Maybe they could put a caucus together or something, still....

They have nobody to blame but themselves. They CHOSE to marginalize themselves. Period.

Even though Michigan violated the rule and has been punished, circumstance warrants a re-vote, because it is the president nomination at stake. Obama may well be defeated and lose his so-called "strong win" argument. Everyone in Michigan knows that it is Obama who tactically prevented a state-sponsored re-do. If he is the nominee, he will be punished for what he is doing now. Anyway, he is fatally flawed. John Kerry, his staunching supporter, said, vote for Obama because he is black.

The most ridiculous reason I have ever heard.

People

Well it wasn't Obama who stoped the revote. He wanted to include those who may have voted in the republican primary because the Dem primary was to be a non-counter. Clinton as we remember wanted to exclude them.

Now as we see the courts have ruled that information is not for public consumption hence ther Clinton Campaign can't exclude them, so we are still at and impass.

How is that Obam's Fault?

The Democrat Party created this mess by not allowing delegates to be seated. They should have found some other way to assess punishment for the state party. Denying the voter's votes is an egregious self-inflicted wound. The party will pay for such a mistake, and will have a lot of repair to do for the future elections. While they are correcting past mistakes, they can do away with the caucuses. Caucuses are a skewed way of determining the will of the people. With multiple news sources available, we do not need to have meetings where the people who can take off work or who are not employed can run the show. Texas is a big example. After voting in the primary that day, they have to go back to caucuses at night and vote again to determine more than 65 delegates. What a joke! Who was that benefitting?

Excluding non-dem voters is long-standing DNC rule, not Clinton's rule. By the way, what is Obama afraid of if only dem voters are allowed to re-vote?

Just read Detroit local news papers. you will know that everyone thinks it is Obama's fault.

He is fatally flawed anyway. If he is dem nominee, no hope for dem in WH.

BEWARE! The democratic party by playing unfair w/ Hillary maybe for being a female will send us to mcCain. Her votes in Michingan 7 Florida should be done again! Why is the party supporting 1/2 man like Obama....look at all his negatives. He is a liar and weakling.

HILLARY AS A THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE if the bloated politicos like Richardson keep attacking and pulling the rug unfairly.......

People,

Not hardly! Weather a State has an open primary. Michigan is one, is up to the state Democratic Party. Not the DNC!

Allowing only the dems to vote wouldn't be fair to other voters since Mi has an open primary. And it's ashame how people are so misinformed.....speaking about the Detroit papers

Obama has always said he would adhere to whatever the DNC propose that was fair.. stop blaming Obama campaign, it is MI and FL fault from the begin.

@people:

Michigan's primary system is open; a democrat can vote in the republican primary and vice-versa. However, you can only vote in one, not both. The problem with what you noted, and if you re-read the article above, is that any democrats who voted in the republican primary (say they were Edwards or Obama supporters) could not vote in the "revote".

Everyone here does not blame Obama - we blame our state legislature. They are much the same as the idiot drivers always switching lanes in a traffic jam, hoping to get ahead, while always falling behind farther.

Please understand that we did actually vote. We are not asking you to revote your elections. We also knew the votes didn't count. We are over it here.

A revote here is pointless as the people who voted before (and republicans who didn't vote in the GOP primary) would be the only ones allowed to "revote". So instead of wasting $20 million, how about they just split our delegates and give us the money to pay our policemen and firefighters?

Finally, a caucus here would have worked but Senator Clinton's supporters do not believe that is fair (and our governor is a Clinton supporter and would never have backed it).

caucus is unfair,

Primary Texas: Clinton win by 4% but lost 10% in caucus.
Washington: Clinton lost by about 30% in caucus but only 5% in primary.

There is no caucus in GE, far fewer people particpate in caucus, why using caucus as a way to determine who is the strongest candidate?

@people:

No argument from me - but the point is that each campaign is arguing for a system that benefits them. It's politics and the people clamoring for a revote are not from Michigan. It does not go over well when the governor's of Pennsylvania and New Jersey want to fund our "revote". It is even more ludicrous that the republican governor of Florida wants to "help" us.

You know, I think it is time to take any authority whatsoever out of the hands of both The Republican and Democratic National Committees. It's too late for this election. But States rights be damned. If we as a nation are ever to have fair and balanced electoral process then we must set the rules at the federal level and impose them on the states. The State and the party committees can no longer be relied upon to produce a fair election. Too many hat tricks and scams. It would be in the nations best interest to abolish party management and set new uniform rules.

@michaelbasham:

That's kinda what the DNC tried to do in Michigan. They warned over and over again to not move the primary. They warned of the consequences. I even think Howard Wolfson (high up in the Clinton campaign) was on the DNC rules committee.

Caucuses are cool.

They are a traditional American form of choosing leaders.

Caucuses are easier to run. Just line up for head count. No crazy voting machines or anything.

This really does come down to the fact the Democratic leadership are IDIOTS. The republican party stripped half, while the democratic party disenfranchised these 2 state altogether.

Talk about idiots. Its not Obama or Clintons fault. They agreed to the idiotic rules.

It is Obamas fault for not trying to revote or seat at least SOME of the delegates however. Regardless if Clinton is trying to get more delegates, the fact is that she is trying to include them. Obama is not.

Obama isnt afraid of giving up a few delegates. Hes afraid of losing two more important states. This itself will be a talking point for Clinton.

@tomdavie:

What you are saying would be true if Senator Clinton hasn't already been claiming Michigan as a victory, even though the election was worse than a banana republic (at least there, the other candidates have their name on the ballot!)

She has gotten plenty of political mileage out of this however, but the gas is running out. Do you really believe that Senator Clinton would be trying so hard to seat Michigan delegates if she was in Senator Obama's shoes?

tomdavie,

Beat it to death it makes no difference/

Let's move on.

There is no political news today/

Tom, this is not Obama's fault. He does want them seated. If Hillary wasn't behind she wouldn't care about those votes. She only cares now that it benefits her.