there comes a point when it is too early to hold primaries, but how can you tell us we can't be so early while permitting Iowa and New Hampshire to do just that!!!

Posted by: jgold | March 9, 2008 3:02 PM

The liberal Dems never cease to amaze me. We have a sure primary winner in Clinton. No problem. But enter ultra liberals Kennedy and Dashle, and tell the rock star now is the time. We wind up in a Dem mess. Had these jealous Libs left well enough alone both Hillary and Obama would have become president. Hillary now and Obama later. Now neither will. What a shame. Same old Lib stupidity. Will they never learn? No.

Posted by: Chief | March 9, 2008 3:06 PM

They are going to find a way to take this victory away from Obama, just watch.

The plantation owners may let him be number two, but they will never let him run their plantation.

Posted by: Albert | March 9, 2008 3:06 PM

Simply splitting the votes is a ludicrous idea! Who the heck actually thinks that is fair or even remotely democratic? You're kidding right? I'm serious. That is just so plainly STUPID that if you don't understand why, then yes you should start to question your intelligence. The people suggesting this are probably the same people that feel caucuses are better than primaries. Caucuses statistically are proven to leave out the poor, elderly, and those with children, and less formal education. Further, outside of Iowa only a small fraction of the electorate participate compared to the overwhelming turnouts in primaries this year. In Texas 2.5 million voted in the primary, and 100,000 in the caucus. It is clear that caucuses simply are not a valid means to democracy. So where is the Democratic wing of the Democrat Party? Apparently, those peddling hope don't want an election but an elitist coronation. We don't need the easy solution! We need the right solution. Re-do the primaries the right way, pay for it, and then fix the nomination system so that it actually reflects the values of democracy and the Democrat Party. If we do anything less we might as well hand over the working poor and elderly to some other party! Hmm, I wonder which one!?

Posted by: Sean | March 9, 2008 3:07 PM

5 Stars for this post- TRUTH IS RARE!


The Obama campaign is so arrogant as to destroy any chances of the democrats winning the Presidency. His campaign ran an ad in Florida but it has gained little attention so in essence he campaigned there so where is the problem with seating Florida? Their argument is that rules are rules and it doesn't matter if we disenfranchize millions of voter because of the rules? What sheer arrogance and stupidity! That is why the democrats are destined to lose this and every upcoming election. Long live the the Republican party!! This comes from a hard core democrat who's seeing his party go down in flames by it's own hand!

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 3:09 PM

Obama is not ready for the Repuglican attack machine. Beside, have you noticed he looks like J Fred Muggs? HRC will be ready to hit the ground running on Day One. You Go Girl.

Posted by: AspireGirl | March 9, 2008 3:10 PM

The solution is simple: count Florida and Michigan. How can you not? How can you make people vote twice, might change their minds. I'm a partisan for Hillary - tough candidate, great heart - but don't I just like Obama, too. Time IS on our side, yes it is; let them work out the rest.

Posted by: Don | March 9, 2008 3:11 PM

what is the biggest danger to the Clintons and Obamas campaigns???


the repulsive scammers controlling them.


evidence:

maq1 wrote:
I can't believe anyone buys into the Clinton fanatic's propaganda....


[ I have seen this same sentence with 7 different user names, and much of the same phrasing after the same as well ]


A. BigOne replies:

this is pure ROVIAN SPIN. Period.


ALLLLLLLLLL of the


"vileness," here today, nicely exhibited by most of posters here....is repulsive scammer based....


IT's NOT OBAMA SUPPORTERS, you're not going to believe this but Charles Krauthummer is not an Obama supporter, he's a NEOCONARTISTE....and yet his sink phrasing is repeated here, not as if Obama supporters are using it....but by in fact the republican Obama users....


they don't have opinions, they have spin to sell....watch them.

for example.


during the 1972 McGovern Nixon challenge, McGovern was considered the stronger challenger


and so the repulisive scammers used character assassination to defeat McGovern, much as you see Hillary being attacked now...

Hubert Humphrey was put forward as "the more reasonable," what they really meant was Hubert was the "more defeatable,"


Obama is the weaker candidate.

SEARCH on 1972 KARL ROVE, McGovern.


Plus for every degree of anger between people voting for either Hillary or Obama the repulsive scammers can count on a swing vote or a non vote if their candidate doesn't get nominated.


I would say that about 40 PERCENT of the VILENESS and INNUENDO from posters here is repulsive scammer based.


I recognize a lot of the posters as being repulsive scammers, you can tell from their mode of attack....


it's usually spin and "appeal to emotion," very little logic


just name calling and playground tactics...slime, innuendo, impugning character,

EXAMPLES: purple lips, ankleless Annie, Billary, HillBilly, HUSSEIN Obama


that kind of thing.


it's what they do. They have been doing it here for the last 4 years.


as bushCO and CRONY _supporters_


just because george w. is gone doesn't mean bushCO and CRONYs disappears.


the BUSH FAMILIES AND SAUDIS

Carlyle Group is going to buy part of Booze-Allen-Hamilton and Sprint

Rumsfelds' Bechtel is still a heavy player in the world of Consulting/Contracting

Cheneys Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater is going gangbuster and just got two new congressional lobbyists

LOOK:
Among the Womble Carlyle lobbyists

representing Blackwater

are:

John Mashburn,

former general counsel and policy director for Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H.,

who is the top

Republican


on the Senate ?!!!!! Budget !!!!!? Committee;

and Mark Harkins,

who was chief of staff to

Rep. Brad Miller, D-N.C.,

chairman of the Investigations [ ha ha ha !!!] and

???Oversight???

subcommittee of the House Science and Technology Committee.


Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 3:11 PM

The only hing Hillary has in mind is winning the nomination, by eyery rule which suites her. Does matter whether the DP will tear apart.
If all the other pupets on the strins, like Rendall etc will be so inconsequent they ruin the party within 6 month.
If Obama carries the lead in votes, it would be impossible to be changes by the delegates. The whole world knows that. I can not understand, why it is going to be discussed, apart from Hillary's dreams to be President.
The Vice argument is a world record, never ever I heard, that No 2 is offering No 1 the vice job. What would Rendall think, if his running mate in the next goveror election offers him the deputy.
Can only come out of Billarry.
I think she gets drazy not being nominated.

Posted by: sieweke | March 9, 2008 3:12 PM

What is a "mail-in caucus"? I don't even get what that means.

Posted by: Paul Coppock | March 9, 2008 3:13 PM

If Bill is once again returned to the "White" House as executive member, will he once again have interns on his executive staff?

Posted by: Albert | March 9, 2008 3:14 PM

Michigan's delegates cannot be seated. Obama wasn't even on the ballot. There has to be a new primary or caucus. Florida should get one because the Republican controlled state senate changed the date, not the Florida Democratic Party. I agree with the idea that the DNC holds a special fundraiser for the cash to pay for them. I'm a NY resident and my opinion of Hillary has dropped during this campaign. When she hands McCain soundbites to use against Obama she crossed the line. For the good of the party, the country and herself, she should either work out an agreement with Obama to be his running mate or just bow out. Then maybe the press will focus on all the lobbyists running McCain's campaign, including the lobbyist for Diebolt.

Posted by: drmondo | March 9, 2008 3:14 PM

Dean effed up by stripping the party of the delegates, and disregarding their votes, or splitting them which would be the equivalent, isn't going to work. Obama would be illegitimate if he won that way, and I sure as hell would punish the party in November by voting McCain even though I'm a dem.

They should just use the results of the first elections. Who cares if they didn't campaign in those states and deliver meaningless speeches? Voters had access to all the news and information. Plus, voters in MI knew to vote uncommitted if they wanted Obama or Edwards. If anything, giving Obama the uncommitted votes helps him, since some of those undoubtedly belonged to Edwards.

If Obama doesn't want to use the past results, let him pay for a new primary.

Posted by: Doug | March 9, 2008 3:14 PM

Right, long live the party of Corruption, Deceit and Self- Indulgence!

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 3:14 PM

What happened in Michigan and Florida shows the political inexperience and naivette of Sen. Obama. You follow the rules but you leave yourself a wiggle room to extricate yourself from a difficult situation.

Sen. Clinton did not campaign in Michigan and Florida but she was wise enough to leave her name on the ballot. Sen. Obama removed his name in the Michigan primary and when he realized later that he made a mistake,urged his supporters to vote "UNCOMMITTED".

The primaries are held to determine the preference of the voters and the people went out of their way to express their will. To disenfranchise these voters for whatever reason is a repudiation of a basic principle in a democratic government, THE RIGHT TO VOTE. No amount of technicalities or DNC rules could negate this principle.

Let the actual results prevail. If the Obama campaign don't want to accept this and they should say so in clear terms that they don't want the votes of Michigan and Florida so that these voters will know who care for them in November.

Posted by: tim591 | March 9, 2008 3:14 PM

onething I observed that USA and england perhaps the only countres where old age people dump new generation( younger)'s dreams and hopes .....

I dont find a reason where the future of the country are the youth want change and seniors oppose it for their selfish and fearful mind .... remeber in USA the younger generation struggle the most whether its identity,education or WAR..... 90 % of the troops who died in iraq or afganistan are people under the age 40...

This is the time for OLD american people to recognize the sacrifices of the young generation and vote for the future not voting for dynasty building (bush-clinton) ...

Posted by: OLD america vs new America | March 9, 2008 02:27 PM


====

This is a very interesting post and represents the thoughts of a lot of young voters. This kind of conversation is very rare and the question is universal about us as human beings.

I am older than 35 but not too old to forget the days when I was young. I was then a student in China and witnessed the worst senior people can do to the hopes of the young: with machine guns and tanks. I am naturally sympathetic to the high ideals of the youth.

On the other hand, democracy, by definition, is a process that includes all the people, old and young, man and women, blacks and whites. People can vote on their ideals, or based on self interest, or both. The design of democracy is to avoid any single group to dictate the ways of the rest.

Every generation make its sacrifice to the society, in wars or in peace. Since the experience of life always changes, there is no way to bridge the generation gap. Einstein once said, experience is the prejudice one accumulates before age of 17. Experience can bias our view of things, and that is why we should always listen to the younger generation, of their concerns. But older people do have useful things to offer to the young, that is the experience of failures. We have failed before, and have some knowledge why something can fail, so you don't have to make the same mistake. But it is hard to convey this information to the young, and is always a problem for parents and teachers.

One of the things that concerns me is the fanaticism of the Obama tide. I have read his books and read very carefully about his past accomplishments. I think he is an intelligent person, with a good heart. But he is also a politician, so he can do stupid things every other politician will do: to make false promises and bloated rhetoric to allure votes. He is smart enough to use technology that taps directly to the young people. But all these does not provide the answer to the question of how can he deliver. More troublesome is his attitude towards criticism. He never answer to questions, but simply accuse the questioner practicing old politics.

The even more troublesome is the behavior of his supporters during some caucuses. There are plenty of reports about this and I am astonished. The posts by Obama supporters on many online forums, citing Obama supporters to be better educated, while CLintons supporters to be illiterate morons, is a sign that these people do not have the basic idea of what democracy is, and will not stand up to defend it. This is not good for the future of your children. We should do everything to prevent people with such a mind set to obtain power.


Posted by: reason to reason | March 9, 2008 3:15 PM

Can't wait till my Obama is elected, the I will feel proud about this country for the second time in my life and my hospital district will give me another $200,000 raise for community outreach.

Posted by: Michelle | March 9, 2008 3:15 PM

Whatever they do, it had better be a primary and not a caucus. TX shows us how illegitimate caucuses are.

Posted by: Doug | March 9, 2008 3:15 PM

celticquuen - On the one hand the Obama people want the superdelegates not to be involved, but on the other hand, they are actively campaigning for the super delegates to committ/switch to their side. They are cajoling, pressuring, threatening, blackmailing those committed to Clinton to switch. Recently they have succeeded with their biggest catch, Rep. John Lewis of Georgia, who committed to Clinton long time ago.


They don't see the inconsistency in this position. They don't see the immorality of pressuring black elected politicians that unless they committ/switch to Obama, their next election is uncertain. Seems to be standing MLK's exhortation of "not the color of the skin ..." on its head.

Posted by: krishna | March 9, 2008 3:15 PM

Doug IS RIGHT ON!

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 3:15 PM

LOL, I liked this:

"Can't wait till my Obama is elected, the I will feel proud about this country for the second time in my life and my hospital district will give me another $200,000 raise for community outreach"
-Michele

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 3:16 PM

Long live the the Republican party!! This comes from a hard core democrat who's seeing his party go down in flames by it's own hand!

___________________________________________________________

how many versions of that have you heard ????


I am a life long democrat,


I was an independent....

it's formulaic drek


but to the normal simple minded SHEEP


it makes sense....


they just keep getting hammered.


There are not any enforced laws against disinformation.

That should be a law. Knowingly spamming or spawning disinformation should be treated as treason.


the republicans are interfering with your right to be informed....

interference with freedom of speech.

certainly fraud laws apply.

THAT IS WHY WE NEED TO GET THEM OUT AND START


recovering AMERICA's stolen assets.

.yah hoooooooooooooooooooooo.


.

Posted by: typical RapEthePUBLICan commentor.... | March 9, 2008 3:17 PM

************ DON'T FORGET! **************

The Dems constructed this whole 'super delegate' system to derail Jessie Jackso. As they say, " They're baackk."

I don't play-I say it in song--12 conservative tunes that smack a bigoted, flip-flopping, and surrender-oriented Left.

Hear it @

www.conservativemusiconline.com

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 3:18 PM

Oh, one more thing. I know blogs are open venues, but could the Obamabots please stop copying vasts amounts of empty rhetoric into every post. It really doesn't contribute to the conversation. If anything, it simply reinforces the notion that a large number of Obama supporters really are looking for a cult. Further, whether you support Hillary or Obama, get your facts straight. Neither Hillary or Obama campaigned in FL or MI, though Obama did technically run a TV add that aired in all 50 states...not technically against the rules since the pledge all the candidates took was not actually a rule. Further, just read the rules since so many of you claim to know who is and is not following the rules. Wildly inaccurate comments simply detracts from your candidate of choice. Oh, and to all of those guilty latte liberals who are talking of "this" being stolen from Obama, stop your whining. I actually like the guy, but even I worry when he carries caucuses full of elites and only the primaries tilted to his demographic, which isn't enough to actually win or govern. Think a bit more...before you virally spread more vitriol and baseless viewpoints.

Posted by: Sean | March 9, 2008 3:18 PM

OBAMA IS THE BEST

Posted by: JAMA | March 9, 2008 3:19 PM

It's interesting how people are pointing out the ineptness and link to corruption of both Hillary and Obama. And these are DEMOCRATS. I've been pointing this out for months and Democrats were oblivious and ignoring both facts then.

Posted by: Mike | March 9, 2008 3:20 PM

Dems wake up, forget Fla. and Mich. No one is going to win the nomination in the primaries. It is going to come down to the super delegates. Regardless of the outcome you are going to have a split party. Blame the Libs. We had a easy favorite in Clinton. Why didn't they support her and not sic the rock star on her? Let her win and then let Obama have his turn. Blame the jealousy of the Liberal Dems on this mess. They have never liked the Clintons, and have never forgiven them for sliding past them in 1992. They would have picked a sure loser Lib then too. Here is another great opportunity for Dems and the Libs screw it up again. Welcome to the presidency Mr. McCain.

Posted by: Chief | March 9, 2008 3:21 PM

The demographics dont' lie. Black are not voting for Hillary, but whites are voting for Obama. So, if anyone has a racist remark, don't aim it at the Clinton campaign. I can understand the overzealousness to have a Black President, but frankly and by the same token, you can see that women are supporting Hillary in greater numbers.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 3:21 PM

Wonder why no one has suggested reducing the magic number by the number of ineligible conventional delegates represented by the states of Michigan and Florida.

Such a suggestion makes as much sense as Senator Clinton's mandate that the ineligible Michigan and Florida delegates be seated "as is".

I long ago suggested that it is in the best interest of everyone that the disenfranchised voters of Michigan and Florida be re-enfranchised via a "Do Over" and that both State Democratic Parties, the Democratic National Committee, and both candidates should share in the cost of making it happen and do so sooner than later.

Get It Done!

Posted by: Caryl S. Foster | March 9, 2008 3:21 PM

to the gentleman doing the maths in counting and mixing as long as he comes to the result, that HRC should be nominee.

BUT: Why didn't you try to thing, what a great opportunity America is giving away, sending the First Lady back to the white house. The whole world is WAITING FOR A NEEDED CHANGE and not for a former first Lady. dear me, who stupid some of the comments are. The whole young genaration is behing Obama, much more voters too, and only serving old friedships leave some tactical idiots within the DP to risk the game completedly.
Thism scandal lady can never ever win a youngsters vote nor can she get any independent voters. Only the SWING states, NY, NJ etc, the DP always won, regardless of the cndidate,
If friends, press, and TV would not help her in a seldom stupid way, she could never go so dirty against Barack Obama to eventually win some more votes.
DNC must quickly wake up and chill Hillibilly otherwise the party is in ruin.

Posted by: sieweke | March 9, 2008 3:22 PM

It was very clear that MI and FL were not being contested at the time - Obama understood and followed the rules, Clinton tried to changes the rules after the event to favor herself. Such hypocrisy is just typical of her way of doing business, and while she may think it is just hard ball, it is actually a major character deficiency where she has screwed with the system to get ahead all of her life. No way should be the Democratic nominee or President - she is as immoral as Karl Rove and GWB.

Posted by: Colin | March 9, 2008 3:22 PM

after reading all the comments it is quite clear as too what exactly do the clinton's bring to the political arena. which is to say more divisiveness and bickering, didn't we get enough of this in the 90's.

Posted by: crook | March 9, 2008 3:22 PM

as the Florida "re vote" (which cannot be a primary due to machines missing from 10 counties until July 1st, and there cannot be a "mail in" as never done before - so caucus is only option) is the main topic on the news --

just a point we haven't seen anywhere:

Florida primary:
January 29th results:
Total votes for Property tax amendment: 4,165,513
Total votes for President: 3,699,418

That means that 466,095 people (over 11%) of the people who came out to vote did NOT cast a vote for President in this primary
Doesn't that show Floridians did not think their Presidential preference vote would not count?
-------------------
It also clearly says:
the Property Tax amendment was the most important reason people voted Jan 29th and drove the turn out

Point 2:

Total votes for President:
Republican: 1,949,498
Democrat: 1,749,920

Only Florida and Michigan had less Democratic votes than Republican votes this primary -- the excitement "missing" on the deocratic side clearly would have driven this vote total up had Barack campaigned in Florida

All factual evidence on the Florida primary and why the current delegate count should not be seated and to stop the talking points of record turnout etc
------------------------------------------------------

sorry but the Sunday talk shows making me crazy--

Obama can win the delegate war - but the pr war is just as important

Posted by: alison | March 9, 2008 3:22 PM

Bottom line- Hillary Clinton had to win Texas and Ohio by huge margins - at least 20% to have a shot at winning more delegates.

She failed.

She has decided to sink to the lowest possible levels to attempt to steal the election.

The other Democrats should pressure her to stop the attacks immediately, or else the superdelegates should simply all pledge support for Obama, and end this fiasco.

As far as FL and MI. This only became an issue when Clinton realized she couldnt win according to the rules. They signed agreements to the rules. By changing the rules she is breaking her word. But we know from Bill how much to trust the word of a Clinton.

Posted by: Lawrence | March 9, 2008 3:22 PM

Even Bill Clinton prefers Monica Lewinsky over Hillary. From where does this support for Hillary come?

McLaden 08

Posted by: Maddogg | March 9, 2008 3:23 PM

ABOUT TERRORISM, and fooling you oncet'

If personal motives, such as control of public perception, existed for the president to have covered up his "indirect" involvement with Sheikh Mahfouz, then Bush's claimed reason for the 911 report censorship could be a lie. Willful presidential deception would have occurred when Bush stated as the reason for his censorship, the need "to protect intelligence 'sources and methods'".

In politics, truth is often stranger than fiction: Sheikh Mahfouz's sister is actually one of four wives of Osama bin Laden, making the two men brothers-in-law, a fact that former CIA Director James Woolsey revealed in 1998 Senate testimony. Thus, Osama bin Laden is sleeping with the sister of Bush's business partner. Really.

Oil-related business deals between George W. Bush and several powerful Saudi Sheikhs, from 1979 to 1991, lacked both ethical integrity and Congressional intelligence oversight, since Bush used the same Saudi-controlled global banking network that was also used by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and by Osama bin Laden. once a CIA asset. Yet, several abbreviated FBI and Congressional investigations later, this explosive truth still remains mostly hidden from the American public.

Consider the facts. For decades the current President's father, former President George H. W. Bush, has had publicly close ties to the oil-enriched Saudi royal family in regards to both politics and business. Then consider that the bin Laden family is the most entrusted of all families by the Saudi Royal household. For many decades, every Saudi King has granted the bin Laden's giant construction conglomerate exclusive contacts to restore all castles and holy sites within the country, and for numerous public works and infrastructure projects.

Also, consider that soon after bin Laden's September 11 attacks, it was public knowledge that 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, as was critical funding for bin Laden's al Qaeda network and for his earlier Arabic anti-Soviet fighters in Afganistan. Al Qaeda's predecesor was, in fact, bin Laden's 50,000 highly disciplined "Arab-Afghan" mujahideen, who were the most elite among Ronald Reagan's famous "freedom fighters", that were covertly given massive U.S. CIA support.

What is not generally known is that in years past, George W. Bush had several important business relationships with principle cohorts of Osama bin Laden's long-term financial sponsor, the powerful Saudi multibillionaire and banker to the king, Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz.

Bush's Deal with Saudi Sheikhs: A Reason to Cover-Up
This amazing story centers around and begins with the fraud-enshrouded Saudi National Commercial Bank (NCB), until recently owned by Sheikh Mahfouz. Following Osama bin Laden's U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa in 1998, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told the Saudi Arabian Defense Minister, Prince Sultan, that Mahfouz had channelled tens of millions of dollars into terrorist accounts in London and New York. While treasurer to the Saudi King, Mahfouz plundered 2 billion dollars of the 21 billion dollar National Commercial Bank, of which he was then president.

The Saudi National Commercial Bank was affiliated with a global network of many Mahfouz-connected banks, including the InterMaritime Bank of Geneva and New York, whose vice-president brokered a 25 million dollar investment into George W. Bush's Harken Oil and Gas in 1987. Thus, the InterMaritime Bank was once related to the current President Bush through its Mahfouz-connected VP, a man named Dr. Alfred Hartmann. The InterMaritime Bank was also involved in multiple covert CIA operations.

During the 1980's, Sheikh Mahfouz's banking syndicate performed major CIA-inspired banking operations for such former CIA assets as Osama bin Laden, as well as for Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega and other drug dealing generals, such as in Pakistan. Much of this is documented in the 1992 U.S. Congressional testimony of Senator John Kerry.

George W. Bush, for his part, had important business relationships not only with Dr. Hartmann, but with a total of nine prominent individuals that are central to Mahfouz's financial empire, including both the "Godfather of Saudi Intelligence" and his partner, a billionaire Bush campaign donor.

If George W. Bush and Sheikh Mahfouz were ever coexisting in each others financial network, then the question is begged as to whether any personal or political reasons exist for the President to have censored the Saudi section of the Senate's report on bin Laden's September 11 attacks.

When two principal individuals are directly connected to the same group of nine persons -- with each of the the eighteen subsequent relationships having zero degrees of separation -- then one would say that a "network" exists that profoundly connects the two principals in question.

...c'mon Mike McConnel, tell the truth you little hummer....

punk.

Posted by: anyone who wants you to forget the past, wants you to forget THEIR CRIMES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | March 9, 2008 3:23 PM

The GOP is talking about the popular governor of Florida as McCain's VP. If true, then Florida is lost to the Democrats in 2008. Which leaves Michigan and it is suffering through Bush's economic depression.

So folks, revote or no vote, caucus or no causus, it really doesn't matter. Florida is lost and Michigan will vote Democratic in November. If I were the DNC, I would do nothing and leave it as is--seating no one; or I would divide the delegates evenly between Clinton and Obama supporters and seat two evenly divided state delegations. And lets get on with the general election



Posted by: Enough Already | March 9, 2008 3:23 PM

They should adopt a 2-step solution to the Florida and Michigan mess. Half the delegates should be awarded based on the results of primaries already held, and for the remaining half they can hold a re-vote either through mail-in or at local police stations, post-offices, and firehouses to reduce costs.

Posted by: James | March 9, 2008 3:23 PM

The rules were clear - if the states (Michigan and Florida) went ahead with plans to hold their primaries before the agreed upon date, then their delegates would not be seated. You can't make rules and then, because the race is close, rescind those rules. If you do, what is the use of even setting rules? In Michigan's primary Clinton's name was on the ballot, but Obama's wasn't. If it is decided to allow Michigan and Florida delegates to have a seat at the convention, to award Clinton those delegates would not be right, as she, by not withdrawing her name from the ballot, as most contenders at the time did, would be awarding bad behavior. Maybe in the future, if a state wishes to have their delegates seated, perhaps they should ABIDE BY THE RULES so that the voters are not disenfranchised. Again, I say there should be no awarding of delegates, and no "do-overs."

Posted by: Denise | March 9, 2008 3:24 PM

Posted by: reason to reason | March 9, 2008 03:15 PM

And to think John Kerry is supporting him?
I guess it would mean a cabinet seat.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 3:25 PM

We democrats never agreed that FL and MI wouldn't count. HOWARD DEAN decided to punish Florida and Michigan voters for something some local party leaders did. Dean should have punished the local party bosses instead of trying to punish the voters.

Obama trolls are now post hoc trying to say we agreed to this. No, we didn't. Moreover, I don't see how anyone could possibly justify denying millions of people their right to vote. In trying to disenfranchise millions of people, Obama shows yet again that he completely lacks integrity. If he wins this way, I will vote McCain.

Posted by: Doug | March 9, 2008 3:26 PM

The Democratic Party reminds me of the Episcopal church.

Posted by: Hootie | March 9, 2008 3:27 PM

OK..............IT'S TIME FOR MR. DEAN TO STEP UP TO THE PLATE AND SETTLE THIS THING BEFORE WE BECOME SO DIVIDED AMONGST CANDIDATE LINES, WE LOSE THE ELECTION IN NOVEMBER. I give it about 2 more weeks of bashing from the Clintons and this election will be over. Obama people will not vote for Clinton (regardless of what the polls say, if this continues much longer). The idea that the candidate becomes a stronger candidate is crazy, what is true, is the Republicans become stronger and the Democrats become more divided and angrier.

Posted by: Peg | March 9, 2008 3:28 PM

Gerald W has an intelligent suggestion. It can probably be tweaked, but something along these lines ought to be worked out.

There is no question that Hillary broke the rules and is now trying to game the situation. She craftily didn't take her name off the MI ballot (unlike every other Democrat except hopeless underdogs/vanity candidates Kucinich and Gravel), and in FL she showed up at the very end to claim a "victory" in what the media had been calling a hollow "beauty contest." As for the MI and FL politicians, for whom we (including MI and FL voters) have this mess to blame, they were just trying to squeeze whatever glory and media bucks for their states that they could. And at least in FL, this whole thing was cooked up by a Republican governor and a Republican state legislature--who are now trying to stoke the fires for the benefit of the GOP.

All those are good reasons NOT to give in to Hillary's demand that she get the delegates that she claims from these two states. For God's sake, in MI she was really the only name on the ballo, except for two cyphers: That's Putin-style politics!

But the issue does have to be resolved in a way that has not only the appearance but also the reality of fairness. Allowing MI and FL a real vote at the end, after all the other states have had their say, would be ideal, of course. But who's to pay for it? Not the taxpayers of those states. Not the DNC, which needs its money to fight the Republican Big Lie machine. Not the Democratic candidates, who also need to gear up for the general election. Getting a bunch of rich donors to chip in to pay for special elections puts the party and the voters too much in debt to those special interests. (What kind of favors will they get in return for helping out the party?)

I come back to thinking that something like Gerald W's solution is a good idea because it costs the party and the taxpayers nothing, gives both candidates every incentive to keep trying to get every vote they can in the remaining state primaries, and makes it a little easier to hope that we Democrats can come together around a winning ticket at the convention.

The superdelegates, the ex-candidates (John Edwards and Joe Biden, here's lookin' at you), the DNC, and Al Gore need to get their heads together and come up with a workable solution here.

And if, by the way, Hillary snatches the nomination by some kind of backdoor chicanery (like getting away with claiming the FL/MI delegates, enabling her to squeeze over the top), THIS Democrat will NEVER, EVER vote for her. I'd sooner let McCain into the WH--whether by not voting at all, or voting for Nader, or even voting for McCain.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 3:29 PM

The useless Lewinsky references are disgusting and should be removed. They reflect the very likely criminal perversion of the contributor more so than the intended subject.

Posted by: Sean | March 9, 2008 3:29 PM

Enough already, your error is assuming that only FL and MI voters would react to having their votes not counted. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I live in neither state, but if my girl Hillary loses this way, I will vote McCain. If she loses, it needs to be through a fair process, where everyone's votes have been counted. There are people allover the country who agree with me.

Posted by: Doug | March 9, 2008 3:30 PM

Posted by: Lawrence | March 9, 2008 03:22 PM


Bottom line: you have a real problem when your candidate can't win a big state, cause all those DEMs may not hop on board Obama's train in NOV.

This is not a perception problem, it's a demogaphic problem.

GET IT!

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 3:30 PM

Can't wait till my Obama is elected, the I will feel proud about this country for the second time in my life and my hospital district will give me another $200,000 raise for community outreach.
_____________________________________

Yes, I want some of this candy that continues to drive up the deficit and both Obama and Hillary will hand out. If you can't beat them join them and get every cent from other tax payers before a total collapse.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 3:30 PM

Enough already, your error is assuming that only FL and MI voters would react to having their votes not counted. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I live in neither state, but if my girl Hillary loses this way, I will vote McCain. If she loses, it needs to be through a fair process, where everyone's votes have been counted. There are people allover the country who agree with me.

Posted by: Doug | March 9, 2008 03:30 PM

Posted by: DITTO DOUG | March 9, 2008 3:31 PM

I get tired of saying this to people.... the rules are and have always been.... If a state violated the rule and held their votes early, it could 1. appeal the loss of their delegates to the credentialing committee. or 2. get this.. come up with a process to seat their delegates. Duh.. you mean the rule state they can have a re-vote? Why yes, Virginia they do. Why do some people keep denying the fact that the rules do and always have allowed for a re-vote? It's not like they are trying to get their delegates seated by having a dart contest. They are proposing to hold a process that other states do. Primary, caucus or mail-in.

Posted by: Peter | March 9, 2008 3:31 PM

After the Clinton campaign has tried for months to defame Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and Ed Rendell are now proposing (pleading for?) a fusion ticket.

Why would Obama want to take on so much negative baggage?

Especially after the Clinton people have tried to tear him down, by the laughable suggestion that there is some kind of moral equivalence between Obama and their candidate.

Such a mechanical approach to politics would ruin his appeal as a new type of politician.

All roads lead to Obama, the giant killer in this contest.

Let's put the Clintons on a detour until and when they come clean.

Posted by: martin edwin andersen | March 9, 2008 3:32 PM

Enough already, your error is assuming that only FL and MI voters would react to having their votes not counted. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Ditto Doug!

I live in neither state, but if my girl Hillary loses this way, I will vote McCain. If she loses, it needs to be through a fair process, where everyone's votes have been counted. There are people allover the country who agree with me.

Posted by: Doug | March 9, 2008 03:30 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 3:32 PM

MRS CLINTON IS TOO OLD!

Posted by: JAAFAAHU | March 9, 2008 3:32 PM

LOL! Howling Dean is too much! :-o

First, they don't want to respect the VOTE with any Delegates,

Then, they want to respect the Delegates with the Vote!

Howling, you blithering Twit, just RESPECT the VOTE, and assign the Delegates!

The process cannot be "Redone", in anything close to a legitimate fashion. The Republican Vote was contaminated by the Crossovers, and THEY cannot NOW, be allowed to Vote AGAIN! :-(

Posted by: RAT-The | March 9, 2008 3:33 PM

Everyone in Florida and Michigan knew the rules. Even Mr. Obama, didn't campaign in these states, but that did not stop Mrs. Clinton from trying to take advantage of the situation just as she is trying now with this thought of a revote. Too, where is this experience that Mrs. Clinton claims to have? You mean just because she sleep next to the president equates to presidential experience? Hey, I've flown on a plane, but that doesn't make me a pilot!

Posted by: Ken G. | March 9, 2008 3:34 PM

Anderson,

Obama isn't representing half of the Democratic party who is voting for Hillary. That's a demographic problem, he can't fix.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 3:34 PM

Hillary's vast experience led to her support for the illfated Iraq War.

What we know is that Hillary did not vote her conscience on the war. She voted for her political career in that she did not want to be ostracized by Republicans for being weak on national defense when she decided to run for the White House.

Hillary is one wicked machine.

Posted by: Maddogg | March 9, 2008 3:37 PM

If Michigan and Florida have choosen to ignored the rules, their votes must be ignored as well.
I'm a 100% democratic, but if the democratic party decide to change the rules just to please certain lobbiests to nominate Mr. Clinton, I would certainly vote republican for the first time in my life. If this happens I would also suggest that Obama get out of the democratic party and runs as an indipendent. Most likey he will beat both Cliton and McCain.

Posted by: Peter | March 9, 2008 3:39 PM

Ridiculous, Hillary voted like everyone else, because they believed our President was telling us the truth.

Come one let's do better than that?
Republicans dont' want Hillary to run because SHE'LL Beat McCain.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 3:39 PM

Okay..

We have all these DNC Aand GOP chomping at the bit about RULES. Guess what the majority have NEVER followed the constitution, did what was right for the entire population of the United States. Have allow a despot to remain as President of the United States.

Ant the DNC in all there wisdom... do not want to count the votes of Americans because The powers that BE GOT PISSED because STATE GOVENMENT decide to hold there general election.. BEFORE the DNC wanted it held.

HUSSEIN Obama wants a 50-50 split.

I have posted before... the solution is to just validate the votes in Fla.. as they posted. Clinton takes what she won and HUSSEIN gets his share based on how the people voted in January.. HUSSEIN wants a re-vote...because he has WON so many states after FLA.. No one has considered 'real time'.. if Fla had officially gone to Clinton she may have changed how voters voted from that time forward.

HUSSEIN wants to campaign in Mi... because he knows that a majority of the major cities are black and he will win those votes... and the same issue... he now has momentum and would more than likely score well in Michigan.. Issue still is HE WAS TOO DUMB to put himself on the ballot... because he was not going to be able to campaign there.. Solution he gets all votes that were undeclared... and Clinton gets the ones that she won..

Neither candidate... campaigned there so, people voted,votes should count AS VOTED.

No re-vote is needed...

Votes stand as cast...

Candidtes move on to Penn.

Given HUSSEIN 50-50 split is not fair... Because he was on the ballot in Fla... and TOO DUMB to put his name on the ballot in Mi..

