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.

You know I can't see Hillary winnig MI. I'm not sure about Florida (Latino considerations) She may have the Latinos all snowed. But not Michigan!

Caucuses are a joke.

Caucuses are characterized by intimidation, misrepresentation of actual voter preference, and disenfranchisement of voters.

Conversely, a private ballot cast in a primary is done so without crowd pressure, shows individual voter intention, and allows for increased voter participation.

HEY, WHY DON'T WE DO OVER ALL THE STATES, AN MAYBE HILLARY WINS THEM ALL.LOL. lETS SEE, MICHIAN BROKE THE RULES OF THE DNC. NOW LETS BREAK THE RULES AGAIN. LET ME SEE, 2 WRONGS DON'T MAKE A CLINTON, LOL. MI AND FL BROKE THE RULES. AGAIN WE ARE TELLING OUR KIDS, THAT BREAKING THE RULES ARE OK. THE PEOPLE OF MI AND FL WILL GET TO VOTE COME ELECTION TIME. UNLESS THEY WANT TO VOTE A YEAR EARLIER, LOL

So the Obama campaign didn't give the legislature the go ahead for a re-vote, and now their votes won't count. And Obama preaches about the voice of the people, let the people decide, and now he goes back on his word. And everyone calls Clinton a hypocrite!!! Are you kidding me?!? Come on people, it's really Obama that's destroying the party. This newcomer shows up with little experience and a call for "change" and everyone flocks to him. It'll be a sad day when Obama becomes the nominee. I'm not going to vote for McCain because I don't support his views, but surely am not going to support Obama when nobody knows anything about him!

If Obama gets the nomination, then I didn't leave the Party, the Party left ME.

Hillary '08

The end result for the Democratic convention will be to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates per the original votes.

A chance at revote has been eliminated. However, the DNC is fully aware that not seating delegates from any state will produce the public and legal charge of illegitimacy of the intended nominee.

The DNC is trying its best to force Senator Clinton to concede prior to the convention, but she will not.

The DNC-snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

I've always admired Hillary Clinton, through the scandals and all she kept her poise; but she needs to consider the image she portrays lately. I'm seeing a new Hillary, one not so admirable.

Jayhawk, you're right with one thing! The DNC will have to represent the delegates from those states or suffer from losing votes in the general election. I just pray that they come to a conclusion quick.

Hillary '08

Regarding failure to seat delegates from all states:

Not only will the DNC actions result in lost votes, legal challenges will impugn the legitimacy of the Democratic presidential nominee whoever that may be.

Those same legal challenges will be present and unresolved through the November election and result in the Democratic candidate being seen by voters as less than credible and not deserving of support.

Commander Guy,
I would support a caucus over the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan, whether it is to Hillary's benefit or not. Democrats cannot afford to disenfranchise other Democrats.

I seems as if the leadership of the DNC don't understand that it was they who hurt the party, and still is hurting the party.

Hillary '08

cHRIS-Come the general FL and MI WILL speak to Obama in NO uncertain terms.

I will support caucus when the general is conducted through caucuses, not one day sooner.

@WCM: The folks in Michigan would be for it, but Governor Granholm won't allow it as it may support Senator Obama. We also have no money to pay for it.

@Dogsoldier: You've conceded the nomination to Senator Obama? I can't speak for Florida, but Michigan has been a blue state since 1992 and will continue to be while our economy remains in shambles. If a democrat was President, it would be a red state this year. Ultimately, folks here won't cut off their nose to spite our face.

I do believe the caucus is an unfair system. And, I'm not saying that just because I'm a Clinton supporter. What is so hard about letting people just simply vote in a primary?

Hillary '08

You hit the nail on the head, Dogsoldier.

Why should we hold general elections with private ballot but resort to the caucus circus to select candidates?

Texas, by having both primary and caucus, showed all of us just how skewed and unrepresentative caucuses really are.

Caucuses provide no accuracy in voter preference and no legitimacy for candidates selected as a result.

Jayhawk-I'm with you brother!

MIguy-I prefer to let the voters of MI have their say before writing them off. Regard to conceding to Obama stay tuned. All us Hillary supporters will be right here whether Hillary or Obama wins. If Obama then no change in our posture.

Hillary has Texas as a proof that Caucus is nothing but a joke. It is for the super delegates to decide if the want the Democratic Party to flourish or die.

I hope DNC gets both Hillary and Obama in the same ticket and get over with the division of the Democratic Party.

