I'm sick and tired of hearing about this issue. Those two states understood what they were doing when they made their decisions. If the Democratic constituents who live in those states have an issue, they can take it up with their state party leadership and turn them out of office. It's time to give up on this re-voting idea.

A re-vote in MI and FL is dead. It's too expensive, too time consuming, and too contentious. There could be a compromise struck between the state Dems and the DNC to seat some delegates, but how that would look isn't known.

These states knew the consequences of moving their primaries into January, ignored them, and now they suffer the consequences. If they are allowed to re-vote, I actually wouldn't mind because then I'd be able to gather signatures for a petition to move Oregon's next presidential primary from May to December knowing that the DNC is gutless and won't be able to stop us.

If the "issue" was Michigan and Florida voting before the national party said they could, then a re-vote in June (at cost to the state and/or state party) deals with that issue (and the cost issue is punishment): the first vote still doesn't count. What I "hear" in the various messages from Obama's supporters on whether Michigan and Florida voters should get a chance to vote on the democratic nominee is that they are afraid that Obama cannot carry the vote in Michigan and Florida. If you are not afraid of a vote of the people, then let them vote!

The continuous suggestion from Obama's supporters that Clinton should bow out now (thankfully, Obama has not endorsed that foolish message) tells me - and other Oregonians - that they don't value our vote either. I want a chance to vote on the nominee and I don't want Obama supporters telling me I can't "for unity's sake" - that message tells me I (and all the other voters in Oregon) should just shut up and trust you. Again, thankfully, that is not Obama's message (just the wrong-headed logic of over-zealous Oba-maniacs).

Finally, in the debate about "the popular vote", please, let us all remember that the popular vote will mean squat in the national election against McCain. What will count is the electoral votes. Has someone posted a wiki somewhere that tracks the electoral votes in the states won so far by Obama and Clinton (and the history of how many times a democrat has won the national election in each those states?). That is the kind critical information that should inform the decision of the super delegates (especially as some of them want to ignore the will of their constituents, e.g., Kerry and Kennedy ignoring the fact that Mass. went for Clinton).

Pick one:

Answer A). Hillary can't win the nomination unless the lopsided results of Florida and Michigan are added into the totals. Obama wins outright UNLESS she gets the DNC to seat the dirty delegates.

Answer B). Hillary doesn't care who wins, she just wants to make sure that every vote is counted, especially in Florida and Michigan, which she won by HUGE margins.

Answer C). Hillary knows she can't win, even if there is a do-over in Florida and Michigan. So she pandering to Florida and Michigan voters in the hopes of picking up their Super Delegates.

Answer D). Hillary knows she already won, no matter how the remaining states vote, because she's already bribed the Super Delegates that can be bought. The rest will die mysteriously of a previously undiagnosed heart condition or shoot themselves (twice) in a hotel room before dragging their own corpse to a nearby park. Then they'll shoot themselves a third time.

Answer E). Obama is too young and too black to beat John McCain, so Hillary will acknowledge that she is 10 years older than indicated on her birth certificate, and reveal that she's a she-male who chews Skoal Bandits and loves NASCAR. She'll add the Stars & Bars to her campaign logo, and win 90% of the white vote. You go Mirl!

Shilling for Hill again?? Can't be done. Too expensive, needs changes in the law in both states. So this is just empty words. It's all about a vain attempt to bolster the argument with the supers. Any do-over isn't going to change the numbers. Obama wins MI and Hill wins Fl. Minor fluctuations in delegates. Well, done, Chris! You've followed orders.

Oh, and by the way, Chris, Clinton's bag men did a sloppy job in breaching security of Obama's passport file. They got caught!

Now that Hillary's WH records are being released, in redacted form, it has become clear that she has been deceiving us and in particular the voters of OH and elsewhere about NAFTA. Here's the record, documented, and here's her statements. If we did MI again, this wouldn't sell at all... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFuA0z4kKD4

And now for the people who are about to yell about these 2 states breaking the rules, how many of you screamed damned loud when Bush kept every vote from being counted in Florida in 2000?

I yelled about it, and that's exactly why I think they should follow the rules now. The proper way to run an election: set down the rules WELL IN ADVANCE and stick to them. The wrong was: change the rules or just make them up on the fly after the election, like Florida did in 2000. Michigan and Florida both made a deliberate decision to give up their delegates in exchange for an early vote. So they don't get their delegates seated? Too bad. It's called living with the consequences of stupid, greedy, short-sighted decisions.

If the Democratic party doesn't enforce its rules in this case, it will signal that the rules are meaningless and can be changed even after the election. You'll wind up with every state setting primaries in January or December or November, continually pushing to the front, confident that party-mandated schedules and rules actually mean nothing.

That said, I think Democratic Parties in Michigan and Florida should be able to organize and hold caucuses to seat their delegates. But that's up to the parties in each state; either organize a caucus or sit around whining about having to follow the rules the other 48 states followed. If they get to it, four weeks should be more than enough time to hammer out caucus rules and line up a bunch of school gyms and cafeterias some Saturday in early June.