BEWARE THE IDES OF MARCH..

IMPEACH GOD BUSH...

Posted by: MIller51550 | March 9, 2008 3:39 PM

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

The Clinton's want to win, but they now realize that they cannot win against McCain because Obama, not Clinton, has the support from the first time voters, the young voters, the middle-aged voters, the independents, the African Americans, the higher educated and upper income voters, and moderate republicans.

The only ones coming out for Clinton are the older democrats and the poorer, less educated (and less likely to vote) voters, and the Latino voters.

McCain, however, has a strong independent voter base; in addition, the conservatives will line up behind him in order to keep Clinton out of the oval office if she is the nominee.

Influential conservatives, including Rush Limbaugh, state they want Clinton to be the nominee because they can beat her in a general election. Republicans are encouraging republicans to vote for Clinton in states with open primaries to ensure Clinton is the nominee.

In addition to Obama's strong diverse base of voters, he is a fund raising machine. Clinton tapped her big money supports for the full amount early on, while ignoring everyday folk. Obama, on the other hand, asked millions of everyday folk to contribute small amounts. Clinton cannot raise the money to take on the republicans in the general election. People like me won't support her, nor donate to her campaign.

Clinton clearly needs Obama to win. Obama on the other hand, does not need Clinton to win.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Posted by: CG | March 9, 2008 3:40 PM

Just heard the third statement by Obama today. He mentioned change each time, Not one time did he mentioned how this change would take place. That doesn't bother you folks. He has lied before you know. I passed the Exelon bill.

Posted by: Chief | March 9, 2008 3:40 PM

they should seat the delegates from michigan and florida in proportion to the pledged delegates each candidate has won after the last contest, puerto rico, has voted. so if, for example, let's say obama is ahead 1660 to 1549 after it's over. that means he has 51.7% of the delegates and clinton has 48.3% of the delegates. so florida and michigan should be apportioned by that ratio.

that way they get to be seated, AND they don't affect the outcome at all. and it doesn't cost anything, nor would we be rewarding them for breaking the rules. win-win-win-win.

Posted by: thephantomblot | March 9, 2008 3:43 PM

21 Democrats and One Republican and One Independent voted against it. Why did majority believe in supporting the President? Do you know?

Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
Mark Dayton (D-MN)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Bob Graham (D-FL)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Jim Jeffords (I-VT)
Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
the late Paul Wellstone (D-MN)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 3:43 PM

except that your solution, thephantomblot, is not a solution at all. you do not take away someone's fundamental right to vote because of something a party boss has done. you only want to disenfranchise these voters because you know MI and FL favor Hillary.

Posted by: Kevin | March 9, 2008 3:45 PM

Hey, everybody take a deep breath here. Notice who's pushing this do-over idea? It's the Clinton campaign. They know they can't win it unless they change the rules. "Will of the voters," my foot! Whether the Democratic candidate carries Florida or Michigan will have nothing to do with their delegates being seated or not seated, and the Clintion campaign knows that -- just as her beating Obama in the big states means nothing for the general. Everybody knows that the supporters of the losing Dem. candidate will not vote for McCain -- UNLESS THEY FEEL THAT THEIR CANDIDATE WAS CHEATED!

The Democratic party needs to stick to their guns. They made the rules and they should enforce them. What message does it send all the other states who waited, like they were supposed to? And what does it tell states with GOP-controlled legislatures, like Florida, about the mischief they can cause in 2012? (Yes, that's right, folks, this was a nifty little joke played on the Dems by Florida Repulicans. I can't explain why Michigan did what it did.)

I'll be very disappointed with the Democratic party if they allow a do-over, or somehow decide to award Clinton delegates she "won" by not following the rules.

Posted by: jac13 | March 9, 2008 3:46 PM

Of course, Obama needs Clinton to win. HELLO, he didn't win one large state. Women might as well pick McCain rather than Obama. There will be a cattle run away from the party in a national election.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 3:46 PM

Why should we believe Obama's message on change. He says he will not even follow what he has said in the campaign concerning leaving Iraq. If he doesn't mean what he says about leaving Iraq why should I believe him about change? Kind of boneheaded, don't you think? Wink and nod or crossed my fingers. Wow.

Posted by: Chief | March 9, 2008 3:46 PM

Please consider writing the DNC with your comments about what is occurring in this primary. If you already have, thank you. My remarks to the DNC follows.

http://www.democrats.org/contact.html

Settle the Florida/Michigan dispute now! Here are my suggestions and why:

Since this race has been close since the Iowa caucus, it is time to announce that Florida and Michigan's delegates will be split 50/50.
1. This would SAVE millions that could be spent on a redo and allow that money to be spent on important races to defeat republicans in Nov.
2. Both states would be "punished" for jumping ahead of the calendar, but their delegates would still be seated at the convention.
3. Neither candidate would have an unfair advantage. The lead in pledged delegate count would remain the same.
4. It is time for the Michigan State Democratic party to act like adults and take the high road. If Florida cannot afford a re-do, then they need to accept the 50/50 split. republicans screwed them, and it is time to do what is best for a possible November win rather than bickering over the here and now. What's done is done. Move forward with a higher purpose.

This in-fighting over delegates and Hillary's remarks regarding McCain being more experienced than Obama is severely hurting the party and undermining the chances for a win in the fall. She needs to be addressed on this issue as well. It is shameful and destructive.

Posted by: Lynne | March 9, 2008 3:48 PM

JAC13

If the Democratic party does not let FL/MI vote the cattle run will be the result.
This is about their votes, not what the state or national party leaders did or did not do.

RUSSIA ANYONE!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 3:48 PM

"Just seat the delegates and work to make sure this mess doesn't happen again.'

No Obama shouldn't get a single delegate. He CHOSE not to contest those states. Too bad, so sad."

Obama followed the rules and he should be punished for it?

These comments about the Dems losing because they don't seat the delegates has no logic behind it. Michigan and Florida knowingly didn't follow the rules and now they are crying for a do over? Lets just let all the states leap frog eachother for their primaries. We can start the campaigns two weeks after the innaguration.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 3:49 PM

This is probably all a smoke screen anyway, and hence it doesn't matter what happens. The Clinton Machine (read Democratic Party) will make certain HRC is the nominee. That is purpose of the existence of the "superdelegates" - to make certain. Why else do they exist except that the DNC believes the voters are too stupid to make a wise choice? Who is, and has been, the "leader" of the DNC? Connect the dots.

Posted by: michael4 | March 9, 2008 3:50 PM

The voters of State Parties in FL and MI knew the consequences and so did Senator Clinton.

If there is one think I know, life is not fair.

Senator Clinton's campaign made the assumption that this was a coranation and not an election and that it would be done by Super Tuesday, and there would be no need for Michigan and Florida's delegates... Sorry FL and MI voters but deep down you know its true too.

You can't suddenly change the rules of the game if it suits your purpose.

Posted by: Anne | March 9, 2008 3:50 PM

Lynne, this is a very short-sighted comment; if the tables were turned Obama would be demanding they let them vote.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 3:51 PM

Obama fought hard and played by the rules, and won.

Only in the upside-down world of Clintonian ethics and morality could he be put at a disadvantage.

Posted by: martin edwin 'mick' andersen | March 9, 2008 3:51 PM

"If neither candidate campaigned in Florida (although Obama's ads did run there), why is it wrong for Dean to allow the Florida primary results as-is? How was Obama disadvantaged?"

Hillary showed up in Florida, Bill showed up in Florida Obama did not. Hillary kept her name on the Michigan Ballot, Obama did not. Obama's strength is his oratory he didn't use that in either state.

Posted by: mike | March 9, 2008 3:53 PM

Not only should FL and MI not count in this election, but their votes should never count again!!!

Vague/Platitude '08

Posted by: Vague/Platitude '08 | March 9, 2008 3:54 PM

Rendell is full of it. In fact, Obama has won states with 216 electoral votes and Hillary has won states with 202 electoral votes.

Posted by: Ben Cooke | March 9, 2008 3:56 PM

Look, the dem party is too divided for either Hillary or Obama to win. We all know if our candidate isn't nominated, we will be voting McCain. Let's just skip this bull and appoint McCain. It'll save us the cost of any more elections.

Posted by: McCain '08 | March 9, 2008 3:56 PM

Obama did run TV ads here in Florida . His name was on the ballot. It was the Republican controlled legislature in Florida { yeah, IMAGINE THAT } that pushed this primary change. Then the Republicans decide to only give out 1/2 of the delegates to their winner but the Bone-headed Democrats with idiot Howard Dean decide to become arrogant and stop the Democratic winner from getting any Delegates. So once again the Republicans win win win... Hillary did not campaign here although some of you continually say she did. We are like New York , New Jersey, California, New Hampshire , Ohio and Texas- we all voted fair and square for Hillary. There is no CAUCUS nonsense in this STATE. She won, Obama lost - get over it and count the DELEGATES !!!!! Maybe Michigan is different, but this was the case in florida.

Posted by: jimbo | March 9, 2008 3:57 PM

Ben Cooke, are you counting Fl and Mi in your analysis? I doubt that you are, so it's meaningless. We all know that Fl and Mi would go for Hill again, the demographics strongly favor her.

Posted by: Doug | March 9, 2008 3:57 PM

Just two small facts about this "Republican scheme"

The bill to advance the primary dates in Fl was proposed by Sen. Jeremy Ring (D) Dist 32. It was Senate Bill 1010.

2. The vote on the bill as it came out of committee was passed by the Florida house 118-0 with 2 not voting. It passed the Florida senate 37-2 with 1 not voting.

(I guess that every legislator other than Sen. Ring is a Republican!)

Posted by: some facts for Jimbo | March 9, 2008 3:59 PM

Doug:

You are one confused puppy. Get the facts.

Posted by: michael4 | March 9, 2008 4:00 PM

Obama has not won one big state; how can you win an election in the Democratic party when you haven't won a blue state?
Obama's caucus wins are tantamount to ZIP, because Republican and Independents cross voted.

Get with the program!

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 4:00 PM

The Clinton narrative is now perfectly clear. They intend to do everything possible to steal the nomination and will savagely attack Barack along the way. In doing so, they will desperately need him on the ticket to hold onto his supporters and have any chance in the General Election. Whereas a Obama/Clinton ticket would be severely damaged by the despicable monster and all her baggage.

Barack should make it perfectly clear that under no circumstances would he ever be on a ticket with HRC. He has absolutely no use for her and the Clintons would only be using him as a pawn in a ruthless pursuit of reinstalling their corrupt, morally reprehensible regime.

Posted by: Robert Luciano | March 9, 2008 4:00 PM

The DNC could have punished the leaders who changed the dates by taking their superdelegate vote away, but they cannot deprive the entire population of these 2 states of their voting right. New primaries for both states are the only fair solution, or the bickering will never ent.

Posted by: Bodo | March 9, 2008 4:01 PM

Michigan and Florida should not be rewarded for not having followed the rules. Their governors should resign for trying to cheat the system, and if new primaries or caucuses happen, their number of delegate should be reduced to a minimum (less than half or a quarter of what they were supposed to be), and the governors' parties (Republican in Florida and Democrat in Michigan) should be forced to pay for the new elections.

Posted by: Benoit | March 9, 2008 4:01 PM

Benoit, why should voters, and Hillary supporters be punished for something that a couple governors did?

Posted by: Jim | March 9, 2008 4:04 PM

Wait, this article mentions that Clinton won Michigan -- without mentioning that no other candidates were even on the ballot! Excuse me, but that's a pretty important omission.

I don't mean to be harsh, Mr. Goldfarb, but that's awfully poor journalism. You need to publish a correction.

Posted by: davestickler | March 9, 2008 4:05 PM

Gov Rendell, you are correct, we decide the President by the electoral votes. But that is NOT how Democrats pick their nominee. If it were, we would award delegates in that fashion.

But it's not. Quit trying to change the rules because Hillary is LOSING by the actual rules that exist. You can't just make up new rules to skew the current results toward Hillary.

Keep this up, and steal the nomination, and I will be doing a write-in vote for Barack Obama. If you're willing the tear the party apart, then you and Hillary deserve to go down the ship. It's not one that's worth keeping afloat.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 4:05 PM

I say we throw Howard Dean's A$$ out of power. He caused this mess by trying to be a bad a$$ and stripping them of all their delegates.

Posted by: Alec | March 9, 2008 4:05 PM

I suggest that the appropriate way to resolve this is to recognize the delegates from the primary vote, but to "punish" the states by not seating the super delegates. The super delegates are the ones, by in large, that created this mess by trying to hold the early primaries in their states. Don't penalize the voters. Instead penalize the super delegates from these states.

Posted by: MarkB | March 9, 2008 4:05 PM

Can we please direct this metaphorical torch wielding mob towards Howard Dean? He's the one who decided to strip MI and FL of all their delegates in this highly contested election.

Brilliant move Dean.

Posted by: Alec | March 9, 2008 4:07 PM

"Hilary Clinton has won states with about 260 electoral votes and Barack Obama has won states with about 190," Rendell said. "We decide the president not by the popular vote. We decide it by the Electoral College. The traditional role of superdelegates is to determine who's going to be our strongest candidate."
__________________________________
Pay attention here folks!!!!!

Posted by: Harried | March 9, 2008 4:07 PM

It's too bad the Dem leaders in FL and MI wanted to change their election calendars at the sacrifice of their rank and file voting rights. After all, at the time of their decisions, Hillary was the hands-down nominee, so no worries of no votes! So cry me a river if they now want to recind their bad decision. The voters of these states should be upset with their party leaders, not with the Obama camp. The real benefit of this scandal is watching HRC and the typical manipulation of anything to benefit her and her camp.

Posted by: RaleighNC1 | March 9, 2008 4:09 PM

Split them down the middle. To allow Florida and Michigan votes from the back end is, in essence, punishment to those candidates that did follow the rules. At least if they are split down the middle then nobody really gains an advantage, based on those states.

There has to be some accountability for breaking party rules. Punishment not reward.

It is illogical for primaries to be rerun in these states. The states shouldn't be saddled with that expense. It is a 'gift' to them to allow for their delegates be split between the two candidates. Short of that, I say, follow the rules. If Florida and Michigan want to play hard ball on this, then I say the DNC should play hardball by the rules and not allow them ANY votes.

Posted by: DCIndependent | March 9, 2008 4:09 PM

Thanks Harried! Go HILL!

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 4:10 PM

The rules should not be changed, just like the laws in those states would not be changed retroactively. There should not be another vote. It's too costly and cannot be managed effectively-- thus, it will be more problematic than not to hold. The last thing left is to split the vote 50-50. In this manner there is no advantage to anyone, nor should there be since the inability to change the rules or redo the vote can ever make up for the actual votes that were cast. The campaigns have also changed. Thus any redo primary becomes a new primary. Florida and Michigan were both warned about the consequences of holdng their primaries in disregard of the DNC rules. Is the DNC supposed to reverse itself because one or the other candidate is making the suspended delegate votes count an issue? In a democracy, the votes would count. If they are to count, they should be split evenly. Then, and only then should the delegates be seated at the convention with pledged votes that cannot change.

Posted by: Hanan | March 9, 2008 4:12 PM

kevin, "the party boss" didn't do it; these states were told beforehand what the consequences were and they broke the rules anyway. i don't have a lot of sympathy for the rules in the first place, because it's ridiculous that iowa and new hampshire should have a stranglehold on the process like they do, but that's something to be addressed for the NEXT election. you can't change the rules of this one now, just because it favors clinton. the rules were agreed to by all the party elders, as well as the candidates, and it was the states that chose to break them. having a re-do would be A) extremely costly and B) reward them for breaking the rules. these states would be at least represented under my plan, but they would no affect the outcome.

Posted by: thephantomblot | March 9, 2008 4:12 PM

if a basketball team had a game and a good player had to sit because he/she broke team rules, would we all be screaming about him being disfranchised, no we would say he knew if he broke the rules he'd have to sit so what is the big deal.

Florida and Michigan is only an issue because Hillary is desparate to find votes, she can't live by the rules.

This whole thing is just paradise for the Republicans, Democrats look like fools for being unable to abide by their own rules

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 4:13 PM

Lets look at Obama's real voting record...
1.Voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state (1/26/05)
2.Obama was part of a unanimous consent agreement not to filibuster the nomination of Alberto Gonzales as U.S. Attorney General.(2/1/05)
3.Voted to confirm Michael Chertoff, a proponent of water-board torture and a man behind the round-up of thousands of people of Middle-Eastern descent following 9/11.(2/15/05)
4.Voted to make John Negroponte the National Intelligence Director. In Central America, John Negroponte was connected to death squads that murdered nuns and children in sizable quantities. He is suspected of instigating death squads while in Iraq, resulting in the current insurgency.(4/21/05)
5.Voted for HR 1268,war appropriations in the amount of approximately $81 billion.(4/21/05)
6.Voted for H.R. 2419, termed 'The Nuclear Bill' by environmental and peace groups. It provided billions for nuclear weapons activities, including nuclear bunker buster bombs. It contains full funding for Yucca Mountain, a threat to food and water in California, Nevada, Arizona and states across America.(7/1/05)
7.Failed and refused to place a hold on the nomination of John Roberts, a supporter of permanent detention of Americans without trial, and of torture and military tribunals for Guantanamo detainees.(9/26/05 & 9/28/05)
8.Voted for HR2863, which appropriated $50 billion in new money for war.(10/07/05)
9.Voted for continued war, again. Roll call 326 was the vote on the Defense Authorization Act (S1042).(11/15/05)
10.Confirmed his support for war by voting for the Conference Report on the Defense Appropriations Act (HR 2863).(12/21/05)
11.Voted for money for more war by voting for cloture on HR 4939, the emergency funding to Halliburton, Blackwater and other war profiteers.(5/2/06)
12.Voted to adopt HR4939: emergency funding to war profiteers.(5/4/06)
13.Voted for the conference report on HR4939, a bill that gave warmongers more money to continue the killing and massacre of innocent people in Iraq and allows profiteers to collect more money for scamming the people of New Orleans.(6/15/06)
14.Opposed withdrawal of the troops, by voting to table a motion to table a proposed amendment would have required the withdrawal of US. Armed Forces from Iraq and would have urged the convening of an Iraq summit (S Amdt 4269 to S. Amdt 4265 to S2766)(6/15/06)
15.Voted against withdrawing the troops by opposing the Kerry Amendment (S. Amdt 4442 to S 2766) to the National Defense Authorization Act. The amendment, which was rejected, would have brought our troops home.(6/22/06)
16.Voted for cloture (the last effective chance to stop) on the National Defense Authorization Act (S 2766), which provided massive amounts of funding to defense contractors in Iraq.(6/22/06)
17.Again voted for continued war by voting to pass the National Defense Authorization Act (S 2766) for continued war funding.(6/22/06)
18.Voted to give more money to profiteers for more war (H..R. 5631).(9/7/06)
19.Voted for the conference report on more funding for war, HR 5631.(9/29/06)
20.Voted for nuclear proliferation in voting to pass HR 5682, a bill to exempt the United States-India Nuclear Proliferation Act from requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.(11/16/06)
21.Voted to confirm pro-war Robert M. Gates to be Secretary of Defense.(12/06/06)
Anti war? Obama? Says one thing and votes another way! Hmmm.

Posted by: jimbo | March 9, 2008 4:13 PM

I do not think there is much Dean can do the republicans in Texas switch parties by the thousands to vote on obama to displace HRC. There is no way the Democrats will and or could win with the bo on the ticket I will go for r. nadar or mccain if he is and so will many of my friends we are all in the late 60's and early 70's I am 70. I speak to them daily and when we have meetings they have repeated they will probably go with mccain as well. The Fla. and Mich Should be allow to count as is or revote. Regardless the republicans have voted in both states and it will show up as they can not revote for Obasma if they should wish to switch lines now. The best of good byes Frank Bowers in Austin, TX

Posted by: Frank Bowers | March 9, 2008 4:14 PM

While Hillary is being magnanimous, funny and REAL, Obama is behaving like a elite intellectual college professor, how could Obama'sdisdain for the very institution he wants to run,be attractive to anyone. Hillary has been there playing by the rules...give experience its due.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 4:14 PM

Simple solution:

Everyone was on the ballot in FL and no one campaigned there. Count the primary and give the delegates selected each a half-vote -- same penalty the GOP gave for jumping the schedule gun.

Only Clinton & Kucinich were on the ballot in MI, so hold a firehouse primary (fewer polling places, shorter hours) run by the party and paid for by the state and national parties and both candidates -- about $1M each. Again, the selected delegates get a half-vote.

BTW, the convention will ultimately decide who gets seated, not the DNC. If Clinton can get a majority of the delegates present and voting to seat FL and/or MI, they'll be seated and given full votes.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 4:14 PM

Re: Answering Scorched Earth Policy

From "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/how-obama-can-win.html

"Saturday, March 08, 2008
How Obama Can Win and Win Strong

I am aware of the delegate math.

I know that, unless the Clinton team runs roughshod with regard to superdelegates, the numbers are unassailable.

However, for Obama to not only win, but to win strong, and thus to be in the best position for the general, he must step outside of the box created when Clinton tactics were applied to his own admirable stance.

By declaring himself the candidate of the new politics, putting the politics of Rove et al. aside for a politics of honesty, straight-forward decency, and strength, he has putatively left the field open for Clinton et al. to lob innuendo after innuendo. If he responds, he is in violation of his commitment to the new; if he continues with his current path of non-response, he will be taken down by a series of attacks, that however false or fantastic, will eventually raises doubts in the mind of the electorate as to the validity of his new politics, and will, in the great viscera of the electorate, so responsive and so easily changed, appear "weak."

If he attacks, it is said, he betrays himself; if he continues on the same path, he is whittled down by rumor and insinuation.

Clinton's current strength is her ability to attack, however true the nature and content of the attacks. Obama must turn this very behavior into its own negative. To do so, Obama must relentlessly name what she is doing and anchor it--calling for an "end to the era of 'kitchen sink' politics, i.e.:

"It's about time that we left the era of "kitchen sink" politics, of distortion and insinuation, behind us. We have all seen it before this--a period where it was often difficult to tell falsehood, rumor, and misinformation from truth. It was this type of politics that contributed to a war in which we have lost the best of our national treasure, our nation's men and women. It is this type of politics that our opponents not so long ago decried. And it is this type of politics that, more than anything else, signals weakness--the inability to base one's statements and actions on the firm ground of truth, on our collective and honest dedication to the construction of a new and positive future--and instead, on a retreat into the politics of personal destruction.

It's time to take out the dirty dishes; It's time to empty the kitchen sink. After an era where it was often difficult to distinguish fantasy from truth, it's time to put that era behind us, to base our future efforts on a strong and honest desire to build a new and better future."

What Obama can create is his own "There you go again" moment--one that will both define Clinton (someone, after all, has to do it), and place the Clinton camp in their very own box, of their own making: A box where any attack will be immediately associated in the voter's mind, and will be accompanied by a roll of the voter's eyes, as another example of Clinton's "kitchen sink" politics--of the chaotic, inconsistent, contradictory and frantic willingness to say or do anything to be elected, be it the changing of one's personality, tone, degree of honesty--or one's degree of tolerance or gusto for the politics of personal destruction.

Without a single attack, this demonstrates the nature of the Clinton camp: when presented with crisis or in danger of loss, rather than respond with strength, principle and authority, they throw the "kitchen sink" at the issue, abandoning principles and frantically strewing innuendo as they do so.

With powerful moral force, it names exactly what the Clinton camp is doing, and anchors it both to the politics of the past Administration, and to the very political tactics that Clinton herself has denounced and disavowed. It provides direct evidence--thus far, the only direct evidence--of how a Clinton Administration would likely govern in times of chaos, crisis, and other "3 a.m. moments"(thus disempowering her already shaky claims to superior foreign policy judgment): With a "kitchen sink" approach of tumultuous, changing, disorganized and contradictory attack, rather than with consistent purpose and moral authority.

Obama must persistently name what the Clinton camp is doing rather than complain, and he must then link it to the very essence of the old politics that has been lived through by all of us, and denigrated by most, over the past 8 years.

Thus named, and thus defined, Obama can then invite Clinton up to the higher ground--to a debate based on policy and principle--or she can choose to stay in the box that she and her camp have created.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/how-obama-can-win.html

Posted by: Robert Hewson | March 9, 2008 4:16 PM

I'll do whatever I need to do to get that nomination!!! The right to be president is mmmmmIIIIIIIIIIIINE!!!!!!!!! MHUAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!!

Posted by: Hellary Rove Clinton | March 9, 2008 4:16 PM

I say bring it on! Voting in Michigan and Florida won't stop you whining liberals from going down in November.

Posted by: mh | March 9, 2008 4:17 PM

http://twocanpete.blogspot.com
It's bad enough that the Democrats have the 'Super Delegates' just in case they need to nullify the popular vote. Now they are threatening to just flat out throw the election by letting two scoff law states count votes that Hillary and Barak BOTH argeed should not be counted. If they steal this election from Obama they have handed it to McCain on a silver platter.

Posted by: twocanpete | March 9, 2008 4:17 PM

If I am not mistaken, it was the republican controlled legislature in Florida that chose when they would hold their elections? It is ridiculous to punish the voters of that state for something that the republicans foisted onto the democrats living in the state. I really can't believe there is a problem counting the voters in Florida.
This is totally STUPID.
Howard Dean needs to wake up and smell the coffee. If the voters of Florida are disenfranchised now do you think that they will even bother to try to vote in November? Don't hold your breath.

Posted by: Larry in Houston | March 9, 2008 4:17 PM

"Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, warned today that a divisive nomination battle could cost Democrats the presidency in November."

Duh!

Then, why o why, did you and the rest of the DNC change the "rules" from a 50% penalty to a 100% penalty last summer AFTER the law to change the date was passed? You certainly didn't expect a Republican-controlled state gov't to revisit the law and cave to your ultimatum, did you?

If you couldn't see this coming, then you don't deserve to be DNC chairman. The DNC allowed this to happen by "changing the rules midstream" themselves. Reinstate the original sanctions.

Posted by: UnbelievableMess | March 9, 2008 4:17 PM

The voters in Florida and Michigan have not been disenfranchised. Their elected representatives took actions on behalf of the Florida and Michigan citizens which preclude their participation in the Democrat Primary election.

This entire issue is gamesmanship by the Clinton Campaign. It's clear that they care nothing about the damage they do to the party.

The Super Delegates are in Place to protect the party from an aberrant campaign which perfectly describes Clinton and team. Therefore, the Super delegates should do their job. They should inform Clinton that they will not legitimize her assault on the DNC rules and the Unity of the Party. They should therefore do their job and align behind Obama.

There is no down side to this action because it is both right and fair.

Posted by: James of Indiana | March 9, 2008 4:17 PM

Obama also supported Roberts for Supreme Court, but was told not to vote for him because it would be held against him. It's in an article in the Times, I think.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 4:18 PM

A lot of people seem to be sucked in by HRC hype regarding "big states". Newsflash: this is the primary, not the general election! The claim is irrelevant for that reason alone, but also because all states matter. The Constitution itself is written so as to attempt to balance the large states with the smaller states. To say the one CANNOT win any state BECAUSE they didn't win that state's primary is pretty stupid, ain't it? Isn't the idea to coalesce around the Democratic candidate and kick the current morons out of office? HRC makes the argument about "big states" because she doesn't have anything else to argue. That doesn't make it valid or true. Too bad the journalists (using that term loosely) don't point out the problems with her math and logic.

Posted by: michael4 | March 9, 2008 4:18 PM

yeah, chief, god forbid obama should actually take, you know, "reality" into consideration when he is making decisions about american security interests.

Posted by: thephantomblot | March 9, 2008 4:20 PM

Fire - Howard - Dean.

Period.

Posted by: treetopflyer | March 9, 2008 4:20 PM

Jimbo...for each category, please now state Hillary
s record...Lets be Fair and Balanced.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 4:20 PM

It would be unfair to split the votes down the middle with regards to Florida because both of their names were on the ballot and supposedly neither candidate "technically" campaigned in the state, excluding the fact that Barack Obama did have "nation-wide" televisions that aired in Florida when Hillary Clinton did not have "nation-wide" ads that aired in Florida.

As a result, I believe that the Florida votes should be counted as is with Hillary Clinton winning that state. To do otherwise, would amount to Barack Obama stealing votes and delegates form Hillary Clinton.

As for Michigan, the fact that Barack Obama was naive to have his name removed means that Michigan should hold another primary. Because Michigan cannot afford to hold this primary, either DNC should pay for it or Barack Obama should pay for 50% of while Hillary Clinton pay for the other 50% of it.

Posted by: InSearchOfTruth | March 9, 2008 4:22 PM

We Democrats may lose in November because we are dumb and the fact that many of our party like rhetoric over substance. This is a no brainer. Hillary Clinton has won ELECTIONS in almost every big state which Democrats must win in November. Obama has won CAUCUSES in states that are more likely to go Republican in November. Do we need to say more! Democrats need to start thinking with their brains. Hillary is the candidate who can win in November. She knows the issues. She has the vision. She has the experience. And as she said, "Obama gave a speech." I was an Edwards supporter, but I am now an enthusiastic Clinton fan. Listen to Obama--a very empty suit indeed!

Posted by: Political Watchdog | March 9, 2008 4:23 PM

Can we please direct this metaphorical torch wielding mob towards Howard Dean? He's the one who decided to strip MI and FL of all their delegates in this highly contested election.

Posted by: Alec | March 9, 2008 4:24 PM

I don't see why states shouldn't be allowed to decide when they hold their primaries. They are paying for it with their own public funds. It should be the party accommodating the states and not vice-versa.

Posted by: Jimbob | March 9, 2008 4:27 PM

In Jan.2008, there were posting in the newspaper tell Michigan voters to vote uncommitted if voting for Obama, there were also phone calls to that fact. I voted in the primary and I also was one who recieved such a phone call. Debbie Dingell also was one who states to vote uncommitted for Obama. So though he wasn't good enough to put his name on the ballot or campaigned himself , there certainly was some people campaigning for him by phone. Give Clinton her fare share of delegates and split the uncommitted with Obama and Edwards.

Posted by: jp,michigan | March 9, 2008 4:27 PM

The Clintons had a slick strategy: Hillary was to pretend from the start that she was already the candidate. As a white "experienced" woman running against a young black man, she was certain of an early landslide win, and Bill had the superdelegates in his pocket. That is why they blew their 160 million dollars so early, and had absolutely no plans after South Carolina. Perhaps it was Ted Kennedy who blew the whistle, but I am glad their evil plan backfired. Maybe Americans are not as stupid as the Clintons think.

Posted by: Gerry | March 9, 2008 4:28 PM

I don't know much about the Michigan primary, but I do know a little about the Florida primary. I think this is a ploy by the Republicans in my state. The Republican-held legislature forced the Democrats to change the primary date by tying it to new and better voting machines. In other words, if you want the new voting machines, you must accept OUR primary date. I am sure there are others who know more about this. It just looks like another fast one being pulled by the Republicans in Florida.

Posted by: A. Voice | March 9, 2008 4:30 PM

Can't wait till my Obama is elected, then I will feel proud about this country for the second time in my life and my hospital district will give me another $200,000 raise for community outreach.
-Michelle

Posted by: Michelle | March 9, 2008 4:32 PM

*AUDCACIOUSLY HOPES FOR CHANGE*

Posted by: OBAMATARD | March 9, 2008 4:34 PM

Howard Dean is an absolute, unquestionable, undeniable and utter disaster. Boy, is the USA lucky he didn't make it to the Presidency.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 4:37 PM

Is Florida now considered the Hanging Delegate State like the Hanging Chad State of yesterday ? Seems like Floridians are always hanging themselves. Who says only Republicans can't follow rules ? Don't commit election crimes if you can't do the time.

On another note, I am glad to see Senator Obama standing on his own. Yesterday a network reported that Barack, don't attack Iraq, I done told you so, will not play second fiddle to his surrogate mother. He will not be a Vice Presidential candidate on a Clinton ticket.

It's too bad that maverick can't stand on his own, maybe that horse is headed to the glue factory, or stay away from George W. Bush, he is badluck.

Posted by: Ralph Nudered | March 9, 2008 4:38 PM

I agree, Dean is sh*t and should be removed from his position on the DNC

Posted by: Melanie | March 9, 2008 4:39 PM

Have the Hillary supporters asked themselves WHY Charlie Crist, gov of FL, possible VP running mate to McCAin, would think the votes in FL should count as is? We have been trying to tell you that the Right Wing and MSM want Hillary because they know McCain has the best chance to beat her.

If all the math were reversed and Hillary led in delegates, popular vote, the super delegates would have already jumped on board and the MSM would be calling for Obama to drop out. We all know that is the truth. Hillary was supposed to be inevitable and instead we have a wonderful candidate in Obama that more of us would like to see be president except for the MSM, the Right Wing and women over 65.

Another point. Hillary supporters are out here criticizing Obama for not jumping all over another primary, BUT seem to have not noticed how Hillary does not want a CAUCUS. She doesn't want just Democrats choosing their nominee.


Please consider writing the DNC with your comments about what is occurring in this primary. If you already have, thank you. My remarks to the DNC follows.

http://www.democrats.org/contact.html

Settle the Florida/Michigan dispute now! Here are my suggestions and why:
Since this race has been close since the Iowa caucus, it is time to announce that Florida and Michigan's delegates will be split 50/50.
1. This would SAVE millions that could be spent on a redo and allow that money to be spent on important races to defeat RepubliCONS in Nov.
2. Both states would be "punished" for jumping ahead of the calendar, but their delegates would still be seated at the convention.
3. Neither candidate would have an unfair advantage. The lead in pledged delegate count would remain the same.
4. It is time for the Michigan State Democratic party to act like adults and take the high road. If Florida cannot afford a re-do, then they need to accept the 50/50 split. RepubliCONS screwed them, and it is time to do what is best for a possible November win rather than bickering over the here and now. What's done is done. Move forward with a higher purpose.

This in-fighting over delegates and Hillary's remarks regarding McCain being more experienced than Obama is severely hurting the party and undermining the chances for a win in the fall. She needs to be addressed on this issue as well. It is shameful and destructive.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 4:40 PM

Can't wait till my Obama is elected, then I will feel proud about this country for the second time in my life and my hospital district will give me another $200,000 raise for community outreach.
-Michelle

Posted by: Michelle | March 9, 2008 4:42 PM

MarkB -

In addition to my suggestion, I also agree with your alternative as well, or at least in part. The problem is that with Florida, the Republican Governor and his colleagues were the ones whom moved up the Florida primary date. So I am not sure that removing the Super Delegates from Florida is actually fair, considering the fact that Barack Obama did "un-officially" campaign in Florida with his "nation-wide" t.v. aids that conveniently aired in Florida (apparently with the FEC or was it the DNC's permission).

So I am not sure if it woudl be fair to remove any of the Super Delegates from Florida. Now, Michigan is another story. If Michigan's delegates were seated as is, then I could support taking away some or part of the Super Delegate count from Michigan as punishment. However, I would not support removing all of Michigan's Super Delegates because I would consider such punishment a little too harsh, similar to the fact that I consider not counting Florida and Michigan votes at all as extremely too harsh, as well as undemocratic and disenfranchisement of those voters.

