Minor misspelling in

Minor misspelling in title line.

You wrote:     Michigan Revote "All But Dead"

Should read:   Clinton Campaign "All But Dead"

This is yet more confirmation of my original impression that the FL and MI delegates would be seated as-is. There is no precedent for determinative re-votes or the refusal of a state's or states' delegates to be seated at the national convention.

yeah, hundreds of thousands of votes not counting.. a real reason to celebrate, bots

Obama interviewed by Anderson Cooper today and shown by Wolf Blitzer on CNN, said he would agree with what ever the DNC decided. But he won't and hasen't. He wants to keep Fl and Mi from revoting. As a Mi voter, if my vote is thrown away now, by the DNC, my vote won't mater in Nov. either.

Lets see Clinton agreed to and signed the pledge regarding the potential barring of campaigning and delegates in Florida and Michigan, Now that she needs them to try and win the nomination, she cries foul. Is her being a hypocrite surprising? Of course not. Look at her past statements and actions on iraq for one. she voted for military force, than defended it, than said it was a mistake. The woman is a fraud, a liar and snake. You want to see this woman steal the nomination? You want to see the Democratic party split by her devious and deceitful ways? She is the last person we need in the White House....have we not had enough the the Clinton's and their sense of personal entitlement at any cost?

It's worth noting that John Edwards, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson also took thier names off the ballot in Michigan.

"expect Clinton to remind people that Obama took himself off the ballot for the January MI contest"

As did Edwards, Dodd, and Gravel.  Team players, who understand the importance of the rejuvenated DNC and our 50-state strategy.

First Senator Clinton's campaign said this:

"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."

But you know, they're just words.

"Clinton said last October that the Michigan primary was meaningless, but she left her name on the ballot. Obama and the other major Democratic candidates removed their names from the ballot in a gesture of good faith to early-voting states whose primaries were officially allowed by the Democratic Party."

Having's one cake and eating it too is pretty standard politics.  But now that FL and MI have decided against a do-over, how can Senator Clinton argue honestly that the delegates should be seated?

I think they should really look at taking Michigan and Florida and splitting the delegates 50/50. To me, that is the easiest and fairest way to solve the issue without having yet another dem. blackeye.

This takes us back to the issue of how much weight the pledge delegates should have in this nomination process, at least with respect to the delegates from the caucus states.  We all know that the caucuses were a farce, and that the delegate count is not a reflection of the "will of the people." But with Pelosi disingenuously arguing that the super delegates should follow the pledge delegates, the legitimacy of the pledge delegates should be carefully considered.

With that in mind, a group of us are getting together to try to investigate the caucus abuses.  We ask that anyone who has information regarding caucus irregularities, contact us at the below email addresses.  We will keep your names and personal information confidential if you request us to do so.  We would like to hear the complaints of both Hillary and Obama supporters because the issue is the integrity of the caucus system, not which candidate we support.  But Obama supporters be warned, we will forward any abusive emails to your friend Nancy Pelosi so she knows what good company she is keeping.

For Iowa: IowaCaucusIrregularities@gmail.com
For Washington: WashingtonCaucusIrregularities@gmail.com
For all other caucuses: DemocraticCaucusIrregularities@gmail.com

Thank you

If Hillary doesn't withdraw now, the only reason she can have to remain in the race is to take the Democratic Party down with her.

Why can't we as supporters of both candidates stand by them without hoping the other loses if their candidate doesn't win?

Are we letting our anger towards each other impact how we feel about each candidate unfairly?

Do we really think Clinton and Obama are that different in policy? Can we be honest enough to admit that we are downplaying each others strengths and over exaggerating their weaknesses?

Can we admit that Obama's wife took Clinton's fairytale comments completely wrong and at the same time admit that Clinton did marginalize BO with the Jesse Jackson comment?

Can we both admit that Clinton's foreign policy speech was pretty damn good a day before Barack's historic speech on race?

I mean what are we doing here? If Mccain wins, the supreme court is Eff You See Kayed for a whole generation.

We gotta get it together people.

Come on. don't let partisan frustrate you to the point you will allow a guy who can't tell the difference between shia and sunnis in office.

MI and FL will now probably count more than ever. We will have two different scenarios, and two different sets of delegates, for the SD's to ponder. One that includes the 50 states, and one that excludes MI and FL-- Obama's 48 state strategy.

Time out. I'm not drawing blood from Hillary or Barak here. I just have a simple question.

(1) Clinton's name was on the Michigan ballot. Obama's was not. I know that lots of you are ready to throw spears over those facts, but I am simply stating them.