But if they aren't willing to do that, then their delegates should remain stripped. Nobody should be allowed to change the rules after the voting's already done.

You're SO annoying -- SUCH a broken record!! Please post less often!

And it also needs the other 48 states.

Clinton's supporters rave about how tough she is - exploiting every opportunity to win.

But they complain when Obama does the same thing.

It was Hillary's campaign that threatened to sue the Texas Dem Party to try to wrongfully obstruct the finalization of the caucus results.

Hillary gave the finger to Texas Dems. She didn't want their voices to be heard.

Doesn't she give a damn about down-ticket? About Nick Lampson (holding DeLay's seat)? About Rick Noriega?

Tamerlane, Such a classy post.

I honestly cannot believe that Democrats are willing to disenfranchise the voters of Florida again. The people of these two states did nothing wrong, their party leaders did. You can't leave them out of such an historic election. Why not do a re-vote?

I, for one, am very tired of having Florida hog Presidential election limelight yet again. Finally, Oregon is about to get some fun in the sun and everyone is still talking about the snowbirds in the Sunshine State. Where's the in depth analysis of what Oregon's going to do on CNN? Who's releasing polls? When do the candidates start showing up at the Keystone Kafe in Eugene to vote for their favorite tofu powerhouse? (Obama on Friday, apparently) Where's the johnny on the spot camera crew interviewing Jane Blow Hipster shopping at Zupans? Where is the incredibly insightful commentary from that former logger who has found new love in creating blown glass sculptures on ABC? What about Mr. Meth Dude telling NPR all about his most recent tooth loss?

Why the hell are we still talking about Florida? Seems like this one should have been solved when the DNC showed it was serious about not seating their delegates back in FEBRUARY!!!!

Perhaps its because I am a teacher, but my attitude is sorry, "no late work accepted".

It's Oregon's chance to show the nation how to a) pronounce the state's name and b) reveal our true inner selves to the world - without having Grey Panther filled Florida taking anymore of our sunshine.

James Mattiace In Morocco (where my absentee ballot should be arriving any minute)

(note: disclaimer - while I have eaten at Keystone Kafe numerous times I have never built a website for them nor do I have a preference on powerhouses.)

(Note, Note: The Grey Panther reference was not a dig at Senator Wyden's lack of endorsement, in this race so far, I swear.

James, funny post - but I for one wouldn't be okay with the "no late work accepted" concept if this had happened in Oregon and he dpo had screwed me out my vote in the most exciting primary I can remember. ...and Marissa - I could care less how they vote as long as they get to vote (and of course I understand why you like the caucus idea as an Obama supporter). The point is you can't honestly be okay with leaving out all the D voters in these 2 states? It's ridiculous.

If Florida wants a re-vote, why haven't they done something about it before now? They have known for months that there would be a problem - there was plenty of time for a re-vote if they started earlier. They have only themselves to blame for monumental mismanagement.

Also - Florida voters will get to vote in the General. There is no Constitutional right to vote in a primary.

SDG, that is so paternalistic! Pat'm on the head and remind them that they'll get their chance to vote in the general? I'll remind you of Obama's media ad blitz in Florida (after he'd signed the pledge not to campaign there). Of course the reason his campaign is willing to disenfranchise the voters in Florida is because they know he can't win there, so it's okay to leave them out? And here I thought the one thing we could all agree on was a belief in democracy.

Obama's name wasn't even on the damn ballot in Michigan! Delegates cannot be seated on that kind of fatally flawed contest.

Stop lying about Obama's "ad blitz". You know damn well it was part of a national buy, Fla could not be excluded, AND it was approved by the DNC in advance.

Hillary, on the other had, was in state campaigning when she promised not to. She's a liar.

Hmmm...So are according to what the DNC, the Florida and Michigan legislatures, and the Obama campaign are saying is that the 50 state strategy is the 48 state strategy?

I would bet $1,000 today that if Michigan and Florida were redone in June, Hilary would win both by larger margins than she originally did and in doing so she would inevitably go on to win the Democratic nomination. Why?

1. The Obama/Reverend Wright controversy.

2. Demographics of both states are in Hilary's favor:

a. high numbers of Latino voters and retired voters in
Florida. b. high number of union voters in Michigan.

Obama supporters, explain to me how a 48 state strategy is the pristine, idyllic picture of Dean's 50 state strategy that is supposedly representative of all the U.S.?

If Obama was hopelessly behind and trying for a redo in Michigan (even going so far as having a list of donors offering to pay for it), we'd be reading a post telling Obama to accept the campaign rules and bow out gracefully. Transparent much?

I agree with Douglas K. on this one; unless the DNC sets a firm precedent here, we'll have chaos at every primary for years. Dean's hardly been my favorite person lately, but I admire him for standing firm on this. If the voters of Florida and Michigan don't like (and they shouldn't), then they should vote the leadership out of office. That's the beauty of democracy.

It's also just petty to suggest that this is somehow Obama's fault. He repeatedly said that he'd abide by whatever the DNC decided. If Florida and Michigan can't get their act together, that's hardly his fault. As for the whole vote-by-mail, Obama's people made the excellent point that it took Oregon nearly a decade to perfect our system, and we're relatively small. It's unrealistic to expect Florida and Michigan to get their acts together in just a few weeks. It'd be a circus.

