Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Wag the Blog: What to Do About Florida?

The Florida Democratic Party unveiled a vote-by-mail proposal, Thursday, that would -- in essence -- allow a re-vote of the state's Jan. 29 primary, and provide a way for the state's delegation to be seated and cast votes for a candidate at the Democratic National Convention.

If the plan is approved by Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.), as well as the Democratic National Committee, ballots would be mailed to all Florida registered Democrats by May 9 and a series of 50 Regional Election Offices (REOs) would be put in place "to ensure that disadvantaged communities have the opportunity to vote," according to the proposal. June 3 would function as the new "election day" for Florida Democrats with all ballots due to the state party headquarters by 7 p.m. that night.

The plan, according to the proposal, would cost between $10 and $12 million and could be funded by unlimited, "soft money" checks from wealthy individuals or groups.

State Democratic Party Chairwoman Karen Thurman made clear that today's proposal is simply a first step in determining how to count and seat the state's delegates. "If this proposal isn't what the people want, that's okay," Thurman said. "We're putting something on the table, but it's by no means a done deal."

Florida's U.S. House delegation -- led by Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz -- expressed their disapproval with a vote-by-mail plan following a meeting earlier this week with vote-by-mail advocate Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.).

Nelson and Wasserman Schultz have both endorsed Clinton, but differ on the solution the Florida problem.

For her part, Clinton has argued that there are only two viable options: (1) the delegates are seated based on the Jan. 29 vote -- when none of the major candidates campaigned in the state, OR (2) a re-vote is held.

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said during a conference call Wednesday that his camp has "real deep concerns about a mail-in election."

For today's Wag the Blog question we want to know what you think about the Florida plan. Does it make sense? Is it fair? What is the best solution? And, regardless of your personal feelings about the plan, do you expect Clinton and Obama to agree to it? Why or why not?

The comments section is open for business. As always, the most insightful/thoughtful comments will be plucked out and featured in a post of their own next week.

By Chris Cillizza  |  March 13, 2008; 2:55 PM ET
Categories:  Wag The Blog  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: How Bad Is It For Senate Republicans?
Next: The Friday Line: Which States Will Flip in 2008?

Comments

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

Posted by: rgtpeqom xiafcmr | April 11, 2008 1:14 AM | Report abuse

oaqcpnr xvocwzni fjkaxcbiz sogq erpahlji vykt qvpskfh

Posted by: pjhw tvhjalno | April 11, 2008 1:13 AM | Report abuse

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

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

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

Posted by: allanle43 | April 2, 2008 12:16 AM | Report abuse

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

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

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

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

Posted by: flarrfan | March 21, 2008 8:20 AM | Report abuse

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: IllinoisVoter | March 17, 2008 11:38 PM | Report abuse

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

Ulterior motives, perhaps??

Posted by: IllinoisVoter | March 17, 2008 11:21 PM | Report abuse

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

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

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

WE SHOULD ALL DEMAND A REVOTE...

Posted by: IllinoisVoter | March 17, 2008 11:20 PM | Report abuse

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

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

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

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

Posted by: delakile | March 17, 2008 3:07 AM | Report abuse

I read these posts and they scare me to death.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As Bill Cosby says, "Come on People!"

Posted by: jhunt005 | March 15, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: jweeks130 | March 15, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse


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

Posted by: hcsubbarao | March 15, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: anil_malhotra | March 15, 2008 8:17 AM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: pat52007 | March 15, 2008 1:31 AM | Report abuse

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

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

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

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

Posted by: HRXchange | March 14, 2008 8:37 PM | Report abuse

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

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

Posted by: allanle43 | March 14, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: KRittenmyer | March 14, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: KRittenmyer | March 14, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: KRittenmyer | March 14, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: Chesterfield1 | March 14, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

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

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

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

Posted by: Hispana | March 14, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: Hispana | March 14, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

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

sharoninohio

Posted by: sharonrobinson | March 14, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: mmarii | March 14, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: rpcantrell | March 14, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

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

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

Posted by: krnewman | March 14, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: kurtrk | March 14, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: AdrickHenry | March 14, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

sarko1er,

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

ONE hour.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | March 14, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

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

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

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

Posted by: Kansas28 | March 14, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: sarko1er | March 14, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

wilddove

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

Posted by: jimd52 | March 14, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

wilddove

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

Posted by: jimd52 | March 14, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

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

Now, reality.

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

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

Posted by: AdrickHenry | March 14, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: hollywoodog | March 14, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: wilddove | March 14, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

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

Let's look at some facts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: jimd52 | March 14, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

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

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

Posted by: illinois2 | March 14, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: flarrfan | March 14, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

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

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

This seems fair all around.

Posted by: mj64 | March 14, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

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

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

Posted by: dave8459 | March 14, 2008 8:51 AM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: soonerthought | March 14, 2008 8:19 AM | Report abuse

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

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

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

Posted by: miraclestudies | March 14, 2008 4:51 AM | Report abuse

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

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

Posted by: hlmencken | March 14, 2008 3:15 AM | Report abuse

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

Come on Chris tell me something I do not know!

Posted by: hlmencken | March 14, 2008 2:58 AM | Report abuse

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

Come on Chris tell me something I do not know!

Posted by: hlmencken | March 14, 2008 2:56 AM | Report abuse

In essence, the logic is:

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


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

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

Posted by: kdconway | March 14, 2008 1:13 AM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 12:56 AM | Report abuse

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

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

It's just not going to happen.

Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 12:26 AM | Report abuse

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

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

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

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

Posted by: crt12 | March 14, 2008 12:23 AM | Report abuse

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

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

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

It's not going to happen.

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

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

Its over.

Posted by: svreader | March 14, 2008 12:20 AM | Report abuse

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

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

Posted by: Mudrock63 | March 14, 2008 12:18 AM | Report abuse

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

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

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 14, 2008 12:17 AM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 12:09 AM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 12:09 AM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: leichtman | March 14, 2008 12:01 AM | Report abuse

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

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

Posted by: TheTruth | March 14, 2008 12:00 AM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: TheTruth | March 13, 2008 11:58 PM | Report abuse

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

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

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

Posted by: leichtman | March 13, 2008 11:52 PM | Report abuse

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

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

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

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

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

I welcome responses.

Posted by: crt12 | March 13, 2008 11:51 PM | Report abuse

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: leichtman | March 13, 2008 11:50 PM | Report abuse


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

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


.

Posted by: PollM | March 13, 2008 11:13 PM | Report abuse

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

Hillary will be a great President.

I hope we get the chance sooner rather than later.

Posted by: svreader | March 13, 2008 11:06 PM | Report abuse

pinepine --

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

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

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

There's a saying in Israel.

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

If Israel disarmed, there'd be no Israel.

Israel wants to live in peace with its neighbors.

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

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

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

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

Posted by: svreader | March 13, 2008 11:02 PM | Report abuse

DISPATCHES FROM THE GROUND WAR ...

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

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

BY BORYS KRAWCZENIUK
STAFF WRITER


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

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

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

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | March 13, 2008 10:59 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: pinepine | March 13, 2008 10:38 PM | Report abuse

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

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

Posted by: Spectator2 | March 13, 2008 10:34 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin --

Thanks for the info

I hope nobody else thinks I'm him.

Posted by: svreader | March 13, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

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

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

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 13, 2008 10:21 PM | Report abuse

TheTruth-

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

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

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


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


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

Posted by: vammap | March 13, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Hispana --

I agree with you completely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: svreader | March 13, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

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

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

Posted by: Hispana | March 13, 2008 10:14 PM | Report abuse

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

This is racist and malicious.

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

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

Posted by: TheTruth | March 13, 2008 10:13 PM | Report abuse

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: Hispana | March 13, 2008 10:09 PM | Report abuse

vammap --

You are a true Mensch.

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: svreader | March 13, 2008 10:09 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: TheTruth | March 13, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

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

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

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

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

Posted by: vammap | March 13, 2008 10:02 PM | Report abuse

Hispana --

Thanks for making an excellent point.

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

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

Posted by: svreader | March 13, 2008 10:02 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: TheTruth | March 13, 2008 9:55 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: pinepine | March 13, 2008 9:54 PM | Report abuse

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

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

Posted by: Hispana | March 13, 2008 9:51 PM | Report abuse

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: Umbria | March 13, 2008 9:49 PM | Report abuse

vmmap --

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: svreader | March 13, 2008 9:47 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin --

Whoever is posting under my handle is not me.

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

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

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

Are you the one who posted those things?

Posted by: svreader | March 13, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

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

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

Posted by: TheTruth | March 13, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

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

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

Posted by: vammap | March 13, 2008 9:41 PM | Report abuse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: Hispana | March 13, 2008 9:40 PM | Report abuse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rd

Posted by: ralphdaugherty | March 13, 2008 9:40 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin --

Your statement is incorrect.

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

Posted by: svreader | March 13, 2008 9:40 PM | Report abuse

TheTruth --

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

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

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

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

Posted by: svreader | March 13, 2008 9:39 PM | Report abuse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: dcpost1 | March 13, 2008 9:37 PM | Report abuse

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

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

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

Check it out.

Posted by: vammap | March 13, 2008 9:33 PM | Report abuse

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

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

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 13, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

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

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

Posted by: TheTruth | March 13, 2008 9:20 PM | Report abuse

To The Truth--

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

To Svreader- Is abolutely coherent.

Posted by: vammap | March 13, 2008 9:19 PM | Report abuse

I'm a Hillary Supporter and always have been.

Very disturbing info.

Posted by: vammap | March 13, 2008 9:16 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: tobetv | March 13, 2008 9:14 PM | Report abuse

TheTruth --

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

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

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

I'm interested in seeing what your standards are.

Posted by: svreader | March 13, 2008 9:14 PM | Report abuse

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

Leon

Leon

Posted by: nycLeon | March 13, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

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

Leon

Posted by: nycLeon | March 13, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse

TheTruth --

Everything I've posted is true.

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

Its good the truth is coming out.

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

Posted by: svreader | March 13, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

vammap --

The truth is starting to come out.

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

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

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

The problem is that he's nothing like that.

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

Have you watched the video?

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

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

Obama isn't any good at doing actual work.

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

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

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

The guy is bad news.

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

He's a super-salesman master manipulator.

He doesn't deserve your support or your vote.

Posted by: svreader | March 13, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: TheTruth | March 13, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

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

Leon

Posted by: nycLeon | March 13, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

Svreader,

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

Posted by: vammap | March 13, 2008 9:02 PM | Report abuse

Taking responsibility:

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

Weasling:

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

Why put the latter back in the White House?

Time to move on ...

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | March 13, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: TheTruth | March 13, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: vammap | March 13, 2008 8:58 PM | Report abuse

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

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

Is that you again, Leicht?

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 13, 2008 8:55 PM | Report abuse

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

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

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

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

I used multiple references for each candidate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: svreader | March 13, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

Allanle posted:

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

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

Please enlighten me.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 13, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 13, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

the eggs in one basket approuch eh?

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

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

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 13, 2008 8:45 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: vammap | March 13, 2008 8:42 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: allanle43 | March 13, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

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

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

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

Posted by: eddwuu | March 13, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

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

No one campaigned.

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

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

Where's the hope and all the fine words when it comes down to letting the people vote.

Posted by: vammap | March 13, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

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

No one campaigned.

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

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

Where's the hope and all the fine words when it comes down to letting the people vote.

Posted by: vammap | March 13, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

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

No one campaigned.

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

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

Where's the hope and all the fine words when it comes down to letting the people vote.

Posted by: vammap | March 13, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

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

No one campaigned.

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

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

Where's the hope and all the fine words when it comes down to letting the people vote.

Posted by: vammap | March 13, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

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

No one campaigned.

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

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

Where's the hope and all the fine words when it comes down to letting the people vote.

Posted by: vammap | March 13, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

three times equals more truth, shrink? HE HE HE

That will fix that pesky truth and it's bringers. one more time for effect. maybe then you will "win". :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 13, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

Clinton's only path to the nomination relies on cutting Obama's lead down to about 75 pledged delegates, expanding her lead in super delegates by 26. To do this she will need to win by at least 65% in Pennsylvania, get a Florida revote without a Michigan revote, and win by 60% or so in the majority of the remaining states. Then the net result of her nomination will alienate all these new voters that Barack Obama has brought into the fold.

Chris, I'm actually disappointed in you because you are contributing to this nonsense by implying Clinton actually has a chance. Clinton needed to win Texas and Ohio decisively to be in the race. She didn't... Obama walked out of Texas with more delegates. For those paying attention that was the moment the race was over. Only Clinton's ego is perpetuating this race now.

Posted by: pdxgeek | March 13, 2008 8:37 PM | Report abuse

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

No one campaigned.

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

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

Where's the hope and all the fine words when it comes down to letting the people vote.

Posted by: vammap | March 13, 2008 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Ok folks im going to keep this short and sweet.

winner take all primaries/caucus in Mi and Fla. who ever loses MUST drop out and endorse the winner.

*full disclosure, a resident of Mi and quite willing to leave the presidental box empty if this is not solved by the convention.*

Posted by: jaymills1124 | March 13, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse

First of all, Michigan was a primary, not a caucus, so it would be a reprimary, and I think all sides support that.

Hillary clearly supports a primary over a mail-in as well. Florida is her territory to lose- it's loaded with older voters, lower income voters and Latin voters- the "unoficial primary" had the highest turnout in Fl primary history and she won be twenty points. Why would she not want to repeat this?

The congresspeople that rejected it are saying they want the original to count- they are not a bunch of Obama supporters. Why do you Obamapaths need to give bad motives to everything HRC does?

Leon

Posted by: nycLeon | March 13, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse

We agree. Barak needs to be profligate. It is who he is.

Like the old song, Love is a rose...You lose your love when you say the word mine.
He can not get into a slugfest and say he is a better alternative.

We work with our kids every day on this.

He can not win a bloody nose contest with street fighters.

If he can not win these elections now that we all know who is who...there are no new arguments (true believers on both sides are making fools of themselves) then I'll work with Obama four years from now.

He is right you know. The only question is whether there first has to be the cleansing flood. The water sure is rising.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 13, 2008 8:17 PM | Report abuse

We agree. Barak needs to be profligate. It is who he is.

Like the old song, Love is a rose...You lose your love when you say the word mine.
He can not get into a slugfest and say he is a better alternative.

We work with our kids every day on this.

He can not win a bloody nose contest with street fighters.

If he can not win these elections now that we all know who is who...there are no new arguments (true believers on both sides are making fools of themselves) then I'll work with Obama four years from now.

He is right you know. The only question is whether there first has to be the cleansing flood. The water sure is rising.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 13, 2008 8:17 PM | Report abuse

We agree. Barak needs to be profligate. It is who he is.

Like the old song, Love is a rose...You lose your love when you say the word mine.
He can not get into a slugfest and say he is a better alternative.

We work with our kids every day on this.

He can not win a bloody nose contest with street fighters.

If he can not win these elections now that we all know who is who...there are no new arguments (true believers on both sides are making fools of themselves) then I'll work with Obama four years from now.

He is right you know. The only question is whether there first has to be the cleansing flood. The water sure is rising.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 13, 2008 8:17 PM | Report abuse

tHIS IS NOT SOVEIT RUSSIA.

1. you can't count these elections. this is not china or russia. We're not counting these elections as is, clinton supporters. so get that our of your mind right now.

2. the rules are already ruled and agree upon. you are not going to strong arm the process. If a change happens it will not be the sole decision of clinton her republcain freinds and the clitnon media, all of whom have an obvious conflict of interest. If ANY change is made, from the rules currently in place, is going to have to be agreed on by all parties. Not the clinton campiagn the the "opposition" party only, those who seek to profit or beneifet from continued chaos.

3. Who pays for it? I say those who want and are crying for it pay for it. The gop (clinton included)

4. Lastly. The florida and mi voters are not going to automatically vote gop as a result of this. the gop and their sabotuers here would love to make you think that. The Governer (r) as well as state leadership (many of whom are gop) made this decision. If anyone is going to get the blame for this it's the sabotuer gop who are sticking their noses in the opposition process.

Nothing HAs to happen. To most as is is just fine. We don't need to prolong the process. We have our candidate, gop. thanks for the help, but you have your candidate we have ours. Please stop the sabotage. the media does not run the dnc the way the right-wong fascist propogandists own the rnc. Russert and blitzer do not hold the same power as rush and hannity

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 13, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

I'm from Oregon, and am amused by the sudden (and transient) interest in vote by mail.

How about texting either "OBAMA" or "HILLARY" to a number, and charge $1 a vote. It's a winner take all double bonus, the winner gets both the delegates and the money.

They could always do a caucus. (Sit down Obama - I'm only joking).

They could gather at the local high school football stadiums, and vote by a raise of hands. Floridians love counting that sort of thing.