No vote or honoring FL & MI votes means, they going to GOP for sure in November.

@Jonath & Jayhawk:

I've never been in a caucus, so don't really know the allure. From what I have heard, however, is that those who attend feel the 'spirit of democracy' in that they can more than cast their ballot - they can make a statement. So, I guess it would be like the difference between having ABC just poll us on this issue and show yes/no votes and ABC having a blog where we get to say why we vote our view. Caucuses, for better and worse, bring out the passionate supporters of candidates who ultimately are the most likely to vote in the general election. So, I won't tell Iowa and the others how to do their business. Texas seems crazy to me, but that's their business. I like our primaries in Michigan.

Obama is know for legal challenges. He has won most of his elections in the past through legal challenges. He will destroy the party if he is not in the ticket. Hillary is no different either, she is a fighter and will take the DNC with her down.

DNC has only choice get both on the ticket. Hillary/Obama or Obama/Hillary (chicken egg question). There will be lot of horse trading to happen between Obama and Hillary on the top spot.

@GS:

I would've thought it hard for Senators Obama and Clinton to 'kiss and make up' at this point, but Reagan and Bush did it in 1980 even though it was clear they didn't like each other.

MIguy - dont forget JFK and LBJ kissed and made up too.

@DCVoter:

Good to see your informed posts as always. The point is that no politician is completely clean and Senator Obama and Clinton are both politicians.

As for the historical footnotes, they are interesting but before the era of superdelegates. One would expect that no matter the outcome of this nomination, the process will be reevaluated.

Thank you DVCVoter for bringing up a good point with courting the Supers.
Obama has been courting them more than the Clintons.

Hillary '08

MIguy:

We had caucus in my state, and I did not feel comfortable with the process and feel that it did not provide accurate representation.

The atmosphere was one of belittlement and intimidation with little or no opportunity for input from any group other than the majority in attendance.

Basically, the outcome of the caucus was decided before the doors ever opened.

What other states do politically is their business, and I respect their sovereignty and yours.

But, I must maintain the position that caucus is an outdated tool that does not promote the democratic process in candidate selection.

According to the DNCC the 2004 Convention was the most diverse in Democratic Party history: 39.1% of the 4,341 delegates to the Convention were minorities and 2,163 or 49.8% were women. The rules stipulate delegates must reflect the ethincity of the state electorate and 50% must be women. This means most delegates are white. How will that play now that Obama has insulted "typical white voters"?

Currently, Obama leads in delegates by 4%. If the difference changes to 2%, only 41 delegates would tip the vote. This is certainly plausible based on history. The polls go up and down as we expect, but the margin of error is larger than the difference in delegates. The delegate math is not as the Obama camp presents.

MIguy - I realize they were before supers but the balloting at the convention is no different. Every delegate counts (super or not). I read an article recently that reports several senior dems have asked Pelosi to retract her position and asked her to stop interfering in the process. LOL

DCVoter-Apparently Pelosi claims herself neutral.

Jajhawk--I'D like to know where you are getting your information??? Because I have not seen or read any where-- that the DNC wants or has asked "HILLARY" to drop out.It would be nice if she did.Not a Clinton fan

@Jayhawk: Sounds like you had a bad experience. I've never participated in a caucus, so it would be silly for me to argue for them. I wonder why Senator Clinton has done relatively poorly in caucuses when she has fervent supporters and a big campaign machine?

@DCVoter: I understand the point you are trying to raise with the "typical white voters" thing, even though you are slightly misquoting him and taking what he said out of context. What he said (and I'm white) did not strike me at all as what is being implied. As you are well aware, these kind of "gotchas" always pop up in elections and the latest one is what sticks in people's heads. In this case, the Bosnia thing is running its course and will be supplanted with something else next week.

The report you mention is more that 20 prominent Clinton backers sent Pelosi the note. Is Pelosi supposed to bend in homage to Clinton's backers? Not in my view. On the other hand, I don't think she should claim neutrality if she isn't.

Purposes of the superdelegate creation per history of the DNC is specifically related to the landslide defeat of McGovern and incumbent Carter:

1. To increase the sense of order and avert a crisis at the Convention.

2. To get party officials more involved with the eventual nominee.

3. To nominate a candidate who can win.

4. To check against a plurality, factional candidate who does not reflect the prevailing sentiment of the electorate.

In summary, the cure lead by McGovern to have voters elect party delegates was worse than the division in 1968. This is why superdelegates were created. Based on their purposes above, I think the premise of superdelegates voting based on their judgment is sound.

