having prevented any new vote in Michigan, Obama's campaign may well have given up any moral claim to oppose seating of the delegates elected in January.

No, not at all. Yes, it is too bad for the voters in both states. But Michigan had its chance to have its votes count. Instead it chose to break the rules.

You break the rules, you pay the price.

Wow, it's hard to see how one loses the moral claim by following the rules. That sounds like Bush-ian logic there.

Paul, it might have been appropriate for you to point out that until last Friday, the Clinton camp was opposed to a do-over election in either state, whereas the Obama camp repeatedly stated that they would accept whatever solution the DNC decided on.

After the Wright thing hit the airwaves, suddenly the Clinton campaign decided a do-over was possible and the MI plan, crafted by a Clinton supporter came out with a plan which the Obama campaign had legitimate questions about.

As it turns out, the likelihood of the plan getting through the legislature was minimal with ot without the support of Obam supporters, then it would have needed to be reviewed by the DoJ and approved there.

Perhaps if Clinton had decided to actually work with the Obama camp on a reasonable plan a while ago, something could have been presented a while back that both sides could have agreed to.

Getting back to the timing of the Clinton camps approach to the whole process.

Before Friday against and after Friday for. To me, and this is purely guess work, it appears they probably thought they might lose MI until the Wright thing happened and then they decided they might win MI.

I don't fault them for the figuring, and in the world of politics it is perfectly legitimate, but it is rather hypocritical to lay all the blame at Obama's feet.

Get a grip.

We are going to elect a President of the United States and for me, I want to listen to

Baracck Obama give the

State of the Union Address

for the next 8 years!

Obama objects because any of his supporters who voted in the GOP primary (the one that counted in MI) cannot vote in the Dem primary, which would have been their original choice.

Also, you have to vote in person once before you can receive an absentee ballot, meaning that new voters would not have as many options.

Why would Obama agree to a do-over when two of his large support groups are not allowed to participate? That is merely a second illegitimate election.

And as pointed out earlier, when you gamble, you need to face the fact you could lose. MI and FL decided the throw their political muscle around and challenge the DNC. They lost. It is only now that they are realizing the ramifications of this loss, but being dumb with your bets really isn't a great rationale to receiving preferential treatment (unless you are an investment bank, of course).

It's ridiculous to blame Obama on this one.

The fault obviously lies with the DNC, who decided to strip the states of their delegates in the first place, and with the local politicians who decided to jump to the front of the line (who cares about delegates), then complained that they weren't being counted, then were too cheap to fund an election from the state budget.

Obama and Clinton don't fundamentally have any say in this. If Michigan (and Florida) decide to have a revote, it will count, and both candidates will have to deal with that.

This has to be the single most retarded post I've ever seen to this otherwise fine blog. A naked hit piece against Obama, willing to ding Obama's campaign for not enabling the bottomless cynicism with which the Clinton campaign has handled Florida and Michigan.

If Florida and Michigan wanted to count, they could have come to the DNC penitently a month ago and worked something out. Now they want to make a circus out of re-voting in the middle of an already ludicrous primary season. I can't see why they should be enabled in this behavior. Let them stand as an object lesson to the Democratic Parties of other states about putting themselves ahead of the national party.

I agree with all the comments above. I would add that counting the uncontested Fla election would be totally unfair to Obama, as he didn't have an opportunity to campaign in the State and introduce himself. In every other State he came from behind (and either pulled it off or fell short) by doing just that.

Carrie Giddins said it best in today's NYT:

"There is no such thing as a do-over. Do-overs are what you get when the end results don’t matter. Do-overs are what children do on a playground. Adults accept their mistakes, learn from them and move on."

The blame for this falls squarely on those who chose not to follow the rules.

The candidates are obviously not at fault on this one--some apportionment of blame should be made among the DNC and the two states. Yet, enforcing the rules definitely risks alienating legions of Democratic voters.

Aren't we supposed to be the smart ones? We're running this thing like the Iraq War or something. Iceberg dead ahead!

No, he's right. It's Obama's fault. Especially his supporters.

If they hadn't kept voting for the man, he wouldn't be winning and Michigan and Florida would be meaningless.

Or perhaps it's Hillary's fault -- and her supporters. Maybe if there'd been a lot more of them in the month between Super Tuesday and Super Tuesday II, she wouldn't be so desperate for Michigan and Florida's delegates. I mean, if her supporters had just voted more, then she'd be beating -- or at least even with -- Obama without having to try to change the rules everyone agreed on a year ago.

The only people NOT to blame are Florida and Michigan, because it's clear no one told them the rules on what would happen if they voted early.

I think it's pretty telling that the people who decided to strip voters in Florida and Michigan of their voice in this election are the same people who created the anti-democratic superdelegate positions, which they then promptly gave to themselves.

And their job is to ensure that we voters don't do something silly.

"Wow, it's hard to see how one loses the moral claim by following the rules."

It's nice to see that so many progressives care about the disenfranchised Democrats in Florida and Michigan.