Oh, and does anybody really think that voters in these states will just pout and sit home in November? Of course they'll vote. I say we should strip away the superdelegates (they're the ones responsible for this mess), split the regulars 50-50, and just get this over with already.

How can the DNC function if it cannot enforce its own rules?

It's not Obama's fault that there's no re-vote in FL and MI, although that is Hillary's deceitful talking point of the day. Hillary said those contests would "mean nothing". Now she's going to have to live with her own words, and she is going to have to live by the pledge she signed. Now if she wants to try to destroy Obama's chances in the General by falsely alienating FL and MI - then she will be reviled as she deserves.

KJBEugene,

If Obama is the transcendent political figure that he is, then he would rise above the current situation where he lets others decide the process in Florida and Michigan to argue to let the voters of Michigan and Florida have their vote matter in June.

This may come to pass. Or it may come to pass that Obama and his campaign stay silent and do not take a stand for the voters of Michigan and Florida, thus giving McCain a lot of Hilary supporters come November

To just lay the blame on the states is irrelevant because any observer with half a brain knows that Obama has the most to gain and the most to lose with a redo of Michigan and Florida.

I say, let the 50 state strategy be the 50 state strategy and not the 48 state strategy.

Chris, your argument is a joke and you know it.

Florida and Michigan tried to game the system and lost. Hillary agreed to it back when she thought she would roll through the rest of the states.

Now she's desperate and knows the only way she can even have a chance of actually getting the votes to win the nomination is to go back on her original agreement.

It's not about disenfranchisement. It's about political desperation.

You know it. Every Democrat knows it.

So give it up.

Here is Hillary's version of the 50 state strategy - it ends on February 5:

I feel very good about where we were. This has always been a challenge. I'm going to start on January 3rd with the caucuses in Iowa and go all the way until February 5th, because at the end of the campaign what you need are enough delegates to actually get you the nomination.

link

All the way to Feb. 5th! Wow!

And this from an appearance in December on Fox and Friends.

This so insane- antagonizing two big swing states. I don't blame them for wanting to movee up. The DNC had their big nomianting rules "changes" committee meet in '05, but they really changed nothing. Actually, they did put NV before NH, but NH moved up anyway. Why isn't NH being pnished? It makes NO sense to me that two small states like IA and NH are favored time and again at the expense of big states like FL and MI. Their delegates must be seated with or without a new primary.

Right on Matt B!

Josh, all due respect, You cannot square being an agent of change with working every minute of every day to keep these two states from re-voting. If will eventually catch up to Sen. Obama in the general if his campaign gets away with it in the primary season. Sen. Obama should live up to his wonderful oratory and actually do the right thing.

this is not Obama's fault. In Florida it was apparently the fault of Fla. legislators. In Michigan (my home state) Carl Levin and others gambled and lost.

We have to decide something right now. Either party rules don't matter---and those who believe that should make an affirmative statement to that effect---or else this can be solved by adults negotiating with the campaigns, the states, and the DNC.

I didn't become the person on a presidential campaign whose job it was to learn the delegate selection rules and explain them to others (and then become a national convention delegate myself) and then be one of the people who was involved in the process of rewriting the rules between that election and the next one, only to be told some years later that the whole process doesn't matter because no one matters except a battle between the campaigns.

Gov. Granholm (in one report I saw) was blaming the DNC. There have been other statements from those in Mich. and California with similar remarks. The DNC made rules well in advance, and unless the system has changed drastically, there was plenty of process to allow people to protest/change the rules.

In Tuesday's Oregonian there was an item about a Florida Dem. activist named V. DiMaio who went to court saying that stripping the delegates is unconstitutional and Florida voters have been disenfranchised. The item says federal appeals judges in Atlanta questioned that reasoning.

So all of you (incl. some pundits from Politico.com) who want to see a revote, let's ask a broader question. Do party rules matter? If not, why have a political party?

Back in the day, our DNC member was involved in a national process to provide discussion of rules some people did not consider to be fair (a disagreement, for instance, on whether a particular paragraph which was more useful to some kinds of candidates than to others should remain in the rules). I was on State Central Comm. in those days, and every time I saw our DNC member, we would have a conversation about the process in general and that paragraph in particular. I went to meetings of Oregon's Rules Committee and participated in at least one discussion at one of the meetings.

After the decisions were made, the national and state delegate selection rules were published. They were explained at a State Central Comm. meeting and some people who hadn't taken part in the process of writing the rules screamed because they didn't like the outcome. I had no sympathy for them, and today have no sympathy with the idea that this Mich./Fla. problem is all Obama's fault.

I'd rather the focus be in the fact that Sen. Webb (veteran with a son who served in Iraq) is asking why McCain (veteran with a son who served in Iraq) will not sign on to his update of the GI Bill---the current one pays for less than 20% of the sort of college education paid for when WWII vets returned home.

