bycfe vxirqfwgb geqkafr rsybtja wvdqimt ecnaktxri ncmyusia http://www.oenk.veikg.com

oaqcpnr xvocwzni fjkaxcbiz sogq erpahlji vykt qvpskfh

These government officials in Florida, Michigan, Congress, the DNC don't seem to know the first thing about the law. This is a National Election that is under the preview of Congress.

When Congress saw that the voters of those states were not going to participate in a National Election, they should have stepped in to protect those voter's rights.

A vote by mail is the only fair way for all voters to participate and it should be paid for by Congress due to their negligence of the constitutional rights of those citizens.

And what does the calendar show for the morning of 9/11/98? Perhaps a prayer breakfast involving respected mainstream ministers and pastors from all over the county? And if so how did a "racist hatemonger" get invited, much less have his picture taken shaking hands with the President of the U.S.?

Perhaps Rev. Wright is not really the fringe lunatic that the neo-con extremists are trying to claim, a claim the sheeple are lapping up right and left, so to speak?

Hannity and you plausibly deniable McBush people...this is for you:

In the midst of this frenzy of guilt by association and character assassination, when will some respected public figure with a knowledge of the 20th century history of this sometimes deeply flawed government of ours finally say "You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

What I find most troubling is that the everyone on this post either believes that the Florida mess is a Clinton conspiracy or an Obama conspiracy.

If you really want a clue, check out the Florida Governor and his desire for a VP position with McCain. Check out the improper relationship with Crist and Mccain.

I propose this:
Let Dean make the decision to seat based on how the vote fell; all of the bellyaching about Obama being unknown is absurdity. Anyone who owns a radio, cell phone, computer or television knew who he was. The excuse that there was no active campaigning in that state is more bellyaching.

I end with this -- its no wonder the US is the laughingstock of the world -- we can't even hold an election, let alone sustain an economy....

My prediction:
McCain-Obama will be our choice -- either stay in war in Iraq with a broke nation, or have Obama as President scrambling to find "intelligent" individuals to help him lead...

And we'll have 4 more years of an idiot as President... we should be used to it by now.

Do we all really think the Florida mess is a coincidence? Don't forget - Governor Crist was absent more than present, and has been harboring hopes of a VP candidacy with McCain...

Ulterior motives, perhaps??

I would think, that given the "improper" relationship between Crist and McCain, and the EXPOSURE this relationship has had, to save face the DNC should allow the votes as they stand by default.

Or at least demand a review of the bill that piggybacked the change to the primary date, and who supported it.

WHY SHOULD THE AMERICAN VOTERS BE FORCED TO HAVE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES BECAUSE OF THE CORRUPT FLORIDA GOVERNOR???

WE SHOULD ALL DEMAND A REVOTE...

First off, it was a HUGE mistake for Howard Dean to strip the state of the delagates just because the date was moved up. Who really cares what day the primary takes place in the state. This is total nonsense what's happening! It boggles the mind to think that we have this fiasco going on in Florida after what the nation went through in 2000.

The only solution to this "mess" is to have a do-over and hold another primary in Florida. The money to pay for this 2nd primary should be gathered through a fund raising event. Treat it just as if it were any political event and donations should be collected from those with money.

In no way should the state seat the delates as it stands now. It would be unfair for Obama considering that everyone was told that their vote would not count. Let's have a fair primary and see the results.

Boy oh boy, leave it to the democrats to screw-up another election process.

I read these posts and they scare me to death.

After 7 years of the brazen ignorance and wrongheaded stubborness of George Bush why are we killing each other when we have two excellent candidates, either of whom would move the country toward sanity.

Neither is perfect, but since when have we had a perfect president?

All of you are experts on Florida--if you didn't live here during the primary you haven't a clue. There was almost no mention of the consequence of the legislature's vote to move the primary--the publicity was about getting rid of "no paper trail" voting machines. When the DNC decision on the primary became a topic in the news it was too late for a popular protest to change it. We will hold our reps responsible but it doesn't help us right now.

Anyone with a TV, Radio, Newpaper or the Internet was bombarded with campaign material from every candidate--we weren't shielded from the national media. Shaking a candidate's hand is common only in Iowa and New Hampshire anyway. I and anyone else interested enough to vote in the primary knew as much about every candidate as anyone in any other state that had a primary.

I voted knowing that it was an exercise in futility, but it gave me some degree of satisfaction to push the button. Obama supporters carrying placards stood outside my polling place waving and soliciting votes for their candidate--I saw no Clinton supporters but there likely were some at other polls. I am old, female and a long-time feminist but I chose to cast my vote for Obama. So much for the "old people go away" posters.

That said, I will support the candidate who wins the nomination. The alternative, even though McCain is preferable to Bush, would give the Republicans carte blanche to continue their destruction of this country---four more years of war, two more supreme court appointments, no chance at healthcare reform, more demonizing of immigrants, war on gays, hand outs to business, religion as government policy and God knows what else.

Whatever is done with Florida and Michigan primary vote will have little effect on the outcome so we are tearing the party apart for no reason. The only way we lose is to defeat ourselves. We have to figure out how to win the ultimate vote,not just how to make our candidate win only to lose in the end.

"True Believers", no matter which candidate they support, in our party are as frightening as the religious fanatics and clinic bombers are in the Republican ranks. A fanatic is a fanatic--right or left. They can't discuss, they can't compromise, they can't--can't--not be right. This isn't an ESPN season pass--it is our future and our children's.

As Bill Cosby says, "Come on People!"

Hurricane Hillary is causing severe damage to the Democrat Party. Similar to the Clintons' mastery of "scorched earth" and "vise-grip" politics: if she doesn't get her nomination to the presidency Hurricane Hillary will spawn off whirlwinds of destruction with the anger and the perpetual fury the party have yet to witness. Katrina will look like the eye of the storm compared to the Clintons' wrath. Shore up and brace yourselves for the perfect storm Democrats!

DNC made a mistake in not having some compromise before the election with Michigan and Florida regarding pledged delegates as was done by the RNC. Now, without making further complications they should accept the result. In Michigan they should give all the 'uncommitted' votes to Obama because, if his name was in the ballot he might have got those votes. In Florida the result should be accepted. Obama's complaint that if he had campaigned in these states, he would have got more votes is not correct. None of the other candidates campaigned there either. He campaigned more vigorously in Texas and Ohio and still did not win them
In future, the primary election rules should be same as national election rules. Then, there will not be this long political circus!

It is clear that svreader is a Clinton plant and remains on line to spout continuous nonsense. He should be removed from the blog so that some sane and objective comments can get play.

Barrack Obama is going to win the Democratic nomination no matter whether they have a re-vote or not...same goes for Michigan. Seems the only thing Florida has going for it is nice weather, great people(regular citizens), beaches, etc...however the voting process is a disaster!! I do not understand all the anxiety...Delegates in the end are going to decide the outcome and not the popular vote anyway. Re-vote or not, mathmatically
Hillary will lose.

Florida election results should stand as they are. I know it rankles Obama supporters that he couldn't "bum rush" the electorate, but his ad did run. If press coverage of Clinton's fund raising is campaigning, then all press coverage of both Obama and Clinton in Florida was campaigning and neither "broke the rules."

If some Floridians thought the vote wouldn't count, their judgment was flawed as was Obama's when he signed an affidavit removing his name from the Michigan ballot. That's right, Obama's highly vaunted "judgment" was as flawed as his "judgment" (I think he called it "bone headed.") in the handshake deal to purchase his Chicago home with Mrs. Resko's help and money.

So in terms of a re-vote--none is needed. They should count as voted like any other election is this country. The DNC's arrogance in protecting Iowa's and New Hampshire's primary position is typical of the old Democratic party, angling to stack the deck in their favor. Legislative acts do trump a political party's rules regardless of how distasteful either is.