(2) Many delegates were elected as uncommitted delegates in Michigan. A quick campaign took place in Michigan for Obama supporters to vote for uncommitted delegates, and many did. Accordingly, we can assume that most, if not all, uncommitted delegates, if seated, would vote for Obama at the convention. Again, fight about the details if you want, but I think I state the broad picture  correctly.

So, why do people keep talking as if Obama can't get votes from the Michigan delegation if it is seated? Uncommitted delegates used to be a common sight at conventions. Do any of you know of any rule, either at the Michigan level or the national convention level, which would bar the uncommitted Michigan delegates from voting for Obama (or for Clinton, for that matter)?

If there is no such rule, why shouldn't the uncommitteds vote as they wish?

Obama would not carry Florida or Michigan in the general. Its clear to that he doesn't want a re-vote. So The delegates will be seated proportionally favoring Hillary.  

OK, I propose compromise here. A real one, not one that obviously favors one candidate.

A. Florida delegation goes as determined by January vote, but less than the full delegation. Half is OK but I think 2/3 is fairer.

B. Michigan is seated 50/50.

C. Clinton is allowed to rhetorically count the Florida vote in her popular vote argument to the superdelegates, but is not allowed to count the Michigan result.

Fair?

Split the delegations 505 50% and then remove all of MI and FL  superdelgates ---- they screwed up, they need to pay

No. You can't use anything that proportionately rewards one candidate more votes than the other when there was no real participation equally by both.  You don't know that the results would have been the same had both candidates campaigned. If you seat them with the full number of delegates but split them 50/50, at least they will have all of their people at the convention from those states.

The reason it is important to get early resolution of who is the candidate is that the convention was scheduled for late in year on the assumption that there would be a clear candidate earlier.   They wanted to limit the "swift boat" period between the convention and the general election and also have more viewers for the convention after Labor Day to kick off the campaign.  

Now we have the problem that both candidates will continue to beat up on one another right up until September after which there will be less time to organize for the general. If one candidate, regardless of who it is, can't win the majority of the delegates, it is only going to hurt the inevitable nominee to keep up the blood letting.  

Can you say: "President John McCain"?      

Don't forget that Michigan's legislature is controlled by a Republican majority, and I'm certain that they heard about the Limbaugh's exhortations. It is not that Republican voters can cross over, but if Hillary can win, it would bring her closer to pulling it out.

McCain wants to run against Hillary, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

you people who blame the dnc and say it's the dnc who's taken away your votes and disenfranchised you are wrong.

the dnc didn't do it to you!

your own state party leaders did it to you!

why don't you call for their heads?

both of the state parties knew what they were doing and did it anyway. the dnc is the one trying to follow the rules not the states.

how many of you howled when george bush was flounting constitutional law and legally passed congressional laws?

huh?

answer that to yourselves and then take a look at what's happening with the rules of your own party rules.

don't they count either?

neither state's delegated should be seated. or in a limited extent if the rules allow that much.

blame the ones who deserve the blame and NOT the dnc!

What stupidity on display by the DNC by penalizing a state for holding it's primary early.  Now we are in dangering of loosing both states in the general.

Dan Abrams and 3 Dems (including one of Bill Clintons press people) discussed HRC's statement tonight. Bear in mind that he is very sympathetic to her (To balance KO I guess), but they all agree Hillary's statement was a cheap shot and they all laughed at length about the silliness of it, although they also expressed admiration at Hillary being able to deliver the fake unbridge with a straight face.

It's not good when people start laughing at the fake outrage, because then they start pointing their temple and making little circles with their fingers.

Godddamn it people!  It's not that hard.

Hold caucuses out of peoples' houses.  Have the state party run it.  Gather donations at those houses.

Cheap, easy, and state governments can't get involved because it would violate the right of association.

Sometimes I swear that only Democrats can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

If Obama wanted new primaries in MI and FL then I'm sure there wd be new primaries. He has  pulling strings behind the scenes to prevent the voters in those two states from having their democratic say.

There is an anti-democratic tendency in Obama that I find increasingly disturbing.

There was a little-noticed story in the Chicago Tribune recently about how Obama won his first race for the illinois senate. He took four opponents, including the incumbent,to court the have them removed from the ballot for deficiencies in their nomination petitions. This enabled him th win WITHOUT an election.

This is getting to be a pattern with him. Perhaps he should remember Al Gore's slogan."Let every vote count."

I still believe the delegates from Michigan and Florida will be seated, but probably not with their full votes or completely based on the vote that happened in January.

An increasingly likely scenario is one where half of the delegates (from Florida at least) are seated as elected in January and the other half are allocated in some other fashion (either 50-50 or by the national popular vote ratio).

Michigan, of course, is more complicated because Obama was not even on the ballot. They either need to hold a caucus or split those delegates evenly.