Barack Obama supporters on here constantly keep talking about the rules and ignoring the fact that not counting those votes makes the Democratic party look hypocritical. How can you support not counting those votes when such actions will only depress the vote in those States in November. Do the Obama supporters really want to depress the Democratic vote in November in those two states, thus giving the election to John McCain? I doubt it. As a result, Barack Obama supporters (and Howard Dean) need to look at the bigger picture of how not counting Michigan and Florida will have a negative effect on the Democratic Party, instead of concentrating on the fact that "rules" were broken.

Posted by: InSearchOfTruth | March 9, 2008 4:42 PM

Let's just all agree on McCain and go home. The dems once again found a way to blow the election. Thanks Dean and Obama!

Posted by: Michelle | March 9, 2008 4:43 PM

Why should we believe Obama's message on change. He says he will not even follow what he has said in the campaign concerning leaving Iraq. If he doesn't mean what he says about leaving Iraq why should I believe him about change? Kind of boneheaded, don't you think? Wink and nod or crossed my fingers. Wow.
__________________________________

Your so right!

HILLARY'S FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE CLAIMS FRAUDALENT.
________________________________________


Your so right too!

Posted by: Mike | March 9, 2008 4:43 PM

Comment after comment i read Obama played by the rules.That might fool people from other states,I live in Fla.Obama and only Obama ran ads in Fla.prior to the primary.That's going by the rules? His supporters defend him by saying it was a national ad.Others ran national ads and they didn't show up in Fla.So lets get of the high horse on the rules.

Posted by: roncraw | March 9, 2008 4:43 PM

Can't wait till my Obama is elected, then I will feel proud about this country for the second time in my life and my hospital district will give me another $200,000 raise for community outreach.
-Michelle

Posted by: Michelle | March 9, 2008 4:46 PM

Florida should be counted as is. Barack campaigned "unwillingly or by accident" but his adds were on CNN in Florida (very clever, very clever) and Clinton had name recognition. This vote should remain.

Michigan: do over, for sure. But BO doesn't want that after his NAFTA debacle (which by the way, he brought up first prior to Ohio, it is just that everybody forgets, remember "Shame on you, Barack Obama?.)

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 4:46 PM

Thank God McCain's a moderate, because thanks to Dean's and Obama's dirty tricks, he'll soon be our president!

Posted by: dfeafe | March 9, 2008 4:48 PM

Lets just let Florida secede. They can take it all...just go.

Posted by: Zack | March 9, 2008 4:48 PM

I LIKE Howard Dean. He has some scruples in determining that states that signed up for a certain game and then decided they wanted to break their contract should deal with some consequences. The Floridians and Michiganers could have voted on Super Tues. but got greedy. I know, I know...the Pubs did it to FL. But they could have worked something out with the DNC at the time instead of waiting until it was going to cause major divisions in the party. The Florida and Michigan Dems need to come up with a plan. They need to pay for their own mistake. Too bad the voters got screwed, but then again they have telephones, stationery and their representatives phone numbers and addresses. Now they want the national party and the voters in the states who followed the rules to bale them out. Take a 50-50 split. Save the party some money that can be used to defeat other Republicans. Eat some crow and take your seat at the convention.

Posted by: Lynne | March 9, 2008 4:50 PM

Only the Clintons decided to break the rules, all other candidates accepted the decision of the DNC...

I don't see any reason to give them reason!

If they can't play by the rules, let them whine forever.

Obama will win in November even if the Clintons decide, as they have already done, to give their blessing to McBush

Obama-Bloomberg 08


Posted by: stearm | March 9, 2008 4:51 PM

The Clinton and Obama political campaign committee's have lots of money, much more so than McCain, so let them agree to pay for a new election in Florida and Michigan, both states that attempted to skirt the national Democratic Party rules. By having another re-vote, both states will get loads of extra attention, just what they wanted and Clinton and Obama be able to just get this issue behind them before it tears the party apart, like Democrats have usually accomplished in their stupid, stubborn past.

Posted by: Tab L. Uno from Utah | March 9, 2008 4:51 PM

Every time I read something coming out of John Kerry's mouth about how Democrats should view Hillary Clinton negatively and view Barack Obama positively, I want to dry heave.

Barack Obama is as about ready to become President as John Kerry was ready to head the national ticket in 2004. I am sick of these far left Democrats conspiring to take the party over the edge (again) in 2008.

I don't care who John Kerry thinks should be the nominee in November. John Kerry is the last guy any Democrat should be listening to regarding political strategy. He was a multi-message disaster in 2004, and that he is for Obama in 2008 is a good reason for any undecided Democrat to be against Obama in 2008.

Posted by: PoliticalPuck | March 9, 2008 4:53 PM

Florida and Michigan gambled and lost. NO DO-OVER!!! There is a penalty for moving up a states primary. To give that state another chance means that they had nothing to lose. As far as the Democratic Primaries, Florida and Michigan CHOSE not to exist!!!

Posted by: Hedcutter | March 9, 2008 4:53 PM

This is an easy answer: Take a page from King Solomon's wisdom - "split the baby in half" Give them each 50/50 of the total delegates from Flordia and Michigan. Nothing else is fair. Or don't count these delegates at all. They broke the rules for goodness sake.

Posted by: Trina | March 9, 2008 4:53 PM

Trina, you forget that "the baby" doesn't really belong to the candidate who agrees to split it. Zing!

Posted by: Doug | March 9, 2008 4:55 PM

The DNC deserves the beating it is going to take if it ignores large swing states like Florida and Michigan while choosing the nominee based on delegates from Red states unlikely to be carried in the national election. That many delegates were chosen in caucuses where fewer than 5% of voters were able to participate only adds further to the insult. 9,000 Democrats in Wyoming, a state that has not gone Democratic since LBJ, are going to have more say in choosing the Democratic candidate than 2 million voters who went to the polls and voted in Florida and Michigan. Give me a break.

BTW, the record of caucuses in choosing electable candidates is not great. McGovern launched his candidacy with a strong Iowa caucus showing only to finish 49 and 1 in the general election. Jimmy Carter won in '76 and '80 only to be trounced by Reagan. And of course Gore and Kerry won Iowa in 2000 and 2004. In contrast, Bill Clinton, who actually went on to win the general election finished 3rd in Iowa in '92 (he won unopposed in '96). So really, Iowa has a great record for picking Democratic nominees who will go on to loose the general election. Perhaps not surprising since caucuses typcially draw a small and highly skewed audiance.

-- Disenfranchised in Michigan and not happy

Posted by: djstates | March 9, 2008 4:55 PM

As long as the Clintons were attacking Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi didn't say anything. As soon as that advisor call Hillary a monster, Nancy Pelosi spoke out. I denounced and disagree with what she said but you have a double standard. As long as nothing wasn't being said about Hillary, you were no where to be found or heard. Now you come out asking both of them to stop the attacks. The American people see what is going on within the establishment in the Democratic Party. All of you favor the Clintons and it sticks out like a sore thumb.

The Democratic Party is in deep trouble if you think the American people is going to let the Clintons back pocket super delegates hand the nomination to Hillary Clinton on a silver platter. If Hillary is leading in the delegate count then I would support her as the nominee. Any funny business with the Clintons back pocket super delegates, John McCain will be the president of the United States because the honest and morals American people will not stand for immoral and unethical people to steal this nomination from Barack Obama if he is leading in the delegate count. The are American people who will stand for fairness and democracy. We are going to send a strong message to any Clintons back pocket super delegates who think they can be dictators and steal this nomination. It will be won fair. If the establishment in the Democratic Party want to see the party destroyed in 2008 then hand the nomination to Hillary Clinton if she is not leading in delegates. She must win the nomination fairly and not because the establishment in the Democratic Party feels she is entitle to it. Shame on Nancy Pelosi and the establishment in the Democratic Party.

The honest American people can see that Saturday Night Live has endorsed Hillary Clinton. Last night episode really showed their bias and that they are in the Clintons' corner big time.

Saturday Night Live is trying to promote Barack Obama inexperience for Hillary. Guess what, it will not work with the American people. Hillary is the most polarized political figure in America. The American People is tired of that kind of politic and we want change. Your show will not deny the American people the end to Hillary Clinton's type of politic.

Everybody knows that the Clinton are famous for dirty politics, unethical behavior, lies, dishonesty, deceit, and one step ahead of the law. They have managed to escape prosecution for every unlawful things they have done. I must admit that is impressive but I am not impressed with the tactics they are using to get back in the White House. The Clintons brought shame to the White House once and we the American People refuse to allow them a repeat. Your jokes at Barack Obama experience is not going to work on the American people.

Since Hillary loves bringing up about the good times during the Clintons' administration. Why haven't the media and the American People remembered doing the Clintons administration, the democrats lost control of the house and senate? Also democrats lost governor seats as well. I wonder why since the Clinton was the best thing to happen to the American people. This was a part of the Clintons legacy but no one dare to mention it because they prefer to show that Hillary has all this experience she is borrowing from her husband's resume.

I find that a little troubling that this has not been talked about. If Barack Obama had the scandals and the skeletons that Hillary Clinton had, then that would be the story all day and every day. It would be used to remind the American People why he would not be fit to be President of the United States. Since it is Hillary, the media refused to talk about it and the establishment of the democratic party strongly support her. The bias is so obvious. They try to tie Barack Obama to a scandal because of that trial going on. Hillary has many scandals but the media seeks scandals to try and tie to Barack Obama. I am not saying to report or bring up any scandals but I am saying to be fair and balance.

Fox News pride themselves on being fair and balance but Shawn Hannity is doing a peace on Barack Obama that he say is troubling. They constantly putting Barack and his wife down while making the case about Hillary Clinton being the democratic nomination.

We try to say that we are a leader in the world and they are looking at what we support and allow. Everybody knows that Hillary Clinton is the most polarized political figure in America but all the big shot in the democratic party support her to be President of the United States. We all know that Hillary is not presidential material because of her character. She has a big character flaw that would keep anybody else with that same flaw from being president of the United States. The media and the democratic party would not support that person but would make it known to the American people. There is another set of rules that apply to the Clintons that are total different from the ones that supply to everybody else.

I want this election to be fair and balance. Right now it is not. A person last name shouldn't make them entitle to the White House especially when the highest job in the world requires morals, ethical behavior, honesty, integrity, and good character. Everybody knows that Hillary Clinton is lacking in those areas. Yes, Hillary is a fighter but she is also divisive. We as the American people are tired of that. We want something new.

I want to see the first woman president and I wish we had a better candidate running for the nomination. All the women that support Hillary is settling but I am not willing to do that. I want a woman president as much as they do but I will not throw my moral, integrity, and good character away just to fulfilled that dream of having a woman president. The days of settling for the gridlock politics in Washington is over. We want more than you having a famous last name who specializes in dirty and gridlock politics.

It is like the media and the establishment in the democratic party doesn't get what the American people really want. Are you all that out of touch?

Hillary Clinton will get this domination based on her last name. The superdelegates are going to hand this nomination to Hillary on a silver platter with the media help. It is time to be fair about how the news is reported. Every state Hillary wins is considered important but when Barack Obama wins then that state is not important. The Clintons have not been called out because everybody is afraid to let them know the dirty politics and kitchen sink approach is not acceptable. Win in an honorable manner. The Clintons brought shame to the White House once and we the American people don't want a repeat. All I am asking the media to stop showing favorite to the Clintons. The establishment in the democratic party does it enough without the media help.

Posted by: Sexy | March 9, 2008 4:55 PM

Can't wait till my Obama is elected, then I will feel proud about this country for the second time in my life and my hospital district will give me another $200,000 raise for community outreach.
-Michelle

Posted by: Michelle | March 9, 2008 4:56 PM

will not vote for Hillary Clinton if she gets the nomination without leading in the pledge delegates. If the establishment in the Democratic Party which favor the Clintons steal this nomination from the American People who supported Barack Obama to give him the pledge delegates lead then John McCain will be the next president of the United States. I think they figure they can do the dirty deed and then we will fall in line with their decision. The establishment in the Democratic Party is really out of touch with the American people if they steal this nomination and then expect to win the White House in November

Posted by: loyal Obama supporter | March 9, 2008 4:57 PM

jimbo - I agree with you 100%.

mike - Just because Hillary and Bill showed up in Florida does not mean they campaigned in Florida. It is my understanding that both Obama and Clinton were both fundraising in the state of Florida, which isn't campaigning.

Now, if anything Barack Obama had the advantage of running "nation-wide" ads that aired in Florida, which is a form of a campaigning, something that Hillary Clinton did not do.

If Barack Obama succeeds in either splitting the Florida delegates or not getting the counted will amount to him stealing this nomination away from Hillary Clinton and will depress the Democratic vote in Florida (as well as Michigan).

Posted by: InSearchOfTruth | March 9, 2008 5:00 PM

Yawn....Obama won Wyoming yesterday, the home of Dick Cheney. Who cares if Obama wins caucuses...they are glorified pep fests.

Hillary has won an overwhelming majority of big states worth 260 electoral votes while all of Obama's wins are only worth 191 electoral votes in all the states that he's 'won.'

Obama should be thankful he' even being considered as VP material, considering his ties to Tony Rezko, his problem of saying one thing to the American people while whispering different things to foreign governments, and his paper thin national political resume.

If he tops the ticket, I'm voting for Johnny Mac. Hillary is the best candidate of the three to be President, and if the Democratic National Committee put Obama on the top of the ticket, they're going to hit bottom (again) in November.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 5:01 PM

But you are willing to support Obama if he loses the popular vote, Loyal Obama Supporter?

Shady!

Posted by: Manny | March 9, 2008 5:02 PM

These idiots did it to themselves--suppressing the very votes they cried about in 2000 and 2004. All the Clinton photo darkening of Obama, and all of Obama's 'free pass' from the lib press speaks to why we are so at risk.

This cop says it in song--12 tunes I wrote that smack the Hillary-Ward Churchill crowd (oh, Al Gore, too).

www.conservativemusiconline.com

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 5:02 PM

For those of you who think ONLY Clinton came to Florida (from tbo.com):

"Barack Obama, John Edwards and the other leading Democratic candidates for president have all pledged to avoid campaigning in Florida after Sept. 29, when the Democratic Party is expected to rule that the state's Jan. 29 primary and the state's plan for choosing convention delegates violate national party rules.

But Obama has scheduled fundraisers in Tampa and St. Petersburg for those days. Meanwhile, the Edwards campaign refused to return calls Thursday and Friday for comment on reports that Elizabeth Edwards will visit St. Petersburg for a breast cancer event Oct. 4.

Obama's campaign says his events don't violate the pledge because it doesn't include fundraising.

Both events will be private, held at the homes of supporters--Donna and Tim Main in St. Petersburg and Tom and Linda Scarritt in Tampa."

They ALL did and called the stops "private" fundraisers.

To Mr. "Democrat sponsored the bill in FL Senate",

And a Republican sponsored it on the House side. If YOU were honest, you'd mention that the bill's other purpose was voting reform (voting machinery, paper trails, etc.) not a primary date change. The January 29th date selection was a Deomcratic compromise to get Republicans to sign off on banning electronic voting with no paper record.

Of course, at the time the compromise was made, the DNC's penalty for going early was only a 50% delegate loss. Dean and the DNC changed the rules later.

Posted by: UnbelievableMess | March 9, 2008 5:02 PM

Yawn.

Hello? This is all a distraction. Work out any fair new arrangement you like -- obviously it won't involve seating the delegates from the non-primaries held in January.

IT DOESN'T MATTER. Hillary is losing. So she may take Florida, and Obama will probably take Michigan. So she will take Pennsylvania and Obama will take North Carolina. She will not come out with nearly enough net new delegates to make the outcome close.

This is all a distraction from the fact that Obama is beating her, fair and square, and has a steadily widening lead in delegates.

The only interesting question here, really, is whether and how Obama handles all these efforts by the Clintons to have people talk about anything other than issues and about the fact that she has been beaten so clearly by Obama.

Posted by: lostintranslation | March 9, 2008 5:04 PM

Do you think the Dems. can win the Pres. without Fla?It will be close but if the voters feel their vote shouln't count,say hello to Pres. McClain. This 50-50 stuff is a laughj.

Posted by: roncraw | March 9, 2008 5:04 PM

Do you think the Dems. can win the Pres. without Fla?It will be close but if the voters feel their vote shouln't count,say hello to Pres. McClain. This 50-50 stuff is a laughj.

Posted by: roncraw | March 9, 2008 5:04 PM

lostintranslation, Hillary could win the popular vote after all is said and done, so this isn't for nothing

Posted by: yawns at obama's platitudes | March 9, 2008 5:07 PM

Wake up people! Obama is probably part of a conservative conspiracy to keep dems from winning the whitehouse. Did you really think republicans were voting for the most liberal senator because they actually supported him?

Posted by: repub conspiracy | March 9, 2008 5:09 PM

Florida had 75% of registered voters vote because there was a constitutional amendment on the ballot that needed 60% approval. Both Obama and Clinton obeyed the rules and Clinton appeared in the evening to thank the voters when she was declared the winner. Florida can not have another primary because new machines are replacing older ones and a mail in would be a disaster because signatures have to be scrutinized and people's signatures change. Seat the delegates and do it proportionately according to the vote. Obama supporters this would end the dillema and not give the Republicans my state and will not disenfranchise voters. Obama voters stop some of your terrible remarks about Clinton. Do you want to save the Supreme Court or not vote if you don't get your way. Be serious this is a democracy. The rest of the nation's voters need to vote.If we are to win as a united party,help your candidate but be mature about it. I am expressing myself because it is so sad to read these terrible remarks about Clinton on this blog..
A.B.Dalton

Posted by: Ann Dalton | March 9, 2008 5:09 PM

Robert Hewson:

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE REFERENCE!

To repeat for other readers:

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/how-obama-can-win.html

Enjoy...

Posted by: michael4 | March 9, 2008 5:10 PM

lostintranslation, Hillary could win the popular vote after all is said and done, so this isn't for nothing

--------------------------------

The Democratic Nomination Process has nothing to do with "popular vote" it has to do with "delegate count".


Posted by: Maddogg | March 9, 2008 5:11 PM

The rules were clear: the Democratic Party told Mich. and Fla. that if they went too early, their delegates would not be seated. Now that Hillary wants another shot, they are going to change the rules. Despicable.

Sure, the Dems should worry about winning NY, CA, OH, and PA. But remember the last few presidential elections: they felt that they needed to win WI, MO, MN, and IL, too. And it wouldn't hurt to have a chance in a couple of Southern states (GA & NC), either.

Posted by: Lucky Lakeshore | March 9, 2008 5:16 PM

Who broke the rules? the State Governments vviolated the party rules so the cost should be there! On the other side count Florida and do a redo with name in Michigan (Hillary) was the only name on the ballot.

Posted by: Charles R. Celeste | March 9, 2008 5:16 PM

A bit arbitrary Maddog, don't you think? If Obama won without getting the popular vote, I'd vote mccain

Posted by: alan | March 9, 2008 5:17 PM

I'm sick of the complaining from Florida and Michigan about being stripped of delegates. People in those states elected legislatures, and the people's elected officials willfully and knowingly decided to move the states' primary dates ahead of nationally established rules. After the Democratic National Party decided on penalties for these states, Floria and Michigan had many months to appeal the decisions to the party and in court. Failing this, the states still had months left in which the legislatures could have changed the primaries' date. The people in the states could have put pressure on the legislatures to ensure that state delegates counted. Nobody did anything. Why? Because they thought it would be to their advantage to keep an early primary date.

And you know what? It was to Florida's and Michigan's advantage. The wins in those states for Hillary Clinton, and especially in Florida, gave her campaign a much-needed boost. In the momentum game, Florida and Michigan did make their voices heard, and they influenced the remainder of the primary season.

Since then, however, the states want to have their delegates seated anyway, despite the facts that Barack Obama and John Edwards were not on the ballot in Michigan and that Hillary Clinton campaigned in Florida for the couple days before the primary despite promises not to do so, even going so far as to vow to seat Florida's delegates at the convention. Clinton pandered and won the vote, and her campaign received a boost of momentum as a result. But neither of these primaries was a genuine contest. Even though a lot of people voted, many more people were disenfranchised either because their candidates were not on the ballot or because they did not have the opportunity to quiz and listen to the candidates prior to the election. I don't care if all 18 million people in Florida and 10 million people in Michigan voted in the primary; they weren't fair contests.

Now, too, Florida and Michigan are pushing for a chance to hold some second primary or caucus in their states since the results of those, arguably, would be valid in terms of seating delegates. While these races would be more competitive and fair in one sense than the shams that were held in February, why do Florida and Michigan get the advantage now of holding second contests? No other states get this advantage of making their voices heard twice. I'm sure that other early states would love the opportunity to vote twice. Even though the previous votes were shams, they did have a big influence on other contests around the nation. Clinton was able to use Florida to mute some of the discussion about her bad loss in South Carolina, etc.

So unless we want to cancel the results of every states' primaries and caucuses so far, treating those as just straw polls, with the binding votes for delegates yet-to-come, I think it is folly to reward Florida and Michigan with a second chance to influence the national nominee just because the voters and legislatures in those states were idiotic enough to knowingly throw away their delegates.

I don't want to hear arguments, either, about how Florida and Michigan voters are being disenfranchised by something that state politicians did. Those same voters put those same elected officials in office, and both the voters and state officials need to take some basic responsibility for their actions--"Yes, we broke the rules, and now we have to accept the consequences of that."

If the Democratic Party follows any other standard, I lose all respect the party and for whomever the party's nominee is.

And, no, this is not about a Clinton vs. Obama fight. Seating Florida and Michigan delegates, by most counts will give a slight boost to Clinton, but not enough to significantly close the gap in pledged delegates, and probably not even enough to steal the nomination with superdelegates added in. For me, this is simply about what is fair and about states and voters being responsible for their actions. Seating the delegates or giving a second vote both stink.

Posted by: blert | March 9, 2008 5:17 PM

Oh, and about Rendell's new argument that Hillary is 'winning' (!!!!!) because she has carried states with more electoral votes than Obama.

Total bogus spin, precisely the sort of bs that Obama is helping us move beyond.

Obama will win California, New York and Massachusetts easily against McCain. for that matter, Hillary would win Illinois easily and Washington. The ability to win the large blue states means nothing. What matters is swing states -- Ohio is one, for sure, but also Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, Colorado, Virginia, Oregon, New Hampshire, North Carolina, etc. And winning those states in Nov requires ability to attract independents, new voters and Republicans. Hillary CAN'T DO THAT. Only Obama can. Check the super delegates from those states that have chosen sides and you will see a clear pattern -- Obama is way ahead of Clinton among them. It's because they know that he will be the better candidate in their states. Clinton's ever shrinking lead among the supers would vanish without New York and California (and to be fair, Illinois).

Posted by: lostintranslation | March 9, 2008 5:17 PM

My main concern regarding this is trust. All of the Democratic candidates for President agrees to honor the rules set forth by the DNC "that any state that violate the election rule of moving their primary up pass a certain date their votes will not be counted." For Senator Clinton now to want to overturn that decision now, I have to ask myself why. The answer is that it will benefit her. What I am looking at is where is her honor. How can we trust or believe what she is saying on the campaign trail if she can not uphold her pledge to the DNC (the organizaton that is overseeing that we retake the White House in November? How can we trust or believe in a person who have no loyalty to the rules of her party, who do not honor the commitment given to said party or who have shown no truthfulness in what she is saying about her opponent.

If she is given the Democratic nomination not by delegates count by my superdelgates count, I will not be voting for the Democrat candidate. After the election is over I will change my party to Independent.
I have to have trust in who I am voting for as well as the party I am voting for.

Posted by: vb-california | March 9, 2008 5:20 PM

Hillary never campaigned in Florida. Obama actually broke the rule to run some ads in Florida before the primary. Obama's supporters like to distort facts and support him just because of loving his speech. Obama has been using his speech without substance to say whatever you guys like to hear. Remember that he is a politician who wants to win at no cost.

Posted by: Pear | March 9, 2008 5:20 PM

What about lessening the delageates needed to win by the number of MI and FL delagates?

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 5:20 PM

"The Florida and Michigan Dems need to come up with a plan. They need to pay for their own mistake. Too bad the voters got screwed, but then again they have telephones, stationery and their representatives phone numbers and addresses."

And how, Lynne, do you propose that we Florida Democrats address the issue with our representatives who are very likely to be Republican and probably pretty pleased with themselves right now? Don't say vote them out because we (Democrats) never put them there in the first place.

But, this is disaster is still Howard Dean and the DNC's fault, and their's alone. They KNEW it was pointless to threaten the FL Legislature (Republicans) yet they did so anyway. Ultimately, they ended up hurting FL Democrats and, now, the general election and the national party. He needs to go YESTERDAY.

Posted by: UnbelievableMess | March 9, 2008 5:21 PM

A bit arbitrary Maddog, don't you think? If Obama won without getting the popular vote, I'd vote mccain

Posted by: alan | March 9, 2008 05:17 PM
-----------------------------------

Not really. That is the way the nomination process was set up. The process only accounts for delegates only.

Posted by: Maddogg | March 9, 2008 5:21 PM

ONCE AGAIN, LET'S JUST ALL AGREE TO MCCAIN AND MOVE ON. THERE'S JUST TOO MUCH BAD BLOOD IN THE DEM PARTY RIGHT NOW.

THANKS OBAMA!

Posted by: difjdiof | March 9, 2008 5:21 PM

Um, actually Maddog, the process was setup to include superdelegates too. You couldn't fault them for supporting the winner of the popular vote. Trying to say that the delegates should decide, regardless of the popular vote is arbitrary, and you're only suggesting it because it appears favorable for Obama right now.

Posted by: Alan | March 9, 2008 5:22 PM

"The Florida and Michigan Dems need to come up with a plan.

Posted by: UnbelievableMess | March 9, 2008 05:21 PM

-----------------------------------

They don't need a plan. They already broke the bone.

To permit the seating of delegates from MI or FL or to have a re-do would disenfranchise voters and states that played by the rules.

Posted by: Maddogg | March 9, 2008 5:26 PM

Obama trolls are going to great lengths to defend the indefensible here. Very sad.

Posted by: Doug | March 9, 2008 5:27 PM

Hillary's biggest problems are she supports Bush too much and is too close to Bill.

Posted by: Maddogg | March 9, 2008 5:27 PM

Ring's bill doesn't say anything about "that the bill's other purpose was voting reform (voting machinery, paper trails, etc.) not a primary date change"

You can read Ring's bill here:

http://www.flsenate.gov/cgi-bin/view_page.pl?Tab=session&Submenu=1&FT=D&File=sb1010.html&Directory=session/2007/Senate/bills/billtext/html/

Please also note that the vote in the Fl. house and senate was nearly unanimous. Do you need a cite for that also?

Posted by: The orignal Fl Demo Senator's Bill | March 9, 2008 5:29 PM

Hillary's bad judgment showed when she voted for the Iraq War to support her "political ambitions" at the expenase of the lives of American soldiers.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 5:29 PM

The Democratic Party that dreamed up this mish-mash of awarding delegates proportionally instead of using mostly winner-take-all primaries is indicative of a political organization that can't bring itself to break a few eggs so as to be sure of making a decent omelet in the end. This is a political party that truly deserves whatever happens to it.

The Democrat's present situation is like the credit crisis that now bedevils the U.S. and world economies. No one saw it coming and few thought it even possible, but here we are. Both are failures to appreciate risk and the possibility of low probability events.

This is not a party that one wants to trust to guard against the occurrence of (very) low probability events having enormous damage potential. This is a party that likely has never heard of probability risk assessment.

Posted by: Lawrence | March 9, 2008 5:32 PM

If, as a Florida resident, I am AGAIN disenfranchised and the DNC throws out my vote along with 4 million other registered Democrats I will not vote Dem in the general election.

I am tired of hearing that Obama couldn't campaign for the Florida primary, when the only political ads I saw were Obama's national TV ads. If Obama is the nominee I will vote for McCain. If Hilary is nominated I will vote for her.

Posted by: Cheryl Carroll | March 9, 2008 5:34 PM

Dean has a lot of nerve saying that. It was him and the other idiots at the DNC who are responsible for this mess. The RNC, by contrast, stripped Florida and Michigan of half their delegates -- penalizing them, but without making their primaries irrelevant. The DNC could have done the same, but chose to go overboard, and only now notices that this could indeed cost their party the election. Imbeciles! This is why I will no longer give to the Democratic Party, but only to individual candidates.

Posted by: lydgate | March 9, 2008 5:35 PM

And how, Lynne, do you propose that we Florida Democrats address the issue with our representatives who are very likely to be Republican and probably pretty pleased with themselves right now? Don't say vote them out because we (Democrats) never put them there in the first place.
_______________________________________________________

Simple, move to Mass.

Posted by: The answer is simple! | March 9, 2008 5:35 PM

A.B.Dalton:

Without active campaigning in the state, the votes shouldn't count. The DNC (Dean, etc.) skewed the whole stinking thing. I'm not going to waste my time, or yours, going through all the well known arguments, however I will venture to say that neither candidate knows squat about Florida or some of our specific issues, e.g. housing insurance, FCAT, etc., as distingushed with NAFTA that got a lot of attention for Ohio and Texas. Let them come here and campaign so we can ask questions too, thank you.

Posted by: michael4 | March 9, 2008 5:37 PM

The Clintons are identical to the Bushes in one important way. Both run a campaign in such a way that they convince a number of naive voters they are strongly entrenched in their respective party's ideals. However, Bill sold the Democrats down the river during his first term. Both George H.W. and George W. sold fiscal conservatives down the river. And, now Hillary has managed to convince a significant number of people that she is any different than her husband. She isn't. And that is NOT a good thing if you believe in the ideals of the Democratic party.

Posted by: Democrat | March 9, 2008 5:40 PM

Cheryl Carroll:

If you did any homework before jumping to conclusions, you'd have learned those ads were purchased prior to the "agreement"...facts matter, don't you think?

Posted by: michael4 | March 9, 2008 5:41 PM

If Hillary receives the delegate votes from Florida after agreeing not to campaign there and then went there to campaign and is now saying she should get the delegates vote from the place she said she would not campaign in, but did, what can we conclude except she who breaks the rules win and he who plays by the rules loses. That's the American way.

Posted by: yoga lady | March 9, 2008 5:42 PM

aforeman,

I think you hit the nail on the head. Only a centrist can win a National Election these days. Obama presents himself as being incredibly arrogant in my opinion. If he can't take a little negative campaigning now from a little woman, John McCain will cut the the candy ass wimp to pieces in the fall. He can not win in the crucial states in the electoral college. However, if Obama does not get the nomination many of his supporters will not vote or vote for Nader. It would make sense for both candidates to do something that would unify and not divide the party. This does not mean "strong arm tactics to get the other candidate to drop out". However, it does not seem that Obama has the wisdom to do this and that his judgment is clouded by his own ostentation. As far as Michigan and Florida goes, a repeat makes sense. The voters in these States must not feel left out. Does anyone remember Florida in 2000?

Posted by: rjclay | March 9, 2008 5:43 PM

The Democratic Party, in classic style appears to be poised to snatch defeat out of the mouth of victory. It is getting gored on the horns of a dilemma of it's own making. Both sides have valid points. Florida and Michigan were told by the party what would happen if they moved their primaries, and guess what, they meant it. However, punishing the average voter for the sins of the state parties is also unjust. I don't believe the results of either contest represent the true will of the voters. How many voters didn't turn out because they were told it wouldn't mean anything? How many faithful Democrats who would have voted for Edwards or Obama in Michigan voted for Hillary? Lots is probably the answer to both questions.

Those who say Obama is against a redo are grossly distorting. The Obama campaign has said they will abide by whatever ruling the DNC settles on. Obama, by his conduct in this matter, demonstrates that he believes rules are for everybody. Hillary is showing that she believes in abiding by rules only when they don't inconvenience her.

Posted by: joebewildered | March 9, 2008 5:43 PM

The Clintons will be held responsible for tearing the party apart this year. Bill's legacy will be a shambles and Hillary's influence within the Senate will evaporate. Those are perhaps the only good outcomes from their reprehensible decisions in this campaign. Perhaps more importantly, Superdelegates who support their behavior will be held accountable as well.

Posted by: Formerly Proud Democrat | March 9, 2008 5:45 PM

After reading all of the comments posted I can safely said that the Democartic Party is a divided party. Hoping for unity in November will not happens. Each sides is determine to blame the other (myself included) that I feel that most of us has already determine that we can not vote for the other side. To says that the Democratic Party start out with so much hope and unity has comes down to this. Each side can blame whomever they think is responsible but the bottom line is this we are broken and it look like it will not be repair by November. What ever votes the Democratic nominee (whether Obama or Clinton) received I sincerly hope it will be enough to beat Senator John McCain.

Posted by: vb-california | March 9, 2008 5:45 PM

A kind request for any Clinton supporter: please explain why delegates you won in an uncontested, illegitimate primary should be seated anyway?

Posted by: Don | March 9, 2008 5:46 PM

Lawrence:

Low probabilty risk management? And your Republicans did such a great job preventing 9/11?

Posted by: michael4 | March 9, 2008 5:48 PM

Democratic representatives in FL are trying to blame their republican counterparts for this. The truth of the matter is, FL republicans would NOT have had the votes to move the primary WITHOUT enough Democrat defections. They will be held accountable by FL voters as they should be.

Posted by: Angry Florida Voter | March 9, 2008 5:49 PM

"Ring's bill doesn't say anything about "that the bill's other purpose was voting reform (voting machinery, paper trails, etc.) not a primary date change"

And, if you knew anything about how bills become law, then you'd know that SB1010 became CS/HB 537 which was the bill ultimately signed into law.

SB 1010 combined with HB 537:

http://www.flsenate.gov/session/index.cfm?BI_Mode=ViewBillInfo&Mode=Bills&SubMenu=1&Year=2007&billnum=1010

The final, passed, signed version CS/HB 537:

http://www.flsenate.gov/cgi-bin/view_page.pl?Tab=session&Submenu=1&FT=D&File=hb053704er.html&Directory=session/2007/House/bills/billtext/html/

As I stated, the Democrats went along to get the other provisions passed because, at the time, the penalty was on 50% of the delegates.

Do you need a cite?

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 5:50 PM

since when is an occupation a war???

bush wanted to steal the oil in IRAQ, and he used the ISRAELITEs to cover his game plan by asking them to write a cover story that would explain the "national emergency," that required the invasion of IRAQ....Israel complied


AEI/JINSA PNAC AIPAC had said in 1996 that it would take a "Pearl Harbor like incident," to get people moving...


and bush MISLED CONGRESS, McCain and Clinton...

and formed two new INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES to back him up

the National Security Agency and DHS....and I bet neither you nor o'bama knows that

John W. Dean wrote a book called "Worse Than Watergate," that lays out in detail how CONGRESS was MISLED...

who is Dean Tricky Dick NIxons impeachment lawyer....who recommended IMPEACHING BUSH FOR HIS MALFEASANCE FRAUD AND MISDIRECTION...


neither Hillary nor McCain controls what the intelligence agencies say...they do have to base their decisons on the information dessiminated....

let's hope omama knows more than you do.


