If he is ahead, he will probably win...

I hate to rag on the front-pagers, but I don't think he gets the Clinton campaign.  There was not the slightest chance in hell she was going to accept this proposal.

It very likely wouldn't even get her the benefit he says it would get her, because she is probably getting the Florida and Michigan delegates anyway, when the Ausman Challenge is heard by the Rules Committee, probably this month.  Superdelegates are appointed by the DNC Charter, which has a relationship to the DNC Rules like the U.S. Constitution has to U.S. statutes.  The Rules Committee can only make rules, not amend the Charter, so I don't think they actually had the power to strip Florida and Michigan of their superdelegates.  They most likely did have the power to strip them of their delegates, just not their superdelegates.

I understand. See my comment below. That means that he will need to hold together his delegates to vote NOT to seat the delegations of MI and FL. That will be quite a vote.

A top Michigan Democrat expressed frustration Wednesday with Obama for not embracing the state's proposal.

"The Obama people are blocking it in the Legislature," said the Democratic source, who has not backed either candidate.

The source also said negotiators repeatedly and unsuccessfully have reached out to the campaign for input and cooperation.

The source said that Obama's campaign has been asked to craft an alternative or to meet with the Clinton camp to work out an acceptable compromise, but that those requests have been met with silence.

Michigan revote plan goes down to the wire

...and the people of Michigan know it very well.

He's blocked all revote efforts.

That is the truth as in it is a fact.  It will not be forgotten.

The issue will have been discussed and rediscussed, and the vote-in-full proposal will be seen for the Politically motivated "solution" that it is, just as a 50-50 split is Politically motivated.

By the way.. before you start throwing around the "disenfranchisement" word... you might want to consider what allowing a large media market to go first does... it is massively beneficial to either the establishment or individually wealthy candidates.

Florida going first disenfranchises 280 million people.

Dean's DNC was right to sanction them.

That might be true if an uncontested election is perfectly legitime..

But alas its not

and the clinton folks just make up rules as they go along.
Perhaps that is how they can amass such wealth...
 

She even arranged for financing for whatever fair primary vote the Michigan legislature would pass.  And now you accuse her of refusing to accept a "neutral solution" because she rejects the 50-50 split that is a deadly insult to Michigan voters?

What Obama wants to do is nullify their votes.

Its quite possible he won't get 50%, but he also might get more.

Why can't they simply have another vote?

I love the "concern" for Michigan voters such as myself!  It's all Clinton!  Obama's just being neutral!

Being seated doesn't reflect the hundreds of thousands of us who voted... and more of us voted Hillary.

And all I hear from the Obama crowd online is "Michigan shouldn't matter!" but now I get the vatic word from above that "Oh, we matter, if it's divided evenly!"  Why, that's the only way!

No.  This isn't Clinton's fault.  No, 50/50 is not a fair compromise.

My vote may not matter to any of you now, but it sure will come November.

His lawyers have been in MI blocking every move they've made towards a revote.

Everyone wanted a revote there, except your candidate.  Democracy is of little importance to him.

it doesn't smell right..

She rolled the dice.

...you know, where the actual voters cast a ballot.

What a disappointment the DNC leadership has been.

We're all experiencing the consequences of Michigan's and Florida's decisions.  If they had just scheduled their primaries for February or March, they would have been critical battlegrounds.  If they had scheduled them for March or April, the attention paid to those two states would have been massive.

Instead, they had two low turnout elections, most of the candidates weren't on the Michigan ballot, everyone assumed the elections wouldn't count for anything, and newspapers ignored the results in favor of publicizing the GOP results.

Read my post. There is no such "rule." Just repeating that there is won't make it so. As for tearing up the party, don't you think leaving two of the biggest states, both of which we have a chance of winning but neither of which is in the bag, is going to do that more than a floor fight? Right, leave MI and FL out it in the cold, that will help us a lot in the GE!

Obama bears the responsibility for "tearing the party apart," based on his gameplan to block the revotes in MI and FL and then deny them fair representation at the convention. It is that simple.

that there is no rule . . . but no candidate ever agreed to stripping the MI & FL delegations.  I know for a fact that both the Obama and Clinton campaigns made studiously neutral statements along the lines of "hopefully this thing will get worked out" when it happened.

Instead of reposting your shopworn arguments, maybe you should read what I posted.

I never used the word "disenfranchised," because that isn't the point. The point is that these important States will be left out if Obama has his way. And I don't think that will help us in the GE, nor do I think it sits well with most Democrats, even if it is not techincally "disenfranchisement."

As for the word "rule," it simply doesn't apply. There is no rule. The DNC made a decision. Everyone in both camps knew that was not the last word. That's not a "rule."

And, I see that you are the one throwing around the "disinfranchisement" argument. I fail to see how a big state going first "disinfrachises" anyone. Nor do I think that Iowa and NH should always have the first say. But all of that is neither here nor there. There is no "rule," there is no "disinfranchisement." There is politics. Obama likes to play rough. He likes to go by the letter of the law (ask that former State Senator in Illinois). Well, now it's time for Hillary to play rough. The "rules" say she can fight in in the Committee and/or on the floor. Too bad if
Obama doesn't like it.

Maybe it's time to admit that there is no such thing as a totally fair nomination process. Caucuses are unfair, big state primaries are unfair, superdelegates are unfair...of course the general election is massively unfair. Either you have a small, unrepresentative group like Iowa caucus-goers (or New Hampshire primary voters) getting undue influence, or you have good ol' m-o-n-e-y having undue influence...everyone is "disenfranchised" in different ways. The more Democrats do to try and make the process "fair" (proportional delegate selection, open primaries and caucuses and whatnot) the screwier it gets...maybe it's time to admit that it's impossible to have a perfectly "democratic" process for choosing a party's nominee.

Thank you.

And, yeah, let Obama explain at the Convention why he was against a re-vote. And let him explain how a pseudo-rule should stop these 2 states from counting.

they broke the rule.

Had Florida Dem's at least voted against the repugs, then I'd have more respect for them, and think their delegation should be seated... but they disenfranchised themselves.

on Hillary's part.

By "participate," you mean campaign, but I think we all agree that in order to "participate" in an election, you must put your name up for a vote. Obama did not and he should not be rewarded.

Really? Since this is the dumbest idea ever and Obama has now tried it 2 or 3 times. He wants to put it out there and then look like he's being cooperative and trying to find a solution, but all it does is make him look like GWB - win at all costs - but then, that's what he does best.