But if people who don't respect the Rules process of the Democratic Party at all levels if it inconveniences their candidate, why shouldn't we assume they are saying we don't need a political party because it is just about the candidates? They are saying party structure really doesn't matter and people like me really might as well re-register NAV from the day after the primary until March or April 2 years from now.

Is that what you want? Or is this a "win at all costs" Mondale-style campaign? A campaign which got soundly beaten in Oregon in 1984.

The way I see it Florida has an argument as the decision to move their primary up was in the hands of the republican part in Florida as they wanted to help their guy. So the democrats can at least say that moving up was not what they wanted with a straight face.

Michigan is another story. Those where democrats who decided to move up despite warnings that it would result in delegates not being seated. As said before, they did so with advance warning, and an understanding of what that warning meant. They bet that it was an empty threat, and look to have lost.

As far as Obama and Hillary each playing politics with the revote efforts, what a surprise politicians playing politics. Each has good political reasons, but only one has changed their tune since February 4th. Nothing wrong with playing politics in my mind, but there is something wrong with agreeing with the rules ahead of time, and deciding because they may hurt you now you want to change the rules midgame.

Personally, I'm sick of hearing folks talk about how Michigan and Florida voters are being "disenfranchised" and "not having their voices heard." To me, getting the first and last vote in a primary cycle seems more like getting your voice heard twice as often as anyone else, not being silenced.

I have to say that I saw all of this coming when I heard that Clinton's name was still on the ballot in Michigan. She obviously chose to "play it safe" and take the votes just in case, and now is playing the card she's been holding on to since Super Tuesday.

Obama should just let the Florida delegates be seated, accept his win at the convention graciously, and spare himself (and all of us who so desperately want to see McCain lose in November) the indignity of appearing to play down to Clinton's level on this one.

Enough! Everyone's right. It's a close competitive contest. The locals in MI and FL bet and lost, trying to make their states' opinions more important. Now they don't have the character to admit a mistake and fund a redo. Too bad. The DNC can't change the rules now without being self-destructive in the long run.

Naturally H. wants to count the illegitimately elected delegates -- they are her votes. Naturally B. doesn't -- why would he? He didn't compete, per the rules, and at that time he was one of eight, not one of two, with a fifth of his present stature and name recognition. To assert that he wouldn't do any better with a re-vote is ridiculous.

If MI and FL can't get a re-do vote or caucus together that's their own fault and problem. "Denying" them a voice in the primary does not remove them from the fall electorate! How many times have we held primaries that had no influence in the process? Did that stop us from voting in the general?

I'd prefer Obama, but I will happily fill in the dot by Hillary's name if it's on my October ballot. The invective on here does no good. It's fun to have a close contest, with two strong, historic candidates. (Four, counting the Senate!) Be happy, choose your favorite, but supporters of the other are not horrible, misguided fools. They are fellow Democrats, needed this fall.

It's all to reminiscent of Harry Truman's (I think) remark: "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."

--Will Rogers

Revote problem is to do with willful delays and bungling by the state parties, along with real, not fake, issues with enabling legislation. Michigan, for example, let things slide and then manufactured a crisis: "Yo, the legislature is about to adjourn!" Bummer.

Break the rules at your own risk. Lesson learned. Let's move on.

I believe that all states should have the opportunity to vote in this regardless of who I think or hope will win. We cannot say we are a democracy if it is only so when it's convenient, democracy has never been easy.

Clinton and Obama are both palying politics with MI and FL. Yes, MI and FL should not have moved their primary up and the results should not count. Yes, we should all hope that MI and FL do get a say, because the democrats in the states deserve to have a vote and should not lose that chance because party leaders messed it up. Clinton only wants the votes in hindsight because she has very little chance without them revoting. She didn't care before Iowa and only cares now. Obama knows they should be allowed to vote but was delaying. Obama knew after Thursday there would be no revote. He is doing it purely for political reasons. Both Clinton and Obama are making the right political moves and both their positions are not based on principle, only on political expediancy. I wish, however, that Obama took the right principled position and had proactively supported a vote. As of now, though, you can not allocated delegates in either state based on the elections as they took place. That is fundamentally unfair.

The "principled" position - what a load of hogwash.

Hillary is LOSING so she is fighting tooth and nail to cheat to win. It's disgusting. So spare me your "principled" position.

Now go back and report to your minder how many times you spammed this blog for your "team". Ick.

Three of the major Democratic presidential candidates on Saturday pledged not to campaign in Florida, Michigan and other states trying to leapfrog the 2008 primary calendar, a move that solidified the importance of the opening contests of Iowa and New Hampshire. Hours after Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina agreed to sign a loyalty pledge put forward by party officials in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York followed suit. The decision seemed to dash any hopes of Mrs. Clinton relying on a strong showing in Florida as a springboard to the nomination. “We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process,” Patti Solis Doyle, the Clinton campaign manager, said in a statement. The pledge sought to preserve the status of traditional early-voting states and bring order to an unwieldy series of primaries that threatened to accelerate the selection process. It was devised to keep candidates from campaigning in Florida, where the primary is set for Jan. 29, and Michigan, which is trying to move its contest to Jan. 15. The Democratic National Committee has vowed to take away Florida’s 210 delegates — and those of any other state that moved its nominating contest before Feb. 5 — if it does not come up with an alternative plan.

link

Jonathan,

" I wish, however, that Obama took the right principled position and had proactively supported a vote"

Are you saying Obama's position should be "the heck with DNC rules and procedures, we must find a way for these states to revote"?

