Let's see, has Granholm endorsed Clinton? And Crist is a Republican, and they want a Clinton nomination, right? Hmm, let me think. Whatever could be happening here?

Uh-huh, Hillary's hands are the ones pushing these two into the limelight. Not. Going. To. Happen.

Choices: re-vote in both; seat delegates but no votes; announce the two runners in one ticket and then seat the delegates with votes since now it doesn't matter.

Seating these folks with votes at the convention will simply be too divisive. Will. Not. Happen.

A Clinton supporter and a McCain supporter.

"The right to vote is at the very foundation of our democracy,"

, and doublespeak is the foundation of ... the opposite of democracy. How these governors can with a straight face offer as legitimate the results of two primaries in which the candidates were not permitted to campaign, and in one case in which only one active major candidate was even on the ballot -- well, it beggars my supply of synonyms for "chutzpah."

They should run the primaries again, if they wish. But don't tell me those "delegates" belong anywhere near a democratic Democratic convention.

Let's do a re-vote in Michigan without Clinton's name on the ballot and then see how the Clinton Camp and her supporters feel about it.

I'd love to see someone ask Granholm to explain whether she feels that Obama enjoys 0% support among her constituency. How can you possibly seat delegates when there was only one name on the ballot?

And Crist's agenda is too blatant to require comment.

I am really shocked that the Times, in their story on this, did not mention the fact that Granholm is a Clinton superdelegate. This is not a case of sour grapes. That crucial nugget is an important element of the story.

Lousy journalism.

Eric, you might want to consider adding an update to alert readers that Granholm is a confirmed Hillary Superdelegate. Just a thought.

I'm all for a re-vote in both places. If it's the only way to end this thing then let's do it.

She can't win. Even if she wins a re-vote in FL and MI.

Does anyone have Clinton campaign quotes about the need to protect the integrity of the early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire? They sure weren't outraged about MI and FL voters when the Hillary campaign was in Iowa and NH.

It is okay for the states to break the rules, but then demand fairness, go to hell.

This issue pretty much encapsulates why I am an Obama guy.

This argument is so dishonest, illogical, and internally inconsistent that it makes one's head hurt trying to think it through. And it is exactly the kind of "rubber reality" that the Bushies have perfected over the years.

I simply can't stand to listen to it anymore. It makes my head hurt. I hope I'm not alone.

I've been covering my ears every time anyone from the Bush administration opens their mouth for 6 years now just to keep the crazy out. I'm already doing the same for the Clinton team, and this makes me sad.

Save us Jeebus.

One small correction: any meaningful credentials fight won't be up to the committee - it'll ultimately be referred to the floor. So we could easily face a situation in which every delegate, including every federal elected official in the Democratic Party, finds it necessary to cast a vote on this issue. That, in a word, would be disasterous.

Michigan Gov. Granholm Endorses Hillary Clinton for President, Oct 19, 2007

This is disappointing. A re-vote is the only real solution to this problem. Everyone's interests are best served by a re-vote, so declarations of intransigency are bad news for everyone involved.

There is no reason to re-vote or seat delegates. Rules are rules. Clinton agreed to them.

The real story here is that, once again, Hillary is trying to circumvent agreements to suit her own win-at-all-costs ends. Agreements be damned. Let's have that discussion.

This game of pretend we've all engaged in to indulge her scheming is ridiculous.

I have ZERO sympathy for MI. It is a Blue State that screwed its own voters. If the MI voters are pissed then they need to elect a different Governor and get rid of Carl Levin.

Florida, I have a bit of sympathy for, but I am not convinced the a new vote is fair to other states that followed the rules. The Florida Democratic party toyed with the idea of holding its own party sponsored Presidential nominating caucus/primary to avoid sanctions, but they didn't do that, did they?

Florida and Michigan voters should make local Democrats pay, not the national candidates. The leadership in both states tried to make sure their states counted BEFORE anyone knew the race would be this tight. Had they left their primaries as originally scheduled they would have been in the thick of it. But, STATE party officials screwed up, and now they pay the penalty for trying to game the system. The remaining states are being rewarded for playing by the rules, and rightfully so.

Make them stop, please. Or, more to the point, make Granholm stop. How can it be suggested that the delegates from Michigan be seated when their choices were Clinton, Kucinich, and Uncommittee? Seriously. Don't do this, Jennifer. Don't. It's just going to reinforce that nasty stereotype of Clinton as being solely interested in her own political welfare, and screw the rest of the country...

Is Karl Rove involved in this? I know it seems fantastic to wonder if he is advising one of the Democratic candidates, but when a skit like this appears on TV, I have to wonder:

On FNC, Karl Rove sat in with the Fox & Friends crew for the interview, and made his presence known (he was also present for the Obama interview 10 minutes later). Midway through Steve Doocy's questioning of Clinton, Rove slipped Doocy a piece of paper, which Doocy read. "More U.S. presidents have been born in the month of October than any other month. You were born in..." he asked.