MIguy - I was not referring to white voters feeling insulted based on my view alone. That was reported in the news based on polls... the perception was statistically significant. Tonight's polls show only 19% of Obama supporters would vote for McCain if Clinton is the nominee (41% not happy) but 28% of Clinton supporters would vote for McCain if Obama was the nominee (51% unhappy). Party defectors are a major issue in terms of electability. Prior to the race speech and the subsequent radio interview, the number of defectors was the same.

I dont care who Pelosi endorses or favors. But I agree she is interfering in the process that as a superdelegate herself (a rep of the party) is inappropriate. Personally, I think none of them should have endorsed anyone and all of them should remain silent and let the DNC do its job. If the DNC messes things up win the election win was handed to them, they dont deserve to remain a major party.

@DCVoter:

I'm no supporter of Pelosi, and as I've noted before I believe the superdelegates should vote their judgment. Where we disagree is that I believe they should do it sooner rather than later because the party hurts its chances in the general election the longer they wait (something like 9 out of the last 10 elections).

As for the polls, I'm amused because there have been dueling interpretations of the recent polls which I find comical and irrelevant. For example, you neglect Senator Clinton's very high negative numbers. If Clinton/Obama supporters switch to McCain, then they really weren't Democrats anyway. Or at least they weren't voting on the issues.

I dont ignore the negatives... but voters do based on how they have been voting. If most people truly think those negatives matter, the race would net even be close would it? I think most people think all politicians have negatives but they look at other factors when it comes to voting apparently. As for party defectors, I disagree, I think a lot of defectors do that based on the issues... most of the country are moderates and both Clinton and McCain are moderates. The Congress also tends to be moderate historically because bipartisanship is required to get anything done. Liberals get very little done - example: Obama proposed 55 bills in the 110th Senate, none passed. He proposed 61 bills in the 109th and only 1 passed (Congo).

Let's assume the SDs all endorse in the beginning. Something happens and the candidate they chose is not the most electable. Then they have to change their vote at the convention causing an uproar or political embarassment. Bad news either way. Additionally, voters might be swayed to follow endorsements which I think is a bad way to do things. Voters should vote based on what they want not what other politicians tell them they should want.

The poll in question was a national one if I recall correctly. As such it is including a sample generally excluded from the Democratic primaries/caucuses and worrisome for the national election not the nominating process. To my knowledge, Senator Clinton's favorable ratings are much higher among Democrats and this is borne out in the current process.

I won't argue against Obama being liberal, but Clinton can't argue she is a moderate when she and Obama agree on most every issue. Some would say her view on healthcare is more liberal than Obama.

I am not saying that SDs endorse in the beginning of the campaign. And, as you said, they should exercise their own judgment. But, I don't believe the endorsements matter that much (and at least Mark Penn doesn't think so either). And sure, if the 'political meteor' hits either candidate then change votes at the convention. At this point, there are not enough SDs to let either candidate win and don't you think they would split them? Clinton will win PA and all the talk of frontrunners and stealing the election stops. Each of the remaining elections becomes hugely important and they will decide the nominee. How could anyone cry foul?

I hear ya James... but I also think the courts or the credentials committee will seat them in some way. There are parallel efforts ongoing and neither state issue is dead yet. If the DNC messes this up, they dont deserve to be a major party. As an Independent, I would support the birth of a new party of moderates. Some people say a 3rd party cannot survive but that is because those parties have been single issue parties like the Green Party. But if we had moderate dems, reps, and indies, we would represent the majority of the country.

@James RR:

No disrespect, but please read some of the earlier posts above. Technically, primaries are not in the constitution but your point is well taken. Thanks for your concern about us in Michigan, but we're okay - really. This really is not a big issue here.

We do need an Independent Party.

The negatives I assumed you were referring to were based on Clinton vs. Obama and Clinton vs. McCain. I agree, the numbers we will see for the remaining races will likely make the race tighter and I think they will not only prove neither is a frontrunner and neither can be accused of stealing the nomination but they will also prove that the socalled high negatives (which I dont agree with as being valid) are irrelevant to voting preferences.

As for the "negatives", historically they have little to do with electability. Kerry had low negatives but couldnt beat Bush. Clinton, even with socalled high negatives, remains competitive with Obama and McCain. It is not likely her negatives will go up much if at all either.