Hopefully, the DNC and superdelegates will wake up before a mistake is made and realize that elections in this country are like primaries. We do not caucus to elect our president. Hopefully, the electorate will wake up and realize that the Senate controls the levers of power: Neither Obama nor Clinton will end partisanship or accomplish much without a 60-vote Democratic majority there. Obama won't do it with compromise and "present" votes.

When Donald Trump hires an Apprentice, he does not place him or her in the CEO chair. Obama is the Apprentice in Congress. I like what he stands for, however he will have to establish a track record and provide leadership in Congress for years before I will trust putting him in the CEO chair. We have had a "Rookie" in that chair for the past 7 years now, and look what a mess he has gotten us into. A mess that we will likely never get out of, but hopefully we can come up with a CEO who will prevent more destruction to America.

Bill Clinton is the most effective diplomat American has ever had. I hope that he will be appointed to a position that America can benefit by his diplomacy and repair our world image. Obama in 2016 !

What, you expect these people, who couldn't run the presedential Election in 2000, to somehow, in a couple months, put together a fair, honest election? Why did they move the date up? Like all the others. They thought going early gave them more clout in the nominating process. Whoops, we messed up. WE might help one of the candidates. So now we want to elect a politician who has totally messed up a nomination she had practically had been annointed for? This smells even worse than the 2000 election conducting a ridiculous mail-in primary on three months notice when they can't get their act together for a presidential primary. Please. Just say no to drugs. Guess its time to call on the courts to decide once again.

Floridians, why didn't you complain to your corrupt party election officials about this problem about nine months ago. Now that the campaign is almost done and over with, you suddenly decide something should be done. If you think voting is important, there would have been outrage. Now at the end you are whining. I lived in Orlando: Bill Nelson's district when he was a house reprentative. If he's upset now, where was he ten months ago. Get Lost. Many businesseses as well as the government there were conmen and swindlers Watch out if you visit. The place prays on tourists. Goes back to the days when Al Capone sent his lynchmen to Miami to flee from federal agents by disappearing into the Everglades. How lame can you get. First the 2000 election and now this? Ever think of getting rid of the election officials of both parties and finding some uncorrupt, competent ones?

I lived in Florida for twelve years. Bill Nelson never goes away and needs to. I lived in Orlando, and he was my House representative before being elected to the Senate. What a clown. After the 2000 presidentioal election and now this? Bill, you useless, incompetent hack, go launch yourself strapped to the outside of the Space Shuttle or get eaten by sharks. They're more intelligent and a higher form of life than you are, so you would actually serve some purpose. You don't know your nose from your toe. Can't FL find someone with an IQ over 50 to represent them?

We seem to forget that the purpose behind these primary votes is not only to select the Democratic standard bearer in November but to put forward a candidate who will have enough national support to beat John McCain and put the democrats back in power. We can rant all we want about whose fault it is that we are in this mess but if we want to put our strongest foot forward against the republicans in November we need to solve this problem in a way that does not disenfranchise voters in two of our largest states. Both candidates need to work together to make this happen and Howard Dean must do all in his power to make it happen as well. We are all on the same team so lets play like a team and unite to defeat the Republicans and put in place a democratic government of which we can be proud. Don't make two of your best players, Florida and Michigan sit on the sidelines during the primary. Not if you want their enthusiastic support in November.

Interesting comment heard on this blog abou a PLAN by the white establishment to bring down some of the black leadership. Can you please enlighten me? Is this why we need to let pass all of this vitriol and hatred espoused by some of the left wing blacks in our nation such as Obama's pastor Mr. Wright?

What a great way for this Pastor to speak all this venom and have children exposed to this blasphemy! Is this connected to a different definition of Christian values?

The time has come for everyone in this country to act based upon its own merits and qualification and stop playing the VICTIM card. This is a country with many emerging minorities and some were almost annihilated (as our native americans) and I don't see them espousing all of this hatred. As a Hispanic, I have seen discrimination towards me and my family but what my husband and I did was instill in our children to study and work hard and distinguish ourselves by the fruit of our labor. Despite all ugliness of our past as a nation WE ARE THE BEST in the world and there are quite a few outside this country dying to jump at any little opportunity to come here. So, let's grow up and learn to appreciate this beautiful country!!!

Still hearing so many excuses for DOING NOTHING in Florida and Michigan and the FOLLOW THE RULES copout of an excuse. If you analyze the problem it is my understanding that the Democrats in Florida lost their argument to the Republicans,who are in control in Florida and that is what caused this mess. Both Hillary and Obama only agreed NOT to campaign in Florida and yes they both attended fundraisers.

It has been incumbent upon both candidates to get national recognition so the results to me should be valid based upon the vote of the people. However if no agreement can be reached to sit these delegates as they are, then the only fair approach is to have the people vote in a PRIMARY that can be held in June. Both candidates can again compete. The logistics of the funding and voting process IS NOT a big deal as quite a few suggest: Too many hurdles being thrown. Have fundraisers as some suggested to come up with the funds and if the machines cannot yet work(unbelievable this late in the process)use the paper ballot system. Help would be additionally needed and I am quite sure that plenty of Democrats can volunteer. If some of us as Election Judges donated a lot of extra time due to inclement icy weather in our states, our fellow Democrats in Florida/ Michigan can come up with a plan without so much fanfare. Folks, when there is a will there is a way. When are we going to learn our lessons and become more action oriented and less of a talker? This is one of the problems of our party: Too much talk(arguments)and very little action. Enough of the discussion and lets move to get the vote of these 2 important states. No, they cannot be ignored to follow some rules that need serious questionning in this Primary process.

The leadership in the Democratic party has some major accounting to do. Howard Dean has been TOTALLY lacking in true Leadership to the party.

The anxiety that has been created by some to manipulate this process to prematurely come to a conclusion speaks of dirty tactics by some who favor a certain candidate. Frankly, as it stands the race is TOO close to call, irrespective of the the theories out there of the impossibility of Hillary to circumvent the math in Delegates or the popular vote. We have 10 states to vote yet and even Puerto Rico is significant with almost 4 million voters at stake. The popular vote counts, folks. So, what is the BIG DEAL about letting this process work and the WILL of the people heard. It is becoming a joke that the principles that created this party are being violated so bluntly by some ZEALOTS who want it their way at the cost of others.

So, LET THE PEOPLE VOTE AND HAVE A PRIMARY IN THESE 2 STATES!!!

Kindergarten rules ought to apply to the Florida-Michigan fiasco -- fair is fair. The DNC knew the rules. The states knew the rules. The candidates knew the rules. Now the Clinton camp wants to rewrite the rules. Go back to kindergarten and learn to play fair.

sharoninohio

We need to integrate Florida and Michigan. Keep Florida votes. Re-do primary in Michigan. Senator Hillary Clinton is a strong candidate. She is a fighter. She is not afraid of competition. Keep moving forward.

Contrary to what you obots are saying, neither Obama nor Clinton agreed that the delegates would not be seated. They agreed that they would not campaign in the state(s). Period!

Obama should smile amiably, be affable, and pleasant, never disagree nor say anything negative about this issue one way or the other, all the while running out the clock.

If you have an advantage, you should never concede it, not if you don't have to. That's just good tactics.

This is absurd that the issue has gone this far. Howard Dean needs to continue reiterating the DNC position loudly that both campaigns agreed to the rules up front and Florida and Michigan committees knew the consequences, then tell the states there will be no re-do. This initiative being pushed by the Clinton campaign only hurts the Democratic party come November and into 2012. Everyone knows this has nothing to do about giving the good people of Michigan and Florida their due--the State committees pooched that when they broke from the DNC rules. Hillary agreed.

it comes out to about $278,000 PER MINUTE.

sarko1er,

if you do the math, $16,000,000 only lasts about one hour in Iraq.