Because it looks to me like Obama wants a solution within the rules and H. Clinton wants a revote in both states, the rules be damned.

I am not a part of either campaign.

From Hillary's own website:

The following is a statement by Clinton Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle. "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process. And we believe the DNC’s rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar.

Hillary pledged NOT TO PARTICIPATE:

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON pledged in August, "I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential primary election or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina."

link

Is it PARTICIPATING to claim victory and demand delegates be seated? I think it just might be. Hillary broke her oath. It's clear.

Chris Corbell -

You need to address Hillary's breach of her pledge.

Breaking- Bill Richardson Endorses Obama

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080321/ap_on_el_pr/obama_richardson;_ylt=AifhjZXGT3Lg9JaJHo0WnquyFz4D Here's a statement:

 Steve,

During the last year, I have shared with you my vision and hopes for this nation as we look to repair the damage of the last seven years. And you have shared your support, your ideas and your encouragement to my campaign. We have been through a lot together and that is why I wanted to tell you that, after careful and thoughtful deliberation, I have made a decision to endorse Barack Obama for President.

We are blessed to have two great American leaders and great Democrats running for President. My affection and admiration for Hillary Clinton and President Bill Clinton will never waver. It is time, however, for Democrats to stop fighting amongst ourselves and to prepare for the tough fight we will face against John McCain in the fall. The 1990's were a decade of peace and prosperity because of the competent and enlightened leadership of the Clinton administration, but it is now time for a new generation of leadership to lead America forward. Barack Obama will be a historic and a great President, who can bring us the change we so desperately need by bringing us together as a nation here at home and with our allies abroad.

Earlier this week, Senator Barack Obama gave an historic speech. that addressed the issue of race with the eloquence, sincerity, and optimism we have come to expect of him. He inspired us by reminding us of the awesome potential residing in our own responsibility. He asked us to rise above our racially divided past, and to seize the opportunity to carry forward the work of many patriots of all races, who struggled and died to bring us together.

As a Hispanic, I was particularly touched by his words. I have been troubled by the demonization of immigrants--specifically Hispanics-- by too many in this country. Hate crimes against Hispanics are rising as a direct result and now, in tough economic times, people look for scapegoats and I fear that people will continue to exploit our racial differences--and place blame on others not like them . We all know the real culprit -- the disastrous economic policies of the Bush Administration!

Senator Obama has started a discussion in this country long overdue and rejects the politics of pitting race against race. He understands clearly that only by bringing people together, only by bridging our differences can we all succeed together as Americans.

His words are those of a courageous, thoughtful and inspiring leader, who understands that a house divided against itself cannot stand. And, after nearly eight years of George W. Bush, we desperately need such a leader.

To reverse the disastrous policies of the last seven years, rebuild our economy, address the housing and mortgage crisis, bring our troops home from Iraq and restore America's international standing, we need a President who can bring us together as a nation so we can confront our urgent challenges at home and abroad.

During the past year, I got to know Senator Obama as we campaigned against each other for the Presidency, and I felt a kinship with him because we both grew up between words, in a sense, living both abroad and here in America. In part because of these experiences, Barack and I share a deep sense of our nation's special responsibilities in the world.

So, once again, thank you for all you have done for me and my campaign. I wanted to make sure you understood my reasons for my endorsement of Senator Obama. I know that you, no matter what your choice, will do so with the best interests of this nation, in your heart.

Sincerely,

Bill Richardson

Chris,

Yes or no - were you contacted by anyone from the Clinton campaign and encouraged, invited or told to start peppering this blog or others with pro-Hillary "messages". They want it to look grass roots, but really it's just the work of the campaign. That's what I believe.

Democrats from Florida and Michigan: If I were you, I would tell my leaders that if my vote is not going to count for the convention, I will not vote in November or vote Republicans. If the millions of Dems in FL and MI say this, I am sure your leaders think twice before.

If I were I Democrat in Florida or Michigan, I would tell them it is important to follow the rules. It's a basic tenet of being a good person and having personal integrity. I would never consider voting for a campaign that sought to break the rules and then place the blame elsewhere. Don't be surprised if this backfires badly on the Clintons, both now and after Hillary drops out.

SDG- What spam and what team are you referring to?

LT- The DNC rules do not prohibit MI and FL from revoting, or having a caucus in order to allocate the delegates. In fact the DNC and Dean supported revotes. That would not have been a violation of the DNC rules. The votes prior to the Feb 5 were in violation of the DNC rules and should not be counted. I would like to see FL and MI vote and Obama dragged his feet in order to run out the clock. This was a great political move, and will lead to Super-delegates like Richardson starting to announce support again. That I am happy about. I am a huge Obama supporter but still disappointed that he didn't help encourage a revote.

Florida voted Republican in 8 out of the last 10 Presidential elections.