Ignore them - what's the point?

Have the Florida legislature divvy up the delegates.

Posted by: DonJasper | March 13, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

It's clear that the Democrats can't simply turn their back on millions of voters in FL and MI, many of whom will vote Republican in the fall if their votes in the primary can't be counted. No matter who wins the nomination, he or she will need those votes. Both candidates are now saying that a way must be found to bring FL back into the fold, and surely that logic applies to MI as well.

The problem in FL is actually easier than MI, since FL voters actually voted for the candidate of their choice, and both candidates essentially honored the ban on campaigning (Obama ran ads in nearby states and Clinton made it known she would visit the state after the polls closed, so that makes them about even). The only reason not to simply count the earlier votes is to preserve the authority of the DNC. FL has already been "punished" enough by going through this uncertainty. In any case, it wasn't the voters fault that their primary was rescheduled. So there is one easy fix in FL and one expensive fix. If the DNC won't accept the easy fix, both candidates are likely to accept the mail-in vote. Simply splitting the delegates evenly makes no sense and can't be taken seriously, since it ignores the actual votes of 1.7 million people. Allocating delegates according to national popular votes is silly for the same reason. Both of those ideas are simply thrown out to confuse the situation.

In MI, the only solution is a re-vote, since both candidates were not on the ballot. Again, the voters cannot be ignored, but a re-vote by mail or in person is a fair way to fix it. Caucuses have been proven to be non-representative of the actual voters in TX and should be done away with in future elections.

In both states, it is possible and affordable to make those votes count and preserve them for the fall. I'm confident it will happen.

Posted by: holler1wv | March 13, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

This is sort of like parents who don't know how to discipline a child. They threaten a punishment, and when the kid steals the cookie, they don't smack... the say "ohhh... how could we punish such an adorable kid?"

So the kid keeps stealing from the cookie jar.

The rules were clear: If they put their primary early, they wouldn't get the delegates.

They need to think ahead to 4 or 8 years time. If they keep the tough stance, no state will DARE put their primary early again. If they fold, it will be a free for all next time around.

Posted by: Boutan | March 13, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

There are so many lies on this post it's ridiculous. The facts are, all three Edwards, Clinton and Obama held fund-raisers in Florida prior to the primary. The only one who actually "campaigned" was Obama by running "national" television ads that spilled over into Florida.

My personal opinion is that the DNC disenfranchised Florida and Michigan on purpose. Howard Dean clearly favors Obama and knew that these two large states would go to Clinton early in the contest and create a momentum and delegate lead he could not easily overcome. That is the real reason he stripped them of all delegates rather than half them as the RNC did. Now, the people in these states who had no say in Dean's shenanigans and Clinton who won them handily are rightfully clamoring for their delegates to be seated.

Dean is in a delemma, he cannot disenfranchise these states and take the chance of losing them in November, yet he wants Obama to retain the advantage. Florida's demographics heavily favor Clinton, Michigan could go either way. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

Posted by: brigittepj | March 13, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

I would say a caucus or another primary works for Michigan. I have seen polls that they are tied there so it would be a wash betweeen Hilary and Barack. I would say Florida should be decided by the rules that the RNC used when the Republican primary was moved up for political reasons. Which should mean that Barack would still win

Posted by: loveagape3 | March 13, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Thank God someone has put some good reading material (i.e. Rush's transcript)for all of you brain dead liberals on this blog. Read it and learn and try to absorb some of the wisdom...you may even begin thinking for yourselves. In the meantime all of us on our side are enjoying the show and increasingly looking forward to November...it's gonna be SWEET!

Posted by: murph21 | March 13, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

really, bumjerky, would a fascist vote for Obama? What a moron you are.

Calling doofus a moron would be a insult to morons. I think you show a little more promise than doofus.

Posted by: Spectator2 | March 13, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

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

I condemn this kind of trashing of Sen. Obama, it does nothing to ad to the discussion and is unacceptable.

Posted by: leichtman | March 13, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

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

The problem is that he's nothing like that.

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

Have you watched the video?

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

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

Obama isn't any good at doing actual work.

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

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

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

The guy is bad news.

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

He's a super-salesman master manipulator.

He doesn't deserve your support or your vote.

Posted by: svreader | March 13, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

I'm done for today before I pop a vein in my head, dealing with these clinton sell-outs.

Peace out people. Hopefully hillary drops out tomorrow. :)

Army Infantry 11B for Obama.

YEs We Can.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 13, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse

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

The problem is that he's nothing like that.

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

Have you watched the video?

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

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

Obama isn't any good at doing actual work.

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

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

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

The guy is bad news.

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

He's a super-salesman master manipulator.

He doesn't deserve your support or your vote.

Posted by: svreader | March 13, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

nah bondjedi. Phil spetocr is a comedian.

He writes one lines. Mocks and discredits with one lines. What a patriot. So witty. :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 13, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton caught lying - admits to breaking her pledge on Michigan
by BoBo2020
Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:18:48 AM PDT
This morning, on NPR, Senator Clinton admitted to breaking her pledge to the DNC. She stated:

"... we all had a choice as to whether or not to participate in what was going to be a primary. And most people took their names off the ballot, but I didn't. And I think that was a wise decision because Michigan is key to our electoral victory in the fall.

This is a direct and unequivocable violation of her pledge to the DNC and Democratic voters. She signed a pledge not to campaign OR PARTICIPATE. Here's the relevant section of the pledge (pdf):

THEREFORE, I (Hillary Clinton), Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules, pledge to actively campaign in the pre-approved early states Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina. I pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window (any date prior to February 5, 2008).

By her own admission, she has broken her pledge.


As she stated, she had a choice to make - and she chose to break her word.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 13, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

shrink: if Sen Obama listened to your sound advise he would start winning over many of the Clinton voters he would certainly need to win in Nov.
His strategy is like a basketball game in the 4th quarter where he is winning 100 to 99 and he is choosing to hold the ball and wait til the clock runs out. Didn't work for Gore or Kerry and I remember President Dukakas with an 18% lead of George H. All these campaigns had one thing in common, they were cautious took it for granted they had won and lost. I still don't believe its inconceivable that Obama can lose the nomination as much as Hillary wins it. I doubt you as an Obama supporter would want a repeat of '88, 2000 or 2004 and I see some of that in Obama's campaign as much as his supporters would want to scream when I bring that up. Caution never ever works in a Presidential campaign I believe that Al Gore has even acknowledged that was his shortcoming in 2000. And while we talk about the past, that is called history, history also teaches us how to prepare for the future and this election.

Posted by: leichtman | March 13, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

I will apologize to leichtman, because I sense that he/she is an earnest warrior.

Spectator, Godwin's Law doesn't apply to you because you are a facsist and conduct little but ad hominem attacks.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 13, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Who's more crazy? the crazy person, or the crazy person who eggs on and mocks the crazy person?

HHAHAHAHA

Whatever you say gop. The three of you stooges. Should I go back and post all your posts from today? is there one when you make your own points without calling people out and mocking or discrediting them? Yet you claim the high ground. your not fooling anyone gop. Sad really. good think I'm here to combat you gop sabotuers so the others don't. they are free to express their true feelings.

so scary for you gop. good for america and the world. you will silence us no longer. you had yoru chance gop (clinton inlcuded). you wasted it. now get back in the basement and enjoy your irrelevance for a generation.

When you ahve something to say of substance, not about anyone else, then I'll be impressed. you republcains are a joke. no one's buying it. :)


some happy reading for the republcains here, who are scared to admit they are, in fact republcains

"BEGIN TRANSCRIPT


RUSH: The chaos continues in the Democrat Party. New York Times, "Racial issues bubble up again for the Democrats." By the way, I was very prescient on this. Way back in the summer of 2002, somewhere around there, there was a story in the Atlanta Urinal-Constipation newspaper and it told of the friction between black and Latino factions in the Democrat Party because Latinos, it was being reported, were becoming the largest minority in the Democrat Party. Black politicians and special interest groups didn't take kindly to splitting power, splitting pork, and the focus that they once dominated in the Democrat Party. And I said, "This is gonna lead to tensions that you and I will witness down the road. Hispanics and blacks in the Democrat Party going at each other for the title and the right and the honor to be the largest minority in the Democrat Party." At the time, ladies and gentlemen, I said that it would pose problems for liberals and that the Democratic Party had to get its identity politics and race based act together or this would be a large problem for them.

It is coming to pass now. This is another example of being on the cutting edge of societal evolution. We've seen the Clintons pull the race card in South Carolina before the primaries took place in California, then Texas, large Latino populations. There are polls in stories today that say race matters to me and my vote. Ohio was won by Hillary. It was attributed to white blue-collar voters and the Limbaugh Effect. Now race is an issue, been re-injected before voting in Pennsylvania, and guess who are the targets? White blue-collar voters in Philadelphia, and people like Al Sharpton and the Drive-Bys are not happy about it. That story is coming up here in the Stack of Stuff. Race is tearing this party apart. The Uncivil War in the Democrat Party, this is the chaos, our master plan, folks, unfolding exactly as we saw it, brilliantly conceived, flawlessly executed, Rush the Vote, Operation Chaos.

New York Times: "'Racial Issues Bubble Up Again for Democrats.' In addition to Ms. Ferraro's remark, Mr. Sharpton cited Mrs. Clinton's decision not to fire her top ally in Pennsylvania, Gov. Edward G. Rendell, for saying in February that some white voters there were 'probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate.' 'When you hear the lack of total denunciation of Ferraro, when you hear Rendell saying there are whites who will never vote for a black, one has to wonder if the Clinton campaign has a Pennsylvania strategy to appeal to voters on race,' Mr. Sharpton said in an interview. 'I would hope Mrs. Clinton would make it clear that she is not doing that.'" I guarantee you, Reverend Sharpton, she will tell you whatever you want to hear, and then keep focusing on race. Why should they stop now? You gotta look at it this way, Al. They see it as working. And then, of course, from ThePolitico.com today, "Ferraro Cries Reverse Racism," and Jake Tapper is referenced here in this story. "In a city with a history of racial tensions between working-class whites," i.e., blue-collar union types, "and African-Americans, I can hardly think of a better wedge issue for the Clinton campaign to use than this one -- this notion that Obama has benefited from some sort of political affirmative action." That's Jake Tapper of ABC News. He wrote this recently, he's talking about Philadelphia, and the Clintons are out there, affirmative action, that's what Ferraro's job was, she got it done, now he's the affirmative action candidate. That's the theme going into Pennsylvania, specifically Philadelphia, which is where Fast Eddie is from. He was mayor there, I think. Now he's governor.

The Philadelphia Inquirer, Dick Polman, columnist: "'Archie Bunker at the Kitchen Sink.' Now consider Ferraro's remark. By attributing Obama's strong position to the color of his skin, she is denigrating his rare political gifts - all of which have actually enabled him to transcend the de facto color barrier that, until now, has prevented black candidates from ascending to the top tier. Or look at it this way: If Obama is indeed well positioned in this campaign primarily because he is black, why is it that no black has ever achieved this position before? It's tragic," writes Dick Polman. I love this. These people are imploding all around. "It's tragic for the Democratic party that one of its pioneer feminists would sound like Archie Bunker in his easy chair on All in the Family, grousing about affirmative action, about how blacks are getting a leg up solely because of their race. Because this is the message of reverse racism, widely embraced by whites who believe that they're getting a raw deal in an unfair modern world. (Witness Ferraro's anger at being criticized for her Obama remark; her latest retort is, 'I really think they're attacking me because I'm white.')" Gosh, folks. Do you understand how wonderful this all is?


This bunch of liberals, George Neumayr said it perfectly yesterday in the American Spectator, they are being devoured by their own policies. They gave us the concept of affirmative action, and now, the Clintons, the rest of the party hierarchy, bigwigs sitting around in their private rooms, and they can't believe, "What the hell, we got a rookie black guy, and we can't say anything," and they're cursing up a storm and they're devising stratagems and strategeries to get rid of this guy. If they were true to their word, if these liberals really meant all of this, Hillary would have got out of the way, Edwards would have never got in, and they would all be unified behind Obama, and they'd be carrying him around on a throne to see to it that he was elected president, because that was their promise to so many in their party and so many of their voters, particularly black voters, "We're going to emancipate you. We're going to save you. We're going to get you from out under the thumb of those racist Republican white bigots. We're going to make sure you get a fair shake. We're going to make sure you don't get pulled over at three in the afternoon because you're driving a car that looks like you can't afford."

All the promises, nothing changes, nothing changes. Bill Clinton has morphed into Bull Clinton. We named him after Bull Connor. Now they want a Jim Crow election. Only the blacks should go for Obama, only the women should go for Hillary. This party is demonstrating exactly who they are and what they're all about. They are just being devoured by their own policies. I can't tell you, to see Geraldine Ferraro be so offended. It's tragic. It's tragic. Here, we have some Ferraro sound bites. Why, what timing. These things just don't happen by accident, folks. This is the result of broadcast excellence, highly trained broadcast specialties that I have learned. Last night, Hannity & Colmes, Fox News Channel, Alan Colmes says in reaction to Hillary Clinton's comment, "I don't agree with it, it's regrettable that one of our supporters said this."

FERRARO: That's fine. You know, I have to tell you, she had to respond. They were linking her to me. I was exercising my First Amendment right. I had nothing to do with the campaign. And the fact that I was on her campaign committee, I think that David Axelrod saw this as, this is an opportunity. They made this a divisive issue, not me.

RUSH: (laughing) I love this. Geraldine, if you'd been a Republican for the last 20 years, you would have known not to say what you said. We've been dealing with this kind of stuff, false accusations, political correctness, us being made the issue. Welcome to the club, Geraldine, you ought to switch parties. Yeah, there she is on Fox right now. This is the worst thing they did was throw her under the bus because now she's not going to shut up. In fact, I don't even believe she was supposed to shut up. I think this whole thing is part of the Clinton master strategy. She's supposed to stay out there and keep talking, now that she's no longer part of the campaign, nobody can tell her to shut up, Hillary's already denounced of her. Here's more. Hannity asked her, "Why do you think we see this divide: 90% of black voters for Barack, 78% of women for Hillary."

FERRARO: You tell me why. I'm not going to say another word about this.

HANNITY: I'm asking the question.

FERRARO: I've been 40 years fighting discrimination, and all of a sudden being considered racist. Is it because he's better on issues than Hillary was, who was married to the first black president? I don't think so. I'm going to tell you what, it hurts, it really hurts. I'm sorry that people think I'm racist because I'm just not.

RUSH: Oh, no, that's tragedy, tragedy in the Democrat Party. An absolute tragedy, ladies and gentlemen. Geraldine Ferraro's been called a racist, and yes, it just rolled off her lips like it was fact, Hillary Clinton married to the first black president? (laughing) The chaos is unbelievable. Here's one more from Ferraro. On the Nightly News last night, Ann Curry interviewed her. "If the Hillary campaign is ultimately hurt by your comments, will you regret them?"

FERRARO: Let me just say to you this. I personally think that this is the last time that the Obama campaign is going to be able to play this type of a race card, because I think that's what it is. They should apologize to me for calling me a racist.

RUSH: (laughing) Meanwhile, we've got Obama's preacher who makes Geraldine Ferraro look like a nun! Geraldine Ferraro's comments are nothing. They have about the impact of a feather hitting your head compared to this hatemonger lunatic racist that passes as a pastor in Obama's church. Obama's out there acting offended and Obama, by the way, you still owe me an apology. You still have not apologized to me for lying about me and saying I wanted to round up all those illegals and deport 'em.


BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: There's only one man, ladies and gentlemen, apparently -- and I don't even really think this is possible, but if it is possible, there's only one person -- that could heal the Democrat Party right now on the basis of race. Obama can't do it, not with this preacher out there. (interruption) Jesus? Jesus can't heal the party. Jesus? No. Can't do that. It's David Paterson, the new governor of New York. Nobody's got anything on him yet other than he's a nut. (interruption) I know, "watch it." We'll wait, we'll wait. But this guy's... This guy's...a nut. The happiest Democrat in Washington over this thing with Spitzer is Charlie Rangel, 'cause Paterson is his protégé. (laughter) Next Monday when Paterson is sworn in, I guarantee you the sun's going to be brighter, the birds going to be chirping louder, the street swindlers are going to stop swindling. The Subways will be clean. It will just be a wonderful day, and the patronage that's going to go on between Rangel and Washington and Albany? (laughter) At any rate, I just love this. Dan in Tiberon, California. What a beautiful place this is. Nice to have you here.

CALLER: Mega dittos, Rush.

RUSH: You bet.

CALLER: Back to Ferraro's comments.

RUSH: Yes?

