Also, check this out - Obama looks to be doing better in Michigan than Hillary.

Party insiders take Nelson's declaration as a sign that the Hillary campaign is moving towards tacit -- and perhaps overt -- support for the idea, and perhaps is floating it through surrogates.

That's funny. I took it as a sign that Bill Nelson is doing what Bill Nelson has always done and will always do, protecting his own ass with/from his constituients at all costs, no matter what ally or principle has to sacrificed to that noble cause.

Yes, you see, if FL doesn't get a seat, every Dem in the state will vote for McCain in November, right?

It seems the only solution to all this is to allow new primaries in Michigan and Fla.

All candidate were on the ballot in Fla. so there seems to be less of an argument there. But they need to allow those votes to be counted. If they will not, then they need to allow a new primary. NOT caucus but a PRIMARY which is the only real fair way to vote and allow all people a shot at voting.

Wait a second, on what is this "Clinton formally opposes a Florida revote" claim based? On NPR this morning, they said exactly the opposite. They claimed that Clinton's campaign was formally backing a re-vote, while Obama's campaign had merely expressed that it had no objection to such a strategy. Was NPR wrong?

Come on Obama.....lets have a re-vote...if you have the balls. She'll kick your ass again. The adults are running the show now.....and nobody cares about the lame tax returns you idiots......Repubfishing trips.

I don't recall anything that prevented Florida and Michigan from holding their presidential nominating contests in compliance rules. Barring that, I can't see any justification for paying for their decision to violate the same rules they agreed to (especially when they had an opportunity to make the necessary changes on the front-end).

I agree to the rules, only insofar as that agreement suits my particular needs. To the extent those needs change, I reserve the right not only to disavow my agreement, but how you accountable for my decision to do so.

How very Clintonian.

I do not to take the time to track down the post, but I hope that everyone remembers that Fly on the Wall predicted that Clinton's campaign would realize in March that the Florida and Michigan delegations would not be seated based on the Jan primaries and would come around to demanding a re-vote. In other words, Fly on the Wall's predictions were spot on the money.

I hate disagreeing with Greg, but it's not like this moeny comes out of nowhere. Every cent we spend helping HRC prolong this farce is money we don't have to support other democratic candidates in other races. I want to *smash* the republicans in every race this year.

Find a way to do it that doesn't involve hurting the rest of the democrats and I'll go for it.

Wow Kefa, you are just juvenile.
How is it fair to Obama to hold a revote of the states who were, by a vote of the whole DNC, justly punished for breaking the rules?

Why should the entire democratic party and the candidates be punished because those states knowingly broke the rules with full knowledge of the consequences.

Interesting that MI and FL tried to break the rules to become more important, and now are trying to re-break the rules to be important again.

Kefa meet Logic.

If there is a revote in Florida and Michigan to seat the full delegation, and the DNC pays for it, then not only would there be no negative consequences to those states for moving their primaries so far ahead, they would actually gain influence by voting later (likely after Pennsylvania, and perhaps North Carolina).

That's not a message the DNC should want to send if it wants to keep some sort of control over states for the 2008 calendar. Any revote scenario must include some sort of punishment for the states that tried to move up, otherwise states will feel free to ignore the national party on scheduling.

"Did anyone bother to ask him about his culpability in creating or at least enabling this train wreck? Or would that be too unfair or too tough on Senator Clinton and her supporters?"

Unfair to her delicate sensitivities. You know, when the MSM gets too hard, she cries and shouts "sexism".

Meanwhile, she sharpens her knives and sends out her attack dogs on Obama. If he fights back, it's either "sexism" or the ugly spector of an "Aggressive black man" harming her Whiteness.

----------------------

Finally, I think that it should be BOTH FL and MI, not just FL. That is classic Clinton CHERRY PICKING.

Remember how OH and TX are "important" states. NYT calls them "big wins", etc. Somehow the 27 primaries he wins are discounted. Michigan looks favorable to Obama, Florida to her, so they should be linked: Both or neither.

A few things:

Facts change with time, and now these states really could play a big role in the election (as they wanted originally!)...and if I lived there, I'd want to participate. But, these states also broke the rules. So, clearly the voting as it occurred outside the rules can't count.

However, let them vote again. Why not? Keep everyone happy. It seems like the only fair, peaceful option at this stage. Let the candidates campaign and get their messages out and have a real vote. We kind of need those results to find a candidate! Who knew?

Democrats who threaten to vote for McCain because of this mess shock me. Really? I can understand that you are upset, I would be, but try to keep a broader outlook than that, please? For the country's sake. Yikes.

Also, reading these comments is a bit sad. Hillary and Obama are both AMAZING. Everyone has flaws, but we are so lucky as a party to have these two exceptional candidates! I want them to run together in some way. They would be unstoppable. Obama is my preference, but I adore Hillary, too, and it is really discouraging to see all of this bickering within the party over two extraordinary people.

"the problem for Hillary is that if she forces a revote in Florida, she has to do it in Michigan too .... and Hillary's chances of winning Michigan are somewhere between zero and zilch. Michigan has such a large black population that Jesse Jackson won the state in 1988."

She will try to do ONLY Florida.

I think we should do either FL and MI or don't seat them. Or just apportion it like the popular vote nationwide.

Revote in only Florida is CHERRY-PICKING!

I totally agree that it has to be both or nothing...it didn't even occur to me that they'd do just one or the other. How is that fair??

Remove doubt.