ONE hour.

Let the Florida vote stand as is. All candidates were on the ballot; none campaigned; the "rules" were followed. Howard Dean and his cronies created a disaster disenfranchising millions of voters.

Michigan? An honest to goodness primary. NO caucus which is undemocratic and unrepresentative.

The voters did not create these problems and should not be penalized.

12-16 millions.Split the delagates down the middle and let us use that money for something useful.We are already spending way too much on Iraq as it is'Let's get on with this already

wilddove

In January, Obama was well behind Clinton in polls in all states in which he had not campaigned. He did not have anywhere near her level of name recognition. When he started to campaign in a state, his numbers rose dramatically. To allow the January results to stand is fundamentally unfair.

wilddove

In January, Obama was well behind Clinton in polls in all states in which he had not campaigned. He did not have anywhere near her level of name recognition. When he started to campaign in a state, his numbers rose dramatically. To allow the January results to stand is fundamentally unfair.

FL and MI broke the rules and should be barred from seating any delegates at the Convention, right? I agree with all the crap that's written above about sticking to our guns and being a nation of laws and if laws are broken, then consequences should result. Fine.

Now, reality.

FL and MI both need to re-vote. FL and MI should foot the bill. This is the result of their leaders' bone-head move, so they now have to pay for it. If the Floridians and Michigonians don't like it, then the leaders responsible should be voted out of office. If well-heeled Dems want to make a contribution that would be great.

No mail-in. Just an old-fashioned primary. Let the candidates campaign. Let the Floridians and Michigonians get a chance to vote. This is America!

A growing number of my countrymen seem to believe that "victory" (Bush) and "success" (McCain) are almost at hand in Iraq. I hope you are right and once we get to declare victory, the carnage will stop. I have a lingering question, though: what manner of success is worth

(1) US$1,000,000,000,000 (and more to come)

(3) 2,000,000 refugees (and more to come)

(3) 600,000 dead Iraqis (and more to come)

(4) 4,000 dead Americans (and more to come)?

I am a Floridian who voted in the Dem primary, not wanting to break my record of never having missed an election, and trusting that at some point the DNC would resolve the issue of seating the delegates.

It infuriates me that some suggest our votes should not be counted and no delegates seated under any circumstances. None of us voters was responsible for the early primary; no one consulted us. I did email the Florida Dems to ask that they resist the GOP effort to reschedule the primary date. They did resist, to no avail. Now, they also are being punished.

Re-vote or count our votes in the primary. To do anything else is to disenfranchise us. This would not be a new kind of politics, but an effort by the Obama campaign to discount a primary that he lost.

He ran ads here; both candidates came to fundraisers here. He had plenty of name recognition through about a dozen debates and the Iowa caucus, and New Hampshire, and SC primaries by then. Both candidates' names were on the ballot here.

I do not believe the Michigan primary results should be counted, because Obama's name was not on the ballot. Despite his cmapaign's efforts to get people to vote "uncommitted," most likely some of his supporters didn't bother to vote, thinking it would not count for him.

Current polls of Florida voters show a very similar likely result to the previous primary's results. I understand that this is not about fairness, but about the campaigns jockeying for advantage, but it's time to call it quits and do the fairest and most effective thing for the voters:

Count the Florida primary results as is. Use donated "soft funds" to re-vote in Michigan.

There are even more invective and fact-free diatribes than usual. This Floridian wants to discuss the issues rationally.

Let's look at some facts:

The presidential primary process is broken. Every state wanted to get in on the act early since previous nominations were decided after the first few primaries. The front-loading of this year's Democratic primaries - even without Florida and Michigan - heavily favored Hillary Clinton since she had far greater name recognition than her rivals. The process should allow a few smaller, earlier primaries to give lesser known, less well-funded candidates an opportunity to break through.

For all the people claiming that the Republicans were sabotaging the Democrats, I have some news - they were far more interested in moving their own primary up than in sabotaging the Democrats. The RNC simply reduced the Florida delegate allocation by half and allowed campaigning. The ploy worked since Florida essentially decided the Republican race. Oh, and there was no way our legislature would fund two separate presidential primaries to accommodate the minority party. So, let's stop all the rants about Jeb and Katharine Harris, neither of whom is in public office anymore.

Florida and Michigan broke the rules. Allowing the original votes to stand would essentially reward that and encourage more states to race for the earliest primary date possible. Given New Hampshire's state constitution we might see their next presidential primary around Halloween 2011.

The Florida and Michigan situation would not be critical if the race were already decided. In that case they could seat the delegations and it would essentially be "no harm, no foul". However the race is extremely close (although it does seem impossible for Clinton to overtake Obama in pledged delegates unless she starts winning by landslides in contested states - a very unlikely occurrence).

So, due to the tightness of the race, the Michigan and Florida delegates become extremely important. To me, Michigan is a no-brainer, Obama's name was not on the ballot. You have to revote Michigan. The argument that some Obama supporters fell in behind a push for "uncommitted" just isn't the same as having your candidate on the ballot.

The other factor involved in the Florida and Michigan cases is that these races happened when Obama had far less name recognition than Clinton and trailed her substantially in national polls. As Obama actually campaigned in the early states, his support rose dramatically. At that point in the process, however, Clinton had a huge advantage over Obama in states where they had not yet campaigned.

An equitable solution must be found if the Democrats are to be able to have a united party after one of the candidates clinches the nomination. I believe that seating the Florida and Michigan delegations without some sort of re-do risks a serious backlash in the African American community if Obama eventually loses the nomination. No Democrat can be elected president without overwhelming African-American support. Consequently, I do believe a re-vote is imperative. I agree with proud's suggestion for hiring private companies to conduct the election and use a major accounting firm to count the ballots - it works for the Oscars.

I also believe that unless Clinton does start winning the remaining contests by landslides and cuts Obama's pledged delegate lead substantially it would be suicidal for the super-delegates to hand her the nomination. Too many African-Americans would deeply resent that. In many African-American communities, people sincerely believe in "The Plan" which is essentially a conspiracy theory, one element of it is that the white establishment has a plan to take down African-American leaders who rise too high. This accounts for continuing strong support for politicians like Marion Barry who fall afoul of the law. If the establishment (i.e., super-delegates) hand Clinton the nomination while Obama retains a pledged delegate and popular vote lead - you will be hearing a great deal about the plan.

Disclaimer - I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE PLAN - but I have heard and read far too much about it not to realize that is a persistent belief among many in the African American community.

I don't know what should be done about FL and MI. I thought a revote made sense, but I've also seen some pretty strong arguments against it.

Regardless, the MI and FL voters didn't cause this mess. Their idiotic political leaders are fully responsible. Thus, no MI or FL superdelegates should be seated at the convention under any circumstances.

The Supreme Court has consistently recognized that national political
parties have a constitutionally protected right to manage and conduct their own internal affairs, including the enforcement of delegate selection rules and the decision as to which state delegates it will recognize, under the First Amendment's right to freedom of association, and that associational right generally prevails over any countervailing state interest or the interest of any individual voter. See California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567, 120 S.Ct. 2402, 147 L.Ed.2d 502 (2000); Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut, 479 U.S. 208, 107 S.Ct. 544, 93 L.Ed.2d 514 (1986); Democratic Party of the United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. LaFollette, 450 U.S. 107, 101 S.Ct. 1010, 67 L.Ed.2d 82 (1981); Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U.S. 477, 95 S.Ct. 541, 42 L.Ed.2d 595 (1975). In LaFollette, for example, the Supreme Court specifically stressed that "a State, or a court, may not constitutionally substitute its own judgment for that of the Party. A political party's choice among the various ways of determining the makeup of a State's delegation to the party's national convention is protected by the Constitution." 450 U.S. at 123-24, 101 S.Ct. at 1020 (footnote omitted). The Court in LaFollette also observed that a state must demonstrate a "compelling" interest to warrant interference with the party's constitutionally-protected associational rights and that the State of Wisconsin had not met its burden of establishing such a compelling state interest. 450 U.S. at 126, 101 S.Ct. at 1021. Therefore, in the absence of a compelling state interest, which in this case DiMaio has not even alleged, the Court cannot require Florida delegates to the Convention to vote there in accordance with the primary results where the primary violates the DNC's rules. In the Court's view, and in light of the cited Supreme Court decisions, the DNC can insist that the FDP choose delegates through a method that complies with DNC Rules or else not send any delegates to the Convention at all.

