Are you ignoring Clinton's statements that she would not support a do-over in Florida and not the proposed caucuses in Michigan?  Seems like she's been the "leader" on this particular issue.  Really, I can't imagine why her comments on this issue were not also mentioned...

Back then I had no web access (except at work and using it for personal reasons was a firing offense), but I have a memory of a FL elections official explaining that a recount could only be requested if the challenging candidate could show to some extent that a hand recount would actually change the outcome.

Does anyone else recall that? Have any cites either way? Could Gore have requested a full state recount at the beginning of the process?

Appreciate any solid input on this issue. THNX.

for now in the public eye but behind the scenes things are being worked out.

I wouldn't worry about it right now.  Something will be worked out in a few weeks.

Big mistake by the Obama campaign. Of course, that seems to be their standard lately--one screw up after another.

Nowhere do i see Obama trying to stop or being opposed to new voting.

Instead of focusing her resources on upcoming contests, she focuses on the insult 40 state strategy and bending the DNC rules.

It's not up to the candidates to decide, so hllary's and Obama's posturing is pointless.  The state parties decide.  The DNC rules state they can hold their primaries or caucuses anytime after Feb 5th, and the previous ones don't count.  They don't need anyone's permission to hold a re-vote.  It's already written int he rules that they can do so.

So, the campaigns can both stick it!  A revote is good for the democratic party as a whole, so it should be encouraged.  Neither campaign will get an unfair advantage, really...  I believe the whole effect will be a wash in terms of delegates, but the campaigning will increase excitement and voter registration in the states affected.

MI's Dem officials and Dem Party worked to move the date earlier. Against warnings. A do-ver seems not only fair, but mandatory in MI.

FL's ReThug officials and ReThug Party worked to move the date earlier. Against warnings, but R voters would lose only half their delegates. Dems, who had no control, were told by the DNC they would lose all their delegates. There was an important state constitutional question of the ballot, so the FL Dem Party felt they could not ignore the primary (and could afford to run one of their own).

Since when do we let the other party determine how our party's delegates get seated?

Also, in FL, no one actively campaigned, so the candidates were on equal footing. Obama appeared in FL for a fundraiser, took reporters' questions outside of the site, got some TV exposure. No big deal. Clinton came to FL for a fundraiser and was filmed at the airport, got some TV exposure. No big deal.  Obama had some ads running in FL, part of a national ad buy. Clinton did not. Both had spillover coverage from campaigning in other states. Both, along with Edwards, were on the ballot. Obama was coming off a huge win in SC, with tremendous PR.

FL Dem voters turned out in record numbers for this primary. They voted. FL voters would like their votes counted. FL Dem voters did not get their votes counted in 2000--not a good thing for national Dems to remind them of, btw.

Now, the DNC is allowing FL Repub Gov. Christ to make mischief with this issue all over again.

Why is the DNC letting this happen?

Hillary just needs to pubically say Obama wants to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan. People don't tend to like votes not being counted because of "rules". What is he afraid of? Oh yea losing again in two of the nations largest states that will be critical to Democratic success in November

"It's our view that the state parties and the DNC need to work this out,'' Burton added. "Whatever the resolution,' we are looking forward to building a winning campaign in Michigan in the general election.''

Yeah, they're totally punting? I don't see anything other than an opposition to seating the delegates in the two states as currently allocated.

Obviously, both states have the right to have contests that comply with DNC rules. The "firehouse" primary in Michigan or caucuses sound good to me. I think a mail-in primary in Florida is the way to go. If the Obama campaign seriously opposed that, I'd disagree.

I see no indication that they do. Hell, a recent poll shows Obama tied with Clinton in Michigan and a "firehouse" primary or caucus could only benefit him there (certainly better than a 80=1 delegate split).  

Jerome is simply demagoguing and going hysterical on this issue.

it is unreasonable for michigan to only allow people who hadn't already voted to vote in june. obama was not even on the ballot in michigan for the earlier vote and had it been it's quite likely that many people who voted for clinton would have voted for obama. if there is to be a revote it should be a total revote and the earlier primary results should be disregarded.

i don't blame the obama camp in the least.