Hillary wants to seat the delegates in Michigan as they voted. Hillary doesn't care that she was the only name on the ballot or that the write-in ballots were thrown away.

Hillary signed a pledge not to campaign in Michigan or Florida or to interfere in their elections. Within three days of signing that pledge, she made three campaign stops in Miami.

Hillary continues to campaign in Michigan and Florida despite the fact that her campaign manager voted to throw out their votes.

Michigan state officials and elected representatives offered to split Michigan delegates 50-50, Hillary says "no" revote or seat them as they voted.

well, i'm an obama supporter who would have no problem with MI & FL choosing to do a re-vote, if they want. they've chosen not to, and that's fine too.

the thing is, it wouldn't change the outcome. they could re-vote and there is no way that hillary clinton would win by a large enough margin to overcome obama's pledged delegate lead.

clinton is served best by having this be an open-ended issue. if FL & MI actually voted, and the voters were enfranchised every vote counts blah blah rahrahcakes, then it would be over, the dust would settle - and she would still be behind.

and then she (& her campaign minions) wouldn't have anything to bitch about.

keeping this issue alive by making all kinds of noise about it gives her an excuse to stay in the race.

it's all, what's the saying, sound & fury signifying nothing.

Bill R., Um, you do realize that Clinton and McCain's files have been breached as well?

Trishka - "and then she (& her campaign minions) wouldn't have anything to bitch about." Nice. So the voters in Florida and Michigan are just "bitching" about not having their vote count in this historic election? I'm guessing if this had happened in Oregon a lot of us would be "bitching" up a storm.

i'm not talking about the voters of FL & MI. like i said i would have absolutely no problem whatsoever with a re-vote or a caucus or whatever in those states, in fact i would welcome it.

i'm talking about YOU. and chris corbell. and whomever else.

you need this issue desparately because if the voters of FL & MI actually DID get to have their votes counted, your candidate would STILL be behind.

then what would you have to say?

but as long as they don't get to vote the way they want to, rather than how their state party leaders chose for them, then you have something to make a bunch of noise about and obfuscate the fact that FL & MI will NOT make it so your candidate would win.

Look Trishka, My only problem is with my fellow democrats who think it's okay to leave voters out in this primary. I'm not going to say anythiing negative here because I just don't think it's helpful at all. I do think we need to think twice before we get so caught up in this election that we're willing to say it's okay that these voters (who didn't do anything wrong)aren't allowed to have their voices heard. I just really think it's a shame and I don't think it can be reduced to "bitching." It's a democracy isn't it?

Chris, you made a point where you say, "why did Obama and others leave their names on the ballots in Florida? A: they thought they'd do better there." I may be wrong here but I think that by the time Obama and Clinton signed their pledges not to participate in Florida or Michigan it was too late to withdraw his name from the Florida ballot. Thus he remained on the ballot. I don't have time to do check the data on that. He didn't campaign there nor did he hold a victory celebration for a primary that didn't count. It's also important that yes Clinton did win Michigan. 40% of the voters there voted uncommitted.

Look, the Republican held state legislature is holding Florida voters by the balls here. Nothing will happen. At least in Florida all the names were on the ballot. You can't honestly suggest Michigan's delegates should be seated with only Clinton's name on the ballot. Obama has proven to be a better campaigner and his ability to sway voters is unheard of. If he campaigned in those states I see them being a much narrower victory for Clinton in Florida and perhaps a loss in Michigan.

The Republican's are only counting Florida delegates as half a person. I wonder why I don't hear Clinton's camp barking about the disenfranchisement of them.

I think it would probably only be fair to give each candidate a 50%-50% split because no campaigning was done there. If that happens you'll see the Clinton camp raise holy hell.

Chris>Instead of replying when people post factual questions or concerns about your candidate, you run away and start another topic. This doesn't win the argument.

Chris sez: But scanning the majority of comments, I see a thread getting swamped by those who want to turn Blue Oregon into a lopsided echo chamber for Obama

A count reveals that the pro-Hillary brigade added more posts to this topic than anyone favoring Obama with about a quarter more unaffiliated. This includes a lot of single line posts by pro-Obama and long screeds from the Clinton group.

Chris sez: It's to the credit of those who agreed even if saying they felt it was too late; and it is not to the credit of those who defended the exclusion.

Most Obama support a FAIR revote, Caucus, or FAIR seating of the delegates. The Clinton campaign refuses any seating that doesn't give her a clear advantage. They rejected a 55 - 45 Clinton:Obama in Florida. The Clinton campaign rejected allowing Democrats to vote who voted in the Republican primary thinking their vote wouldn't count. Is it fair to "disenfranchise" them?

It isn't exclusion to follow the rules. When Rhode Island moved their primary up, their delegates were thrown out in the 90's. They revoted and paid for it themselves. How is this different?

Chris sez: There is nothing in my post defending and suggesting that delegates be seated based on existing votes. In fact, if you actually read (!) the last blockquote, the editorial states that would be unfair.

Then he goes onto propose seating FL as they voted:

Chris: (Though IMO in the case of Florida, seating has this pragmatic basis at least: everyone was on the ballot, and Florida was punished ...

