The assertion by the Clinton camp that the result in Michigan was "fair" offends me.

Open Letter to the Clinton Campaign:

Please obey the rules you signed off on.

Thank you,
Hoost

100 percent political strategy.
Obama has always said that he will follow whatever the party decides. Now that it seems the party isn't going to decide anything they want it to seem like Obama isn't supporting a revote. Legally you cant have a mail in vote in Florida (101.6102 Mail ballot elections; limitations.--)
IMO you just split the dam delegate count (super and pledge). They broke the rules, they knew what would happen if they broke the rules. No one stop them from breaking the rules and Hillary didn't care at all about the votes there until she realized she was so far behind. This isn't even about pledge delegates, if MI and FL had a revote she wouldn't gain much in terms of pledge delegates but she would gain a lot of SUPER delegates. They are also just trying to get the media to focus in on FL and MI again.

*Tear*

I'm sorry I just get so choked up when the Clinton's want to defend democracy like that.

Especially the democratic process in Michigan where it was her or unknown.

The assertion by the Clinton camp that the result in Michigan was "fair" offends me.

It was fair. They won, end of story. ;-)

Clinton's people will keep on putting their foot down in for an unreasonable position. So, Obama's people should do the same (50/50 split)until Team Clinton blinks.

Rules are rules.

SPLIT THE VOTE 50/50.

End of story, save tax money, same results.

Ugh. This campaign sickens me. Democrats should be ashamed of this.

Yes, the crocodile tears by the Clinton campaign for the much ballyhooed, and abused defense of democracy is revealing.

The thing I've found most troubling this campaign season is the complete disregard for established rules agreed to for this primary campaign. Both Obama and Hillary agreed to disenfranchising MI and FL before a single vote was cast. Obama went so far to take his name off the MI ballot. Cynically, Clinton left hers on. Now that the race is tight, and Clinton is losing, she has found her voice, and it's for those same "disenfranchised" voters of MI and FL that she had earlier thrown under the bus. Democracy truly matters when you need their votes. Some contests are more equal than others.

Her disdain for rules was revealed earlier in NV, when the Culinary Union didn't play ball and backed Obama versus her. Then, all of a sudden, those bleeding "at large caucus" sites which had been agreed to by everyone, were down right undemocratic. The irony is that Hillary actually won the at large caucuses. Had her union busting lawsuit succeeded, she may have handed the win to Obama.

So, listening to Hillary talking about democracy is like getting lectured on chastity by Eliot Spitzer.

If the MUST be counted, I've said in the past that they should take the total 366 (Florida/Michigan) and divide them between the other 48 states. Who ever wins that state (popular vote) wins those delegates.

Simple and FAIR.

But I still question WHY do these voters get a SECOND CHANCE of voting? What's stopping me and others from DEMANDING a DO OVER? Maybe I've changed my mind and want to vote for somebody else now that I've seen the way the race is going?

Setting aside that this is patently absurd (and, Eric, this isn't reaching out, it's threatening), this isn't up to Obama or Clinton. As Obama made clear last night, he'll abide by whatever the DNC decides.

This is yet more game-playing from the Clinton campaign and the consistently repellent Maggie Williams. She sure doesn't disappoint!

I proposed this solution in a previous post. Punish the state party leadership not the rank and file.

I believe the Democrats need to find some way to make this situation palatable. Splitting 50/50 in Florida? Not sure that would cut it.

It certainly won't cut it from Hillary's perspective. Hillary's preference is to have the delegates seated as they were voted in the "beauty contest". In FL as in Michigan, where she was running against the formidable "uncommitted".

I'm happy, in a sense, to see that the FL delegation is going to oppose any sort of redo. Then the question becomes, how do you apportion delegates based on outcomes that were uncontested. KOS' suggestion of cutting the delegates in half and splitting them down the middle is imminently reasonable.

Here is an imaginary solution to the MI and FL conundrum. Let the DNC call a pre-convention conference of super delegates, including those from MI and FL. Let this body then deliberate and vote on a logically progressive series of propositions, something as follows:

1) Shall the DNC suspend its previous ruling and seat the MI delegation as it stands? If the vote is yes, then the MI delegation shall be seated at the convention unchanged. If the vote is no, then the super delegates must vote on a second proposition:

2) Shall new elections or caucuses be held to select a new MI delegation? If the vote is no, then no MI delegation shall be seated at the convention. If the vote is yes, then the super delegates must consider a third proposition:

3) Shall the selection of the new MI delegation be by mail-in ballot or by caucus? The result shall be binding, and the DNC shall commit itself to coordinating fund-raising efforts to cover the costs of whatever method is adopted.

Then let the same series of propositions be posed in the case of FL.

Preferably this conference would take place before the PA primary and would complete its deliberations within no more than three days.

I did say this was imaginary. I'm trying to think outside the box. My question is: Do you think this proposal would be more methodical and just than the present tail-chasing and name-calling?