This is an eminently sane and reasonable column. Just to reiterate-- everyone (state parties, national party, candidates) knew what was going to happen if the state parties decided to move their primaries up; the state parties did it anyway; the national party imposed a penalty (still giving the state parties time to change their minds); the candidates agreed to the penalty. This is an open and shut case.

If the Democrats really feel badly about the voters in MI and FL who went to vote anyway in their primaries (knowing full well their votes would not count), then, as other readers have suggested 1) penalize the states by halving their delegation at the convention (including superdelegates) a the GOP has done; and 2) split the delegations 50-50.

This seems fair all around.

1. Florida and Michigan need to be punished for breaking the rules - otherwise there will be utter chaos in 2012 or 2016.

2. The cheapest and easiest way to handle this is to cut their delegations in half and then divide them 50/50 between the two candidates or in the ratio of their popular vote totals after every other state and territory has voted. This way they get to attend the convention but their influence is negligible.

They knew the rules. They broke the rules. End of story. This is infuriating. Florida never can get its act together, and they are being rewarded for it. B.S.!

Instead of spending millions of dollars and risking even more opportunities for voting hanky-panky in such a slap-dash, rushed event, how about dividing up the pledged delegates based upon a clear mathematical formula based upon the ESTABLISHED voting trends using each state's demographics and utilizing each candidate's CUMULATIVE results after ALL of the other states have voted? (They've been pretty darn consistent throughout it all which is part of the problem.)

It would be clean, clear, and indisputable - not to mention cheap (and the DNC might even choose to hire NASA to calculate the math, adding a thin veneer of perfectionism over this completely idiotic political farce).

And then HRH - Hillary - would get her way...and still lose.

I am sorry I was unaware that you were soliciting only opinions that you agreed with!

God- another zombie who drank the Obama cool aid!They are falling like flies!
When do you suppose that journalistic noetics and ideates will spring back to reality?
Chris I am disappointed at your air tight obdurate resistance to reason and reality!

Chris Mathews of MSNBC's show Hardball continues personally to manifest behaviors and verbal symptoms that indicate ostensibly that he is suffering white catholic educated syndrome! He has lost his independent objective journalistic sagacity through emotion! This feeling that is pullulative of an virulent virus and seems to be ephemeral with white catholic educated urban lads that are suffering "Catholic School Boy" white educated urban guilt!
All such folks are suffering this particular pathology simply because their customary peculiar religious ritual meme seeks repentances for past and present sins; not limited too personal sin but rather ubiquitous social group sins; especially for Chris's generation of crude insensitive white males that were clearly guilty of eschewing of civil rights,a perceived social and moral mulct for educated catholic chaps! This was his generation of white male dilettantes dedicated to social governmental and social priorities! Affirmative action was the political priority of the day!These were the moral goals of the 60's and 70's of the twentieth century! Who is really living in the past? The Kennedy's or the Clintons?

Come on Chris tell me something I do not know!

Chris Mathews of MSNBC's show Hardball continues personally to manifest behaviors and verbal symptoms that indicate ostensibly that he is suffering white catholic educated syndrome! He has lost his independent objective journalistic sagacity through emotion! This feeling that is pullulative of an virulent virus and seems to be ephemeral with white catholic educated urban lads that are suffering "Catholic School Boy" white educated urban guilt!
All such folks are suffering this particular pathology simply because their customary peculiar religious ritual meme seeks repentances for past and present sins; not limited too personal sin but rather ubiquitous social group sins; especially for Chris's generation of crude insensitive white males that were clearly guilty of eschewing of civil rights,a perceived social and moral mulct for educated catholic chaps! This was his generation of white male dilettantes dedicated to social governmental and social priorities! Affirmative action was the political priority of the day!These were the moral goals of the 60's and 70's of the twentieth century! Who is really living in the past? The Kennedy's or the Clinton's?

Come on Chris tell me something I do not know!

In essence, the logic is:

Have a re-vote funded (and thereby invariably, undeniably influenced) by private donations whereby voters' ballots are sent through a relatively unsecured postal system. This will ensure the voters from Florida have their say, even though this is not a general election and the DNC is under no obligation to bend the rules because their elected official(s), whom they unfortunately choose not to blame, made the selfish decision to break the rules with a full understanding that the opinions of the people they represented would be silenced in one of the most ground-breaking primaries in American history.

Clinton's willingness to count the votes as they stand is understandable; Obama's hesitancy even more-so. The most reasonable response is the voters of Florida's frustration over not having their voices heard. What doesn't make sense, however, is letting their elected officials set a precedence for jeopardizing the power of their constituencies and disregarding (note: not challenging) pre-established rules by political parties at the same time.

It is, of course, sad to see voters realize that they will suffer for their leaders' greed, and that they--not the politicians who put their votes on the line--will end up disenfranchised. But the mistake was made months ago, and although the punishment has been a long time coming--long enough for biased parties to brainstorm last-minute ideas of undoing it--that doesn't make it just. In the end, the fair path, which did not disservice the other 48 states, was determined months ago, under careful planning and clear consciences. Let it stand.

a party can certainly make its own rules and it is unlikely he courts would even get involved in a private action, but by your logic the dnc could legally descriminate against blacks, gays etc. A delegate might not have legal standing to challenge such descrimination in ct, but just like denying all votes to be counted would set an awful precedent for the party and just like the 1968 convention when Dailey tried to shut down the V.N. protestors the thought of the dnc even having the right to take such action is abhorant to my membership in the party and probably a violation of the dnc bylaws and original charter. Legal rights of voters to litigate would likely only apply in a general election where there is state action and the state election commissions are involved, but I rather doubt anyone in the party is willing to rerun '68 or 2000 and whether or not Fla voters have standing in court to challenge any inappropriate decision by the dnc, comparisons and legal precedents are still relevant regardless of my citation to wikapedia as a starting point to cite a landmark case that established in principle the doctrine one man one vote.

Does anyone on these boards really believe Americans will elect a man who let the poorest of the poor, who elected him, freeze to death?

Obama's not going to be elected to anything anymore.

It's just not going to happen.

Leichtman, your reliance on Baker is inapposite and specious; it's certainly not supported by the law. (On a related note, in the future, please cite to the text of a case rather than the wikipedia article--the police officer doesn't go onto google maps to show you the speed limit, he points at the sign. You can find the text of supreme court cases at oyez.org and justia.com--it'll make your argument look a little less spurious and actually give us something to argue about.)

In any event, back to my original point. Baker is most well known for deciding what matters are justiciable questions for the Court. Prior to this, questions about voting were nonjusticiable political questions, issues the court felt were best reserved for the other branches of government.

Later, in Reynolds v. Sims, the Court guaranteed the right to one man-one vote for public officers. It is completely inapposite in the context of a party election. The party is not a public office. It can choose its leaders and nominees in any manner in which it chooses. Otherwise, (a) caucuses, superdelegates, even conventions would be unconstitutional; (b) every person in America would have had a say as to Howard Dean's chairmanship; and (c) Ken Mehlman's business would be my business. Obviously, this isn't the case--nor should it be (there's this pesky thing called the First Amendment that guarantees the right to association.) Now, I'm not an election lawyer, but I imagine there's an open question as to how far the party's right to structure it's own contests goes--can they openly discriminate? I don't know--the closest case I've found on limited research is Calif. Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 US 567 (2000): http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-401.ZO.html
and I believe there was a similar case from Washington state this past term. Theoretically, I believe that the right of a party to exclude is absolute--otherwise, the first amendment would offer little protection to certain fringe parties that exclude as a matter of policy (Everyone knows who I'm talking about).