Chris: Personal attacks have no place in these forums, let alone from people who only post with pseudonyms or initials. I've seen this tactic used time and again in other blogs: attempt to discredit a blogger who does not share your views by accusing them of being a campaign shill, or of holding a perfectly democratic opinion only because it helps their candidate. Shame on you who resort to this.

Chris ignores that the vast majority of the unnamed people here are posting for Clinton. I'd say the majority of the BO people like Kari are trying to be even-handed in their approach. While most of the named people support Obama.

Torridjoe: I don't know, I think I'd blame the folks who made the decision to hold the primary earlier. As a voter who didn't have any say in that decision I would be pretty upset.

Pat Ryan,

Obama abiding by the party rules for the umpteenth time is exactly what makes him the "run-of-the-mill" politician that he is and not this transcendent, mythical, politician of our time like those who are infatuated beyond reason believe that he is.

You want to know what leadership is? Obama making a speech for the Michigan and Florida voters to have a 2nd chance in June, then getting together with the Clinton campaign and party officials in both states to jointly finance a redo of the Michigan and Florida primaries.

Anything less is just confirming what many voters including myself believe Obama really is, a "run-of-the-mill" politician who would rather win on a 48 state strategy than be the leader of the entire 50 states.

Believe me when I state this:

1. Disenfranchising those Clinton supporters will give McCain a boost come November. Hilary's core supporters of low income whites, retirees and hispanics will more than likely vote for McCain.

2. Disenfranchising Obama supporters will give Clinton a boost come November. Obama's core supporters of upper income, educated white liberals will vote party ticket, blacks will vote for the party ticket, and those college students that support him so much will stay home with their bongs and Che Guevara posters.

YOV, are you active in a local Democratic Party? If so, ask to speak to someone on the rules committee.

If not, why not?

In believe in the DNC rules. Apparently to some that means I am an old style politician.

So, I was involved in rewriting delegate selection rules before I ever heard of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Does that make me an old school machine type politician?

The Michigan and Florida Democrats took a gamble and lost. If you think we don't need party rules, then say so. But then don't complain if a future election goes off the rails because there were no rules.

I don't understand why the state parties have not prepared for caucuses already. Washington had both a primary and caucuses with the latter deciding the pledged delegates. What better precedent could we have? Seating the ersatz delegates would damage the party. Leaving the Democratic voters of the two states unrepresented would damage the Democratic nominee. Have Democrats let themselves be outmaneuvered once more?

Uh, this just keeps getting rehashed. There are seemingly legitimate arguments from all sides. And the opining basically comes down to this:

It all depends on whose ox is being gored.

What I'd personally love to see: Michigan and Florida Dems organize caucuses. Give both campaigns a huge incentive to go out and drum up support. It strikes me as at best a myth and at worst disrespectful to claim that caucuses inherently favor Obama--what am I supposed to conclude: that Clinton voters are too lazy to go to caucuses? That Clinton voters are somehow intrinsicially disadvantaged from going to caucuses? Geez Louise, making those sort of claims plays into all sorts of dumb stereotypes.

For crying out loud, organize caucuses, make the caucuses easy to get to, do whatever has to be done to get people there. Is this a challenge that Clinton supporters cannot rise to? Corbell, say something!!!

Corbell thinks we should all rally around a principle - the principle that Hillary is entitled to win no matter what, even if that means breaking her oath and breaking the rules.

Mr Corbell, I just re-read your post at the top of this thread and could not find the word "caucus" anywhere. And Geez Louise, if you read my words as a "rant", you are awfully thin-skinned.

"To take their voice away because of the boneheaded decisions of legislatures to play chicken with the parties is a slap in the face of popular sovereignty."

Mr Corbell, that quote, from the article you quoted in your post at the top of the thread, is absolutely bang-on.

Corbell, Your argument for a mail in ballot is flawed. Even Oregon SOS Bill Bradbury said it's a terrible idea for Florida. There is no way to validate signatures there. It's a great idea for us but not for a state that hasn't prepared for a mail in ballot.

Look the Republican state legislature in Florida isn't going to let anything go ahead because they know this is hurting the Democratic party. The Michigan Senate is Republican controlled. This isn't a personal attack but you throw out these big ideas about revoting. If no revote happens and the Dems seat the delegates as it is your candidate wins and had an unfair advantedge. I haven't heard anyone from either side say they don't want the delegates sat...they just want a fair process for both sides. If they are sat as a 50-50 split are you ok with that? That seems like the fairest thing to do considering the Republicans aren't going to let these revotes happen.

What's fair about a 50/50 split when we don't know how a contested election in Florida and Michigan would have turned out?

Given the recent string of Obama's successes, he may have won both states with lopsided results, earning him more like 70% of the delegates. Don't confuse equal with fair.

I suspect they could have had a caucus, but Her Highness didn't want one. The proposal in Michigan -- a primary held after school is out and the college kids are safely out of the state -- was thoroughly offensive.

It amazes me that the Clinton supporters are so desperate that they are willing to blame Barack for this problem. I've never seen such a desperate fight to win a Party's nomination in my life. Count me as one of the many who has never voted Republican but will make an exception if Hillary steals the nomination.