Just another polling note that I found amusing... 22% of dems want Clinton out and 22% of dems want Obama out. I guess we should assume there is no overlap and that 56% of dems want it to continue.

MIguy - I dont know that we could safely use that name though. The Independence Party is anti-semitic anti-Isreal. I am not sure what a good name would be though.

The Commander Guy,

Again, I agree caucus would be better than nothing, but there are problems with caucuses. A lot of working class people are excluded, if its run on a Saturday, because they have to work.
========================================
Q: Which presidential candidate has not lifted a finger to ensure that Michigan and Florida voters are heard in this election?
A: Obama, he knows he would lose in a re-vote!

=======================================

LOL DCVoter! Definitely don't want to go there.

How about the Patriot Party? But we'd only win Massachussetts (and we'd lose New York every time).

Republocrats?
Majority Party?
Whigs?

The funny thing is that even if there were a party for independents, my guess is that most would take the George Washington approach and avoid political parties.

Obama is thrilled I'm sure. His plan to disenfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan, where he was sure to lose, has worked. Looks like he hates those 2 states as much as he and old Rev. Wrong hate America.

LOL MIguy

History shows most names are used in some way so a new name is not easy. We cant copy the canadians and use New Democratic Party.

If we used New American Party we would get accused of NAPping all the time.

We cant use the BiPartisan Party without alarming right wingers who think it justifies what they believe as sinful (the bi part). LOL

hahaha - I'm still waiting for the Manchurian candidate stuff to start popping up again about McCain. I don't believe I have ever seen a republican or democrat who hates America.

I'm surprised how few of you people really get it. What these two states did wasn't a bad thing. Michigan and Florida moving up their primaries isn't the problem here. The problem is a system that promotes the vast monority of voters in a few small states be permitted to choose presidential candidates and leaving the rest of us without a voice. Michigan and Florida should be applauded for trying to allow their citizens a chance to participate in the process.

The DNC has disenfranchised voters. This PA Democrat will be going to the polls in April but if something hasn't changed as far as these two states there will be no vote for Obama or Clinton. If we choose a nominee and the voters of these two states are left out in the cold then there will be no vote for a Dem candidate then either and the DNC will have no-one to blame for their November loss but themselves.

Centrist Party might work

double LOL -

What we need is a name with universal appeal. Kissing babies is a political staple but nowadays we'd be branded as child molesters.

Strength party? We'd be accused of supporting legalization of steroids (and weed by insinuation).

Starfleet? Too futuristic and fruity.

I think that the clear reason that there is no viable 3rd party is that no one can think up a name for one.

dk - I agree with the premise of the FL court case that simply argues the DNC did not treat all the states equally because they allowed two other states to go before Feb 5. Dean and cohorts are obviously incompetent but there are still courses of action in the process yet to be taken. We shall see!

LOL Miguy, you might be right... I am partial to Bablyon 5 era myself... so a take off from that would be something like the Alliance Party.

yep me too.. how about Centrist Alliance (unless the centrist party actually takes off with all the money) ROFL

hahahaha! Can't trust the Centrists after all!

(Note: The following comments are merely my opinion.)

Alrite guys, as an independent I must say I am highly abhorred by what the DNC is doing.
The point is, I agree that the DNC is the one who started this mess. Honestly, I don't like staggered primaries; they should reflect the opinions of the people at one moment (and the early states get too much "power). The general election occurs only one one day, why shouldn't the primaries?

Now to the candidates. I must say that this is also partially Clinton's fault. Clinton was the one who brought up this issue, which has greatly divided the Democratic party. If I recall, I believe that she agreed to not count the votes there (feel free to offer solid evidence to contradict me). Although it does seem undemocratic that Obama doesn't want a do-over, the point is he is merely obeying by his superiors.

Finally, I show some sympathy for Florida merely because of the Republican influence down there, but Michigan leaders chose to move the primary on its own and disobeyed the DNC rules. Also, Michigan's results do not truly reflect the opinion of people: Obama wasn't even on the ballot. So, I show no sympathy to Michigan (sorry to you folks down there) to consider the current votes there; Florida I may give a little leniency based on the circumstances.

If you have any evidence, feel free to contradict my statements. Don't go harping on me though; too many supporters of both candidates are so zealous, and they're disillusioning me...

Superdelegates need a MIND and a VOICE of their own.

They should not vote with the people.

Who needs a bunch of MINDLESS and VOICELESS superdelegates.

There is nothing SUPER about being MINDLESS and VOICELESS.

