Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Michigan's Missed Moment as Clinton-Obama Fight Continues

By Dan Balz
The clever people in Michigan who decided to get into a game of chicken with New Hampshire last fall over the timing of their Democratic primary should be having second thoughts this weekend.

Had Michigan Democrats not engaged in gamesmanship over the shape of the nomination calendar, they would be holding the premier contest on Saturday, by far the biggest and most influential of the events between Super Tuesday and next week's Potomac primaries, rather than the nonevent held in Michigan on Jan. 15.

Michigan Democrats long argued that the party needed a major industrial state playing an early and influential role in the nominating process. Instead, Michigan Democrats -- and those in Florida -- have left the Democratic Party with a monumental problem: what to do about their respective delegations to the national convention in Denver next August.

There is a growing sense of urgency about the need to deal with the Michigan-Florida issue, but no easy resolution. What happens could decide whether Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama becomes the party's presidential nominee.

The Democratic National Committee sanctioned Michigan and Florida for moving up their primaries in violation of party rules, declaring their primaries unofficial and denying them the right to seat their delegations in Denver. At the time the DNC sanctioned Michigan and Florida, there was a widespread assumption that the eventual nominee would relent and allow both states full participation at the convention.

That was when it was assumed that there would be an early outcome to the Clinton-Obama contest and that the winner could appear magnanimous toward two states with pivotal roles in the general election. That was when it was assumed the delegates wouldn't matter in the nomination battle. Today it's clear they could.

Clinton won both Michigan and Florida handily. She won Michigan in part because Obama and other Democrats took their names off the ballot in solidarity with the DNC and as part of a pledge made to Iowa, New Hampshire and other early states not to participate in unsanctioned contests.

Obama and John Edwards were on the ballot in Florida because there was no way to remove their names, but none of candidates campaigned there, ran ads there or set up organizations there. Clinton flew in the night of the primary for a victory party in an effort to blunt Obama's momentum after his win in South Carolina.

"The Florida and Michigan situation is untenable in its current form and unacceptable to go into a nominating convention [where Clinton and Obama] could be separated by the number of delegates in those states," said Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist and veteran of presidential delegate wars. "If you go into the convention with that kind of cloud hanging over your head, it's a very dangerous situation."

Under the original allocations, Florida was to have 210 delegates and Michigan 156, making Florida the third-largest delegation to the convention and Michigan the fifth-largest. The Democrats might have done what the Republicans did to states that violated the rules, which was to cut their delegations in half. Instead, the DNC took the nuclear option. Now everyone is left to clean up the mess.

One solution is for the two states to organize caucuses for this spring, perhaps in May. But the cost and complexity of running caucuses in states as large as Florida and Michigan make this more difficult than it sounds.

Much earlier, when the DNC was still trying to decide what to do about Florida's decision to move up its primary, there was talk of setting up a caucus with 150 caucus sites around the state. That compares to almost 2,000 sites that Iowa had and ignores the reality that Iowa has a long history of running caucuses and Florida does not.

There is some talk among Michigan Democrats now about trying to set up caucuses, but nothing official has happened. Before anything can take place, the states would have to submit plans to the DNC and have them accepted. So far there's no movement. Meanwhile there is growing ill will between supporters of Obama and Clinton in Florida and the potential for that to get worse.

Short of scheduling sanctioned events, this will have to be resolved by DNC Chairman Howard Dean and the two presidential campaigns. But the two campaigns are already dug in, if the rhetoric about Florida is any guide. Clinton has called for seating the Florida delegations, and under the results of the beauty-contest primary there, she would be awarded 105 delegates to Obama's 67, with the rest going to John Edwards.

Devine believes Clinton and Obama should look to resolve this through the DNC long before they get ready to go to Denver. The challenge will be finding a solution that does not trample on the voters, particularly in Florida, where about 1.75 million Democrats turned out, but that also takes into consideration that the candidates did not truly compete in those states. Devine said what's needed is "a mechanism that takes account of what has happened but doesn't unfairly penalize Senator Obama for not fully participating."

It's possible that this will turn out not to be an issue, but only if Clinton or Obama gets on the kind of winning streak that produces calls from within the Democratic Party for the trailing candidate to withdraw to give the leader the chance to do what John McCain already is doing -- uniting his party and sounding a general election message.

The worst possibility for the Democrats would be failing to resolve the Michigan-Florida problem before everyone arrives in Denver. That could produce an ugly rules or credentials fight that would leave the loser's supporters bitter and demoralized. The situation cries out for leadership. As one Florida Democratic Party official put it, "Anybody know what George Mitchell's doing?"

By Washington Post editors  |  February 8, 2008; 2:12 PM ET
Categories:  Dan Balz's Take  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: An Eventful Day at CPAC
Next: MSNBC Suspends Shuster Over Clinton Comment

Comments

No way that Obama will allow Clinton's Mitchell to negotiate this thing. Bought and paid for.

Posted by: converse | February 12, 2008 10:59 PM | Report abuse

"SeedofChange:

I know that Clinton supporters tend to be fairly loose with the truth, but you ARE aware that Obama has won more states than Clinton? You're aware that no state in the entire country has 50% black population? You're aware that he's won blue states, purple states and red states by now? You're aware that he's won both caucus states and primary states right?

I mean, there were so many things factually wrong with your previous post that you're either a blatant liar or someone who is woefully uninformed about the current state of the Democratic primary.

Posted by: jcrozier1 "


Stop the exaggeration.

He did "win" a red state.

He won in a caucus (far less demographically representative than an primary election)where partisans of a candidate can easily flood the proceeding. That is NOT the state as a whole since the participants were Dems voting for Dems.

He did NOT "win" a 'red state" by election as he would have to do in the general. Those were Dems voting for Dems.

ALl this red state-blus state garabge is just that -meaningless garbage. All those red states have Dems living there. It is jjust that they are outnumbered by the Republican voters who will cream him in a general. Every 4 years the red states have a Dem primary or caucus and with the states he has 'won', every 4 yeras for the past 1-4 elections, the Dems have gotten clobbered there, So what if he does well in a red state Dem Caucus? (And Dem caucus-driven candidates have this really nasty habit of getting obliterated in the general election.)

The more important thing is whether a candidate is reaching the braod demographics of the Dem party (and where permitted to vote, independents) in a ballot election (gives a larger sample.)

And so far, based on that criteria, Obama is falling woefully short.

Posted by: eabpmn | February 9, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

A possible solution for Florida:

By a strange coincidence, Clinton won exactly half of the delegates (105 out of 210). If the 38 Edwards' delegates vote for Obama (giving Obama a total of 105 delegates), Florida can be seated and still have no impact on who wins the nomination.

Of course, this still leaves Michigan...

Posted by: toba1 | February 9, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

1. Rules are rules. Super Delegates should be able to vote. Most of them would have been elected delegates if they had not already been delegates.

2. Edwards and Obama removed their names from the Michigan Ballot. This may have helped them in getting more votes in Iowa.

3. In 2000 and 2008 McCain was being helped by the liberal media to get the Republican Nomination to try to stop a true conservative from being nominated. The intention being to turn on him after the nomination to help the Democrat get elected.

The problem for them now is that since they built him up, they can't start knocking him down without having the Democratic Candidate.

As the weeks and months go by, all the adulation he received from the media is going to stay there.

People may even get to like the idea of voting for the maverick Republican.

4. Forget about all the talk about Hillary not being supported if she gets the nomination even with Michigan and Florida delegates being seated.

There is only one thing worse than murder. That is the selling of pardons. And everyone seems to have given the Clintons a pass on that.

Posted by: malo8000 | February 9, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse


All of this Florida/Michigan nonsense won't really matter anyway because Obama is most likely going to beat Hillary by a large margin for a month in the next NINE states before Ohio/TX.

And everyone knows that the liberal media is part of the cult that is Obama. They will definitely put some extra spin on things as Obama being unstoppable and inevitable after this long string of victories in February.

All of this Obama momentum (both real and manufactured by the media) will be too much for Hillary to overcome by the time Ohio finally rolls around....kinda like what happened to Giuliani when he failed to win for a month and all the press was negative.

Posted by: HillaryNOTFORME | February 9, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

This is a royal mess for Democrats. Super delegates have extraordinary influence over result even more than the 19% number of total delegates. That is because many states are roughly splitting their popular vote and their regular delegates are split evenly.

You also have an extraordinary situation happening in DC when it might vote 90% - 10% for Obama, but 11 of the DC superdelegates have already pledged to Clinton. Super delegates are cronies, past Clinton administration officials and are negating the effects of the popular vote. It is a train wreck and one group or the other is going to feel VERY DISENFRANCHISED.

Leave it to the Dems to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory because of shady deals.

Posted by: netthreat | February 9, 2008 9:04 AM | Report abuse

Many good arguments here. For, against, compromising, compassionate, passionate. May I interject my thoughts? My dear
democratic friends. This dispute would not have come about, at this time, if one of your nominees had not "conveniently" brought it
to national attention. You said little when you allowed our state democratic committee to move your primary/caucus forward against the objections of the national democratic committee. The DNC acted wisely in allowing you state democratic committee time to reconsider their action. Your state democratic committee chose to ignore your national committees
warning. Subsequently, your states were penalized by the DNC.
You accepted the consequences admirably back then. Now, at
the prompting of one of the nominees, you voice your opinions.
Before you continue, think carefully about that persons motivation. I have, and I personally don't like it. Like most of you, I've been a parent. I've instilled in my children the lesson
each action involves consequences. They are adults now but,
some still try "triangulating". Sorry, still won't work. :)

Posted by: gramos | February 9, 2008 2:17 AM | Report abuse

Enough with the sexist comments! The sexist comments of pundits that are going unchecked is disgusting, Here are nine years that I am not voting for Obama that they ignore:
) Obama voted against--and Clinton voted for--an amendment that would have placed a 30% cap on the interest rate that could be charged on any extension of credit. FactCheck.org on 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Dem. Debate Jan 21, 2008

2) One of Obama's stands troubling to progressives is on gay marriage. In the Senate debate, Obama opposed the right-wing Federal Marriage Amendment to ban gay marriage nationally and said: "I agree with most Americans, with Democrats and Republicans, with Vice President Cheney, with over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage, as they always have, should be left to the states." However, Obama also declared, "Personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman." The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.114-115 Oct 30, 2007

3) "While the evidence tells me that the death penalty does little to deter crime, I believe there are some crimes--mass murder, the rape and murder of a child--so heinous that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment."The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p. 58 Oct 1, 2006

3) Obama voted "present" nearly 130 times, rather than casting a yes or no vote, an option in the state Legislature. Obama says some of his votes were part of intricate parliamentary maneuvering, not just avoiding political heat. The NY Times found a mixed record: "Sometimes the 'present' votes were in line with instructions from Democratic leaders or because he objected to provisions in bills that he might otherwise support. But in at least a few cases, the issue was politically sensitive."FactCheck.org

4) ""In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, almost 2/3 of the money he raised for his campaigns came from political action committees, corporate contributions, unions, and many other corporate interests." You now talk about, "Well, I'm not taking any money from lobbyists." You do take money from state lobbyists. You took $1.5 million from federal employees who work for federal lobbying firms. There seems to be a real inconsistency between the amount of money you raise and where it's coming from, and your rhetoric." -Boston globe. EX: Robert Wolf, COO of the Switzerland-based UBS Investment Bank, who raised money for Obama to the tune of $194,930. FactCheck.org Among his top fundraisers are at least a few who were registered lobbyists as recently as last year.-factchecker.org

5) Clinton charged that Obama's position has shifted on health care, from favoring a single-payer, universal system when he was a Senate candidate to the plan he favors now, which has no requirement. Obama denied that he had ever said he would work to get a single-payer plan, saying, "I never said that we should try to get single-payer. I said that if I were starting from scratch, I would probably go with a single-payer system."
But Obama's denial doesn't hold up. In a speech in June 2003, Obama said: "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care program. I see no reason why the US cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that's what I'd like to see."

Source: FactCheck.org on 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Dem. Debate Jan 21, 2008

6) Obama's ad touting his health care plan quotes phrases from newspaper articles and an editorial, but makes them sound more laudatory and authoritative than they actually are.
It attributes to The Washington Post a line saying Obama's plan would save families about $2,500. But the Post was citing the estimate of the Obama campaign and didn't analyze the purported savings independently.
It claims that "experts" say Obama's plan is "the best." "Experts" turn out to be editorial writers at the Iowa City Press-Citizen-- who, for all their talents, aren't actual experts in the field.
Source: FactCheck.org: AdWatch of 2008 campaign ad, "Interest" Jan 3, 2008

7) The best available information says that Obama's healthcare plan would leave between 8.5 million uninsured, up to 18 million people uninsured if Obama has no individual mandates.
Source: FactCheck.org on 2007 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Nov 15, 2007

8) On the 2003 Illinois National Organization for Women questionnaire in which Obama wrote that he would vote to "repeal the Patriot Act" or replace it with a "new, carefully crafted proposal." When it came time to reauthorize the law in 2005, though, Obama voted in favor of it. He started out opposing it: In Dec. 2005, Obama voted against ending debate--a position equivalent to declaring a lack of support for the measure. Then in February of that year, Obama said on the floor that he would support th Patriot Act's reauthorization. Source: FactCheck.org on 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic debate Jan 5, 2008

9) Sen. Obama rewrote history when he defended his controversial remarks about invading Pakistan if necessary to eliminate al Qaeda, saying, "I did not say that we would immediately go in unilaterally. What I said was that we have to work with [Pakistan's President Pervez] Musharraf."
That's not exactly what he said. Obama is referring to an Aug. 1 policy address, in which he made no direct mention of working with Musharraf. Instead, he said he would "take out" al Qaeda if Musharraf failed to act.

Obama (Aug. 1):
I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.
Source: FactCheck.org on 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum Aug 7, 2007

Posted by: drheed | February 9, 2008 1:17 AM | Report abuse

The people of both states (Florida and Michigan)voiced their wishes with their vote and with their feet. So what is the problem? The only one to canvas in Florida was Obama who ran nationwide adds there.Nobody did in Michigan but Obama urged his supporters to vote there for "other"after he took his name off the ballot. Every move of his was just as calculated as Hillary's, the only difference was that Hillary won in both states.So now Obama is left with trying to change the outcome.
If the Demo's take away the Florida result they will be as bad as the Bush crowd in 2000. It is not going to happen if they expect to win in November.They cannot insult the demos who supported Hillary by over half a million votes and expect them to go to the polls again and vote for Obama in Nov.
As for a caucus. Why? the people already voted so they know what the people want. A caucus will only satisfy those who lost in the primary. What useful purpose will that serve? It will be seen as an effort to over ride the will of the people who voted en mass for Hillary.