.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 5:51 PM

I live an FL, and believe Howard Dean should have been fired yesterday for this debacle. DNC should have just followed the Republicans lead and only counted half the delegates. The Republicans have no problems, and have campaigned here all winter--and continue to do so. When McCain wins, you can all point the finger at Howard Dean. The whole situation wreaks of incompetence.

Posted by: FL GATOR | March 9, 2008 5:51 PM

Michigan already has a primary scheduled for August 5. How hard is it to add three lines?:
"President of the United States (choose one)
Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton"

Florida is having a primary August 26. If the delegates are already in Denver and if Florida counts fast, the delegates could be seated the morning of Wednesday August 27 in time for the late evening voting for the nominee for President.

Posted by: sscritic | March 9, 2008 5:52 PM

Obama supporters --

Watch the Video. Obama didn't do his job and lots of poor people who trusted him suffered and some most likely died because of it.

How can you even THINK of supporting a man who did what Obama did in Chicago to the people who elected him???

This isn't about Clinton vs Obama.

Its about Obama's total betrayal of trust of the weakest and least fortunate, who trusted him to look out for them.

Please Watch this report on Obama, Obama's slums, Rezko, and $100M of wasted taxpayer money, from Chicago's most respected TV news program.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feature=related

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but Obama's actually a really bad guy.


Posted by: svreader | March 9, 2008 5:53 PM

so why is the media avoiding the truth...

why do we have four years of Monica with Ken Starr ending up being George W's lawyer


while B.J. by men for men become a whitehouse standard ???

you wanna explain that to me? do you think there is a stain or a smirch of bad vibes on the whitehouse because they are gay people that use homophobia to control bible thumpers who don't have a clue that the hand clapping them on the back is stained with


sin???? the sin of hypocrisy.


liars club.


Rove, Libby bushcheeniedonnyallschooched up togethah

Posted by: SEARCH ON Karl Rove, gay, Gannon, Guckert, TBR......... | March 9, 2008 5:53 PM

vb-california,

kudos for your post.

Posted by: rjclay | March 9, 2008 5:54 PM

Yes, we remember Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections Theresa Lepore (D) who designed the butterfly ballot.

We also recall if Gore had won his "Home State" of Tennessee, he would have been president.

Posted by: Election of 2000 | March 9, 2008 5:56 PM

Don,

If the situation was reversed wouldn't you Obama supporters be whining and crying "racisim" ?

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 5:56 PM

"Democratic representatives in FL are trying to blame their republican counterparts for this. The truth of the matter is, FL republicans would NOT have had the votes to move the primary WITHOUT enough Democrat defections. They will be held accountable by FL voters as they should be."

Are you kidding me? The Republicans hold (roughly) a 65-35 advantage in both houses. That's almost veto-proof if the Governor is on the OTHER side. If he's on your's, you only need a 50-50 split.

Posted by: UnbelievableMess | March 9, 2008 5:57 PM

The Democrats who went along with the vote KNEW the consequences of their vote and they WILL be held accountable. I don't believe our delegates should be included. It is patently unfair to change the game in the middle of the game. I thought we were NOT THE PARTY OF THE BUSHES WILLING TO STEAL AN ELECTION. Perhaps I was wrong.

Posted by: Angry Florida Voter | March 9, 2008 5:57 PM

The only thing that the FL and MI primaries reflected was Clinton name recognition. The argument that the voting pattern would not have changed had their been a campaign in those states is just silly, given what we've observed in other primaries.

Hillary may not have campaigned in some of the states Obama won, but nothing was stopping her from doing so. That wasn't the case with FL and MI, in which Obama and Hillary made a promise not to campaign.

Posted by: Steve | March 9, 2008 5:57 PM

difjdiof:

Pretty dumb post you made. Why are you blaming Obama, and for what? Bad blood? Why? He isn't the one slinging mud, or the kitchen sink...

A bit of objectivity is in order.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 5:57 PM

A vote is a vote is a vote is a vote.............

2.5 million poeple voted, don't you know that?

Obama pulling out Michigan is his own decision (in an attempt to gain favor from the voters in Nevada and South Carolina.) The Democratic party rules did not compel anybody to pull his or her name from the ballot.

All these chatters about not seating the Florida and Michigan delegates, or ignore the voters' preference are just silly talks.

Any attempt to disfranchise the Florida and Michigan voters is "unconstitutional".

Posted by: G.Y. | March 9, 2008 5:58 PM

I live in Florida am am part of the bush mafia...but you can call me FL GATOR...


The Houses of Bush, Sabah, and Maktoum
By Wayne Madsen

February 21 -- The Houses of Bush, Sabah, and Maktoum. The Bush Crime Family's close business dealings with the royal houses of Kuwait (the Sabah family) and Dubai (the Maktoum family) either borders on or is treason according to information received from U.S. military and Persian Gulf sources by WMR.

The Sabah family and their business cohorts are reportedly SKIMMING 100's of $MILLIONS$ of dollars from the shipping of UNITED STATES MILITARY material, directed to go through KUWAIT BY THE BUSH FAMILY, as the material passes through Kuwait to UNITED STATES forces in stationed in IRAQ.

Moreover, much of this SKIMMED money is being used to FUND the Sunni insurgency in Iraq that is directed against U.S. troops...causing many to be maimed and killed.

______________________________________________________

so who is making money off of IRAQ,


the bush crime family and friends and they ain't all american


are they ??????

SEARCH ON BUSH, HARKEN OIL

SEARCH ON BUSH, cuba, mafia


ps. you couldn't make this stuff up. and any middle schooler could find the bush family and friends doing the


war profiteer dance since the late 1800's and back to 1790, if you knew where to look...

they don't know how to work, they do know how to INFLUENCE PEDDLE...

what does war profiteering have to do with O'bama being a inadequate personality to be president ?????

he calls history "the past," instead of


what he has to work with.


What does he think? The Military Industrial Complex is going away overnight ???? Ask JFK how he feels about the Military Industrial Complex...


you can't? why is that?


.could I fix it? yes. could Hillary and her team fix it? yes.


Could Obama fix it?


how? to him the problem doesn't exist. it's below his radar he'll fix it when he gets elected....how the same way he fixes things in Chicago


he outsmarts some stupid ordinary people...


I guess he doesn't understand the concept of

landed
royalty
aristocracy
lineage
plutocracy
oligarchy


and people that would keep an entire race from learning to read and write so that they could keep them enslaved....


and those people didn't disappear after the slaves were freed, they moved north...

and some of them made and kept alliances with Britain...


so feudalism, keeping the peasants under control is indeed the reality that


O'bama is trying to sweep under the carpet....because he doen't want to see it....that makes him a good choice for INSIDER WASHINGTON


he won't see or understand what they are doing and so

"he'll have fixed it."


and bought what the repulsivescammers / insider washington are selling


sold the United States for 3 magic beans...their machine somehow got an alcoholic pedophile druguser into the presidency in 2000 and 2004 without the press squeakingwhatisthatserendipity or control


wake up sheeple.


.SNL was right.


.


Posted by: OUT THE FALSE DEMOCrats.... | March 9, 2008 5:58 PM

Election of 2000,

There is nothing about wining your home state in the U.S. Constitution the last time I checked. It is ironic that the Republicans who have alway been champions of States Rights went straight to the Supreme Court to decide the Election of 2000. Why were they so afraid to count all the votes?

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 6:00 PM

"The Democrats who went along with the vote KNEW the consequences of their vote and they WILL be held accountable."

The consequences of the vote, at the time of the vote, were a 50% delegate loss which state Democrats were willing to accept to pass voting reform legislation.

Howard "Stick to the Rules" Dean changed the "rules" after the fact trying to strongarm a legislature that was beyond his influence.

Posted by: UnbelievableMess | March 9, 2008 6:02 PM

I don't know how many of you recall recent history, but this how I remember it (and I was still trying to make up my mind about Hillary, Edwards, or Obama) after Hillary got smoked in South Carolina, she began spouting how Florida should suddenly count. This knowing Obama had not campaigned there. Looking at poles in Florida, Obama could see the numbers that reflected Hillary's so called inevitability of months before. Coupling Hillary's name recognition lead and sudden change of heart about Florida counting, is it any wonder Obama began running ads to narrow the gap. I think that was smart and in no way unethical in light of Hillary's actions.

Posted by: joebewildered | March 9, 2008 6:02 PM

good post:

Obama supporters --

Watch the Video. Obama didn't do his job and lots of poor people who trusted him suffered and some most likely died because of it.

How can you even THINK of supporting a man who did what Obama did in Chicago to the people who elected him???

This isn't about Clinton vs Obama.

Its about Obama's total betrayal of trust of the weakest and least fortunate, who trusted him to look out for them.

Please Watch this report on Obama, Obama's slums, Rezko, and $100M of wasted taxpayer money, from Chicago's most respected TV news program.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feature=related

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but Obama's actually a really bad guy.

Posted by: Doug | March 9, 2008 6:03 PM

It is NOT unconstitutional to sanction a state party. That is NOT the same as doing so during an actual election. Where did you study law??

Posted by: JJY | March 9, 2008 6:04 PM

"Hilary Clinton has won states with about 260 electoral votes and Barack Obama has won states with about 190," Rendell said. "We decide the president not by the popular vote. We decide it by the Electoral College. The traditional role of superdelegates is to determine who's going to be our strongest candidate."

Posted by: Realist1929 | March 9, 2008 6:04 PM

Bibs,

Obama has recently gained 8 more delegates and Hillary lost 8 in California.

Posted by: nancy | March 9, 2008 6:05 PM

I find it funny that Hillary "the Monster" Clinton now wants a do-over in Florida and Michigan. She can't win playing by the rules, so she's trying to re-invent the rules as she goes along.

Posted by: John | March 9, 2008 6:05 PM

We now have 3 partys; Obama, Hillary, and the Republicans.

The Republican will skate to victory due to the Democratic divide.

Posted by: Pete | March 9, 2008 6:05 PM

I want to see Bill and Hillary's income tax returns for the years 2000-2007. The only time Hillary ever answered the phone at 3Am it was Monica saying"Is Bill there?" Have you seen the news clip of the little girl in the 3AM telephone call ad ? She survived and grew up to be an Obama precinct captain.OOOPS! HILLARY SHOOTS GUN.HITS SELF IN FOOT!

Posted by: major teddy | March 9, 2008 6:06 PM

the flow of money has been redefined so as to obfuscate the thieves and their methode...


do you think anyone looked over Halliburtons, Bechtel's or Blackwaters or KBR's books last year ???? Or how about that Carlyle Group ???


they're trying to buy a division of Booz Allen Hamilton that does spying on the citizens and the principals involved

Mike McConnel, former Booze Allen Hamilton employee, and head of a lobbying firm for PRIVATE CONTRACTORS TO THE GOVERENMENT....and now HEAD OF THE National Intelligence Agency...

he was appointed by George W. Bush

Mike McConnel selected Adm Poindexter to run the program....

Adm Poindexter was convicted of 5 FELONY counts of breaking the law and pardoned by George H.W. Bushes father...who was supposed to shut the program down that Poindexter is managing...


so since all of these people are being appointed, awarded contracts and positions and the bushes own the Carlyle Group,

how is it that none of you financial reporters or any Washington Post reporters are covering any of this....this is the nations future...


or are you all too busy getting to see Jeff Gannon for free over at the whitehouse, to have time to think ????


.

Posted by: processthispompous nits... | March 9, 2008 6:07 PM

It DOES NOT FOLLOW that a candidate WILL WIN a state in the general election just because they won it in a primary/caucus. It also DOES NOT FOLLOW that a candidate WILL LOSE a state in the general election just because they lost in a primary/caucus.

Why have we not seen a single analyst mention this???

Posted by: JJY | March 9, 2008 6:09 PM


David Williamson wrote:
All DNC votes and delegates from FL and MI for the 2008 presidential primaries should be voided.

Florida and Michigan delegates and superdelegates SHOULD NOT BE ALLOCATED for the presidential primary 2008.

FL and MI broke party rules by moving forward their election dates.

If the FL and MI voters are upset that their votes didn't count (and they should be) they should direct their frustrations to their state election officials who chose to break with DNC rules.
_____

I agree. They should concentrate on winning the general election now.

Posted by: nancy | March 9, 2008 6:09 PM

There is nothing about wining your home state in the U.S. Constitution the last time I checked. It is ironic that the Republicans who have alway been champions of States Rights went straight to the Supreme Court to decide the Election of 2000. Why were they so afraid to count all the votes?.....

You miss the point, had Gore won his home state, the vote in Florida, whether it went for Bush or Gore would have made no difference. Gore would have been the prez.

The electoral college vote was 271 to 266. If Gore won the state he was senator of, the vote would have been 277 to 260 in favor of Gore. That is the point.

Posted by: Election of 2000 | March 9, 2008 6:09 PM

Pete,

kudos for your post.

Posted by: r | March 9, 2008 6:11 PM

The "OLD POLITICS" of using non sequitors as a primary tool of persuasion is disappearing. The Clintons don't seem to recognize it, nor does the press.

Posted by: JJY | March 9, 2008 6:11 PM

Sean,

Kudos for your post, well done.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 6:13 PM

ABOUT TERRORISM, and fooling you oncet'

If personal motives, such as control of public perception, existed for the president to have covered up his "indirect" involvement with Sheikh Mahfouz, then Bush's claimed reason for the 911 report censorship could be a lie. Willful presidential deception would have occurred when Bush stated as the reason for his censorship, the need "to protect intelligence 'sources and methods'".

In politics, truth is often stranger than fiction: Sheikh Mahfouz's sister is actually one of four wives of Osama bin Laden, making the two men brothers-in-law, a fact that former CIA Director James Woolsey revealed in 1998 Senate testimony. Thus, Osama bin Laden is sleeping with the sister of Bush's business partner. Really.

Oil-related business deals between George W. Bush and several powerful Saudi Sheikhs, from 1979 to 1991, lacked both ethical integrity and Congressional intelligence oversight, since Bush used the same Saudi-controlled global banking network that was also used by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and by Osama bin Laden. once a CIA asset. Yet, several abbreviated FBI and Congressional investigations later, this explosive truth still remains mostly hidden from the American public.

Consider the facts. For decades the current President's father, former President George H. W. Bush, has had publicly close ties to the oil-enriched Saudi royal family in regards to both politics and business. Then consider that the bin Laden family is the most entrusted of all families by the Saudi Royal household. For many decades, every Saudi King has granted the bin Laden's giant construction conglomerate exclusive contacts to restore all castles and holy sites within the country, and for numerous public works and infrastructure projects.

Also, consider that soon after bin Laden's September 11 attacks, it was public knowledge that 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, as was critical funding for bin Laden's al Qaeda network and for his earlier Arabic anti-Soviet fighters in Afganistan. Al Qaeda's predecesor was, in fact, bin Laden's 50,000 highly disciplined "Arab-Afghan" mujahideen, who were the most elite among Ronald Reagan's famous "freedom fighters", that were covertly given massive U.S. CIA support.

What is not generally known is that in years past, George W. Bush had several important business relationships with principle cohorts of Osama bin Laden's long-term financial sponsor, the powerful Saudi multibillionaire and banker to the king, Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz.

Bush's Deal with Saudi Sheikhs: A Reason to Cover-Up
This amazing story centers around and begins with the fraud-enshrouded Saudi National Commercial Bank (NCB), until recently owned by Sheikh Mahfouz. Following Osama bin Laden's U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa in 1998, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told the Saudi Arabian Defense Minister, Prince Sultan, that Mahfouz had channelled tens of millions of dollars into terrorist accounts in London and New York. While treasurer to the Saudi King, Mahfouz plundered 2 billion dollars of the 21 billion dollar National Commercial Bank, of which he was then president.

The Saudi National Commercial Bank was affiliated with a global network of many Mahfouz-connected banks, including the InterMaritime Bank of Geneva and New York, whose vice-president brokered a 25 million dollar investment into George W. Bush's Harken Oil and Gas in 1987. Thus, the InterMaritime Bank was once related to the current President Bush through its Mahfouz-connected VP, a man named Dr. Alfred Hartmann. The InterMaritime Bank was also involved in multiple covert CIA operations.

During the 1980's, Sheikh Mahfouz's banking syndicate performed major CIA-inspired banking operations for such former CIA assets as Osama bin Laden, as well as for Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega and other drug dealing generals, such as in Pakistan. Much of this is documented in the 1992 U.S. Congressional testimony of Senator John Kerry.

George W. Bush, for his part, had important business relationships not only with Dr. Hartmann, but with a total of nine prominent individuals that are central to Mahfouz's financial empire, including both the "Godfather of Saudi Intelligence" and his partner, a billionaire Bush campaign donor.

If George W. Bush and Sheikh Mahfouz were ever coexisting in each others financial network, then the question is begged as to whether any personal or political reasons exist for the President to have censored the Saudi section of the Senate's report on bin Laden's September 11 attacks.

When two principal individuals are directly connected to the same group of nine persons -- with each of the the eighteen subsequent relationships having zero degrees of separation -- then one would say that a "network" exists that profoundly connects the two principals in question.

...c'mon Mike McConnel, tell the truth you little hummer....

punk.

Posted by: work it out. | March 9, 2008 6:13 PM

"If the FL and MI voters are upset that their votes didn't count (and they should be) they should direct their frustrations to their state election officials who chose to break with DNC rules.
_____

I agree. They should concentrate on winning the general election now."

Posted by: nancy | March 9, 2008 06:09 PM

Nancy, my "state election officials who chose to break with DNC rules" are Republicans. Do you think they care?

Do you think it's a wise strategic move on the DNC's part to punish fellow Democrats in Florida when they had no say, directly OR indirectly, in the matter?

From the looks of it, a lot of "fellow" Democrats hate us as much as the Republicans do. At least the Republicans are upfront about it...

Posted by: UnbelievableMess | March 9, 2008 6:14 PM

"Since both Hillary Clinton and Obama names were in the Florida primary, it is absurd to tell the people who voted that their votes don't count. Since neither Obama and Clinton campaigned in Florida, the vote was a fair reflection of the voter sentinments."

Really? Florida and Michigan voters knew the DNC position. They knew their votes wouldn't count. If you want to talk disenfranchisement, what about the folks in Florida and Michigan who understood what they were being told about their votes not counting and who appreciating pointlessness, decided to stay home? Aren't they disenfranchised if the vote DOES count? Airbags mouthing the "make every vote count" mantra meaning pretend the vote was in fact legit are hoping no one with half a brain asks about the other side of the coin. Idiots.

Oh, and thanks a lot mainstream media for regularly shining a light on this simple fact. Not.

Posted by: StoopidMediaStoopidVoters | March 9, 2008 6:15 PM

"Since both Hillary Clinton and Obama names were in the Florida primary, it is absurd to tell the people who voted that their votes don't count. Since neither Obama and Clinton campaigned in Florida, the vote was a fair reflection of the voter sentinments."

Really? Florida and Michigan voters knew the DNC position. They knew their votes wouldn't count. If you want to talk disenfranchisement, what about the folks in Florida and Michigan who understood what they were being told about their votes not counting and who appreciating pointlessness, decided to stay home? Aren't they disenfranchised if the vote DOES count? Airbags mouthing the "make every vote count" mantra meaning pretend the vote was in fact legit are hoping no one with half a brain asks about the other side of the coin. Idiots.

Oh, and thanks a lot mainstream media for regularly shining a light on this simple fact. Not.

Posted by: StoopidMediaStoopidVoters | March 9, 2008 6:16 PM

The Clintons propose we throw good money after bad, just like their campaign does, when in reality the fat lady is already trilling her first notes.

Hillary doesn't care about whether the Democrats win in November.

She only selfishly cares if she wins the nomination, despite the lengthening and impossible odds (or can convince the Obama campaign to put her on the ticket).

At the same time, she praises John McCain and unfairly and disloyally smears Barack Obama.

But not showing any party loyalty is no way to woo superdelegates who, after all, would like to see the party win in November.

Question is, do they have the gumption to put a merciful end to this, or will they risk losing control of the Congress like Bill and Hillary did for the party in 1994?

Think straight!!!
Barack Obama,
'08!!!

Posted by: martin edwin 'mick' andersen | March 9, 2008 6:18 PM

Unbelievable Mess,

I am a FL democrat and the republicans could not have done it WITHOUT the help of elected FL Democrats. That's simply the truth. They are now trying to blame the republicans, but I intend on holding those Democrats who helped them accountable.

Posted by: Angry Florida Voter | March 9, 2008 6:18 PM

I don't understand the dilemma. The DNC set the rules, decided not to seat the delegates, and had everyone agree to not even campaign in either state. Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan! He shouldn't have been on the ballot in Florida. All this controversy shows is how spineless the DNC is in the face of the Clinton machine.

What part of "We won't seat the delegates" is the least bit ambiguous? The greater evil is changing the rules after the party and all of the candidates have agreed.

Posted by: post fan | March 9, 2008 6:19 PM

why hasn't anyone mentioned that the President of the United States of AMERICA is gay ????

doesn't he get equal time in the slime machine ?????


or is that just reserved for people on the outside like Bill Clinton


that don't swallow on command for you.

I am quite surethat George "Lips," Bush does swallow for you all...


he signed everything you put in front of him and took his standard 30 PerCENT cut right....


that's your deal with AMERICA's money isn't republican slime ?????

posing as concerned citizens...

disinformation is a crime, it's called fraud.


.

Posted by: hey | March 9, 2008 6:20 PM

The two states' voice never should have been taken away. Political parties are supposed to support democracy, not limit voices.

Florida was a fair election -- very high turnout, every name on the ballot. If they're now going to count Florida, it should be counted as is.

Michigan -- Obama was not on the ballot because he took his name off although I'm not sure why given that he was not required to do that as part of the DNC's punishment. If we're to re-vote in any state, Michigan seems the most suitable; however, I believe that this state too should be counted. Maybe his taking his name off the ballot will turn out to illustrate his lack of judgment.

To think we can re-vote as though votes won't change and situations haven't changed is ridiculous. Let it be a lesson not to silence the people's voice. Political parties should be outlawed.

Posted by: Kevin | March 9, 2008 6:20 PM

Election of 2000,

The point is on top of your head. The Republican Party that has always championed States rights went to the Supreme Court to stop the recount in Florida in 2000. They only thing they cared about was wining not the Constitution or States Rights.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 6:21 PM

This whole mess is a result of primaries, caucuses, and uneven distribution of delegates. The Democrats rules have hamstrung them in a year that could be theirs.

6 months, 6 debates, ONE national PRIMARY. (caucuses are open and more unreliable than polls). Six months, six debates, General Election. No more millions to millionaires. No more weeks of bickering. No more bull.

Posted by: Michael | March 9, 2008 6:21 PM

they didn't want Al Gore to do the recount either....

Al should have forced it anyway...FYI

GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH

...Like Nixon, George Bush was deeply involved with supporting the Nazis in the Republican's closet. In fact, support for the Nazis was a Bush family tradition which goes back more than six decades and, once again, to Allen Dulles.

Loftus and Aarons write: "The real story of George Bush starts well before he launched his own career. It goes back to the 1920s, when the Dulles brothers and the other pirates of Wall Street were making their deals with the Nazis. . . ."

THE BUSH-DULLES-NAZI CONNECTION

"George Bush's problems were inherited from his namesake and maternal grandfather, George Herbert 'Bert' Walker, a native of St. Louis, who founded the banking and investment firm of G. H. Walker and Company in 1900. Later the company shifted from St. Louis to the prestigious address of 1 Wall Street. . . .

"Walker was one of Hitler's most powerful financial supporters in the United States. The relationship went all the way back to 1924, when Fritz Thyssen, the German industrialist, was financing Hitler's infant Nazi party. As mentioned in earlier chapters, there were American contributors as well.

"Some Americans were just bigots and made their connections to Germany through Allen Dulles's firm of Sullivan and Cromwell because they supported Fascism. The Dulles brothers, who were in it for profit more than ideology, arranged American investments in Nazi Germany in the 1930s to ensure that their clients did well out of the German economic recovery. . . .

"Sullivan & Cromwell was not the only firm engaged in funding Germany. According to 'The Splendid Blond Beast,' Christopher Simpson's seminal history of the politics of genocide and profit, Brown Brothers, Harriman was another bank that specialized in investments in Germany. The key figure was Averill Harriman, a dominating figure in the American establishment. . . .

"The firm originally was known as W. A. Harriman & Company. The link between Harriman & Company's American investors and Thyssen started in the 1920s, through the Union Banking Corporation, which began trading in 1924. In just one three-year period, the Harriman firm sold more than $50 million of German bonds to American investors. 'Bert' Walker was Union Banking's president, and the firm was located in the offices of Averill Harriman's company at 39 Broadway in New York.

"In 1926 Bert Walker did a favor for his new son-in-law, Prescott Bush. It was the sort of favor families do to help their children make a start in life, but Prescott came to regret it bitterly. Walker made Prescott vice president of W. A. Harriman. The problem was that Walker's specialty was companies that traded with Germany. As Thyssen and the other German industrialists consolidated Hitler's political power in the 1930s, an American financial connection was needed. According to our sources, Union Banking became an out-and-out Nazi money-laundering machine. . . .

Posted by: so the republican spin machine doesn't want democracy eh!? | March 9, 2008 6:23 PM

So I decided to get out my pencil and paper. I decided to have a look at the states left. I gave the ones I thought would go to Clinton, to clinton with 55/45 margin. I gave the ones I thought would go to Obama, to obama with 55/45 margin. To play devils advocate I counted MI and FL as stated. Newsflash, even with MI and FL neither candidate has enough to clinch the nomination without super delegate intervention. If you count FL as stated it doesn't really help HRC out that much at all. She pulls to within 60 delegates of Obama. In counting MI and FL her only chance for outright victory is to disenfranchise the 40% of the people who voted uncommitted in MI. Those 40% are enough to keep her behind in the total race. Those people came out to vote for somebody other than Clinton. Where is their voice?

Now had we done things like the republicans this would have been over long ago and HRC would not be in this race right now. Do the math. She loses. Even though she won the big states Obama has so far won 10 more states than she has. That is more than enough to overcompensate for her popularity in the larger states. Because our system accounts delegates on a proportional basis this will take more time to sort out.

Now, to Ms. Clinton. Lets try and keep this a clean fight until the end. Lets not hand over the election to a republican because you did such a wonderful job defeating the democratic party. If you can't win without slinging mud then think about why that is and step out of the race right now for the benefit of the party. Lets not be so selfish as to defeat everybody because you can't have your own way. Lets try and keep this to the issue's shall we? If you truly are the person for the presidency I think you should be able to win without all the negativity.


Posted by: fortheclueless | March 9, 2008 6:25 PM

"Hilary Clinton has won states with about 260 electoral votes and Barack Obama has won states with about 190," Rendell said. "We decide the president not by the popular vote. We decide it by the Electoral College. The traditional role of superdelegates is to determine who's going to be our strongest candidate." Read-em and weep.

Posted by: rjclay | March 9, 2008 6:26 PM

so all of you Obama nauts understand what Obama is up against right????


you read and understand my posts right?

you don't have a clue right????

you have no understanding of how washington works right????


.the president changes the people don't.


not unless _you_ know how to make that happen.


they killed JFK, MLK, and backstabbed Jimmy Carter


Bill Clinton finished his eight years even with the hate machine running...


and fixed the economy too....


but you all know how to do that right?


stop the "war," you don't have enough intelligence to quit using _their_ framing


you're ignorant of what needs to be done


all you have is a need to feel like you've done something....sell manhattan for some glass beads, sign that treaty


I am not that naive....but you seem to be. Why is that ?


Is that how you would hire a manager, based upon hoping it worked out okay????


are you afraid of being examined on your naivete'

.

OR MORE LIKELY,


you're simply here to poop on Hillary because you're republican pantswetters afraid of Hillay "Rodthem" Clinton...


I can just see her being introduced to Dennis Hastert,


another former poster here....

"Is that your soap on the floor over there mr. speeker?"

and his pathetic scream of surprise when payback arrives.


so sweet.

treason is a crime little punters,


it's not "business as usual,"


I anticipate some good drama on television....similar to Nuremberg...


standing room only. SeigHeil old nazis


.

Posted by: question | March 9, 2008 6:27 PM

Why can't we all just learn to live together?
Hillary,P
Obama,VP
then,
Obama,P(8 years)

Posted by: the russians are coming | March 9, 2008 6:29 PM

Angry Florida Voter,

I'm a FL Democrat also and I'm not going to disagree with you on holding them responsible, but the truth is, even if EVERY Democrat had reversed course and voted against it, the bill would have still had the numbers to pass (>50%). Choosing Jan 29th was a compromise to assure other provisions were passed and the DNC sanction at the time was only a 50% delegate loss.

The DNC did change the rules to a 100% delegate loss after the vote in the legislature took place and there was nothing the Democrats could have done at that point. Crist said point blank that he'd veto any attempt to revert to Feb 5th or later and the Dems did not have the numbers to do this unilaterally.

I still don't blame the Republicans. They were only doing what they do best - making life difficult for Democrats. Only difference is that this time, Howard Dean aided and abetted the Republicans with his 100% ultimatum.

Posted by: UnbelievableMess | March 9, 2008 6:30 PM

This is a silly system. Every state should vote on the same day, just like in the general election. This would eliminate some of the horrendous media bias that almost always favors the winner of any particular contest, and maybe force voters to look at the issues, rather than banking on a candidate's "momentum" and trying to pick the winner of the race.

Posted by: MTD | March 9, 2008 6:30 PM

Howard Dean's the moron who disenfranchised Florida and Michigan Democrats in the first place. How was this supposed to turn out?

By co-opting the superdelegates and using her lawyers to steal the delegates from Michigan and Florida, Hillary will effectively disenfranchise the rest of the Democratic voters across the U.S.

Great teamwork!

Posted by: FrankZ | March 9, 2008 6:30 PM

You can't count FL AS IS. That is perhaps the stupidest thing I've read so far.

Posted by: DN | March 9, 2008 6:31 PM

Can any of you Hill-Bill-ies explain why it is that every conservative pundit in the country is propping up Hillary right now? It's because they know what you don't--that Obama is more electable. So using Rendell's "strongest candidate" analysis, Obama should be the nominee.

Posted by: Dave | March 9, 2008 6:32 PM

I want to see Bill and Hillary's tax returns for the years 2000-2007. I also want to see their medical records to see how much lithium Hillary is taking for her MPD(Multiple Personality Disorder).Did you see that the little girl in the 3AM telephone ad is an Obama precinct captain? The only phone call Hillary ever got at 3AM was from one of Bill's gal pals saying"Is Bill there?".

Posted by: majorteddy | March 9, 2008 6:35 PM

This would be a great opportunity
for Dean to exercise some leadership, since he is the chairman of the party. My suggestion to him is to forget all the re-do talk as that would be nothing but a ridiculous media
circus and a boon to his opposition. He advised that the two states would be punished if they moved their primaries up so, some penalty is required.
However, not seating their delegates is a bit extreme. Better to seat them and divide the delegates evenly between Clinton and Obama. Though not a perfect solution, it does establish that any state trying the same trick in the future will only succeed in making their contest moot.

Posted by: rkerg | March 9, 2008 6:36 PM

Obama should just give up and take the VP spot. He's destroying the democratic party.

Posted by: Why Obama why? | March 9, 2008 6:45 PM

The United States isn't really making anything compared to where it used to be, and you can't figure out what's going on????


LISTEN CLOSELY, get out of Washington, walk around in

DETROIT MICHIGAN, GARY INDIANA, PITTSBURGH PENNSYLVANIA, CHARLOTTE NORTH CAROLINA, HICKORY NORTH CAROLINA...


talk to the people, they have to compete with a seamstress in Pakistan making 32CENTS an hour for Ralph Lauren shirts...

textile and furniture factories moved overseas... houses sold off, bankruptcies climbing and

CONGRESS passed a law saying a judge couldn't excuse a debt for a bankruptcy applicant even if they lost everything through no fault of their own...


as in their jobs left town for overseas, and there were no local jobs left...


catch a clue pentdayholse


.the repulsive swant to sell you the candidate that wants to "forget about the past,"


even though he will be knee deep in bushCO and CRONYs appointees, bureaucracy


and two new GOVERNMENT AGENCIES that never existed until the current regime:


National Intelligence AGENCY, that gives the president the right to appoint a head who can

1. over rule intelligence from all other intelligence agencies

2. excuse certain corporations from having their books examined

3. fire any intelligence officer from any other agency, w/o review or disclosure...


why would george w. bush, cheney, rice and rumsfeld to have such an agency exist?


it allows the President to over rule all the other INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES and spin his own story


which is what has been happening.


grow up learn to think AMERICANS, look past the vitrol from the fake republicans to what they are trying to obscure...


EXACTLY WHAT I AM POSTING ABOUT....


bushCO and CRONYs aren't going away unless you dig them out.


or spray them with weed b gone....


.


WAKE UP AMERICANS !!!! the repulsive scammers are jobbing you....

Posted by: The United States isn't really making anything compared to where it used to be, and you can't figure | March 9, 2008 6:45 PM

I live in Florida. I need to know if it still part of the United States?

Posted by: Charles Pharis | March 9, 2008 6:47 PM

Re: Why Obama Why?--Hillary should just give up and take the VP spot. She's ruining the Democratic party.

Posted by: Dave | March 9, 2008 6:50 PM

I think both Fl and MI should have mail in primaries. They should have their votes counted. A mail-in primary would be fair to both candidates. I also think that Obama people have to realize that if things work out the way they want, that's great. They will expect Hillary's support to help him win in Nov. My big concern is that Obama's people are not willing to do the same if things turn out differently. I hope they will if Hillary is the nominee. What is good for the party in Nov is the key.

Thank you

Posted by: Thinking | March 9, 2008 6:51 PM

for every middle class person who manufacturing, telecomm, computer, banking, medical jobs


have been outsourced overseas...

AMERICA doesn't have that salary being spent on goods and services


in_country....because someone overseas is receiving that salary and spending it overseas...


labor savings cost, water lost out of the United States ECONOMY STREAM...


the ECONOMY and INFRASTRUCTURE IS A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE.


for example: when HOME DEPOT's CEO retired with $340 MILLION, he not only took that money out of HOME DEPOTS pocket...he made it so more people working for HOME DEPOT didn't spend that money locally on HEALTHCARE, REFRIGERATORS, CARS, COLLEGE and so on...


for every selfish CEO that gets MILLIONS OF DOLLARS by shorting labor....


you, the citizens get a lot fewer people buying big ticket items that you rely on to drive the economy....


how many cars does a billionaire drive at a time ??? how many refrigerators do they use? how many houses do they own ???


which would you rather have AMERICA ??? a million people making 100K or 1000 people making a million each ????


if each family buys just one car, big screen television, a computer, a house ???


putting all of the money in the hands of a few.....makes a lot more people poor...


saving money on labor costs hurts the economy for everyone...


the best country to live in has the best standard of living for the most people, not the worst...saftey, comfort, happiness, quality of life are discernible

by everyone. we don't need to turn AMERICA into a third world country, by making our workers/citizens compete with 3rd world countrys

because the leaders are too stupid to understand that you can't kill the golden goose to get more eggs...