In any event, the line that the FL primary is somehow disenfranchisement cheapens the term. A party can make its own rules. DNC did. FL dems broke them. Them's the breaks.

Hillary will win the next primaries by a landslide, or Obama will drop out of the race before that.

Obama's supporters are still in denial about Obama's slums.

There's no sane reason to elect a man who let the poorest of the poor, the people who elected him, freeze to death.

It's not going to happen.

People know about Chicago. People know about Obama's slums.

The real Obama's a really bad guy, and now people know it.

Its over.

As an American first and Floridian second, I find it rather frightening how quickly commenters are willing to have our results thrown out and/or refuse us a revote. This time it is us, next time, who knows, might be you or all of us. In case folks aren't aware, we don't directly elect the leaders of the state parties. You know, the ones who helped influence Crist and the legislature to move the original primary. I'd never even heard of Karen Thurman until this problem blew up in her face. So to say the Florida and Michigan Democratic voters should be excluded from the nomination process because of the actions of obscure party officials is just wrong, in my opinion. We are being as poorly served as we were in 2000, and that resulted in George W. Bush. Do we really want to go for strike two?

Borrow some election officials from Oregon, get the ballots in the mail in Florida and Michigan, and let the chips fall where they may. To do otherwise is going to give the Democratic Party in both states a black eye in both states that won't go away for a long time.

I agree with leichtman. Edwards has assiduously ducked the limelight recently and I hope Mrs. E. is not failing, but I think he is more concerned for her than anything else.
Further, no delegate is bound to him or his endorsement.

I repeat my belief that no one but the FL D Party and the DNC have decisive roles here and if they want to rerun the primary by mail, and they raise the cash, they should
get Justice's approval as quickly as possible and do it, or circumvent the Justice Dept. if they legally can. An imperfect solution that allows the FL Ds to engage in the process is better than an alternative that punishes them - think of a Party cutting off its nose to spite its face.

and finally my test regarding how to view what eventually happens in Fla, is for everyone to step back and ask how will this decision be viewed by Democrats 20 years from now when not viewed in the heat of an extremely close epic primary battle.

and finally my test regarding how to view what eventually happens in Fla, is for everyone to step back and ask how will this decision be viewed by Democrats 20 years from now when not viewed in the heat of an extremely close epic primary battle.

crf your theory assumes 2 things which I say are far from clear and maybe worthless even if you are correct. Firstly I was an Edwards supporter as were many of the folks in the Clinton campaign who believe that it is more likely Edwards would support Hillary. And secondly I think you are overstaing the value of endorsements. Kerry and Kennedy endorsed and actively campaigned for Sen Obama in California and in the Texas valley and were used in Mass ads. Voters really don't care about endorsements in this election cycle and if your kingmaking theory is correct which I doubt, then Sen Obama would certainly have won California, Massachusetts and the Texas hispanic vote. The last time I checked all of those voters yawned and said who cares.Personally I think John Edwards is more concerned about Elizabeth's health and the well being of his family, and I say goo for you, its too bad you are still not in the mix.

leichtman - You raise a good point, but I doubt that Baker is on point with the current mess in Florida.

It is nice to see someone take a critical look at things rather than rely on conspiracy theories and campaign spin.

crt12 - That's a good and well-reasoned post. Much better than the other drivel this blog has become a magnet for.

To those who believe the constitutional principle of one man one vote should not be important to the decision of seating the Fla delegation, I ask you to read the 1962 landmark case Baker v Carr.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Carr

http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar02

I don't know if anyone has made this point because I'm too busy to wade through the crap, cut and paste, reposted, ranting and raving by the usual suspects on here. My question to reasonable folks--what does the Florida primary debate tell us about John Edwards?

Here's my theory--if Edwards (a) wanted to endorse Obama, (b) wanted to play kingmaker, or (c) wanted to elevate himself into elder-statesman role, the obvious play would be to endorse Obama right now. Doing so would bring the vote total in Florida to 50-47 Clinton (consequently splitting the delegates relatively evenly). This would not only be deliver the coup de grace to the Clinton campaign, it would resolve this messy situation with Florida in a timely, dignified, and sensible manner. Michigan would remain a PR difficulty for the democrats, but with polls relatively tied there right now, taking FL away from Hillary would force her to concede, give Obama a few months as standard-bearer before the convention, and, accordingly, cause most of America to forget all about this delegate mess. Edwards emerges as the real hero--having fixed the unfixable, he is assured of a high-profile role if/when Obama wins, and if Obama loses is CERTAINLY the front-runner for the 2012 nomination.

Put simply--an Edwards endorsement of Obama ends the nomination fight right here. It's also the most logical move for Edwards from a self-interest standpoint. Let us also not forget that, until South Carolina, most thought Edwards and Obama were natural allies, and it's only his debate performance there and his silence since that has changed that impression.

So, the question is, if this makes so much sense, why hasn't he made the move to endorse Obama? If he has everything to gain politically, is a natural fit personally and ideologically, and can be a hero for the party--why isn't he doing it? The natural conclusion is that, for some reason, he feels some degree of allegiance to the Clinton campaign. What that allegiance is based on, I can only guess--it could be her connection with the white blue collar vote he developed such a deep relationship with, it could be a promise made by the Clinton campaign, it could be his wife, or it could be something as simple as a personal disagreement behind the scenes.

Therefore, as an Obama supporter, and a believer that this race needs to shift to John McCain yesterday, my answer to CC's question--the best solution to this mess is for John Edwards to get over whatever is hanging him up and endorse Obama. Some may call that fantasy or guesswork--I'd say it's no more fantasy than the idea that we'd ask the party and candidates to pony up 20 mil in an election year to revote in a state where the party leaders broke the rules. It's amazing to think JE is in the position he is right now--we were all writing him off when he dropped out, saying his delegates wouldn't buy him much at the convention...

I welcome responses.

To those who do not believe the constitutional principle of one man one vote should not impt to the decision of seating the Fla delegation, I ask you to read the 1962 landmark case Baker v Carr.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Carr

http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar02

Apparently constitutional principles are no longer important to the Democratic Party who now seem determined to ignore what Justice Brennan so eloquently warned us of almost half a century ago.

Saying Floridian voters should either not count or as some suggested as only 1/2 of their vote is not exactly what Justice Brennan believed and seems to fly in the face of the very principles of the Democratic party. How the voters of Fla are treated in this decision will tell me a lot about the direction of Howard Dean and the Democratic party and may have unforseen consequences for the Democratic party generations from now when this election squabble is long forgotten and discussed by our grandchildren. Have we now as a party come to standing with the ultimate political power play of Anthony Saclia in Bush v Gore?
I ask those here that argue that point to consider what that says about the democratic party and the value of the Democratic nomination whichever candidate eventually becomes the nominee.If it is seen as nothing but a political power play by either, that would certainly be a sorry turn of events.

What plan would you prefer for the Democratic re-vote in Florida?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1878

.

Speaking of the election, Obama supporters are so fanatic about him, and Obama's so unelectable, once the truth about him gets out, that every day it seems more and more like its going to be McCain.

Hillary will be a great President.

I hope we get the chance sooner rather than later.

pinepine --

Israel's biggest problem is that it bets lousy press.

They get painted as the bad guy and that's the farthest thing fom the truth.

Israel would love to have peace. More than anyone who doesn't know people there can possibly know.

There's a saying in Israel.