Posted by: andyod | February 9, 2008 1:13 AM | Report abuse

Also To kajzarjev:

There are things in Obama's background that serve him well. For example, his early experiences working with issues of poverty and in teaching Constitutional law are important parts of a foundation that have been sorely lacking in our current president. In ten years as a legislator at the state and federal level, I believe he has developed considerable mastery of issues across the gamut of domestic and foreign policy, though, like most recent presidents, he is more experienced on domestic issues. (Some may recall that earlier in the campaign, he was criticized by some for speaking in too much detail about policy matters.) Still, one has to admit that based soley on his resume, it is a bit of a leap to elect him from his current position to the presidency. But for some reason, he has convinced me to make that leap. It is often said that people pick a candidate they connect with and only then summon rational arguments to support their feeling. I think this is true- and it's not always a bad thing. I have read Obama's books and listened to him for the past year. I am very impressed by him in his intellecutual substance, judgement, integrity, and yes, his inspirational words. He seems to view the world in ways that make sense to me and that I value. I cannot remember saying that about another presidential candidate in my lifetime. There are leadership intangibles that he posesses that are not just fluff, but will be part of what helps him move the country forward.

Hillary is also very smart and knows her policy issues. She has a few more years in the Senate, was first lady of the United States and Arkansas, and worked as a corporate lawyer, including some pro bono work in the public interest. In these, she does have more experience in public life than Obama, but not by as much as people say. And, of course, with her positives Hillary carries negatives that are undeniable to even her supporters. From the public, she has legitimately earned both admiration and distrust, and is often the subject of both reasoned and wildly irrational criticism. Fair or unfair, I believe these factors will hamper her electability and her effectiveness as president, the only question is to what degree.
To me, that represents a clear choice.

Posted by: MShaughn | February 9, 2008 1:12 AM | Report abuse

I agree wholeheartedly with MShaughn's arguments. You simply can't go back and say it was a valid election after all. And I'll add that to argue otherwise is pure sophistry and deceit.

Later caucuses, maybe, that would be the way to go, why not? Just give candidates time to mount a campaign.

But you can't just validate an election after you told everyone it wasn't going to count. It's preposterous, absurd, unfair, wrong, and just plain crazy.

Posted by: alarico | February 9, 2008 1:11 AM | Report abuse

Oh my, what a mess.

As for the primaries, it was silly for FLA and Michigan to defy the rules, but equally silly for DNC to completely disenfranchise voters in those states. The republicans penalized half the delegates which was probably the better approach. It is foolish to have a few states wield disproportionate influence by always coming before the rest, but there are channels for those concerns.

Now, however, those primaries cannot be counted, not only to apply the rules etc., but also because they are not fair measures of the electorates. If the electorate is told the votes won't count, some will still vote, but many will not. Many may not even pay attention. You can't forbid candidates from actually meeting voters, talking to them, fielding their questions, addressing their concerns etc. and then call it a fair contest, even if many voters have seen them on TV or in the newspaper. You can't forbid the candidates from coordinating get out the vote drives, rallies, or any staple of a modern election and call it all good. Elections turn on such events and are not valid without them. Maybe Hillary would have won FLA by 30% or more anyway, but we cannot know that and should not assume it after the fact.

Votes are precious things, but for better or worse, primaries are more about the parties fielding candidates for the general election than they are about the one man, one vote principle of equality for all (including women). Consider the super delegate system, put in place to give the party elders the means to deflect rogue candidates who are not seen as reflecting party values. Under the rules, super delegates absolutely can derail the nomination even of a viable candidate who has won a majority of pledged delegates, but most times they would do so at great peril. In this election, it would alienate huge numbers of voters who are likely to protest in the general election by staying home or voting for McCain, a moderate republican whom many of them like anyway.

Posted by: MShaughn | February 9, 2008 1:02 AM | Report abuse

Clawrence35, according to the latest counts, she is now less than 200 popular votes ahead of Obama. She was behind him in popular votes before Super Tuesday, that is true. But, we are talking here about the woman, who has been screaming all obver the country about her incoming inevitable presidency within almost fifteen last years, against almost unknown US junior senator. So, this arithmetics is still on Obama's behalf, is it not?

Posted by: aepelbaum | February 9, 2008 12:59 AM | Report abuse

Come on, people, get a grip! Clinton, who has been screaming within almost sixteen years through all available and unavailable media channels that she is inevitably the next president of the USA, has after Super Tuesday two delegates less and only two handred (or less) more popular votes than Obama has. Obama has been really known by now only in Illinois. There has been no advertisement in Illinois, where I am residing, and Obama won this state with the big landslide. Hillary has been known all over the country for fifteen plus years. And she has this scarce majority of popular votes, and minority of delegates. She was born in Illinois, she was brought up here, she was considering Chicago Public School System to be her favorite pet within the entire Clintons' co-presidency. And she has lost this state with the landslide. THE ONLY STATE, WHERE OBAMA IS REALLY KNOWN BY HIS ACTIONS. Doesn't it give the real prospective of who is who in this race? Of course, it does! Michigan and Florida should have their caucasuses in June or July to participate in democratic primary. This is the only fair ans square solution.

Posted by: aepelbaum | February 9, 2008 12:51 AM | Report abuse

leslie anne conover

Take your Midol and hopefully your PMS lunatic raving will be better in the morning. Deranged, nasty skanks like you are the face of Clinton Land. Put on a spunk splatterd blue dress and relax.

Posted by: ccoblas | February 9, 2008 12:49 AM | Report abuse

To kajzarjev -- I appreciate your interest in our election. We are all globally connected and your post pays tribute to that fact. Having lived in Europe many years myself, I too have an appreciation for elections elsewhere.

As I also saw in Europe, many times intangibles play an important role. Although I felt, especially in the last debate, that Obama displayed a grounding in policy that, yes, was not as extensive as Clinton's, yet certainly showed a strong grasp of the important issues. What strikes many in America I believe is Obama's ability to spark a belief again in our greatness, after so many years of malaise and shame. That is no small matter. It was the appeal of Reagan (although I was no great fan) after the general despondency of the late '70's. I think with all respect to you that, as I would not be able to emotionally respond to the conditions of your country's collective soul, you may not fully understand the enormous desire among many of us to radically change the catastrophic direction Bush placed us on. So though Clinton may be more knowledgeable on the issues facing us, Obama is more cognizant of the desires compelling us. But either way, Clinton or Obama will be a much welcome change.

Posted by: chaff13 | February 9, 2008 12:27 AM | Report abuse

No one ran ads in IL - how is that any different than in FL?

Obama knows a lot about ballot access and disenfranchising voters - he won his first political office by using the old Chicago trick of knocking any opponents off the ballot - so he and his supporters come off as a little hypocritical to me.

And the idea that he is going to be competitive in the general election in states like Alaska, Idaho, N. Dakota, Kansas, or S. Carolina is laughable.

Let the majority rule. Add up all the votes of all the voters who participated in a Democratic primary, regardless of were they live, and whom ever received the greatest number of votes should get the nomination.

As far as MI, let them hold a primary in April or May and decide how they want to seat their delegates - the party is supposedly raising huge sums of money that we shouldn't be concerned about not being competitive with the Republicans in the general election. The rank and file membership of Democrats in states like MI and FL are too important for the petty 'super-delegates' to be given a say while ignoring those who have made this party. The DNC failed to resolve this issue that has been festering for far too long, and now they need to come up with a solution to allow different states in all regions of the country to have a say and forget the disproportionate influence of NH and Iowa. This would strengthen the state party's - and a lottery system at this convention that decided the order of state primaries would best serve the Democratic Party to avoid this from happening four years from now.

At the end of the Super Tuesday - no matter how many states were won - Senator Clinton won more votes than did Obama. That is the simple truth.

Posted by: clawrence35 | February 9, 2008 12:11 AM | Report abuse

No one ran ads in IL - how is that any different than in FL?

Obama knows a lot about ballot access and disenfranchising voters - he won his first political office by using the old Chicago trick of knocking any opponents off the ballot - so he and his supporters come off as a little hypocritical to me.

And the idea that he is going to be competitive in the general election in states like Alaska, Idaho, N. Dakota, Kansas, or S. Carolina is laughable.

Let the majority rule. Add up all the votes of all the voters who participated in a Democratic primary, regardless of were they live, and whom ever received the greatest number of votes should get the nomination.

As far as MI, let them hold a primary in April or May and decide how they want to seat their delegates - the party is supposedly raising huge sums of money that we shouldn't be concerned about not being competitive with the Republicans in the general election. The rank and file membership of Democrats in states like MI and FL are too important for the petty 'super-delegates' to be given a say while ignoring those who have made this party. The DNC failed to resolve this issue that has been festering for far too long, and now they need to come up with a solution to allow different states in all regions of the country to have a say and forget the disproportionate influence of NH and Iowa. This would strengthen the state party's - and a lottery system at this convention that decided the order of state primaries would best serve the Democratic Party to avoid this from happening four years from now.

At the end of the Super Tuesday - no matter how many states were won - Senator Clinton won more votes than did Obama. That is the simple truth.

Posted by: clawrence35 | February 9, 2008 12:09 AM | Report abuse

I am not American but follow this race with great interest and I am, as a huge majority of the Europeans is, in favour of the Democratic nominee for your next President. Like both Obama and HRC but can't help wondering, what is so galvanising about Obama figure that some people makes really "crazy" and ready to follow the "preacher"? It was so obvious at the debates I followed that HRC has something to tell and Obama usually sticks to his general, although very well communicated, but empty phrases on change and hope. That's all empty talk to me, unfortunately so common among many politicians on the continent I am coming from. It is not the rhetoric and pose that should decide the winner in this US election. It did in a past and it's not pretty. Please do not make the same mistake again...

Posted by: kajzarjev | February 9, 2008 12:03 AM | Report abuse

I think we should wait and burn this bridge when we get to it.

Posted by: schuerman | February 8, 2008 11:59 PM | Report abuse

"princeofwisdom" would be more persuasive if he, or it, would learn to spell.

Less amusing, though!

Posted by: thrh | February 8, 2008 11:57 PM | Report abuse

"princeofwisdom" would be more persuasive if he, or it, would learn to spell.

Posted by: thrh | February 8, 2008 11:54 PM | Report abuse

Now, Hillary is the one with all the Experience, whose strong point is that she understands how the Rules work, right?

Right.

And therefore....

Posted by: thrh | February 8, 2008 11:48 PM | Report abuse

The Parties make their rules. They may be, and usually are, stupid, but they are the rules.

The candidates are required to play by the rules, however arbitrary the rules may be.

So let's just enforce the rules. And not quibble about who they are unfair to. They're probably unfair to everybody in one way or another.

But they're the rules the parties agreed to.

Too late to back out.

Sob, sob!

Posted by: thrh | February 8, 2008 11:46 PM | Report abuse

Time Magazine's numbers wizard Jackson Dykman has come up with the most fascinating bit of data on Super Tues (Feb 5):

"I have re-done my calculations with the latest vote totals as of 4:30 p.m. February 6, 2008 , and guess what?

The raw numbers grew a bit, but the percentages are exactly the same.

Clinton: 50.2% (7,427,942)
Obama: 49.8% (7,370,023)

Now keep in mind, this is just among those voting for Obama or Clinton. If you add in Edwards and Uncommitted, etc., the percentages would change slightly, but the point is the same. That breakdown looks like this:

Clinton: 48.7%
Obama: 48.4%
Edwards: 2.7%
Uncommitted: 0.17%
Biden: 0%
Richardson: 0%%

Posted by: caliosman | February 8, 2008 11:45 PM | Report abuse

princeofwisdom: Hey, oh wise one: haven't you caught on yet? THE FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN BALLOTS DON'T COUNT!

Got it?

Posted by: thrh | February 8, 2008 11:41 PM | Report abuse

I fear in reading many of these comments that the emotional energy many of us feel (justifiably) in response to the Bush years is being turned inwards. I'm also galvanized by the prospect of change. Yet this intraparty vitriol risks alienating the supporters of whichever candidate loses the nomination, potentially handing the election to the republicans. I, for one, fear that most of all, especially since a Supreme Court justice will likely be chosen in this next term. The nomination needs to be decided fairly and expeditiously, or else we prolong an increasingly bitter nominating process that threatens a splintering of the party. All our passion would be spent on the wrong election. Both Clinton and Obama are supremely more competent, compassionate and enlightened than Mr. McCain -- it's important for us to remember that and save our energy for the general election. That being said, I beseech Howard Dean to avoid at all costs the nomination devolving into a victory for the most politically connected or powerful. I do not envy his position, but my cynical side also fears the Clintons' capacity to employ their considerable political influence in the DNC to parlay those votes into delegates. If this does occur, I feel certain that, as many have expressed here, those oh so important and passionate Obama supporters will be hard to find come November.

Posted by: chaff13 | February 8, 2008 11:40 PM | Report abuse

"I thik that's an insult to the voters of Florida."

It is virtually impossible to insult the voters of Florida. Remember the last few elections? Morons is too mild. Brain dead is ageist. How about, oh well, the Post won't print it!

Posted by: thrh | February 8, 2008 11:37 PM | Report abuse

and to d_money the poster above me. I don't think Donna Braze is an Obama supporter and she wasn't saying she doesn't support super delegates. I think what she was saying that if it came down toe the convention and the choice, just because of the way the elections ended up, came down to the super delegates then she would leave the party. she's just saying one way or the other the people should decide and it won't look good for "just" 700 people, elected officials or not, to choose the candidate.

Posted by: princeofwisdom | February 8, 2008 11:35 PM | Report abuse

"A lot of the anti Clinton comments are to put it mildy, vile!"

Hey, baby; you ain't heard NOTHIN' yet! Heard the one about Bill and the Page and the Cigar??

Posted by: thrh | February 8, 2008 11:34 PM | Report abuse

for one Thing, as a Clinton supporter I do hope they resolve this issue well before the convention, because if she does win the nomination at the convention before this, I'll be the first to admit it won't look good. That said Obama supporters are sounding real funny now.

for one nobody told Obama and Edwards to remove their names from the ballots of MI. that's just something they did of their own accord. Sucks for them that they got destroyed in that state but once again they didn't have to remove their names.

in Florida, he lost plain and simple. He says that voters didn't know him, but I thik that's an insult to the voters of Florida. People aren't so stupid or naive that they don't want national news channels. He was able to win several super Tuesday States in places I know he didn't even set foot in, so it has nothing to do about him being there.

If Obama HAD one MI and FL, I guarantee he would be trying to seat those delegates, talking about some will of the people junk and I guarantee his supporters would be crying foul if they weren't seated. Like it or not Clinton won those votes and whether she won it on pure name recognition or whatever it doesn't matter she won, does votes should be counted in favor of her.

I'll be the first to say that right now the momentum is goign with Obama so it doesn't mean he still couldn't win the nomination, but those votes for Hilary would put her much further in the lead, so they definetely need to resolve this issue one way or the other.

and don't expect another election to take place cause it ain't happening. you can't realistically expect a candidate to have a "re-vote" on an election they already one. get real. IF Obama won he wouldn't want a revote and I don't expect Clinton to want one either. You don't give your opponent a chance to win a state you already one.

just as an aside I noticed that Obama agreed to two debates in TX and OH, the two states he's believed to be trailing in, but not any of the states he thinks he might already win.