ATTN:  Donna Brazille and Howard Dean

You do not work for Barack Obama.  You work for all Democrats, two million of whom you have disenfranchised through your horrible incompetence.

These millions of your disenfranchised voters want you to resign right now. You have miserably failed your leadership post at the DNC.  For the good of the party, you must resign.

This sorta reminds me of when Brazille and the Gore campaign decided that, instead of doing the right thing and calling for a total state recount of Florida in 2000, they tried to just target the counties they though would push them over the top by recount. You don't win the moral high ground by denying voters their right to have their vote counted; and you don't win by trying to play games with the rules to count some votes more than other votes.

A quick google search found his 2000 Guardian article which says:

Meanwhile, Mr Gore and Mr Bush's PR battle has moved into a new phase. Vice president, Mr Gore, said last night: "I don't know what the final results will show." He suggested a state-wide hand recount of Florida's 6m votes as a way to achieve a "fair and final" result without further legal manoeuvring.

Mr Bush, the Texas governor, countered that a few hours later in rejecting the vice president's suggestions. "The outcome of this election will not be the result of deals or efforts to mould public opinion,"

So there you have it; Gore did call for a total state recount in Florida. So I would appreciate it if Democrats like you could stop perpetuating this myth at the very least.

Obama loses either way.  If Michigan and Florida votes are counted as is, that's 111 extra pledged delegates to Clinton (and probably 10-20 extra super delegates).  If Michigan and Florida revote, he runs the risk of losing two more big states, with Clinton winning 50 more pledged delegates and 10-20 extra super delegates.

Of course he's going to try to prevent either seating the delegates as is or revoting there.  But he's going to try to pretend he's not the one holding things up there.

It reminds of when, a few days before the Jan. 29 election in Florida, when asked whether he would fight to seat the Florida delegation, he mumbled something like "we'll do the right thing by Florida."  The bottom line--he wants to do everything possible to shut out Michigan and Florida delegates without openly revealing that that's his position.

MI and FL should have new votes that they hold and pay for by themselves or they should not be seated at the convention.

They originally decided throwing temper tantrums about the DNC calendar they agreed to was more important than making sure their citizens votes counted.

Now that they are looking incredibly stupid and the DNC is refusing to back down, they are whining about "disenfranchisement"

So, let's get this straight:

1. Clinton says herself that she won't support a MI caucus and won't support any kind of do-over in FL.

2. Obama's campaign officials say that Obama "will support whatever the DNC rules are, including a fair remedy to this problem".  The MI state party reports that Obama's camp nixed the idea of a do-over in MI, but don't quote anyone or name any sources.

And, predicably, Jerome writes an article about how Obama's trying to stop do-overs, even though his campaign has said exactly otherwise.  No mention of the explicit non-support for do-overs that Clinton herself expressed.

Yes, clearly, Obama's the one blocking do-overs.  Your analysis is spot-on and utterly unbiased, as usual.

Sure sounds like the same old politics as usual to me.

The on the record quotes supporting the DNC and whatever they're willing to sanction kinda belies the title.

Meanwhile, Hillary's more than happy to disenfranchise every single MI voter who didn't vote for her. Nice.

One problem, I'll note, with the firehouse suggestion in MI, is that a lot of Dems crossed over to vote for Romney, and they'd be banned from the new election.

Remember this? Democrats for Romney

As an Obama supporter, I say this is just crap! This is the kind of stuff I've been bitching about Hillary over, for like months. And now Barack wants to pull this kind of crap?

Man, maybe I'll just write a GBCW diary and go find something else to do with my life.

What a load!!!

This is now a pattern with Sen. Obama. One face is for public consumption which varies astonishingly from his private conversations. Be it NAFTA, Iraq or MI/FL primaries.

Jerome, I see no evidence that the Obama campaign is opposed to a Michigan primary or caucus that adheres to DNC rules. If you've got evidence to the contrary, you'd better find it fast or retract your accusation.