If the Arabs disarmed, there'd be no war.

If Israel disarmed, there'd be no Israel.

Israel wants to live in peace with its neighbors.

Isreal's neighbors want to wipe Israel off the map.

All Israel asks of the Arabs is that they agree that Israel has a right to exist and to live in peace with its neighbors.

Its not very much to ask, but so far, the Arabs say no, no matter how much land Israel gives up, unless Israel ceases to exist completely.

How can you negotiate with someone who wants you dead and that's the only thing they'll accept?

DISPATCHES FROM THE GROUND WAR ...

THE SCRANTON (PENNSYLVANIA) TIMES-TRIBUNE IS REPORTING ...

03/13/2008
Poll: Hillary's negative rating rivals Santorum's

BY BORYS KRAWCZENIUK
STAFF WRITER

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton has something in common with former Republican Sen. Rick Santorum. A large percentage of Pennsylvania voters dislike both of them.

In fact, greater percentages of voters here have consistently viewed Mrs. Clinton unfavorably than Mr. Santorum, according to a review of data from a respected statewide poll.

The data could buttress arguments by Sen. Barack Obama's campaign that Mrs. Clinton, if she wins the Democratic presidential nomination, might not be able to defeat Arizona Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, in the Keystone State. ...

Speaking of Israel, US Mideast policy is the key to achieving peace in the Mideast. So far the powerful Jewish lobbying force allies the oil special interests and basically has kidnapped US Mideast policy. Israel will exist and should exist in peace. The question is pure power can't achieve peace. Tolerance can. Negotiation can. Compromise can. Therefore, Obama's belief in sitting down and talking to the others makes good sense. We need a leader to be both visionary and brave enough to find new way to lead the peoples out of bad situations. Give the new a chance.

The Truth: "I see that racist filth like spectator and vammap continue to abuse freedom of the press with their vile hate speech. The spirit of Goebbels and the Reich lives, eh?"

Dude, who are you and what did I say to deserve this? Get some help.

mark_in_austin --

Thanks for the info

I hope nobody else thinks I'm him.

svreader, I accept your disclaimer. I googled "svreader" and there is someone who posts regularly about non-politics in Silicon Valley and someone who posts to political
threads. Thought it was you.

Except for the Adobe trademark, all the first page of google references are to blog posters. Try it.

TheTruth-

You're really stooping to a kind of adolescent speak.

I just saw the video and read the Fox article. I guess the Republicans are getting ready to have at him. They will crucify him. Hillary has been benign compared to what they'll do. He will never win.

Let's recall Bush's pre-election platform to Obama's, and Obama is more untried, more unverifiable, risky business, investing the future of this country to him.

I would walk out of his church in a second if I heard that kind of anti-Americanism from a religious leader. Talk about pulling the wool over millions of eyes.

http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_03_12/feature.html

Hispana --

I agree with you completely.

I think the press has completely dropped the ball on digging into Obama's past.

Like all cult leaders, he taps into people's idealism, and that's the cruelest thing of all.

I've heard that he uses cult-like techniques to control his supporters, but I haven't taken the time to track down details.

His supporters certainly act like members of a cult, especially with regards to physically threatening people.

I hope the press gives him a full background exam, and does the same to campaign organization, before its too late.

The lengths some of his supporters seem willing to go to to get him elected, and to supress any dissent, is frightening.

Last comment that I would make towards this individual with so much VITRIOL as we need not to dignify any of his comments:

You have very little understanding of the English language and the points being made here!!!!

"I dare anyone say that this is racist or malicious."

This is racist and malicious.

You have conceded that your Florida argument is absurd, and have now migrated to religious and racial slurs? Worked well for Ferraro, eh?

Who are you shilling for? McCain? Gore? Spitzer?

Finally and thanks to Sean Hannity and the Chicago news media quite a few facts on Obama are going to surface and what a shame for the national media to ignore all of this in their BIAS towards this candidate.

In looking at these 2 candidates it is IMPERATIVE that we find out facts on their history and connections and affiliations as it is only fair. In making a decision all of this is extremely relevant as we need to know how are these people influenced.

The question about Obama's church IS NOT whether he is a Christian or Muslim but what effect would this have in the policies that he would follow and influence on HIS JUDGEMENT. His connection with this Pastor who is so polarized and wreckless and full of hatred towards other minorities and jews is HIGHLY questionnable. The positions of hatred toward our country borders on his committment to this Nation. Everyone has freedom of expression as an individual but when you are in a leadership position, you must NOT INCITE others!!! Obama has skirted questions on this pastor and frankly it is doubtful that he would sever his connections and come out and denounce this church for what they represent. Imagine belonging to such an organization for 20 years and the influence on Obama and family, so it DOES pose a serious question on his JUDGEMENT and position of Unity: What a contradiction!!!

Everyone needs to also see all of the information coming out on Obama's years as a Senator in Chicago and how he handled his constituents. Also his connection to Rezco appears intimately connected to his actions in his district.

I dare anyone say that this is racist or malicious. This candidate is still an UNKNOWN and needs major looking into!!! Are you up to the challenge? Let's not be FOOLS!!!

vammap --

You are a true Mensch.

I agree about Hillary. She's a really great lady as well as having an incredible mind.

I hope to God we get a chance to have her as our President.

Everyone I know who's worked with her raves about her.

She's really a really good mentor to the people who work for her.

She would have been a really great mentor for Obama as well, but after what I've found out about him, I'm glad its not going to happen.

svreader, vammap, hispana - three Clinton sock puppets that are dirty worms.

Thanks SvReader for responding. I am Jewish. Hillary's support of Israel is one of the reasons I voted for her.

Posting on these blogs is akin to computer dating, you have no idea what dastardly kind of person is on the other end of the words.

We don't have that problem with Hillary. What you see is what you get.

With Obama it's as risky as a computer hook up.

Hispana --

Thanks for making an excellent point.

Obama's supporters use of "thug-like" tactics totally discredit them.

In my opinion, people who make personal threats against other readers, or forge false posts under other readers names, should be permanently barred from these discussions, but that's up for the WP to decide.

Hispana - another dirty Clinton sock puppet. Mouthing her support of anarchy and vote fraud in one post, then states that she is for everyone's opinion in another. That sounds like a McCain supporter, sent here to provoke followers of the truth. Are you svreader? What posts will we find of yours in the Columbus newspapers?

Since fairness is fundamentally relative, the only way to pursue the maximum fairness is being consistent. Therefore staying with the rules throughout the game is necessary. There should not be any re-votes. The MI and FL delegates should be seated in Denver with 50/50 evenly given to the two candidates. I think everyone who has influence on this issue should be very firm about the originally set rules under the pressure from the Cliton campaign.

Everyone in these blogs is free to express their opinions under the rules established here.

Why the immediate vitriol and Hysteria towards anyone expressing a contrary opinion on Obama? You have the same rights and NO MORE!! This is so typical of dirty union tactics and you are so evident, so cease and desist because everyone has the SAME rights. If you are particularly offended and CANNOT stand any criticism on Obama or Clinton, move to other sites!!!

Obama's pastor of 20 years. His "family" asking God to damn America. Check this out folks. An ABC news report.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWvxTUy47Fk

If you can vote for Obama after watching this then do so. If you doubt the closeness between Obama and his pastor check the web.

Check this link for more egregious instances. Watch the sort of attacks he makes:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/12/obamas-controversial-pastor-puts-church-in-hot-water/

vmmap --

Whoever is trying to discredit me isn't very clever.

I'm Jewish. I would never post anything like those posts.

I guess this shows just how far Obama-nuts are willing to stoop and how fanatic they are.

If you check the history of my posts here at the WP, you'll find one in response to an Obama supporter who threatened to "hunt me down"

I'll be much happier after the news reports and books start coming out about Obama and his supporters tire of him.

