From Florida's track record I'd say a caucus would work better. Floridians are less likely to screw it up the way they usually screw up their elections.

Anyone remember a fella by the name of President Albert G.

Now TCG, why would you want the Democratic party to have a caucus? You wouldn't be worried about stopping Hillary Clinton from becoming a competitor to McCain, so you want a caucus which would favor Obama?

TCG, they don't hold caucuses in the general election as Obama will find out in those red state he won, so why play stupid here? FL and MI deserve to have their voices heard. And boy do some of those FL folks have an earful ready for the Obama folks. They know who refused to allow their delegates to be seated. Same with MI.

Anyone who advocates a caucus is suggesting that voters be disenfranchised.

Personally, I dont see why new primaries are even needed. In the case of FL, Obama had an advantage because he campaigned there by running TV ads and still lost by a significant margin. In MI, if we simply give him all the undecided votes (which were not really all his), we are giving him an advantage there also. Clinton won MI by a significant amount also.

So it appears to me that even when having the advantage in both states, the only reason he objects is because he lost.

Um lets see, they are whining because; when they broke the rules that they agreed to and KNEW that their primaries would not count prior to having them, they went ahead and had them anyway. Now they want the DNC to pay for their intentional violations of the rules. So it was the local groups that screwed the voters don't blame the DNC at large. That is like blaming the cop when you get a ticket for speeding.

The caucus's are a circus. Just read about the problems in Texas they had. Have a primary and let the people vote
properly and in private.

Florida and Michigan knew what the rules and penalties were before their elected officials, Congressmen and Governors alike, decided to move their primaries against the DNC's rules. Now they are mad and want their delegates to count. It is unfair to change the rules in the middle of the game and Howard Dean and the DNC is right. EVERYONE knew the rules before the start and everyone agreed to those rules. If the Florida and Michigan voters are going to mad at anyone, then they should be mad at their elected officials who voted and passed laws to move the date, knowing what the consequences would be. The elected officials of those states made their voters votes not count. Not the DNC. And I like both Hillary and Obama but fair is fair. For her to now want those votes to count, shows a person that you can't trust when the cards are stacked against her. I have lost all respect for her for demanding these delgates be seated. She should have said that they knew the rules and agreed with Howard Dean and the DNC. It just goes to show you that in her, you won't have change because it's win at all costs...lie, cheat, steal. How can you trust anything else she says when even Ray Charles can see she wants to change the rules that she agreed to in the beginning because she would benefit. She's not even asking for a do-over. Why, because she know's that she can't beat Mr. Obama by a wide enough margin in either of those 2 states to push ahead of him in the delegate count. The total thing is disgusting and this is why people get so disenfranchised with the system.

DCvoter, how can you lose in a state where you didn't campaign and in another state when you were not on the ballot? How can you call any such vote valid when people who knew their votes would not be counted didn't bother to show up? there is no way the current results are valid.

I would bet new primaries would give Clinton more delegates. I wonder if there are any side bet websites setting up for that yet. LOL

If money is the determining factor, it wouldnt surprise me to see independent financial sources pay for them.

Speaking of oddities, does anyone find it odd that it was a republican controlled legislature in Florida and a republican dominated senate in Michigan that moved up the primaries knowing it would disenfranchise all of the democratic voters in those state primaries? Seems to me the state Democratic committees are not very smart in those states!

Louis, let me try and get your point. You, a so called democrat, want to disenfranchise two swing state and give the republicans a two to nothing advantage even before the general begin? Just so Obama can maintain his lead? And you all call yourselves more educated than Clinton folks? Get real.

It seems to me a bit nervy for the folks in charge of the Florida Democrats to ask for $18 million to re-do the primary they messed up by choosing a date that went against the agreement they had with the National Democrats.

Louis - the voter turnouts in MI and FL were significant... in other words the voters made sure their voices were heard. Obama did run tv ads in FL and Clinton did not so he had an advantage and still lost. In MI, the undecided vote (all candidates except Clinton and Kucinich) could be given to Obama and he still lost. That sends a pretty clear message to me... FL and MI voters went for Clinton greater than 50% in both states.

Brenda - the caucuses in TX were not the only tainted aspect of the TX results. In TX, the delegates are apportioned based on registered Dems in the areas. In other words, areas without a lot of registered Dems but with lots of voters casting votes in the primaries get fewer delegates resulting in unfair representation in the delegate count. This was analyzed and show to benefit Obama because the areas he took (urban) have an unfair number more delegates. Even after that, he still lost TX popular votes and 2/3 of the state voted for Clinton over 50%. So her win there is actually more significant than the delegate count implies. Rules are rules but these are things the SDs consider.

The DNC definitely should not pay for it. Let the states who broke the rules pay, and consider it a fine for breaking the rules in the first place.

Also, Louis has a valid point. There's no way of knowing how many voters didn't go to the polls because they knew their votes wouldn't be counted.

Hey Derek. You say we knew the rules. True, but we did not make the decision. The state legislature did and the FL legislature is about 2 to 1 republican. We are being relegated to second class and told our votes won't count because a Republican conrolled legislature did this to us. DON'T TELL US OUR VOTES SHOULD NOT COUNT. And by the way, we all have TVs and newspapers in FL, so when we voted it was from an informed standpoint.

Lyd then come right out and say you Obama folks want to disenfranchise the voters in both Fl and MI. There will be no caucuses for you guys to run up the score come the general. In light of this, I'd be interested in hearing your version of how Obama will win the White House.

DC Voter, Nice to meet you here. Hope you having fun. Just came over from MyDD where Obama's Feb 55mil is generating some buzz. Bottomline, with that kind of money and he couldnt close the deal, infact losing as badly as he did in the popular vote, he should concede. I will win the GE on that budget. Advert dont sell bad product. On Florida/MI, i dont think we need fear a re-vote but it must be in a primary. Closed!

caucus is a cheating game. If the general election is based on caucus, then go head in Florida and Michigan. For example, Hillary won TX primary but she may lose her caucus in TX

People, Louis is absolutely right! Everyone's vote should count. Everyone's! You can be sure there were voters who didn't show up because they knew their state broke the rules.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the VOTERS of Michigan and Florida didn't decide when to hold their primaries...but they are going to decide who to vote for in November. I think the DNC needs to be mending some bridges.