My parents and other relatives in FL have voted Democrat their whole lives but now appear to be worth less to many of you than the Republicans and independents in Texas and other states with open primary systems.

It's good to know that some of us really only believe in inclusion when it plays to their own candidate.

And it's really pretty silly to cite Carrie Giddins. Iowa has a vested interest in making sure that its tiny self plays a disproportionate role in US electoral politics.

Read the Op-Ed piece in the NY Times by Carl Levin and Debbie Dingell. They make a good case for Michigan and Florida. Despite that, at this late date there has to be some kind of penalty for the two state delegations before they can be seated. We need for the country to see the Democrats both following rules and being practical. And, practical means delegations from both states get seated.

Seat them based on the "illegal" primaries, but with the provision they don't vote until the 2nd and subsequent rounds of the convention. That is the penalty. If we get that far both pledged and super delegates will be operating under different rules, ie. deal making, which is as it should be. In the meantime they participate in forming a platform and are there when needed if needed. (A variation is to allow a half-strength vote in the first round.)

With or without a re-vote the math changes little. Obama's lead remains. The re-vote is a stall tactic we don't need.

As of now, the Democrats are planning to hold a national convention without what would have been the third and fifth largest state delegations.

This drives me up the wall. WHY does everyone keep suggesting FL and MI delegations won't be seated? The rules committee will without a doubt seat them. They're just going to not be part of the process of selecting the nominee, which for me is a perfect punishment for violating the rules in an attempt to pretend your state is "more important" - not being important at all.

But stop saying there's going to be a convention "without" one or two states. That's just silly.

DinTX,

Your point about Giddins' vested interest is well taken. But that doesn't change the fact that she's right on the substance of the matter.

If the DNC were to give in to FL and MI a precedent would be set that there will be no consequences for breaking the rules. Next time through every state will keep moving their primary forward and it will be EVEN WORSE than it is now. In order to fix this mess of a primary system we have the DNC is going to have to have some credibility.

Look, you have every right to be pissed off that your relatives and others' votes will not be counted. It is a travesty. But you're blaming the wrong people. The blame falls on the elected leaders of those States who chose to flaunt the rules despite repeated warnings what the consequences would be. So give THOSE GUYS hell for what they did.

P.S. Even though it still wouldn't be exactly fair to the other states I was still in favor of re-votes in both states (despite the fact that this would hurt my preferred candidate). It doesn't bring me joy to see people disenfranchised. But those bogus "elections" should not and cannot count. They were worthless.

As one of those "bogus" voters, I can say we were told by our party that Obama/Edwards voters could indicate their choice by voting "uncommitted". Can not the delegates be similarly alloted at the convention?

I believe the DNC has offered to let MI and FL move back and get their delegates back. Both states decided they would rather have no delegates and get in the headlines before Clinton wrapped things up. Their choice.

Then, they could still have set something up for May/June. But Clinton was claiming wins and her supporters didn't want to take them away from her. Especially since CNN and MSNBC were coloring MI and FL for Clinton on their maps and adding their delegates into counts in certain scenarios.

Then, when it all looks helpless and Obama is under fire from Clinton and Repubs, they all of a sudden want revotes. This last second haphazard voting schemes are put out there. Neither Republican legislature will vote them through but lets blame the whole thing on Obama because they won't go along with the silliness proposed by Clinton backers.

Rules are rules. Dean should have ruled this all out long ago. If MI and FL get into this Primary, the 2012 Primary will start next December. ;-)

I really don't see how a re-vote became the conventional wisdom in the press. Why doesn't Hillary just stick with the idea of seating her delegates as is? Isn't that at least as "fair" as an election financed by maxed out Clinton donors? The answer is that Hillary suddenly figured out that just seating the Fla and Mich delegates doesn't get her anywhere. Please press guys, just report the news and don't slant it. A Michigan mulligan for Hillary is just an extended advertisement. Obama didn't create the "unfairness" that afflicts you press guys, and its not his reposibility to correct it.

Steve P., you are not a "bogus" voter, but an election in which one candidate is on the ballot, and supporters of all other candidates have to choose the same "uncommitted" to vote for is, in fact, bogus.

I say it every time. Don't gamble if you are not prepared to lose. FL and MI chose to gamble, chose to be "taken seriously by the DNC" and got smacked.

Too bad they tried this move during such a close election. If things had gone as planned, their challenge might have helped modify the primary system.

But reality is a pain in the ass, and this year proved to be the wrong time for this type of attempted power play.

That's what happens when you choose war instead of negotiation. Oddly enough, other examples abound...

I am appalled by all the comments here in favor of denying MI and FL dems the chance to vote. It echoes what the Republicans said about FL in 2000: "They can't even vote properly in FL, tough!", "The rules are the rules...too bad if people are disenfranchised".

The disenfranchisement of the delegates was meant to punish the state, not the voters! At the time, it was not thought that that action would affect the outcome of the election.