Posted by: princeofwisdom | February 8, 2008 11:32 PM | Report abuse

You can't have it both ways. I hear Obama people already trying to complain about the superdelegates - how they're not part of the democratic process so the nominee shouldn't be decided by that (Yes, I'm looking at you, Donna Brazile!). But guess what, those were the rules. Florida and Michigan were out per the rules too.

So either follow all the rules (superdelegates in and FL/MI out) or continue to pretend you represent something different while playing the same old political games, Obamamaniacs.

Posted by: d_money | February 8, 2008 11:26 PM | Report abuse

Just love how Hillary supporters want to count the votes in these states. Perfect! Break the rules, keep your name on the ballot (when everyone else played by the rules to remove their names in MI), let the voters vote for Hillary vs nobody, then when nobody is looking, go ahead and count their delegates, as if nothing had been agreed to. Well...it follow a pattern for the Clintons: just be sneaky as long as you get away with it - right Monica?

Posted by: cedricguss | February 8, 2008 10:53 PM | Report abuse

Clinton supporters didn't have a whisper to say about this back when it looked like the Queen held her crown in hand. Now that they realize that the man they consider a usurper has overtaken her, they wring their hands about the poor voters of Florida and Michigan.

Their legislators made the decision to move the date up, despite knowing the consequences; now they want special privileges to fix the mess. They made the bed, now they must lie in it. If my state did what theirs did, I would be organizing a campaign to chastise and humiliate the stupid politicians who disenfranchised their own voters.

The Clintons just want to harness the situation to win by playing dirty. 'Cos they can't win any other way...

Posted by: donkeyguy | February 8, 2008 10:44 PM | Report abuse

Don't worry, Democrats! Be happy, Democrats!

Miz Chillary and Ol' Bill will work this out right after they collect those Florida and Michigan delegates at Denver, pass GO, and collection THE NOMINATION!

Miz Chillary (of the famous Whitewater Plantation!) will explain it all to those poor benighted and unhappy Obama voters!

Posted by: DaTourist | February 8, 2008 10:43 PM | Report abuse

"Seedofchange,

Are you telling us that 50% of the voters in Alaska, Connecticut and Delaware are black?"

You forgot to ask about North Dakota. I personally KNOW that ALL of the black voters in North Dakota voted for Obama. I know both of them.

Posted by: thrh | February 8, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

"Are the Democrats seriously considering disenfranchising the citizens of Florida? "

Executing them would be simpler, but disenfranchising them will do.

Posted by: thrh | February 8, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

DaTourist wrote:

"After Obama won South Carolina, helped enormously by Bill Clinton's dissing of Obama, Hillary violated her pledge to the DNC, and campaigned in Florida...."

WylieD wrote:

What alternate universe do you live in?

DaTourist replied:

Why don't you assign me one?

WylieD wrote:

Clinton never campaigned in Florida. She did hold a closed fundraiser there. This was allowed by the rules, and, in fact, Obama did the same in Michigan. And Obama ran ads intended to be seen by Florida voters.

DaTourist replied:

I just don't understand why that uppity Obama doesn't buy this version of Hillary's hewing to the DNC rules in Florida. Black attitude? Or what?

WylieD wrote:

A million and a half Democrats voted in the Florida primary. The results should be counted. I would love for Obama to go to Florida and tell the voters otherwise.

DaTourist replied:

Oh, well, a million and a half Democrat voters will get a chance to register their discontent with the DNC and their brokered nominee in Election 2008 IF THE DEMOCRATS DISENFRANCHISE THEIR OWN PEOPLE.

WylieD wrote:

But he's gutless. He'll have surrogates do it.

DaTourist replied:

Gutless and UPPITY!

You know how those Chicago bros are! Always telling Mayor Daley to stick it in his ear! And putting down foie gras! Why Daley's an Obama man I just can imagine!

Posted by: DaTourist | February 8, 2008 10:26 PM | Report abuse

AMERICA'S TIME FOR RECONCILIATION HAS COME:

Here's a place to start:

cslang.blogspot.com

PASS IT ON

Posted by: charlessamuellang | February 8, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

You know, you people who keep touting that Michigan and Florida's primaries were bogus aren't very American at all. The candidates didn't have to BE in Michigan and Florida, nor did they have to CAMPAIGN in Michigan and Florida for the people of these states to have their say. This is America, a government for the people by the people and the people of Michigan and Florida have spoken. It doesn't matter what the candidates themselves did. The people of Michigan and Florida said they want Hillary Clinton! Wake up Democratic Party and acknowledge it.

Posted by: Lisa | February 8, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse

You know, you people who keep touting that Michigan and Florida's primaries were bogus aren't very American at all. The candidates didn't have to BE in Michigan and Florida, nor did they have to CAMPAIGN in Michigan and Florida for the people of these states to have their say. This is America, a government for the people by the people and the people of Michigan and Florida have spoken. It doesn't matter what the candidates themselves did. The people of Michigan and Florida said they want Hillary Clinton! Wake up Democratic Party and acknowledge it.

Posted by: Lisa | February 8, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse

Obama and his supporters are terribly dishonest. No candidate pledged that Michigan or Florida primaries shouldn't account ahead of time. No candidate pledged to take their names off the ballot in Michigan or Florida. In a conspiracy against Hillary, Obama and Edwards took their names off the ballot one day before the deadline. They then cried foul that Michigan wouldn't put their names on the ballot. Disgusting politicians.

Posted by: seegreen2002 | February 8, 2008 10:14 PM | Report abuse

In the meantime, American voters have the opportunity to observe the Democrats' problem-solving skills in action, and evaluate how these smart statesmen (as always they remain smarter than the average bears or statesmen) will solve the problems of the Middle East and world peace!

Aint it all just so edifying! Don't you feel confidence creeping over you like...like...like an ice-cold bath????

Posted by: DaTourist | February 8, 2008 10:08 PM | Report abuse

"After Obama won South Carolina, helped enormously by Bill Clinton's dissing of Obama, Hillary violated her pledge to the DNC, and campaigned in Florida...."

What alternate universe do you live in?

Clinton never campaigned in Florida. She did hold a closed fundraiser there. This was allowed by the rules, and, in fact, Obama did the same in Michigan. And Obama ran ads intended to be seen by Florida voters.

A million and a half Democrats voted in the Florida primary. The results should be counted. I would love for Obama to go to Florida and tell the voters otherwise.

But he's gutless. He'll have surrogates do it.

Posted by: WylieD | February 8, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Well, after reading Dan Balz' scintillating analysis and prescription for fixing the problem, Democrats can go to bed happy, knowing all will be well.

Don't worry! Be happy!

Some how George Mitchell will ride in on a white donkey and all will be in harmony again!

Posted by: DaTourist | February 8, 2008 10:02 PM | Report abuse

Okay, folks, let's all just calm down a bit, and re-think this prob!

1. The DNC sanctioned Michigan and Florida for jumping the gun on party primary rules.

2. All candidates, INCLUDING HILLARY, pledged not to campaign in Florida and Michigan.

4. After Obama won South Carolina, helped enormously by Bill Clinton's dissing of Obama, Hillary violated her pledge to the DNC, and campaigned in Florida on the promise that she would seat the Florida and Michigan delegations in Denver irregardless of DNC rules.

5. Now it appears that the Florida and Michigan delegates seated will deliver the nomination to Hillary, and unseated will deliver the nomination to Obama.

6. Yes, we have a small problem of trust here, folks.

Obama doesn't trust Hillary, Hillary doesn't trust Obama.

Neither Hillary nor Obama trusts Howie to be a broker.

7. If this scenario plays itself out in Denver, as seems likely, the Democrats will come out of the convention as DEAD MEN WALKING.

8. If the Florida and Michigan delegates are seated, Obama's voters will defect to McCain. If Florida and Michigan delegates are not seated, Florida and Michigan will defect to McCain.

9. Among Democrats, prayer does not seem to be an option.

10. Will the Democrats' post-mortem be written before November 2008? Could be...


Posted by: DaTourist | February 8, 2008 9:54 PM | Report abuse

"I suggest a mass exodus of Obama supporters from the Democratic party. Form a new party, a third party."

Great idea. Too bad these names are already taken:

"Scientologists" "Hari Krishma" "Moonies"

Posted by: WylieD | February 8, 2008 9:51 PM | Report abuse

First off, Hillary Clinton said she'd fight to seat the Florida delegates if she became the nominee! It would be political suicide and a major personal embarrassment if she publicly stated she would try to get those delegates seated when the race is this tight and she looks set to fall behind Obama on pledged delegates. She'd be finished in Democratic politics. (If you're thinking yeah, she's done stuff already, allow your mind a moment to grasp how this would be much, much worse, to be unpardonable.)

In situations like these the worst thing organization heads can do is remain silent and allow some pretty wild speculating to go on unabated. The DNC should come out now and explain the viability of the countless options that are being thrown out there to resolve the FL, MI situation. Otherwise people are gonna be running around saying things like Democrats are stupid; X is such an "obvious" solution, when that could be farther from the truth.

Personally, I think the original ruling should stand. Campaigns are so dynamic, with so many peaks and lows. Imagine if the primaries were rescheduled for the summer when Obama would have a huge warchest compared to Clinton's? Imagine the rancor if the Florida result stood. Apart from splitting the delegates, there is simply no equitable solution to the problem. No, the ruling stands. Much like it should with these Superdelegates.

I don't like that Obama is throwing those subtle rumblings about superdelegates. He knew the deal going on, that the smart money was on Clinton carrying a significant edge in that respect, that he'd have to battle hard to sway them. I understand he's not saying the rules should be changed, but he shouldn't blatantly stoke the disgruntlement of his base in a way that could damage the party should he lose the nomination in a brokered convention.

To those who say why not just scrap the superdelegates, consider that parts of Clinton's campaign strategy was and is dependent on her perceived advantage with the superdelegates. If you ask why Obama should be penalized for a Florida result he didn't have the chance to influence, then also ask why Hillary should be penalized for exploiting an archaic system devised by her and Obama's own party.

Posted by: amasvik1 | February 8, 2008 9:42 PM | Report abuse

I'm a disenfranchised Michigan voter, "thanks" to the stupidity of our legislature (and duplicity of Governor who is supporting Sen. Clinton). I would be so outraged if the Party reneged and counted those delegates for her (after I was denied the opportunity to vote for Sen. Obama), that I'll vote for McCain just like I insanely voted for Nixon in 1968 in protest of the Party's then traditionalists. Fair and square is one thing, but counting Florida and Michigan for Sen. Clinton simply isn't fair.

Posted by: rat | February 8, 2008 9:38 PM | Report abuse

A lot of the anti Clinton comments are to put it mildy, vile! The majority of the anti Obama comments are at least civilised, no name calling. The people making the vile comments, are they Democrats? They appear to be students of the K. Rove school of politics. Does Obama want this type of follower?
Obama talks about change, a new face etc. It is a wonderful ideal. But there is nothing new about the anti Clinton abuse!

Posted by: gerry1 | February 8, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse

This is Obama,s mistake he took his name off the MI. ballot, thats not Hillarys problem. 1.7 milliom voted in FL.Do anyone think that our vote should not count? Do any Dems. think that we go into Nov. without
FL& MI. in play. Obama did run adds in FL, he out smarted him self.Don,t blame Hillary.

Posted by: dadio4003 | February 8, 2008 9:27 PM | Report abuse

Okay, I got a Solomonic idea!

Let Obama and Hillary run for Co-President!

That would be fair, and equal!

Mr. and Madam President!

Michelle and Bill could be First Lady and First Laddy!

The Oracle has spoken, and you heard it here first!

Posted by: DaTourist | February 8, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

Let's talk about this after March 4.

Hillary could pick up some momentum, split the Feb. states, and score big knockout wins in OH and TX that means she doesn't have to fight to get MI and FL in.

Conversely, Obama could sweep February, squeak out either OH or TX, and be in good shape with delegates to cover both MI and FL. A loss in OH, PA, or TX pretty much forces Clinton to drop out and they've admitted as much.

I like Obama's upside more. Barring a major Obama slide, Clinton's best case scenario now involves fighting to a draw then winning with MI/FL/superdelegates.

Posted by: Nissl | February 8, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

What Dan Balz in trying to say in this article is that Obamacrats must prepare themselves for Hillary and her DNC henchmen and henchwomen to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations in Denver, and snatch the nomination from the Noble Obama, the Great Black Hope!

For the good of the party, Barack and the Obamacrats must NOW STAND ASIDE like The Noble Romney, and the clear the way for HILLARY, HILLARY, HILLARY!

As Bill would say, "ALL MINE AND HILLARY'S, TOO!"

Posted by: DaTourist | February 8, 2008 9:15 PM | Report abuse

Ah, svreader, where did you learn such words as "neural implant"? They are really too sophisticated for somebody like you. Did you have correspondent lectures in your mental facility? Unfortunately, you still don't understand the meaning of these words. Find the lecturer and ask for additional explanations. But the way. my communications are not so much scrutinized now, as they were before. I think that it is because I have discussed this scrutiny publicly on the board. I mean that scrutinizers are not showing their presence any more, as they did before, the same extremely idiotic way, which you use to operate on this board. For example, Mrs. Clinton concentrated attention of the beholders exclusively of her pretty non proportional behind during some organized by AAPR debates just after I translated and orchestrated the song about self-righting bubble doll toy. You have the same mental capacities, and reactions, as your mistress does. No wonder that I thought sometimes that you are her alter ego.

Posted by: aepelbaum | February 8, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

The Constitution is clear, STATES run elections, not parties. While the parties have the right of association, they do not run elections. The real decision here is whether voters want their states in charge or their parties. I'll take states any day. Isn't interesting that the Democratic party was for counting every vote in 2000 and 2004, but insist on disenfranchising two states in 2008? And most ofthe Democratic candidates went right along with the party. Who do they serve, their party or the voters?

Posted by: bforsgren | February 8, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

'The situation cries out for leadership.'

George Mitchell? That ol' honky?

This is a job for Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton! Just ask 'em and get outta da way!

Posted by: DaTourist | February 8, 2008 9:07 PM | Report abuse

'The situation cries out for leadership.'

I betcha a dollar to a donut former President Clinton would volunteer to arbitrate this conundrum in a fair and equitable way.

Give Bill a chance! Aint Bill a great Democratic leader?

Posted by: DaTourist | February 8, 2008 9:02 PM | Report abuse

Republicans are source of political pestilence these days, and I'll *have to* vote for Hillary if she runs in the general election, but as the lesser of two evils, not as a candidate I'm excited about.

I think a lot of people would do just that-- vote for Hillary because we are fed up of Ayatollah Bush and his mafia, not because she is a great candidate. She is certainly not. She's a good *campaigner*, but that's different.

I for one don't trust Hillary one bit; whereas Republicans I trust-- to do more damage and keep us in perpetual war. So I'll take my chances with Hillary if given the choice. Certainly not an optimal choice.

So yes, I'm hoping for Obama to bring in a wave of change to the party and the way the Democrats have governed whenever they've had a chance in the past four decades. I'm tired of the baby boomer culture wars. I'm tired of weasel words and broken promises. I'm tired of politics by poll and divisive politicking, and of politicians in the pocket of special interests. And I have Clinton fatigue, and she has done nothing but reinforce my mistrust of her during her weaselly campaign.