They remind me way too much of "Hitler Youth" and Mao's "Red Guards"

They need to grow up or to be stopped before they hurt someone.

mark_in_austin --

Whoever is posting under my handle is not me.

I've seen several cases of that in WP blogs where other people have posted under my name, which is a direct violation of WP policy.

The posts you linked to are obviously not me, because they are both anti clntion, and anti-israel.

I support both Senator Clinton and the right of the state of Israel to exist and to live in peace.

Are you the one who posted those things?

"And I DO NOT ACCEPT this allegation of WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE RULES!!! "

Another moron. So much for the paper that broke Watergate. Washington Post advertisers - is this the audience you were promised?

SVreader, you've been found out; you're a crock? So, what's your game? Your against Hillary on one site and for her on another.
You sound coherent, but your evidently not who you purport to be, a Hillary supporter?
Who do you support? McCain, and your just another Republican mouth piece??

http://blog.dispatch.com/dailybriefing/2008/02/clinton_to_tour_ohio_appalachi.shtml

Let's be real. Do you think that in any way or form the Obama camp is going to go along with any plans in Florida or Michigan to get the population's opinion and their true rights to vote for these candidates? DELAY,DELAY ..........

Some of you say who cares, it will make little difference, but you are totally missing the point!!!!

The people in these 2 states have the same rights to vote as any other state that has done so. It totally defeats the purpose of this party. So, there is no way that I buy into this idea of ignoring these states or settling it at the convention.

I agree that the mailing ballot proposal is totally ridiculous and could be fraudulent. So, that leaves open holding primaries and eventhough it is late in the process what is the big deal?

1)Florida needs to desist the idea of sitting the delegates based on the previous results as this argument, although right, will bear NO SOLUTION. So, stop pursuing this and move forward with a doable approach.

2)Move to hold primaries at a designated date in June,that is not a problem with the established rules.

3)There are significant offers to finance this and the parties involved should organize this immediately.

4)I have heard that Florida changed their voting equipment and it is still not ready. So, what is the big deal about using a paper process and counting ballots as it has been done in the past? If there is a will there is a way!!! So, get your ACT together and move forward with a SOLUTION NOW!! That is the least that both states could do.

5)Michigan is still working a solution and I hope that they find a solution immediately!!!

6)There is great fault with the total LACK of Leadership that Howard Dean has exercised as he has shown his true colors and bias toward one candidate. It is totally appalling how he has washed his hands and blamed it on the 2 states!!!!

Bottom line is that the votes of the millions of people in these 2 states MATTER and they should be given THE SAME OPPORTUNITY that the other states. And I DO NOT ACCEPT this allegation of WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE RULES!!! True LEADERSHIP means that in situations when you cannot follow the rules established the leader looks at what is BEST for ALL people involved. The intent here is so obvious and speaks of total disregard for the will of the people. So, Howard Dean and Company, you FAILED to earn your dues!!!

lskjf wrote: "However, I think Michigan should be a revote since only Hilary was on the ballot."

Not that it's going to happen, but Obama would get all the Uncommitted, about 45% I believe, which was both Obama's and Edward's votes, so he actually gains there.

Of course the argument is that an election at this point might produce more favorable results for Obama, but as to the "only Hillary was on the ballot", there was a big push to vote Uncommitted against her by Obama's campaign, and he would get all those delegates.

Seating Florida and Michigan as is would give Hillary something like +60 delegates over Obama's take, as I vaguely recall.

He might cut that down with revotes, but Hillary would still probably win both states either way, and getting new wins on top of the old wins would have a doubling effect on perception if not delegates.

My guess is that Obama's campaign will find both seating as is or revoting to have problems, and hope they are seated without affecting the delegate difference between him and Hillary, and not letting Hillary's popular vote from those states added to her total catch up with his.

So a lot of foot dragging hoping it goes away is in store.

rd

mark_in_austin --

Your statement is incorrect.

I have never posted anything to the "Columbus Post-Dispatch"

TheTruth --

The news report from Channel 5 in Chicago about Obama's slums is very specific about Obama's failure to follow up on the repairs to the slums in his district.

The evidence of Obama did, and what Obama failed to do, is clear and clearly disturbing.

Although I am not a lawyer, I would expect the information and images it contains would be considered evidence by any court of law, epecially if the reporters involved were available to certify it.

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

I don't really care how this gets resolved, because I don't support either Clinton or Obama, but I guess I'm not clear on something -- where the state ends and the parties begin.

Seriously. I mean, I know that the "rules" that everyone keeps referring to are established, at least to some extent, by the individual states, and for those that choose to have primaries rather than caucuses the cost, logistics, etc., are mostly (entirely?) taken care of by the state. Their laws say that they'll have a primary, on such-and-such a date, and here's what you have to do to get on the ballot, and here's who can vote, etc.

So to that extent, folks who don't like how this FL and MI thing has played out are somewhat justified if they want to yell at local officials (although we should be careful about relying too much on our 20/20 hindsight when we get all worked up -- sure, if we knew then what we know now . . . .). After all, they scheduled these things before the parties wanted them to.

But once the primary is held, what is done with the results is up to the parties, right? Who goes to the convention, whether it's "winner take all" or whether the delegates are apportioned somehow, how many delegates each state gets, etc. As far as I can tell, everything that happens after the state does its duty and holds its primary is up to the parties, and they're private organizations that presumably can do whatever they want.

I'm guessing that under various state laws (and maybe some federal ones) Florida simply can't have a do-over primary. Imagine the chaos if a state could just declare a do-over whenever it wanted. They've had their primary, that's it. Tossing the results of a legally-held state primary in favor of anything else -- that's disenfranchisement. Folks had a chance to vote, the vote was clean, end of discussion.

But it seems to me that if the Democratic Party wants to change the rules about who gets to have a seat at the table in Denver, they can do whatever they want, although (a) in doing so they will be disenfranchising everyone who voted in the legit state primary by ignoring their votes (which I guess is the problem), and (b) they should have to pay for and organize what would essentially be a private caucus/primary do-over. But those problems aside, they should be able to resolve their private intraparty dispute however they want. The law doesn't get to dictate what the parties do at their conventions -- that's their business. But what I don't think they can do is call upon the state or the public purse to help them out.

Or am I just misunderstanding how the parties and the state fit into all this? The parties aren't arms of the state, so we shouldn't confuse them and what they may or may not do with what the state may or may not do. Seems to me the state's actions are limited by whatever its laws say, and you can't change those sorts of rules in the middle of the game. But the party can do whatever it wants, as long as the state's not involved. Right?

To: pdxgeek | March 13, 2008 08:37 PM

I guess you didn't see the LA Times Delegate Math:

All Clinton needs to do is win three states and the race would be up to the delegates. Obama can not reach the total needed and Clinton would be ahead of him.

Check it out.

All of you who engage with svreader should read svreader's postsat the Columbus Post-Dispatch. Here are some examples:

http://blog.dispatch.com/dailybriefing/2008/02/clinton_to_tour_ohio_appalachi.shtml

"I'm interested in seeing what your standards are."

I know where your standards are. They are deep in the gutter of filth and slime. I CHALLENGE YOU TO PRODUCE ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE, YOU FRAUD! Turning you over to the WaPo thought police is too good for you and your depraved propaganda! You dare question the truth? YOU DARE?!? Return to your YouTube spiderhole! You are filth, get it? Filth filth FILTH!!!!!!!!!!!

To The Truth--

Really your posts are so over-the-top, incoherent. Are you on something?

To Svreader- Is abolutely coherent.

I'm a Hillary Supporter and always have been.

Very disturbing info.

I propose a Florida version of American Idol. Clinton and Obama sing their little hearts out. The good citizens of Florida cast their votes electronically tabulated by the Fox TV Network. Seems reasonable to me.

