Michigan, Florida dilemma: 'Idea of a redo absurd'

Well, with no redo it looks like the dem presidential nominee will be selected, not elected.

Hmmmm....where have we heard that one before?

Paulo

This is absurd. Last night I heard Lou Dobbs say that the DNC won't pay for a re-do then said maybe the DNC and Dean are to big for his britches. What bull. These states are the ones that are to big for their britches. They wanted to play a game of chicken with the DNC to make their own states more important in the primaries. While I feel sorry for the voters of these states, they need to look within for the problem. Crist says he will not pay, yet even having a redo will be a windfall of money coming into the state with money for advertisement, etc. This is really a black and white issue....they changed the rules that they themselves signed off on, they played a game of chicken with the DNC and they lost. Plain and simple. The outrage should be directed toward the states not the DNC.

Hillary's campaign would like to see the results of the earlier contests accepted because it's to her advantage. She has shown us that she doesn't care if she destroys the party and gives us President "100 years in Iraq" McCain as long as she gets the bragging rights as the first female nominee of a major party. If there is a re-do, it will probably have to be caucuses rather than a full-blown primary and the two campaigns should split the cost.

These are the folks we want running the country after years of ineptitude...right?

How much money would Florida or Michigan pay to have the Super Bowl held in their State? There is no bigger circus than the Clinton/Obama debate......
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/03/07/the-florida-michigan-vote-solution/

The biggest thing the DNC has to worry about it what I've learned as an application designer.

Users, or voters in this case, really dont care what the reason behind the problems is. They know that they didn't get what they wanted (a vote that counted) and it was the DNC rules that did it.

Whatever logic they use it ultimately comes down to the DNC not letting their own democracy use its voice. The paradox is infuriating and they really wont care because the right to vote is more important than what date they voted on.

I see a lot of people thinking twice about dealing with the DNC in those states. For a lot of us moderates that would be enough to switch over to a group that has their stuff together.

These are the folks we want running the country after years of ineptitude...right?

Posted by: Steve | March 7, 2008 7:57 AM

What you seem to forget is that the RNC only slapped their wrists and allowed half the delagates to count. So much for the law and order party once again.

Right on bill! It is unfortunate for these voters that their state party officials decided to buck the rules, but that's really not a problem for everyone else. Seems that maybe this is a moment for Howard Dean and the DNC to grow some er, "britches". This is the type of centralized strength the RNC has and the very reason they can consistently rally around a single message. It's something that is way too long coming for the DNC. Dean and the DNC have to get it together and control their party- or else they'll be stepping aside one more time while McCain orders drapes for the oval office.

In neither state was there a campaign. In Michigan only one candidate was on the ballot.

Since when does a Kazakhstan-style election should count in American?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?bl&ex=1201928400&en=34871ee7da314ab4&ei=5087%0A

I am a resident of Michigan, and I think it's completely unfair to take our vote away because our state mismanaged their affairs. The government went nearly bankrupt last year, jobs and people keep leaving the state, and the state voted to push the primaries up against party rules. None of these are my fault, and I think it's unfair that I am penalized in having my say in this extremely important election. I agree that the state should have to pay since it was their decision, but the residents of the states should not be ignored.

Its about what is right - the thought of a redo is absurd, and the thought of counting illegal votes is too.

If Florida and Michaigan get a redo - then ALL states must be allowed too - and if votes are counted which are collected illegally - then why not allow votes collected from non citizens, from off voting times, ect... its not about your favorite canidates - its about flaunting the process.

FL and MI were wrong, but hey voters don't want to be told they are wrong or that their leaders did wrong, number one reason the country is in the state it is today.

The votes must stand, with FL and MI being excluded - democracy is not about bending the rules for voting - the vote must be controlled and legal to ensure every vote is equal. FL and MI were warned their early voting would be outside the legal timeframe, their vote does not count because those citizens did not want their vote to be equal within the rules.

This idea of a do-over is absurd both candidates agreed to the rules prior to the contest, the media is pushing for the do-over idea to drag out the race for their ratings, the republicans are urging because they don't want America to see how inept John McCain is, this is Billary at their best. They want power, it doesn't matter who pays. I feel bad for the voters in those states but they should have made their case prior to the primaries not after the result. There isn't a fair way to resolve this issue.