CALLER: I'm just wondering. Since we know that Obama has Edwards' old campaign manager, and many of the things he said are from Edwards himself, what did Ms. Ferraro mean by her comments? If Edwards' campaign went down the toilet, what's the difference between the two? So, was she a racist or were those racist comments?

RUSH: Well, you see, in our politically correct world they are interpreted as racist comments. She has just found out what it's like to be a conservative Republican.

CALLER: Yeah, yeah.

RUSH: Now, in the real world is what she said racist? What do you think? You tell me.

CALLER: Only she knows that. I can't speak for her. I'm just going by what she said. I'm questioning that. Just on the basis of, you know, what is she basing it on? Is she basing it on, you know, we know Edwards is --

RUSH: No, I think what she's saying, if you want to do this seriously -- which is tough to do when we're having so much fun here with this bunch, but if you want to deal with it seriously -- I think what she's saying is, "Okay, we're being told this is a historic campaign and a historic candidacy. Well, what's historic about it? Are his ideas historic? No, because nobody knows what they are, other than pure socialism."

CALLER: Right.

RUSH: What's historic about it? The color of his skin is what makes this campaign historic. If he wins he's the first black president of the country.

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: Is that racist to point out?

CALLER: Unbelievable. I would have you continue to create chaos by Operation Chaos by pointing out the fact that Obama was the first one to espouse his middle name and to proclaim it, so...

RUSH: I mentioned that. Yep, yep, I mentioned that.

CALLER: I know you did, but mention that to the Clinton campaign, maybe.

RUSH: Oh, the Clinton campaign has a whole room assigned to this show.

CALLER: I know.

RUSH: They've heard it.

CALLER: They're having fun with that. I think it's great. Keep it up.

RUSH: I'll do that. Thanks very much, Dan. I appreciate it. How long you lived in Tiberon?

CALLER: Twenty-six years.

RUSH: Man, that's a beautiful place out there.

CALLER: Yep. I've been listening to you since '85.

RUSH: '85. Whoa! You go back to the Sacramento days, then.

CALLER: Last time I talked to you was about the Persian Gulf situation, and I don't know if it was '85 or '6.

RUSH: Yeah, well, we ended up winning that for a while.


BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Sean in Indianapolis, I'm glad you waited, sir. You're next on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Rush, how are you, sir?

RUSH: Good. Thank you.

CALLER: We don't always agree, Rush, but I've been listening to you for years now.

RUSH: Thank you.

CALLER: I think you have to listen to different points of view to be a well-rounded person. I don't consider myself left or right. I'm just in the middle here. It's a mess what's happening with the Democrats, but it's utterly predictable because you've got --

RUSH: Wait, wait, you're in the middle?

CALLER: I'm in middle.

RUSH: Like a moderate?

CALLER: I would say, Rush, I'm liberal about some things and I'm conservative about other things.

RUSH: Right. Right. Yeah, okay, you're a good moderate.

CALLER: Yeah. Yeah. I believe in gun rights, I'm against gay marriage, but I'm also African-American, so there's certain liberal views I have also.

RUSH: Well, give me an example of a liberal view, just a couple, to balance it out here since you're moderate.

CALLER: Just to balance it out?

RUSH: Yeah, because you gave us two conservative views. To be fair here, you gotta give us two liberal views.

CALLER: Oh, gosh, you know, I would say I'm with some aspects of affirmative action but not others. I think that just because of the roles that we have in this country as far as minority-majority, there needs to be some kind of a check and balance as far as making sure that --

RUSH: Yeah, I know, I totally understand.

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: There are times I like the sun being out and other times I don't.

CALLER: Exactly. Exactly. But the point of my call is on this whole Democratic, this racist undertone -- well, it's not really an undertone. It's actually blowing up all over the place right now. I don't know why this is such a big shock to most Americans, if they inform themselves, because up to the late 1930s, most blacks were Republican. The whole thing with it is that, you're starting to see that, they're okay with you as long as you know your place. And now that things are going well with Obama, you see a lot of the beliefs from the feminist movement coming full steam ahead and running into something they did not anticipate, which is strangely black voters supporting a black candidate for president. Who coulda saw that happening? You know.

RUSH: What the hell did they think was going to happen?

CALLER: Exactly. Exactly. And the whole thing with it is that Hillary's main argument against Obama, and I haven't declared who I'm going with in this race.

RUSH: I wouldn't expect you to.

CALLER: But her main argument is that she has experience but she's ran her campaign as if she was an incumbent --

RUSH: No, no. She's run it as if she's an incompetent.

CALLER: Yeah, totally, totally.

RUSH: Really, this whole party -- this is a bunch out there, Sean, that wants to run your health care.

CALLER: Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely.

RUSH: They can't even run their own business. This is a woman who touts her experience, ready on day one. This is a fly by the seat of her pants, or broom, campaign. It's stunning to watch this, because everybody has always had the impression the Democrats are masterful, that they are organized, and they are forward thinking and they are three and four steps ahead of us, and they are not. This whole campaign, all aspects of it, they are finally having to show the world who they really are.

CALLER: Well, I would say also like, again, this racial aspect of it, Mr. Blackwell in Ohio, Clarence Thomas, they've all taken a lot of heat from black leaders on the left, had a lot of despicable things said about them, Uncle Toms, a lot of horrible things.

RUSH: That's right.

CALLER: So there are things in this party, entrenched in this party that this race, no pun intended, is bringing out. They're saying it's a race of historical proportion, and unfortunately, the history of their ideals are running right into each other, and that's what's happening right now in front of us. So it's kind of sad to see, but it has to happen.

RUSH: No, it's not.

CALLER: It has to happen.

RUSH: It's not sad to see at all. This has been a long time coming. See, Sean, there are people like us, people like me on our side of the aisle here, we know who these people are, we've known it for decades.

CALLER: Yeah.


RUSH: The media knows who they are but they always get covered up, they always get excuses made for them. Now everybody has a chance to do it, and that's why I want this to continue through the convention because the convention is when most of the country's going to really start paying attention, although I think more people are paying attention now than usually do at this time during a campaign season, but it's time for people to find out that the real racism lives in the Democrat Party, that the real sexism lives in the Democrat Party. It's time to see that there's no such thing as unity in the Democrat Party, ever. They are a disparate coalition of different groups that have one or two unifying precincts: High taxes, big government. But big labor's got its own agenda, the teachers union has its own agenda, the feminists have their own agenda, the civil rights coalitions have their own agenda, and they're all vying for power within the Democrat Party.

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: Mr. and Mrs. Clinton think the party is theirs and they're all for affirmative action except when it's starting to happen to them.

CALLER: And I'll tell you something Rush, I think what's going to happen as far as black voters, you're going to see fracture lines. You're going to see probably the Democratic Party go largely with Hispanic voters and your feminist voters, and you'll probably see blacks move more towards the middle, maybe even further to the right --

RUSH: I'll tell you what I think. I'll give you a more concrete prediction. If this stuff keeps up the way it is, two scenarios. Obama gets the nomination, I don't care who else is on the ticket, blacks will vote in even larger numbers for the Democratic Party, rather than being 92%, it will be 95%.

CALLER: Right.

RUSH: Hispanics will not. The Democrat Party has pit Hispanics and African-Americans against each other.

CALLER: Absolutely.

RUSH: Ever since the Hispanic population became larger than the African-American population, they have a competition to be the number one minority in the Democrat Party, and Hillary Clinton's playing up that division. She's doing everything -- so the Hispanics either won't vote, or they'll vote for McCain.

CALLER: Right.

RUSH: If Hillary gets the nomination, if she somehow blows up the convention, they have riots and whatever, and they can't find Obama the day after the convention, and she's the nominee then you're going to have blacks in larger-than-ever numbers staying at home.

CALLER: Yes.

RUSH: Some of them, I think 10%, might cross over and vote for McCain.

CALLER: Yes.

RUSH: Hispanics will vote for McCain in larger numbers than they would vote for the Democrats, particularly Obama.

CALLER: Well, and Rush, there's a problem with a lot of the logic, there's a lot of illogic going on with this. Ferraro, she had every right to make the comment that she made. I think PC is killing us. But she has a right to say what she wants to say. The only thing about it is that Hillary's main trump card for experience is being the first lady underneath her husband.

RUSH: Beside. We're not allowed to put Hillary on the bottom anymore.

CALLER: (laughing)

RUSH: Beside her husband.

CALLER: Oh, beside her husband, yeah, yeah, that's right. So basically she has --

RUSH: She gotta be on top, beside, on top. Put her on top. You can't put her on the bottom. Don't even think about it actually.

CALLER: That's all I got, sir. It was nice talking to you.

RUSH: Wait a minute, Sean, before you go, what kind of water heater do you use?

CALLER: Oh, gosh, you know, this thing's been giving us problems. I think we use --

RUSH: You got a tank, right? I don't care about a brand name, I just care about the kind, you got a tank.

CALLER: Got a big tank.

RUSH: What kind of problems you having with it?

CALLER: Well, the thing is kind of built on this platform here, this platform has given us a couple problems. We're in a condo here.

RUSH: Oh, a condo water heater, I've been there, I've been there, yeah.

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: When you turn it on, you get hot water when you want it?

CALLER: Yeah, absolutely.

RUSH: You do?

CALLER: Oh, it's too hot.

RUSH: Doesn't take awhile for the hot water to get there?

CALLER: Well, I mean, I haven't really noticed anything, I mean it's not new, so I'm sure it could be better.

RUSH: Well, you ought to think about it. Do you own the condo?

CALLER: Yes.

RUSH: You do?

CALLER: Yes.

RUSH: Is it the water heater yours, or is it part of the building?

CALLER: It is mine.

RUSH: It is mine. All right. Well, it sounds like this thing is on its last legs, or like this platform is on its last legs, one of the two. I wouldn't blame it on the platform. I would blame it on the heater. I'm sure if you live in Indianapolis and so forth, very bad winter up there, you want to save money, energy costs are rising, think about this, Sean. A Rinnai Tankless Water Heater heats only the water that you demand. It doesn't have this big tank full of hot water that you're never going to use, it's constantly running to keep it hot. You get one of these tankless water heaters from Rinnai, and you will not waste energy, nor hot water. You'll never run out of hot water with a Rinnai Tankless Water Heater. I don't care how many guests, how many showers, how many loads of laundry are going on at once, you will not ever run out of hot water. Now, as a moderate you may want to run out of hot water now and then, but you won't if you have a Rinnai Tankless Water Heater. You can calculate how much money you'll save at a website, ForeverHotWater.com. Go in there, fill it all out. It's very simple and you'll find out how much you can save, but really the thing is cool. It does not store hot water, it's there when you want it, and it's always there when you want it. ForeverHotWater.com. Rinnai Tankless Water Heater. Go get one, Sean.


END TRANSCRIPT
"

do not fear the fascists. The only power they have is teh power We, as americans giove them. They are weak and powerless. If we do not give them the irrelevance they have earned, we set horrible presednece for the future of our children. Do not fear or pity the fascists. They must be held accountable for their actions at some point, whine and cry as they might. now is as good a time as any. They made their bed. Let them sleep in it america. It will not hurt them to pratice what they preach for a generation. Think abou tthe big picture.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 13, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

I am in favor of the 50 50 split or no delegates.

See what gets me is that the florida state dems sue'd the DNC about the primary election dates and lost. The state dems could have asked the court for relief for the voters and had the elections dates moved back into compliance with DNC rules, they had months to fix it.... How about these party leaders in michigan and florida stand up and apologize for screwing there voters and the rest of us.

Posted by: solvan | March 13, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Dear Spain,

We would like to return Florida for store credit. As we have no reciept, we are willing to accept one (1) Seranno ham and a medium-quality bottle of Calvados in trade. Actually, just take it. Please.

Your pal,
America

Posted by: hbg16 | March 13, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Ok we have crazy person for Obama and someone who complains about the "fortune" she has spent just to grace these boards with her presence.

Obama needs to want as many elections as he can contest. So long as they are fair, he needs to accept them anywhere, anytime.

This is who he is and he needs to stay
that way. Now he is all out there and so are the Clintons. They are not the same, it can not be bought, the winner will be President, this is real.

If I were Obama, I would be in Florida right now and I would stay there until this plan is made. People from PA are watching. They need him to be who he is.

In a bloody nose contest, the Clintons win against the Democrats, then lose the war.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 13, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

alright leachman. New rule. Just for you and poor phil spector over here. Do not mention me again. cool. If you do not mock or try and discredit me, I will not mention you.

why is it each post YOU make is about me. Ignore me if you must. if you lie or propogate I will call you out on it. If I do you call me out. Deal?

Man. I know hillary cried her way to victory in new hampshire, but crying and whining is not a universal ticket to automaticall get your way. Those are republcain elementary school rules you play by. you know, old style politics.

cool, leachman? Peace. Do not mention me and do not lie or propogate. Do that and all should be well.

not that I'm tryin gto tell you want to do. by all means post your conscience. I'm trying to help you. If your feelings are so hurt why mention me in every post.

I don't blog for gop propogandists. I blog for people who may be pointed here. i don't want them to be swayed by lies and propoganda. I want this site to have a fair shake, where all can voice TRUE and FACTUAL opinions. Gossip heresay and propoganda get called out. That's just the way it works. Maybe to deep for you. you don't understand this is not a game or play time. For me this is a hobby. a past time, fighting for america and american values. This is not for fun. This is for the future of americans the country and the world. Play time is over. Sabotage/treason will be called out now.

we are a self-government. In a self-government we need all the real news we can get. With as little half-truth lies and spin we can get. I just doing my part. Trying to balance out fox and their ilk. you wouldn't know knowing about fighting republcains though. Leave it to the pros.

again, either you are fighting the fascists or enabling them. Please pick a side.

This is my last post for leachman, unless she continues to post and discredi tme at all times. That fight has been waged on this site already (the gop and the sell-out moderates silencing me and other obama supporters). You lost. Not please stop the whineing. If you cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas, then don't.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 13, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

spectator you are absolutely right but there seems to be some serious comments here from both camps that are being drowned out by the noise machine of anger. I was truly coming here for common ground(which looks more and more unlikely from my time here) that after 7 years of W is in all of our interest. Both sides are passionate about their candidate but if we are ever to come to a resolution for the good of the country, reasonable and cooler minds will have to come together. Your post and a few others make me feel there is still hope for that resolution but if the venom continues I will guarantee that Sen. McCain will come out the winner and that would certainly be the worst outcome for this country, agreed?

Posted by: leichtman | March 13, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

idiot, you're the one who said this site is a waste of time. You must have quite the pathetic life if you still spend hours here.

Posted by: Spectator2 | March 13, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Thousands of fix readers? HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH

cc wishes. All ten of ya are angry?

you got nothing of yoruself to say zouk? I mean phil spector? That's your problem. Nobody is going to save you from reality. If you can't take the heat, get out of the forest. :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 13, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

leichman, give it up. There are a very few posters on here who insist on making things personal. You're trying to deal with one of them.

Posted by: Spectator2 | March 13, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

I ask you sir to please stop addressing me at all here or addressing me by name. What will it take you to stop you from making personalized attacks on me. Somehow I was lead to believe that that was against the guidelines of this site. One of the Obama bloggers has already advised you that your inflamatory comments are undermining your candidate, is that your objective? If not then please stop. Its not becoming and certainly does not put your candidate in the best light.

Posted by: leichtman | March 13, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

"What a waste of time this site is."

Dooofus, I speak for thousands of Fix readers when I say, "If that's how you feel, then by all means leave."

Posted by: Spectator2 | March 13, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

"She is just another woman who has spent her life trying to break through the Glass Ceiling and told wait wait we can always do better."

My bad. I forgot that that experience entitles one to denigrate based on race. You're right.

I believe in your message, so let me save your fingers the agony and summarize it, now and forever: Seat the delegates. Caw caw caw! The Hispanic vote can only be won by Hillary. Caw caw caw! Big states. On to Guam. Caw! The DNC. Caw caw caw! Glass ceiling. Caw caw! Popular vote. Caw! Experience. Dunkin Donuts. 90,000 dollars in pizza bills. Caw caw caw! Put salt on the sidewalks, Hillary, then you will win. Caw caw caw!

Posted by: bondjedi | March 13, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

looks like i struck a nerve with bumjerky.

by the way, bummy, I'll be voting for Obama if he's the nominee. So much for your pinheaded, rufus-like characterizations.

Posted by: Spectator2 | March 13, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

WOW. LEACHMAN.

Now it's 2000 all over again. wow.

What a waste of time this site is. This propogandists will never acknowledge reality or grow. Ever. Quite the contrary. They fight for the past. That is why you will lose leachman. you fight for the past. We fight for the future. You can't drive a car looking through the rear-view.

do your worst. We're ready for your sabotage (moderate coward sell-outs) just like we are ready for the gop's. Your game only works if people are ignorant. They still are ignorant. But far less so.

