this is just stupid ... what idiot would agree to this????

ain't gonna fly

I don't see how Obama agrees to this. I give them credit, they are trying any possible way to get this re-vote to happen, but this plan on its face is just bad.

Umm...national polling? Yeah, which poll and when?

Let's go off of the Intrade numbers :P

hmmm...

And Greg:

While you are transcribing the notes from the Clinton campaign (so them on Swampland where they were honest enough to print them as notes from the Clinton campaign), did you see Roosevelt's (co-chair of the DNC committee): There WILL be no seating of delegations (in any form) without some sort of revote (Boston Globe, this morning I believe).

Also: No matter how much you BLARE!!! polling results (also on Politico and Political Wire), did you have a sense that the discourse around this race has shifted?? That the "uncertainty" is hardening into an in-your-face fact that this thing is coming to a close??? That the impact of Obama's speech is a point of interest of those who are truly interested in doing more than shoring up Clinton (NYTimes, surprisingly, this morning with TWO articles).

Also: Why doesn't TPM do something on the heavily redacted WH Clinton papers? Invisible earmarks?? and invisible tax returns??

I noticed a couple of days ago a conversation started a couple of days ago about the startling lack of diversity on TPM staff. What is interesting is not such much the lack of ethnic diversity, but TPM could really sometimes use the perspective of age. For example, for many of us who really can remember the Clinton years, all of this anxiety, playing with the rules/language, win at any costs, bullying (Michigan into a primary)is so very, very familiar. If this page had some historical perspective, then it would not be so easily manipulated by the campaign.

Also: Fly-on-the-Wall is useful, because this page reports stats/polls with a remarkable lack of sophistication (and I would say this whether or not they report Obama is up or down).

I don't see how the DNC will allow this. I thought the DNC said re-vote or nothing. The rules have to followed.

Hold a new election or don't. But these "fair" compromises don't make any sense.

They can propose anything they want to, there will be no re-vote in Florida or Michigan. Why would Barack Obama want to be charitable to Hillary Clinton after all she's done and is still trying to do to hurt him and the Democratic Party?

Florida's Democratic lawmakers are trying to cover their behinds for their absolutely stupid move of defying the DNC along with Michigan. They, just like the candidates, knew what they were doing and what the repercussions would be. Now they're trying to change the rules along with Mrs. Clinton.

Not to worry because their delegates can be seated for Barack Obama when he officially wins the nomination.

Now I since we're starting the sixth year in Iraq, consider that Hillary has a streak of bad decisions that she later tries to disown. She knew perfectly well what her Iraq vote meant, but now refuses to apologize for it but in essence says she didn't know what it meant. Now with the Florida/Michigan situation which she agreed to knowing full well what that agreement meant, she is again saying she doesn't agree with her decision.

She was for it before she was against it, just like her Iraq vote. Now she's acting like the protector of the "disenfranchised" even stooping so low as to put a racial Civil Rights spin on her rhetoric. It seems to be a pattern with her and goes to the essence of why it is a blessing for Democrats that she will lose the nomination. She is willing to do anything even hurt the party to win.

If the situations were reversed and Obama was in her shoes, don't think for a second that she would be pushing for a revote. What would do you think she would tell Obama and Florida what they could do with their proposal. Just like her Iraq vote, she made her bed and has to sleep in it.

Senator Obama has proven time and time again even when his decisions or judgment was not the best, that he is willing to take responsibility for them. He's proven that with Iraq and with his agreement to playing by the DNC rules among other equally serious things. Hillary can't even release her earmark history, her tax information, and has blacked out so much of her first lady schedules that it raises more questions than answers--very Cheney-esque.

Also, a re-vote would be extremely unfair to John Edwards, Bill Richardson and the others who were still on the ballot at the time.

Just say no.

More stupid "how can we cheat?" type solution.

I say there are two options:

- 50/50 split

or

- revote without all kinds of stupid exclusions

If Hillary can't agree to these, so be it.

MORE GOOD NEWS FROM THE CLINTON TALKING POINTS MEMO!

This is getting silly.

Revote, ok. It's probably a waste of time and a deliberate distraction by the Clinton campaign, but it does at least give people in Florida (and Michigan) the chance to express themselves.

I don't see any point whatsoever in a contrived delegate split. There's just nothing gained by it.

Are you guys going to do a post on the Clinton schedules that were released? The NAFTA thing seems very pertinent. (Unfortunately, the MSM is just focusing on the Lewinsky stuff, which is just typical.)

If I were a Florida or Michigan voter, I'd be very interested in having my voice heard at the convention. And when I say "having my voice heard," I mean the results of a fair election, not some mumbo-jumbo cooked up to allow the seating of some group of delegates selected in a way that has little or nothing to do with the preferences of the electorate.

Can anyone explain how splitting the delegates 50/50 is any less of a disenfranchisement than locking them out altogether -- or, for that matter, seating them based on the results of an election where there was no campaigning, where people chose to vote (or not) under the assumption that there vote wouldn't count, and where (in the case of Michigan) one of the candidates wasn't even on the ballot?

What I hate about this whole Florida-Michigan thing is the way Obama is in another box (the first box being if he fights Hillary he's betraying his campaign promises and if he doesn't he's a wimp)--if he protests seating their delegates according to any formula that's been proposed so far as unfair, he's portrayed as being against democracy or against the citizens of FLA and MI having a voice. And the MSM is promoting this interpretation with most of their headlines "Obama Opposed to Revote" or "Obama Opposed to Seating Delegates" when they could equally say "Hillary Trying to Break Rules" or at the very least "Revote Impossible". Folks who only read headlines are getting a very distorted picture of Obama trying to silence the people of 2 states.

Revote, no revote the Super D's still decide.
First I'll say I agree with the general sentiment here. Why someone would call this a new plan when it is patently unworkable and useless is over my head.
The answer to the Fla and MI issue already exists. Superdelegates will each have an opinion at the end of the day what the reasonable probable results of a full out Fla/MI revote would add to Hillary's and Baracks total. For discussion sake say a range of Hillary 4 to 10 delegate uptick and 100,000 to 350,000 vote uptick.
If the high end of these numbers turns out to be crucial to the final national tallies, the super delegates can base their decisions on that perception. Conversely if it's clear that Barack wins the pledged delegate count and the total vote count, the super delegates can base their choices on that perceived data.
The point is, that the candidate who becomes the Democratic nominee will in all cases be called to compete with McCain by the super delegates. They know today what the probable results of a Fla/Mi redo would be and can cast their votes with an easy conscience. Additional polling which would include the mathematically modeled results that Barack always, always closes any Hillary advantage when he campaigns in a state could be purchased to clarify probable results.
I think that there is a 95% chance that the super delegates have more than enough reliable information on Fla/MI outcomes to cast their support to either Barack or Hillary comfortably and intelligently.
Revote, no revote, the super d's are get to call the eventual outcome. Move on.

I wouldn't call that a plan.

More like a vague suggestion.

Just about the only good that could come of this whole mess is if it sparks a discussion of primary reform. Wiki has reasonably good coverage of the various proposals, the one I like is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interregional_Primary_Plan

another that is good is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graduated_Random_Presidential_Primary_System

Apologies if these topics are discussed above, didn't have time to read it all.

It's rumored that Clinton has wrangled unofficial commitments from most of the FL Superdelegates and that is a key reason she is so keen on having the Florida delegation seated. Any discussion of how the above compromises would affect superdelegates allocated to Florida? How would the compromises affect the legitimacy of including the Florida popular vote in the nationwide totals?