I see Obama's campaign as a chance to renew the Democratic party and bring in a new generation of Americans into the process. If we pick Hillary, it will a slow political suicide, because only the party faithful and those voting for the lesser of two evils will be involved in the process.

I hope that explains my position?

Posted by: alarico | February 8, 2008 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Badjer3, idiot-svreader, and whoever else, Florida and Michigan should have their caucasuses all over again, or Hillary should be thrown out of democratic race for her illegal promises and advertised illegal intentions to overthrow current DNC chairman. Simle and clear!!!

Posted by: aepelbaum | February 8, 2008 8:58 PM | Report abuse

'The worst possibility for the Democrats would be failing to resolve the Michigan-Florida problem before everyone arrives in Denver. That could produce an ugly rules or credentials fight that would leave the loser's supporters bitter and demoralized. The situation cries out for leadership. As one Florida Democratic Party official put it, "Anybody know what George Mitchell's doing?"'

This is just a modest suggestion?

Has Howie and the DNC considered the power of prayer?

Posted by: DaTourist | February 8, 2008 8:57 PM | Report abuse

Who can win California and Florida? If you answered Clinton, you are right. You get 82 points.

If you answered Obama, you get to go to Disney World!

Posted by: kat7 | February 8, 2008 8:56 PM | Report abuse

'Devine said what's needed is "a mechanism that takes account of what has happened but doesn't unfairly penalize Senator Obama for not fully participating."'

Okay, Hillary, one for you! One for Barack! One for you, one for Barack!

You see what a great solution this is, right?

Posted by: DaTourist | February 8, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse

aepelbaum --

Do you still think that the Clinton's are monitoring all of your electronic communications?

Do you still think you have a neural implant?

Don't make everyone on these boards laugh.

You're a walking "Zyprexa" ad.

Posted by: svreader | February 8, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse

SpeedofChange, people, who voted for Hillary, are extremely wrong, and would rip off their hair in no time, if she really wins presidency. I am sure that you know it the same way, as I do.

Posted by: aepelbaum | February 8, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

'Short of scheduling sanctioned events, this will have to be resolved by DNC Chairman Howard Dean and the two presidential campaigns.'

What did Howie say?

Howie screamed, "EeeeeeeeeeeeYOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!"

Posted by: DaTourist | February 8, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Neitherwinterproduction, McCain is better than Hillary as anyone is better than she for the presidency. If Hillary is nominated, my vote would go to McCain.

Posted by: aepelbaum | February 8, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Why isn't svreader still in a straight jacket? Why is this mentally retarded and aggressive creature allowed still to pour its dirt on this web?

Posted by: aepelbaum | February 8, 2008 8:45 PM | Report abuse

Alerico -

Are you still in the party? Its been 10 minutes, surely something hasn't gone Obama's way this whole time. Haven't you decided to vote republican yet?

Posted by: lpeter59 | February 8, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse

'One solution is for the two states to organize caucuses for this spring, perhaps in May. But the cost and complexity of running caucuses in states as large as Florida and Michigan make this more difficult than it sounds.'

What a marvellous idea! EUREKA!

Let the DNC pay for it! Win-win! Who would object?

Posted by: DaTourist | February 8, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse

With our votes, of course.

Posted by: alarico | February 8, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

With what, you nose?

Posted by: svreader | February 8, 2008 8:36 PM | Report abuse

================

Obama supporters should rent the movie Elmer Gantry.

It is about this fast talking, conman (lets call him Barrack) who meets this female evangelist (lets call her Oprah) and take out across the country to sell religion to the masses in the 1920s. They are both eventually seduced by fame and the use of blind faith over common sense. In the end, events conspire against them and fate finally deals them a crushing blow.

Interesting movie.

================

Yeah I saw that movie in the 1990s, it was remade as "Slick Willie", he barely escapes impeachment, and his woman stood by him, no matter what.

The irony is that the rest of us and not them got the crushing blow of 8 years of Dubya, thank you very much, enough of that already.

Time to clean up the Democratic party.

Posted by: alarico | February 8, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse

There is NO WAY Democrats can afford to piss off Florida.

Look at what happened last time...

Posted by: svreader | February 8, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

People talk about Renzko like its something to worry about in the General. Does anyone remember John McCain and the Keating five? Both McCain and Hillary are covered will so much dirt its laughable to even mention Obama's few missteps!

Posted by: frank | February 8, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters should rent the movie Elmer Gantry.

It is about this fast talking, conman (lets call him Barrack) who meets this female evangelist (lets call her Oprah) and take out across the country to sell religion to the masses in the 1920s. They are both eventually seduced by fame and the use of blind faith over common sense. In the end, events conspire against them and fate finally deals them a crushing blow.

Interesting movie.

Posted by: lpeter59 | February 8, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse

ATTENTION MICHIGAN DEMOCRATS!!!!

We need a new primary or caucus! Who the heck is "Uncommitted" anyway? This whole thing is ridiculous. We need to have a seated delegation based on a vote of named candidates. There is too much at stake for Michigan to not be represented. Contact the Michigan Democratic Party and request that they do the right thing for Michigan residents. www.michigandems.com then click on "Contact Us."

Posted by: suekzoo1 | February 8, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

I wonder who suggested to re-do the states voted already. Contests are fair as long as both sides were on the same grounds.

I wonder who wanted to have stated to desert their votes and remake them with the form of caucuses.

I wonder who inserted those ideas to the media, including Dan. Whoever that is, a great manipulator.

Posted by: sangliu | February 8, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

I wonder who suggested to re-do the states voted already. Contests are fair as long as both sides were on the same grounds.

I wonder who wanted to have stated to desert their votes and remake them with the form of caucuses.

I wonder who inserted those ideas to the media, including Dan. Whoever that is, a great manipulator.

Posted by: sangliu | February 8, 2008 8:07 PM | Report abuse

===============
blah blah bla blah

The states that matter...have spoken...GOODBYE and GOOD RIDDANCE!!!!!

blah blah blah

Posted by: leslieanneconover | February 8, 2008 07:50 PM

===

Nice lunatic screams there on behalf of your candidate! Good show! And good to see you've seceded 4 states all on your own! "The States that Matter..." Impressive...

Just think, what if the Confederates had asked for your help in 1861... who knows what could have happened!

Posted by: alarico | February 8, 2008 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone know if there is a petition out there to the DNC about this matter? Online or otherwise?

Posted by: mleitsinger | February 8, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

I'm sooooooooooo OVER this big time loser named Barrack Obama!!!!!!!!!!

CLINTON WINS BECAUSE:

1. Florida
2. New York
3. Massachussettes
4. CALIFORNIA

The "PEOPLE" have spoken Barrack...she's in, and you're out!

Quit acting like a "win" in Alaska, or Idaho means something.

The states that matter...have spoken...GOODBYE and GOOD RIDDANCE!!!!!

P.S. It's time you learn some proper respect for fellow politicians who have helped pave the way for you and your career. Quit looking like such a dick, and drop out already. We are done with you! The middle can have you...the Mighty East and West have spoken!!!!!!!

P.P.S. Who really cares about Michigan's delegates....FLORIDA is the decision maker out of the 2 and she won handily...re-do your stupid caucus crap in Michigan...it really doesn't matter...OBAMA has lost...the media is PLAYING all of you for more ratings and more $$MILLIONS$$ in extra advertising for their networks.

Wasn't the media, the group that said she could lose in California and Massachusettes????

Obama got his ass handed to him in California and Mass! Thanks media for the faulty information.

Good night, Obama....BACK TO THE MIDDLE WITH YOU!!!!!!! BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Posted by: leslieanneconover | February 8, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

I think everyone in the party agreed not to campaign in Florida or Michigan. Hillary did anyhow. The others did not.

Rules were set and agreed upon. To change them at this juncture is not fair.

That said, I hope Hillary and Barrack get together and work this out in advance of the convention. To do otherwise would hurt the party when we most need unity. We cannot allow another 4 years of fanatical right wing mess.

Posted by: Alex3 | February 8, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

why are you guys fighting? And why is news media stoking the fire?

They should(both camps and DNC) negotiate a caucus or primary in FL and MI again.

I don't feel like explaining the why's. It should be obvious to any thinking person.

Posted by: jj121341234123 | February 8, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

If it comes down to the DNC super delegates deciding the nominee and they ignore the delegates of Michigan and Florida, it would be logical that the voters in each state would be so disgusted that those two large electorial states will be colored very red on election night.
Why didn't the DNC strip them of 1/2 the delegates like the Republicans?

Posted by: badger3 | February 8, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

We've got count all the votes.

If we don't we're not going to have a leg to stand on when the November recount comes, which it may very well given how close all the polls are.

If there's a tie bettween the Democrats and the Republicans, we won't have a leg to stand on if we didn't count all the votes!!!

Posted by: svreader | February 8, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Clinton and Obama are basically tied in pledged delegates to date. So Howard Dean should deal with Michigan and Florida right now: give them each 50% of the delegates and shift the focus to future states.

Posted by: spike3905 | February 8, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

A perfect way for Obama to learn about his "universal" appeal is for him to go third party.

He can win Iowa, Utah, SC, Georgia, Connecticut and Idaho. We all know that republicans will vote for him in droves and don't worry about those pesky electoral votes, "just believe". I think he should go for it.

Fact is, just like Democrats can't win without his support this year, he is absolutely NOTHING without the Democratic party. If he throws a tantrum and splits from the party, his presidential hopes are dead forever. His ONLY chance of becoming president is riding this pony wherever it takes him

Posted by: lpeter59 | February 8, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

102060, um,
aren't you missing a few minutes
of FOX News, Rush Limbone head or hangin
out with your Swift Boat friends over a bottle of Miller Draft?

Posted by: billyboykm | February 8, 2008 7:34 PM | Report abuse

casbasura -

I agree completely with your comment, "Collectively, these posts suggest sad times ahead for the dems."

I grew up Republican, and switched to the Democratic party in the 90's.

I'm not about to switch back, but McCain is starting to look good, in comparison to all the Dem mud-slinging.

Sigh.

Posted by: tschlabach | February 8, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Beautiful analogy, steveboyington. Why it doesn't sound that ludicrous to some people in the political arena, I know not.

Posted by: gamayrouge | February 8, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

I think the rules are not fair. For one thing why are Mi and Fl being penalized for wanting to cast their ballot in a cluster like the other states? If strikes me that these things get decided pretty quickly like the Super Tues
when the front runners are moving up, by the time other states get their chance, their candidate might already have dropped out and they never even get a chance to vote their choice.Their left with someone they really don,t like or stuck with whats left. And Hilliary was the only one on the ballot, had Obama and Edwards been allowed or granted admission they might of had a better showing this way of voting 'uncommitted is like" Buying a pig in a poke' not very explicitely guarenteed of seeing what they(voter) is getting. This along turns alot of potential voters away , Hilliary must of guessed this why she even stayed in both primaries I think Mi and Fl should be given a chance to see who REALLY supports who. Bottom line
Feeling disenfrancised and reluctant to vote uncommitted.

Posted by: grdn_nell | February 8, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

The real blame lies with the party establishments of Michigan and Florida. First and foremost people should be mad at THEM.

There will be a deal brokered soon, I bet. Both campaigns have the common sense to do that.

My suggestion is this: the Florida votes count as is. Michigan has a second primary scheduled in June or July. The old Michigan results (much more bogus than Florida, since so few candidates were on the ballot) are thrown out completely, and the June/July votes count fully.

Both states get all their delegates back.

I'd think both camps would sign up for this in a heartbeat.

Posted by: steveboyington | February 8, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

The real blame lies with the party establishments of Michigan and Florida. First and foremost people should be mad at THEM.

There will be a deal brokered soon, I bet. Both campaigns have the common sense to do that.

My suggestion is this: the Florida votes count as is. Michigan has a second primary scheduled in June or July. The old Michigan results (much more bogus than Florida, since so few candidates were on the ballot) are thrown out completely, and the June/July votes count fully.

Both states get all their delegates back.

I'd think both camps would sign up for this in a heartbeat.

Posted by: steveboyington | February 8, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

A perfect way for Obama to learn about his "universal" appeal is for him to go third party.

He can win Iowa, Utah, SC, Georgia, Connecticut and Idaho. We all know that republicans will vote for him in droves and don't worry about those pesky electoral votes, just believe". I think he should go for it.

Fact is, just like Democrats can't win without his support this year, he is absolutely NOTHING without the Democratic party. If he throws a tantrum and splits from the party, his presidential hopes are dead forever. His ONLY chance of becoming president is riding this pony wherever it takes him

Posted by: lpeter59 | February 8, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

If only the Clinton campaign ran my beloved Patriots instead of Bob Kraft and Bill Belichick. They would have had the team show up in Dallas, run a few plays against an empty field to score some point, then petitioned to have the NFL declare them Super Bowl champion.

Posted by: steveboyington | February 8, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

The party leaders in Michigan and Florida knew the rules, and the consequences, about holding early primaries. Rules are rules.

If the voters in Michigan and Florida want their votes to count, then they better convince their state party to hold new and fair primaries. And they may want to replace their party leaders at the same time.

Posted by: rlplant | February 8, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Well, I'm an Obama supporter who has been prepared to vote for Hillary if she wins. I don't necessarily want to vote for her, but she is better than McCain. If, however, she does end up winning because of Florida/Michigan then I think I will have no choice but to abandon the Democratic party until there is a major shift within it. If Hillary Clinton can so easily renege on something she agreed to do, I shudder to think what could happen with her as the leader of this nation.

Note: If she wins without Florida/Michigan or any other backstabbing then I will vote for her, but I have already grown partially disillusioned with her and her husband.

Posted by: netherwinterproductions | February 8, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

I am from Michigan. I want my vote to count in my party's nominating process, and I did not have any say in all the primary date machinations. If necessary, the Democratic party should set an acceptable date and Michigan should hold a whole new primary.

-- Disenfranchised in Michigan :(

Posted by: djstates | February 8, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

If you change the rules now it means the rules have no meaning. A ruling was made the two states decided to have their primary anyway. Are we just going to get more of the same old same old, changing the rules back and forth as it benefits one person or another. isn't this how we ended up with the question of what the definition of "is" is back in the 90's. Frankly if they play these kinds of games I will just vote for McCain. Signed a life-long Democrat

Posted by: daviblac | February 8, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

No way.

You can't say there is no race and then pull a bait & switch, "oooops, now that we know the results, there was a race after all".

What's done is done.

This is a ridiculously weaselly suggestion.

Hack.

Posted by: alarico | February 8, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

102060 -

You are a disgrace to the American public and yourself. I'm embarrassed that I live in the same country with someone as ignorant as you. God help you.

Posted by: gamayrouge | February 8, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

If you guys represent what an Obama presidency would be like, God help us.

Posted by: lpeter59 | February 8, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Just the way this question is asked is obviously biased: "shunned"??
as in, not being invited to the party,
weep weep? i'm getting teary eyed already.....AND SO IS Hillary!!!!

the quest is well underway
to nominate her over Obama, no doubt!!!

and if not with the votes that shouldn't count, it'll be done with "super" delegate
like in Georgia, where Obama blew HRC away
but they're giving Hillary more of these so-called delgates.

i'm moving to Canada.