Not only can you not win leachman, you already lost. do your worst sabotage. We're waiting for you gop. Your fooling no one

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 13, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

my only response, that comment is trash

Posted by: leichtman | March 13, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

"And Feraro is not a hater she was beloved by Coretta King. "

And now that she has passed, Ferraro can stay true to form as a sanctimonious lib. Does she toss n's when no one black is around?

Anyways, HRC has made apparent she doesn't think much of MLK's work. LBJ did it all.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 13, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

are we so short sited? Do we forget W's persistance in going to the US Supreme Ct in Bush v Gore to make sure that WE DON"T COUNT ALL OF THE FLA VOTES.
its deja vous all over again.

Posted by: leichtman | March 13, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

"Obama's Law - The amount of whining by Clintonazis is directly proportional to the can of whoop-ass opened on them."

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 13, 2008 6:41 PM | Report abuse

"They both therefore lose. Godwin's Law."

Obama's Law - The amount of whining by Clintonazis is directly proportional to the can of whoop-ass opened on them.

Godwin's Law ... ugh. It's apparent who keeps up on their reading and current events by reading bumper stickers.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 13, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

I have read that Hillary would win 20-25 more delegates in both states if the revote stayed the same and that would get Sen Obama's lead down to around 85 before Pa, West Virginia and Puerto Rico places she is expected to do well. Wonder now why Sen Obama is trying so hard to not count those votes?

Posted by: leichtman | March 13, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Goodwins law only applies if the people in question are not fascists or nazi's. :)

Whatever though. I say the gop are fascists. Plain and simple. Fascism is not a law of communicatiion. It is an ideaology. I say if the shoe fits, screw the law. That law implies we are all fascists. I thought we fought fascism for american ideals. If the shoe fits I saw. But I will enlighten our resident peanut gallery.

"Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: patriotism, nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, autocracy and opposition to political and economic liberalism"

Now if they fit that desricption of fascist, they are as such. not because anyone calls them such. but by the definition of said word.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 13, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

The swamps of Florida have sunk even lower than Alabama. Many suggest that the solution is to castrate Florida - www.whoseflorida.com - but this is inadequate punishment.

In Florida, crime pays. Organized crime operates with impunity from the system. In fact, organized crime operates within the system placing establishment operatives in critical positions throughout every institution at the local, state, federal and elite level. For the power elite in Florida, the law is a joke to be mocked. Some old folks still talk like New Yorkers but Florida hates New York as much as they hate goats themselves. -- Florida is not the kind of place that would elect New York's mayor. Florida is the kind of place that would train New York's hijackers.


It's time for New York to stop being such a pushover. I'm not suggesting that New York should start training more people from Hamburg in flight schools or send drones to Florida to fire missiles at the Jeb cronies at the Council of Conservative Citizens. But it's time to give them what they asked for. They want to appoint Oil Slick Dick to the White House Black Market? They want to grab oil from hot, sandy soil to power their unarmored Hummers? Fine. Give them what they voted for. It's time to start drilling on Florida beaches.

Posted by: Open1 | March 13, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

TRAVESTY? to count the votes in an election where Hillary was the only one on the tickets because the other candidates agreed to follow the rules and had the integrity to stand by their pledge.

Posted by: jefbgaret | March 13, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Check out the LA Times Delegate Math
It shows that all Hillary needs to do is win 3 states and she has 2, 021 and he has 2,010 delegates, and that's even if he wins every other state. Since Pa, FL and Mi are going to most likely go in her column and not his, to not count them is GIVING him the election. So, when you see Obama Camp not too thrilled about counting ALL the votes. That's why.
If ALL the votes aren't counted, this election is null and void because there is no legit winner. You can't play it both ways, like Obama is doing. You can't tout your caucus wins and than disenfranchise voters in primarys. Considering the 2000 debacle voters should consider any attempt to do so a TRAVESTY against the American people.

Posted by: vammap | March 13, 2008 6:32 PM | Report abuse

shrink: if Sen Obama wants to truly unify the party as much as the country he should relish a revote. It certainly would go along ways if he should win the nomination to win over my vote in Nov. And Feraro is not a hater she was beloved by Coretta King. She is just another woman who has spent her life trying to break through the Glass Ceiling and told wait wait we can always do better.

Posted by: leichtman | March 13, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

svreader all I can say is there is some justice.

Please tell us all just how much your time wasted on these boards has cost you? What fortune have you spent?

If you can say, maybe the Clintons will get the message.

Please cry and tell us you have found your voice.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 13, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

I don't think I've ever read what the delegate breakdown would be if the previous Florida and Michigan primaries were counted. How much does Clinton gain? Just a factual question I'd like to see answered.

The truth is, in an expensive re-do, she's likely to win again. The re-do's could change the results by just a few delegates, at several million dollars per delegate.

Posted by: ericalaska | March 13, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Here's an interesting situation. In consecutive posts, bondjedi and svreader both mention Hitler. bondjedi throws in Clintonazi, while svreader answers with Mao. They both therefore lose. Godwin's Law.

Dial it back, boys.

Posted by: Spectator2 | March 13, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

You folks really need to get your fact straight on the 100% deal. The rule was 50% and then after Florida announced their dates, Howard Dean and the DNC switched the penalty to 100%. So I say to the DNC, don't change rules in midstream and accept 50% of the delegates awarded proportionally according to the percentages received on 1/29/08.

Posted by: dl569 | March 13, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080127/D8UEG4RG0.html

for the patriot act internet thought police, geroge bush cronies.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 13, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

"Clinton to Campaign in Florida


Email this Story

Jan 27, 5:12 PM (ET)

By MIKE GLOVER

SARASOTA, Fla. (AP) - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she was going to Florida to assure Democrats that "their voices are heard" and to underscore her commitment to seeing the state's delegation seated at the national convention.

Though the Democratic presidential candidates largely have heeded the national party's request that they not campaign publicly in Florida, Clinton said it's time to pay attention to voters there who are showing heavy interest in Tuesday's primary. Early voting is under way and drawing strong interest, she said.

"Hundreds of thousands of people have already voted in Florida and I want them to know I will be there to be part of what they have tried to do to make sure their voices are heard," Clinton said in Memphis, Tenn., before heading for Florida.

Clinton met with reporters as she campaigned in Tennessee, one of 22 states with primary contests on Feb. 5, and she sought to shift the focus from her lopsided loss to rival Barack Obama in the South Carolina primary on Saturday to the coming contests.


Clinton worked overtime to deflect attention from her loss, hoping to claim credit for a strong showing in Florida when little was actually stake. No delegate will be allocated, and none of the candidates have made an effort in the state. While there has been heavy activity in early voting largely driven by state issues. An issue on the ballot would lower property taxes, and it has Democrats and Republicans campaigning hard.

In addition, the state's Democratic Party has pushed the early voting issue hard, in part to seek some attention. Faced with a need to deflect Obama's momentum, Clinton was happy to help.

She arrived in Sarasota taking care to abide by the details of the agreement, because events in Sarasota and later in Miami were not open to the public.

With a wink at the deal, Clinton carefully staged her arrival so she left her airplane with palm trees in the background for photographer. Asked if she was happy to be in Florida, she said: "How could you not be. It is absolutely glorious. It is a perfect day here in Florida."

After Florida moved its primary up to Tuesday in an attempt to play a bigger role in choosing the presidential nominees, the Democratic National Committee said it would refuse to seat the state's delegation at the national convention in late August. But it is expected that the eventual nominee will try to reverse that decision because of Florida's crucial role in the general election.

Clinton already is on record favoring that step.

"I will try to persuade my delegates to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida," said Clinton in Tennessee, arguing that she was bowing to political reality. "Democrats have to win Michigan and have to try to win Florida and I intend to do that. The people of Florida deserve to be represented in the process of picking a candidate for president of the United States."

Michigan also violated party rules by moving its primary to Jan. 15, and party leaders voted to strip the state of its 156 delegates as punishment.

The competition between Clinton and Obama grew heated heading into the South Carolina vote, leading to criticism of the role her husband, the former president, played in her campaign. Hillary Clinton dismissed the criticism.

"I think people understand that this is a very contested, vigorous election," she said. "That heightens interest. This is the most intense election process that I know of and certainly have been involved in."

She argued there's nothing wrong with drawing distinctions, and said she would continue to do so.

"I think voters deserve to make an informed decision based on differences in our record and positions," Clinton said.

With split decisions in the contests thus far - Obama won Iowa and South Carolina, Clinton won New Hampshire and Nevada - there's increased speculation that the Democratic contest will extend beyond the virtual national primary on Feb. 5. Clinton aides noted that if she won all the more than 1,600 delegates at stake that day - a virtual impossibility - she would still be short of the number needed to clinch the nomination.

"We're going to be in it for as long as it takes," she said.

Asked during an interview on CBS'"Face the Nation" whether her husband would continue his aggressive role in her campaign, Clinton said he will continue to be with her and support her.

"My husband has such a great commitment to me and to my campaign. You know, he loves me just like, you know, husbands and wives get out there and work on each others' behalf. I certainly did that for him for many years," she said. She added that "what he is doing for me is obviously out of a sense of deep commitment to me personally but also based on his experience as president as to who he thinks would best lead our country. And I know that in my own support of him going back some years, I sometimes got a little bit carried away. I confess to that."

Obama won a majority of the black votes in South Carolina, but Clinton has made it clear that she is not giving up on them.

She spoke Saturday night at a traditionally black college in Nashville, and attended worship services and spoke Sunday at Monumental Baptist Church, a traditionally black church in Memphis. The minister, Samuel Kyles, was with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. when he was assassinated nearly 40 years ago.

Clinton talked of her ties to King and of leading a delegation to the inauguration of former South African President Nelson Mandela.

"The march continues," Clinton said. "I believe Doctor King glimpsed that from the mountaintop he spoke about the day before he died."


Clinton's propogandists are no differant than bush's. Same tactics. Same arguements. I think you are the same people, in fact.

the problem for you is, your propogating in the internet age. Any 11 year old can destroy your weak theories and lies in 1 minute. Give it up gop. Your soveit style propoganda is moot in 2008 america. We have the internet now. Only old people are buying it. Think about the future.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 13, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

I'm confused by the notion that time is running out for Florida to act by the June 10th deadline for primaries. I didn't think that Florida was subject to those rules. Can't they just hold their elections whenever they want?

Posted by: jefbgaret | March 13, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

"Everybody I know will vote for McCain if Obama is the Democratic nominee."

Check your constitution, because you have to be 18 to vote.

And anyways, I know this isn't svreader because there's no link to a bogus Rezko story.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 13, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

propogate is for plants.

Your quote is accurate unfortunately for you it was AFTER Fla had finished voting so it proves zero.
Again I am not interested in a shouting match with you but neither will I stand for your propaganda, and dissembling.

Posted by: leichtman | March 13, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

You are right misterlight.

My candidate should want a real Florida and Michigan vote.

He has to win in an all positive protocol. It is his over-arching attribute (haters like Ferraro and Farakhan deserve each other). We need to start taking care of people, right now, right away.

The world can't wait.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 13, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

"Beleagured Hillary Defies DNC Rules - Heads to Floridayoudecide08.foxnews.com -- Hillary Clinton said she will go to Florida to assure Democrats that "their voices are heard" and to underscore her pledge to seat the state's delegation at the convention. Though Democratic candidates largely have heeded the DNC's request that they not campaign publicly in Florida, Clinton said it's time to pay attention to FL voters.
"

I'll get more for ya. don't want leachman to be able to propogate without truth entering into it

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 13, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Obama Supporters --

Its cost me a fortune to spend the time I do posting on these boards.

Its obvious your parents did a very poor job raising you and teaching you to think for yourselves and to think carefully before getting involved with causes.

Like the Hitler Youth and Mao's Red Guards, you are in love with your leader without having any clue about who he really is.

The good news is that Obama will be stopped, either in the primaries or the general election.

Everybody I know will vote for McCain if Obama is the Democratic nominee.

The truth will be the end of Obama-mania.

Just as it is with all cults.

Posted by: svreader | March 13, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

"While they are at it, give her some super-delegates for those unfair/discriminatory CAUCUSES where some of her main constiuencies like Seniors, Lower Class, Disabled were unable to vote."

Sigh ... more Clintonazi spin and revisionism. When Nevada allowed shiftworkers to caucus in casinos, the Clinton campaign backed a lawsuit by the state teacher's union seeking an injunction against it, saying such a move disenfranchised people who had weekends off!

It's like Hitler in the bunker ... no one knows who is giving the orders any more. Even Wolfson & Penn wouldn't throw a softball like that. You must be pulling your arguments from your bum!

Posted by: bondjedi | March 13, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

ncl: where are you getting that Hillary broke the rules in fla(is this something the Obama campaign is feeding you) you know that is pure nonsense. She did not campaign there and only showed up after their vote was over, that is a fact.
" The fair solution, according to you and Tom Daschel) is to seat delegations 50-50."

Your side keeps saying that they lost the Fla vote by 300,000 votes but they must be given 50% of the delegates, and even if the loser of that vote is given a second bite at the apple they will oppose that too. That would seal the deal for me and there would then be absolutely no way I would then ever vote for Sen. Obama (I will abstain) if the party just wrongly hands Sen Obama 50% of the Fla vote. Talk about gaming the system, that would be outrageous. If your side wants to make sure that if they are the nominee that they will be guaranteed to lose Fla in Nov. just try that stunt and I am sure that there will be millions of us who will simply walk away. That Daschle spin, someone I have previously respected, would respresent the worst in politics, gaming the system to guarantee an outcome.If that is not the worst kind of politics I don't know what is. Its unheard of that a candidate loses a state election, is given a chance for a redo, turns it down, and then is rewarded. I doubt I am the only person in the country that feels pashionately about this.

Posted by: leichtman | March 13, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

i THINK ALL PIGS SHOULD BE GIVEN WINGS AND ALLOWED TO FLY. Who are we to stop pigs from flying. Those pigs want to fly.

Keep dreaming gop (clinton supporters included). Not going to happen. Your not going to steal the election. Your levarage of selling out to the gop is moot. You were doing that anyway. The only power you have over the process is the power WE, as americans, give you. you fascist republcains (clinton di fi reid sabotuers included) will strong arm the process no more. This is not soveit russian. this is not nazi germany. We have TWO parties currently in american politics. one day you will remember that.

who's for changing the donkey mascot into a lion?

http://www.art.com/asp/sp-asp/_/PD--12184523/SP--B/IGID--12184523/No_Fear.htm?sOrig=SCH&ui=FE87826EA52345888812A7C66D066A97

Play time is over. Enough is enough. this game is getting real now. the game is over. Play time is also over. think about the future. Think about the children's future.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 13, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

It is not acceptable not to count votes. It also should not be acceptable to continually give Iowa and New Hampshire special treatment. Some way has to be found to count Florida and Michigan or it is going to be a very dark mark on a party that claims to represent the people.

Posted by: dnjake | March 13, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Do what the Republicans did: allow the vote to stand, but cut the delegates from the primary in half, which would reduce the impact while still allowing some representation. The Dems should have done this from the beginning. This solution would not be appropriate for Michigan, where Obama wasn't on the ballot, but at least it would mitigate another Florida fiasco, which I'm sure everyone in the country could support.

Posted by: cubsbear9 | March 13, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

bsimon,

I missed your retraction. I retract my calling you a Republican.

Posted by: rippermccord | March 13, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Where's the leadership?? It seems that no one has the balls to say NO to breaking the rules. I expected more out of Dean. Where's Gore when we need him? He knows what it is like to have something stolen from you in FLA. If my 5 year-old kid was caught stealing at Walmart, do you think I would take him back? Heck, no. He broke the rules -- no more Bionicles at Walmart. Fla and Michingan broke the rules, so why should they go the party?

Posted by: billbolducinmaine | March 13, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

rippermccord writes
"Everyone concerned should pitch in for a full primary, even if that comes to $20 million."

That's ludicrous too, pardon my french. For one thing, I think the big money people will probably try to have an influence on the process, as in "I have $100K I could contribute, if you hold X kind of event [that just to happens to benefit my favored candidate]." Do the Dems REALLY want to open that can of worms? In my humble opinion, their long-term purposes will be best served if they say "sorry, you broke the rules, you knew the sanction, so stuff it."
------------------------------------------------------

We're not talking about paying the cost of campaigning, just the cost of holding an election -- the voting itself. There are no "events" that could be staged or used to advantage. As for telling the state to just "stuff it," that is a sure-fire recipe for losing Florida in the general election. You MUST be a Republican.