Call me naive.

Yeah this is ridiculous to me. It should be offensive to anyone who plays by the rules. The rules were agreed upon by everyone prior to the start of the process. All of a sudden, after she started losing, the rules don't matter anymore. I agree we need to find a solution to this, but its ridiculous to just take the results as is and apply them.

If you read more into it, the Dem turnout was less than the Republican turnout in these states, which goes to show that many people stayed home, thinking it wouldn't matter. This would have changed had all the candidates been allowed to campaign there and be on both ballots.

Just an example of how the DNC leadership is idiotic and is shooting the whole party in the foot. Sad.

1. There is a larger issue. If Florida and Michigan suffer no consequences, then we can count on beginning the 2012 campaign in the summer of 2009. On a personal level, I confess my views are colored by the fact that it absolutely sets me off when anyone, be it an individual, a corporation, an organizataion or a polity, takes the position that he/she/it is too big and important to have to follow the rules and can break them without consequences. But the larger principle is critical.

2. People act like Howard Dean can just wave his hand and say "so be it!" and it will be done. It ain't that simple. The laws of two states have to be changed by the very same dumbass state legislatures that created this clusterf**k in the first place, the rules laid down by the Call to Convention have to be changed and all three sets of changes have to match up despite the overwhelming temptation for people in all three bodies to screw it up, or to use the threat of screwing it up to obtain benefits for themselves.

3. Ditto, all these proposals about "splitting them 50-50 and halving the delegations." That's something only the credentials committee, which would have to ratified by the convention as a whole, which could only be done after all the other delegates have been selected. Yeah, that'll go through without a fight and without a hitch. And notice how this process deprives the candidates of the opportunity and time to exercise normal control the selection and insurance of fidelity of the delegates.

4. If Williams was serious about doing something, she wouldn't sending out "an open letter." It would have been a private phone call. "Open letter" = political posturing. It is no different in purpose, meaning or effect, from a campaign memo or a conference call. Doing this is a tactical mistake because it is an invitation to Axelrod to openly take a high ground position that is unacceptable to Hillary. Something like "this whole thing would have been settled long ago if Hillary had taken her name off of the Michican ballot when the rest of us did and if she hadn't broken her pledge not to campaign in Florida. But, fine, we want full revotes in both states and we think both campaigns should split half the cost." (No chance in hell, btw, that that could ever happen at this point.)

Dear Ms. Williams

I'm obligated to continue to honor the original decision set forth by the Democratic National Committee, and therefore I don't think it would be fair to Senator Clinton, or any other candidate for that matter, for me to accept delegates from Michigan and Florida. But in the spirit of compromise, and the understanding that the issue of having a unified democratic party is bigger than any one person's ambitions, I'm willing to split the delegates.

Respectfully,

Barack Obama

Hypothetically, out of curiosity, if they decide NOT to count Florida and Michigan - shouldn't the total needed to achieve the nomination be reduced?

Never underestimate the Clintonites' ability to put sh*t on a bun, call it a hamburger, and tell you to eat it.

That was good, here's another one I heard:

Never underestimate the Clintonites' ability to hold three fingers in front of your face and tell you its two.

Create your own analogies!

If the argument is that you don't want to "disenfranchise" the voters by denying them delegates at the convention, then the only true solution is to split them 50/50. Then the delegates are seated but neither candidate is advantaged by seating them.

If of course the idea is to give yourself one last desperate shot at the nomination then the solution is the Clinton plan.

So let me get this right,The Clinton campaign is "offering an olive branch" by offering to "compromise" by getting exactly what they want? Does that not sound vaguely familiar?
After 7 years of the Bush administration I'm ready for someone who understands that compromise means both sides win.

There was nothing fair about the voting process in MI or FL.

Both states voted under the presumption that their votes would not count.

Consequently millions did not even vote. That means the outcome in BOTH states is UNFAIR.

Just because Obama's name was on the ballot in FL does not mean the voting process was fair, it wasn't.

Hillary's posture of not wanting to disenfranchise those who voted is wrong. She is not focused on the millions who did not vote because they ABIDED by the RULES, just like Obama.

There should not be any do-overs!!

The delegates should be split 50-50. End of story.

The rules in place at the time MUST be enforced and the only way to do that is to split the delegate count down the middle and give half to each candidate.

NO DO OVERS!!!!!!

Obama's campaign needs to take the 50-50 stand and not waver just like Hillary refuses to accept caucuses.

Obama is not againt a mail-in vote. He has publicaly said many times he will go along with whatever FAIR decision the DNC comes up with, meaning you can't give Hillary what she wants just because she wants it.

What he has said is that if there is a mail-in vote as a redo for Florida, great care must be taken that the process is not subject to fraud, that everyone who wants to vote can vote, and that the votes are accurately counted. But his biggest concern is whether such an effort can be mounted in the short time that has been suggested, and stil be doable with the proper guidelines.