Posted by: billyboykm | February 8, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

I'm really disappointed after reading all these blogs about how many people disregard rules if it's not in their favor. Has everyone lost their objectivity? Let's hope that the voters in the next week decide this matter in a way that will make it clear who should be the party's nominee. So, GET OUT AND VOTE and make your statement so we can get on with winning against a war-hungry Republican party and start taking care of this country!

Posted by: lorrie7 | February 8, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

I feel like Hillary supporters do whatever they can to ignore the fact that Hillary has voted for the Iraq war several times. That is a shame to the democratic party because there is a lot of blood & money on that vote. Sure, it would be great to see a woman president because they have been oppressed in the past, but compared to African Americans, women have had it much better (not that race and gender should be a determining factor anyways... but unfortunately people usually identify themselves heavily along these lines). And lastly, as someone who studies writing & rhetoric, I notice how the Clinton strategists play the feminist card to the max (i.e. proclaiming to America in a somber mood that she had to loan her own campaign five million dollars). This persuasion tactic really stirred up the fact that men have had better financial opportunities in the past and to no surprise it worked because her campaign raised six million dollars in the next two days after that. Oh and- I will NEVER let the following belief of mine be swayed: Although I think Hillary would make a fine president, Barack Obama, without a doubt, would make just as good of one and is positively more electable for the democrats in November.

Posted by: pg6959 | February 8, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

To me the solution is simple. Dr Dean & the DNC should stick to the same penalty FL and MI Dems knew about when they picked their dates: No delegates. Then proportionately reduce the number of delegates needed to win the nomination. End of controversy, end of discussion.

Posted by: ssomo | February 8, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

JacksonLanders said it exactly right.

As Dan Balz wrote, FL and MI played chicken and lost.

To amplify: Florida and Michigan's leaders knew what they were in for when they made their power play and now they have screwed themselves, their states' voters, and the Democratic Party.

As for blaming Obama and Clinton before this: they didn't have much to do with making this mess, other than lacking the foresight and skill to prevent it from happening in the first place.

As for Obama and Clinton's role now: Obama is only saying let's play by the rules we made. Clinton, however, is trying to slime her way to grabbing delegates she thinks she "scored" while the other team was off the field.

As for Obama's ads that were seen in Florida: I think Clinton is just pissed that she didn't think of it herself... or more likely, couldn't afford to do herself.

Posted by: egc52556 | February 8, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Florida and Michigan disenfranchised themselves! They knew the rules, they made the choices, they must face the consequences. They are in no way being blindsided or mistreated. It was their choice when THEY moved up their primaries against the will of the DNC. It would be nice for the Democrats to follow the rules set forth, that everyone agreed on (included ALL the candidates) and not try to win the nomination through an unethical backdoor.

Posted by: gamayrouge | February 8, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Florida and Michigan should have coucasuses all over again. Illegal elections should not have ANY legal weight. We are the nation under the laws and rules, and, therefore, we can't have such president as Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: aepelbaum | February 8, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Easy solution:

Hold. A. Caucus.

Now that it's after the window, we'll seat the delegates from that.

But not going to give you any delegates from the primaries.

Forget it.

Posted by: WillSeattle | February 8, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Minor error in this article:

Florida would be the FOURTH largest delegation and Michigan would be the EIGHTH largest, not the 3rd and 5th largest.

Dan Balz probably forgot to include states that haven't voted yet: Texas (3rd), Pennsylvania (6th) and Ohio (7th).

Posted by: fredwerner | February 8, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

This was ILLEGAL primary in Michigan and Florida. Hillary should have been thrown out of democratic race because she promised her supporters to reinstate these denied delegates and to exchange current DNC chairman Howard Dean by the previous chairman, who is currently her campaign's chairman. I am very surprised that she was not thrown away from the race for that. This woman is NOT ABOVE LAWS AND RULES, and never should be again. WE can't have this person with such disdaid for this country justice in White House. No way, no how!!!

Posted by: aepelbaum | February 8, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Surely, if Obama would have won Florida, he would be fighting with teeth and nails to get these delegates counted.

His campaign's statement "We don't care about Forida, because there are no delegates to be won." is a slap in the face of every voter in Florida and tells you a lot about the "morals" of the "idealistic" Obama Dream Tour. "I only care about people who help me"

Talk about "Change you can believe in"? Yesterday, he argued in an AP article that rules should be changed and that these super delegates should vote for him in a close election where none of the candidates has the 2.025 votes:

Quote: "He said if he winds up winning the most delegates in voting, they "would have to think long and hard about how they approach the nomination when the people they claim to represent have said, 'Obama's our guy.'""

These guys (and gals) are supposed to be independent and he tries to tell them what to do... I think that this is pathetic and I hope that we will see an invigorated Clinton over the weekend.

Posted by: flosstoss | February 8, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Obama has voted for the war from the moment he set foot in congress.

Posted by: svreader | February 8, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

lpeter59,

How is that Obama is getting his way if the delegates aren't seated? Didn't Hillary agree to that as well?

=====

I don't care if Hillary promised to buy us all ice cream cones.

If you are in the party, you are in when things don't go your way. If you can't abide by decisions of the party, whatever they are, GET OUT!

Posted by: lpeter59 | February 8, 2008 6:32 PM | Report abuse

I'm suggesting another primary in both Michigan and Florida, because that's the only method that wouldn't change the system already in place for those states. Those who voted in the previous "beauty contest" primaries would be able to vote the second time around, with care taken to ensure that everyone did in fact have that second chance (e.g., accessibility for seniors) - not sure what to do about any "snowbirds" who might be absent in a Round 2.

To go from a primary to a caucuses would be a change in the rules of the game, so that's not really a solution from the viewpoint of perceived fairness.

I can't seen excluding altogether the delegates from Michigan and Florida, as those who voted - or could yet vote (in Round 2) - in those states would feel excluded from the democratic process by a party which would be seeking their votes in November.

So all in all, I think the only fair solution is to hold a second primary in those states, if indeed their delegates were in a position to swing the nomination.

Incidentally, even though I'm a Canadian, I went to graduate school in New Haven, Connecticut, and my wife is American, from Long Island, NY. She didn't vote in the NY Democratic primary, but will be voting DEMOCRATIC in the general election regardless of whether the candidate is Barack or Hillary.

Posted by: John_D | February 8, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

I feel like Hillary supporters do whatever they can to ignore the fact that Hillary has voted for the Iraq war several times. That is a shame to the democratic party because there is a lot of blood & money on that vote. Sure, it would be great to see a woman president because they have been oppressed in the past, but compared to African Americans, women have had it much better (not that race and gender should be a determining factor anyways... but unfortunately people usually identify themselves heavily along these lines). And lastly, as someone who studies writing & rhetoric, I notice how the Clinton strategists play the feminist card to the max (i.e. proclaiming to America in a somber mood that she had to loan her own campaign five million dollars). This persuasion tactic really stirred up the fact that men have had better financial opportunities in the past and to no surprise it worked because her campaign raised six million dollars in the next two days after that. Oh and- I will NEVER let the following belief of mine be swayed: Although I think Hillary would make a fine president, Barack Obama, without a doubt, would make just as good of one and is positively more electable for the democrats in November.

Posted by: pg6959 | February 8, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons are attempting to do what they always do - which is to try and manipulate the Democratic Party to bend to their whims.

Both candidates agreed not to campaign in FL and MI in keeping with their signed pledge and the DNC sanctioning body. To try and change the rules at this stage smacks of nothing more than a Fix.

Posted by: dcooper | February 8, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Michigan rightfully moved their date inorder to count early. They voted in large numbers and should be counted at the convention. Hope the DNC and Obama campaign respects them. Have you notice how hateful Obamas followers are to rank and file democrats. Weird!

Posted by: hhkeller | February 8, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

No political party, that wants to stay a political party, can ignore the wishes of 2.3 million voters.

None of them made the decision to hold the primary when it was held. They just went out and voted.

It's just like the ridiculous way in which we are distributing delegates. You can win the vote but lose in delegates? Why? I would have never voted for that.

Posted by: lpeter59 | February 8, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Actually, most Hillary supporters are male and quite well educated.

But keep telling us how old and stupid we are. I'm sure its a great way to get people to vote for your candidate!!!

Posted by: svreader | February 8, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

If the Clinton Machine prevails in changing the rules that they initially agreed to, HRC can forget about winning the General Election. Not only would the millions of Obama supporters refuse to unite the Party, we would do everything possible to undermine & defeat her.
Combined with the massive turnout she would ignite among Republicans, who utterly loathe the Clintons, HRC would lose in a landslide.

In their craven, despicable tactics to win at any cost the Clinton Machine and their white, female, elderly, uneducated core followers will usher in an ancient Warmonger as the next President. You can then look forward to McCain's promise of a hundred year occupation of Iraq and another war in Iran, which you will justly deserve.

Posted by: ccoblas | February 8, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

IF it's such a terrible problem that these states are being punished exactly as they were warned, then let them hold May caucuses, or conventions as JacksonLanders suggests.

If that's really too expensive and difficult ... then I guess it wasn't such a terrible problem after all.

Posted by: kevrobb | February 8, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Are the Democrats seriously considering disenfranchising the citizens of Florida? Come on folks... 2000 was only eight years ago. Let's get with the program here.

Posted by: thomasmwall | February 8, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

what ever happened to following rules?

the DNC told Florida and Michigan what would happen if they went early. They did now they have to bear the consequences. End of story.

Is this what we want to teach our children follow rules but only as long as they are not inconvenient.

No wonder Republicans win on family isssues

Posted by: rds748 | February 8, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

lpeter59,

How is that Obama is getting his way if the delegates aren't seated? Didn't Hillary agree to that as well?

Posted by: smc91 | February 8, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Obama couldn't even win Massachusetts, the most liberal state in the country and with the full backing of Kennedy and Kerry! Anyone who thinks Obama, or Hillary for that matter, will win in places like SC, ID, or UT in November is just plain dreaming. Maybe these Obama people are really living out their fantasy...

As for FL and MI, the Dems have a real problem on their hand. They will lose the general election without MI. And FL is such a huge swing state, they offend the voters there at their own risk.

Posted by: helibeni | February 8, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

I will be very upset if after all the emotional energy i have invested in tis election and going out and voting if the nomination is decided by super delegates. And as far as Florida and other states, count the votes. Fair if fair, and i agree, quit whining

Posted by: lndlouis | February 8, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

I am getting really sick of hearing Obama people throwing a tantrum and threatening to vote republican every time it looks like that whiny Obama won't get his way on something.

As a democrat, I say this with all sincerity. GO! And take that Elmer Gantry wannabe with you. I'd personally rather lose this election than give into your childish extortion.

Posted by: lpeter59 | February 8, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Florida and Michigan knew the consequences of their actions when they moved up their primaries, and still they defied the DNC and got punished accordingly. The citizens of both states should focus all their anger at their state's party leadership.

It is completely unethical to count anything from Florida and Michigan in the final delegate count at the convention. To do so would make a farce of the party.

The only fair solution, otherwise, would be hold the state caucuses. Otherwise, get new party leadership for Florida and Michigan.

Posted by: rpdolan | February 8, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

seedofchange and friends,

after reading your posts for the last few weeks i have to say i'm very disappointed. the posts in this column are largely from a handful of people who apparently are racist, close minded bigots.
as a Democrat who was in the streets for R. Kennedy's primary campaign, i'm finding it easier to identify lately with Republican voters... they seem cleaner than what i see here. thanks for the education.

Posted by: lou | February 8, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

There is a very simple solution to this problem: give each candidate half of the delegates from each state. Problem solved. The other solution, of course, would be for Howard Dean to show a little leadership. He's kept silent though all of this when he should have showed a little spine and busted a move.

Posted by: mwfree | February 8, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

The ones who screwed this up are the Michiganders and Floridians (of course, in Florida, the Republican legislature forced the issue on the Democrats). Look at the sad irony: had they kept their traditional dates, these states would have been powerfully influential in this contest. Their plans really backfired.

Now, though, Hillary Clinton and her supporters need to understand that if she tries to seat these delegates, pretending that she won these uncontested states, she guarantees a loss in November. She won't retain many Obama supporters after a bonehead power move like that. But Obama voters may not have to worry. If Clinton goes with her "Giuliani strategy" and waits for March 4 and watches Obama win all of the remaining contests in February, it will be over for her, and the superdelegates, too, will slip away.

Posted by: jchaney | February 8, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

seedofchange(????), you really need to look no further than realclearpolitics.com to ascertain that Hillary has no chance of beating John McCain. Political analyses across the country note while the conservative base strong dislike McCain and question his conservative values, a Clinton nomination will galvanize this same base (along with independents) to elect McCain as president. The other implication is that the Democratic Congressional majority could take a significant hit. Even Dubya has given his tacit blessing to McCain today. These and other examples prove to me that Hillary Rodham Clinton is the most divisive figure (with her husband) in American politics today. Now if the DNC wants to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, then be my guest. Have at it; go nuts. But I promise you the day after the election, when there is a President-elect McCain, the majordomos and grand poohbahs of the DNC will engage in finger-pointing and blame-gaming over an election they should have won.

Posted by: meldupree | February 8, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

jaked -- Senator Clinton has twice tried to change the rules "after the fact." The first time was in Nevada, where her supporters, with at least her tacit support, tried to change polling places away from the casinos after she (and they) had already agreed to those places. The second is now with the seating of the Michigan and Florida delegates. I still believe that the time to contest rules is when the rules are being formulated. I hope you enjoy your popcorn while the delegate fight plays out. My biggest conern is not about elections, but rather about governance. I had to take a "leap of faith" to vote for the candidate I felt would best govern. My choice was Senator Obama, mostly because I believe that those who govern should be able to provide us with a vision of the kind of nation -- and people -- that we could honorably be.

Posted by: marmac5 | February 8, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

All Obama haters on here need to take a good look at the below, and ask themselves why they think Hillary is a better Dem. prospect for November:

Georgia 2004: Bush 1,914,254 Kerry 1,366,149


Georgia 2008 Open Primaries (59% total turnout vs. 2004):

Obama 700,366 Clinton 328,129

Huckabee 326,069 McCain 303,639 Romney 289,737


Obama is viable in many places (South, mountain West, Plains) Hillary can/will never be viable.

Posted by: pakalnsm | February 8, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

John_D

Caucuses are actually good solutions because they cost virtually nothing and take less time to set up (no voting machine logistics/training/use issues ; No count or recount issues).

Admittedly, these massive states are not the best examples for Caucuses. But it certainly could be accomplished.

The Obama campaign is obviously favored in Caucuses, as the HRC campaign spent $500,000 on Parking costs and $millions on consultants last year -- but forgot to organize in any of the 12 Dem. Caucus States (whoops!). Another strange, relatively idiotic Dem. campaign decision they'll talk about for years (along with Gore pulling campaign ops out of Ohio).

NYC Obama supporter here.

