Though I am surprised that you would emphasize Obama supporters, since you didn't say that is was only Obama supporters, then it must have been a mixture of Obama supporters, Clinton supporters, and neutral supporters.

Otherwise please give a complete listing of everyone, how they viewed the proposal and their affiliation as either Obama, Clinton or neutral (with documentation of their support.)

Also, please point out that the Clinton campaign was opposed to a new election as late as last Friday. What is special about Friday? Gee could it be that before then they thought they would lose and then the Wright thing hit and they thought they could win?

"though I am surprised" = "though I am not surprised"

This, I do not understand. The Obama campaign raised $1.2M/day in January, and almost $2M/day in February. He could have just sent out two emails saying "Hillary Clinton wants to move the goalposts again, and have high-dollar donors pay for a primary in Michigan. Fine. Let's show them that we're the people-powered campaign by contributing $6M this week to fund half of the contest." It would have been good PR. The campaign netted at least $20M in February. There's diminishing marginal return to money at this point, especially in the primary.

Obama could have offered to pay the entire amount and then Hillary's campaign would have been embarassed into paying for half anyways !

Elections are a fundamental function of the government. They shouldn't be run like a charity raffle.

This idea that Michigan is too damn cheap to fund an election is ridiculous. The amount of money required is paltry compared to the state budget (~$50 billion/year).

I have a big problem with private parties funding a federal election. There's too much money in politics as it is.

As for Obama (or Clinton) having to come up with half the money - demanding "pay to play" is just another way to keep most people locked out of the system forever.

"In large part, Michigan Democrats -- especially Obama supporters -- were uncomfortable with the funding structure..."

I don't know how anyone could type such a line with a straight face. Obama supporters are against any kind of redo in Florida or Michigan because they do not believe that it will benefit their candidate.

No thought is given to the millions of Democrats who will have no say in selecting their party's nominee.

Obama supporters are against any kind of redo in Florida or Michigan because they do not believe that it will benefit their candidate.

Obama supporters have been pushing for a redo in Michigan and Florida since the votes themselves. Until recently the Clinton team was opposing a revote because it's quite likely that Obama would increase his numbers in Florida (with Edwards gone) and possibly win the vote in Michigan (where 44% voted for "other").

Clinton's only claim to large delegate and popular vote gains from these states relies on the idea that Obama got no votes (or delegates) at all in Michigan.

As for the millions of Democrats who have no say, remember that lots of people hoped the nomination would be wrapped up by super Tuesday - and no one complained that Virgina, Texas, Ohio, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Washington and about 15 other states would have had no say in the election at all.

That's what this staggered election calendar is all about.

Maybe those millions of Democrats should have a word or two with the idiot state politicians who got them in this problem by thinking that the rules didn't apply to them.

As a 42 year old whoi has lived his entire voting life in WA and OR I am damn sick and tired of hearing baout how FL amd MI will have no voice in deciding the nominee. Guess what I have never in my voting life had a say in determining the nominee!

If the rest of the states go as expected Obama will have a large enough delegate lead that seating the FL and MI delegations for Hillary as their currently stand won't make any difference. Will that mean they have no say in determining the nominee?