Posted by: rippermccord | March 13, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

EASY, SUPER-DELEGATE this bad boy in Hillary's column, a good use of Super-Delegates, giver her all of them, she won the state. While they are at it, give her some super-delegates for those unfair/discriminatory CAUCUSES where some of her main constiuencies like Seniors, Lower Class, Disabled were unable to vote.

Posted by: cheersdk | March 13, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

leichtman

Good cheer to you too.

That is what this is about, doing the right thing.


We have to do better than this.

I am at the point where I think we may need the Clintons to get back in there and do the dirty work.

If America is not ready to unite behind Obama, he should pull up, as in hearing a terrain warning. Soar over this mess.

Of course his wife said this is our only chance to see him as President, but I am sure she will understand.

I am all in for Obama, I'll always work for his campaign, he has the answer in his mind.

But sheesh, things are looking so ugly. I'm not even sure the Clintons should want what they are fighting for, they just fight because that is what they do.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 13, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

When i taught in a high school years ago, this is the kind of thing that students AND their parents always tried to do...change the rules mid-semester.
and the more teachers and administrators gave in, the less the kids actually learned..about the subject, about responsibility and about how to be prepared for college and the working world.

To compare changing these rules to acts of civil disobedience during the civil rights struggle is beyond ridiculous.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 13, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

nclwtk, What? You don't trust the Fl Dem Party to do it right? Can't say i blame you, but Fl state law would not apply to a mail-in do-over election, which would be run by the state party, managed by experienced election management companies and overseen by a reputable accounting firm.

State law does not allow for a state-run mail-in election with candidates on the ballot, but this election would not be run by the state.

It's just getting better and better, if your'e a lawyer, that is.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 13, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Enough about what to do with Florida, they blew their chance about influencing the election when they broke the rules. The Clintons are trying to engineer a campaign fraud with all their games. Obama as won the nomination. Enough already, jeez.

Posted by: lumi21us | March 13, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Either keep the FL vote as is; no one knew Obama then, so Hillary gets to keep her advantage (same for Michigan), or abide by the DNC rules against counting the state.

Posted by: llrllr | March 13, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Mail in voting is subject to fraud, esp when there can be no verification of the signitures of the voters.
I fail to see how any of the voting options can be executed professionally and fairly

Posted by: nclwtk | March 13, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

The only "FAIR" thing to do at this point in the process is to not seat the delegates from Florida or Michigan.

Had there been a suggested change at an earlier time, my answer might be different, but since the primaries have already been held, there is no real solution to this problem other than the one set forth prior to the voting by the DNC. Because of the DNC's decision, it is simply unfair to count the results of an election in which no candidates campaigned. Any subsequent vote -- whether by mail or a more traditional -- is tarnished by the controversy surrounding the DNC's earlier decision. Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama can legitimately claim to be adversely effected by a re-vote -- Senator Obama for having to campaign in Florida and Michigan at all after devising a plan based on the knowledge that the delegates from these states would not be seated and Senator Clinton for having to "win" those states again.

That said, a re-vote absolutely favors Senator Obama.

Posted by: billyc123 | March 13, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Gawd, it's a hoot to watch you dems spin tortuous rationals for why your own party's "rules" (jeez libs hate that word) should be flushed down the toity.

Circular firing squad hardly begins to describe it!

Posted by: tiger_caddy_31 | March 13, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Looking at recent posts, I am glad that my Super Bowl analogy is gaining traction. The Hillary deadenders would do well to take heed.

And welcome back to Zouk.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 13, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Rules? Who cares about the rules everyone agreed to? We've got a chance to steal the election and disenfranchise voters. It's win at all cost. Know your place Obama. Take your VP and come to the dark side. Who wants a "muslim," "drug dealing," "afro-church going," "no-experienced," "rezko man?" I mean how could we have that much baggage in the White House. Welcome to the political machine. Eight more years of dynastic rule! Jeb in 2016.

Posted by: jeremy | March 13, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

leichtman, thanks for the clarification. Sorry for the confusion on my part.

Posted by: rpy1 | March 13, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

A simple question? Why should the rest of the country allow the rules to be changed in the middle of the game to suit 2 states who refused to abide by them in the first place? That would be like suddenly adding on an extra quarter to a Superbowl game in the 3rd quarter because the losing team had a hissy fit. Don't think for a minute that Hillary and inc. would endorse new rules if THEY were ahead and Obama had an edge in those 2 states. Let's call it like it is -- cheating. The only fair way is NOT to count the delegates in each state.

Posted by: billbolducinmaine | March 13, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

I suggest that the NFC shorten the Super Bowl by 2 minutes and give the title to New England. After all, if we are not going to play by the rules, why play by the rules? More seriously, seating the Florida delagates on the basis of the January primary would certainly be unfair to voters who did not vote because they were told their vote wouldn't count. To seat the delagates as Clinton proposes would be an act of fraud.

Posted by: charlesknight1 | March 13, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Someday101 - what are you smoking? All parties concerned knew the delagations would not be seated and the contenders(except for Hillary) all agreed not to seek votes there. Therefore not only did the states broke the rules, so did Hillary, which should surprise no one. All this todo about Florida and Michigan is all about Hillary stirring the pot desperate to get vote. The fair solution is to seat delegations 50-50 for the first round and let them vote as they please in the second round. All the other solutions favor one side or the other and cause the Democratic party to spend money it could otherwise better use in the general election.

Posted by: nclwtk | March 13, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

leichman, all the Dems in Florida voted in favor of moving up the date. Dems are complicit in this, too.

rpy1 you didn't read my post. What has been reported is that Wexler and the Fla Dem party worked for 7 years for voting reform after Bush v Gore to have optical scanners and printoutss. The Fla Dem party and AFLCIO pushed for these reforms. Crist came into office and said fine I will be fair you can have voting reform as long as you agree to link it to moving up the primary date. Every Dem bill to delink the 2 was threatened with a veto by Crist. Dems really didn't have a choice but to either accept the deal or reject it and totally p.o. every Fla Dem. Just don't see in hindsight how they could do that. Incidentally Crist poularity immediately rose to 75% hopefully it will collapse when the truth of how it happened is told.

thank you shrink for being a mentsch. I have no problem with dedicated Obama supporters like you who I believe respect the other side, but some of these rants really scare the Clinton supporters. You understand that we are all in this together to end the 7 years of Bush misery and are dedicated Dems going about it in a different way just like Sen Boxer and Gov Strickland, good dems I have worked my heart out to elect.

Posted by: leichtman | March 13, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

The trick is to do the same thing over again to suit the rules but to have a different person elected and to cost just about nothing. Can not be done. They voted. It is too late for the vote to influence any other election. So let the election stand. Nobody campaigned, so it was even. (Almost.)

Posted by: gary4books | March 13, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Florida doing a mail-in primary is the only thing that makes sense. A full primary is too expensive, a caucus might be cheaper but only because fewer would attend. Both candidates will get to campaign, making this measure up to international standards of free and fair elections. A mail-in system might be novel, but not unprecedented (I know Oregon does its general election through a mail-in system), and there's no reason to think that it can't be done securely. Both Obama and Clinton will agree to it after a fair amount of hemming and hawing since it's likely that the result will go for Clinton by less than the result of the January 29th vote. Which means Clinton would prefer to validate the original result, while Obama would prefer to not have a Florida vote (he might be concerned that he's negatively perceived because of his insistence that Florida shouldn't count, but a much better approach would be to embrace the re-vote). There is next to no chance that this will change the pledged delegate math, but even if it could, they should both support it because it's the RIGHT thing to do. It was sad that voters in Florida (and Michigan) were disenfranchised because of political grandstanding, and a chance to undo that mistake should be embraced. The original election should be declared null and void. Even Russia allowed the candidates to campaign... they just didn't allow any serious opposition candidate stand for election.

Posted by: persae | March 13, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Yep they made their choice to push their elections up early...like it made much of a difference...see possible redos...what is wrong with some of you. I do not want to disenfranchise anyone's vote God knows we all know how we felt in 2000 when only the Supreme Court's Vote mattered. But really the blame lies with the states. They could have just voted when they were supposed to like the rest of us AND THIS WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM....SEE OTHER 48 states NO REDO

Posted by: scrappyc20001 | March 13, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Florida delegates should be seated according to the first vote, since all the major candidates participated in it. This is fair.

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

Posted by: lskjf | March 13, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

I can only hope that Barak is more interested in everyone getting their vote than his career.

Posted by: lndlouis | March 13, 2008 05:21 PM

Another HRC koolaid-drinker who wants to put this on the guy who followed the rules, rather than the sore loser who wants to break them or change them in the middle of the game.

(And please learn to spell the candidate's name; you're going to be hearing it for the next four to eight years. It's B-A-R-A-C-K.)

Posted by: jac13 | March 13, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Indlouis..now you sounded truly good until the last line. If anyone is interested only in their career it is Hillary. Otherwise, we would not even be considering this. She certainly did not care about seating Florida or Michigan in November of last year and the same penalty applied.

Posted by: scrappyc20001 | March 13, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Florida Should be Seated as is. 2 +/- Million people already voted.

Both Were on the Ticket. With 24/7 Media Coverage on Cable News and the internet. Voters can make up their mind without being campainged to.

Floridians made their Choice.

In Michigan, Obama and Edwards pulled their name from the ballots.

That was their choice to embarrass Hillary Clinton.

They should live with that choice.

Seat Michigan AS IS.

Anything else would just be a waste of money that could go to building a school or another worthier cause.

BUT, people say it's unfair to Obama. So what?

That's how it is. They People made their choice.

Posted by: someday101 | March 13, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Skip the boring, the inane, and the inflammatory.

Life is short.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 13, 2008 05:18 PM

Skip drindl, rufas and LOUD and DUMB? there wouldn't be much text left.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 13, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Given the importance of Florida and Michigan, especially Florida, we need a re-vote. Something has to be done to seat the delegates or Florida Dems will be looking for alterantives with their party loyalty seeming to be unimportant to the Democratic Party.

Award the delegates as voted or Re-Vote, with Re-Vote being the accurate and trustworthy of the two.

I think it is important that Hillary and Barak both be comfortable with this.

I can only hope that Barak is more interested in everyone getting their vote than his career.

Posted by: lndlouis | March 13, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Scott...sounds fair but only to Hillary...why should Obama be penalized for following the rules? 50/50 or sit it out. Florida...please learn how to run an election. Michigan same thing. There are a bunch of other states who did follow the rules and they count as well. Florida is important but so is North Carolina who chose to wait as well as New York and Virginia who did play by the rules. I really do not care how it is settled as long as it is fair. Maybe then we can get back to fixing our economy, bring down the price of fuel, stop giving subsidies to fuel companies, stop spending a trillion in Iraq and spend it at home and make our dollar worth something again. How about that?

Posted by: scrappyc20001 | March 13, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

how about you Libs simply concede that you are a bunch of disorganized angry adolescents who can't face reality or get your act together. When you run someone who thinks thay have a corner on experience and has none and the other is all about hope and we know how much that can cost unchecked.

simple resolution. We win, you lose. end of story. It is going to turn out that way anyway. you can have it the easy way or the hard way?

I shouldn't phrase things like that since the culture of perversion is back in full swing under new management.

Elliot Spitzer (D): look at that poor lonley D sitting out there. this is probably the only place you will see it associated with that sanctimonious hypocrite democrat business as usual criminal.

all you Lib feminists should now jump to his defense, as usual.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 13, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Well, let's be real.If we count the votes from Florida and Michigan Hillary is going to win the Primary and be the nominee against Mccain. Black Obama can't have that. Now Obama only beat Hillary by about 230 votes in Iowa but that makes him the great Messiah. roflmao Then we hear his preacher talking about 9-11 and it is obvious that Obama has attended a racist church for over 20 years. The right choice is Hillary because Obama and his team can only win if the voters of Michigan and Florida are disenfranchised. It is also unfair to give the election to Obama just because he is Black. Let's seat the delegates and watch Hillary win.

Posted by: Scruffy1970 | March 13, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

leichtman posted

"I am trying to be even handed and rational as hard as that sometimes is here."

That's why I asked. I know your sympathies but I know that you have been trying to understand the voting patterns, too.

I know that you are concerned about the quality and tone of the discourse here.

Friendly suggestion:

Limit your viewing to your breaks and skim over the comments; only reply to people who have offered either an insight or a rational view with which you take issue.
Thank those who direct you to good outside reading.

Skip the boring, the inane, and the inflammatory.

Life is short.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 13, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

I don't even know what's fair anymore, but from a pure politics perspective I think Obama is better off conceding the Jan. 29 Florida vote to Hillary. Yes, she cuts a bit into his current delegate lead, but by urging the DNC -- and that's who makes the decision -- to seat the delegates Obama gains some moral high ground and goodwill in Florida. Plus, Florida is too rife with meaning and symbolism to trust a re-vote there. Better the devil you know. Obama does not need a big Clinton win in Florida as the last contest before the convention.

Michigan is trickier. Obama, who was not on the ballot back in January, could win a do-over here, but I would urge a negotiation with the Clinton camp that validates the jan. 15 results IF Hillary is ready to concede all the uncommitted votes and delegates so apportionted to Obama.

Why would Hillary agree to this? Well, she gets to claim the win and she reduces Obama's delegate lead and, frankly, she cannot be certain to improve her showing in Michigan in a do-over. She does, however, have to offer Obama something or she will look far too cynical. She may gain a boost winning Florida in June, but that could be negated by a loss in Michigan. Again, the devil you know.

So even with both Michigan and Florida going to Clinton, Obama still has a delegate lead and a small popular vote lead and the focus can turn back to the ten remaining contests and we remain where we are: Clinton has to win Pennsylvania and probably North Carolina and/or Oregon to make a really strong claim to the nomination, while Obama needs only to stay close in PA, while likely winning six or seven of the final contests. In other words, the nomination remains his to lose.

Letting the Jan. 29 Florida results stand and count also has the interesting sidelight of giving John Edwards another two-dozen delegates, doubling his current total and making his endorsement somewhat relevant again. I believe ultimately Edwards would lean towards Obama, so Obama picks up those 50 or so delegates, negating whatever Hillary gained from Michigan or Florida and giving Obama a ear 200 pledged delegate vote lead going into the Denver convention. No way, in my opinion, would the so-called "superdelegates" overturn that big a lead.

So, David Axelrod and Maggie Williams, if you are listening, think about the advantages of negotiating an end to this thing. It could benefit you both.

Posted by: scott_farris | March 13, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

"most Texas Dems mark will likely vote straight Dem for Hillary I just am not that sure they would do the same for Obama."

That's not true. You're making that up, and it doesn't matter.

Also, Hillary is organized enough to muster Hispanics, but lacked the foresight to figure out what the rules are there, even after going through two pres campaigns with her husband? Are you insane?

Keep posting, though. Even a broken clock (and Penn & Wolfson, for that matter) is right twice a day.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 13, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

'The US says it has killed a number of militants in clashes in the mainly-Shia Muslim city of Kut in southern Iraq.

Local medics said at least 17 people were killed, including five children, during gun battles on Tuesday between troops and Mehdi Army militiamen.

Violence appears to be on the rise again in Iraq after a day in which at least 44 people were reported killed.'

I had thought that Moqtada al-Sadr had called a truce -- I presume this means it's over.

Posted by: drindl | March 13, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Wow. Glad I am not a liberal.
Leftists get it from both sides.

JK, since you are omnipotent, could you get rid of

Thinker
rat the
ichief and
sv reader

too?

They don't agree with me either. Then the rest of us would not think you are psychotic any more.

Cheers, but please, get some rest.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 13, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

most Texas Dems mark will likely vote straight Dem for Hillary I just am not that sure they would do the same for Obama. A Houston Chronicle story last summer from Prof.Richard Murray of Rice says that he believes that the future of the Texas Dem party to start winning Texas elections again will happen when they figure out how to generate high numbers of hispanic voters(because of their growth in Texas poulation) something Hillary proved she can do for the first time I have ever seen, on March 4. I reminded you of the $65 million dollar failed Sanchez election that didn't connect with hispanics (Perry won that vote) but that was ten years ago and he was a miserable candidate. Actually W the majority of the hispanic vote when he was governor and I just don't see Sen Obama generating a large hispanic turnout, other than with GenY hispanic voters which isn't going to help Noreiga b/c personally he will never have anywhere the money of Sen Cornyn who may end up being the 60th or 61st vote in the senate if we can defeat him.
A year ago I would have agreed with you about Hillary in Texas, but I just don't see Mccain being all that popular with base Republican voters and many are so disspirited that Hillary no longer looks all that threatening. Hillary is actually the more moderate candidate that drives many Obama supporters nuts, that is apparent here but is more sellable in Texas with our military. She also has much many more members of the military behind her and is viewed as the tougher candidate. Certainly that is my bias and there are surely arguments that go both ways. I see Obama as either a 55% candidate in Nov or a 45% Dukakas like candidate who gets dstroyed in the general b/c he has never been involved in a national campaign. I am trying to be even handed and rational as hard as that sometimes is here.