The notion that some committee can invalidate my vote is outrageous and unconstitutional. Has the slippery slope of civil rights erosion sunk to this level? First, the Republican Party stole an election; now the Democratic Party seeks to follow suit. Why hasn't the ACLU filed suit to restore Michigan and Florida voters' votes?

The only good solution is for the seated delegates at the convention to vote on whether to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates.

I was always raised to respect the rules, whether I agreed with them or not. We as a society seem to have drifted away from that concept in all aspects of life. I also was taught that there is always some kind of price to pay for breaking the rules. Well, Michigan and Florida, your leaders chose to break the rules, now its time to pay.

It would appear that the easy way to resolve the matter would be for the DNC and the candidates to accept the Florida Election and to redo Michigan with the cost being split between the DNC and the state.

All the Democratic nominees were on the Florida ballot, they just didn't campaign in the state. Which was probably a blessing for the voters.

GAME OVER.

HIllary Clinton has proven she can win the big states that are the must wins for the Dems in November.

Obama has failed to close the deal. In Ohio, despite outspending Hillary Clinton 3 to 1, Obama won ONLY 5 out of 88 counties. Those five are where the large black voting groups live. Obama carried the black vote by 86%, the ONLY group he won in Ohio. If you can't win Ohio, you can't win the Presidency.

Obama is unelectable. He needs to exit the race now and the Dems need to rally behind Hillary.

Of course, the Dems will have to count the voters from Michigan and Florida and they must have a seat and full participation in the convention.

The article above states with majestic authority: "Experts say it is unlikely that either state, with legislatures dominated by Republicans, will stage costly new primaries."

Mr. Silva, if you take a look, the Michigan legislature is NOT "dominated" by Republicans. In fact, Democrats control the Michigan House, as well as the governorship.

Oops!

Based on the delegate counts both pledged, pending and denied by the DNC in Florida and Michigan, neither candidate will have enough to lock up the nomination prior to the convention in Denver. Like it or not, party insiders will be making the choice for all Democrats.

If the Clintons do not have enough delegates then Florida and Michigan results should stand. If Obama does not have enough delegates then only the Florida results should stand. That's fair isn't it? The Democrats are on the verge of blowing the presidency and drain all the enthusiasm out of politics for a long time.

There is much foul affoot in the halls of Tallahassee. Witness how the Republicans changed the democratic process, then let their own delegates sit while the Democrats stuck to the rules. The Republicans went "I know we said no, but yeah, go right ahead, a little rule breaking doesn't matter." That this is an issue is a demonstration as to the core values of both parties, that the Democrats believe in fair and equitable application of the rules to everyone, while the Republicans not only ignore the rules when it suits them, they flaunt it in peoples faces. Shame on you RNC.

There should be no 'do over' at all.

Both states knew in advance that holding the elections when they did was a violation of the rules.

The voters in those states knew that the elections were a violation of the rules.

They went ahead with it anyway, thinking they were above the rules.

Fla and Mich should be disqualified from having their delegates seated. When you break rules, you should expect to be punished. This was no accident, it was intentional.

If the voters want to scream at someone over being 'disenfranchised' they need to first look in a mirror, then go voice their displeasure with their state's party.

Then NEXT time, when they're told when they are permitted to hold their elections, maybe they'll do it right.

If Florida and Michigan get to redo their elections and the penalty imposed by the DNC is meaningless, what will stop other states from moving up their primaries to gain an advantage? Other states may move their primaries even further back than Florida and Michigan, taking away their tactical advantage. It will become an never-ending cycle.

both states knew the rules, both states decided to hold early primaries in violation of those rules, both states should not have the option to "re do". Hillary only wants this because she did well. That was earl on, that was because the other candidates did not appear on teh ballot nor campaign there, she got votes from name recognition. I say the voters in those states lose out, too bad, but elect new leadership. No Re Do. There are that must be followed in life and they chose not to. I certainly don't want Hillary running this country if she thinks you can NOT follow rules. That's what our current President is doing.

"Hmmmm....where have we heard that one before?" (Paulo)

Nonsense, balderdash and poppycock. Allowing those delegates to sit would be selection, not election. Clinton campaigned in violation of her agreements with the other candidates. Now she's calling to have those delegates seated in violation of her agreement with the DNC.

But you can bet the blood in your body that if the delegate count had tipped towards Barack Obama, who did not campaign there as he agreed not to, Hillary would be on television waving a big blue and white flag with "Support the Rules!" like the DNC's knight in shining armor.