Posted by: pakalnsm | February 8, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

obee1

What, exactly, would be wrong with Hillary getting support from Indian Americans?

Posted by: monitajb | February 8, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

John_D,

Coming from "Canada" a country known for "logic" and "reason" that provides things like "health care" to its citizens, you should know that "Americans" don't listen to "foreigners"

Just kidding. You're right, of course, bout re-running primaries but we don't do things that way here.

If we did, Al Gore would be President!!!

The only fair thing is to count all the votes already cast, just like we should have done with Al Gore!!!

Oh, Canada, why are your drugs so cheap, and which ones have put the Obama-nuts on?

Posted by: svreader | February 8, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

John_D:

Why wouldn't holding ANOTHER primary in each of those States be "massively unfair" to those who took the time to vote the first time around, especially if they can't vote again under your proposal?

dcpsychic:

Are you seriously claiming that whites in IDAHO were suffering from "white liberal guilt"?!

Posted by: JakeD | February 8, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

John_D,

Coming from "Canada" a country known for "logic" and "reason" that provides things like "health care" to its citizens, you should know that "Americans" don't listen to "foreigners"

Just kidding. You're right, of course, but we don't do things that way here.

If we did, Al Gore would be President!!!

Your currency may be called the "looney" but our President really is.

Oh, Canada, why are your drugs so cheap, and what are the ones you put the Obama-nuts on?

Posted by: svreader | February 8, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Its amazing how many people from India support Hillary, I just wonder why?

Is it the H1B visa thing? Someone said she was very popular in India because of it, well maybe she should go and run for elections in India.

buh bye Hillary Singh.

Posted by: obee1 | February 8, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

- dcpsychic

As a white woman, I find your posts, and posts of many people on here, deeply offensive. I like Hillary, but happen to think she should be Senate Majority leader or Supreme Court Justice, not president. I happen to listen to, take seriously, and prefer Obama. I think a President should be a leader, not a policy wonk. Philosophical difference with others, that is all.

So will you can it on the "white guilt" and all the other crap you are spinning? My vote is valid, and I will not take people of your ilk belittling my or any other person's choice.

Posted by: monitajb | February 8, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Looking at this from the outside (I live in Canada), I think the only solution is to hold another primary in each of these states, if indeed the Michigan and Florida delegates were to determine the overall result. I say primary, rather than caucuses, because that is the way the system is already organized in these states.

The time frame would be short. But the system for holding a primary exists, and where there is a will, there is a way.

Any other solution will be perceived as massively unfair by one side or another. As noted in the article, Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan (because he was playing by the rules in force at that time), so it would not be fair - or legitimate - to accredit the Michigan delegates without holding another primary.

In a pinch, I suppose that the existing Florida results could be counted as is. But then again, Obama campaigned only partially there, so that would not be fair from his perspective. For her part, Hillary should have nothing to fear from a repeat of the Florida primary, given that the state has heavy concentrations of her supporters (e.g., Hispanics and older people). And if Michigan were to hold another primary, the expectation would be that Florida should do likewise.

As noted, there is no way that the Michigan results should be counted if Obama was not even on the ballot because he had complied with a request of the Democratic National Committee. Looking in from the outside, I can say that to determine the nomination on the results of a truncated primary would be perceived as massively unfair and even ridiculous, not only in the USA, but around the world. Anyone who got the nomination in that way would lack legitimacy going into the general election. Quite honestly, it would be seen as dishonourable.

Is the Clinton camp really asking for this? I find that hard to believe. Surely Hillary Clinton can't be on-side with such a strategy. I respect Hillary Clinton and can't believe that she would agree to such a thing, especially in the case of Michigan.

As for the Obama camp, they should call for another primary, not a set of caucuses. As noted, the system in Michigan and Florida is set up for primaries, not caucuses - and time is of the essence. Given his momentum and his success in fundraising, Barack Obama should have nothing to fear from two more primaries.


Posted by: John_D | February 8, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

kjbatchelor et al:

You have totally misplaced anger at the DNC.

Mrs. Dingell, Mr. Levin and others in your State made the idiot choice for the ages that holding your primary tomorrow wouldn't matter. If your Primary were tomorrow as initially scheduled, the past 3 days would have seen Hillary and Obama barnstorming your State.

Michigan could have been close to determining of this race tomorrow ; Your Democratic leaders thought you'd prefer a Beauty Contest in January.

The Michigan and Florida state parties knew the rules, understood they were violating them, and violated them.

Be angry at the idiots in your state Parties who didn't realize Clinton - Obama could become a delegate race. I'm unconvinced it took rocket scientists to figure out this result.

Posted by: pakalnsm | February 8, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

If the DNC seats the Michigan and Florida delegates, then their pronouncements will count for absolutely nothing in future campaigns. They will guarantee many more states trying to place themselves ahead of Iowa and New Hampshire in 2012. And what will they say then? Your delegates will be stripped, and we really, really mean it this time?

Posted by: smc91 | February 8, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Are you kidding? they are seriously considering changing the rules midway through? would the rules have been changed if Sen. Clinton was not on the other side? would they have been changed if Sen. Clinton was facing off against John Edwards? Changing the rules sends the wrong signal. The rules need to stay where they are. The votes don't count.

Posted by: maq1 | February 8, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

I hate to prick the Obama bubble. But Obama will not prevail in Ohio and Texas- the math does not work there. There are not enough blacks to make a difference in either of those states. Additionally, both Ohio and Texas whites do not suffer from "white liberal guilt". In Texas, the Hispanic population will not vote for Obama. Hispanics resent the idea that they are taking jobs away from blacks. With Ohio, Texas and PA to go the MATH is not there for Obama.

Posted by: dcpsychic | February 8, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

onestring:

You've come a long way from the heady days of Al "Count Every Vote" Gore . . .

Posted by: JakeD | February 8, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

tdn0024:

How can one complain about Obama "losing votes" because of legitimate, mailed in votes -- then turn right around and propose that Michigan and Florida get to vote AGAIN -- especially now that everyone knows who close it is?! That would be REWARDING States for breaking the rules -- the only legitimate question is whether to seat the delegates voted on initially, or not.

Posted by: JakeD | February 8, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

The problem here is that hillary took advantage of the situation and as voters Americans will NEVER stand for party (one that sucks, is weak, out of touch, and losing its membership) choosing a candidate out of rule manipulation and machiavellian actions.

They were told tjhey would be denied if they did it.
They did it anyway.
Then hillary took advantage and campaigned there while the other Dems lived up to their ommitment, hillary was dishonest and didn't honor her committment in a calculated move to take advantage.

So now we have a situation where the playing field is tilted if these delegates are seated because she was dishonest. because the state parties in MI and FL were disloyal.

They should not be seated until the nominee is selected. Then they can participate in platform building, etc.

But this cycle they are out of the nominating process.

Its a big problem.

Posted by: onestring | February 8, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

lk:

I am maintaining a list of those who took a pledge to not vote for Hillary if she wins (or, more likely, steals) the nomination -- just in case anyone tries to double-cross me ; )

Posted by: JakeD | February 8, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

FL and MI people: please serve your party and your nation, not the childish whining the media says you will engage in.

Please first direct your anger and action at your state Dem leadership. Fire them.

Then I'm sure that other Dems would look for a way to enable you to vote, with campaigning.

The reason the national party spreads the primaries is to give the selection process inter-temporal life.

I would remind people that Obama lost votes and delegates for the new quirk in California: where so many are encouraged to mail in votes.

Having the oppty to vote after hearing Bill Clinton say that Jesse Jackson won SC (while skipping over the fact that Edwards won SC last time), for example, is the reason these things are spread over time.

Bill's comment helped many Americans see the way Hillary prefers to run things...

Reading Caroline Kennedy's subsequent letter also affected many people, including the older generation who liked her father, and women who admire her (and/or Oprah and Ms. Shriver).

Also, Hillary made a point early in the campaign that Obama would be learnng on the job. A fair point.

Then to see how many seasoned Senators have come out and supported him in the subsequent month gives the lay voter comfort that many of those in the know are comfortable that he is ready.

So a campaign is about a dialogue.

In this age of loud mouths like Rush, it's not a surprise that your state party leaders just figured they'd grab what they thought was good for MI and FL.

Every state could make its own case for this behavior, and the time spreading of the primary would be lost.

If you want to criticize Obama because you feel he ran ads, and hence competed in FL, then just be sure you have the facts right.

What definitely seems to be the case is that Hillary is wanting to claim credit for delegates that the prior rules had stated were out of bounds.

And she definitely flew herself to FL the day before that event.

Anything that is a factual event helps evaluate the character of these candidates.

I would like to see our friends in FL and MI gain the respect of the nation by putting the heat on their presumptuous state leadership.

And then have a certain patience and humility in requesting that other Dems help sort this out in a manner with integrtiy and representation.

Neither Hillary nor Obama created this tar baby. Only folks in MI and FL did. So please, seek to take responsibility for not having held your leaderhship in check.

And from there, let's all cross fingers for a workable solution that gives each person the ability to choose to vote in what is understood to be a meaningful manner.

Posted by: tdn0024 | February 8, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

carmen188:

Hillary Clinton agreed (in writing?) to NOT submit "Unresolved Challenges and Report to the Credentials Committee"? See page 22 http://www.democrats.org/page/-/dem_convention/rules.pdf

Posted by: JakeD | February 8, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

I am Shocked, just Shocked that anyone would think the DeanNC and the clintonista's would want to change the rules in order to help the Billory campaign. Good heavens doesn't everyone know that the dems , especially bill and hillary are always true to their word and would never allow such a thing...

Posted by: steve4 | February 8, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Hi cdjohnson25:

The Clintons were investigated to death by a special prosecutor-- and a Grand Jury refused to indict Hillary over the Whitewater issue. Obama on the other hand, refuses to explain his home purchase transaction with Rezco. Since Obama is running as the "ethical" candidate in this race he should explain if the difference between what the Rezko's paid for the land and what he paid the Reskos, all in the same day, amounts to a gift, or worst yet, a pay off for something.

Posted by: dcpsychic | February 8, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

JakeD
That is truly, truly sad for the party but I suspected that. I think that those Democrats who've been in this for a while will support the candidate who wins the nomination even if it's Senator Obama - albeit with a heavy heart.

Posted by: lk | February 8, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

marmac5:

Of course it would have been better for Hillary to have raised the issue BEFORE the election, but as I understand the DNC Rules, the "appropriate" time for a formal challenge to the seating of delegates is DURING the Convention. Like I said, above, I've got my popcorn popper warming up : )

Posted by: JakeD | February 8, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

All candidates agreed up front to uphold the ruling of the DNC with respect to Florida and Michigan.

Hillary's expedient posture to seat these delegates now is precisely why we need real change in Washington. Sadly, she has no integrity.

Posted by: carmen188 | February 8, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

seed let me guess, you are from India and need more H1B visas that Hillary has promised you all. I dont blame you for your vehement support of your Punjabi candidate.

Posted by: obee1 | February 8, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

SeedofChange,

Please, please, please keep posting. All over the place, often, and in bold caps. Speak to your friends, co-workers, and neighbors. Speak to strangers, please!

People like you are the best advertisement for Obama I can imagine. I want to get AWAY from your kind of thinking, so keep it up! You are reminding us all of why we support Obama. Yours is the poison at the center of Obama's message of change.

Good work for us! Thank you, and keep it up!

Posted by: monitajb | February 8, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

One comment on Michigan:

Let us all not forget that both Obama staffers and Edwards stafersin Michigan ran a full blown campaign in Michigan to get voters to vote undecided and to get voters in neighboring border towns and college students o also vote undecided to take votes away from Hillary. So in essence they were actually campaigning in Michigan while hillary was not. They got away with a technicality, just like Obama using that Nation-wide cable advertizing excuse, rather lie, to actively campaign in Florida, despite his pledge not to!

The pansy has no integrity! No wonder he is too much of a coward to debate Hillary on a weekly basis over the next month!

Posted by: rayacop | February 8, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

lk:

There are many Obama supporters who have vowed to NOT vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination.

Posted by: JakeD | February 8, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

I am a Florida voter, and I knew the rules when I voted. I knew that my vote wouldn't count, and although I was not happy with either the DNC or the Florida Democratic Party leaders for playing their version of "Chicken," I continue to believe that actions have consequences. People can talk about being disenfrancihised in the primaries, and I share that feeling. But rules are rules, and we have to live with the consequences of our leaders breaking those rules, as the Florida DP did. If Floridians think that their votes should count, they should be become active in the Florida Democratic Party and begin to question leaders such as Thurman. Maybe I'm just a product of my age (nearing 70 years), but I have seen one Boomer president tell us that he is above the law, and now I hear another Boomer presidential wannabe trying to change the rules (the "law") when is it advantageous to her standing. I'm all in favor of challenging poor decisions, regardless of who is responsible for making them, but the time to do make reasonable rules (or laws) is before they become a major problem.

Posted by: marmac5 | February 8, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

depsychic

That's all you got is the Rezco thing...really?

How many skeletons are in Clinton's closet?
Everyone knows how dirty they are, have you forgotten?

Posted by: cdjohnson25 | February 8, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

If 1.75 Million Fla. Dems. showed up and voted and none of the leading Dems. actively campaigned - it's a level playing field and the votes should be counted. If they wanted to follow the race further, they could have looked to national media as the rest of us in the country have when there was no campaigning in our state. It's not the stone age - it's the age of cable news and the internet. Michigan is different b/c not all names were on the ballot so perhaps they cannot be counted. To arrange caucuses now seems like a mess waiting to happen. The Democratic Party better not alienate 1.75M people by dumping their votes in the trash.

Posted by: Susan9 | February 8, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Obama-nuts are such a cult I'm surprised you're not threatening to commit suicide if Hillary is nominated!!!

Please don't. We love you and want your vote!!!

Posted by: svreader | February 8, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

I'm with Obee1, if OBAMA loses, my vote is going to McCain. Never will I vote for the dirty Clinton machine, democrats should be ashamed to have them on the ticket.

Posted by: cdjohnson25 | February 8, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

davestickler

That would be the Obama universe in which he claims, a proven lie, that he does not take money from lobbyist. A universe in which he pledges not to campaign in Florida then runs campaign adds. a universe in which he says he returned Rezko's campaign contributions only to be discovered to be a liar, again. I could give you hundreds of more examples of the universe you must be referring to, but since it must be a parallel Universe in which everything is opposite, and the truth is a lie and lies are the truth, the truh about you candidate, Obama, would just leave you confused and unable to respond with any semblance of logic! kind of like most of your posts already!

Posted by: rayacop | February 8, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

davestickler --

Absolutely. Otherwise we don't have a leg to stand on if we have another near tie in November.

We have to count evey vote, whether it helps the holy Obama or not.

Anything else would be downright Republican!!!

His holyness wouln't like that, would he?