Posted by: leichtman | March 13, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

rippermccord, I apologize, I misread. MY comment is more relevant to the people who want to spend 'soft' money on the primary, which is far different from your proposal.

Posted by: bsimon | March 13, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

cscagle has posted an excellent link.
I am reposting for emphasis.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/preclearing_michigan_and_flori.php

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 13, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

What to do about Florida?

Nothing.

Spectator2's suggestion to sever the state from the rest of the U.S. is tempting, but I am willing to be generous and say that nothing should happen.

Florida and also Michigan took calculated risks in moving up their primaries. They new that they would face penalties, and then they knew for a long time (long enough to change the primaries to later dates) what the penalties would be. However, the states made the cocky decisions to stick with the early primary dates against the rules, presumably expecting the DNC to back down and seat their delegates anyway, or else figuring that the chance to influence the course of the Democratic nomination campaign was more important than having delegates.

Either way, they've made their bed and can now sleep in it.

The arguments that the people of these states are being disenfranchised is a sham. The people in these states elected the officials who set the primary dates. They live in democracies just like the rest of us do. Had the state legislature bungled state finances in a tricky bond scheme, state taxpayers would still have to pay for it. Why? Because it is their elected government who made the decision. The same goes with this primary mess. The voters put the people in office who made the decision; the voters urged those officials and gave support to the plan to move up the primary dates, and the voters did not demand that officials move back the dates after the DNC announced penalties. Florida and Michigan voters are as much at fault and responsible for their situation as the elected officials are, and the argument that they have been held hostage by some tyrannical state officials is bogus.

What is more, these states did already influence the election in a big way, especially Florida. Hillary Clinton has been claiming these states as wins for weeks now, using them as an argument for why other states and why superdelegates should throw in behind her. If they are allowed to re-vote, can we go back in time and remove all of the influence that the previous votes had on the course of the primary season? No, and thus there should be no re-vote. These states have had their say and have influenced others decisions and the campaign as a whole. Their vote is done.

What is more, if Florida gets to vote again, then why not also give Iowa another chance to shake things up a little? I mean, a lot of people there voted for John Edwards, and he dropped out, so shouldn't they get a chance to choose between Clinton and Obama, too? And then we can have a second vote in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada, all of the Super Tuesday states. Fair is fair, and if another state gets to vote twice, mine does, too.

Nor should Florida and Michigan be allowed delegates at the convention based on the previous results. For obvious reasons, Michigan's vote is flawed. Clinton was the only candidate on the ballot, and she was only there because of a "mistake" in removing her name, which is to say that she saw an opportunity to sneak an edge over her more scrupulous rivals and took it. Elections where rivals' names are left off ballots are O.K. in dictatorships, I suppose, but they count for nothing in America.

Florida, on the other hand, had everyone on the ballot, but the state's delegates still should not be seated at the convention. As I've said, the state already had its influence over the primary season. It broke the rules, and now it has to live with that. Yeah, the situation is a mess, and Florida voters may punish Democrats in the fall if the end up without delegates at the convention. On the other hand, if Floridans do get their delegates despite the rules, then I refuse to vote for any Democrat in the fall, and I know others who feel the same. What is more, if the DNC backtracks now, Obama's campaign shouts bloody murder, and every other state in the union takes note and will do whatever they want in setting primary and caucus dates in 2012. So much for the rule of law. Howard Dean is between a rock and a hard place because he knows that he either upsets Florida or upsets the rest of the nation. But whose fault is it? Not Dean's or the DNC's; Florida is to blame.

Additionally, Clinton, just like in Michigan, made quite certain that the Florida vote was not a fair vote. All of the candidates agreed not to campaign there. Where was Clinton in the three days leading up to Florida's vote? In Florida. What was she doing there? Campaigning. Clinton can say that she was at a "fundraiser" if she likes, but fundraising and campaigning really aren't all that different in a political campaign. What is more, Clinton also made sure that her events were publicized on the news, and she made a very bold and public statement before the primary vote guaranteeing that she would have Florida's delegates seated. Meanwhile, the more scrupulous Obama, Edwards, and others did not campaign, as they had agreed. Is this really a fair vote? No, and the results should not be rewarded with delegates.

Of course, Obama's campaign is put at a huge disadvantage in this whole matter, and Clinton knows this and is thus gleefully pursuing the issue. If Obama magnanimously agrees to seat the delegates, he risks derailing his own nomination. Ultimately, though, Obama would look like a saint in doing so, and it might even win him Pennsylvania and a lot of superdelegates, so it is maybe his best option, even if it does give Clinton a boost. On the other hand, if he opposes seating the delegates or re-voting, then Obama earns the scorn of voters in those states. He would suffer in the general election, and his chances in a re-vote would be nil. Who in those states will vote for a candidate who didn't want to let them vote a second time? A few die-hard fans, but none of the people on the fence.

In other words, because Clinton has been playing political games with this issue of re-voting or seating delegates, all of the scenarios lean to her advantage. Seat the delegates? Advantage Clinton. Re-vote? Advantage Clinton. Do nothing? Advantage Clinton. Why? If nothing happens, Clinton may well lose the nomination, but she leaves behind a scorched earth. Floridans in particular will not want to vote Democrat in the fall, and so Obama may lose the general election, either leaving Clinton a chance to run and win in 2012 or else a really good argument to superdelegates for why Obama should not be the candidate. If there is no way Obama could carry Florida, and if he might be at risk of losing Michigan, and since he is potentially weak in Ohio, many of the remaining superdelegates may want to lean Clinton's direction, seeing her as their best chance to win these crucial states.

Of course, this will infuriate a lot of other voters in a lot of other states, too, to have superdelegates overriding their votes, but did the Democrats really expect to win Idaho in the fall anyway?

Give Clinton credit for playing her hand well in this matter. She has cheated and played dirty politics throughout, but she's done it all to her advantage and mostly avoided staining her image in the process.

Posted by: blert | March 13, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

rippermccord writes
"Everyone concerned should pitch in for a full primary, even if that comes to $20 million."

That's ludicrous too, pardon my french. For one thing, I think the big money people will probably try to have an influence on the process, as in "I have $100K I could contribute, if you hold X kind of event [that just to happens to benefit my favored candidate]." Do the Dems REALLY want to open that can of worms? In my humble opinion, their long-term purposes will be best served if they say "sorry, you broke the rules, you knew the sanction, so stuff it."

Posted by: bsimon | March 13, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Imagine that the star player of a mediocre college basketball team was suspended by the NCAA for abusing NCAA rules. Now suppose this mediocre team suddenly catches fire late in the season, and is in prime position to win its conference or clinch a high NCAA tournament seed.

Would it be right for the team to petition that the suspension be lifted of star player X? Sure, it would arguably place team X in a greater position to succeed, but rules have been ignored and justice has been served.

Florida and Michigan's delegates have been suspended for infringing the rules of the game. Sure they could shape or reshape the race, but it doesn't mean they should given the opportunity.

Posted by: RightWingHawk83 | March 13, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

You owe your right to blog here to me then shrink. they we're blogging obama supporters here mere months ago. you are now free to speak your mind without zouk and peanut gallery (other than clintons gop sabotuers)silencing you.

Wasn't always the case. they were silencing all liberal voices not long ago. Yet i fought being silenced. How quick you forget. Stop? Back down from the gop now when we're winning?

I did this when obama was a joke around here. Did my fighting for openness and equal freedom hurt him then.

that is why I call clinton supproters republcains. Where were you when those of us had to fight for our voice? where wher eyou then? I see you out here now trying to take credit and silence me. Where were you when you were needed, when obama was losing and had no chance?

Back down? No thanks. Not until obama is the nominee or fox and rush/hannity is off the air. That is the deal. I'm not stopping until then.

do you I'll do me. Or whine cry and complain. It that's all you can do, by all means. I'm going to luck. peace.


You want to make requests? Please stop stabbing obama and his party and his movement in the back./ That's my request. you want to make a deal? by all means. those are the stakes.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 13, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Two things:

1) Read this link (presuming no one else has posted it yet): http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/preclearing_michigan_and_flori.php

2) I think a re-vote is pandering to the voters. a) FL and MI chose to jump to the head of the line to have their say in choosing the nominee. Accordingly, they were punished for doing so. b) Now, that the race between the Dems continues on, they want ANOTHER crack at throwing their weight around.

This whole scenario being floated offends me far more than Superdelegates choosing the candidate in a dark, smoke-filled room.

Posted by: cscagle | March 13, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

I don't fear any legit vote between clinton or obama. the problem is, espeically in fl, no vote is going to be legit from here on out. Not with the republcain sabiotuers voting and tipping the scales for clinton , for the OPPOSITION PARTY..

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 13, 2008 04:44 PM

Florida is a closed primary. Don't wet your panties. MI is Open so you can make up whatever you want there.

I smell me some fear.

Posted by: mul | March 13, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Post. don;t allow clinton's whiners to make you feel guilty. That is their game. Do nto give them your power. POST your will.

do not allow others to stop you. Do not allow the geroge bush internet thought police to silence you. ONLY the gop has had free speech for long neough. It's time all americans we're so lucky. We should nto oppologize for speacking turuths in the face of lies and spin. I won't anyway. If I'm the bad guy, there is no good guy. :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 13, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

JKrishnamurti

Sir, you are losing it.
Stop making our candidate look bad.

By the way, have you donated all $2300 to his campaign? Have you volunteered and organized? A lot of us here have.

Lets keep it positive. That is what Mr. Obama is telling everyone. If he is elected, it will be because he has gotten people to get that.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 13, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

"I must say Rules as many times as I can. That will make me smarter a better than other people.

Rules etc.

I guess the civil rights leaders were mistaken cause they did not like the rules either. Poll tax shmoll tax its the rules."

There's your Wag the Blog winner right there, because it not only encapsulates the Hillary position as is, but sums up the entire Clinton campaign strategy.

Remember when HRC threw MLK under the bus, minimizing his importance in favor of ... uh, LBJ? Comparing the plight of the African-American over the last 200 years to the fix Hillary is in because she, Wolfson, and Penn have mismanaged the campaign is Revisionism with a capital R. Can anyone blame Obama playing the race card when this is the sort of garbage he has to contend with?

Posted by: bondjedi | March 13, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

leichman, all the Dems in Florida voted in favor of moving up the date. Dems are complicit in this, too.

Posted by: rpy1 | March 13, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Everyone concerned should pitch in for a full primary, even if that comes to $20 million. The cost should be split three ways: the DNC picks up a third, the state committee picks up a third, and the candidates themselves split the last third according to the percent of votes cast for their opponents previously in the invalidated primary, i.e.: Hillary won 49.7 percent, Obama 33 perent and all other candidates including Edwards won 17.3 percent. So of the final third of the cost, Hillary pays 41.65 percent (Obama's 33 percent plus half of 17.3 percent (8.65). Obama pays 58.35 percent of the last third (Hillary's 49.7 percent plus half of 17.3 percent (8.65).

It's do-able, gets the results fair and square, makes the national and state committees shake hands, and gives a nod to the first vote by making the candidates put up a stake equal to what they lost.

Posted by: rippermccord | March 13, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austina asks
"why cannot FL Ds and the DNC just do this imperfect solution and be done with it?

Is this not one of those many times in life when an 80% solution that nobody likes very much is better than every single possible alternative?"

This might be an appropriate, albeit imperfect, solution to which the campaigns might agree. I just find it odd - more ironic, really - that after the DNC stripped the FL delegates as a sanction for holding an event too early, they would allow FL to - potentially - cast the tie-breaking vote in the nomination process. They get two bites at the same apple.

FL scheduled their event early, in order 'to have a say' in the process, despite the rules. They were warned of the sanction & broke the rules anyway. Now, with much wailing and gnashing of teeth, they are about to... get a significant say in the process, that probably surpasses that state's importance in the general election - all because they broke the rules. As JD would ask, what's to keep another state from doing the same thing next time around? Where's the sanction?

Posted by: bsimon | March 13, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

"Obama did some adds and Hillary showed up once but they pretty much did what they said the would do i.e. close enough.
"

propoganda. Obama had NATIONAL Ad's that played there. He never set foot in florida. UNLIKE CLINTON.

No one's buyng it. you clouding the blog with lies and half-truths. Stop wasting our time gop (clinton includeD)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 13, 2008 04:40 PM

OK you just agreed with me of
FACTS.

But if Obama had TV adds in the STATE that does not count.

Hillary landed there once and that is the end of the world?

I don't think either did local media, rallies, lots of adds, I think that is close enough IMO.

Anyway Obama is a uniter and will sweep the elections - so no problem right.

Posted by: mul | March 13, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Florida isn't that big a deal to me: do the mail-in vote, seat the delegates, do a caucus -- whatever. Well, where "whatever" doesn't include a winner-takes-all solution in Florida.

The big deal is Michigan, where Obama wasn't on the ballot. For MI, if their delegates are to be seated, there needs to be a re-vote of some sort.

Posted by: rpy1 | March 13, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

leichtman, ignore Rufus, please. There is no requirement to interact with him and you may be encouraging him. Some posters annoy Rufus for jollies, but you are earnest and serious will not be amused by him. Once he has determined that you are from Houston or that you are for Clinton he will snipe at you and call you "fascist" and "GOP" and God forbid that he finds out how old you are, or if he decides you are a Roman Catholic. Rufus is not big on the big-tent theory for Ds, or for America.

Instead, if you have not done so on the other thread, tell me why you think HRC would help Noriega on the down-ballot. Do you not think Col. Rick will have to run hundreds of thousands of votes ahead of either D Prez nominee to have any chance at all? Do you not think that HRC brings out more Rs?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 13, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

michael you are correct saying that Fla wanted to move up their primary date, but that was promoted by their new Gov Crist who finally relented after 7 years of opposition to long needed voting reforms pushed by Congressman Wexler. He and his Republican cronies then linked the reform to his desire to move up the date even after he was repeatedly warned by the dnc and Howard Dean not to. Personally I am sick of the fla republican party meddling in our presidential selection and I suspect they meddled knowing it would cause disruption and intraparty squabbles. I see Crist's conduct to be reminiscent of Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush. Crist is reportedly high on McCain's VP list so that should give you some indication of his motives. I am also suspicious that he tells Dean that the dnc needs to pick up the $25 million tab to reward Crist and his Republican legislators for their meddling. Its more than ironic that it may once again come down to Fla?

Posted by: leichtman | March 13, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Let's consider how the Obama campaign could use these re-votes to their advantage. While Clinton won both disqualified primaries in January by margins she wouldn't likely repeat (i.e., about fifteen percent in each), she cannot close the gap with her rival without these two states' delegations. Nor could she further the argument to the superdelegates and the general public that her few wins in the big states entitle her as the Democratic standard-bearer more than Obama's numerous but more symbolic red-state victories.

Knowing this, Obama should assent to re-votes in Michigan and Florida with a few conditions attached, hoping that Clinton bites.

The first is that they both be caucuses. Since the primaries were discounted, a second set of primaries would only make the DNC look feckless and weak. Several states have primaries and caucuses in the same cycle (e.g., Texas and Washington state) and aren't cast as irresponsible for doing so. And we know that Obama has scored much better in caucuses. For all the complaining that Clinton has done about the "undemocratic" quality of caucuses, she will not take kindly to this suggestion, but Obama could at least drag her into negotiations that divert her from Pennsylvania and paint her as obstructive.

If that tactic fails--which it likely will--then the Obama camp can still draw out concessions from the Clinton camp. The largest of which being an agreement that the candidate with the largest number of pledged delegates after the primary season ends in early June would receive the support of the runner-up for the Democratic nomination. Anything else, Obama could say, would be "undemocratic".

And if nothing else sticks, he could ask that the re-votes only count for half the pledged delegates and a full seating of the superdelegates. After all, that's exactly what the GOP did to the two offending states.

If Obama sits out Florida and Michigan again, he might fare just as well as he did the first time he sat them out. And if he won't lend the new contests legitimacy via his participation, he might help deny Clinton legitimacy in her claim to the nomination. Neither of these last options would seem to hurt him much in November, because indepedents and Republicans might appreciate how he stiff-armed Clinton and bested her at her own dirty game.

Posted by: numberoneinthehood | March 13, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Everyone new the rules going in. The delegates don't count! Hilary didn't win in the Michigan race, people voted for her but there was nothing to win. Grand Prize of zilch! For her to claim the he 'cheated' in Michigan when he wasn't on the ballot is crazy! Because his people said to vote undecided? Yeah, that was going to give him zero delegates too! Come on! The definition of fair is playing by the rules.