FREEDOM TO VOTE is a RIGHT for everyone, including superdelegates.

Count the votes in MI and FL or

Have a MI and FL re-vote.

Obama claims he did not campaign in FL.
Neither did Hillary. She DID NOT campaign in Florida or Michigan either.

Obama claims he has the popular vote?
How can he have the popular vote when 2.5 million votes in MI and FL has been excluded???

Nice try, Obama

Obama said the American people are behind him? Wrong Obama ... there is 28% of Hillary voters who will sooner vote MCCain than you, not to mention all the right-wing Republicans and the MCCain Independents.

Which presidential candidate has not lifted a finger to ensure that voters in Michigan and Florida are not disenfranchised? I'll give you a clue, his name rhymes with llama.

Barack Obama is winning mainly because he wins caucuses. In Texas we had a primary and a caucus, Hillary Clinton won the primary and Barack Obama the caucus. Barack actually took more delegates from Texas than Hillary. The problem was that there were all types of voting irregularities from cheating to bullying. Caucuses do not seem fair, not just in Texas, but elsewhere there are complaints about excluding voters ranging from the sheer inconvenience of the process to much worse problems.

MIguy: i like your posts. one can tell you apply some rational thinking to your posts. many others on this comment board seem to not truly apply logic or rational thinking when it comes to posting.

senator obama and senator clinton are not to blame for the fiasco of FL and MI. i am so sick and tired of all the blame being thrown at the candidates, particularly at senator obama for a re-vote not being cast. the truth is, each candidate will do what is best for THEIR campaign. if hillary thinks a re-vote will benefit her, then DUH!! of course she will want a re-vote. if a revote may hurt barack, then DUH!! of course he wouldn't be pushing for a re-vote. c'mon people, THINK! use your brains! stop being so silly and angry at the candidates and stop holding them responsible.

since each candidate will only move in a direction that benefits them, then the only honest route to take would be for the government officials and the courts of the FL and MI to negotiate with the DNC directly. we cannot leave the final decision making up to senator clinton or senator obama because they will ONLY chose a path that is beneficial for them. and the DNC cannot place the decision making in the candidates hands either. it won't work.

so everyone needs to stop with the foolish threats of what they will and will not do when the general election comes around. all this anger and talk of "disenfranchisement" is getting to be annoying. the only people who should be truly feeling the brunt of rage and anger of the people are NOT senator clinton and NOT senator obama, it should be governor charlie crist of FL and governor jennifer granholm of MI. THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO SCREWED IT AL UP!!

if the people of MI and FL truly want their voices heard, then fight to the dickens to get these two knuckle heads (crist and granholm) thrown out of office!!

@RightToBeCounted:

i feel for you people in FL and MI, i really do, but NO WAY do i support a re-vote of any kind in your states. 48 other states followed the rules and your states CHOSE to BREAK the rules!! my state followed the rules. it is your silly governors that did that to you. next time follow the dag gone rules!

your governors tried gambling by playing poker with the DNC. the DNC let ALL parties know with CLEAR TERMS: IF YOU JUMP AHEAD OF YOUR PRIMARY DATE ALREADY SET UP FOR YOU THEN YOUR DELEGATES WILL BE STRIPPED! c'mon, what part of that did MI and FL not understand??

now the DNC called your bluff and your gambling did not work. i'm sorry for you all. i really am, the governors of your states played with their own people. they shut you out, but rules were laid out to be followed. and this is the consequences. next time- PLAY BY THE RULES!!

"if hillary thinks a re-vote will benefit her, then DUH!! of course she will want a re-vote. if a revote may hurt barack, then DUH!! of course he wouldn't be pushing for a re-vote. c'mon people, THINK! use your brains! stop being so silly and angry at the candidates and stop holding them responsible."
________________________________________
This is exactly the mentality that befuddles me. This issue isn't about what is right for Hillary and it isn't about what is right for Obama. It'a about what is right for voters. Neither of them should take a stand because of how it affects them. They should stand up for the premise that every vote should count. I bet they applied that argument to the 2000 fiasco in Florida. Now we, as voters, should expect less?

I do hold them responsible because they should be in front of the cameras every single day screaming for the right of voters no matter how it applies to their campaign. The longer they fail to do so is the farther I get away from voting for either of them in the general election.............. and just to note; I have never voted for a Republican candidate for President but that could all change very soon.

Obama cannot win the general election. He lost the clinton democrats. He has lost the independ