Well, you should have thought about that before you violated dnc rules for the primary to help your buds, the clintons. You have noone to blame but yourself and the rest of the dem party people in michigan who pushed to violate dnc rules. Sorry.

Something is wrong! Obama had nothing to do with this? Who would have thought such a thing. Shocked!

I think MI and FL is one of the biggest mistakes Obama made in his campaign. I think it is comparable with Wright in terms of his prospect in November.

If he wins the nomination, McCain will be all over this in MI and FL.

"Sen. Obama didn't fight for your voice in Michigan and Florida. He will not fight for your voice in the White House"

This is a place where the supper delegates could prove their worth and have the effect of the Republican's winner-take-all primaries. That is they can amplify the results of the "by the rules" primaries to the point where seating the Michigan and Florida results won't make a difference.

That is the only positive way out of this mess.

Will that happen? One can only hope.

Thank goodness. I hope this is over. Yet another "issue" where very few people actually bother to look at any facts other than the ones convenient to their candidate's political posturing.

I like that the UAW was involved in working out the details. And it would be paid for by wealthy donors. Ahh, can ya smell the American Politics?

Note that she blames the state senate for not acting. Not Obama.

Ten bucks says that if he's the nominee, he'll eventually seat them. Any takers?

Obama does not want the votes to count in Michigan and Florida because he will lose.

Is this how you want him to be the nominee?

Clinton: “For the life of me, I don’t understand why Senator Obama seems to be afraid of letting there be a re-vote in Michigan, you’ll have to ask him. He comes up with all these legalistic answers, the people of Michigan and their legislature made it very clear that they would proceed with a re-vote, unfortunately, Senator Obama’s campaign said no. Two out of the three of us said yes, you’ll have to ask him what he’s afraid of?”

He is afraid of losing and will disenfranchise millions of American votes.

Disgusting.

I wonder if the big money backers of Hillary are willing to still provide that money to a state that so desperately needs it.

What a gesture that would be.

Actually, I take that back. Rather than political maneuvering, I think Obama was actually looking at actual legal issues and how they might launch this conflict into the stratosphere...

Do those of you in MI really want to pay for a re-vote, and then pay for all of the lawsuits that ensue, just to be right back to this place where Hillary can't win? Don't you have schools to help or something?

Hillary is looking to scrounge votes. No one can blame her, really, except that she didn't care about these votes or the voting rights of Michigan's people before...only now that she's losing.

I don't think anyone honestly believes Hillary is in this battle for the good people of Michigan. She is in it to WIN and is willing to change her values like clothes in order to do so. It's kind of respect-worthy, actually, and is part of what makes her a good politician.

I don't want just another tricky politician in the White House, though. Not this time.

fogu2, here is your problem:

Florida and Michigan, just as with Ohio and Pennsylvania, have an alloted number of delegates. Ohio has about 180 delegates and Pennsylvania has about he same. Florida and Michigan, too, have the same number of delegates. They just happen to have zero delegates.

You Hillary folks are trying to change the rules to aid her and only her. Indeed, if she was so hung up about "disenfranchising" those two states, why didn't she say something about that BEFORE the election?

As one writer put it, giving those states delegates now is like getting halfway into the NFL season and deciding that pre-season games count.

Let's recap, since some people don't get it:

1.) Obama was not a member of the Michigan or Florida legislatures that voted to move up polling dates. Those who did have a say voted as such: Florida House (118-0), Florida Senate (37-2), Michigan House (57-34), Michigan Senate (34-0).

2.) Obama has stripped no one of delegates. He is not on, and does not hold sway over, the Democratic Credentialing Committee.

3.) Obama did not block attempts to schedule re-votes. Not advocating for a rule change, and allowing state parties to handle state party business, does not equal obstruction.

4.) Obama does favor seating the delegates at the convention. This has been his position from the beginning. Their elections were not sanctioned, so no, those results will not be validated and rewarded. However, Obama does favor having them participate prior to the general election.