Posted by: thebobbob | March 13, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

"Neither Obama nor the Clintons should fear a re-vote, whether or not by mail."

I "fear" a rush limbaugh sabotage (he's a florida guy) effect. 25% of clinton's votes were gop who said they will not vote for her in the ge. that's what worries me. gop sabotage. A one party system. not a re-vote. Clitnon lawyers are no better than bush's I've been fighting all these years. In fact I bet your the same fascists. :)

I don't fear any legit vote between clinton or obama. the problem is, espeically in fl, no vote is going to be legit from here on out. Not with the republcain sabiotuers voting and tipping the scales for clinton , for the OPPOSITION PARTY..

you republicans want a one party system? Move to russia. Move to china if you hate american government AND our freedoms.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 13, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

"Obama did some adds and Hillary showed up once but they pretty much did what they said the would do i.e. close enough.
"

propoganda. Obama had NATIONAL Ad's that played there. He never set foot in florida. UNLIKE CLINTON.

No one's buyng it. you clouding the blog with lies and half-truths. Stop wasting our time gop (clinton includeD)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 13, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

This country is trying to find its way out of a real mess and for once, the three viable candidates could not be more different.

It is a fascinating moment in history.

You two, stop fighting with each other, please.

You remind me of dogs who can not touch each other who act ferocious through the window glass.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 13, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

I must say Rules as many times as I can. That will make me smarter a better than other people.

Rules rules rules rules rules rules
Rules rules rules rules rules rules
Rules rules rules rules rules rules
Rules rules rules rules rules rules
Rules rules rules rules rules rules

I guess the civil rights leaders were mistaken cause they did not like the rules either. Poll tax shmoll tax its the rules.

Please go join the GOP and stop polluting our party.

Posted by: mul | March 13, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

The "ections" and the voter pool in Florida and Michigan ave been so poisoned that no re-vote is even remotely possible. The Cltinon campaign (and the Florida COngressional delegation - all Cltinon supporters) are proposing to hold a new election but only allow voters who voted Democratic in the earlier joke of a primary to vote. This is trange becasue ONLY the Clinton campaign had an organization and actively campaign in that primary. Ditto for Michigan, where Obama wasn't even on the ballot.

The only intelligent way t handle these messes, messes created by those states by the way, is to allow Obama and Clinton to select 50% of the delegates. No primary re-do, no mail in ballots, no more nonsense. Just do it.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | March 13, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

No to the "redo" voting
too expensive
too risky for an honest vote count
too much drama for the media

Let the DNC rules stand and seat no delegation from those states

Posted by: sniezgod | March 13, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

"How are the media complicit? Most of you have unquestioningly reported all of the above, and treated it as if it's just business as usual. Well, it may be -- hell, it is! -- business as usual for Hillary Clinton, but it is the most unfair, unjust, put-up job that's come along in presidential politics in a long, long time.

There is a simple principle here. The rules were set in advance, with the approval of all the candidates. They cannot be changed in mid-process because one of the candidates doesn't like the way things are going and can only win if the rules get changed. It's about fundamental fairness, plain and simple.

Posted by: jac13 | March 13, 2008 04:24 PM
"

I feel you jac. and great points, all the way around.

It's all about dough. The propoganda media like russert and cc here, only are doing this for the dough. If obama wins, politics dies down for a few months. We get a little break. People don't watch as much news or blog. As a result these propogandists for profit tend to lose millions in advertising. That is why it is all clinton right now, in the media.

It's a crock. I wish they cared abou tthe nation more than that. they have shown themselves (cnn msnbc) to be just as bad as fox.

there is a silver lining though, and pray this happens. If the entire media, the gop, and the moderate sell-out clinton supporters, all are fighting obama, AND THEY LOSE, they lose their most precious commodity they have. Their credibility. What is a newsman with zero credibility? a propogandist?

If dean stands strong on mi and fl (crossing my fingers), who loses? the gop, clinton and her lieberman sell-outs, and the propoganda for profit media. All we be force to reassess.

so there's a silver lining. YEah these propogandists are all wrong and piling on. the good news is, if they lose they lose their power and credibility along with the loss. If they are telling the people what to do, and they don't do it, what power do they have? Ask rush limbuagh. No longer for anything, reduced to sabotage. the media and clinton and her supporters will face the same choice.

AM I FIGHTING THE GOP FASCISTS DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY, OR ENABLING THEM.

Hopefully the american peopl are not as herd mentality as our fathers and grandfathers. This is the test. Are we smarter than those trying to lie to use for profit? We find out soon enough? What will dean and the dnc decide? When will clitnon drop out and what will she do with her support when she does.

these are the questions. We are already three steps ahead of the fascists. Have been for years. they just have the deck stacked for them. If we win dispite all this, then they will have to face their worse enemy of all and internalize and figure out who they are. they must face themselves. they must choose.

if the media is all fox all the time, they will eventually suffer in the wallet. If the moderates are going to side with the r's, they will face a conseqeunce at the ballot boxes.

Let's pray the american people are smarter than those trying to herd them, for personal profit.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 13, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, why cannot FL Ds and the DNC just do this imperfect solution and be done with it?

Is this not one of those many times in life when an 80% solution that nobody likes very much is better than every single possible alternative?

Biden would have said the campaigns and their devotees are sacrificing the good for the unattainable perfect.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 13, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

personalizing your attacks on this site are strictly prohibited. Since you are someone who thinks they can bully and insult everyone who does not agree with you or your candidate, I would hope that you would at least have the decency to at least respect the published rules of this site.
If you are not familiar with those rules you might start by reading the rules as set out above.
I refuse to play your games.

Posted by: leichtman | March 13, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

It is my understanding that the primary rules were decided in 2006 and that both Michigan and Florida approved them. Florida and Michigan then decided to move their primaries ahead of February 5, knowing full well what the rules and consequences were, apparently because they thought it would somehow be advantageous to them. I suggest we respect their decision.

It seems that states want to move their primaries up earlier so they will "count". I guess the political parties don't watch many game shows. The simple solution is to line the states up by population, smallest to largest. The smaller states will "count" because they come first and the larger states will "count" because they have enough delegates to change the outcomes from the larger states. Imagine the drama! It would rival "Who Wants to be a Millionaire".

Posted by: MichaelMSchmidt | March 13, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Who cares? Even with a re-vote, Clinton will still be behind. Without getting an *average* of over 60% in ALL remaining contests -- *including* FL & MI -- she cannot take the lead in pledged delegates.

Her own advisers admit that her only hope is to get Obama's lead down to under 100 delegates -- (from 160 now) -- and then make the case to the Superdelegates that it's a "tie" so it's OK to override the results.

But a lead of 100, or even 50 delegates is no tie. A lead of 100 delegates out of 4000 is 2.5 percentage points. An election separated by 2.5 percentage points is considered close, but nothing close to a tie. When was the last time you saw one "overridden?" And don't say FL in 2000. The margin there was more like .002%, not 2%.

And that 2% is the *BEST* that Clinton will do, even WITH FL and MI counted.

So why spend $30 million and up to verify the inevitable... Clinton has lost.

The media and various Dem party types just want to keep this going for their own reasons, otherwise they would acknowledge the obvious. The Dems need to make sure that FL & MI "count" so that their voters will vote in the general. Well, OK, but does it need to cost $30 million?

As for the media, their interest in dragging it out is pretty obivous...

Posted by: fairbalanced | March 13, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Above all, a waste of an enormous amount of money.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 13, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Neither Obama nor the Clintons should fear a re-vote, whether or not by mail.

Now we all know who is who and what is what. The Clintons says Obama is an empty suit, a person who is lucky to be black.
Obama says the only way we can fix the mess we are in is we have a leader who knows what the word leader means.

Lets see what people who care to vote in Florida and Michigan care about now that they have seen both sides of the D ticket.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 13, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Obama cultist in there pale imitation of the VRWC sound just like they did in 2000. Making up Rules that help there candidate and talking about school children to indicate there lack of any mental capacity.

Ok Morons. Hillery did not strip there del. that was done by the DNC. She and Obama agreed not to stump in Florida. Obama did some adds and Hillary showed up once but they pretty much did what they said the would do i.e. close enough.

The main issue was letting the small states have there say in January i.e. no bounce from either state because the were before Feb 5.

The rules say they can be seated in the convention if the rules committee says they can be. Those or the Rules if you like them or not - Rules are Rules. The rules do not say the don't count for all time. Seating them would not brake the 'rules' if it is done by the rules. Are you following?

I favor a re-vote in MI and giving obama 10 more del. from Florida to make up for the fact he was unknown. We would have to change the rules to do that but it seems fair IMO.

A mail in sound like trouble and the cultist will freak if there God did not win.

Posted by: mul | March 13, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

do you leachman. I post facts. No one's making it personal but you. Ignore me if you must. Call out anything I say that is wrong. If you are unable or unwilling to do that, you are in the wrong place. You can't cry your way to voctory in the battle of ideas. If you got nothing that's on you. If I'm lying how?

you said yesterday all public officals are commended by you for their service. But you would impeach bush/nixon?

you say you are a democrat (not a republcain) but you are tering the party and the country and races apart for your candidate. You say your not a republcain, and get offended, yet you use republcain tactics and side with republcains.

theres and old saying. "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen."

Ignore me if you must. I didn't stop when the gop tried to silence us and our movement. I'm not going to quit for you either. Your both gop to me, imo. Not because I say so. but by your words and actions. You want repsect from me? Get yoru candidate to drop out.

you cannot cry your way to victory or for simpathy anymore. The right didn't care about us when they were gutting our nation. the clinton's didn't care abou tus or our movement until we took the lead. Now it's all about change and fighting the gop.

don't whine cry and complain. If you got something of substance, bring it. If I'm lying how. Crying and whinging or working the refs will get you no points here. Credibility and being right about future events will get you that credibility. not lies. not spin. Not whining.

I am not your enemy. You are your own enemy. please stop fighting with the gop. Please. Or don't. But you'll get no syhmpthy from me either way. I stop feeling sorry for the gop years ago. Where the said "your with us or against us." and "Anyone who is against the occupation is unamerican". Or any soldiers who do not support the war are "phoney soldiers."

I lost my pity for the gop long ago. your crying and whining will not work with me. Play time is over.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 13, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

It seems strange that allowing a re-vote to send all delegates to the convention they will essentially reward Florida for breaking the rules. Perhaps the DNC will accept the mail in vote, but change the sanction on FL, say only allow half the delegates, like the Repubs did.

Posted by: bsimon | March 13, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

This whole re-do thing is an outrage, engineered by the Clinton campaign, and the media -- that includes you, Chris -- are complicit in it by not calling it the outrage that it is.

Fact: Hillary Clinton, along with all other major candidates, signed on to the DNC rule about early scheduling and the accompanying penalty of stripping the delegates of states that violated it.

Fact: Hillary, alone among the major candidates -- that is, Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Obama and Richardson -- for some reason left her name on the Michigan ballot (and has said, as recently as an NPR interview aired this morning, that "that was their choice." In other words, they were foolish to keep their word.)

Fact: Hillary did, indeed, skate very close to violating the rules by holding at least one fundraiser in Florida and scheduling a "victory" rally, and there were some reports that outside groups were doing leaflets and mailings for her. (Yes, Obama did have a nationwide ad that ran in Florida, but he cleared it with the DNC in advance to make sure he wasn't violating the rules.)

Fact: Hillary didn't make a peep about the poor "disenfranchised" voters of Florida and Michigan until after Super Tuesday, when she failed to wrap up the nomination as she had planned.

Fact: Hillary's initial gambit was to try to get the results validated. Only when that failed did she start talking about a re-vote.

Fact: This week, Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams attempted to shift responsibility for this so-called "disenfranchisement" to Obama by issuing an ultimatum that he either agree to accept the results of the bogus primaries held in January, or agree to a re-vote.

Fact: Under the DNC's rules giving states incentives to wait, the later-primary delegates actually count for more than earlier ones -- AS APPARENTLY, WOULD THE DELEGATES IN A MICHIGAN OR FLORIDA "DO-OVER" -- meaning, basically that these two states would not only not be punished for their violation; THEY WOULD BE REWARDED FOR IT!!

How are the media complicit? Most of you have unquestioningly reported all of the above, and treated it as if it's just business as usual. Well, it may be -- hell, it is! -- business as usual for Hillary Clinton, but it is the most unfair, unjust, put-up job that's come along in presidential politics in a long, long time.

There is a simple principle here. The rules were set in advance, with the approval of all the candidates. They cannot be changed in mid-process because one of the candidates doesn't like the way things are going and can only win if the rules get changed. It's about fundamental fairness, plain and simple.

Posted by: jac13 | March 13, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Let Hillary pay for it. It's her party. Let her CRY if she wants to. The world will not come crashing down because we said NO to Hillary Clinton. Her parents obviously never said no to her, now what a mess.

Posted by: LisaW2 | March 13, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Jkrish STOP YOUR UGLY PERSONAL ATTACKS NOW!

I have an impeach bush sticker on my car but yet you continue to make ugly personal attacks and calling me GOP. Stop your personal rants and attacks now they are not funny in the least!

Posted by: leichtman | March 13, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Ok, so the options are between an infeasible mail-in ballot and a June 3 re-do, which would cost: $10-12m in "soft money" + a likely $12-18m invested by each campaign when trying to win said re-do?

So, spend between $34 and $48m in Dem funds on a *do-over* in FL rather than spend it preparing for the general election? And exactly how what would we get for this money?

The original results were HRC 50, BHO, 33, which roughly breaks down to a 65-41 delegate edge (+24, the rest are JRE/uncommitted). How much would these results possibly change - a 15% win for HRC in a 2-person race gets her +20. If Obama wins, it'll likely be by a nose, so he wipes out a +24 margin. He's currently up +163, so whoop-de-doo...

I'd say just find some agreement based on the original vote, give Hillary her +20-ish net gain and move on. While the original vote may not have been fair, setting things right just isn't worth it.

As far as the MI and FL superdelegates go, though - don't seat them under any circumstances. They're the ones who told the DNC rules cmte. it could go Dick Cheney itself and created this mess in the first place!

Posted by: faberman.jason | March 13, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Well, Florida citizens. Hill is already selling you out. From Time.com: "Florida's existing delegates would be seated at the Denver convention--but with half a vote each. That would give Clinton a net gain of about 19 elected delegates." That's the deal waiting to be struck.

That net will be diluted by the other half of the deal: Florida's superdelegates - mostly comprised of a congressional delegation that opposes a Hillary re-vote and that gets its marching orders from the real kingmaker, Nancy Pelosi - get to vote for themselves. Don't think Madame Speaker hasn't noticed the Obama effect in her predecessor's district.

Oh, and I see Penn is shooting his mouth off again, saying Barack can not win in November. Do you think Madame Speaker is listening, Mr. Penn? Hmmmmm?

Posted by: bondjedi | March 13, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

"I am a moderate Floridian who is presently registered as a Republican because Florida has closed primaries. Since I am not wedded to that party and since I have a preference between the two Democrats, I might switch parties by May 9. Then I'll have voted in both primaries. That's even better than an open primary. :-)

I wonder how many people will do that with more sinister motives?

Posted by: quintus.publius | March 13, 2008 04:04 PM
"

excellant point. The much fear "rush limbuah sabotuer effect". Great point. The gop will sabotage, it's what they do. They voted for clinton 8 to 2 is mississippi. and republcains WHO WILL NOT VOTE FOR HER IN THE GE, accounted of 1/4 of her votes. LEt me say that again. REPUBLICANS WHO SAID THEY WILL NOT VOTE FOR CLINTON MADE UP 25% of HER MISS VOTE.

No recount. We have our nominee. Let's move forward and fight the gop. They have already started. Let's not give the fascist red coat's any more time to muck up the process and destroy democracy. They have had enough time doing that, with the clinton moderates help of course.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 13, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

What a pile of ridiculous Clinton sock-puppets this board has attracted as of late. Winner-take-all in states Clinton is likely to win? How convenient, that's about the only way Clinton could possibly catch up in pledged delegates. It's Clinton who broke the rules by "fundraising" in Florida to enhance her media visibility. And of course you want to seat delegates from votes your own candidate agreed in advance wouldn't count, oops now she's changed her position. Obama has said over and over that he will abide by the DNC decision. The cheapest option would be caucuses, but of course the Clinton campaign won't accept those. Vote-by-mail is illegal under Florida law, but perhaps something can be worked out there. We can't really afford a primary re-do.

A compromise that would be likely to reflect the outcome if we did it all again was suggested by Mark Halperin: split Michigan 50-50 and seat half the FL delegates (Clinton +19 delegates). Halperin made it sound as if Clinton would agree to this outcome and it would be up to Obama to accept. It's an interesting idea, but I bet it'll make everyone angry.