In contrast, one of the most prominent Michigan Democrats, Senator Carl Levin, is pouring cold water over the idea of Michigan holding a sanctioned contest. Levin backs Clinton. Here's a link to his statement:

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/a rchives/2008/03/sen_levin_doove.html

Obama's attempt to deny MI and FL...even through revotes...will be a disaster for him. How does voter disenfranchisement fit into his people-powered politics?

26% in

Obama   57%
Clinton 41%

Obama wants to force the Super Delegates to vote according to the will of the people and that is a change in the rules.  Super Delegates have no standard other than their own judgement.  The will of the people means a candidate has to have 2025 pledged delegates.  If a candidate doesn't have 2025 delegates at convention time they are entitled to nothing.  Donna B can go her own way if she wants but to change the rules for the Super Delegates now would mean any rule could be changed including the seating of the Florida and Michigan Delegates.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO CAUUUUCCCCCUUUUUSSSSESSS!!!

Whatever is held must be similar to a primary...Let everyone's voice be heard!!!

Well, he did say their votes were "worthless" in that memo that was published in the St. Petersburg Times.

But, he can't say he didn't "campaign" in Florida since he spent more money than Clinton in that state! lol...

Obama is between a rock and hard place on this one: He's arguing to DISENFRANCHISE VOTERS--no question.

Hillary Clinton has argued to seat and count the delegates, and Florida voters know that. Thus, Obama fears a re-vote in any format except a "caucus," which he thinks he can win.

Obama's media spokespeople--Donna Brazile--can argue about the "rulz" all they want.

The "rulz" don't stipulate that MI and FL can't have a mail-in vote--that's precisely what Dean offered as a compromise resolution.

Obama and Brazile are worried that Clinton could win the nomination, if MI and FL have a re-vote.

So, they're trying to suppress the vote.
Well, that is, after all, how Obama won his Illinois Senate Seat, and most of his caucuses.

What's the blowback to such short-sighted arguments by Obama and Brazile?

The Democrats lose both MI and FL. It's a really stupid move--the Democrats are going to disenfranchise Democratic voters in two important states, and end up losing the election.

I think trying to deny MI/FL their vote kills it for the Obama campaign.  What kind of message is that to the American people?  Oh yes we can, we're a different kind of politics....

hmmm, the ones who deny two entire states their chance to voice who they want via a primary?

Jesus.

They of course should be primaries, they were primaries.  

The Clinton and Obama camps are both pushing for re-vote processes that will benefit their candidate. It's kind of absurd that Jerome can't see how ridiculous it looks for him to attack Obama for rejecting a primary in this case, since the only reason a closed "firehouse primary" is now favored by Governor Granholm is because the Clinton campaign explicitly rejected the caucus idea a few days back. Obviously a caucus gives an edge to Obama and a firehouse primary gives an edge to Clinton. It's readily apparent to all of us that Obama would prefer a caucus and Clinton would prefer a firehouse primary.

We really are in "silly season" right now. According to Jerome, it's perfectly fine for the Governor of Michigan to take direct orders from the Clinton campaign and set up a re-vote to their exact specifications. But somehow it's not okay for Donna Brazile to merely express her opinion about the process.

I'd go to her website.

I'm fairly new to MyDD, but if they are going to keep pushing crap like this, I'm going to have to drop it.

Huffpost just had an article "Clinton: "I Would Not Accept A Caucus"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/07 /clinton-i-would-not-acc_n_90391.html

Given that the states and party might not be up to ponying the money for a primary, caucusses may be the next best solution.

If this article is true, it is a black-eye for Clinton on this matter.

I'm not trying to say Obama is in the free and clear on this, I'm saying that this blog needs to try and reaign in it's bias.

Progressives first, Dems second, Clinton/Obama third.

There was no excuse or viable reason why Obama took his name off the Michigan ballot, but not off the Florida ballot, except for his own political gain. There was no rule whatsoever, that said that you had to. He even tried to humiliate Hillary by getting people to vote uncommitted. Inspiring votes based on hatred is NOT "change we can believe in."

My first visit here since Mat and Chris left. Thought there must have been some political differences but didn't see what they were at the time. But my my.  Are they ever apparent now.  Poor Jerome this site will be toast once the primary is over. Of course the Obama supporters loyalties lie elsewhere but I suspect once the Hillary campaign dissolves her supporters here will move on to different tasks -- they don't strike me as the types that are interested in building a new democratic party.