You should be more careful about understanding your position before popping off.

I don't see how splitting the vote 50/50 is materially different from not counting the votes at all. It certainly wouldn't represent anything real about the state's voters.

The only thing it might accomplish is to make some of the talking heads stop yapping :)

The Dem party in FL and MI screwed their constituency when THEY tried to game the system.

HLC also tried to load the dice by allowing the supposedly symbolic gesture of keeping her name on the ballot. In doing so she flipped a big ol' bird at Howard Dean and the DNC.

The right thing to do would be a do-over at state's expense. But I think that's never gonna fly. We'll probably end up with the symbolic 50/50 split.

The Dems sure are working hard to ensure an appearance of disarray, aren't they?

To let the votes in MI or Fl stand as is would be an insult to every other voter who cast their vote in a legitimate primary this year...I don't want to punish the people of those states for the actions of their dimwit legislatures, but they simply cannot let these sham results stand. Michigan doesn't even warrant discussion. Florida is a different case, but still a sham. If I was a Florida democrat, I wouldn't have bothered to vote in that primary, why would I? It can't count towards the nomination?? This is the equivalent of a CNN or ESPN poll on TV or the internet...we can't take it seriously, it doesn't have any REAL consequences.

It is a total farce for the Clinton camp to even suggest that "letting the vote stand" in MI and FL is a viable possibility. This ridiculous "open letter" is certain to be followed by assertions that Obama wants to "disenfranchise" 2.5 million Americans. These people were disenfranchised by their own elected representatives, not the DNC, Obama, or anyone else. If they have a gripe, it is with their own states.

Obama's stance is reasonable: He will abide by the rules and the course of action that the DNC settles on. What olive branch is needed here? If anything, that stance favors Clinton, who is arguing to honor the (unfairly skewed) results.

If I was an Edwards supporter -- from any state -- I would be seeing red. Do-overs cannot recreate that moment in time when he was a wholly viable candidate. Who knows, he might have done well in Michigan and earned himself a nice bit of momentum. I feel sorry for the actual voters in Michigan and Florida, they were indeed screwed. But they were screwed by state officials that they can vote out of office.

Oh, and I'm from Oregon. This mail-in system took time to really get right. We have an entire signature registry to help prevent any fraud.

TPM.. this is a biased headline. She is not making a peace offering. She's telling Obama.. here's what I want do it or not.

Why should anyone accept the votes as they are? That woudl be breaking the rules.

Why only accept a primary revote? Why not a caucus revote? Its cheaper and more feasible to do.

But of course, we call this an olive branch - its not. Its simply a way for the Clinton campaign to look better while still offering what they've always wanted. Its not compromise at all.

Maggie, you silver-tonged peacemaker you - you left out the Solution We Must Not Even Consider.

The third, and best, option: the Chris Dodd solution. Split the delegations 50-50, and seat them at the convention. No changing the vote.

Next time, follow the rules.

Plenty of screeching and face-clawing and eye-poking from the Clinton campaign, but they are going to do that anyway. More importantly, no Democratic money wasted on this stupid situation.

Next time, INCLUDE THE PENALTY IN THE RULES. Sheesh.

And no Democratic energy spent on trying - if they even would - to make fair a solution that would - let's face it - take place in two Clinton-friendly boards of elections.

50-50. On to Pennsylvania to be further horrified by Hillary Clinton and the Archie Bunker campaign. And just once, Democrats - quit allowing the Clinton-Rove cornered-rat campaign to scare the bejeebies out of you.

Come on, non-DLC Democrats. Come on, Howard Dean. 50-50 is not just the best solution, it's the only one. Anything else is just more death by kitchen sink.

(and by the way, I'm all for a do-over of some kind, because I want MI and FL to count even though they were silly in January)

If my vote is not counted I will not vote in the GE. It was bad enough when the republicans did it to me in 2000. I won't support a democratic party that does the same to me again. There are many in Fl who feel the same. Some one better figure out a way to revote or they can just write off Fl in the GE.

God no. I'm done with the Clintons at this point. Throw those bums out already and take down McCain.

Oceankat --

Your vote did count. Hillary includes your vote in her tally (but, curiously, excludes caucus votes) when she claims that she has received more votes. It is an official vote.

The problem is that, like most self-entitled people, you think the rules don't apply to you.

This is so simple a four year old can grasp it:

Rule: If you move the primary, you get zero delegates.

Florida: I'm moving the primary anyway.

DNC: Suit yourself, morons!

Florida: What a great primary! Hey, where are our delegates?! That's not fair!

* * * * *

If Florida had simply stayed where it was, it would be IMMENSELY important now. Heck, if you had moved to June, you Floridians would have had TRIPLE the delegates. Instead, ya got greedy . . . wanted to show everybody . . . didn't think the rules appied to you . . so now you are stuck with fewer delegates and less juice than Wyoming. How ya like them apples!