Nice spin.

The only thing holding this up is obviously full disclosure. They want to read the fine print before agreeing.

What's the problem with that?

It's not unreasonable to want to see the legislation, and not want any more strain on Michigan's broke ass.

Where is the money coming from? Will it be guaranteed to pay off this thing so Michigan taxpayers won't have to shell out a dime?

I'm guessing the people of Michigan are going to be more angry if they end up having to spend millions of dollars on a revote that won't realistically change anything. By all accounts, the two are dead even in Michigan, so a revote would change nothing.

Right, like Hillary's campaign would ever sign a blank check offered by Obama's people. Get serious and provide the details, otherwise it's obvious that all the Clinton people are doing is creating yet another sideshow.

I can't fault Obama one bit for not agreeing to something without seeing it first.

Seems to me this money should come from the party responsible for moving the Michigan primary up in violation of DNC rules: the Michigan Democratic Party.

And who would, in their right mind, agree to legislation that HASN'T been written?

Think about how stupid, costly, and time-consuming a do-over primary would be to essentially decide nothing in the pledged delegate race. The polls show a close race. That means neither candidate will gain a lot over the other.

I assume Michigan just wants a little love from the candidates.

Or like Hillary voting for war without reading the NIE.

A Michigan revote will depend on the Republican-controlled Michigan Senate. The GOP Senate leadership have already said that they will not let it go through "more pressing issues," i.e. corporate tax cuts, infrastructure cost cuts, etc.

The interesting thing, they may have a point.

Obama isn't interested in a revote since he knows he'll lose Michigan AGAIN. That's why he pulled his name from the ballot in the first place.

Obama as C-in-C stands fro "Chicken-in-Chief."

This just hurts my head. Is there NOTHING in the world that isn't being spun right now?

Does anyone really believe that people who need to craft legislation on a deadline aren't crafting it with or without a "nod" from both campaigns? Okay, so there is draft legislation in existence right now.

Does anyone really believe that it is a good idea to agree to legislation without actually seeing it? An agreement in principle is one thing. An agreement on substance is another. An agreement on substance you can't see is yet another.

Whoever this Phil Singer clown is should be sanctioned.

No one is going to be fooled by the delaying tactics of the Obama campaign.

Nothing could be more obvious than that they'll do just about anything they think they can get away with to sabotage a re-do in MI.

When Republicans behave like this, we call it obstructionism. When the Obama campaign does it, his supporters climb all over themselves to support it, and declare the infinite wisdom and prudence of the delaying tactic.

What would they refuse to support, one wonders, if the Obama campaign pushes for it? I don't see any limit to their ability to compromise any principles they might think they hold in order to back Obama.

Sadly for them, it's very likely all in vain because of Jeremiah Wright. I doubt we'll ever hear the words "President Obama" spoken truly.

It's become obvious that Obama intends to disenfranchise the Democratic voters of Michigan and Florida because he can't win otherwise, and the way his supporters fall over themselves trying to make excuses for him is sickening.

Obama's pastor says "God damn America" and Obama takes his cue, saying, "God damn the voters of Michigan and Florida." For a black candidate to take away the votes of millions of Democrats - many of who are black - is an abomination.

Obama and his supporters intend to make a complete farce out of the Democratic primary and split the Democratic Party if he is not nominated, making it impossible for any Democratic nominee to win in November. That way, he can run again in four years.

I find it a bit frightening that I've read this many comments and no one has yet pointed out the slightest nausea at the very idea of EITHER *campaign* having to sign off on the holding of an election?

Hello! McFly! The two campaigns should not have a damn thing to do with drafting the legislation to hold a state-paid election.

Look here now. Barack is no fool. I am the Secretary of the Leelanau County (MI) Democratic Party and before I commit to supporting the "Michigan Mulligan", I want to see the legislation too. I want to know if Republicans will be able to vote and I want to know if Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham can produce enough votes to put Hilary in first place. Today's Boston Globe states that 100,000 Republicans voted for Hilary in Ohio, 119,000 Republicans voted for Hilary in Texas, and 38,000 Republicans voted for Hilary in Mississippi. It sure will be a waste of everyone's time if half the voters in Michigan's do-over turn out to be Republicans.

This is a micro example of Obama's inability to actually lead or carry legislation. All his talk of uniting, leadership and good judgement are just marketing. He's got nothing.

And now the voters are already angry at his attempts to delay or stop a re-vote based on legislative minutiae. Clinton is ready to go. Obama is the obstacle. As we speak voters in MI and the nation are getting a true sense of his self-centered motivation. It's all about him, the voters be damned.

Rezko
Wright
Michigan

Great judgement! Great leadership! Together I can!

This guy is leading the Democratic party down a rathole.
Hello President McCain.

I wouldn't want a president who was dumb enough to sign a blank check. Would you? And as a Michigander, I can tell you that there's no way this state can afford to front money for a re-vote that some political gang says they'll pay back sometime, someday, someway. My town is full of empty houses and if Mrs. Clinton really cared about us as she constantly claims she does, she wouldn't be fighting for a re-vote paid for by this beleagered state. Mrs. Clinton cares about Mrs. Clinton.