Just today:
Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, an Obama supporter and former presidential candidate, promoted the idea of evenly splitting the delegates between Obama and Clinton. "The best outcome is to come to an arrangement where the delegates are apportioned fairly between Senators Obama and Clinton, so the Michigan delegation can participate fully in the Denver convention," he said in a statement.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Dodd spoke to campaign leaders about the idea, and they agreed it would be an equitable way of handling Michigan.

Obama has disenfranchised no one. Those responsible are state-level bureaucrats who made a power-grab and failed. Hopefully, their constituents will show their displeasure by voting them out en masse. Equally hopefully, there will be election reform within the Democratic party so this situation doesn't repeat itself in the future.

I think those who believe that the DNC enforcing the agreed upon rules and not seating the MI and FL delegations is somehow going to effect the general election outcome are wrong.

First of all, MI and FL democrats will vote for the democratic nominee, except perhaps for a very few on the margins. Secondly the independents and disaffected republicans who will swing the election in FL, could care less of the democratic nomination process.

Gore and Kerry both won in MI and the election can be won without winning FL, so long as one is running a so called "50 state" campaign and not the DLC inspired, losing campaign, such as Clinton is running.

Remember if Gore had won one more state, such as NH, with 3 electoral college votes, he would have been elected, without FL.

So, please.

"The best outcome is to come to an arrangement where the delegates are apportioned fairly between Senators Obama and Clinton, so the Michigan delegation can participate fully in the Denver convention,"

And that is a typical Obama-style scam. It is worse than not seating them because it robs Clinton of her wins. Someone steals something from you and the cops say "well lets just split it between the two of you". Nonsense, those delegates are hers. Any other outcome at this point is illegitimate. Unless all 50 states are counted as they voted the nomination is illegitimate.

Brob,

I'll give you a "fact." Obama took his name off the ballot in MI. He did not have to do that. Why did he do it? B/c he thought it was to his political advantage to do so. As did Edwards and I think Biden.

What political advantage might he get? Well, it might be a state Hillary or some other candidate would win anyway.

Thus, by not playing, he could say the election does not count.

The DNC gave him cover on that (and Biden) but they did not enforce the rules they enforced for Florida and Mi equally.

What was the risk? That the winner would gain momentum (or delagates) even if the others decided they did not want to risk letting the voters willing to vote decide.

So far the risk has paid off in the sense that the 'winner' did not get credit for the win.

But he probably cannot win MI in the GE now b/c too mamy dems there are angry about it and too many "independents" see this as chicanery on his part. And that's a state he's got to have.

As it turns out, it is better for him not to have the revote b/c he'd likley lose. He has not supported one very strongly. There are good reasons not to have one (it seems like the USSR) but Obama has not come off looking like a candidate interested in free and fair elections. He has come off as someone willing to manipuate any unsettled situation to his advantage--this is what politicians do of courss.

I think his campaign is willing to risk negative reactions b/c it is trying to win the nom and he likley cant win the nom. if Hillary gets those states.

But he has not done enough to combat the perception among non-Obama voters that he wants Michigan and Fl to count.

The thing I like about Obama as a candidate is how ruthless he is in pursuing his goal.

But I dont think his ruthlessness can overcome his negatives as a candidate--he cant win in Nov unless something "weird" happens. Granted, weird things do happen when Obama is running but this is not a state senate seat in Illinois he wants and there will be no caucuses or thrown out states in the GE.

McCain will beat him soundly.

FWIW, I will vote for the dem nominee whoever s/he is.

fogu2:

"a) He was the only candidate who refused to proceed"

If there was an actual proposal on the table, you might have a point. But since no one ever offered a law, there was nothing in front of Obama to reject!

"b) He already lost both."

How can you say he "lost" two states where NEITHER CANDIDATE COMPETED?

Try again . . . .

The proposed 're-do'was a disaster: quite a few Democrats voted in the Republican primary BECAUSE THEY WERE TOLD THAT THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY WOULD NOT COUNT.

These Democrats would be barred from participating in the 're-vote.'