Hans Christen Andersen knows more than George W. bush and the corruption currently taking your country down...


arrest the slide, detain and sue the corruption....

.

Posted by: the past is the present morons....WAKE UP !!!!! | March 9, 2008 6:51 PM

I think both Fl and MI should have mail in primaries. They should have their votes counted. A mail-in primary would be fair to both candidates. I also think that Obama people have to realize that if things work out the way they want, that's great. They will expect Hillary's support to help him win in Nov. My big concern is that Obama's people are not willing to do the same if things turn out differently. I hope they will if Hillary is the nominee. What is good for the party in Nov is the key.

Thank you

Posted by: Thinking | March 9, 2008 6:55 PM

To 6:21

I guess my pointy little head just does not understand how a politician can be elected representative, senator, vice president (twice) by his home state but then lose by 80,000 votes in the general of 2000. If you throw in what Nader "took" away, you still have a 60,000 vote loss.

Just as my pointy head will have a hard time understanding the general election when McCain wins.

Posted by: Election of 2000 | March 9, 2008 6:57 PM

Sexy,

Your rant about MSM favoring Clinton is so far out in left field. Have you not noticed the blantant bias that MSNBC (e.g. Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, David Shuster) and NBC has in favor of Barack Obama? Have you not noticed that during the debates, the debate moderators always seemed to ask Barack Obama foreign policy questions second after asking Hillary the question first, so Barack Obama would first have the opportunity to listen to Hillary's answer and either agree with it or try to build on it so he could sound more viable with regards to foreign relations and national security?

If anything, the MSM has been biased in favor of Barack Obama every since he won the Iowa caucuses. I've heard Chris Matthews belittle Hillary Clinton's position as Senate saying she got it solely because of Bill, thus ignoring the fact that she did campaign in the state. And I heard Christ Matthews say he was having some difficulty in being unbiased because Barack Obama was so charismatic. I've heard David Shuster make the comment about the "Clintons 'pimping' out their daughter, Chelsie." And I've heard Keith Olbermann's bias taint in his commentary as well.

Now you want to rant about Media bias against Barack Obama just because the Media is finally being forced to be more critical of Obama? What a pathetic excuse.

The fact is this:

"Additionally, 20 percent of WHITE DEMOCRATIC VOTERS SAY THEY WOULD DEFECT TO MCCAIN IF OBAMA WERE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S NOMINEE - twice the number who would cross over if former first lady Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, Pew found." (Emphasis added)

http://www.twocircles.net/2008mar07/mccainocrats_and_obamacans_may_upset_us_presidential_poll.html

More importantly, more Americans trust Hillary Clinton to protect the Consitution compared to Obama based on his sponsorship of the Global Poverty Act, which would hand over the "power of the purse" from Congress to the United Nations.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote/

loyal Obama Supporter - If Obama wins, I will vote for McCain along with my mother and my sister, my friends and their spouses.

Posted by: InSearchOfTruth | March 9, 2008 6:58 PM

I think the candidates should fund the primaries in both the states not DNC not the states themselves as both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama want those delegates to vote for them.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 6:58 PM

Mr. Dean made the following comment when referring to mail-in ballots for a re-vote in Florida and Michigan, "But there's some real problems with that, too. Not just cost, but the security issue. How do you make sure that hundreds of thousands, perhaps a million or more ballots can be properly counted and that duplicate ballots can be avoided?"
NEWS FLASH Mr. Dean: The state of Oregon has had ALL mail-in ballots for all elections for a number of years now. The voter turnout is one of the highest in the nation and we save our residents a chunk of change on our elections in the process. We don't have problems with chads. We don't have problems with voting machines not working properly. We don't have electronic voting. We have a paper trail so if a recount were ever necessary, we have a "hard copy" for our records. It is a simple process. We just connect the arrows by the candidates of our choice. Heaven forbid that we should have a less expensive, simple process that enables a larger percentage of our citizens to vote their consciences. I know many families, mine included that have had designated time we get together to discuss the issues, clarify the measures and talk about what we want and how we feel.
I am an advocate of all mail-in ballots for all national elections. And while we are on the subject of voters casting their votes, why are we all still bound by the antiquated use of delegates? Why don't we eliminate the "middle man" and have each person's vote count. Then perhaps we may have a government for and by the people.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 7:01 PM

let's be honest here.


Obama is using the repulsive scammer drum beat

he is taking a page out of the Karl Rove playbook, he's using the results of the repulsives relentlessly hammering the AMERICAN CITIZENS about the head and shoulders for 16 years with their cover story....for why it's allright for them to have homosexual love fests in the whitehouse on a regular basis, but Bill Clinton is a bad person ???? right.

think I'm a whacko, nut case ? good prove me wrong


SEARCH on Jeff Gannon, Guckert, George W. Bush, Karl Rove, are gay

Obama has been taking a ride off of the Repulsive scammers work

as his own.

"The Clintons,"

the only Democrats to defeat the Repulsives SCAMMERS on their home turf


in the last 60 years


have been getting hammered by limp RUSHING BOUGHT


and numerous other Repulsive Scammers for 16 years.

GOP ers hate losing money and it going to the people....


GOP ers hate not being able to charge their business expenses to the people...

who is going to make out in IRAQ ????


SAUDI UAE KUWIAT bushCo and CRONYs and war profiteers


will AMERICANS see that money ?????


how are you doing AMERICA ????


can you feel the love as the GOP ers call you


welfare cases ?????

as they take home the lions share of the FISCAL BUDGET to their families...

and you lose your homes ????

look around. come out of your middle school playground popularity contest and look at what is going on.


Hillary is going through McGovern treatment and


Obama is the new Hubert Humphrey...who will either lose to McCain or be restrained so that he is ineffective if he gets the nomination..


JFK was killed


Jimmy Carter was backstabbed.

Bill Clinton persevered and built the economy back up....he withstood these people for 8 years....and the GOP ers don't want any more


MONEY interruptus


take them down, remove them from power permanently and pass legislation that requires them to be just as responsible for their felonious behavior as you have to be...


arrest them for treason, and execute them and the sentence when found guilty


. let them feel your love.....


.

Posted by: wake up little sheeple....it's a quarter past three.... | March 9, 2008 7:03 PM

These boards are dead. Numerous anonymous postings and obvious copies from one time registrations.

It makes me long for the days of krishna and zouk. And that's saying something.

I'm gone.

Buh-bye

Posted by: Fairlington Blade | March 9, 2008 7:05 PM

Why Obama why? -

I agree with you 100%. Unfortunately, Obama is so egotistical and concerned about himself (along with his supporters), that they would rather destroy the Democratic party instead of taking the VP (which in itself would be a landmark) in order to gain 8 years experience under his belt under Hillary Clinton.

The fact that Obama is willing to do this and other questionable actions such as airing t.v. ads in Florida prior to the Florida primary while no other candidate was airing such ads, should give Democrats pause and concern about Barack Obama. What about him avoiding important votes such as the one pertaining to Iran? The fact that Barack Obama would avoid important votes in order to protect himself political is very concerning. Finally, the fact that Barack Obama would be willing to sponsor the unconstitutional Global Poverty Act is concerning, if not scary as well.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote/

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 7:05 PM

The Clintons are really reaching. First the complain that Party caucuses are "anti-democratic" because they are dominated by insiders. So of course the counter-balance to the undue influence of insiders is to ask that an even smaller cadre of the better connected (i.e. superdelegates) should set aside those outcomes and ensure her nomination. Even more curious is the Obama for VP. A strategic blunder probably fueled by the Clintons narcissism. It seems to have never occurred to either Bill or Hillary that there may actually be a day that they will be absent the stage. You know that they are mortal. . .

Posted by: Peter Venkman | March 9, 2008 7:08 PM

Thanks Harried! Go HILL!
__________________________________

Hill is to close to Hell....portend.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 7:09 PM

Obama is LEADING in the delegate count. Why should he quit?

As far as the VP spot. He is smart enough to realize who the real VP will be. Why play 3rd banana to two Clintons.

Posted by: huh? | March 9, 2008 7:11 PM


AMY GOODMAN: ....in Florida, it wasn't the Democrats in the legislature, despite what the governor said, that it was a bipartisan decision--the Democrats in the legislature did not want to buck the Democratic Party, but the part of the bill that said the primary would be moved forward was attached to a very important bill, that you would get receipts for voting on electronic voting machines--

JOHN NICHOLS: Yes.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/7/could_michigan_and_florida_decide_the


Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 7:11 PM

majorteddy -

I want Princeton to release Michelle Obama's reverse-racist thesis and the Obama's to explain why they told Princeton to not release it.

I also want Obama to explain why he sponsored the unconstitutional Global Poverty Act that would take away the power of the purse from Congress and give it to the U.N. with regards to foreign aid (talk about a slippery slope and precedent-setting legislation).

I also want Obama to explain fully his involvement with Rezco instead of his "bone-headed" response. That's just his way of not taking responsibility for his actions.

I also want to ask Obama why he's telling the American one thing about Iraq (and NAFTA), and we are hearing from his campaign that he's planning on doing something else once he's elected. Why should I vote for Barack Obama, whom has no credibility with me?

Posted by: InSearchOfTruth | March 9, 2008 7:12 PM

Simple solution
DREAM TICKET

You know it makes sense.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 7:15 PM

Its time the Democrats put down thier toxic
Howard Dean and Barack Hussein Obama Kool
Aid and realize Howard Dean and the DNC
have been deliberately screwly things up
so that Howard Dean and the DNC can steal
the nomination for conman lying crooked
political hack empty suit phony loser
Barack Hussein Obama and force Howard Dean
to resign as Chairman of the DNC immediately for it.

Posted by: sandy5274 | March 9, 2008 7:16 PM

it wud be desaster if democratic party decides to redo the FLA or MI in order to benefit clintons ...

The world is looking at it .. rest of world wud consider this as bad as GENERAL Mussaraf rigged the election in Pakistan....


are american's have any moral value..acting like slave to bill clinton... Bill u can't chnage the game rule in the middle of knock out game...

you fooled manytimes ..this is just not acceptable

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 7:16 PM

Simple solution
DREAM TICKET

You know it makes sense.

Posted by: walker | March 9, 2008 7:16 PM

QUIT NITPICKEN Hillary? Obama? Don't worry about which one to chose. With their proposals they will both put Americans under much more bondage to Big Government...

Posted by: Mike | March 9, 2008 7:18 PM

Simple solution
DREAM TICKET

You know it makes sense.
______________________________________

It make cents to Big government. To tax paying Americans, it's a NIGHTMARE TICKET.

Posted by: Mike | March 9, 2008 7:21 PM

Side comment - Don't you think it is lame of some posters to make a post on without even using an alias?

It's a shame that the Washington Post allows that. Some sort of alias should be assigned to a person's comments on here, IMHO. Otherwise, how do you respond to someone if the person doesn't even list an alias?

Posted by: InSearchOfTruth | March 9, 2008 7:24 PM

Daschle, Kerry and these other high profile democrats need to put their personal agendas aside and do WHAT IS NEEDED TO PUT A DEMOCRAT IN THE WHITE HOUSE. If Clinton can win the swing states in the general election, they need to put the dream ticket together and go for it. With Obama the clear heir apparent, democrats could enjoy longevity in the white house.

I dont get the bit about security of mail in ballots? This is not an untested process or anything. After the dust settles, someone needs to evaluate Howard Dean's leadership or lack thereof.

Also, Clinton did not campaign in Florida and it is not right for Daschle to imply she did. She showed up after the vote for a victory speech.

Posted by: needs the facts | March 9, 2008 7:24 PM

Lets split the Michigan and Florida Delegates evenly between the two candidates. The states get representation but the neither candidate benefits or loses due to the folly of the state and the democratic party. NO DIRTY TRICKS IN THIS ELECTION. NO GIMMICKS. JUST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. AND NO NEGATIVE ADS.

Posted by: voter | March 9, 2008 7:24 PM

QUIT NITPICKEN Hillary? Obama? Don't worry about which one to chose. With their proposals they will both put Americans under much more bondage to Big Government...


Posted by: Mike | March 9, 2008 07:18 PM
************

Yeah, because we all KNOW how good things have been under Bush's "Small" Government plan.

I sooo want to be able to vote for the Democrat (whoever it is) in November, but if I can't trust my own party to stand up for my vote now, how can I trust them to stand up for my vote then?

Posted by: UnbelievableMess | March 9, 2008 7:24 PM

McCain's so full of bull. He used to be somewhat respectable as the anti-establishment candidate, for a cleaner environment, campaign finance reform and the like. A moderate Republican (or conservative Democrat). Even if he did think that "Bomb-ba-bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-Iran" was a good joke.

But ever since he emerged as the front-runner, he's been spouting all this ultra-conservative society junk, 100 years Iraq War, and now he's supporting waterboarding!

I mean, can you beLIEVE it? *HE* was a POW; it was his platform for the first several months of this primary business! And as a POW, *HE* is now supporting *WATERBOARDING!* I don't care about Bush's legal fairyland of "enhanced interrogation techniques" or whatever other euphemism it so pleases him to use; waterboarding is torture and simulated drowning with a real risk of drowning, heart attack, brain/lung damage from asphyxiation and water entering the lungs, and the psychological and phsyiological effects last years! (Dr. Allen Keller, director of Bellevue/NYU Program for Survivors of Torture, in case you're interested). The military now worries that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, whom they used waterboarding on, may have exaggerated his role in terrorism and provided bloated testimony because HE HAD BLOODY WATER ACCOSTING THE TOP ORIFICES IN HIS FRIGGING BODY AND THOUGHT HE WAS ABOUT TO DIE!!! The Senate has actually managed to take a stand in passing legislation to ban it! And I would expect nothing better from Bush, but I am just thoroughly *disgusted* with Senator McCain.

Posted by: Ginny Potter | March 9, 2008 7:24 PM

Simple solution
DREAM TICKET

You know it makes sense.
______________________________________

It make cents to Big government. To tax paying Americans, it's a NIGHTMARE TICKET.

Posted by: Mike | March 9, 2008 7:24 PM

Daschle, Kerry and these other high profile democrats need to put their personal agendas aside and do WHAT IS NEEDED TO PUT A DEMOCRAT IN THE WHITE HOUSE. If Clinton can win the swing states in the general election, they need to put the dream ticket together and go for it. With Obama the clear heir apparent, democrats could enjoy longevity in the white house.

I dont get the bit about security of mail in ballots? This is not an untested process or anything. After the dust settles, someone needs to evaluate Howard Dean's leadership or lack thereof.

Also, Clinton did not campaign in Florida and it is not right for Daschle to imply she did. She showed up after the vote for a victory speech.

Posted by: needs the facts | March 9, 2008 7:24 PM

Simple Solution
Dream Ticket
!

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 7:24 PM


Simple solution
DREAM TICKET

You know it makes sense.
______________________________________

It make cents to Big government. To tax paying Americans, it's a NIGHTMARE TICKET.

Posted by: Mike | March 9, 2008 7:24 PM

Maybe Clinton's tax returns should be released right about now.

Posted by: Sara B. | March 9, 2008 7:25 PM

Why Obama why? -

I disagree with you 100%. Unfortunately, Clinton is so egotistical and concerned about herself (along with her supporters), that she would rather destroy the Democratic party instead of taking the VP (which in itself would be a landmark) in order to gain 8 years experience under her belt under Barack Obama.

The fact that Clinton is willing to do this and other questionable actions such as holding fundraisers in Florida prior to the Florida primary while no other candidate was holding fundraisers, should give Democrats pause and concern about Hillary Clinton. What about her failing at important votes such as the one pertaining to Iraq? The fact that Hillary Clinton would fail at important votes in order to protect herself political is very concerning. Finally, the fact that Hillary Clinton would be willing to change the rules in the middle of the game is concerning, if not scary as well.

Posted by: SC | March 9, 2008 7:25 PM

In your wet dreams!

Hillary will not play second fiddle to an Alpha male. Obama will not play third fiddle to Hillary and Bill.

Posted by: Dream Ticket? | March 9, 2008 7:27 PM

Why Obama why? -

I disagree with you 100%. Unfortunately, Clinton is so egotistical and concerned about herself (along with her supporters), that she would rather destroy the Democratic party instead of taking the VP (which in itself would be a landmark) in order to gain 8 years experience under her belt under Barack Obama.

The fact that Clinton is willing to do this and other questionable actions such as holding fundraisers in Florida prior to the Florida primary while no other candidate was holding fundraisers, should give Democrats pause and concern about Hillary Clinton. What about her failing at important votes such as the one pertaining to Iraq? The fact that Hillary Clinton would fail at important votes in order to protect herself political is very concerning. Finally, the fact that Hillary Clinton would be willing to change the rules in the middle of the game is concerning, if not scary as well.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 7:27 PM

actually, it is the media that is consumed, fed by hillary who wants to cheat to win.
nuf said.
mi and fl broke the rules that is the end of it.

Posted by: linda b | March 9, 2008 7:28 PM

Seat Florida and Michigan. Split their delgates 50/50 on the first ballot. If a second ballot is required, allow them to vote anyway they choose. Who allowed this problem to develope. Surely names exist. It should have been fixed on the front end. It wouldn't matter except for Hillary's smear-based comeback.

Posted by: woowrx | March 9, 2008 7:30 PM

Daschle, Kerry and these other high profile democrats need to put their personal agendas aside and do WHAT IS NEEDED TO PUT A DEMOCRAT IN THE WHITE HOUSE. If Clinton can win the swing states in the general election, they need to put the dream ticket together and go for it. With Obama the clear heir apparent, democrats could enjoy longevity in the white house.

I dont get the bit about security of mail in ballots? This is not an untested process or anything. After the dust settles, someone needs to evaluate Howard Dean's leadership or lack thereof.

Also, Clinton did not campaign in Florida and it is not right for Daschle to imply she did. She showed up after the vote for a victory speech.

Posted by: redhiker | March 9, 2008 7:30 PM

obama - president
Joe biden - foriegn secratary
Bill rechardson - defence secratary
Kansas governer - VP
Hillary Clinton - education assistanct secratary
Bill Clinton - Behing the bar for the crime he did as president ..--king a tean inside WH.

Posted by: OBAMA | March 9, 2008 7:30 PM

InSearchOfTruth says:

"I also want Obama to explain why he sponsored the unconstitutional Global Poverty Act that would take away the power of the purse from Congress and give it to the U.N. with regards to foreign aid (talk about a slippery slope and precedent-setting legislation)."

_________________________________

Unconstitutional? Hardly. But I understand how you are scared it could jeopardize the Billions we send to Israel every year. Nice try.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 7:31 PM

I've read in several places now that the date of the Florida Demo Primary was pushed up by a Republican dominated State Legislature and Republican Governor, and the Democrats couldn't do a damn thing to stop them. If that's the case, the Florida Democrats' votes should either be counted as legitimate or they should vote again and their delegates be allowed. Since I live in Texas and witnessed firsthand the Gerrymandering the Republicans pulled here several years ago to prevent Democrats from even having a chance of being elected to office in many Texas districts it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the situation in Florida was the same kind of dirty trick. The Bush-stacked Supreme Court ruled the Gerrymandering in Texas was legal, but that doesn't make it right, and I consider it a violation of the Right to Freedom of Speech, at the very least. The Republicans in the Texas Legislature and the Republican Governor ignored the will of a substantial number of the people, even a majority in some of the Gerrymandered districts, and used a temporary political advantage to put the screws to the Democrats long-term, and they got away with it. If I couldn't think of any other reason to vote Democratic, that shameful stunt the GOP pulled in Texas would be enough.

Posted by: meand2 | March 9, 2008 7:39 PM

Voter -

Your suggestion is blatantly biased in favor of Obama. Why should Florida's vote be split 50/50 when both candidates were on the ballot AND Obama had the advantage of airing t.v. ads in Florida? Such a suggestion is unfair and would obviously be stealing Florida votes from Clinton in favor of Obama.

Posted by: InSearchOfTruth | March 9, 2008 7:41 PM

Memo to the Clintons:

Hsu you!!!

(As in Norman Hsu, the guy Bill Clinton referred to as "our friend Norman" and the fugitive fraudster arrested by the FBI.)

Posted by: martin edwin andersen | March 9, 2008 7:41 PM

I am glad a couple of Barack's leading supporters have commented about the apparent inconsistency of Hillary contending he is not qualified to be commander-in-chief, yet may possibly offer the Vice-Presidential nomination to him. Actually, in way, she and other Clinton supporters are being quite consistent, they are trying to persuade enough superdelegates to override likley majority rule, according to pledged delegates. Their argument is vote for Hillary for the Presidential nomination, then give the Vice-Presidential nomination to Barack as a "compensation" for cheating him out of the nomination. Will enough superdelegates be guillible for this cynical ploy?

The Clinton campaign is trying to undermine Barack, to weaken his chances of being nominated for president, failing this to undermine his chances of being elected, so she can be a candidate again in four years.
This is also clear in her recent comment John McCain is more qualified to be commander-in-chief than Barack. Since John has a lot more experience than Hillary, her statement inadvertently says he is more qualified to be commander-in-chief than her.

Since the Clinton campaign is trying to make experience a big issue when it comes to foreign policy and national security, I hope some leading politician will remind some people Bill Clinton had no previous experience in these areas before becoming president. Actually neither did Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan.

Posted by: Koreen | March 9, 2008 7:41 PM

It's amazing how many people advocate not playing by the rules. Democracy will be anarchy if people are allowed not to play by the rules. Howard Dean should be firm in not doing any redo in Florida and Michigan. Rules cannot be changed in mid-play. I'd rather stick to the rules and lose to the Republicans than come up with any stupid compromise which is bound to be unfair to someone. Of course, I'm not in Howard Dean shoes, luckily. Looks like Clinton has her wish (took the football home when she's not allowed to be the quarterback), leaving the Democratic Party in shreds.

Posted by: KT11 | March 9, 2008 7:41 PM

it's interesting isn't it????

the rot in the United States ECONOMY, from sending all of our money into war profiteers pockets


has extended to NORTHERN VIRGINIA
____________________________________________________

WP Article: "Foreclosure Auctioneer's Lonely Task,"
By Nick Miroff
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 22, 2008

"Lot of interest out here this morning," Crossley muttered. No one showed up for the auction of 7 homes that were in foreclosure.

It wasn't always such a lonely job. When Crossley became an auctioneer two years ago for Purcellville-based Nectar Projects, foreclosure sales were few, and they would regularly draw packs of investors armed with cash and eager to bid. Now it's rare for anyone to show up. In the past three months, Crossley has conducted auctions on some 200 properties in Northern Virginia, and he has sold one.

_____________________________________________________


what does that mean, relative to the discussion regarding Obama and Hillary ???


that the people who caused this, currently deadlocking Congress and running things for their private benefit in WASHINGTON through the EXECUTIVE BRANCH...

are trying to keep things status quo, maintain their grip on the cash flow...


not knowing what is going on in WASHINGTON, and saying that those who want to bring up specific examples _OF_THAT_ are talking about the past scares me.


I see a junior congressman, buying into and using what the repulsive scammers are selling as a way of getting elected


w/o regard to what his election will mean to the people.


you want to know what will happen? look at what happened to Jimmy Carter.


If we had acted 30 years ago on his very good ideas, there would be no energy problem, probably greenhouse gases would be under control and our economy would still be booming and manufacturing would still be in_country...


but Carter was backstabbed, because he wanted to "play fair,"

after Nixon, everyone wanted someone that would "play fair,"


unfortunately, Jimmy didn't know how to make sure the bullies played fair as well...


do I need to paint a picture ????

these guys don't "play fair,"


they have male prostitutes spend the night at the white house and use homophobia to herd the gomers...


they're trying to get you to back the Hubert Humphrey of the Democratic pack...


read up on it.


.

Posted by: expose the FALSE DEMOCRATS....fer instance FEINSTEIN... | March 9, 2008 7:43 PM

An Open Letter to Hillary:
In respect of your current job application (your own words), I'd like you to respond to the following:
1. You claim that you have 35 years of experience relevant to the job. The experience, therefore, must have begun when you were around 25, probably just out of law school. How did you spend the first 12 years of that period? Starting as a rookie lawyer for some law firm, perhaps? What type of clientele did you represent? Were any of them indigent? Did you do any pro bono work? If you mostly represented corporate and/or wealthy clients, how does that translate to political experience or even getting a feel for the small man's/woman's situation? You need to list any humanitarian work that you have done, including names of organizations served, in those 12 years. Shouting until you are red in the face as a spectator at political rallies does not count. If you did engage in political activity in those 12 years, list names and times spent on those activities.
2. Could we set aside a couple of those 35 years as time-out for bearing Chelsea and rearing her in her infancy? Although we know that you did an excellent job a la Chelsea, you cannot expect us to give you credit for time taken for that task as political experience towards the US Presidency.
3. You spent the next 16 years as the first lady of Arkansas and the first lady of the US. Can you list relevant experiences you garnered in this time span? Be specific. What major issues confronting Arkansas or US did Bill consult you on or engage you in? Were these consultations official or as part of normal, day-to-day, husband-wife discourse? If the latter, that time does not count. Bedroom tête-à-têtes do not amount to political experience. If you had official duties of a political nature, please list them and assign the percentage of your time you devoted to them, such as a couple of days of the week. If you claim some years of experience by osmosis from your politician husband's experience, how is it that the same osmosis did not provide you with a whiff of his clandestine activities in the White House that are so well known. What I am getting at is you can only count a fraction of these 16 years as real political experience relevant to your candidacy for the US Presidency.
4. You claim that you have travelled to more than 80 countries. How many of these travels were in an official capacity? If official, what were your tasks and what kind of government officials of those countries did you have contact with in an official capacity. Be specific. Give times, tasks and contacts. Travels and times spent on prima donna type activities do not count. Can you name the capitals of 20 of those countries? Can you name the leaders of another 20 of those countries at the time of your travels? Can you describe some of their customs? Please post references to newspaper and journal articles on your web site on these travels so that we can verify your claims.
5. You claim credit for facilitating peace in Northern Ireland and Kosovo. Was your role in the capacity of observer or hands-on? If the latter, what were your accomplishments? Please provide specific references. If the former, your activities do not count towards political experience because, one way or another, we all can claim to have been observers of those processes.
6. At the end of the day, other than your 7 years' experience in the US Senate, roughly how many years of your claimed 35 years of experience can we peel off to arrive at your real experience? Less than 10, you might say. If that were so, you are the least experienced, by far, of the candidates left standing for the position of the President of USA.
7. Padding your experience to unimaginable proportions and belittling Obama's experience by equating it to a single speech at the DNC of 2004 is blatantly dishonest and pathetically disingenuous, not to mention the thoughtless insult thereby heaped on the many poor-income Chicagoans who have been the beneficiaries of the labours of that down-to-Earth politician, who thought nothing of working the trenches to earn experience the hard way.
8. You and your camp accused Obama, using very strong language indeed, of plagiarism for borrowing a political line from a colleague and supporter of his. For someone who has been through college and law school, it is strange that you have not fully grasped the meaning of that word. Plagiarism means to use someone else's creative (mostly copyrighted) work as your own. Politicians the world over use what they have learnt from others liberally to get their points across to the voters in an effective manner. Unlike in articles of referenced journals, one does not have to use attributions after every sentence one utters, because listeners tend to get turned off easily if one goes "Abraham Lincoln said this... and John Kennedy said that ... etc". The fact that I have a Masters and a PhD from a leading US university and have taught and guided undergraduates as a teacher and department head should give me the right to admonish you that plagiarism is too strong a word to throw around frivolously, even to score cheap political points. In any other circumstance, someone wrongfully or mistakenly accused of plagiarism is considered to have actionable grounds.
9. When a news station published a picture of Obama in Somali garb taken during an official visit to Somalia and claimed that it was received from your camp, why didn't you institute an investigation to determine if anyone in your camp was involved? Although, being dressed in indigenous attire when visiting a country is considered by locals to be an endearing trait in a visiting politician, the imputation of the contents of the picture to the uninitiated segment of the US voting public clearly has an underlying inflammatory intent. Is this how you plan to conduct yourself if and when you rise to the highest office of the land? As President of the USA, how do you plan to placate the Somalis after this very pointed insult, or do you consider Somalia not registering well enough on your radar to warrant being concerned about?
10. Why do you consider the circulation of memos by the Obama camp describing your and Bill's involvement in NAFTA and other such unpopular projects a heinous enough act for you to scream barbs like "Shame on you, Obama" on national television? Shouldn't your association with distasteful treaties that have left a large segment of the voting public bereft of their jobs be fair game for a rival in a hotly contested election, or would you prefer that voters have selective amnesia between the tales that you have spun around your political history and give you credit only for your good deeds?
11. What is this we hear about your reluctance to release your tax returns to the voting public? Is there something that you and Bill want to keep away from the voting public, such as the hefty fees that Bill has been charging for speaking engagements? Has he also been collecting fees for having his name associated with charities such as those for Asian tsunami relief? You cannot disclaim accountability for Bill's sources and amounts of income unless and until you have proven that you have not in any way benefited from his largesse, which would be impossible.
12. There was a savings and loan fiasco in the middle of Bill's presidential tenure. For the benefit of the voting public, could you affirm that neither of you had any wheeling and dealing connected with that debacle, directly or indirectly?
13. What guaranty can you give us that there will be no more scandals in the White House that will once again drag the reputation of the American presidency to the gutter and make US politics the object of derision around the world? What a hideously disingenuous argument you proffered when you compared Obama's tactics to those of Ken Star and his inquisition. Some of us were deeply aggrieved at that time at Ken's methods and ferocious tenacity. Although, the American public at that time were willing to overlook Bill's lies under oath, they will be far less tolerant of any further transgressions.
14. Why is it that you come across as having multiple personalities - sombre, bellicose and pensive? Is it a real or a choreographed effect? Either way, it doesn't auger well for someone aspiring to the highest office of the land. While actors becoming presidents are acceptable, presidents behaving like actors are a definite no-no.
15. George Bush had 3 blacks in his first-term cabinet and 2 blacks in his second, 2 of them in highly visible roles. To earn the title of the "first black president" bestowed upon Bill by an African-American, how many blacks would you say had any visibility worth talking about in either of Bill's cabinets? Would you be disposed in a similar manner?
16. Considering that the news media have always given your camp much more visibility than Obama's, why is it that you keep whining so aggressively about news coverage being biased against you? For instance, CNN's Wolf Blitzer kept your cry-baby routine front and centre on CNN's news coverage the day before the New Hampshire Primary and almost completely blanked out coverage on Obama, helping you in a big way to turn the tide in that primary. Also, CNN's Lou Dobbs appears absolutely pathetic in his not-so-subtle support for your candidacy. What is more disgusting is the fact Lou Dobbs, obviously with CNN's blessing, makes no bones about his inexplicable distaste of Obama, even to the extent of brow-beating his guests whenever they offer an opposing view to what he holds. You did achieve the desired effect of exclusive coverage for yourself and your surrogates and a pittance of coverage for Obama. Is that the kind of fairness, or lack thereof, that you plan to bring to the office of the US President?
17. When the Florida and Michigan state legislatures moved their primaries to January from Super Tuesday in spite of being warned that their delegates will be stripped of the right of representation at the DNC, you did not do the right thing by removing your name from the ballot as the other candidates did, nor did you raise a hue and cry at that time about the voters of those states being disenfranchised. Now, realizing that you are terribly short of pledged delegates, who are the true representatives of the will of the electorate, you are prancing around claiming the pledged delegates of those states as your own with the full knowledge that those delegates have been elected through an invalid process and, therefore, have invalid votes. You also have drummed up support for yourself among the republicans so much so that the Governor of Florida, Charlie Crist, having led the effort in Florida to disregard the DNC ruling in the first place, is now leading a campaign to award the delegates to you. How is it that you have no qualms about violating the rules and bedding with the enemy? How can you portray yourself as an agent of change, when you keep bending the rules at every possible turn to suit your fancy? Continuous, blatant manifestation of Washington-type behaviour by you does not give us any confidence that you will have the will or the capacity to institute any change in Washington after you have been hired as the President.
18. Considering that Obama has been leading McCain in the polls by a significant margin most of the primary season while you have been trailing McCain more often than not; that you have been employing methods to promote your candidacy that are less than becoming of a president-aspirant; that you have spent more time berating Obama and claiming that you are the "solutions" candidate than really substantiating your "solutions" claim; that Obama is leading you significantly in the votes cast, delegates pledged in officially sanctioned primaries and caucuses, and total overall delegates; that you were aligned with McCain on the vote for war in Iraq; that you have less "so called" experience than McCain; that you and only you, among the current candidates, have never been able to show any magnanimity in victory or graciousness in defeat; and that you barely register on the charisma meter unlike the other two candidates; on what grounds do you back up your argument that you can do a better job going toe-to-toe with McCain than Obama can?
19. Seeing the writing on the wall, you and Bill have now come up with your latest ruse - your willingness to run on the same ticket with Obama. If, God forbid, that were to materialize, why would Obama, leading in all statistical categories, play second fiddle to you? Going by form, it is highly unlikely that you will keep your promise after you have pulled the wool over the voters' eyes with this latest ruse and won more delegates than Obama. To paraphrase Lincoln, you can fool some of the voters all of the time, and all of the voters some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the voters all of the time.
20. If you can answer all the foregoing to our satisfaction now and not some time in the future, and you can prove that your candidacy, which embodies words and actions of yourself and your surrogates of this campaign, has not had its moral values flushed down the toilet, then we will consider you worthy enough to proceed to the next round. If not, please have the graciousness to bow out after the next shellacking at the polls.

Posted by: MDEAL | March 9, 2008 7:43 PM

To: In SearchofTruth- That alright because if Senator Clinton is the nominee, all of my families, friends, church members and co-workers will not vote for President or vote for Senator McCain. So what is this. STALEMATE.....

To: Thinking---The point is that we should vote for someone we can trust. Someone who is ethical and honest. Not someone who are lying and distorting facts, aiding and abetting the other side by bad mouthing their opponent. But again that what the American people want in a President right even when they say they do not. Because voting for Senator Clinton that is just what you will be getting. As much as I dislike McCann I consider him a lot better choice than Senator Clinton.

I am a Democrat and have been a proud one up to this election but I will not vote for someone that I can not respect just because I am a Democrat.

Posted by: vb-california | March 9, 2008 7:43 PM

Memo to the Clintons:

Hsu you!!!

(As in Norman Hsu, the guy Bill Clinton referred to as "our friend Norman" and the fugitive fraudster arrested by the FBI.)

Posted by: martin edwin 'mick' andersen | March 9, 2008 7:46 PM

It's amazing how many people advocate not playing by the rules. Democracy will be anarchy if people are allowed not to play by the rules. Howard Dean should be firm in not doing any redo in Florida and Michigan. Rules cannot be changed in mid-play. I'd rather stick to the rules and lose to the Republicans than come up with any stupid compromise which is bound to be unfair to someone. Of course, I'm not in Howard Dean shoes, luckily. Looks like Clinton has her wish (took the football home when she's not allowed to be the quarterback), leaving the Democratic Party in shreds.