If it comes to it, FL has a case for its delegates to be seated as is (none of the candidates campaigned there, but all names were on the ballot). Michigan on the other hand, needs something else since only Hillary's name was on the ballot.

Ideally, however, it would be good to have a do-over in both (and what is so fricking hard about scheduling an election anyway--if it is just money, set up a bloody website where dems can kick in some dough--I thought Will Rogers was just joking when he said he didn't belong to an organized political party as he was a Democrat) so the folks could actually vote, and the DNC and the states would understand what a debacle occured and implement a sane primary schedule (maybe with states taking turns coming first) that would prevent this from happening in the future.

Why were so many Obama supporters voting in the MI GOP primary anyway?

Is this part of the results of his national "Democrat for the day" strategy? That they'll just go vote GOP?

Everyone with a brain knew that they would have to seat delegates from MI and FL--esp after 2000--it's cutting off your nose to spite your face if we don't. We must win FL to win the general.

"cutting off your nose to spite your face": voting Republican in the general because your State couldn't follow the rules in the primary. I really doubt voters will be so foolish.

"Well, that’s impossible now--and the burden for the failure falls clearly on Senator Obama’s supporters, who, perhaps understandably, didn’t want to risk the psychological impact of a defeat in Michigan at the end of the primary season."

Obama should have stepped up and come out clearly in favor of enfranchising Michigan through a fair re-vote. He would have been competitive there and it would have played well in the general election.

Doing so was *at least* as important as repsonding to the criticisms of Wright, and his ideas about "racial reconciliation."

A real disappointment.

I am appalled by all the comments here in favor of denying MI and FL dems the chance to vote.

MI and FL were never denied the chance to vote. They were offered the chance to vote just like every other state- they just had to vote on or after February 5th.

They had their chance to vote, and they rejected it. Blame the elected officials of MI and FL for that, not the Democratic Party or Barack Obama.

As someone who lives in neither state, I remain appalled and offended that residents of those two states continue to be looked at as more important than me because they're whining louder.

"Wow, it's hard to see how one loses the moral claim by following the rules. That sounds like Bush-ian logic there."

I'm not so sure I agree with this. Obama could have gotten out in front of the DNC by joining Clinton (who we all know is mostly trying to game the rules to benefit herself) in vigorously (and no doubt eloquently) reaffirming the right to vote, which is important to both the black community and the working/ middle class sort of voters you have in Michigan, who value their one little opportunity for political expression in a political game they know is overwhelmingly stacked against them.

Now Obama comes off looking like he just wants to win and once he does, that's what he's going to keep on doing. Which voters in Michigan surely know means they will lose. The last Clinton administration was just like that-- win at any cost. A lot of Democrats are looking for something different.

Obama seems to have a problem getting out in front where he needs to be in order to effect change. If "the rules" are bad, and contrary to fundamental principles of our democratic republic, *slavishly* abiding by the rules of a political party is the *wrong* thing to do. The eventual decision may still have been in the hands of the DNC, but then the dirt would be on their hands and not Obama's.

Period.

Somebody really, desperately needs to read Thoreau.

"...the burden for the failure falls clearly on Senator Obama’s supporters, who, perhaps understandably, didn’t want to risk the psychological impact of a defeat in Michigan at the end of the primary season."

I see no evidence of this. Given the amount of backroom negotiations involved in this, there a lot of state legislators, Congressmen, and superdelegates in Michigan and Florida who have their own parochial agendas that are probably giving headaches to both the Clinton and Obama campaigns. Unless you have transcripts of these negotiations, you have no idea if it's Clinton, Obama, or some other "wild card" factor who is responsible for obstructing a re-vote.

Do you honestly think that, in the heat of a general election campaign in Sept-Nov, anyone in Fla. or Mich. is going to remember the insider details of the primary wrangling? It will be old, old news and will have little if any effect on the general, regardless of what people may say to pollsters about it now.

Re Michigan-on the original ballot Democrats had two choices, HRC or "other". So, many Dems, especially those not particularly fond of HRC and not wanting to waste a vote on "other", voted in the Republican primary instead, either to express preference for McCain or to play spoiler by voting for Romney or Huckabee.

The rerun primary would exclude Dems who voted Republican the first time,
So it's skewed toward HRC for reasons stated. Hence the enthusiasm in the Clinton camp for the rerun.

Feh.

first she was for the DNC's decision and now she that's she's behind in delegate she wants the decision rescinded. Stop whining. It's typical of the Democrats to mess things up even in their own party.

"The disenfranchisement of the delegates was meant to punish the state, not the voters! At the time, it was not thought that that action would affect the outcome of the election."

That's the point that none of the Obama folks want to acknowledge.

It's good to know that some Democrats only really believe that "every vote counts" when it helps their candidate. So much for the voice of the people.

Jonp ... come on. The notion that all Obama has to do is run out the click on Michigan and Florida has been all over the pro-Obama blogs and even the discussion groups on his campaign website.