Posted by: svreader | February 8, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

oh my this is all so ugly people. The seating of delegates has been challenged in the past and will be challenged in the future. This is politics. There are rules in the DNC procedures for the convention to deal with this and they're quite clear. So the real question is who would be the better President for this badly wounded country? I've been working on the phones for HRC in CT for more than a month. People have told me that they are choosing between medicine and heating oil, they're fearful of losing their jobs and their health insurance. they speak of the fact that we're at war in Iraq in Afghanistan, the Middle East is more unstable than it has been in our lifetime, college education is becoming unaffordable (and yes I'm in a Green State and these concerns are deafening here too). So could we please focus on issues and think about who is best to manage those issues in office? I am grateful to Senator Obama for energizing youth. I worked the polls for 13 hours on the 5th and I saw more young people actually vote on that cold rainy day than I thought possible. I think we should now ask all of those who have engaged in the process to analyze the ideas and the policies of the candidates and if they do, I believe that they will come out on the side of Senator Clinton. I also believe that we should encourage civility. That we should discourage derogatory terms such as Billary. Together we may actually win this race for the Democratic party.

Posted by: lk | February 8, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

ChicagoIndependent:

I think an argument could be made that Hillary would have won even if Edwards and Obama's names were on the ballot.

Posted by: JakeD | February 8, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

svreader, you honestly -- honestly! -- believe it's fair to give Hillary delegates for Michigan when...

SHE WAS THE ONLY CANDIDATE ON THE BALLOT.

Really??

Posted by: davestickler | February 8, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Collectively, these posts suggest sad times ahead for the dems. We should be unified in our desire to bring sanity back to the country and the world. There are alot of shrill voices slurring negative accusations at each candidate and at eachother here. The truth is, infighting between these two highly qualified candidates is nonproductive, stressful and poisons the well of hope that lies beyond January of next year. Take a breath and remember to respect one another. Vote your conscience and let the chips fall where they lay. The best candidate is still in this party.

Posted by: casbasura | February 8, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

I look forward to the rules to be changed mid-stream, or the DNC / superdelegates somehow selecting Hillary in a way that cheats Barack Obama out of the nomination. I've got my popcorn popper warming up : )

Posted by: JakeD | February 8, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Memo to Hillary supporters!

Don't let the Obama people get away with spreading the myth that he is an agent of change and ethics. When you respond in boards, simply tell people to google Rezko or link to:http://i.abcnews.com/Blotter/story?id=4111483&page=1

Stop the fairy tale!

Posted by: dcpsychic | February 8, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

http://i.abcnews.com/Blotter/story?id=4111483&page=1

Read the above-mentioned article and tell me if Obama is really an agent of change or just the same old corrupt politico type!

Posted by: dcpsychic | February 8, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

We've got to count every vote.

Don't forget Gore.

Let every vote count!!!!

Posted by: svreader | February 8, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

"She won Michigan in part because Obama and other Democrats took their names off the"

How could the win be "in part" Obama and Edwards weren't on the ballott, give me a break.

Clinton only won those states because of the name recognition of her husband and because Obama and Edwards were honest - silly them.

Posted by: ChicagoIndependant | February 8, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

rayacop, Hillary consented to the rules without argument when New Hampshire and Iowa were still voting. But she changed her mind as soon as it became politically convenient.

It's not unlike how, within a month of saying that running a campaign on their own money "would violate the spirit of campaign finance reform", the Clintons were propping up their campaign with a cool $5 million.

In what universe is it ok for your word to mean so little?

Posted by: davestickler | February 8, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Thing is, no one talked about either state until Hillary hit SC and realized Obama may win. Suddenly, every other word out of her mouth was Florida. Obama could have tried to run around the rules with the same tactic but chose to respect the DNC's decision.

This IS a hard situation. Ideally, superdelegates should be scrapped but that won't happen - too many egos involved. Personally, I think Spring caucuses/primaries/whatever are the best solution. Obama should lose an opportunity, simply because he - like every other Democratic candidate but Clinton - chose to abide by party rules. Otherwise, it's a gift to HRC - the candidate who chose NOT respect her party.

Worst case scenario: She's given her delegates, wins the nomination, and the party is no longer the Democratic Party, but the Clinton Party - exactly how Bill and Hillary view it.

Posted by: GordonsGirl | February 8, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Obama's money scheme is very simple, he has devised a method where "lobbist" money coming to his campaign as "personal" money to buy pass any scrutiny of his "vote for money" scheme. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?hp

Posted by: SeedofChange | February 8, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

As a Michigan voter, Obama was not on the ballot so I did not have an option to vote for the candidate I believe in and support financially-OBAMA. The Michigan democratic leadership should me ashamed of themselves. We need to have a caucus or a primary election in June.
The Clintons' have proved they will twist, lie and do anything to get to the white house. I used to be a huge Clinton supporter, but no longer. If she steals the nomination, I am voting for McCain!

Posted by: intesarelder | February 8, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

I remember a candidate who was called an agent of change and brilliant, as Oprah said. His name: Jimmy Carter. Thanks, but I will pass on Obama. At this time in history, we need more than just a feel-good candidate. Google Rezko, stop the love-sick Obama-mamas from spreading this Obama fairy tale! The guy is a product of Chicago politics, HELLO!!!!

Posted by: dcpsychic | February 8, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

obee1

Is that what Obama pays you! Wow you would think if he is giving accurate figures he could afford more!

Posted by: rayacop | February 8, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Howard Dean and the DNC couldn't have bolluxed this up any worse if they'd tried. We're now seeing the dismal fruits of their attempt to micromanage the state parties, and it's an ugly thing. Unfortunately, now that they've made this messy bed, we have to sleep in it. To reverse themselves now would (1) undermine their authority from this point forward, and (2) be scandalously unfair to the Obama campaign. As unappetizing as the idea of a brokered convention may be to some, I'd rather see that than have the Michigan and Florida delegates handed over to Sen. Clinton, whose name shouldn't have been on the ballot in Michigan in the first place. I suspect that she would have won Florida regardless, but that question is now moot. How Gov. Dean resolves this colossal screwup will be a serious test of his leadership.

Posted by: cmferrer | February 8, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

rsattiraju

it is always comical to me when I hear a double standard slit tongue idiot like you wanting to enforce the rules in cases that are not favorable to your candidate, Obama, and scrap the rules that may favor your candidate after other rules were inforced to disadvantage Clinton. You scream out that the DNC was right not to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates and it is perfectly fine with you to disenfranchise millions of voters, contrary to their civil rights, yet you then want the DNC to scrap the rules as relates to superdelegates and further disenfranchise more people in the electoral process. Well I guess you are a throwback to the days when only the right peoples votes counted. How are you Mr. Jim Crow! Perhaps in yur case we should leave the literacy test in!

Posted by: rayacop | February 8, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

The DNC needs to tell Michigan and Florida Democrats to hold caucuses (not a convention, which will be represent party bigwigs) and pick new delegate slates. That is the utmost concession that should be on offer--because, after all, it was the politicians (not the ordinary people) of these states who broke rules that everyone had agreed on beforehand.

If Hillary somehow gets the nomination by thanks to the seating of these unsanctioned delegates, it will be a dirty trick worthy of Nixon or George W. Bush. Her nomination under such circumstances will be worthless because it will alienate millions of Democratic and independent voters--and hand the election to McCain.

If the Florida and Michigan poohbahs who created this mess refuse a reasonable offer of this sort (or something else that can be devised), then those unsanctioned delegates should be rejected by the convention.

Posted by: jm917 | February 8, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

This should be in the Post's parenting column, not politics. When you set a punishment, you have to make it stick.

There is no way the delegates should be counted, short of a revote or new caucuses.

Posted by: kidvidkid | February 8, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

seedofchange, how much do you Hillary workers get paid for posting? Is it per post or per day? I heard she pulled out $5 million from her pocket to cover your expenses, is that true?

Posted by: obee1 | February 8, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Seed,

According to CNN's exit polls, 25% the people who voted in the Delaware Primary were black.

Sorry that you have no idea what you're talking about.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#DEDEM

Posted by: cam8 | February 8, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Don't count state. Count delegates.

This contest will be decided in a smoke-filled room by superdelegates.

Hillary and Obama will be too close. Neither will have enough regular delegates to win on a first ballot.

The Democrats are no different from the Repukes anymore. Their party leadership will decide the ticket in a smoke-filled room.

Disgusting.

Posted by: TomIII | February 8, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

I am frankly sick and tired of hearing about all of the rules in our election processes. It goes back to the electoral college and the national committees. Is it so utterly ridiculous to let the people decide? Are these machinations of the primaries and caucuses, which can be changed by a vote of the party elite, based on the desire to manipulate outcomes? Or to do what is "best" for our country? Millions of dollars are spent in Iowa, with its non-representative demographic, because some group of people decides that they should maintain their prominence in the calendar. We are powerless.

Posted by: duven | February 8, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

I'm a contrarian when it comes to politics. The Republicans are making it sound like they actually want to run against Hillary, but they ACTUALLY want Obama. Two things: If Obama is the nominee, McCain is well situated to get whites and Latino democrats who can't stomach Obama. Second, though nobody wants to talk about the Rezko deal, there are serious questions about the transaction in which slumlord Rezco helped finance the purchase of Obama's home. The deal went something like this: Rezko buys land above market value, then sells it to Obama at below market value, all in the same day. Was the difference a hidden payoff? a gift to Obama? Did Obama file a Federal gift tax return? Obama may be talking about a "new politics" but his past suggests the same old fashion corruption he so denounces in his rhetoric.

Posted by: dcpsychic | February 8, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Maybe John Edwards, with his delegates, will decide the race. What's clear is that Florida and Michigan are off the DNC reservation -- and out of luck. Any talk of having Obama pay even a partial price for respecting the rules of the game is unacceptable.

Posted by: Bristolite1 | February 8, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's big wins (CA, NY, NJ, MA).

Hmmm, sounds like states that the Dems are going to win in a walk in November, no matter who the nominee is.

Let's talk battleground states.

MN, CO, MO. Obama.

MI, FL. Nobody ran a campaign there, so you have no earthly idea who would've won.

Posted by: cam8 | February 8, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Hillary was more gung ho than even some republicans for going to war against Iraq and we all know why, she felt her massive Jewish voter base would be very happy with her and lend her strong support. She wanted to prove her masculinity by trying to best the best of the GOP boys. She felt she could also gain some GOP votes when it would be time for her to run.

Now she comes up with fancy explainations similar to the 'depends what the definition of is is' type rhetorical backstepping.

She voted to give Dubya permission to attack Iraq, she should not be rewarded for that massive crime by electing her Pres, especially by the Dems and libs.

Posted by: obee1 | February 8, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

obee1

Goodbye and good riddence!!!

Please no jedi mind tricks!!!

Posted by: rayacop | February 8, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: j2yueh | February 8, 2008 04:22 PM

SeedofChange:

Since you're apparently either incapable of using Google or just a pathological liar, here's a link for you.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/10000.html

Delaware is 74.5% white.

As for "green" states, made up of "rich white liberals", I think that's a pretty good description of California, which Clinton won.

_______________________

It is good you know how to search google.

But don't realize, 50% of democratic voters are black (25 X2) :-)

California is not CT (look up the earning and other startistics including hispanic population ).

Looking into the facts is a good start. But understanding them is also important.

Posted by: SeedofChange | February 8, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

newscoller

I live in Florida you idiot and Obama's advertizing ran constantly for over a month on all channels in Florida and he lied when he said that because it was national cable advertizing he had no choice in running adds in Florida. What a crock! My sister works for Comcast in the advertizing department and says that he could have easily bought national cable advertizing and had those adds blacked out in Florida. The man, and I use that term lightly, is a liar and lost an election in which he was the only one campaigning. Furthermore, the pansy is a coward for refusing to debate on the issues and hiding behind Oprah's skirt. James Carvelle said it right when he said that Hillary has completely wussified Obama!

Posted by: rayacop | February 8, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

As a Michigan voter, I'm outraged that my primary vote won't count. Yes I knew there was a controversy and yes I knew the DNC wanted to "punish" the Michigan party.

But I also thought the election process was about "we the people" not petty party politics and that ultimately good sense would prevail.

What a travesty that the party rules should be enforced in a manner that results in disenfranchisement of Michigan (and Florida) voters. Shame on you DNC for making democracy so difficult these days.

Posted by: kjbatchelor | February 8, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Seems pretty simple to me...the DNC made a ruling & Obama complied by removing his name and not actively seeking votes. Why would we want to reward the person who didn't comply over the person who did? That's an injustice!

Posted by: lorrie7 | February 8, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

If Barack loses the nomination, then I a lifelong democrat will vote McCain.

Posted by: obee1 | February 8, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

The voters did not do anything wrong they should count the votes, it is ridicules that they were disenfranchised to begin with even the Republicans did not attempt this, the appearance is that the Party subjugated Mich a must win State, and Fla a want to win State, for SC a no way possible in 08 State, and elevated one party demographic above the others when Fla and Mich were more representative of the Dem base diversity. If I had a DNC card I would burn it.

Posted by: p_peppermint | February 8, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Please be aware of the fact that the Florida 2008 primary date was set by the 2/3 Republican majority in both the Florida House and Senate. Florida Democrats had nothing to do with it. To try to correct the arrogant power hungry decision of Dr. Dean at this late date is nonsense. There was no Florida Democratic primary election. The only useful correction would be to change the leadership of the DNC to someone who will, first, do no harm.

Posted by: rkbeach | February 8, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

TeenGurl:

Seed of Change is a spammer.. ignore it..


Whatever you were smoking with Obama I am not going to ask....ignoring and not wanting to listen to facts does not get anyone anywhere :-)

Don't take these things personally. This is campaign and will end in a few days to start the next step :-)

Posted by: SeedofChange | February 8, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's attempt to change the rules is consistent with earlier priorities. During the 90's, they made sure that they were in the White House for 8 years. They only kept their party in control of Congress for 2 years and accomplished nothing but losing the majority in that timeframe. Thye squandered their greatets opportunity for change. Ugly? Ruthless? Divisive? Hey - just another day of the Clintons looking out for the Clintons. Know where Bill has disappeared to? He's working the super delegates as we blog. Out of sight - trying to put the fix in behind closed doors.

Posted by: twstroud | February 8, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Parents have to teach children that actions have consequences. If the DNC rewards Florida and Michigan for disobeying this year, no state party will believe anything the DNC says about the calendar in 2012. The first primary will be in June of 2011, a full year before the convention. Only by keeping its word today will the DNC prevent the ridiculous in 2012.

Posted by: sscritic | February 8, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

The DNC absolutely must stand by its original ruling that the bogus delegates from Michigan and Florida not be seated at the convention. The only possible way to resolve this fairly is to have the two states schedule re-votes, regardless of the expense and difficulty to the party in the two states.

An congratulations, Dan Balz, for a very complete and fair summary of this situation.

Posted by: cpaustin408 | February 8, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

SeedofChange:

Since you're apparently either incapable of using Google or just a pathological liar, here's a link for you.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/10000.html

Delaware is 74.5% white.

As for "green" states, made up of "rich white liberals", I think that's a pretty good description of California, which Clinton won.

I'm having a hard time keeping up with your arguments here. At first you argued that Obama only wins states with 50% black people or more (imaginary states). Then your argument was that he only wins Caucus states (factually untrue) or red states (factually untrue). Now your argument is that he only wins "green" states (rich white liberals).