Posted by: KT11 | March 9, 2008 07:41 PM
***

Yes, ask Howard Dean to play by the rules in effect when the primary date was changed and return the penalty to a 50% loss of delegates. He can't cry "rules" when he isn't even following the ones in effect at the time of the so-called "crime."

Posted by: UnbelievableMess | March 9, 2008 7:47 PM

you Obama folks who are trying to blame the people of Florida and Michigan for this mess are really something else.

In Florida it was a republican legislature that moved the primaries and the republicans let their primary count.

You want to tell the democrats of Florida (who had nothing to do with the move of the election) their vote does not count -- AGAIN!, why you are no better then Bush was in 2000. That does not sound like CHANGE it sounds like politics as usual from here!!!!

Posted by: mac | March 9, 2008 7:47 PM

'...The Republicans in the Texas Legislature and the Republican Governor ignored the will of a substantial number of the people, even a majority in some of the Gerrymandered districts, and used a temporary political advantage to put the screws to the Democrats long-term, and they got away with it. If I couldn't think of any other reason to vote Democratic, that shameful stunt the GOP pulled in Texas would be enough."

Posted by: meand2 | March 9, 2008 07:39 PM
***

Finally, someone who understands what it's like to live in a state where their party is the minority!

To those of you who say we (FL Democrats) need to hold our representatives accountable, you need to understand that the deck has been stacked against us ever reclaiming the state government through this very same gerrymandering tactic. There was another Bush (surprise, surprise!) involved when districts here were redrawn to consolidate Democrats into as few districts as possible and the reason why, in a state that's nearly evenly split in the popular vote counts, the Republicans hold 65% of all state elected positions.

Posted by: UnbelievableMess | March 9, 2008 7:53 PM

Obama supporters are wasting their good intentions on a really bad guy.

It may take a while to sink in but I'm confident most of them will come to their senses.

Its over for Obama.

He's never going to be President.

He has a history and a paper trail, and he'll be lucky not to wind up in jail.

The truth about the real Obama is coming out and its not pretty.

He's a really bad guy who only cares about himself.

He's doesn't deserve support from anyone.

How could anyone even THINK of supporting a man who did what Obama did in Chicago to the poor people who made the mistake of trusting him and were foolish enough to buy his sales pitch and elect him???

Please Watch this report on Obama, Obama's slums, Rezko, and $100M of wasted taxpayer money, from Chicago's most respected TV news program.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feature=related

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but Obama's actually a really bad guy.

Posted by: svreader | March 9, 2008 7:54 PM

Koreen -

You are forgetting that they did have executive experience (e.g. being a state governor). Hillary Clinton has more experience. She has legislative experience via being Senator of New York and is very familiar with executive experience and has meant with more foreign leaders than Barack Obama has. Does Barack Obama have any executive experience? No. Is he as familiar with executive experience as Hillary? No. Has he met with and know as many foreign leaders and Hillary has met and know? No.

Posted by: InSearchOfTruth | March 9, 2008 7:54 PM

"It's comprehensive. You get to vote if you're in Iraq or in a nursing home," Dean said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

Could someone please put Howard Dean in Iraq or a nursing home? Please?

Posted by: treetopflyer | March 9, 2008 7:56 PM

You cut off your nose to spite your face then scramble to glue it back. Perhaps the party isn't ready for representation or administration.

Posted by: Common Sense | March 9, 2008 7:56 PM

"He (Levin) continued, 'But there's some real problems with that, too. Not just cost, but the security issue. How do you make sure that hundreds of thousands, perhaps a million or more ballots can be properly counted and that duplicate ballots can be avoided?'"

The answer to this is so freakin' easy it's ridiculous. Here in Oregon, we do vote-by-mail in *every* election and we've never--never!--had problems. Vote-by-mail is the cheapest, fairest way to go because it's the most inclusive, hardest to influence from the outside (beyond outside one's own family--and talking about the issues at home is a good thing, I believe), and you don't need polling sites.

Here's how to pay for it. The states broke the rules, period. In the spirit of fairness Obama and Clinton should split the cost of Democratic voters receiving ballots.

If either state allows Independents to cross over and vote Democratic, the states' Democratic parties should pick up the (smaller) cost of printing and mailing ballots to Independent voters. This would keep them from being disinfranchised and would go a long way toward encouraging them to vote Democratic in November--it's just a smart gesture.

If Obama and Clinton said to their contributors, "Look, we need your help to pony up some cash to pay for this and help us win these states," their contributors would do it in a heartbeat. I mean, they raised over $80 million together in the last month alone. Their supporters are motivated.

This is such an easy problem to solve. Where do I sign up for Howard Dean's job?

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 7:58 PM

yawns at obama's platitudes replied to me by saying that Hillary might win the popular vote after all this.

I don't think she will -- she's still 600,000 votes behind -- but again, so what? That's just another way of saying that she won New York and California and that Obama has been beating her consistently in caucus states. We know that. That's how our party's system works, friend. You want to change it go ahead -- next time. You don't change it now just to somehow push your preferred candidate on top! Right?

Posted by: lostintranslation | March 9, 2008 8:01 PM

Let one of the Las vegas Casinos sponsor a wrestling match between Hillary and Obama, with Steven Colbert as the refree; let the $100 ticket prices plus the wagers foot the bill for the elections in Florida and Michigan! Absurd? Not any less than the silly season brought upon us by all the Bozos responsible.

Here is an easier way out - why not wait until all the primaries are over, and then split the Florida and Michigan delegates according to the national popular vote?

Posted by: J. Ram Ray | March 9, 2008 8:02 PM

There must be a Florida and Michigan revote as soon as possible to avoid a disastrous Dem convention turmoil.The American people want to see to what direction the Democrats want take them.
The policy lead by the far left,leaders such as Ted Kennedy, John Kerry,Howard Dean,and etc; a bench of losers,or to a moderate direction ;leaders such as Bill Clinton,Richardson,Al Gore, etc;mostly successful leaders. Obama is to the far left if not far to the deep end with no return,Hillary is definitely in the moderate camp, take your pick.

Posted by: johnycheng | March 9, 2008 8:04 PM

"...Here is an easier way out - why not wait until all the primaries are over, and then split the Florida and Michigan delegates according to the national popular vote?

Posted by: J. Ram Ray | March 9, 2008 08:02 PM
****
Because how would that reflect the will of the FL or MI voters?

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 8:05 PM

and execute the sentences,


by firing squad or hanging?


Voice of the White House February 28, 2005
TBR News.org February 28, 2005

"An absolute non-issue with the American print and TV media is the control by very powerful gays of the top policy levels of the White House. Growingly pointed comments inside the Beltway social clubs, homes and watering places about Karl Rove's "good friend" 'Jeff Gannon' are being very thoroughly ignored by the mainline press.

There are two reasons for this crashing silence. One is the fact that a large number of powerful and wealthy Republicans are gay and do not want their wives and children to discover that they put on leather underwear and spend their spare time at the Eagle over on New York Avenue or getting rough trade action at the Crew Club. Fat Karl Rove was seen by one of my people entering a private homosexual orgy at a five-star Washington hotel over the Mid-Atlantic Leather (MAL) weekend last year. All the self-hating loyal Republican gays at the no-pants party, many of them Senatorial aides and military types, of course pretended they didn't recognize him, and who can blame them - imagine how repulsive Fat Karl must look without his clothes. The report that came back was that Fat Karl greatly enjoyed the supervision of a certain hairy 350-lb. Leather Dominator, who had won the Miss Virginia Daddy Bear title at the MAL festivities.

Karl used hang out at JR's, which is on 17th between P&S, before he became so well-known. This is a "respectable" gay bar for discreet people who do not wear mesh panties, high-heeled pumps and wear terrible wigs. How many people know about these activities? In Washington, a hell of a lot of the prominent. But very few of them dare to open their mouths because of their own small problems.


.small problems.

Posted by: expose the false democrats like MDEAL....take his team down and charge them with treason... | March 9, 2008 8:06 PM

Does anyone else marvel at the fact so many Obama supporters engage in so much name-calling as far as Senator Clinton goes (at least when it comes to online posts), then turn around and say how wonderful it is that their candidate represents a change from that kind of politics? What does it say about Obama when his supporters are guilty of such hypocrisy? Or perhaps they behave that way because posting online gives them a degree of anonymity and, therefore, unaccountability... So much for the integrity of Obama's supporters.

They also insist on following the rules set forth by the DNC when it comes to disenfranchising Florida and Michigan, but advocate changing the rules to favor their own candidate when it comes to superdelegates. "Change," indeed.

Posted by: Robert | March 9, 2008 8:07 PM

I'd like to propose a "third strike" rule. If the Democrats can't beat a useless, shallow and criminally incompetent man twice and then can't win in the wake of the most disasterous presidency since the Pleistocene epoch that, as they say, should be that. The Democrats should agree to skip the 2012 election which is the only way a third party really has a chance: if one of the two parties in our two party dictatorship fails to show up.

Posted by: Stan Denski | March 9, 2008 8:08 PM

DISPATCHES FROM THE GROUND WAR ...

From The Sunday Times
March 9, 2008

The Clintons, a horror film that never ends

Andrew Sullivan
It's alive! We thought it might be over but some of us never dared fully believe it. Last week was like one of those moments in a horror movie when the worst terror recedes, the screen goes blank and then reopens on green fields or a lover's tender embrace. Drained but still naive audiences breathe a collective sigh of relief. The plot twists have all been resolved; the threat is gone; the quiet spreads. And then . . .

Put your own movie analogy in here. Glenn Close in the bathtub in Fatal Attraction - whoosh! she's back at your throat! - has often occurred to me when covering the Clintons these many years. The Oscars host Jon Stewart compares them to a Terminator: the kind that is splattered into a million tiny droplets of vaporised metal . . . only to pool together spontaneously and charge back at you unfazed.

The Clintons have always had a touch of the zombies about them: unkillable, they move relentlessly forward, propelled by a bloodlust for Republicans or uppity Democrats who dare to question their supremacy. You can't escape; you can't hide; and you can't win. And these days, in the kinetic pace of the YouTube campaign, they are like the new 28 Days Later zombies. They come at you really quickly, like bats out of hell. Or Ohio, anyway. ...

Posted by: MARTIN EDWIN ANDERSEN | March 9, 2008 8:13 PM

In search of, as I said above Bill Clinton had no previous experience in the areas of foreign policy and national security before becoming president. Those of Hillary's supporters who seem to value experience over everything else, you should have voted for Joe Biden or Chris Dodd.

Experience is not one of the most important qualifications to be president. All of our presidents have had cabinet and other advisers to help them make decisions. Most governors who have become president had no previous experiences in foriegn policy, yet some of them are generally considered to have had some major foreign policy successes, such as Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan.

Abraham Lincoln, Grover Cleveland and Dwight Eisenhower each had little, if any experience in national elective office. Yet all three are widely considered to have been above average presidents. James Buchanan, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon had some of the most impressive resumes, if previous political experience counts most, but all made major mistakes because of poor judgment.

Hillary is becoming a Democratic Richard Nixon, an opportunist, who changes positions to try to become more electable, who will use any smear tactics available to win high office.

Posted by: Koreen | March 9, 2008 8:14 PM

No you can't. Obama's not going to be elected to anything now that the truth about how he totally shafted the last group of people who made the mistake of trusting him.

You haven't watched the video, have you?

I thought so.

Its over for Obama.

He's never going to be President.

He has a history and a paper trail, and he'll be lucky not to wind up in jail.

The truth about the real Obama is coming out and its not pretty.

He's a really bad guy who only cares about himself.

He's doesn't deserve support from anyone.

How could anyone even THINK of supporting a man who did what Obama did in Chicago to the poor people who made the mistake of trusting him and were foolish enough to buy his sales pitch and elect him???

Please Watch this report on Obama, Obama's slums, Rezko, and $100M of wasted taxpayer money, from Chicago's most respected TV news program.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feature=related

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the real Obama is a really bad guy

Posted by: svreader | March 9, 2008 8:16 PM

The rules were made long ago, one campaign IS pushing for those rules to be dismissed because they 'won' the two uncontested states. Not really, but it's too late to bicker.

I agree. SPLIT THE DELEGATES.

Posted by: Captain John | March 9, 2008 8:16 PM

Here are two thing:
1: What is the difference between a 50/50 split and disenfranchising Florida and Michigan?
2: Obama has spent big bucks in the states that are going to vote Republican in November with the knowledge that Clinton and Edwards would not and would concentrate on swing states like Michigan and Florida. What Democratic candidate goes after Nebraska? Obama does not care that the states that he has picked up will not go with him in November, he is willing to take the risk of a Democratic loss as long as he gets the spotlight. Also everyone should take a very serious look at the fact that Clinton has won about 260 electoral votes (of states that will go democratic in November), while Obama has about 190 electoral votes (a majority belong to RED states that will go republican in November).
This is precisely the sort of thing that makes "SUPER DELEGATES" necessary. YOU DON"T WANT YOUR NOMINEE NOMINATED BY STATES THAT WILL GO REPUBLICAN IN NOVEMBER!!
Obama and his advisers know this but they just don't care if they wreck the Democrats chances of getting to the White house!!!

Posted by: Harried | March 9, 2008 8:16 PM

surrender monkey kerry (remember 04, and how ticked Edwards was at that tony little gathering in massachusetts?) supports Obama.
Nuff said.
Revote Michigan.
Hilary will win.
Revote Florida.
Hilary will win.
If Obama doesn't drop out by April 30--don't let him be on the veep ticket, and don't let him be the prez candidate ever again.

Posted by: commongal | March 9, 2008 8:21 PM

MORE MONSTEROUS MACHINATIONS BY THE CLINTONS ...

IT GIVES LIE TO ALL THE CHARACTER ASSASSINATION THE CLINTONS AND THEIR TRAINED SEALS HAVE ENGAGED IN AGAINST BARACK OBAMA ...

IF HE WASN'T READY FOR THAT 3 A.M. PHONE CALL, WHY THEIR DESPERATION IN TRYING TO GET HIM TO ACCEPT POTENTIALLY BEING A HEART BEAT FROM THE PRESIDENCY???

OR ARE THEY JUST THAT UNPATRIOTIC?


Clintons push a Hillary/Obama ticket
Sun Mar 9, 2008
8:11pm EDT

By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Hillary and Bill Clinton are again teaming up on Barack Obama -- this time saying the first-term U.S. lawmaker, whom they have derided as inexperienced, would be a strong running mate on a Democratic presidential ticket headed by the former first lady.

Posted by: martin edwin 'mick' andersen | March 9, 2008 8:22 PM


This column *omits*, relegating apparently to common knowledge, the highly pertinent fact that Obama's name was not even on the ballot in Michigan in the January primary. It's not just that he didn't campaign there.

I don't think that newcomers to this controversy can be counted on to know this. It's perhaps the most important point repudiating Clinton's argument for counting the delegates from FL and MI from January.

Posted by: Jeffrey Brock | March 9, 2008 8:24 PM

So Democrats it's time to put down all that
DNC Chairman Howard Dean's Obama Kool Aid
and realize that the real reason that idiot
Howard Dean dreamed up this confusing and
totally undemocratic caucus system rules
for the 2008 Democratic Presidential Nomination was so Dean could help that
con artist Barack Hussein Obama steal the
nomination. It is time the US end this
undemocratic caucus system and adopt a single national primary day for both major
political parties as well as time the Democrats fire Howard Dean before Dean is
successful in stealing it for Obama.

Posted by: Ralphinphnx | March 9, 2008 8:25 PM

Hilary will stop at NOTHING to become President. She wants it all for herself. Now she wants to change the rules. You can't do that in an election. It calls into question the entire process. I am so sick of her and Slick Willy. Let's REALLY move on!

Posted by: daffy | March 9, 2008 8:27 PM

Why is Hillary's camp touting the fact that she has won states that represent a greater number of electoral votes? In the primaries, she's competing against a fellow Democrat. In the general election, the Democratic nominee will be facing a Republican. Does Hillary really think that if Obama is the nominee, he can't carry CA, NY, OH, and TX? Or that in the general election she'll win every state in which she beat Obama? Sounds like a pretty weak argument to me.

Posted by: obamafan | March 9, 2008 8:30 PM

Obama Supporters --

How can you guys support Obama knowing how he totally shafted the poor people of all colors who made the mistake of trusting him in Chicago.

Have you even watched the Video?

Or are you afraid of what you might find out about the man you worship as a god?

Obama supporters are wasting their good intentions on a really bad guy.

It may take a while to sink in but I'm confident most of them will come to their senses.

Its over for Obama.

He's never going to be President.

He has a history and a paper trail, and he'll be lucky not to wind up in jail.

The truth about the real Obama is coming out and its not pretty.

He's a really bad guy who only cares about himself.

He's doesn't deserve support from anyone.

How could anyone even THINK of supporting a man who did what Obama did in Chicago to the poor people who made the mistake of trusting him and were foolish enough to buy his sales pitch and elect him???

Please Watch this report on Obama, Obama's slums, Rezko, and $100M of wasted taxpayer money, from Chicago's most respected TV news program.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feature=related

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but Obama's actually a really bad guy

Posted by: svreader | March 9, 2008 8:35 PM

Hillary won both states. Delegates should be apportioned in the same ratio that electorate voted. And superdelegates should be apportioned according to states voting.

Florida will never have voted for Obama. Hispanics have a lot of weight in that state and there is a large senior citizen population that is in favor of Hillary.

With respect to Michigan, situation there is similar to Ohio.

Posted by: alexandrovich | March 9, 2008 8:35 PM

The ONLY fair thing is to allow the voices of the citizens of Michigan and Florida to be heard! There is no reason to redo what has long ago done in a fair democratic way. Castigate those that made the decision to go against Party rules, but do NOT stop the voices, votes, from being counted.

Posted by: Gregory | March 9, 2008 8:38 PM

Were the good voters of Florida and Michigan supposed to stay home when their states ran the primaries? No....they did their civic duty and went otu and voted, something that more people should do. Now we'll tell them that their voted don't count because their respective states broke the rules. Kind of like saying that a person can't get a driver's license if one of their parents has ever gotten a speeding ticket! Do the right thing for the voters... the candidates camps will never agree on what to do. Why should they? Do the right thing DNC.

Posted by: Betty | March 9, 2008 8:38 PM

If Hillary want the presidency she must appeal to the supreme court. There is a person called Anthony Scalia that work for bush and know how resolve things. For exampke he said that if is for get information, torture is not unconstitutional because the last motive, is get information, not punish somebody. So the goverment can get my son or your son, put a knife in his neck and ask me for whatever they want, and if I not answer and they kill my son or your son, that is not unconstitutional because they did not for punishment, they did for get information. This kind of judges will decide in favor of Mrs Hillary because she is with the goverment, she is the armed gun of Bush policies.

Posted by: jorge burgos | March 9, 2008 8:39 PM

Were the good voters of Florida and Michigan supposed to stay home when their states ran the primaries? No....they did their civic duty and went out and voted, something that more people should do. Now we'll tell them that their votes don't count because their respective states broke the rules. Kind of like saying that a person can't get a driver's license if one of their parents has ever gotten a speeding ticket! Do the right thing for the voters... the candidates camps will never agree on what to do. Why should they? Do the right thing DNC.

Posted by: Betty | March 9, 2008 8:40 PM

svreader:

You are an idiot, stick to the facts.

Posted by: jlm062002 | March 9, 2008 8:43 PM

The Superdelegates should choose the best candidate since most likely neither will get the majority through the pledged delegates. Throwing in MI and FL most likely won't make a difference. If they give it to Obama, I will vote for McCain. Most Hillary voters I talked to feel the same way too.

Posted by: KS | March 9, 2008 8:56 PM

Saturday NIGHT LIVE did a wonderful political satire on OBAMA answering the phone at 3AM. TAKE A LOOK.

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/index.shtml#mea=227156

Posted by: mark | March 9, 2008 9:06 PM

jim --

Here are the facts.

Nobody is going to vote for Obama once they know what he did in Chicago.

Watch the Video. Obama didn't do his job and lots of poor people who trusted him suffered and died because of it.

How can you even THINK of supporting a man who did what Obama did in Chicago to the people who elected him???

This isn't about Clinton vs Obama.

Its about Obama's total betrayal of trust of the weakest and least fortunate, who trusted him to look out for them.

Please Watch this report on Obama, Obama's slums, Rezko, and $100M of wasted taxpayer money, from Chicago's most respected TV news program.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feature=related

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but tyhe real Obama's a really bad guy.

Posted by: svreader | March 9, 2008 9:06 PM

This column *omits*, relegating apparently to common knowledge, the highly pertinent fact that Obama's name was not even on the ballot in Michigan in the January primary. It's not just that he didn't campaign there.

I don't think that newcomers to this controversy can be counted on to know this. It's perhaps the most important point repudiating Clinton's argument for counting the delegates from FL and MI from January.

Posted by: Jeffrey Brock | March 9, 2008 08:24 PM
________________________________

Why wasn't Obama on the Michigan ballot?
He removed it that's why. Why would he do that?
And since his name was on the Florida ballot how does your most important point work for Florida. Start trying to sound rational!
Either count the votes or have them revote.
If you feel Obama can win in Florida and Michigan what's your problem with a revote!
He's a great campaigner, no? Maybe only in Idaho and Nebraska or Wyoming even?

Posted by: Harried | March 9, 2008 9:10 PM

Robert - 100% agreed regarding the hypocrisy of Obama's "change" and his supporters who want change, but engage in name-calling of Hillary Clinton.

Koreen - But Bill Clinton had executive experience. You ignore that. Yes, Dodd and Biden have more experience, but they were no longer in the race by the time I voted. Why would I vote for Dodd or Biden if they were no longer in the race? Between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton has far more experience.

Yes, experience is one of the most important qualifications for being president. George W. Bush, who had executive experience, but apparently not enough of it, is living proof of that. John Kerry was far more experienced compared to George W. Bush, and look George W. Bush has run this country into the ground based on his claim of "change" (aka compassionate conservatism change). The presidency is one of the most important jobs in the country and whomever gets elected should have a fair amount of experience.

As an analogy, a doctor is also an important position. Would you care if an doctor starting his residency with little-to-know experience performed surgery on you, even if he had senior doctors to give him advice? I doubt it.

Barack Obama is being a political opportunist because he thinks it is ok for him to change the rules by demanding Super Delegates follow the votes of their constituencies. The rules say that Super Delegates can vote their conscience, but Barack Obama is trying to change the rules.

Also, Barack Obama did not have the good judgment to vote on the resolution regarding Iran. Instead, when the important foreign policy votes come up, Barack Obama stays away or votes present. What kind of good judgment is that? That's taking political cover by not having to take a vote.

Barack Obama is not being completely being honest with the American people. He has had the luxury of an adoring media that has so far avoided asking him about his support and admiration of his Pastor, whom supports Farrakhan, an Islamic extremist. Barack Obama did not even want to refuse Farrakhan's endorsement and only did so after Hillary Clinton called him on it. My question is how sincere was he in doing that? To me he was just being politically expedient. One of the questions the American people should be asking is what kind of "Christian" church supports Farrakhan and Ismaic extremism?

The media has also been kind in not asking Barack Obama in his sponsoring of unconstitutional legislation. Why has Barack Obama sponsored legislation that would take away the constitutional power of the purse from Congress and give it to the United Nations with regards to foreign aid? To me, no matter how good the cause, that seems like a slippery slope to get by chipping away at our U.S. Constitution like that.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote/

Barack Obama also wants to disenfranchise voters because rules were broken. However, he's neglecting the fact that both he and Hillary were on the ballot in Florida AND Barack Obama had the advantage of running "nation-wide" ads that were aired in Florida. How is that "change" for the better? That's sounds like politics as usual from me from Barack Obama. Finally, Barack Obama supports punishing Democratic voters in Florida even though it was a Republican Governor whom forced Florida to break the "rules."
It looks to me that Barack Obama will say or do anything to be president.

Posted by: InSearchOfTruth | March 9, 2008 9:11 PM

About those rules...here are the actual rules (and links): Read then, and then decide what is just.

http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/pdfs/2008delegateselectionrules.pdf "Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention

11. TIMING OF THE DELEGATE SELECTION PROCESS
A. No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February. In no instance may a state which scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in February and the second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule.

It is clear that 5 states broke Rule 11A......IA, NH, SC, FL and MI.

So.....if we want to abide strictly by the rules, then punishment should also follow the rules...
Rule 20.C.1.a.

Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state's delegation. In determining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the state's delegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next nearest whole number.

I agree Michigan should be redone in some form, or be apportioned in an equitable manner relative to those who voted "uncommitted" and who directly voted for Senator Clinton. What they do with ballots supposedly disqualified for utilizing the Write In line, is still a problem.

Florida, however, should either stand as is, or be allowed along the original rules, of a 50% penalty.

The voters of Florida did nothing wrong, nor did the candidates. When votes are legally cast, NO ONE has the right to decide those votes don't count. This is a fundamental pillar of our modern democracy. If we fail to uphold this and fight to maintain it, then we no longer deserve to call ourselves a democracy.

Posted by: dm | March 9, 2008 9:21 PM

RETURN OF THE MONSTER MASHER? ...

mash*er (mshr)
n.
1. A kitchen utensil for mashing vegetables or fruit.
2. Slang A man who attempts to force his attentions on a woman

Please see the article by The Nation's Katha Pollitt on Bill Clinton's alleged involvement in the Juanita Broaddrick sexual assault scandal (http://www.thenation.com/doc/19990322/pollitt).

Also, the original Washington Post story by mega-reporter Howard Kurtz on the same subject (www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/broaddrick022599 .htm).

The Juanita Broaddrick interview in which she talks of her personal experiences with the Clintons can be seen at. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KZ8ICvutc0)

You can also get a paperback version of the book "No One Left To Lie to"--about
the Clinton White House--by British-American writer and human rights activist Christopher Hitchens.

See his chapter on "Is There a Rapist in the Oval Office?"

Recently Hitchens reminded (http://www.slate.com/id/2182065) that the essay "has never been challenged by anybody in the fabled Clinton 'rapid response' team.

"Yet one constantly reads that both Clintons, including the female who helped intensify the slanders against her mistreated sisters, are excellent on women's 'issues.'"

Posted by: martin edwin 'mick' andersen | March 9, 2008 9:23 PM

Why is Hillary's camp touting the fact that she has won states that represent a greater number of electoral votes? In the primaries, she's competing against a fellow Democrat. In the general election, the Democratic nominee will be facing a Republican. Does Hillary really think that if Obama is the nominee, he can't carry CA, NY, OH, and TX? Or that in the general election she'll win every state in which she beat Obama? Sounds like a pretty weak argument to me.

Posted by: obamafan | March 9, 2008 08:30 PM
_________________________________

I know two states he will not carry if he doesn't let them vote. Guess which two?

Posted by: Harried | March 9, 2008 9:24 PM

alee21 wrote:
"The voters of Michigan and Florida did not break any rules. The politicians did but the people should not have to pay for the politicians' mistakes."

True. But the voters were told that the primaries would not count, and were told this MONTHS prior to the primaries. How many voters did not go to the polls, understanding that the primary results would not make a difference? Do we give those who did not vote an opportunity to vote, but those who voted don't get to revote?

alee21 wrote:
"Michigan -- Hillary should get her delegates and Obama can have the Uncommitted;"

Except every Democratic candidate pulled their name off the Michigan ballot EXCEPT for Hillary, who blamed her name being on the ballot as 'an error by a staff person' who was supposed to take her name off the ballot, but didn't do it.

alee21 wrote:
"Florida -- delegates should be awarded based on the Jan. results. Hillary and Obama were on an equal footing and the people voted believing their vote would make a difference."

Wrong again. The voters were told that because the primary was held on an ILLEGAL date, the results would not count. How many voters did not go to the polls because they knew the primary would not count? Do we give those who did not vote an opportunity to vote, but those who voted don't get to revote? What about those Democrats who knew the Democratic primary results would not count who decided to vote in the Republican primoary? Do they get to vote again?

alee21 wrote:
"All the posturing by the DNC will not change those facts."

Your "facts" are only half-fact, and do not reflect the true situation. I suspect that you are a Clinton supporter, and thus the "facts" you state are stated in such a way to reflect how you want the scenario to play out - play out in a fashion that is favorable to Clinton.

Here's a fact: The US Supreme Court has decided that the INTERNAL workings of a political party are not subject to federal or state laws. If the political party decides that delegates are to be apportioned on a winner-take-all basis, or on a proportional basis, it is INTERNAL to the party, and therefore the party's decision stands. If the political party decides that delegates will be determined by a primary or a caucus, it is INTERNAL to the party, and therefore the party's decision stands. If the party decides that the party leader will decide who will be the party's Presidential candidate, it is INTERNAL to the parry, and therefore the party's decision stands. If the party decides that the selection process will be conducted between certain dates, it is INTERNAL to the party, and therefore the party's decision stands.

The delegate selection process was determined in the summer of 2006. At that time, it was known that Clinton would most likely make a run for President, had supporters on the DNC who agreed to the delegate selection rules. It was at that time that objections should have been raised about those rules, but no objections were raised. Since the rules were implemented by the party WITHOUT OBJECTION FROM CLINTON, it is now time to put up or shut up, not try to change the rules in the middle of the game.

And by the way, the voters of Florida and Michigan, no matter who they support, will have an opportunity to vote in November. Those who are stating or suggesting that those voters are being completely shut out of the process are full of it.

Full disclosure:
I originally was an Edwards supporter with Obama as my close 2nd choice. When Edwards suspended his campaign, I became an Obama supporter. Clinton was near the bottom of my list from the beginning. If Clinton somehow manages to get the nomination, I'll vote for the Democratic candidates on the November ballot. However, I'll have to decide if I vote for all of them, or just some of them. If I vote for her, it may very well be determined by her actions in trying to get a fair resolution to the mess in Florida and Michigan, or if she tries to force a decision that favors only herself. Right now, her actions, and the words of her supporters, are swaying me to vote for some, but not all, of the Democratic Party nominees.

Posted by: Critter | March 9, 2008 9:28 PM

There should be several principles applied to whatever solution is found for the Michigan and Florida delegates.

1. Since these states violated the rules, and then held primaries without active campaigning by the candidates, and in some cases without their names on the ballot, the current delegations cannot be seated.

2. The DNC does not have the funding, nor should it be responsible for funding any "do overs".

3. Florida and Michigan should submit plans for a caucus, primary, or other means of selecting delegates to the national convention.

4. These plans must include provisions for funding from the state governments, state parties, or private donors.

5. If Florida and Michigan are eager to be heard, they should take steps to make themselves heard in a way that is fair to both campaigns and does not bankrupt the DNC. If they are unable to come up with funding, then this issue must not be very important to the governors and legislatures that messed this up in the first place.

Posted by: Karl Shipps | March 9, 2008 9:35 PM

alee21 wrote:
"The voters of Michigan and Florida did not break any rules. The politicians did but the people should not have to pay for the politicians' mistakes."

True. But the voters were told that the primaries would not count, and were told this MONTHS prior to the primaries. How many voters did not go to the polls, understanding that the primary results would not make a difference?
__________________________________
Hey CRITTER the Florida turnout was a record breaker as far as percentage of registered voters who voted. I can't find Michigan's numbers and would appreciate a credible source that has their percentage of register voters who voted.

Posted by: Harried | March 9, 2008 9:36 PM

Why wasn't Obama on the Michigan ballot?
He removed it that's why. Why would he do that?

Posted by: Harried | March 9, 2008 09:10 PM
-----------------------------
Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan because he was abiding by DNC rules. Neither Edwards nor any other rule-abiding candidate was on the ballot either. The only relevant question is: why did Hillary's name remain on the ballot?

The only reasonable answer is that she intended all along to seat delegates from a sham election. If you can come up with a better explanation, please let us know.

Posted by: Steve | March 9, 2008 9:39 PM

critter said:

"...Wrong again. The voters were told that because the primary was held on an ILLEGAL date, the results would not count. How many voters did not go to the polls because they knew the primary would not count? Do we give those who did not vote an opportunity to vote, but those who voted don't get to revote? What about those Democrats who knew the Democratic primary results would not count who decided to vote in the Republican primoary? Do they get to vote again?..."

Here's your answer to this: While some may have stayed home, we had other BINDING issues to vote on that day so those who were inclined to vote did.

As for Democrats who voted in the Republican prinary instead. Florida is a closed primary state and no Democrats voted in the Republican primary, so the answer is there were none (unless they wanted to become Republicans which may be a result of these DNC shenanigans.)

Posted by: UnbelievableMess | March 9, 2008 9:40 PM

Howard Dean must go as soon as possible. The far left of the Democrats is destroying our party;Ted Kennedy,Tom Daschle,John Kerry, Howard Dean, and etc, the are all big time losers and Obama backers. They are trying to ride Obama 's popularity. Dean is trying in every way to delay the revote in Florida and Michigan, hoping that time will run out for revoting, thus he can disenfranchise over 4 million voters. Obama, therefore,can slick in as a less qualified nominee. Don't let him.

Posted by: johnycheng | March 9, 2008 9:44 PM

Most of seniors (old age citizen) in america are afraid and fear for almost everything .... they spent all their earning noW want govt to take care of their healthcare ... they did not provide proper parrenthood... in USA its the younger generation who struggles the most whether its identity, education or WAR .. 80 % toops killed in ware were unger the age 30....how seniors can be so selfish .. the history tells old age people often dumb younger's hopes and dreams .. the youth are voting for future and better for america ..USA NEED CHANGE .where as seniors are voting for their own healthcare and even dont hesitate to covert th USA democracy into CLINTON-DYNASTY ...

i can't immagine son voetes for the change and good where as mother dumps the son's hope and votes for Hillary care ...very selfish

if Bill-hill hizack nomination I wud recomend OBAMA to run as INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 9:45 PM

In search of, as I have commented twice, Bill Clinton had no previous experience in foreign policy and national security. Governors are not allowed to have a foreign policy for their states.

Some Clinton supporters in asking the Michigan and Florida delegates be seated based upon invalid primaries held, why do you seek to subvert party rules? There also needs to be a penalty if there are primaries in those states again in June.
Follow the example of the GOP and take away half the delegates originally allotted.

The Democratic party could never have rules again, if they are so blatantly violated with no penalty, because, by precedent, any states could henceforth break any rules they want and get away with doing so.

The argument about electoral votes, as some have said, is absurd and insulting to the intelligence of anyone who knows anything about politics in this country. Does anyone think Barack will lose in California, New York, Massachusetts and New Jersey to John McCain? Does anyone think Hillary, who actually won fewer delegates, could win in Texas against him?

Independents will play the decisive role in the campaign. John McCain will win the clear majority of independents against Hillary. Barack will win the majority of independents against John McCain.