Posted by: Nissl | March 13, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Heres, the thing. I don't know what this will change. It won't be a windfall for either candidate. Perhaps it will close Clinton in on Obama's lead by, maybe 30 odd delegates, but nothing will be solved, and the Super Delegates still have the final say. Right now, I see this as just another gift to John McCain's campaign.

Posted by: pnm4 | March 13, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

"interesting thought. All of these new questions about mail in voters and fraud sound very familiar."

When they get an election compleated without fraud and antics maybe this won't happen. If that ever happens with gop sabotage. Kathlen harris and such.

If your freinds get out of the democratic process maybe they can have open elections. Your not going to steal the elcetion leachman. try as you might. I know florida and michagan are your only hopes. Not going to happen. It's over. Accept it, move forward.

Or don't. But you are gop REGARDLESS due to your words and actions. i for one want all republcians with an (r) next to their name. If you people are scared to be labeled and put on front street, that's your problem. Stop being republcians then. stop sabotaging the nation then.

Unbeleivable. Do these clinton supporters and gop really want people to feel sorry for them? Wow. Unbelievable. Dense

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 13, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Reality check - Florida is a non-issue. The delegation as is won't be seated, and the only possible way around that would be for Hillary to hold her breath until she turned blue. Is there anyone around here who did that because she wanted a pony? How did that work then? Thought so. The FL delegation will NOT be seated based on the 1/29 results.

The do-over is do-able, but good luck getting the Obama camp to give the go-ahead with the mail-in idea. (Chris - explain why the Obama camp has to approve the plan. Why can't the Florids dem party just go for it?). And Clintonazis, don't pretend for a second that you would approve this hare-brained mail-in scheme if Hillary had the nomination sewed up like Obama does.

Bottom line - The compromise is the choice between a mail-in and a caucus - a good, old-fashioned primary replete with hanging chads, dimples, Katherine Harris, and a US Supreme Court that doesn't have a dog in THIS fight to settle it.

And guess what? At the end of the day, when all is said and done, HRC will pick up four-five more delegates. Do the Clintofascists honestly believe Hill's private donor sugar daddies are going to kick in millions just so she can lose the delegate count by 150 instead of 155? Get real.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 13, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

I am a moderate Floridian who is presently registered as a Republican because Florida has closed primaries. Since I am not wedded to that party and since I have a preference between the two Democrats, I might switch parties by May 9. Then I'll have voted in both primaries. That's even better than an open primary. :-)

I wonder how many people will do that with more sinister motives?

Posted by: quintus.publius | March 13, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Uh, aren't mail in elections illegal in FL?

Posted by: elutwak | March 13, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

interesting thought. All of these new questions about mail in voters and fraud sound very familiar. Those were the exact same arguments we heard from the RNC regarding the recent US Supreme Ct. challenge to the Ga voter id requirements(they were honerous and amounted to a 21st sentury poll tax). We shouldn't trust those durn poor dems, if they vote in person challenge them. Now if they vote by mail challenge them too because they must be committing fraud if they are voting Democratic, lets just hastle them and make sure their votes don't count in the primary or general election. Sounds like 2000 redeux. Those challenges about voter fraud sound awfully familiar, from Republicans that is. Dems generally trust the integrity of their voters. I do.

Posted by: leichtman | March 13, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

"I thought, for sure, that all these latte liberals would support the notion of one person-one vote. I guess I was wrong. They only support the Constitution when it suits them.

Posted by: dclb | March 13, 2008 03:53 PM
"

enlighten.

Where and when does the consitution come into play in this instance? Was it against the consitution to disenfranchise them in the first place, by the republcians? If so how do the gop get held responsible and NOT beniefet off this?

the only way for the gop to face a consequence for meddling in the opposition party is to let the vote stand. As a result the people of florida may or may not feel disenfranchised. Either way there will only be one group to blame. the right group. The gop.

If we allow them to muddy and strong arm the opposition party, how are we not russia now, china, iran? If the deck is stacked compleatly for one party are we still free? No.

Nice try gop. We'll see how many people don't see your treason. What will rush upping his battle, I don't think your going to fool anyone.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 13, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

I would also add that it amazes me that there are so many Obama supporters who blithely and breezily advocate for disenfranchising more than five million voters in two of the most important swing states in the Union.

I thought, for sure, that all these latte liberals would support the notion of one person-one vote. I guess I was wrong. They only support the Constitution when it suits them.

Posted by: dclb | March 13, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

It seems clear to me that the primaries in those 2 states were unfair. A candidate has the right to campaign, esp a candidate without prior exposure. Obama is at a decided disadavntage given Clinton's political history and marriage to Bill.

Any attempt to argue that the 2 primaries were fair falls on its face.

If we can not agree to that, there's no point in continuing the discussion.

The Democrat leadership, Dean, Gore, Carter, Pelosi, Reid, Biden, Richardson, Edwards, etc have all failed miserably as leaders of the party.

The rules were not followed. We cannot change the rules mid-stream and pretend to be a society that upholds fairness or justice.

To do otherwise will lead to future chaos.

We have endured 8 years of an administration that tramples upon rules and laws. We must return to bedrock American respect for the rule of law.


Posted by: wpost4112 | March 13, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

"Florida Moves Its Primary Up to January 2008
Listen Now [4 min 27 sec] add to playlist

All Things Considered, May 21, 2007 · The state of Florida is moving its presidential primary earlier by one week, under a new law signed by Gov. Charlie Crist. The change means that Florida's Jan. 29 vote will set it apart from the large number of states holding their primaries on Feb. 5, 2008.

The new date still follows the Iowa and Nevada caucuses, as well as the emphatically first-in-the nation primary in New Hampshire. But Florida's vote will now be held on the same date as the South Carolina primary.

With New York and California among the 12 states voting on Feb. 5, the new January date makes Florida by far the largest state with an early role in the presidential nominating process. It is possible more states may move their caucus or primary to Feb. 5.

Adam Smith, who covers politics for The St. Petersburg Times, told NPR's Robert Siegel that the move is a way for Florida to assert itself in the general election.

"They see themselves as the biggest swing state in the country... a diverse state," Smith said, "and they want to have a lot of say in who the nominee of the respective parties is."
"

Hello bueler bueler beuler?

But when you lose all credibility gop, does that mean you will stop propogating. Since everyone knows you are sabotuers and lying? Does no credibility ever change what you people say.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 13, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Florida must be heard. Let's not make Florida center-stage, again.

In any event, Obama still has a commanding lead;

Pennsylvania Primary- Hillary vs. Barack:
The Google Factor...

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=57

Posted by: davidmwe | March 13, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

"The 2008 Florida Democratic presidential primary took place on January 29, 2008. In the spring of 2007, the Florida legislature passed House Bill 537, in response to public support for Florida to return to a "paper trail" for elections, however, during the legislative process, a number of amendments were added, one of which moved the date of their state's primary to January 29th [1]. This, despite Democratic Party rules that forbade the state from holding a primary before February 5. In response, the party stripped Florida of its delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention.[2] Although Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards, three of the four remaining Democratic candidates at the time, pledged not to campaign in the state, supporters of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton conducted unofficial campaign efforts, and over 350,000 Democratic voters had cast early ballots as of January 25, 2008.[3] Mike Gravel was the only candidate to openly campaign in the state.[4][5]"

But it was all obama's fault, right?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 13, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Does no one care about the people who voted in January?
Why should those votes be "rescinded?" Just because no one campaigned there? That just means fewer TV commercials interrupting their evenings and fewer phone-bank calls. Lucky.
If there are rules, why should they be changed, just because the candidate race is close? Forget Florida and Michigan; they knew the risk, but they decided to go ahead.
And, yes, the Republicans forced the issue in Florida, but the Democrats went along.
Otherwise, what's the point of having rules?

Posted by: arnieorloski | March 13, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

I just want to say that it is the height of hypocrisy for the Obama campaign to "have concerns" about a mail-in primary when Obama himself sponsored legislation to promote mail-in balloting. This flip-flop is awfully convenient. Once again, the Obama campaign demonstrates that Clinton's is not the only campaign that will do or say anything to get elected. They're equally Machiavellian.

I think the mail-in voting option is a good one, although for Florida I see the original vote as completely untainted. If anything, Obama broke the rules by running "national" ads in Florida. Obama's surrogates also broke the rules in Michigan by "encouraging" people to vote "uncommitted" in the original primary.

In contrast, Everyone from Howard Dean on down has said that Hillary played within the rules.

Posted by: dclb | March 13, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Your misinformed proud, like alwyas. do more research and you will find out crist pushed for it, amoung others. Don't let the facts stop your spin. continue.

"Fla. presidential primary re-do unlikely "

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080313/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble


I hope so. Crist and the fl senator supporting clinton teaming with the media, to "force" a re-vote. Conflict of interest? HAHAHHAHA

We'll see who buys it gop. the d's DID vote for it, your right there proud. Clitnon ok'ed it. Re-vote or not, it's irrelevant. all it's going to do is drain money from the dnc or obama. The gop is in a win-win. I say we quit giving them a say in the "opposition" ticket. Will happen when clinton drops out. Until then they have a meat puppet to operate in her

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 13, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Take the GOP out of the equation (they don't belong in this issue anyway) by having the Democrats stand by their earlier decison and move on. This fight is not helping anyone.

Posted by: dyork | March 13, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

As a Floridian, I'd like the opportunity to vote again. The first time was so surreal because I couldn't go see the candidates. I couldn't volunteer to work in the campaign in the first race I've been so excited about in decades. Many more than 1.7 million votes will be cast because of the excitement a real contest will generate. It is the only fair way to seat a delegation that aligns with the will of the people.

I predict both campaigns will approve a re-vote, but I think it is also possible that the contest may be effectively over before then. It could be that the vote would then be canceled and a 50/50 delegation be seated at convention for both MI and FL.

Posted by: optimyst | March 13, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

dork, actually, it was the DNC who decided the matter on August 25, 2007.

"Under a nearly unanimous vote taken moments ago by a powerful committee of the Democratic National Committee, if things don't change, Florida's primary will be a "beauty contest" -- the delegates won't count toward the party's presidential nomination."

So, that would be Mr. Dean's leadership as Natl. DNC Party Chairman, that created the mud in which the party is now stuck.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0807/Florida_primary_found_noncompliant.html

,

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 13, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

You can't lay it all on the GOP. Hillary has been pushing hard to keep the Florida question in play rather then simply accept what she supposedly accepted when agreeing to the 'doesn't count' rule.

Posted by: dyork | March 13, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

The questions is not what to do about Florida? But what to do about the Florida politicians responsible for the recurring mess in their elections. These people should be fired!

Posted by: Logan6 | March 13, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

The gop doesn't care about that dyork. I feel you thought. They elected bush for pete's sake. They are fans or rush and coulter. They don't care about future presednece.

I read rush's website, from what he says on the show, from time to time. Since he thinks for millions it's a lot faster to get the gop propoganda hate and spin straight from the source.:)

He has people calling in their saying " My ten year old make you, rush, look liberal"

Where did the child learn to be a fascist one would ask.

these fascists don't care about the children. they don't care about future presendence. They care about money. they care about power. they care about having everything their way 100% of the time or they will sabotage. Used to be called treason. now treason has a party. The gop. :)

fight for the future. fight for the children. Fight for american ideals. Fight for truth. you do that and it's impossible for these fascists and their lying propogandists to defeat us. We got the battle on a wide scale. We need to make it wider.

Pick a side clinton supporters. Are you republcains or are you fighting them?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 13, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

1st solution - Let it stand.

2nd solution - Give the victories to Hillary for both states. Say without a doubt that she won them. But then only give her one delegate to the convention for each state. Fla. and Mi. can be represented, but won't have an upsetting effect.

Posted by: bwvr | March 13, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

"how about redoing florida and michigan as winner takes all so we can get a winner'

when I posted that exact sentiment last week I was yelled at. That makes a lot of sense that I think many thoughtful people could agree with.

Posted by: leichtman | March 13, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

"the gop made this call to disrupt the democratic process'

absolutely.something I can finally agree with. This was all about Charlie Crist thinking he is the next Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris and that is why he linked the voting reform bill to moving the primary date knowing he had put good Dems like Wexler in a box. Crist should be told either find the $25 million or resign.

Posted by: leichtman | March 13, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

And dean didn't unilaterally strip the delegates. It was agreed to by all INCLUDING Clinton.

Posted by: dyork | March 13, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

All together now:

LET IT STAND!!! STICK TO THE RULES AGREED UPON!!!

Isn't that what we teach our children. Do what you agreed to, let it stand, and move on.

And their should be a moritorium on campaign comments about the current situation being unfair!!!

Posted by: dyork | March 13, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

how about redoing florida and michigan as winner takes all so we can get a winner.

Also, Obama had supporters pushing the non commits in Michigan and had ads in Florida. So, technically he broke rules.

Posted by: goombahmike | March 13, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

What should the D party do about Florida?

Burn Howard Dean at the stake for stripping the entire lot of delegates from MI and FL. And then use the mail-in ballots.

Even Howard "the Rule-meister" said "It's comprehensive. You get to vote if you're in Iraq or in a nursing home". Sounds pretty democratic to me.

Now, about that soft money....how many lawyers will be employed sorting this whole mess out, and counting the dangling chads? According to the Florida D Party, in the instance of a mail-in do-over, State law would not apply to the election, which would be run by the state party, managed by experienced election management companies and overseen by a reputable accounting firm.

State law does not allow for a state-run mail-in election with candidates on the ballot, but this election would not be run by the state. Wow. Job security for attorneys is getting higher every day!

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 13, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

eric331: I really like your suggestion. Do you happen to have an extra $15 million lying around to accomplish that.

Don't understand why they just won't allow Floridians to mail in their ballots and call in some Orego election folks to oversee the whole process, but its obvious the Obama campaign is going to pull out all of its stops to make sure absolutely nothing happens, remember they don't practice the politics as usual.

Posted by: leichtman | March 13, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

let it stand. Let's not change the rules at half-time because one side is winning.

the gop made this call to disrupt the democratic process. LEt it stand I say. Maybe next time floridians will think twice before electing republcains who play with them and their delegates like this. That is the only way to resolve this. If we allow the gop to play their game we set horrible presedence for the future.

KEEP THE PARTIES SEPERATE. LEt's not allow the rnc as well as media liek russert and blitzer to control the process. Rush and hannity may run the RNC. The american people run the dnc. Do not bow down to the gop and their moderate sell-outs dean. Support the democratic party and the movement and we will support you, dean dnc. Back the republcains, dnc and they are the only ones who will back you. Until it comes time for them to sell you up the river.

Think about the future. No revote. No to gop sabotage in the democratic process.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 13, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

What a mess. From what I heard, in FL it's illegal to conduct an election solely by mail. They would have had to pass legislation to change that, and good luck getting the FL GOP to agree.

Now, they're talking 50 regional election offices, when normally they have thousands of voting precincts. How many people are going to drive the extra distance to deal with what could be incredibly long lines, longer than those seen in OH and PA in November 2004?

If they're going to allow people to vote in person, then just find a way to fund the whole shebang, and not this ham-handed attempt at a solution.

Posted by: ericp331 | March 13, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Hillary showed up in Florida , had her picture taken on the tarmac spouting off at how great it was to be in Florida (for a fund raiser, not a campaign stop), got on the nightly news (and still raised a fuss that a national Obama ad played on some Florida stations), and made sure that everyone knew she was flying back in the minute the polls closed. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck... She campaigned for the Florida vote. Add to that leaving her name on the Michigan ballot and you have her cheating again.

Posted by: dyork | March 13, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Obama really needs to make a strong statement about the re-vote. Currently, it appears that Clinton is trying to game the system. Obama should come out and say the he wants an actual primary (not a vote by mail) as if the original "against-the-rules" primary never happened. He may lose that primary, but will gain far more delegates then he would if the original delegation is seated. He should also push for a re-caucus in Michigan (and tie the two together). Money, raised through unlimited soft donations should go to both the Primary and Caucus (not one or the other, it must go to BOTH - that way partisans can't try to only fund the re-nomination that benefits their candidate). The Clinton camp will object to the caucus in Michigan, but lose some credibility as they were happy enough to count the caucus when Obama's name wasn't on the ballot.

Posted by: mkopans | March 13, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Get out the vote?

From what we've seen, both these organizations would go door to door offering to help people locate the ballot, point to the circle to fill in, lick the letter, mail it, anything.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 13, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

IMO, there is one big problem with this scenario. It does not take into account one of the major aspects of a campaign and that is the ability of the candidate to 'get out the vote'. This is especially true in a primary when only a relatively small amount of people vote.

Posted by: AndyR3 | March 13, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

What to do about Florida?

Sever it from the rest of the US?

Posted by: Spectator2 | March 13, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company