"October, thank you Karl! I mean the omens are just stacking up, what can I say?" responded Clinton. Raw Story has the video of the interview.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Rove_participates_in_Clinton_Obama_interviews_0305.html

I think Obama should take this as an issue--re votes in Michigan and Florida. It would endear him to the voters and, heck, I don't mind shipping a bit of money to a fund dedicated to assisting in paying for said re-votes. :)

Can we not go on the offensive with a good plan that endears Obama to the voters in these two states and undercuts Hillary?

Just another day in the life of the Clinton propaganda machine.

Gee, the party being torn apart...just what they wanted.

I wish we could hold another primary. Let Hillary win another "stunning" 51-48 victory in Florida, give her another +4 delegates and be done with this nonsense.

I agree completely that there needs to be a revote, but does it bother anyone else that such a scenario would give those two states even more power than they were seeking by moving up their primaries? Not much of a punishment...

Any math whizzes out there? Can you run the numbers and see how Clinton could possibly upset this thing with new races in MI and FL?

She can't. That's why her people have been pushing so hard for seating the existing delegations. They're only grudgingly beginning to entertain the idea of a revote as it becomes clear that there's zero chance the party will seat the current delegations. And I heartily agree that Obama should get out front right now and endorse the revote idea.

Molly Ivins wrote a great article shortly after GWB's "reelection," in which she said:

"My friend John Henry Faulk always said the way to break a dog of that habit is to take one of the chickens the dog has killed and wire the thing around the dog's neck, good and strong. And leave it there until that dead chicken stinks so bad the dog won't be able to stand himself. You leave it on there until the last little bit of flesh rots and falls off, and that dog won't kill chickens again. The Bush Administration is going to be wired around the neck of the American people for four more years, long enough for the stench to sicken everybody. It should cure the country of electing Republicans."

Maybe electing McCain would do the same. The SC is in the balance, so that's a risk I can't take, no matter how angry I am, or how justified my feelings may or may not be. But the prospect of HRC as president worries me deeply; the hatred the Clintons engendered did much to make Bush II possible, and 8 years of another stupid, incompentent, reactionary GOP administration in response doesn't seem at all far-fetched.

Man, do I miss Molly.

The full article is available at: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1112-24.htm

What universe are you living in - he campaigned in Florida? And Uncommitted = Obama?

Did you graduate from the North Korean School of Democracy?

Alternatives have been on offer from day 1 for Florida and Michigan and their parties have refused - disenfranchising their own voters.

A fair NEW contest though is legitimate...

Dean called the bluff of Granholm and Crist. Submit a plan that complies with DNC rules or STFU. Florida Democratic chairman Karen Thurman is already showing what a sham the Florida complaints have been.

Thurman: "At this time, no suggested alternative process has been able to meet three specific and necessary requirements: the full participation from both candidates, a guaranteed commitment of the millions of dollars it will cost to conduct the event and a detailed election plan that would enfranchise all Florida Democrats, including our military service members serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere."

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/dnc_encouraging_florida_and_mi.php

Shorter Thurman: We just like to whine, not have fair elections. Seat Hillary Clinton's delegates from the bogus beauty contest or we'll whine some more.

I'm tired of Florida and Michigan with their princess and the pea act. 48 other states managed to submit contests that complied with DNC rules. It's not the rest of America's fault your Democratic Party officials are filled with selfish morons who can't read or rulebook or understand legal precedent.

One other thorny issue here: giving in to these two states would leave the Parties with no credible way to control the primary scheduling.

States would know that threats to unseat delegates are hollow. It could be chaos in four years with everyone moving up their primaries.

Maybe Obama could just take his name off the ballot in PA and then his fans could claim that state shouldnt count either?

In January the leaders of MI and FL were asserting very strongly that their delegates would be seated. Obama and Edwards took their own names off the ballot voluntarily because they knew they would lose to Clinton in MI. Obama pledged not to campaign in FL, then he immediately held a presser the next day. Further, Obama ran TV ads in FL. Clinton did not.

No rules are being changed. Obama's followers are acting like the SUPERDELEGATES shouldn't have their independence, but that's the only thing close to a rule change I've seen requested.

Obama did campaign in FL. Further, he ran TV ads. His violation was so blatant that he held a press conference the day after pledging not to hold any campaign activity.

So following rules to allow superdelegates their independence is sinister?

I am uncertain how this works gen, but if Hillary gets 2025 delegates, I think she should be the nominee. Just because you may strenuously object to her winning--doesn't change that she should be the nominee if she gets the required delegate count.

Now certainly I hate to disappoint all the Democrats in Idaho and Utah and Alabama and South Carolina, but rules are rules. Whomever gets 2025 delegates should be the nominee.

And no rule that I know if asserts that superdelegates are bound by Oregon Democrats to support whomever they want.
They are independent.