Superdelegates, if enough vote for Hillary and overturn majority rule, why even have primaries and caucuses in the future? Just go back to the days when party bosses decided who the nominees would be. Why give the common people any hope their votes are of any importance in the nominating process? Let's be honest folks, please

Posted by: Koreen | March 9, 2008 9:46 PM

Are these the same democrats who want every vote to count? Gee...maybe that's just in the general election. And do they really want to run the country when they can't even figure out how to FAIRLY pick a Presidential candidate.

I'm not a big McCain fan, but he is looking better every day than these two. And Howard Dean...he shoud be a case study in bad management!

Posted by: Robert Bowen | March 9, 2008 9:46 PM

Critter said:

"And by the way, the voters of Florida and Michigan, no matter who they support, will have an opportunity to vote in November. Those who are stating or suggesting that those voters are being completely shut out of the process are full of it."

Of coruse we won't be shut out in November but why should we be inclined to get in line after being told we're not wanted now?

Think about it... Taking away someone's vote is a highly personal affront to a person's citizenship.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 9:47 PM

If Florida and Michigan were to be known of being in favor of Obama you can be assure that Clinton would not allow for these two states to be counted. Hillary will just do anything and say anything to get in the White House again as the first woman president. She has been in politics for too long and she isn't any better than other politicians in Washington for what I'm concerned. She has been in the White house for eight years already, let someone knew who hasn't yet gone bad, to run the country. After all, Bill Clinton didn't have much experience either before becoming president.

Posted by: Peter | March 9, 2008 9:50 PM

Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan because he was abiding by DNC rules. Posted by: Steve | March 9, 2008 09:39 PM

____________________________

So Obama decided to break "RULES" for Florida by being on its ballot?
No such rule Stevey boy, try again. The rule was not to campaign, which Obama did by running National TV ads!


Posted by: Harried | March 9, 2008 9:50 PM

EXPOSE THE FAKE DEMOCRATS !!!!!! wrote:
"ELECTORAL, GENERAL ELECTION VOTE COUNT - as it stands today

Hillary Clinton 263

Barack Obama 193"

I presume that 34 of Clinton's 263 "electoral college votes" are from her win in Texas?

If so, do you really expect Texas to vote for her in November, and for the 34 Electoral College votes to go for her?

If you do, I've got ocean front property in the Mid-West I'll sell to you at a cheap price.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 9:55 PM

Harried,

So why weren't any other other candidates on the ballot in Michigan? No one but Hillary wanted to win?

That doesn't make any sense.

Posted by: Steve | March 9, 2008 9:59 PM

svread

Suck it up & get used to it

President Barack Obama
President Barack Obama
President Barack Obama
President Barack Obama
President Barack Obama
President Barack Obama

Posted by: GlobalUSA | March 9, 2008 10:02 PM

It looks likde we Democrats are going to do it again - shoot ourselves in the foot.
You can't win an election and be divided over who you think the nominee should be, regardless of the dolegate count. Inra-party squabbling will only weaken the eventual nominee. Morever, in order for the nominating process to work everyone must be required to play by the rules. Florida and Michigan didn't therefore they don't deserve to have their delegates seated. Furthermore, re-doing the Florida and Michigan primaries or caucuses means changing the rules after the fact. They had their chance to play by the rules but they failed to do so. Therefore they do not deserve to have their delegates seated or their primaries re-done. If the Democratic party does what they want (which is what the Clintons want) it will ony help the Republicans in Nov. Re-doing those primaries or changing the rules will only end up making the Democratic party look like a weak political party with no internal discipline which will only help the Republican nominee. The last thing the Democratic party needs is to do is to end up being a divided party heading into the presidential campaign. The best thing to do is to play by the rules and encourage fairness. Yes, the rules need to be changed. The whole primary process needs to be reformed (I thought we were supposed to have done that after the elction of 2000) but you can't do that in midstream without divisive consequences. One last thing. We Democrats should have learned our lesson after the election of 2000. Because of the Clintons and their chicanery the Democratice party lost the election of 2000. If there is one thing that we Democrats should have learned from the aftermath of the 2000 election is that the Democratic party needs to set new standards. We cannot do that by selecting a presidential candidate whose political past is clouded over with scandal and controversy. I say the best thing for Democrats to do is to break with the past and select a candidate whose past is less clouded and controversial than that of the Clintons, and who is at least willing to try to set some new and better political standards. As my father, a McGovern Democrat, once said, there are no saints in politics. Barak Obama is certainly no saint but his political past is less of a political burden than that of his rival. Remember, the upcoming Nov. presidential election may be decided by voters who are not partisan Democrats or Republicans, and the candidate who is more likely to obtain more of their votes is the candidate who may end up being the next president.

Posted by: Tom C in Omaha | March 9, 2008 10:05 PM

Florida and Michigan should not have their votes counted. Why?
They voted long before the primaries with all the other states to hold their primaries on a specific date. Then they became too jealous seeing all the spotlight going to the early states in these historic primaries and caucuses and switched the dates of their primaries to a different, earlier date.
That's like Agreeing on the rules to a baseball game and then changing it once the baseball season starts!! When the rest of the American Baseball league decides not to show up at your stadium to play ball, you lose legitimacy and suffer from a lack of importance. You KNEW it was Invalid of you to push up your primary dates. Florida and Michigan were Openly and Loudly warned not to do so by the DNC and the entire democratic party - but you did it anyway like a bunch of immature, reckless Anarchists.

You are all grown adults and understood the words of warning. You voted with all the other states on the specific schedule for the Democratic Primaries in each stated then acted like you could care less. Well now you care. But Now We Don't. You knew better. You played this game, gambled for Prestige - and Lost. America is a first come first served society and above all a society of rules. Get over it and get back in line 4 years from now, and change your "Decision Makers" to ones who know the meaning of the word RULES and ORDER.

Posted by: cscfr | March 9, 2008 10:06 PM

EXPOSE THE FAKE DEMOCRATS !!!!!! wrote:
"ELECTORAL, GENERAL ELECTION VOTE COUNT - as it stands today
Hillary Clinton 263
Barack Obama 193"
I presume that 34 of Clinton's 263 "electoral college votes" are from her win in Texas?
If so, do you really expect Texas to vote for her in November, and for the 34 Electoral College votes to go for her?
Posted by: | March 9, 2008 09:55 PM
____________________________________

Texas vote Democratic? Absolutely not! But no Democrat is counting on Texas. Florida and Ohio are what killed the Democrats in the Presidential recently, they are the big electoral vote swing states and Obama will most certainly lose Florida and Michigan (they will stay home), if he keeps up this crap. Ohio Democrats will not vote for Obama, they will stay home also.

Posted by: Harried | March 9, 2008 10:10 PM

cscfr said:

" Florida and Michigan were Openly and Loudly warned not to do so by the DNC and the entire democratic party - but you did it anyway like a bunch of immature, reckless Anarchists. "

Yes, the DNC Openly and Loudly warned Florida's Republican legislature and Governor. They thank you the opportunity to screw over your fellow Democrats with your blessings.

Posted by: UnbelievableMess | March 9, 2008 10:11 PM

Everyone who voted in MI and FL assumed Howard Dean and the DNC were bluffing, and that the delegates would be seated.

Win some, lose some.

Posted by: rfd | March 9, 2008 10:18 PM

How does Howard Dean figure? He knows that if this is unresolved before Pennsylvania he's got a train wreck on his hands. Yet he says he needs the money to run a wrecked train toward November.
THIS LOGIC DOES NOT WORK FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!!!!

Posted by: Harried | March 9, 2008 10:22 PM

Everyone who voted in MI and FL assumed Howard Dean and the DNC were bluffing, and that the delegates would be seated.

Win some, lose some.

Posted by: rfd | March 9, 2008 10:18 PM

And, right about now, Howard Dean is hoping that everyone in FL and MI is bluffing about passing on the November election.

It's a shame, too. Florida looked like a pretty good bet for us this time around. Win some, lose some...

Posted by: UnbelievableMess | March 9, 2008 10:22 PM

Women are more racist than men.

Posted by: Hootie | March 9, 2008 10:22 PM

Also, The Democratic Party also enacted the rules barring their candidates form campaigning in Florida and Michigan. -- To Florida and Michigan that meant "That none of the candidates should campaign in those Rogue states(i.e Florida and Michigan)."
All Florida and Michigan had to do was Stick With the original date for their primaries. Reckless Anarchists.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 9, 2008 10:34 PM

ELECTORAL, GENERAL ELECTION VOTE COUNT - as it stands today

Hillary Clinton 263

Barack Obama 193

Thinker, that is totally fuzzy math, based on the assumption that EVERYBODY WHO VOTED FOR OBAMA IN THE PRIMARIES WOULD VOTE FOR MCCAIN IN THE GENERAL ELECTION instead of sticking with the Democratic nominee even if they had to hold their nose to do it.

The fact that he didn't win against Clinton in (say) New York doesn't mean he would lose to McCain in New York. Just as the fact that SHE didn't win against Obama in (say) Connecticut doesn't mean she would lose to McCain in Connecticut. Both are solidly blue states. The difference is that Obama made some very exciting inroads into RED states that could not only help him gain a much bigger mandate in the General Election than the divisive Ms. Clinton with all her baggage of 1993 Health Care, Bill tagging along creating diversions, doing an end run around the 22nd Amendment, etc., etc., but also he could help a lot of Democratic candidates for House and Senate and maybe even bring in a veto-proof majority.


Posted by: herzliebster | March 9, 2008 10:42 PM

All Florida and Michigan had to do was Stick With the original date for their primaries. Reckless Anarchists.

Posted by: | March 9, 2008 10:34 PM

If you can give me ONE good reason (other than they're wonderful people) why the strong majority REPUBLICANS in Florida gov't should have stuck to the original date against the DEMOCRATIC National Committee's wishes, I might understand why you don't want the votes of individual DEMOCRATS counted.

Until then, I'll just have to assume that the position of most out-of-staters is based upon thier candidate preference bias and not upon any sense of fairness to other Democrats or in the interest of the general election.

Posted by: UnbelievableMess | March 9, 2008 10:52 PM

Everyone who voted in MI and FL assumed Howard Dean and the DNC were bluffing, and that the delegates would be seated.

Win some, lose some.

Posted by: rfd | March 9, 2008 10:18 PM
______________________________

What do you think this, a game of Texas Hold Em?

Posted by: Harried | March 9, 2008 10:53 PM

Koreen -

And I have commented on this now three times, that George W. Bush had less foreign policy experience than what John Kerry had (with the Foreign Relations Committee) and look what a lack of foreign policy experience has gotten us.

You keep on ignoring the facts that Obama has purposely avoided difficult votes such as votes pertaining to Iran. Instead, he either avoids those types of votes or votes "present." What kind of judgment or experience one gains from doing that?

As for Florida and Michigan, why do you seek to disenfranchise those voters?

The fact that you would consider party rules trumping a person's right to vote is really sad. And what penalty should Obama get his "nation-wide" ads that aired in Florida? Obviously, Howard Dean is biased in favor of Obama to allow him to get away with that. The fact is, you keep on avoiding the fact that Barack Obama had more of an advantage in Florida than what Hillary did and still lost. You just want to disenfranchise the voters of Florida just because they more of them voted for Hillary.

As for following what the Republicans did, I disagree because it was Republicans that caused this mess in Florida. Sure it works for Republicans to punish the Republican leaders by only counting half of their delegates, but it is not fair for the DNC to punish Democrats in the same for something that Republicans caused with regards to Florida. Thus, you suggestion that the DNC follow what the RNC has done is simply not fair and is biased in favor of Barack Obama.

Sure, the Democratic party could have rules again. They just need to make sure the punishment for those rules are reasonable without disenfranchising the voters of the state in question. Perhyaps in the futgure, the DNC will consider taking away 1/4 or 1/2 of the Super Delegates from those Democratically-controlled states that break their rules.

Currently, the punishment for broken rules is not extreme and disenfranchises voters, particularly when a Republican Governor and his colleagues in Florida were the ones that moved up the primary in Florida.

The DNC, Barack Obama, his supporters (and you) should realize the big picture that if you disenfranchise these voters or make their votes meaningless by splitting it 50/50, you will depress the Democratic vote in those states and people will either stay home or vote for McCain as a protest vote. I know, because there are people I know who are willing to vote for McCain if Obama steals this nomination by not counting Florida and Michigan.

"Does anyone think Barack will lose in California, New York, Massachusetts and New Jersey to John McCain?" Yes.

"Does anyone think Hillary, who actually won fewer delegates, could win in Texas against him?" Yes.

"Independents will play the decisive role in the campaign. John McCain will win the clear majority of independents against Hillary. Barack will win the majority of independents against John McCain."

But more Democrats will cross over and vote for McCain if Barack Obama is the nominee.

http://www.twocircles.net/2008mar07/mccainocrats_and_obamacans_may_upset_us_presidential_poll.html

"Superdelegates, if enough vote for Hillary and overturn majority rule, why even have primaries and caucuses in the future? Just go back to the days when party bosses decided who the nominees would be. Why give the common people any hope their votes are of any importance in the nominating process?"

And yet Obama (and you) want to disenfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan and take away their hope that their votes are of any importance in this nominating process.

Let's be honest folks, please realize that Barack Obama will not win an election against Senator McCain because more Democrats will cross-over and vote for McCain than those Republicans that would cross-over and vote for Obama.

Obama should accept a VP position and GAIN SOME EXPERIENCE under Hillary Clinton's administration so he will be more ready to be president in 2016. Otherwise, Obama and his supporters will destroy the Democratic Party by disenfranchising voters of Michigan and Florida and will drive a large number of Democrats to vote for McCain or depress the Democratic vote in Michigan and Florida in November of 2008. Resposibility of such a result will fall squarely of Obama (and his supporters) shoulders.

Posted by: InSearchOfTruth | March 9, 2008 10:55 PM

If you can give me ONE good reason (other than they're wonderful people) why the strong majority REPUBLICANS in Florida gov't should have stuck to the original date in accordance with the DEMOCRATIC National Committee's wishes, I might understand why you don't want the votes of individual DEMOCRATS counted.

Of course I meant "in accordance with the DNC's wishes" not against.

Posted by: UnbelievableMess | March 9, 2008 10:58 PM

ELECTORAL, GENERAL ELECTION VOTE COUNT - as it stands today

Hillary Clinton 263

Barack Obama 193

Thinker, that is totally fuzzy math, based on the assumption that EVERYBODY WHO VOTED FOR OBAMA IN THE PRIMARIES WOULD VOTE FOR MCCAIN IN THE GENERAL ELECTION instead of sticking with the Democratic nominee even if they had to hold their nose to do it.

Posted by: herzliebster | March 9, 2008 10:42 PM
__________________________________

Let's see if you can follow this:

Democrats in Republican states vote for a Democrat in the Democratic primary, Republicans vote for a Republican in the Republican primary. Comes the election in November more Republicans vote for the Republcan candidate than Democrats for the Democratic candidate, Why, because in a Republican State there are more Republicans than Democrats.
GOT IT NOW!!!

Posted by: Harried | March 9, 2008 11:03 PM

The campaign of the Clintons will end as soon as they will have released their
records (tax returns, White House records, donors for their foundation,...). Hillary
Clinton will then become radio-active. So, it is in the interest of the democrats and
of the DNC to have the Clintons releasing their records before the nomination. If the Clintons can release their records, Florida and Michigan (who should not be rewarded for trying cheating the system) will not matter anymore.

Posted by: Logan6 | March 9, 2008 11:14 PM

Florida and Michigan KNEW the consequences of moving up their primary dates, BEFORE they had their elections. So why must they be accommodated now? The people in those two states need to focus the blame where it belongs -- on their state party officials. What the hell did they think was going to happen? I resent that they might get a do-over of any kind. They broke the rules, got punished, and now they're throwing a tantrum. The DNC needs to play hardball here... tough love... and stick with their original decision to penalize Florida and Michigan.

Posted by: DogBitez | March 9, 2008 11:21 PM

Florida and Michigan KNEW the consequences of moving up their primary dates, BEFORE they had their elections. So why must they be accommodated now? The people in those two states need to focus the blame where it belongs -- on their state party officials. What the hell did they think was going to happen? I resent that they might get a do-over of any kind. They broke the rules, got punished, and now they're throwing a tantrum. The DNC needs to play hardball here... tough love... and stick with their original decision to penalize Florida and Michigan.

Posted by: DogBitez | March 9, 2008 11:21 PM
***

Do you people even read anything about the matter before you opine? If you did, you'd know that, at least in Florida, the state party officials have no say in when the primary is and the agreed upon rules only called for a 50% delegate reduction for going early. So, if the DNC had stuck to the "original" decision, we wouldn't be in this predicament right now.

The fact that you got that most everything wrong significantly lessens the weight your opinion carries.

Posted by: UnbelievableMess | March 9, 2008 11:30 PM

Go ahead. Take the election away from Obama. Do it Clintonites, and watch the party crumble. Al Gore will likely buy Obama a beer and convince him to grow a beard.

Posted by: AB68 | March 9, 2008 11:30 PM

In response to the spineless poster who was too much of a coward to leave an alias, I will just reponse my post, his/her response along with my response:

InSearchOfTruth says:

"I also want Obama to explain why he sponsored the unconstitutional Global Poverty Act that would take away the power of the purse from Congress and give it to the U.N. with regards to foreign aid (talk about a slippery slope and precedent-setting legislation)."

_________________________________

Unconstitutional? Hardly. But I understand how you are scared it could jeopardize the Billions we send to Israel every year. Nice try.

Posted by: | March 9, 2008 07:31 PM

_________________________________

Unconstitutional? You bet! Any person sponsoring legislation, that takes away the power of the purse from Congress (whom represents voters of their districts) and hands that power over the United Nations, is sponsoring UNCONSTITUIONAL LEGISLATION. It has nothing to do with aid to Israel or any other country. I just want our representatives determining how much money to borrow from China in order to send in foreign aid to various countries as opposed to the United Nations dictating to us how much we need to spend in foreign aid to various countries.

If you can't understand that, then I suggest you go back and take an American Government class and perhaps read the U.S. Constitution.

Posted by: InSearchOfTruth | March 9, 2008 11:36 PM

Incredible!

After blaming the loss of the 2000 presidential election on NOT counting votes in Florida, and NOT counting the votes in Ohio in 2004, and after complaining about it continuously starting nearly eight years ago, after pointing the castigating finger at the Republicants all that time, the Democrats are having a DEBATE about counting the votes of their OWN delegates in Florida and Michigan.

The hypocrisy of the Dummercrats numbs the mind. The hypocrisy of it is so expansive it truly must cast serious doubt as to what the party really stands for. Nothing, apparently.

Only in a party in love with talk, in a party that all to often has mistaken words for deeds would this even be debatable.

Not only is the HYPOCRISY of the party on full display for the world to see but also that of Barack Obama.

Here is a candidate who in his own biography, on his paper thin resume, counts as one of his early accomplishments his chairing, of all things, voter registration drives!

Apparently, he'll work to register your vote but will only want it counted if you voted for him. His hypocrisy is so vast, so immeasurable that it would fry the CPU of a bank of Cray supercomputers trying to measure it.

But the progressive Obama has a fellow traveler in charge of the DNC: the progressive Howard Dean.

And for what "crime" has the severe "punishment" of TOTAL disenfranchisement been metered out? for voting one lousy week ahead of Super Tuesday, in the case of Florida, and 11 lousy days, in the case of Michigan.

If the good, progressive doctor were a judge in America, he would be the sort the Democrats, especially the profressive Democrats, have decried, rightfully, for decades, for he would give a man life for stealing a loaf of bread! Is the true hypocritical heart of today's progressives finally being revealed? I think so, and clearly so.

If Democrats have any doubts as to what sort of doctor the progressive Howard Dean is, let them have no doubt that he is a mortician, for he now wishes practice his cold-hearted art on the cadaver of the Democratic Party because the Democratic Party without democracy is dead. Or should I say that the Democratic Party without democracy has another name: Republicant, and in this particular instance, the thing they can't do is count the votes.

The solution is simple-LET THE VOTE STAND AND LET THE VOTES COUNT! Do not garrote the voice of the Democrats in Florida and Michigan the way the Republicant power machine did.

Posted by: jmcauli1 | March 9, 2008 11:38 PM

Cheryl Carroll:

If you did any homework before jumping to conclusions, you'd have learned those ads were purchased prior to the "agreement"...facts matter, don't you think?

Posted by: michael4
_______________________________

Who cares if it was purchased prior to the agreement. Barack Obama still broke the rules and yet he STILL LOST FLORIDA. The fact that he doesn't want to count Florida shows that he's willing to do anything to win this nomination, including disenfranchising Florida and Michigan voters, which amounts to STEALING this nomination.

Posted by: InSearchOfTruth | March 9, 2008 11:39 PM

I cannot believe the crazy arguments came out of the mouth of Governer Ed Rendell.

As a resident in PA, I followed his record closely. We know the dirty relationship between him and criminal Norman Tsu and Clintons. He once vouched the innocence of that guy even when FBI began the investigation. Please go and check WSJ.

He is also well known for his racism. About a month ago, he even declared that the whites in PA will not vote for a black candidate as President. I don't know where he got that idea. Now he is figuring out that the whites in PA are only willing to see a black Vice President? What an arrogant racist.

Today Gov. Rendell declared he is willing to find money for do-overs in MI and FL. Well, of course he is willing since his candidate is far behind.

Posted by: Cate | March 9, 2008 11:47 PM

I cannot believe the crazy arguments came out of the mouth of Governor Ed Rendell.

As a resident in PA, I followed his record closely. We know the dirty relationship between him and criminal Norman Tsu and Clintons. He once vouched the innocence of that guy even when FBI began the investigation. Please go and check WSJ.

He is also well known for his racism. About a month ago, he even declared that the whites in PA will not vote for a black candidate as President. I don't know where he got that idea. Now he is figuring out that the whites in PA are only willing to see a black Vice President but not a black President? What an arrogant racist.

Today Gov. Rendell declared he is willing to find money for do-overs in MI and FL. Well, of course he is willing since his candidate is far behind. And who knows if those big bucks are coming from another Norman Tsu.

Posted by: Cate | March 9, 2008 11:59 PM

To: vb-california

Unfortunately for you, you and your family and friends don't make up for the fact that majority of people in California support Hillary Clinton. Thus your votes are beaten by Hillary Clinton supporters.

More importantly, YOUR CLAIM THAT THERE IS A STALEMATE IS FALSE because you ignore the fact that more Democrats cross-over and vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee compared to Clinton. If you don't believe, me read the facts:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080307/NATION/598873680/1001

http://www.twocircles.net/2008mar07/mccainocrats_and_obamacans_may_upset_us_presidential_poll.html

"I am a Democrat and have been a proud one up to this election but I will not vote for someone that I can not respect just because I am a Democrat."

vb-California, I'm a proud Democrat, but I refuse to vote someone whom says one thing about Iraq and NAFTA, while his campaign says something else. I trust Hillary Clinton more and she has more experience than Barack Obama. If Obama gets the nomination MORE DEMOCRATS CROSS-OVER AND VOTE FOR MCCAIN than if Hillary Clinton were the nominee.

Posted by: InSearchOfTruth | March 10, 2008 12:00 AM

Split the delgates and call it a wash. No one deserves an advantage over the other in regard to these states.

Posted by: Mother | March 10, 2008 12:18 AM

ELECTORAL, GENERAL ELECTION VOTE COUNT - as it stands today

Hillary Clinton 263

Barack Obama 193

Thinker, that is totally fuzzy math, based on the assumption that EVERYBODY WHO VOTED FOR OBAMA IN THE PRIMARIES WOULD VOTE FOR MCCAIN
__________________

What a rubbish. This is a solid math based on the delegate count which is used in the general election. Hillary beats Obama big time if the general election rules were applied. This means she is a much stronger candidate for the GE.

Posted by: Bob | March 10, 2008 12:18 AM

Doesn't anyone wonder why MI and FL moved up the vote? MI isn't doing too hot right now, and they need some attention. Rather than ignoring the state at the end, given that they normally have enough votes to reach that magical number, MI moved their vote up to get some attention.

Unemployment is skyrocketing, so what happens? People have free time and no money - Flint and Detroit are two of the most violent and most dangerous cities in the nation.

Automobiles are moving to other countries and MI is left in the dust. We're struggling to survive. But our votes don't count because we tried to get some attention from the future president.

Posted by: Char | March 10, 2008 12:46 AM

After reading the volume and substance of comments here I can conclude:
1) American democracy is in real trouble as evidenced by the quality of its constituents.
2) Supporters on both sides, though maybe on one more than the other, are on average wildly inaccurate, and
3) the disturbing comments posted by many here sadly reflects more about their character than the ideas they are "contributing."
4) Either a lot of Republicans have way too much time on their hands, or the Democratic Party is in potentially disturbing condition.
5) The facts are largely irrelevant to the people "contributing" here.
6) Many "contributors" here are so obsessed with hating Hillary Clinton that they make one wonder about their mental fitness to function in society without a guardian.
7) Many people still don't mind being racist though it debases their opinion and does little to help their candidate
8) EVEN MORE so people are sexist to a point you would think half the country suffers from a Norman Bates complex.
9) The nomination system without any doubt needs to be revamped, by force of law if necessary. The system still may work by staggering voting into stages, but caucuses are absolutely un-democratic for large-scale purposes, super-delegates are equally un-democratic, and a permanent emphasis on starting with Iowa and New Hampshire is even more ludicrous! Hence, MI & FL.
10) If all else fails, parties should be banned and the federal government should devolve a super-majority of powers not explicitly provided for in the constitution back to states...possibly states could form regional alliances to meet some needs according to their regional proclivities. The South could adopt conservative social policies and laissez-faire regulation, eliminate environmental laws and minimum wage, you name it. The Northeast could become socialists if they like. Everyone would get their tax money back...of course the Blue states would get more back because , on average they pay more in taxes, but the Red States would get their way on things like abortion in their states, etc.
11) Just a bit of food for thought, now let the blood-thirsty cavemen here tear apart my character, or maybe some actual ideas could be exchanged instead of baseless attacks?

Posted by: Sean | March 10, 2008 12:59 AM

After reading the volume and substance of comments here I can conclude:
1) American democracy is in real trouble as evidenced by the quality of its constituents.
_________________________________________

Yes, and the quality of the candidates are a refection of the quality of the constituents. That's why there are two inexperienced candidates both with a resume for an entry level job and who will both inflict more tax and spend on Americans...just look at their proposals, it's not rocket science.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 10, 2008 2:05 AM

After reading the volume and substance of comments here I can conclude:
1) American democracy is in real trouble as evidenced by the quality of its constituents.
_________________________________________

Yes, and the quality of the candidates are a refection of the quality of the constituents. That's why there are two inexperienced candidates both with a resume for an entry level job and who will both inflict more tax and spend on Americans...just look at their proposals, it's not rocket science.

Posted by: Mike | March 10, 2008 2:05 AM

After reading the volume and substance of comments here I can conclude:
1) American democracy is in real trouble as evidenced by the quality of its constituents.
_________________________________________

Yes, and the quality of the candidates are a refection of the quality of the constituents. That's why there are two inexperienced candidates both with a resume for an entry level job and who will both inflict more tax and spend on Americans...just look at their proposals, it's not rocket science.

Posted by: Mike | March 10, 2008 2:23 AM

I DON'T RESPOND WELL TO THREATS.

I don't respond well to threats, nor do the American people, nor do the people here with me in Pennsylvania. I'm hearing some words from Howard Dean, and also the same from some of the elected leaders on Capitol Hill that the Democratic nominee should be selected before the Denver August Convention, and if not, there would be a good chance that John McCain could walk away with the November election.

My candidate is Hillary Clinton, and I intend to lawfully fight for her candidacy all the way to the Convention if necessary; the rules say I (we) can, and Howard Dean can watch and take notes if he wants to, if he still has his job.

I am a Pennsylvania resident, and I am asking all voters throughout this great state (border to border) to join me on April 22nd, pour out to the polls, and give Hillary Clinton a massive win on that date. That is something we can control, and we need no advice or help from Howard Dean. Let's do all we can to give her a major massive record breaking win, and lawfully (at the ballot box) squish down this Obama noise of fake and hyped up euphoria that no one can put on their kitchen table.

I remind everyone it was the George Bush/Kathryn Harris Republican Party of Florida and the Republican governor and Republican controlled legislature that moved up the date of the primary, knowing full well in advance that the state's Democratic Party delegates would not be seated. And now Howard Dean, in apparent unwitting conspiracy with the George Bush Republican Party is leading the fight to void that election. You can't make this stuff up. My suggestion to Howard Dean is to either step up to the plate or step down.

Meanwhile, I am asking all Pennsylvanian's to pour out to the polls on April 22nd, and let's show the rest of the country we are here, and we know what we're doing, even if Howard Dean doesn't.

Comment: I invite the reader to an earlier post of mine on this same subject as follows re: "Michigan and Florida Have Democrats in a State" by Dan Balz, post 3/8/2008 11:13:03 AM

Thank you for your attention.

Common Sense - Bruce

Posted by: Common Sense - Bruce | March 10, 2008 3:10 AM

Bruce:
You failed to mention that almost all the Dem legislators in FL voted for the Bill introduced by the Republican Governor at that time. And they have plenty time (more than one year) to think through all the consequences before taking actions. We all know nowadays a bill almost can never get through without bi-partisan supports.

So don't just blame the Rupublicans. A grown-up should take the consequeces of his/her actions, but not just cry foul when things don't go his/her way.

Posted by: cate | March 10, 2008 3:57 AM

Oh, I forgot to mention I am a PA resident too. And I don't respond well to threats either. ;)

Posted by: cate | March 10, 2008 4:05 AM

For we who are living in the third world especiallialy from what are rated as the least developed, we have learnt something very new to Americans.
Obama, has come with his CHANGE phillosophy, and Americans are Changed, even if Mr Obama, won't make it to the WHITE HOUSE.
For the first time in American history at least we are now, seeing Americans value issues and not the color of personalities,
in the coming years we will see a black president ,or minority groups emerging presidents.

Keep it up Americans.

Posted by: Sammy.Mwatuka | March 10, 2008 5:34 AM

Response to Cate posting at 3:57 AM

You don't have the full story. The Republicans tacked the earlier voting date onto a larger bill that had to pass. The Democrats tried to get it separated and were rebuffed by the Republican majority. They couldn't. It was typical Florida Republican shananigans at work as usual.

Glad to see you don't respond well to threats either. I hope you make your research complete before you vote.

Posted by: Common Sense - Bruce | March 10, 2008 6:25 AM

Bruce:

Easy, I just pointed out amost all Dems in FL voted for that bill along with the Rep. That's the record. Go to check that out.

If you just lable an candidate a fake based on you personal dislike, why not you do some research about your candidate's performance and all the false claims in the whole process.

I can also say your candidate is a bigger fake.

If you want seat all the delegates in FL in Jan, go ahead and help that Republican Gov. But I just don't respond well to that hollow "threat". :)

Posted by: cate | March 10, 2008 6:55 AM

Flordia,

Once again the land of too stupid to vote!

Posted by: Election of 2000 & 2008 | March 10, 2008 7:08 AM

Flordia,

Once again the land of too stupid to vote!

Posted by: Election of 2000 & 2008 | March 10, 2008 07:08 AM


Where's "Flordia?"

Posted by: UnbelievableMess | March 10, 2008 7:27 AM

Bruce:
You failed to mention that almost all the Dem legislators in FL voted for the Bill introduced by the Republican Governor at that time. And they have plenty time (more than one year) to think through all the consequences before taking actions. We all know nowadays a bill almost can never get through without bi-partisan supports.

So don't just blame the Rupublicans. A grown-up should take the consequeces of his/her actions, but not just cry foul when things don't go his/her way.

Posted by: cate | March 10, 2008 03:57 AM

Here's the deal, no that anyone will actually READ it before they comment:

In Florida,

April/may 2007:
Both Republicans and Democrats wanted to move the date forward of March 11th. The Democrats also wanted to change existing law to prohibit electronic-only voting and require a paper trail. The Republicans were dead set on a January 29th date because they wanted to jump in front of the Republicans in SC. The Democrats were open to a Feb 5th date, but the Republicans demanded Jan 29th in exchange for their support of the paper trail provisions of the bill. Given that, at the time, the penalty for moving ahead of Feb 5th was only a 50% delegate loss, the Florida Democrats signed on to Jan 29th in order to get IMPORTANT REFORMS PASSED.

FastForward to August 2007:

The DNC decides to play hardball and demands that the date be changed to one on or after Feb 5th or the state will lose ALL of its delegates. The only problem with this ulitmatum was that Howard Dean and the DNC knew (or should have known) that there was a ZERO PERCENT chance of that happening because the Florida state legislature is about 65% Republican with a Republican Governor. Not only could Florida Democrats NOT change it, they certainly couldn't override Crist's promised veto.

So, Howard Dean, in an act of extreme mismanagement, set the party up for a showdown between Florida Democrats, who were powerless to change anything at that point, and the rest of the nation. Anyone with half an ounce of sense would have realized back in August that anything stronger than the originally called out 50% (which is also the Republican punishment) was an open invitation to Republicans to punish Democrats more harshly. I guess the only thing we can thank him for here is that he didn't make the threat BEFORE we got the paper trail provisions passed. If the Republicans had known the Democrats would get zeroed out by August, they wouldn't have had any incentive to compromise on that issue.

Dean should have seen that and because he didn't, he needs to go - now.

Posted by: UnbelievableMess | March 10, 2008 7:45 AM

It's that darn DST effect!

Florida! not Flordia

Posted by: Election of 2000 & 2008 | March 10, 2008 7:51 AM

If you want seat all the delegates in FL in Jan, go ahead and help that Republican Gov. But I just don't respond well to that hollow "threat". :)

Posted by: cate | March 10, 2008 06:55 AM

And Cate,

The Republican Governor is getting his votes counted - only at a 50% rate, but still counted. He and his people are not hurt by the DNC's decision AT ALL. If the DNC is helping anyone, it's Florida's REPUBLICANS.

Not counting your fellow Democrats' votes will only serve to promote ill will at a time when ALL Democratic votes are needed in November - especially in a swing state such as Florida. Punishing individual Democrats is not a good recruitment or retention strategy.

Posted by: UnbelievableMess | March 10, 2008 7:58 AM

It's that darn DST effect!

Florida! not Flordia

Posted by: Election of 2000 & 2008 | March 10, 2008 07:51 AM

Well, in that case, I'll say that our primary went off without a hitch AND with a record turnout. If anything, the DNC is too stupid to accept it.

And, in November, you can thank us Florida Democrats when the new voting equipment providing an incontrovertible paper trail, which was our contribution to the same bill that changed the primary date, successfully records the extra Republican votes created by Howard Dean's mismanagement of this situation.

Genius!

Posted by: UnbelievableMess | March 10, 2008 8:05 AM

I admit, I dislike the idea of holding primaries again in Michigan and Florida. The whole idea presents a logistical headache that most likely would be unable to be resolved by the National Convention. Because of this, and because of how close the numbers currently are, I would not oppose distributing the delegates evenly, so that hopefully, the election will not come down to nothing more than superdelegates.
After all, if anything, Hilary should be penalized for campaigning in the states when it was against party rules. Those delegates cannot in good conscience be given to her because it was not a fair election.
I think at this point, either split the delegates, or don't do anything. Those are the only two options that can really be done with reasonable results.