OBAMA SAYS THE PEOPLES VOTE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THEN HE SITS OF THE CHALLENGE TO HAVE MI & FA VOTE AGAIN. WHAT IS THAT ABOUT CHICKENS COMING TO ROOST? HE WILL SACREFICE HIS CHARACTER IN ANYWAY HE HAD TO , TO WIN.

When Hillary tries to steal the primary by cheating, she DISENFRANCHISES MY VOTE and the votes of hundreds of thousands of other voters all across the nation.

The people want who they voted for - BARACK.

I'm sick of Hillary trying to disenfranchise me and showing such disrespect for democracy.

Comment for Mr Corbell: I noticed that you referred to the lengthy postings by eriposte at The Left Coaster blog. I would encourage readers of Blue Oregon to have a look at the writings by eriposte and Turkana at that website. The former in particularly are harshly critical of Sen. Obama. For example, eriposte's latest today (Saturday) attacks Obama under the headline "The Politics of Delusion". eriposte commonly writes several pages of dense prose in each of his/her postings. Yet in the several weeks I have been regularly reading The Left Coaster, I have seen virtually nothing from any of their regular contributors that actually promotes Sen. Clinton...even though they all state a clear preference for Clinton over Obama. eriposte has a very long article in his/her archives in which he states why s/he is endorsing Clinton, but virtually everything s/he has written in the last 2-3 months has been harsh criticism of Obama and Obama supporters.

I am very happy to see that Corbell has taken a decidedly different tack here at Blue Oregon. His criticisms of Obama have been direct but short and polite, and he has instead focussed on promoting Sen. Clinton. Frankly, I wish commenters here would be kinder to Mr. Corbell, who is taking the high road.

I may be wrong, but while I have certainly seen a lot of short, nasty sniping at Sen. Clinton in comments here on Blue Oregon, I am unaware of any regular Blue Oregon contributors--the people writing the articles that everyone else comments on--who have been fixated on Sen. Clinton as an object of ridicule and derision.

I'm underwhelmed by the Clinton supporters on this site and around the nation. The Hillary supporters can't claim the high ground when the worst invective comes from that campaign. Two examples today.

“Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic,” Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week. From the NY Times

"The former president told a group of veterans Friday in Charlotte, N.C.: "I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country. And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics." Matt Apuzzo, AP

Can you show me a single example where Obama said anything close to these lies and exaggerations? Now Hillary is Christ?

If MI and FL want a revote nobody's stopping them. They chose to break the rules almost a year ago and are whining about it now.

Obama said he will abide by the rules and his signed pledge to stay on the sidelines.

If Hillary can walk on water and/or turn it into wine, she's got my vote.

Otherwise, not so much.

Leo....Uhmmmm. Not sure, but...

I think we agree that Florida and Michigan screwed themselves and their delegates shouldn't be seated.

Another reason not to count the votes in Michigan and Florida: it retroactively disenfranchises Democratic voters who relied on the rules and the widely publicized news that the election DID NOT COUNT and stayed home. There is a world of difference between sitting out a purely symbolic election that doesn't even have advisory impact and one that actually counts. If I were an Obama supporter in Florida but decided not to take the time to cast my vote in the primary because it didn't count, I'd be pretty upset if the rules were changed after the fact to say the vote did count after all.

If I were an Obama supporter in Michigan I'd be even angrier: I was deprived of any opportunity to cast a vote for him at all, whether or not I showed up.

Florida and Michigan both have opportunities to vote over again, which really is more than either state deserves after trying to cheat. The Democratic parties in both states still have more than two months to put together a June caucus. If they refuse to do that, their delegates shouldn't be seated. Period. And if the voters are angry about being deprived of the vote, they should put their blame where it belongs: on their respective state legislatures for depriving them of a voice in the primaries, and on their respective state Democratic party officials for failing to step up and fix the problem.

Corbell says: That's partly why a revote is needed, per the logic of the editorial above. If there's any doubt as to which side wins and the will of the voters in these states is not taken into account, the other side will cry foul and feel their candidate was robbed. I don't want to see them counted as-is and have Obama supporters feel robbed any more than see Hillary lose by a margin that might conceivably have been offset by FL/MI if they had counted; I want whomever the nominee is to be the clear winner if possible, but I don't see how that's possible if 9% of our voters aren't in the tally. That's the train wreck that must be avoided.

<h2>You're right. I got the idea you'd rather have them sat as-is if there wasn't a revote. I doubt Hillary actually wants a revote either. My point is this: Neither candidate really campaigned there. That was a name recognition vote in both states. At the time I would wholeheartedly say that Hillary's name was more recognizable than Obama's. I don't think Hillary wants to campaign against him in those states because he's proven to be a much better campaigner than herself. I bet that by now her margin of victory in Florida would be much smaller and she might even lose Michigan. If it's caucuses...game over...Obama would probably win both states. She won't take a 50-50 split so what else is there to do? Clinton is going to be just as big a cog in the machine as a giggling Republican controlled state legislature that is getting pats on the back from the RNC.</h2>