Completely out the window.  While everything is essentially up in the air with "ideas" being floated, Jerome has become a cheerleader for the Clintons.  Is this the same Jerome who helped in writing CTG?#!@$@  How is it that' you've become an advocate in both obvious and subtle ways for the King and Queen of the DLC.

Jerome, did you read all of the first article you linked to?  Brazile also says, "The voters have spoken. While Obama may not like the results in Michigan, where his name didn't appear on the ballot, I have a hard time ignoring the Florida results, where his name did."

That sounds closer to the Clinton position than the Obama position; why label her an Obama "go-to person"?

The last response I got was entitled "tired of all of you".. Regardless, I am going to keep beating on this drum until we have a nominee.  I think it's that important.

The issue is really simple.  No matter what happens with the remaining primaries, including possible re-do's in FL and MI, Hillary cannot possibly catch Obama in the ELECTED DELEGATE VOTE before the convention.

It doesn't matter who wins the popular vote, or in what states, or whether the timing of having two states that would have been strong for Hillary early if only they hadn't broken the rules to do so might have changed the overall momentum going into Super Tuesday.  Nor does it matter that many of Obama's delegate votes were from caucuses dominated by party activists, nor that urban areas counted for more in the delegate math.  THOSE WERE THE RULES! THAT WAS THE WAY IT PLAYED OUT.  If someone didn't like the rules ahead of time, they could have worked to change them.  

Now, I realize that it is also in the Rules that the Supers can vote any way they want.  However,  we get into a perception problem if that happens.
Hillary simply cannot try to overturn the elected delegate votes at the convention, and that is now her only option.  

This election was Hillary's to lose, just like 2000 was Al Gore's to lose.  She's lost it.  Too bad.

It reflects the campaign and most of his supporters. Politically immature. Go ahead and attempt to deny 5 million votes. Lotsa Luck!

Isn't there a Federal law that deals with denying the vote to citizens?  There's also been a ruling, I think, that says the party can decide the election rules.  While these may appear to conflict, the Federal law should take precedence over the states and the parties.  Can an attorney familiar with election law please weigh in on this?

If Obama is the people's choice he should demand a revote.  Why isn't he doing it?

Piss off enough people in MI & FL and we just might lose the general election. Would that be worth it for the sake of "following the rules"? The voters of MI & FL did not break the rules but they will feel the cost of it and those on the fence will blame the candidates via the party.

if it can be unilaterally changed in the middle of the game? If the two campaign both agree to a solution, then fine. Otherwise, there were very clear rules that were laid out in the beginning of the process that were known to all candidates involved. Objections should have been raised before the process, not during. The legislatures/governors of Michigan and Florida understood what the consequences would be if they broke the rules set by the DNC. They broke those rules anyway, and as a result, they have no delegates.

First off, Al Gore followed the election rules in Florida and those rules called for contesting vote counts where you could prove them.  Initially, Gore could only prove problems with voting in 3 counties.  It was the Florida Supreme Court that ruled a state wide recount after Bush's team filed the first lawsuit in that 2000 battle.

Second, your bias in favor of Hillary is clouding your objectivity.  Hillary first came out and said that she would not accept MI or FL delegates is a do-over.  Obama has every right to challenge the MI and FL delegates from the January primaries and he would be neglegent not to.  MI and FL BROKE THE RULES!!!!  Hillary and her supporters in MI and FL are like children throwing a temper tantrum.  If they had kept their original primary dates, they would not be in this problem now.  Selfishness guided MI and FL elected leaders to move up the date, or maybe it was typical Clinton strategy to try to knock out Obama before the Feb. 5 Super Tuesday elections.  

Based on Hillary's antics of late, I will definitely NOT VOTE for Hillary in the fall election if she is the nominee.  She's a cheater, just like the Republicans.

COUNT THE VOTES.

I'm starting to think that the Obama campaign knows it can't win the the fair and square way. They remind me of BUSH.