I don't think the time is running out at all. We can always fall back to another Kerry election.

Did anyone bother to ask Ickes why he voted to strip Michigan of its delegates last year and yet now feels strongly Michigan is being disenfranchised?

If at first you don't succeed.... blame Obama.

Obama is afraid of a vote which will only confirm anew his previous losses. I say see the Clinton delegates in Michigan and let the Democratic party there choose at large delegates for the voters that didn't vote for Clinton.

And in Florida, just seat the delegates as votes.

Obama needs to come out and say that he supports a Michigan revote but only if all Democrats can vote. Boom. He's a good guy who tried his best, but it will still get killed.

I have a great idea! How about Hillary steps aside so Barack Obama can begin campaigning against McCain?

Yes she can.....step aside!

This is about reminding folks that Senator Clinton is still in the race. Obama's speech has sucked the air out of every other political story today (and rightfully so).

Piss and moan. The matter of FL and MI wouldn't be under discussion if Clinton's DLC campaign had wrapped it up on Super Tuesday like the arrogant folks running her campaign had assumed.

Why should Obama agree to change the rules established going into the campaign, which the Clinton campaign agreed to? He is, after all, ahead and the Clinton campaign has been left with the only option of tearing Obama apart in the eyes of "super delegates."

The problem for Clinton is that the "super delegates" completely understand what the Clinton campaign is up to.

jeez, relax everyone. it will be over soon and you will get what you want.

Mathew:
And where are you getting the "afraid of a vote" facts? thin air? the Clinton campaign (same thing as thin air)?

Facts are:
Michigan and Florida broke the rules and went with early primaries.
They need to be punished for it so future states don't do that.
Michigan will break (according to the polls) more for Obama now than before - so theoretically, Obama should be FOR a revote.

I say - anyone who wants to seat delegates from the first vote from states where the party and the politicians VOWED not to campaign is a HYPOCRITE!

As an Obama supporter, I do think he needs to help make a Michigan revote happen. And frankly, he's far more competitive there than he is in Florida (if one is going to be driven by pure pragmatics)--last poll I saw had him and HRC tied at 41 apiece in Michigan. He should welcome a revote in Michigan; anything, even a narrow loss, would be better than the illegal Hillary 56-unconfirmed 44 result (no way that gets seated anyway, however).

I didn't have any problems with a Florida revote either, but sounds like they just couldn't get it together. I'd go along with Nelson's proposal to seat the delegates at a 50% ratio...at least Obama was actually on the ballot there.

Michael A...
Thanks for the link.

Am I missing something here?
Will republicans who didn't in the initial primary be allowed to vote in a dem redo? If I recall correctly there wasn't a great turnout on that side of the aisle.

I've rarely seen a bigger bunch of whiners than the Obama supporters who post on this site.

Yes, Obama will win the nomination, but forget about attracting many Hillary supporters. Most of them will end up holding their nose and voting for McCain as the lesser of two evils.

None of you have shown the slightest interest in getting Hillary's supporters to side with your candidate.

Yes, you'll have your principled stand by voting for what you think of as the more moral candidate, but you'll still lose the election.

Whatever happened to TPM muckraking?

When Ickes says, "I know the Obama people are going around saying, `We don't need a rerun.'...," why not make him prove it? There's no proof whatsoever that this is true, but it's transmitted again as fact.

Secondly, where's the evidence to support the claim of "Obama camp's refusal to actively push to make a revote happen." There's plenty of evidence to indicate the Obama campaign has been working to find an acceptable solution to the situation. Greg's claim here is Clinton spin presented as reality. So sad.

I've really had a hard time getting to bottom of each camp's movitvations here. I don't know if Obama's camp is the one derailing this or not. That doesn't entirely makes sense to me. This huge uncertainly surrounding FL and especially MI leads us to a virtually certain brokered convention with a full floor vote on the FL and MI delegates. How does this support Obama? Or if he is he one derailing it, does he know some other solution that we don't?

I'm not looking for opinions on this - I'm looking for analysis. Kind of like Michael A. provided. That helped some.

Would appreciate people's insights.

Look it is really very simple, the rules have always been that MI and FL can have their delegates seated if there is a revote. In fact the rules have always been that the DNC decision is not final.

THE RULES ARE NOT BEING CHANGED HERE!

The DNC has always maintained that the disqualified states can come back into compliance by holding a revote. Anyone who claims different is a liar or a Republican.