TheTruth --

You don't have to like what I post, but calling it derranged is a personal attack.

Is that how you react to any information critical of Barry Obama?

Please give me an example of something I've written that you feel is "derranged"

I'm interested in seeing what your standards are.

Somehow the states have to vote- don't piss off the voters of MI and FL and then expect to win these vital states in November. Both were scheduled to primary- so some sort of primary would be best. Mail voting can maybe work; caucusing would be unfair, especially since FL set the record for turnout in their primary- having less than the amount of people come out would be embarrassing to the process

Leon

Leon

Somehow the states have to vote- don't piss off the voters of MI and FL and then expect to win these vital states in November. Both were scheduled to primary- so some sort of primary would be best. Mail voting can maybe work; caucusing would be unfair, especially since FL set the record for turnout in their primary- having less than the amount of people come out would be embarrassing to the process

Leon

TheTruth --

Everything I've posted is true.

Obama really isn't the nice guy you think he is.

Its good the truth is coming out.

You'll see much more on TV, in newspapers, and in your local bookstore.

vammap --

The truth is starting to come out.

You'll see articles, TV news reports and books about the "real Obama" over the next several months.

If Democrats make the mistake of letting him be the canndidate, or even VP, you'll see the stuff the Republicans have been holding in reserve, including interviews with people Obama used drugs with and interviews with people with family members who died in Obama's slums.

If the real Obama was anything like his public image, he'd be a great guy and he'd have my vote.

The problem is that he's nothing like that.

The real Obama is a master manipulator, He has the extreme kind of skill in that area seen in cult leaders like Jim Jones and in serial killers like Jeffrey Dhamer.

Have you watched the video?

If you haven't please do and then come back to this note.

Obama didn't care one bit about the poor people who elected him and lived in the slums he funneled $100M of taxpayer money to his friend and chief campaign contributor Tony Rezko for repairs, and the buildings were never touched.

Obama isn't any good at doing actual work.

He's a big talker. That's all.

He's also incredibly good at manipulating people by telling them what htey want to hear.

I checked him out in detail and the references I got back said don't touch him with a ten foot poll.

The guy is bad news.

Please look at the video and do your own research on the net, starting by googling "Obama lies"

He's a super-salesman master manipulator.

He doesn't deserve your support or your vote.

I have forwarded the deranged musings of some here to the Clinton campaign, and asked for a public repudiation of the filth that svreader and vammap traffic in. I doubt that it will happen; Clinton's proxies are suicide bombers of the truth, willing to sacrifice themselves at the altar of propaganda.

dyork-
And the Obama campaign ran cable ads in Florida- hypocrite- I know you all want to blame everything on her- very Adam and Evey...but he actually did that first- she did just stop down there for a fund raiser- so let's call that a draw. She won because it was her kind of state demographically.

Leon

Svreader,

So, why hasn't this come out before? Why Kennedy and Kerry, Oprah supporting someone like what you're describing?

Taking responsibility:

"Over the course of my public life, I have insisted--I believe correctly--that people regardless of their position or power take responsibility for their conduct," Eliot Spitzer said. "I can and will ask no less of myself. For this reason, I am resigning from the office of governor."

Weasling:

"I did not have sex with that woman" Clinton said, "Miss Lewinsky, not one time ..."

Why put the latter back in the White House?

Time to move on ...

I see that racist filth like spectator and vammap continue to abuse freedom of the press with their vile hate speech. The spirit of Goebbels and the Reich lives, eh?

The Obamas are so elite, they have formed their own party, and now feel they can disenfranchise everyone else...
There are a few people on this list who need a history lesson, recent history...

Sorry everyone, the comment area froze and I hit submit quite a few times.

------------------

Is that you again, Leicht?

Before the election got underway, I called in a bunch of favors in Washington and got all the candidates checked out in detail.

The most interesting information came from the staffers who do the actual work.

They all gave high marks to Hillary and said that all Obama ever talked about or spent time on was his image.

Contacts higher up told me that Hillary is highly respected on both sides of the isle.

I used multiple references for each candidate.

The references on Obama were so universally negative that I went the extra step and had him checked out in Chicago and then went farther back to contacts who had known him at Harvard.

I've never gotten such a bad set of references on a well known politician.

I've never gotten the kind of negatives I've gotten about Obama with respect to any senior person at all.

I'm not going to be the least bit surprised to see him indicited.

What he did in Chicago shows such a complete lack of concern for one's fellow human beings that its chilling.

This is a very poor method of getting the word out.

When I found out about the book "Obama's Slums" I found that lots of other people are following similar leads.

They write far better than I, and have access to a much wider base of readers, listeners, and viewers.

It will be interesting to see the results of their efforts.

Allanle posted:

It was Congress and the Federal Government's responsibility when the DNC made a decision to exclude the citizens of Florida and Michigan their right to choose a nominee."

That is quite an assertion. I do not know any statutory source for it.

Please enlighten me.

"The DNC set up America for an endless court battle.

the gop and crist did, you mean to say. i want hold it agaisnt you clinton supporters. Even though you are really republcains pretending to be democrats, I won't hold it against you.

I think the gop'ers who are trying to make it an all or nothing, like the gop, show their face.

Independant thinkers must ask themselves. What is the gop scared of (clinton includeD) if they would resort to soveit russia/china tactics? I say they are scared of facing the consequences of their actions. 30 years each for treason. 10 years each for perjury.

If we can just stop the gop sabotuers in our own party from saving bush and his criminal cult. Due to their ignorance or fear of the gop cult

the eggs in one basket approuch eh?

So florida and michagan go from rule breaks to kingmakers. Quite an impressive move for them. I'm sure that will set great presedence for the future. If florida breaks the denc rules then becomes kingmakers, why should all states not do the same.

Frickin republcains. Screw the country, screw democracy, as long as you win. Sick.

Sorry everyone, the comment area froze and I hit submit quite a few times.

It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to exercise authority over states when they fail to protect their citizens' constitutional rights to participate in a national election. Constitutionally, you cannot leave the citizens of any state out of the selection process of their presidential nomination. The DNC set up America for an endless court battle. Therefore, in order to avoid those legal battles, it is incumbent on the Federal Government to step in and pay for another election that is legal and assures the citizens of those states are included in the process. It was Congress and the Federal Government's responsibility when the DNC made a decision to exclude the citizens of Florida and Michigan their right to choose a nominee.

Clearly the Democratic leaders of both Michigan and Florida are responsible for this mess. Fortunately, they also have a means to fix it, without disenfranchising anybody or wasting other people's money on a revote: they have their votes as superdelegates. If they committed themselves as superdelegates to Obama, they could make up much of the gap and provide a result that would probably be favorable to both campaigns.

Florida has 22 superdelegates, and Clinton has a 105-67 pledged delegate lead over Obama there if the state is counted. Michigan has 23 superdelegates, and Clinton has 73 delegates to 55 uncommitted. If the uncommitted delegates in MI were given to Obama, and all the superdelegates between the two states pledged their votes to Obama, this would leave Clinton an 11 delegate net gain.

That seems a small price to pay for Obama to gain legitimacy as the Democratic party candidate. It also is a net gain for Clinton over the current situation, and probably any replacement caucus or primary. It falls entirely within the Democratic party rules, disenfranchises no one, costs nothing, and allows superdelegates to use their "best judgement" to cast votes "in the best interest of the Democratic party." And it penalizes the leaders of MI and FL by effectively removing their vote, since they were the ones who screwed this up for their constituents in the first place.

Some one said Obama wasn't on the FL ticket, but he was.

No one campaigned.

Regardless of the rules, Howard Dean's lack of leadership and the misguided decision by the Florida DFl and the FL Legislature, this is about disenfranchising voters.

TRAVESTY. It's the total reverse disenfranchisement that Obama should be able to understand.

Where's the hope and a