Obama and his camp are so frighten of what might happen in MI or Fl. They also know that if indeed the primary season calendar had included MI and FL in the first place. This race would already be dramatically different. When the re-vote does occur - Hillary will have already won PA - and IN. Obama will be dealing with his Pastor (I hear this week - a new video will show that he indeed was at service during this Pastor remarks) They can't blame this one on the Hillary Camp like they have done so much in the past. Now they have to deal with the monster they created. The only way they won SC was to drag Bill Clinton's name into the mud. They calculated and waited for Bill to make a comment in which they could tag him as a racist. Bill Clinton and Hillary had an approval level reaching 90% for Black Americans. The only way they could win was to put a dent in that approval rate. I'm sure Obama and his camp got their coaching from his Pastor. The remarks the Pastor made about Hillary is clear they had to bring Hillary down on her support with black people. Remember it was Michelle - Obama's wife that months before Bill ever mentioned anything about race that sad - "Blacks needed to wake up and support Obama" They did whatever it took - and dragged Bill and Hillary honor on race issues through the mud. Now they have to pay - and I hope they pay dearly. This from a person who happens to be African American.

The big picture:

Has the DNC officially reversed its decision to refuse to allow to seat the delegates?

If this hasn't happened, how else can anything proceed?

What is the point of re-doing an election that didn't count then, and still doesn't count now?

Also, all of the candidates signed a pledge that they wouldn't participate in contest in Florida or Michigan. How do they officially withdraw from that pledge?

Wow, why is TPM getting overrun by Republicans pretending to be Hillary supporters?

There's no simple solution to the problem of seating the MI and FL delegations, which is the only real issue. Whether the existing "illegal" primary results are accepted or re-votes are held the outcome is unlikely to change the overall results. Clinton didn't win big enough the first time and she won't win big enough to overcome his delegate lead in a revote. (The current popular vote numbers must be noted with an asterisk in Michigan since only one of the leading candidates was on the ballot.)

Accepting the "illegal" results is an understandable problem for the DNC and the new primaries are understandably a problem for the local parties-- especially for Michigan IMHO if they're asked to foot the bill.

Dean should seat the delegations based on the "illegal" primaries with the provision they're only allowed to vote in the 2nd and subsequent rounds at the convention; Hillary gets her qualified wins, voters are not disenfranchised, and money is saved. Plus, we'll be able to finish the primary phase of this campaign long before June.

MI Voter

Please don't feed the Clinton trolls!

For the others of you out there: isn't Obama in a bit of a Catch-22 when it comes to making decisions about Florida and Michigan do-overs? On the one hand, what I believe were the the sincere votes of non-Democrats in open primaries before March contributed significantly to his victories in many states. But I'm inclined to believe the story in today's Boston Globe (which has been floating around the blogosphere for a while now) that since McCain's victory was assured, substantial numbers of Republicans are voting for Hillary in open primaries, not because they like Hillary, but because they realize her nomination is the best chance for rallying the Republicans in November. So, should Obama want the Michigan and Florida do-overs, if they happen, to be open or closed? The answer is not obvious to me. Is this why the Obama campaign seems to be dragging their feet -- because there is no right answer?

Call Me Mable-That makes vry little sense. If the FL/MI delgates are not enough to overcome Obama's lead and, they are to be seated for the second round, then they might as well be seated in the first round. But if it saves face for Dean then he should do it. In the end the automatic delegates will assume in the first round that there will be a second round and Clinton will gain the FL/MI delegates. This will affect their vote even in the first round.

But Obama would be wise to just allow them to be seated. A Clinton win in the re-votes along with the upcoming expected primary wins in other states will strongly shift the momentum to her camp.

Perception is reality. As the primary season winds down two things will be apparent:
1. Momentum will be with Clinton after several big wins.
2. With all the controversy and several primary losses, strong doubts will be with Obama. He will be limping into the convention.

To ack,

Also, should my Democratic friends who voted for Romney for "strategic" reasons be allowed to cast a ballot in the do-over because now they can vote for the candidate they really wanted in the first place? I have no idea. And, there may be legal problems. The state may have rules against voting in two primaries in one year. Nothing's easy.

fogu2,

"...save face...",
"...automatic delegates...",
"...all the controversy...",
"...limping into the convention..."

Why should I believe you're a Democrat?

You don't like Dean.

You approve of Rovian word games.

You've bought into manufactured controversy. (I hated that American Spectator crap during the Clinton years.)

And, you're rooting for the best Democratic campaign in years to implode.

Let's get back to the kind of campaign both sides were waging two months ago.

#Call Me Mable,

No idea what you're getting at, truly. I'm not sure what you refer to as the best Democratic campaign in years. If by that you mean, Obama's, then we are in agreement. I've never been so enthusiastic about a candidate, nor have I before heard a candidate that made me optimistic about the future, nor have I given money to a candidate before.

Why would you think I don't like Dean? Actually, I'm a huge Dean fan (have been since I first heard him during the primaries in the previous presidential primaries), and have also contributed to the DNC only because he's at the helm and I agree with his approach.

Why would you think I approve of Rovian word games?

I'm not sure what gave you such impressions of me. I was just asking an honest question. Why would you misrepresent me and then attack that misrepresentation? Not sure who's side you're on, or what you're trying to achieve.

ack,

The second half of my post was directed at fogu2. Sorry I didn't make that clearer. And, we *are* in agreement on Obama's campaign.

So am I to understand from this that Hillary Clinton's campaign has signed off on this without seeing the plan?

Or that she had a hand in designing the plan in the first place and thus automatically, implicitly signs off on it?

I'm puzzled why anyone would want someone like this in the White House. POTUS is a pretty responsible position (I'm told), and whoever gets to be POTUS should read up on the facts and make up their mind accordingly - oh, and respect the law of the land.

Gaming the system and going on "gut instinct" - not so hot; been there, done that.