Michigan and Florida should
have a 'do over'.

Howard Dean has already said that a re-vote is one option, he even made it sound like his preferred option. The only thing he ruled out was changing the rules in the middle of the game, and the rules already allow Florida and Michigan to hold a new contest. Hillary Clinton agreed to the DNC rules last year, when she assumed she'd win easily.

But then we have the question of just what kind of re-vote it should be. A full-fledged primary would be very expensive; if the DNC has to pay, that uses up money that would otherwise help to elect Democrats in local races around the country. A caucus would be cheaper, but the Clinton campaign is unlikely to agree to that, since they suck at caucuses (or, rather, Obama's superior organizing abilities allow him to dominate caucuses).

One possibility is an Oregon-style mail-in election. Just mail a ballot to all eligible voters (I don't know if Florida has open or closed primaries; that just changes who gets a ballot).

It would make me nervous to change the style of voting for the re-vote, whether it be mail-in or caucus...regardless of the outcome, someone will be squalling that it "wasn't fair." Mail will get lost, tampered with...who knows.
It seems VERY difficult to make people satisfied that the vote is fair and accurate. Blame 2004.

Maybe it would be better if the Florida legislators ponied up for a new elelction, along with the governor who signed the bill.
I do think the fair option is to hold a new election, but Fl and Mi knew when they moved up their primaries what the consequenses would be and they should take some of the responsibility for correcting their mistake.

howard dean says we cant change the rules but he already did change the rules

i have done some research and found something that all bloggers and reporters wont report........there were 5 states who broke DNC rules and only 2 are being punished.....the 5 states are IOWA, NH, SOUTH CAROLINA, FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN ....all 5 broke the DNC rules by moving and changing their primaries,,,,, why hasnt anyone brought this out and why are only 2 being punished

"You mean something like the pledge Hillary signed with VT, SC and IA that she wouldn't campaign in Florida? The one she started laying the ground to break the day before SC and broke about fifteen minutes after?"

Well, Steve, you're nothing if not consistent in your misleading BS. Since Obama did slightly more campaigning in Florida than Hillary (since Hillary did none), and was the only candidate to run ads there, I'd say you're post is completely without foundation. Care to back it up?

And Lux Veritas, you said "Even though Obama didn't campaign there, Hillary didn't beat him by very much." First of all, if 50% to 33%b percent "isn;t that much," can you tell me what is? And my point remains the same. Since Hillary didn't campaign there, and Obama did, on what basis do you think he will do better? And I'm not saying his campaigning was that significant, but he certainly wasn't at a disadvantage, especially since the election was held right after he enjoyed a resounding victory in South Carolina, and was enjoying positive press the likes of which he will probably never see again.

A lot of you Obama supporters seem to think the voters in Florida had no access to information outside their state. I think Obama had pretty high name recognition by the time the Florida primary rolled around.

"I read somewhere that Hillary has 20 staffers working fulltime on the superdelegates--threats of cement shoes etc. It really is a mafia run by sorority mother."

Thsi is the kind of bullshit that makes the conversation so vituperative. silver heron, Obama has Tom Daschle devoted to working the superdelegates, with Kennedy playing a very active role. Not to mention the fact that Obama and his wife are calling them constantly. Of course the Clinton camp is doing the same thing. Would you really prefer it if Obama was so stupid as to not work on these people?

As for the "cement shoes" reference, I suspect that's based primarily on your fever dreams. Got a link to a report that the Clintons are threatening the supers? I mean real, Jesse Jackson Jr. style threats.

Why in the world should the Democratic party pay for a new primary in Florida when there was already a primary in Florida - and Obama LOST. The voters in Florida have already expressed their will. It wasn't their fault their party leaders got Howard Dean so angry that he stupidly disenfranchised Florida voters. The Republicans didn't do that.

Oh, I get it. This is how we keep Hilary from winning the nomination. I see. We must now do over all the primaries where Obams lost so he can get another shot at them. And the Democratic Party must pay for giving Barack another chance, rather than paying to defeat McCain in the fall.

But why not just turn it into a caucus instead? It's cheaper, old and working people won't go to them, and with the money we save handing the nomination to Obama, the party can hire somebody to blow Obama's nose and wipe his behind.

Why in the world should the Democratic party pay for a new primary in Florida when there was already a primary in Florida - and Obama LOST. The voters in Florida have already expressed their will. It wasn't their fault their party leaders got Howard Dean so angry that he stupidly disenfranchised Florida voters. The Republicans didn't do that.

Oh, I get it. This is how we keep Hilary from winning the nomination. I see. We must now do over all the primaries where Obama lost so he can get another shot at them. And the Democratic Party must pay for giving Barack another chance, rather than paying to defeat McCain in the fall.

But why not just turn it into a caucus instead? It's cheaper, old and working people won't go to them, and with the money we save handing the nomination to Obama, the party can hire somebody to blow Obama's nose and wipe his behind.

Here's your egg. We're talking about the Clinton's 2006 returns, not this year's. There is definately damaging information involved unless you consider a huge Fee/Library Donation from the ruthless dictator of Khazakstan to be unremarkable. The Clinton's are paying hefty late fees in order to stall the release of this information. 2006! are you kidding? These are people who will debate the meaning of the word "is". Clinton Hate is the gas that drives the repulican party. Things are going to be tough enough in Nov. as it is. We don't have to have this fight. Politics is different than sports. You have to rise above just being a fan.