So which is it? I thought he only won red black guy states. Now you're saying he won a blue white guy states.

Seriously, do you realize how rediculous you're starting to sound? Look, I understand you don't like Senator Obama, but he hasn't played the race card. (Although the Clintons have...repeatedly...like with Bills "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina" moment.)

Senator Obama is a mainstream, strong, impressive candidate. He's gone from a huge underdog to building an amazing national campaign and a nationwide tie with the "inevitable" candidate. Quit trying to pigeonhole him because there is a very good chance that you're going to be stuck with him in the general election.

Posted by: jcrozier1 | February 8, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Gore for president?

Posted by: j2yueh | February 8, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Billary changes the rules in the middle of the game.. Oh wait they dont play by the rules.. Seed of Change is a spammer.. ignore it..

Posted by: TennGurl | February 8, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

SarahBB:

You sound like suffering from OBAMAMANIA :-)

All talk, no substance, no facts, no logic, just sing the glory of great "OBAMA" :-)

Please look at Republican research start point: www.freedomsenemies.com/_more/obama.htm

If Obama becomes nominee, it will not be pretty. We need to win.

Posted by: SeedofChange | February 8, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

We "count all the votes" in general elections because we have a Constitutional principle of one person, one vote.

In party primaries, there is no such principle as "count all the votes." Parties make their own rules. In this case, the campaigns and the DNC negotiated the rules through the course of more meetings than I would ever want to have to sit through. In the end, they decided overwhelmingly to punish Florida and Michigan by not campaigning there and not seating their delegates.

You can argue that Barack ran some TV ads in Florida, but they were part of nationwide cable-TV buys and I haven't seen any evidence that he specifically targeted them to Florida.

You can also argue that Hillary encouraged news coverage of her Florida fund-raising events; that starts to look like "campaigning" as well. As does showing up immediately after the vote to declare victory.

Changing the rules looks bad not just for one campaign or the other-- it looks bad for the whole party, and it weakens the party's ability to control the primary schedule in future years.

The situation is unfortunate, but Florida and Michigan broke the rules, the punishment was agreed by everyone else, and it needs to be applied for it to have any credibility.

"Count all the votes" is just beside the point. Again, primaries are controlled by Party rules, not the Constitution. As another post pointed out, the superdelegates have enormous power to decide the nominee in any case. (Not just this year, but every year). That's not "democratic" either, but it's the rule everyone agreed on, and I don't hear too many people (at least this week) screaming to abolish it.

Posted by: fairbalanced | February 8, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

SeedofChange, you sound like the sordid past to me.

Posted by: SarahBB | February 8, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Obama has won mostly those state primary's in states that will vote Republican in the General Election... Cosmetic .. feelly good, PC voting. Hillary carried the heavy weights - NY, MA, NJ, CA. Did we mention she carried Mass in spite of the Kennedys - and CA in spite of Oprah? I LOVED IT.

Florida voters came out to VOTE. Let's not take away their voice because of party officials hissy-fits. "After Florida's votes not being counted put Bush/Cheney into the Whitehouse" Nuf said!

Posted by: RainDodger | February 8, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

JacksonLanders:

You fell into Obama's race card play. He played the card in SC, otherwise he would be out of the contest by now.

Delaware is black, Alaska was caucus, Connecticut is "green (rich white liberals)".

Black and green are the only pocket of Obama support.

And then there is OBAMAMANIACS :-) Black votes are important, but they are in Red states that we are not going to win anyway

I did not say black votes are not important, but stated the fact that blacks vote for him, particularly after he played the race card.

Posted by: SeedofChange | February 8, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Only the Dems could create this mess....so let's recap - change the rules mid-stream - demonstrating absolute no moral stance to your own rules....or disenfranchise 2 states...LOL.....I luv it - you make the 2000 debacle look like a kids game.

How about this - award both Florida & Michigan delegates as a precent of the national vote or as a percent of the 48 state delgate vote that each Obama or Schillary got?

Posted by: short1 | February 8, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

I'm with you, sfmandrew.

My beloved Vermont has produced the absolute worst party head in my lifetime.

Frankly, the Republicans had it right (gasp): "What price are you willing to pay (in terms of delegates) to advance the date of your primary?"

Had the Democrats invoked a reasonable penalty the issue would be moot. Vis: No Republicans were demanding a reconsideration of the delegate allocations in Florida or Michigan, even when Romney was still in the race.

Posted by: wgmadden | February 8, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Seedofchange,

Are you telling us that 50% of the voters in Alaska, Connecticut and Delaware are black?

More importantly, your suggestion that votes are somehow less important when they are cast by black people is, frankly, racist. When Bill Clinton started spouting much the same thing after South Carolina, that was what got me mad enough to walk down to the local Obama office, hand them a donation and sign up to volunteer. Racists like you are the reason why I am voting against Hillary Clinton and for Barack Obama.

Posted by: JacksonLanders | February 8, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

SeedofChange:

I know that Clinton supporters tend to be fairly loose with the truth, but you ARE aware that Obama has won more states than Clinton? You're aware that no state in the entire country has 50% black population? You're aware that he's won blue states, purple states and red states by now? You're aware that he's won both caucus states and primary states right?

I mean, there were so many things factually wrong with your previous post that you're either a blatant liar or someone who is woefully uninformed about the current state of the Democratic primary.

Posted by: jcrozier1 | February 8, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

The only questions the Democrats need to ask themselves is, who do they choose for Vice President!

Posted by: nallcando | February 8, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

The DNC should immediately appoint a panel of unaffiliated party elders (e.g. Al Gore, Sam Nunn, John Breaux...) to arrive at a binding solution to this issue. I think the only fair solution is to scrap the super delegates and go with whoever has a majority of the pledged delegates. My understanding is that the super-delegate mechanism was implemented to stop the voters from making a terrible mistake that could harm the party. That obviously is not the case here, and the voters should decide. I agree with Donna Brazile that people would leave the party if the superdelegates took away the nomination from someone who won the pledged delegates.

Posted by: rsattiraju | February 8, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

As a voter in Michigan's Democratic primary, I think the only right way to handle this would be to organize caucuses.

Our ballot, as mentioned in the article, did not offer Obama or Edwards as options - only Clinton. It is ridiculous, then, to say that we had a true choice in our primary - as did other Americans. At least the people in Florida, while I'm sure they are just as frustrated as Democratic voters here in Michigan, had other options on the ballot besides Hillary Clinton and Uncommitted.

Our state, just like the other 49, should be allowed to have a voice in this race. The highest unemployment rate in the country, a depressed economy, massive amounts of foreclosures and a real estate market that's among the worst in America - Michiganders have a lot at stake in who becomes the next Democratic nominee.

And in such a competitive race, why should our vote not count? Is it the fault of Michigan voters that the powers-that-be in our state goverment made such a stupid and terribly selfish decision? They need to step up, recognize their mistake and organize caucuses - and do it right - so we can TRULY have our say!

Posted by: rachlmiller | February 8, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

The 16 year plan is absolutely stupid. When was the last time a President and their VP served for 16 years? A long time.
It is movement where everyone knows that Hillary would be the presumptive President because of her experience. Its a joke. It is not a smart idea, or a sure thing to happen.

Unless if they want Hillary to be VP, then lets try.

Posted by: mcmahon10 | February 8, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

"but that also takes into consideration that the candidates did not truly compete in those states. "

What does that matter? Candidates often don't "truly compete" in states if they decide primaries aren't important or aren't going to give them a lot of votes.

There's no reason why Florida's delegates shouldn't count as is. No one's going to scream about it except Obama supporters, and so what?

Michigan is more of a problem--even though it was Obama's choice to remove his name. It's probably a bit too much to split their vote based on the clear demographic preferences expressed elsewhere.

Under no circumstances should they hold caucuses. A do-over direct vote is fine, if that satisfies everyone.

All the right answers, though, will make Obama's campaign unhappy, because no matter how it turns out, Hillary will win both states.

Posted by: Cal_Lanier | February 8, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Is this a joke?

The DNC made the rules and clearly defined a penalty. Michigan and Florida broke the rules and thus incurred the penalty. There's nothing here to settle. The matter IS settled.

You are acting as if there is any reason whatsoever why Dean or the DNC would re-write the rules at this point. The actual reasons come down to only 2 things:

1. Michigan and Florida are very sad that they are in exactly the position that they were warned they'd be in if they broke the rules.

2. Hillary Clinton's supporters are very sad that Barack Obama seems to be winning and so they would like to re-write the rules after the game in order to win.

Neither of these reasons are very compelling.

If Florida and Michigan want to have delegates that get seated, then they can throw together a state convention for May and vote there. A convention is easier to organize and cheaper than either a primary or state-wide caucuses. Not as fair or open a process, but if you've got to throw something together fast, you go with a convention. Like when legislative seats are suddenly vacated mid-term.

That's all that either state has to do. The idea of seating these non-delegations 'just because' is completely ridiculous. If (when) Dean and the DNC continue to stonewall MI and FL, there is no crisis. You are imagining some sort of political emergency that does not make any sense. Nobody cares about this except Hillary Clinton, and even she openly supported imposing these penalties beforehand. The conplaints are utterly disingenuous and the sky is not falling.

Posted by: JacksonLanders | February 8, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Obama did not win anything other than 7 cacus "red" states where less than 1% people vote.

He lost everywhere, unless 50% of the voters are black.

Green party voting against Gore are sure happy campers now. If Obama supporters want to join them, it is their free choice.

Life is not black and white, it is gray. You get some, but don't get all

Posted by: SeedofChange | February 8, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

The DNC should underwrite the cost of printing and mailing ballots (including return postage) to every registered Democrat in the states of Michigan and Florida. They could be returned to an independent body or firm for counting as long as they are postmarked by a specified date.

Posted by: cullather | February 8, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

I am a florida voter. I knew that the vote wouldn't count (which made me angry). I wanted to let them hear my voice anyway. Old broads like me(56) are used to finding anyway they can to be heard!!!I think the florida vote should count. I don't know about michigan. Everyone at least had an equal opportunity in florida. Personally, I think that they should add up the nationwide votes, and who ever won the most should be the presidential candidate. The proportional delegate count is ridiculous; the super delegates deciding is ridiculous. Every one would at least understand my rationale. Whatever pressure it takes for the other to be the vice-presidential candidate should be used, however, if they refuse, they should make sure their voters understand the motive.

Posted by: altmangrp | February 8, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

They should stop letting Iowa and N.H. have so much say. They should have let it be a meaningful contest at the time instead of announcing our votes wouldn't count. However, they had better not change the rules now, after the fact, so as to reward Hillary for thumbing her nose at the party's mandates and putting her name on a ballot and penalize other candidates who followed the party's stupid rules and left their names off which meant I had no option to vote for Obama in Michigan.

Posted by: SarahBB | February 8, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Should the rules of the game be changed after the fact, and the Democratic Party vote to stage their own Florida 2000 in 2008, I would urge all voters to cast their votes for the Republican nominee.
No more stolen elections. No more violations of the principles of a democracy. Give Hillary her nomination and then send her to hell. Howard Dean beware!
The very thought of seating Florida and Michigan delegates is an obscenity and an insult to the millions of people that have voted according to the rules. This will not stand. It will be the end of the Democratic Party as far as millions are concerned.

Posted by: rarignac | February 8, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Anyway you look at it, Howard Dean really screwed this up.

Posted by: sfmandrew | February 8, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

If Senator Clinton is given Michigan and Florida delegates after all campaigns agreed in advance not to campaign there and not to count their delegates, and Senator Obama is cheated out of the Democratic nomination as a result, then the Democrats lose me, and millions of future young Democratic voters who are politically active for the first time.

There is only one thing that can possibly make me vote Republican in 2008, and that would be for the rules to be changed mid-stream in a way that cheated Barack Obama out of the nomination.

Posted by: jcrozier1 | February 8, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Obama will be SOL. Turns out the Democratic party is in fact run by Washington insiders. They will take the nomination away from Obama. You'll see. What to do then? I suggest a mass exodus of Obama supporters from the Democratic party. Form a new party, a third party. Run as an independent.

Posted by: AB68 | February 8, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Obama ran ad. in South Georgia to target black voter of Florida.

He has no chance of winning Florida. Hispanics, Asian, and Whites will not vote for him.

He gets white vote in "caucus" as white "democratic" men feel it is PC violation. Even if the black guy is incompetent.

MI proved to be a bad decision on his part.

He played smart by playing the race card in "caucus" state and forcing people to vote for him in "red" states that would not matter in November. But they kept him in the map.

Posted by: SeedofChange | February 8, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

i am an independent. although i agree with some so-called "republican values" (like anti-abortion), i lean democrat; but i will vote any republican (supposedly mccain)nominee rather than the clinton woman. so, if she becomes the nominee, the democrats can count with one less vote in the general election. i would not vote for a snake.

Posted by: RIVASF1 | February 8, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

After Florida's votes not being counted put Bush/Cheney into the Whitehouse we Democrats have got to count all the votes.

Anything else would be absolutely Repubican!!!

Posted by: svreader | February 8, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

To be fair, Dan, hindsight is 20/20. The "nonevent" on January 15 is only so if the Clintons fail to seat those delegates ; )

Posted by: JakeD | February 8, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

The Michigan and Florida delegates are a moot point.

The superdelegates will decide the candidate.

Welcome to the smoke-filled room.

The Fix Is In.

Posted by: TomIII | February 8, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

I wonder why adults with, presumably, a developed moral sense would think it appropriate to suggest changing the rules midway through an activity? Or changing rules to benefit an individual at the expense of others? In what other context would we do this?

Posted by: morgancornwall | February 8, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Debbie Dingell personally asked Obama to allow his name to remain on the Michigan ballot. He instead signed to remove his name. He now wants a second bite at the apple in the format most favorable to him?

There have been two one-on-one debates with Sen. Clinton and he is trying to avoid committing to any more.

This is not going to improve his standing with those who voted for Hillary.


Posted by: Respectthe9thAmendment | February 8, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

newagent is 25 cents short of a quarter. He ran a national ad campaign that aired in all states you dolt. We can only hope the powers that be make a call with steadier heads and stronger logic than yours

Posted by: newscoller | February 8, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

What's better than Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in the White House for 8 years?

Hillary Clinton AND Barack Obama in the White House for 16 years!

Let's harness the excitement we're seeing among Democrats for both amazing candidates. Sign the petition to Howard Dean and the DNC at http://www.16yearplan.com

Posted by: steven4 | February 8, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

IF anything they need to caucus.Hillary Clinton has a real problem with playing by the rules , even when she agreed to the rules up front.

Typical Clinton , change your mind according to what way the winds blowing at the time.

Posted by: cakemanjb | February 8, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Changing the rules midway through, the moment you realize they favor you?

I know 1st-graders with a stronger moral compass.

Posted by: davestickler | February 8, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Both states voted. Count the votes. Count all the votes

Obama advertized in FLorida, the only one to do so, he should stop whinning.


Count the vote , barry. even when you lose

Posted by: newagent99 | February 8, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company