So Hillary's professed worries about disenfranchising Democrats in Michigan are as much lies and spin as her claim that the votes cast for her in the Michigan primary that SHE HAD ACKNOWLEDGED DID NOT COUNT should suddenly count, now that she is losing.

"Obviously I believe they should be seated because they will assist Clinton. She won them!"

How many delegates did she win?

Zero.

How many did she think she could win before the election?

Zero.

Hillary's entitlement mentality (the same one that had her fail to plan past Super Tuesday's coronaiton) is getting the best of her. Well, she is entitled to exactly what she won: nothing.

For you and Hillary to expect delegates when none were at stake is the same thing as a person demanding the lottery money when they did not have all the numbers. That is not how the game is played. It is unreasonable (and basically childish) to expect the world to stop turning because Hillary and her minnions don't like the way things turned out.

Don't underestimate the voters of Michigan: Nearly half of them didn't vote for Clinton, even though they were give little other option.

Michigan was stripped of its delegates in October 2007. Barack Obama, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich and Joe Biden all removed their names from the ballot, as the DNC requested. This was a particularly hard blow to John Edward's campaign, as he was counting on a good showing in Michigan.

Clinton had three months to work on an alternative settlement for Michigan before voting started. Funny how it didn't happen until she had something to gain.

You think Obama should agree to a revote blind, without knowing what's involved?

A revote that Hillary backers are going to pay for?

What do they want for paying for it?

We know Hillary backers in Florida have said they want the money they donated to the DNC back if Florida doesn't go with the current non official delegate numbers.

Who knows what the Michigan people want, I'd be afraid to even ask.

Agree completely with the first commenter moreover the good people of Michigan can look at this clown with utter disgust for putting the voters of Michigan in this uneviable position.

The reason Michigan Governor Granholm is disappointed is because her and her crew had made plans to fix the election. Michigan has the most corrupt election system. We are worse than Chicago, if you can that.

Carolyn Kilpatrick's son Kwame Kilpatrick is the Mayor of Detroit. The city of Detroit controlls the city clerks office which counts the votes in Detroit. In Wayne County, the clerk that over see's the whole county votes is under county clerk (a Granholm pundit).

All of them including Granholm fixed into office through Wayne County Executive Ed McNamara (the Mac Machine).

Right now, Kwame is in trouble and is facing criminal prosecution for perjury in the text message charge about an affair with his chief of staff Beatty. That's why the investigation and the decision on whether to prosecute Kwame has been put on hold by the Wayne County Prosecuter's office of Kim Worthy. This means he needs a favor from Granholm (a Hillary supporter and Superdelegate)and in return, a little ballot fixing come election time.

The problem came when the citizens of Detroit saw through the scheme and started writing to the Governor letting her know 'we see problem', especially when Hillary called herself trying to sneak into Michigan trying to garner support and pretending like she cared about our votes being counted. We knew something was up then.

Many of us have been here a long time and is quite familiar with the election con game. The local elected officials here who's up for re-election are walking the chalk line right now and is looking after their own hides. Granholm did not did the support she thought she would.

To Granholm and Hillary, "Not This Time"

"'Regardless of candidate preference, members had concerns over the estimated 100,000 Michigan Democrats who would have been unable to participate in a do-over election, as well as logistical and legal difficulties faced by local clerks,'" Michigan Democratic House Speaker Andy Dillon and House floor leader Rep. Steve Tobocman said in a joint statement before adjourning for two weeks. They said they would help try to find a solution that would ensure delegates would be seated."

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080320/REG/556234533

I'll bet that Gov Granholm is disappointed. This essentially spells the end for her term in office. Whether or not there is a backlash against Obama for this (and unlike a lot of my fellow Obama supporters, I think that there well might be) there will definitely be a backlash against Granholm and maybe even against Levin. Her approval ratings have been slipping for the last few years anyway, as the job losses keep coming in MI. Now that she is perceived to have gambled her constituents franchisement and lost, she will suffer for it in the polls (if she dares to run again, that is).