Posted by: Jaclyn | March 10, 2008 12:45 PM

Sadly, It is to reform this Party This is how I feel...

It's My Party and I'll Cry If I Want To

It's called the Democratic Party, but there's no democracy left in it, the aspect of the party's nominating process is completely at odds with democracy. I wish it wasn't true because it has been my party. The vote was once denied to women. It was denied to blacks. It was denied to those without land. Now, through rules and schedules, it's denied to anyone the DNC wishes!


The party that cries that everyone has right to vote and every vote should
count, is and has been a down right bunch of soviet style hypocrites right out
of George Orwell's Animal Farm. Remember the phrase "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." How true it is.


First of all, there's that primary system that prevents many people from choosing the nominee. Usually at this stage in the election cycle, the candidates have been chosen by about 13 to 15 states, disenfranchising the will of 35 -37 others. Voters are left to rubberstamp the nominee. It is unequivocally wrong. We all know this, really. We've been putting up with this nonsense for years. We act like there's nothing that can be done about it. Why? The front-end big money guarantees the nominee. Democracy? Are you kidding?

Those who believe this are in denial. And that's not a state of denial. It's a nation of denial.

Then there's the biggest slap in the face voters could ever get. Super Delegates! Able to leap frog over votes with a single bound. Super Delegates have the unchecked authority to override the will and the popular vote of its people. Wow! Sounds like the machinations of the evil empire.

Voters don't choose the 842 unpledged "super-delegates" who comprise nearly 40
percent of the number of delegates needed to clinch the Democratic nomination. Furthermore, these people really vote twice for their nominee, once in the primary and then at the convention. Democratic? What happened one man; one vote?

The category includes Democratic governors and members of Congress, former
Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, former vice president Al Gore,
retired congressional leaders such as Dick Gephardt, and all Democratic
National Committee members, some of whom are appointed by party chairman Howard
Dean. Many are not accountable to voters.


The Democratic Party instituted super delegates as a safeguard (talk about fear mongering) to guarantee party control over the nomination process. In case voters foolishly nominate the candidate of their choice, the overlords can override. It's not voter control; but insiders' control... over the nomination process. It sounds like something Putins party would do. No democracy in that.


They defend this apparatus by saying that it is not new. Well, neither is tyranny. I thought We Americans were above all that.

Political experts say this system was put in place so the party could avoid a
mistake by voters in nominating a candidate that's not viable. In that case, the Super Delegates come to the rescue. What is this myth that the democratic party is the party of the little guy? That's only if the little guy doesn't get it right ! The Super delegates know best who the nominee should be.

So why have primaries at all?

Cosmetic purposes I suspect. In other words, "our" candidate can be chosen by someone, other than "our" vote. There's no democracy in that. There's no democracy in the democratic party anymore.


The Democratic National Committee sought to seize control of its unraveling
nominating process earlier this year, rejecting pleas from state party leaders
and cracking down on Florida for scheduling a Jan. 29 presidential primary. Shame on you Florida!

Florida, as well as Michigan, and other states wanted to have a meaningful voice
in the nomination process. They were sick of wielding the rubber stamp, election cycle after election cycle. Imagine that. How terrible.


The DNC's rules and bylaws committee, which enforces party rules, voted to strip
Florida of all its delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention in
Denver -- the harshest penalty at its disposal. This was done by the party big
Whigs., Not Republicans. Not the state legislature, but the "democratic party"
Get this clear, regardless of who moved the primary date, it was the party itself who denied the seating of delegates. Stop the spin on this; It's transparent.

Where's the cries for "everyone should vote and every vote should count?" That sentiment is not for primary voters, I geuss.

The penalty did not take effect for 30 days, and rules committee members urged
officials from the nation's fourth-most-populous state to use the time to
schedule a later statewide caucus and thus regain its delegates. They did not!

By making an object lesson of Florida, Democrats hoped to squelch other states'
efforts to move their voting earlier. This was an effort to stop the erosion of the DNC's control over the nomination process. Not too damned democratic!

Now they are caught in an unseemly situation! The internal contrivances are
very visible. It looks more like the Supreme Soviet version of the emperor has no clothes.

But Wait there's more.

Here comes Hillary! With a Parse Accord!.

Hillary Clinton feels their pain. As a press spokesman said last week, "The people of Florida and Michigan have already voted, and their voices ought to be heard. That's why Sen. Clinton is urging her delegates to vote to seat both delegations at the convention."

What a surprise. After all, she won both primaries. But she owes her victories to the fact that her opponents didn't campaign in Florida or Michigan while her ground crew was engaged. Having profited because her rivals followed the rules, she now wants to benefit because those states didn't.

She wants to benefit by breaking the rules she agreed to ... on Day One!


Says DNC Chairman Howard Dean, "You can't change the rules in the middle of the game. Florida and Michigan voted for a set of rules and then decided that, unlike the other 48 states, they would do something different. That's not fair, and it doesn't respect the Clinton campaign, the Obama campaign, or the other 48 states." And He is right!

You can't change the rules in middle of the game, unless you are the DNC, Super Delegates or the Clintons. Voters can't change the rules by moving their primaries forward so they can have a choice. Voters can't ever, ever, ever change the rules. And that's a rule. You got that!

Now step by step systematic and dubious arguments are being put forward by surrogates to cave into the Clintons, who apparently own the party, rather than we voters... Oh I forgot, we West Virginians aren't voters, we haven't voted!

A revote is being proposed for these states Florida and Michigan, meanwhile West Virginia hasn't even voted once! (And her vote is not likely to matter with the looming super delegates!) This revote doesn't help Edwards or the rest of the guys who followed the rules.

If we had primary voting reform, we may have a different set of nominees. Nominees that could be chosen by an equal opportunity electorate. Maybe we need some affirmative action here! As far the party goes I'm not laughing! Contrarily, perhaps, we need a party that does not make us cry.

(Foul!)

PS. If you are a democrat you should cry too, cause It's happening to you!

Posted by: Roger | March 10, 2008 2:05 PM

If Florida and Michigan is allowed to break a party agreement we will suffer this dilema in every election.

If the goal is to have delegates seated - split them down the middle between the candidates - it's free.

If Florida and Michgan want to vote - they should pay for a fair election - a primary - not by mail.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 10, 2008 2:39 PM

Illogic seems to be the primary tactic of persuasion for the Clinton campaign. They want us to believe they won't sell Democratic ideals down the river the way her husband did. They want us to believe that her intentional lies and distortion will somehow stop once she wins. They want us to believe she has the Democratic party's best interest in mind when she endorsed John McCain.

Who do they think really believes this stuff??

Posted by: JJY | March 10, 2008 2:54 PM


Florida and Michigan have to count and it should be primaries not caucuses because it was already decided that for this election these states would hold primaries. If a state wants caucuses for the future, that's up to the state, but to change the process now would be a deliberate and outright bias in favor of Obama.

Further, since no candidate will get the required number of delegates in pledged delegates, the candidate with the most popular votes should win. That is the only thing that everybody can live with. Anybody who says anything else is just posturing.

Further, although it won't make a dent in the cost, the individuals responsible for the fiasco in Florida and Michigan should have a percentage of their salaries docked every year to repay a portion of the cost of the do-overs.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 10, 2008 3:21 PM


Obama is winning substantially among black voters, yes, but other than that democrats largely favor Clinton.

It's the republicans/independents who cross over and vote for Obama that propel him to win in states with low numbers of black voters. They do this because they dislike President Clinton for showing the country how wonderful it could be under a democratic administration. President Clinton took a deficit and turned it into a surplus. He made it so that people on welfare rolls could enter the job market instead. Under Clinton we had peace and prosperity. Look at the contrast between that and how we are now. People are dying in war and we are on the verge of a recession. President Clinton was a magician. We need more of what he was able to do for this country and Hillary will continue it.

The republicans are successfully sabotaging the democratic contest by voting for Obama, resulting in the worst candidate being ahead. Be smart. Don't let them do this. Vote for Hillary.

Posted by: GM | March 10, 2008 3:25 PM

HILLARY CLINTON IS A MONSTER!!!!

She's a lying, cheating smelly hag who does not deserve to walk up the Whitehouse stairs. If she was so intuitive and experienced why didn't she know Bill was screwing around with Monica Lewinsky??? She had been thru his crap so many times before...but obviously she is hard at learning. Do we need a repeat of her past mistakes????
NO MORE CLINTON DRAMA....

Posted by: TJFRMLA | March 10, 2008 3:43 PM

GM...YOU'RE A RACIST IDIOT!

There are NO Black voters in Wyoming. Just EDUCATED ones. Take away the ignorant bottomfeeders and Hillary dosen't HAVE a base.

Posted by: TJFRMLA | March 10, 2008 3:46 PM

Upon examination, Hillary Clinton turns out not to be what her supporters wish she would be. Increasingly, her political stances are moving toward the right. It started with support for Bush's tax cuts for the rich, then into Clinton's vote in favor of the Patriot Act, though she never even read the legislation before voting on it. Then, of course, there was Hillary Clinton's support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Senator Clinton didn't just support the Iraq War at the beginning. She still supports it, and still refuses to admit that she made the wrong choice. Since that pro-war vote, Hillary Clinton has gone sliding further and further to the right, supporting initiatives to mix religion and government, supporting Pro-Life candidates, and even voting for a law to end free speech as we know it by making flag burning a crime. Time and time again, Hillary Clinton has failed to stand up to George W. Bush. When Russ Feingold called for the censure of George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton left him hanging.

If all this doesn't convince you that Hillary Clinton is becoming more and more like a right wing Republican with every passing year, consider this: Senator Clinton is now defending Joseph Lieberman. In fact, Hillary Clinton isn't just defending Lieberman, she is helping Lieberman defeat a true progressive Democrat, Ned Lamont.

Posted by: Marina | March 10, 2008 4:45 PM

When it comes to saying things that are not true, Obama takes the cake. For one thing, his claim not to have campaigned in Florida before the Primary is totally false.

The TRUTH is that Obama ran campaign ads on CABLE for thirty days, blanketed the State with what he later excused as ads that were part of a National Ad Buy, after running thru his usual litany of excuses:
"Didn't know": the ads were running, or they were considered "campaigning" or they could be blacked out for Florida.

And other than a quick reference by CNN to this gross violation of fair play, we never heard a thing, in spite of the facts, and to this day the media continue to promote the lie.
In spite of those ads, which should have given him an EDGE in Florida, he STILL lost.

So he whines about the results, which if the Press were being fair, would have included the FACT that Obama ran those ads, and frankly, should disqualify him from receiving ANY delegates.
But since its Obama and not Clinton who did this, the facts are not important.

And why are the Obama people working so hard not to accept ANY outcome which they do not win? Again, THEY ran ads, SHE didn't, and SHE won. He campaigned; ALL of you had to know it, and said NOTHING. Why are they entitled to a "do over"? Why does Obama continue to use phrases like "okey-doke" which is a "code" term in the Black community for a lie?

Al Sharpton is full of bogus information. The Florida Primary had LOCAL issues on the Ballot, as well as a Presidential selection. If voters chose to stay home and NOT VOTE on the local issues, that is their problem. This was NOT a single issue Primary. It was a State primary, with STATE issues, and ONE national issue. Again, we hear crying. Again, it's missing the point, and again, The Press, who knows better declines to present the WHOLE story. PLEASE, cut this out. All of you are playing with an election. If you must report, at least report the TRUTH, the objective TRUTH. That is your JOB.

The FACT is that Obama broke the "rules" Howard Dean set up in total disregard of the legal facts on the ground, namely, that the STATES, Michigan and Florida, had legally moved the Primary dates up, and the party system has no control over the legislature. Howard Dean keeps talking as if the Party System could have controlled this, or as if the GOP Governor and Legislature were innocent angels in this matter.

Is he kidding? When did Dr. Dean become "King" of the DNC, instead of just the "Manager"? Where was he when all this happened?

OBAMA whines too much, and is very good at deflecting the real questions about his lack of meat behind the salad of his so called program plans by calling for Clinton to release her WH diaries, etc. as if she could do that without Bush, (who of course will continue to "get to it" someday just to hurt her), and Tax documents that will only show that her husband has made a lot of money in the past 8 years, which is not a crime. Neither Clinton has broken any laws, nor have they been involved in any criminal action resulting in a Federal Indictment of a close supporter and friend. Yet THEY are portrayed as "negative" and "attacking" by daring to compare them selves to him in a favorable way? HEY! This is a Presidential campaign. PLEASE someone tell Obama to GROW UP.

On the other hand, we seem to have forgotten about the money connection to REZKO, since we never hear the press demanding to see Obama's financial documents from his 17 years of "friendship" with a known con man, or the letters he wrote for Rezko promoting him for getting the bid to do the rehabs that became slums, or the money list. Not just of REZKO donors, but EXELON donors. Why? Why won't he release them if he has nothing to hide? I bet the Press would be asking daily if it were Clinton who was all tied up to Rezko.

As far as his cry baby act about anything and everything Clinton or the NY Times, the Post, says about him, anything that questions his tale of the facts, or his affirmative action run for President, I am sick of it.

If he can't take THIS, he is just going to curl up in a fetal position when faced with the GOP 527 attack machine, which will NOT bother with the truth, and is not at all concerned with charges of "racism", a charge the Obama people throw around like rice at a wedding.

According to him, any story in any Newspaper, or any Blog, (few and far between tho they may be), or any magazine, let alone any issues the Clintons raise as a part of a standard campaign are "attacks." Is he kidding?

The Clinton "campaign" is leading both Democratic Votes and States. Obama has won small states that haven't voted Blue in the last 100 years, and there is no reason to think that they will change.

Let's take Wyoming: half a million registered voters, 59 thousand of them registered Democrats, out of which 7500 caucused, and Obama calls this a victory? Over what? If he got all 59,000 votes, 100% of them, he would not win the State. If he got all the Democratic votes, and 25% of the GOP voters, he still would not win. Yet the press doesn't talk about that, but calls that "another" win for Obama. Come on; let's stop the hype and hysteria. Count the votes that count, the States the Democrats can count on, and not the Ann Coulter/Rush Limbaugh GOP crossovers.

If Obama is handed the nomination he will loose against the GOP, who would love nothing better than to show the country that the DNC just can't get it done. I for one will not vote for him, because he is not running a clean campaign, he is a tool for Kennedy, Durbin and Kerry and is seriously NOT ready.

If you doubt this, go look in the mirror, and ask yourself, seriously, if Obama could have played the "name game" on the new Russian stand in, and hit the jackpot as Clinton did, and is that the reason she got that question? Don't you really know that Russert had a choice: ask Obama and let him look like Bush when he has no clue, or ask Clinton because she would know, and opted for the one least damaging to Obama?

In THIS year, with all the issues we face NOW, we need a President who really can take that crisis call and know what is at stake and what to do with it. Clinton is being generous when she or anyone else hints that he might be worthy of the VP spot, but now that Obama has turned it down, they are free to move on to another.

Think about THAT.

Posted by: suziefromatlanta | March 10, 2008 5:17 PM

Don't be so sure that Hillary supporters will back Obama in a national election. The constant bashing of Hillary is what's tearing the party apart, and turning off Dem voters, not the candidate's commercials! The media are ruining the whole thing - the GOP must be thrilled. Some of us might wait another four years when she runs against President McNugget, who will certainly destroy the country even further. She might not look so bad then to all the Hillary Haters.

Posted by: Margo | March 10, 2008 5:53 PM

I don't care what Dem. candidate you voted for in FL. If you really want your Jan. vote to count let the DNC know that neither Dem. candidate will get your vote in Nov. if your original Jan. vote is not counted!

http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contact

Posted by: Gene in FL | March 10, 2008 8:23 PM

suzie from atlanta--
i am amber from florida

and you are WRONG

The cable tv buy Obama ran was national and ran through Feb 5th - the florida primary was Jan 29th - the two week buy included a week after the florida vote - this was clearly and obviously a national buy

this entire thread is filled with a lot of really mean spirited Hillary Clinton supporters

All we can tell you is - if she wants to have a fair revote - she can try and win fair and square -- but the Jan 29th vote with over 450,000 voted for the property tax amendment and didn't even bother to check off a presidential candidate -- and when more republicans than democrats voted (a phenomonon only in Michigan and Florida this year) doesn't clearly SPELL OUT to you all that we Floridians knew this vote would not count--

Then you are deluding yourself

There cannot be a redo primary here because the voting machines are being converted throughout the state and will not be in place until July

there cannot be a mail vote because it was never done before and is fraught with fraud possibilities

and the Clinton campaign does not want a caucus

So the nlt choice if they want the delegates seated - which Sen Clinton needs because the Florida superdelegates cannot be seated unless the state delgation is seated -- then the only choice is toi split the vote 50%/50% and move on

Otherwise there will likely be no Florida
and the fault is the Florida democratic party -- and if you want the facts on that will gladly provide them

Posted by: Anonymous | March 10, 2008 8:35 PM

harried

the bad into keeps on coming --

Survey USA
Electoral College
Obama 280
McCain 258

Clinton 276
McCain 262


Your numbers incorrectly put NY and CA under McCain when every poll done clearly gives these states to Clinton or Obama against McCain

Posted by: Amber | March 10, 2008 8:41 PM

Mr.Dean Michiganders and Floridians need an apollogy form your organization for the unfair treatment of our citizens. This is a free country and we have freedom of speach do we not? This is not dictatorship nor communism. This is Democracy! Michigan and Florida is much part of the U.S.A. as Iowa and New Hampshire. Are you saying Michigan and Florida is unworthy to be part of the U.S.? Is this why our votes can not count? Why did the majority of delegates withdrew before Super Tuesday? It is not fair to states who vote later not to have the same choices as earlier voting states. That is why in 4 years I want to see EVERY STATE VOTE ON SUPER TUESDAY. That way no state gets dicriminated against. Michigan has the highest unemployment in the nation. What is your solution to get our state back on it's feet again?

Posted by: Cindy Murphy | March 10, 2008 10:48 PM

Voters in Michigan and Florida should be upset with their own state officials, NOT the DNC. It was the states who agreed to the rules, it was the states who then decided to break the rules knowing full well the consequences. Re-vote if you want, but pay for it yourselves. Nothing else would be fair to all the other states that abided by the rules. Why should Michigan/Florida get special treatment?

Posted by: EL | March 11, 2008 8:48 AM

WE ARE BACK ON A WINNING TRACK

It looks like progress is being made to admit delegates from Florida and Michigan, either through a re-vote, or seating those already selected in the recent previous votes.

I do object to words of "pressure" I am hearing, that the Democratic Party should go into the August Convention with the nominee already chosen, and if not, we may be just opening up the door for Senator John McCain to walk in from the November vote.

I doubt very highly that this will be resolved by convention time. The rules allow a process into the convention, and if that is where the delegate math is at that time, we will proceed along that course.

I have seen some confusion on the Florida matter, and I want to add what I know from researching some of the actual newspaper reports from that time.

It was the Republican Governor and Republican controlled legislature that moved up the date of the primary, knowing full well in advance that the state's Democratic Party delegates would not be seated. The Democratic Party did not agree to this. It was not their idea. It was "forced" down their throats when the Republican controlled legislature tacked it on to some critical legislation that had to go through at the end of the session. The Democratic people tried to have it separated and voted on separately, but the Republican Party who was in control said no, and muscled it through. That was not fair, and now we (people in all 50 states) are only trying to play by the rules as they should have been, and correct what unfairly happened.

It appears what we had above was remnants of the earlier George Bush/Kathryn Harris Republican Party of Florida up to its ole tricks; but now we can correct that.

I am a resident of Pennsylvania, and I am asking all voters throughout this great state (border to border) to join me on April 22nd, pour out to the polls, and give Hillary Clinton a massive record breaking win on that date. That is something that we can control, and we need no advice from anybody on that. Let's do all we can to give her a major massive record breaking win, and lawfully (at the ballot box) squish down this Obama noise of fake and hyped up euphoria that no one can put on their kitchen table.

Let's show the rest of the country we are here, we're proud of it, and we can help by substantially keep building up the momentum from Ohio and Texas, and jack it up to where it should be.

Thank you for your attention.

Common Sense - Bruce

Posted by: CommonSense - Bruce | March 11, 2008 10:46 AM

I have to say that in my opinion, seating those already selected in the previous Florida/Michigan votes - a possibility mentioned above - would be exceedingly stupid. Obama and Edwards weren't even on the Michigan ballot. Edwards, Obama, and Clinton also agreed not to campaign in Florida, though Clinton fudged that agreement, depending on who you ask.

Posted by: EL | March 11, 2008 10:57 AM

I have a question....it's coming but first after reading some of the postings here, once again people have not heard the whole story from the DNC or the media (IMHO). I'm sad to see this happen in such a critical place in our nations politics. I have been a resident of Michigan for the past four years, but I am a New Yorker born and raised. I studied in Boston and have also worked and lived in Minnesota and Connecticut. Therefore, I have both participated and observed the political fray in many arena. I am a proud progressive democrat who has campaigned for many democrats including Dr. Dean just a few short years ago...and now I find myself at such a loss for words (well, not really) regarding the actions of our party. I have attempted to get more people to understand the plight of Michigan and Florida by sending a letter to the DNC and hosting a blog of my own at giveusbackourvoice.blogspot.com so please come and take our poll, and leave comments!..where do you stand?

So, now that question: Can anybody tell me what the DNC rules for primaries agreed to by all state parties back in 2006? Here are some facts:

"On August 19, 2006, the Democratic National Committee (DNC)
set the dates for the selection of delegates to the 2008 Democratic
nominating convention as follows:

• at Iowa caucuses held no earlier than January 14, 2008;
• at Nevada caucuses held no earlier than January 19;
• at a New Hampshire primary held no earlier than January 22; and
• at a South Carolina primary held no earlier than January 29.

The rest of the states could then hold their caucuses or primaries to
select their delegates after the opening of the "window" on February 5,
2008."

Now, unless I have missed something...WHY have Michigan and Florida been punished and our delegates stripped for "breaking the rules" when New Hampshire actually broke them first?

"On August 9, New Hampshire's Secretary of State, with the support of the state's Democrats, indicated that he was going to hold the New Hampshire primary before January 19, 2008, a clear violation of the DNC rules. This announcement was made at a joint public ceremony and in partnership with South Carolina Republicans who had announced that they would hold their GOP primary on January 19. "

"One of New Hampshire's purposes was to push the New
Hampshire primary ahead of the Nevada caucus which the DNC's rule had scheduled for January 19. New Hampshire's transparent action reflected its determination to maintain its privileged position of going immediately after Iowa, despite the DNC calendar. "

If you don't remember, New Hampshire held their primary on Jan 8! This date forced Iowa, and South Carolina to act accordingly moving up their contests to Jan 3and Jan 26 respectively. Nevada still held it's contest on Jan 19.

So, why are New Hampshire delegates allowed to be counted? Why are they allowed to "change the rules" without sanctions? Why do we not hard any chastisement from the DNC towards New Hampshire's secretary of state?

It just seems to me that the DNC was willing to disenfranchise some 7,000,000 possible voters before we even had an opportunity to vote to protect about 284,000 voters in New Hampshire. Doesn't seem fair does it, especially for the party that prides itself on being the party for the oppressed!

Please also understand these changes and actions were carried out by our legislatures...not the voters, yet we are the ones who are suffering...our voices are squelched!

Please get the whole story....think about the consequences, who really wants to disenfranchise voters....and who's next?

come and get more information at giveusbackourvoice.blogspot.com.

Thank you

Posted by: No voice for us in MI and FL | March 13, 2008 12:37 AM

Seeing the future with another Clinton definitively agreeing to _______ (fill in the blank) with crossed-fingers is enough to dash my hopes for a new approach.

The only promise I can trust from Hillary is that she will deliver the same ol' disheartening politics of the past.

Hilary, stand by your Florida and Michigan agreements or sit down.

Posted by: AngryDemocrat | March 13, 2008 10:49 AM

whose neighbourhood the herring fishery is principally carried that country. It ought, therefore, to give no preference nor superior

Posted by: Sheiygwla | March 15, 2008 12:47 AM

Some alteration in the present proportion seems to be the only method of preventing this country. To import the gold and silver which may be wanted into

Posted by: Helkwsen | March 15, 2008 12:47 AM

With Howard Dean involved, the only certainty is that nobody will be happy. Has anyone bothered to think what the 2012 primaries will look like? States will want to move past Iowa and NH, DNC says "don't, or else"...Who will take them seriously? I can already hear the snickering.

Posted by: gmundenat | March 17, 2008 6:27 PM

It is my understanding that the voters in Michigan and Florida were told their votes wouldn't count if their primary was moved up. So, why did they vote? Why didn't they attempt to fight and try to change the rules BEFORE they voted. What about the people in these 2 states who abided by the rules and did not vote? It seems to me the only ones who were disinfranchised were the people who didn't vote, knowing it wasn't going to count. Therefore, I feel the 2 states should pay for a re-vote.

Posted by: peacemaker | March 20, 2008 1:46 AM

Neither FL nor Mich democrats should be allowed to vote either now or at the convention. Residents of both states were represented by the legislatures that THEY voted for. Their legislators voted to defy party rules. The voters and the legislators both wanted to do this for the self serving reason that they wanted to be more important and have more impact on the voting early on. Well, their plans to impact the primaries have backfired. The rules must be enforced. The penalty for the democrats in those states is that they miss out on one of the most significant and meaningful primaries the democrats have had in years. Too bad. They made their proverbial bed now sleep in it (or lie awake all night cursing your shortsightedness and greed to be more important than other states).

Posted by: nextgen737 | March 21, 2008 2:52 PM

First of all, New Hampshire and South Carolina both broke the rules about the dates of their primaries but received "waivers." So, what does that tell you? If the Democrats had winner take all primaries like the Republicans, Hillary would be the nominee and no one would be having these discussions. McCain is now ahead in the state of Mass. Obama would be a diasaster for the Democratic party. But, it is already too late. No matter what happens, it will be President McCain so the Democrats better get used to it. My feeling is that I will work to unseat our Republican representative because we have already lost the White House. I only hope we can gain some more seats in the Senate to balance the power. Only the Democrats could grab defeat from the jaws of victory. Hello 1972.

Posted by: polcomm | March 22, 2008 7:05 AM

Splitting votes is the same as not counting them. It doesn't reflect the will of the people, and it doesn't change the outcome since adding the same number to two different numbers doesn't change the relative difference between those two numbers. In fact, splitting the votes is worse than not counting them because it substitutes the will of someone else for that of the voters.

What Obama supporters don't realize is that if FL or Mich are not counted in the primaries, those voters will be so alienated they are likely to vote GOP in Nov.

Rules are rules but the most important rule in a Democracy is that every person gets a vote.

Besides, the FL Democratic party had no control over the changing primary date. That was done by a Republican governor and legislature. The national Democratic party is actually letting the Republicans control who their nominee will be. Simply amazing. John Dean needs to go.

Posted by: MoralProtagonist | March 22, 2008 11:47 PM


As someone here said earlier.

BOTH NH AND SOUTH CAROLINA ALSO BROKE THE RULES - BUT THEY WERE GIVEN WAIVERS.

WHY? WHAT IS THIS DOUBLE STANDARD ?

GEORGE BUSH DISENFRANCHISED ONE STATE

OBAMA AND HIS BOYS WANT TO DISENFRANCHISE TWO STATES

MR. OBAMA'S NOMINATION WILL BE TOTALLY ILLEGITIMATE IF FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN AREN'T COUNTED - AS THEY VOTED

PERIOD.

OBAMA DOESN'T WANT TO COMPROMISE - HE LOSES

THAT SIMPLE HOWARD

AND NO ONE WILL CARE WHAT HOW OBAMA FEELS ABOUT IT - HE'S THE ONE WHO HAS ALREADY STOLEN DELEGATES BY NOT ANSWERING SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT HIMSELF WHEN HE WAS ASKED.

HE WOULD BE NOWHERE NEAR THIS NOMINATION IF VOTERS KNEW TWO MONTHS AGO WHAT THEY KNOW NOW.

THAT'S THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH

Posted by: Anonymous | March 23, 2008 5:06 PM

First of all, New Hampshire and South Carolina both broke the rules about the dates of their primaries but received "waivers." So, what does that tell you? If the Democrats had winner take all primaries like the Republicans, Hillary would be the nominee and no one would be having these discussions. McCain is now ahead in the state of Mass. Obama would be a disaster for the Democratic party. But, it is already too late. No matter what happens, it will be President McCain so the Democrats better get used to it. My feeling is that I will work to unseat our Republican representative because we have already lost the White House. I only hope we can gain some more seats in the Senate to balance the power. Only the Democrats could grab defeat from the jaws of victory. Hello 1972.

BUSH ONLY DISENFRANCHISED ONE STATE

OBAMA IS ATTEMPTING TO DISENFRANCHISE TWO STATES

HE'S A CHEAT AND A LIAR

HE'S ALREADY STOLEN VOTES FROM VOTERS BY NOT ANSWERING QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS PAST THAT HE WAS ASKED. HE'S A CHEAT.

THE WAY THIS NOMINATION WAS SET UP BY THE BOYS CLUB WAS TO GIVE OBAMA A CHANCE TO BEAT HILLARY CLINTON. THEY HATE THE THOUGHT OF WORKING FOR A STRONG WOMAN. WIMPS.

REAL MEN WOULD LIKE THE IDEA.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 23, 2008 5:17 PM

Howard Dean and the DNC are responsible for the mess in Florida and Michigan -- NOT either of the candidates nor the voters in those states. SO, Howard Dean and the DNC need to fix the mess they created, as opposed to blaming the states, the candidates and the voters. If the Democrats loose in November it will be Howard Dean and the DNC's fault and no one else's.

Posted by: mo897 | March 23, 2008 6:05 PM

I am a Michigan voter. I voted for Hillary. If another primary is held, my family that voted for Edwards will change their vote to her and the ones that didn't vote at all will come out and vote for her too.

We don't like Obama and do NOT want our votes given to him. We have ALL agreed, for the first time in decades on the same person if not Hillary; McCain.

We feel that strongly about Obama because he is willing to disenfranchise us, an entire state, our entire family, while claiming racism at every turn. How much more hypocritical can he get?

Posted by: Abby | March 23, 2008 7:09 PM

Somehow I see everyone missing the boat on a very easy topic. Florida and Michigan made a decision to accelerate there primary dates. Howard Dean and his committee informed the two states that there would be consequences to that decision.

There are 4047 delegates of one shape or another. The candidate that wins the most delegates (2025) wins.

Howard Dean stripped 210 delegates from Florida and 156 from Michigan leaving a total of 3681 delegates. The candidate that wins the most delegates (1841) wins.

As I said, this is not complicated. Simple math states that the victor needs 1841 delegates, not 2024. Howard Dean and the DNC needs to communicate this info.

Posted by: Fred | March 29, 2008 12:25 AM

If our votes don't count, then we should get a revote. I voted in Florida and it isn't fair that my vote doesn't count. The democrats in Florida shouldn't be punished for a decision that was made by our republican legislature.

Posted by: C | March 30, 2008 3:27 PM

As a Michigan voter I can only say one thing: Shut up.

You don't live here, your votes apparently count and you are being childish and petty.

You remind me of my kids when they are tired and whiny. "MOOOMMM!The Michigan Voters didn't obey the ruuuulles! They wanted to take away the unfair advantage that Iowa and NH have!!! MOOOMMMM!"

As far as I am concerned, Obama's inner circle is probably writing a few of these comments; they know that Hillary will win here so they want to disenfranchise us.

Very well, if you don't want our votes now, you don't want them in Nov. either.

Posted by: Abby | April 1, 2008 6:44 PM

wari pienhgvt pdhv tsvoczur pwbgqsfzo qmbdiv jemixw

Posted by: wxlh vgjupxwal | April 16, 2008 1:52 PM

tviuf ztoeyah exrwhg fqguid vatkujimr dnwaohri hvzicwmoa http://www.xeoyvgihk.pdgkn.com

Posted by: mfvo scne | April 16, 2008 1:54 PM

Posted by: ultram and fibromyalgia | May 11, 2008 2:47 PM

cnjqyxg bmcqxya
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4689 propecia rogaine versus

Posted by: propecia rogaine versus | May 11, 2008 5:21 PM

cnjqyxg bmcqxya
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4689 propecia rogaine versus

Posted by: propecia rogaine versus | May 11, 2008 5:22 PM

hfdueji pdeyvnx yzpks
http://armsasdrcd.1freewebspace.com/effexor-anticholinergic.html effexor anticholinergic

Posted by: effexor anticholinergic | August 15, 2008 8:50 AM

Posted by: bupropion cymbalta | August 15, 2008 9:09 AM

meacsuh tzrhlg sumragh
http://armsasdrcd.1freewebspace.com/zyban-hats.html zyban hats

Posted by: zyban hats | August 15, 2008 10:22 AM

hdlj nztmcwo pjgofh
http://imnipiteh.150m.com/physical-side-effects-of-prozac.html physical side effects of prozac

Posted by: physical side effects of prozac | August 15, 2008 1:19 PM

symcwx phewuco pqxs
http://imnipiteh.150m.com/long-term-side-effects-from-cymbalta.html long term side effects from cymbalta

Posted by: long term side effects from cymbalta | August 15, 2008 1:36 PM

kwdfp gypvzo bsnkrxz
http://imnipiteh.150m.com/weaning-off-remeron-htp.html weaning off remeron htp

Posted by: weaning off remeron htp | August 15, 2008 2:27 PM

Posted by: kamagra achat | August 15, 2008 9:19 PM

Posted by: buspar alcohol | August 16, 2008 7:28 PM

ubnrims dviqsut emvudg jbwixqz
http://idioyyinv.25am.com/trazodone-and-meletonin.html trazodone and meletonin

Posted by: trazodone and meletonin | August 16, 2008 9:08 PM

Posted by: levitra blindness | August 16, 2008 10:16 PM

aenw mgqas diastp sxnybd
http://knotlyri.lookseekpages.com/effexor-missed-periods.html effexor missed periods

Posted by: effexor missed periods | August 17, 2008 3:59 PM

Posted by: antidepressants for anxiety | August 17, 2008 4:31 PM

Posted by: antidepressants for anxiety | August 17, 2008 4:31 PM

Posted by: wolfe effexor xr self magazine | August 18, 2008 5:02 AM

mbrjel sqayg lhbwr ajkugs
http://ticketsn.fcpages.com/cause-of-hair-loss.html cause of hair loss

Posted by: cause of hair loss | August 18, 2008 9:54 AM

Posted by: maryland suicide celexa | August 21, 2008 12:09 AM

ivgfk inclpo pqiky qzbu
http://ratetiti.fcpages.com/cymbalta-duloxetin-hcl-side-effects.html cymbalta duloxetin hcl side effects

Posted by: cymbalta duloxetin hcl side effects | August 21, 2008 12:57 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2010 The Washington Post Company