A lot pf people are getting really very sick of Team Obama's attempts to claim that the only fair thing is not to have an election here. That is a GOP point of view.

Why is it OK for the DNC to disqualify millions of votes from two whole states but somehow unacceptably undemocratic to allow superdelegates? If you think that the first is acceptable you really have no grounds to complain about the second.

The rules are the rules and there has been no change here. MI is going to have a revote and Obama is almost certain to be worse off as a result. Trying to sabotage and sandbag the re-vote has cost him support.

To win the nomination Obama or Clinton has to demonstrate that they have the support of the party. You can't do that when you are trying to stop two states from having any voice in the process.

Two words:
So. What.

If Hillary was leading she wouldn't be pushing for a re-vote. Period.

If I'm Obama, and I'm winning, what reason would I have to reward states that decided not to play by the rules? None.

Sorry Hillary, this argument isn't going to work.

As a Michigan voter, I would like to note the following:

1) I was very excited at the of the Primary to be able to vote from a wide field of candidates.

2) Many people I spoke to were happy about the open primary, as a number of Republicans and 3rd Partiers were excited about Mr. Obama.

3) When it was decided that everyone was to withdraw their name, and only Ms. Clinton and Mr. Kucinich did not, there was quite a bit of anger and hostility.

4) Based on that hostility, the campaign to vote "None of these Candidates" to express the mood of NONE of the Republicans or HRC, or DK was promoted in the local media.

5) Many of us tho, given a snowstorm on that day, just decided "why bother?" (I concede, I did not vote as my para-transit bus was not transporting people that day, due to the snow. Since my husband doesn't drive, and had received permission to ride with me, he also did not vote.)

6) In a state with a low turn-out, and only 2 names on the ballot, HRC was only able to snag 55% of the vote, with DK grabbing 1%, and None of these Candidates grabbing 45%.

7) A revote, which is expensive, in a state that has already been in a recession for 5 years, would cost more than we can afford ... in money, or in obligations that would be owed to the winning candidate.

8) If the revote happens, it is supposed to be ONLY registered Democrats, which will skew the earlier numbers.

9) Michigan is not being disenfranchised. We made our choice: 46% of our voters do NOT want HRC (None + DK's 1%).

10) The issue that is upsetting HRC over this is NOT the "disenfranchisement of voters", but the SUPERdelegate count, since the Supers cannot vote if the state delegates are not approved. Most of the SDs of MI and FL have silently chosen HRC.

11) Michigan does understand rules and the idea of fair play. Our party, despite editorials and party member protests, opted to move the date (yet another thing for which our governor will one day have to atone).

12) Michigan rank-and-file voters--the every day John and Jane Doe who are wondering how to keep themselves/their families fed, housed, and warm realize that, once again this was the decision of political insiders.

13) But those same rank-and-file voters understand the concepts of honesty and truthfulness. We have been lied to, consistently, and become more and more economically ruined since GWH Bush. (Actually, Reagan wasn't a picnic...) In the '80s, bumper stickers that said "Will the last one out of Michigan, please turn out the lights?" proliferated. Most of the rank-and-file voters did not have the money to leave, so the light stayed on, going from a 150-watt bulb to 25-watt.

14) We in Michigan want a change in lighting. To our understanding, Mr. Obama wanted the proposed plan to look over, and judge its fairness to the people of Michigan--not just scrawling a signature to get what one wants--as his opponent has done. Since he has taken longer than she believes is necessary to look over the document, she has accused him of dragging his heels.

15) I am still looking for a copy of the proposed plan to look at. The best I have found is a roughed out idea of only registered Democrats being able to vote, in a primary paid for by one of HRC's supporters. This, quite frankly, scares me.

16) Should we get a revote? Honestly, I don't believe so. Our elected leaders made a decision (one that they will eventually see come home to roost) that they thought was in Michigan's best interest, since HRC was predicting that the campaign would be over well before the time Michigan would have a chance for input. We gambled, and we lost. We understand loss--we have the Lions, the closed factories of the Big 3, and Canada's garbage barges.

It is time for politics as usual to come to an end. If the other 48 states can pull out a victory for Mr. Obama, Michigan will vote for him. If, on the other hand, the states pull out a victory for Ms. Clinton, Michigan will vote, but possibly not with as high of a turn out. Because that vote would be a vote for politics as usual. And that is a bill we can no longer afford to pay.

elfkunkel - Your comment is excellent. It should be an OP all of its own.