Sure, they should be redone. And Dean has no problem with that. As for those poor Governors who demand in the name of fairness that "the voice of the people be heard", one of them is Clinton's creature and the other is a Republican who has recieved their marching orders to bloody Obama and get Hillary elected -precisely because the GOP believes they can beat her in November.

The DNC should not be punished for the ineptitude of the elected officials of Florida and Michigan. It is the officials that put them in the place they are in now. Every official that agreed to move up the primary, knowing that it violated the rules, should renounce their seat. If they then get re-elected , then it is the voters fault.

Where were Hillary, her campaign officials (one of whom participated in making the rules) and her supporters BEFORE the primaries in Florida and Michigan? Certainly not arguing for the need to enfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan -- the consequences had been made crystal clear. Of course they are squawking about the need to change the rules in retrospect because it is to their advantage. It is unfair to change the rules in the middle of the game PERIOD. Michigan and Florida are responsible for this mess and should take the consequences and/or the burden for resolving this (including the financial burden).

It's very funny watching the democrats self destruct like this. Hillary is showing herself to be the hypocrite we've always known her to be, and Obama is showcasing his total lack of real world experience. Come the convention, when there is still no democrat nominee, the blood will really flow!

Florida changed it's primary in order to allow Juliani (sp) to start his run there just before the Super Tuesday. This was set up by the Florida republicans who knew Hillary would win the state as the democrat nominee. Republicans do not want Hillary nominated because they know, despite their chatter that they can not beat Hillary Clinton. The Republicans knew before they set up that date that it would mean democrat deligates would not be seated and therefore it helped Obama. They now are willing to have their democrat votes not count rather than run another primary despite the fact that another primary would bring more money into Florida.Whether Crist is McCain's VP or not, they still want the weakest democrat nominated and to continue the in fighting as long as possible....it only helps republicans. Florida votes should be counted because it was a republican plan to help republican candidates and democrats should not let them get away with picking our nominee. Hillary will win Florida no matter how many times you do it over.

As for MI with a democrat for Governor, I'm not aware of why they changed their date but so did Iowa, NH and SC. I am concerned with the idea that any candidate took their name off the ballot in MI. What kind of judgement does a candidate show by taking their name off the ballot in one state? MI should be counted as is simply because obama used his great judgement and decided not to run in MI...THAT IS NOT MI'S FAULT or Hillary's.

Now the reality is that although all candidates agreed not to campaign in FL or MI, Obama did a little campaigning in FL and Hillary did not. She did thank FL after the polls were closed.

"I see a lot of people thinking twice about dealing with the DNC in those states. For a lot of us moderates that would be enough to switch over to a group that has their stuff together."

LOL...and who is THAT, I wonder?

Your post opens with a reference to "all my years as an applications designer", followed by an explanation suggesting that the Florida/Michigan Democrats are too ignorant to care about the "why", no matter how justified, then you lump yourself in the same category in the name of democracy...although, by your own admission in the first line of your comment, you claim to know better. The thing that irks me is not the self-contradiction, it's your low opinion of the intelligence of the average voter.
It's your smug self-assurance that appealing to people's fears is the way to leave an America better than you found it.

Just split them all down the middle, 50/50. That way they don't affect the outcome as was originally agreed, and the two states are seated. The time for the people of these two states to complain was before their respective primaries.

The only ones responsible for disenfranchising voters in Florida and Michigan are the people who decided to illegally move up the elections.

The results from these elections cannot be supported unless there is a do-over, and such a do-over must be paid by the offending party, not the DNC.

Remember accountability? Yeah, neither do I...

"First, the Republican Party stole an election; now the Democratic Party seeks to follow suit. Why hasn't the ACLU filed suit to restore Michigan and Florida voters' votes?"

Because they cheated, pal. And no matter how much you think it would help your obvious candidate of choice, it wouldn't. It would simply alienate half of the Democratic, not one or two states but 27 of them, and enforce the idea of a smoke-filled-room, of selection and insider politics. Besides, Hillary appears to be on a roll...why do you have to cheat to seal the deal? Don't you think she's electable enough without these illegal votes?

"The only good solution is for the seated delegates at the convention to vote on whether to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates.

Posted by: Rob | March 7, 2008 8:12 AM "

Now that sounds a real solution. I'm almost shocked...hats off, Rob.

The Democratic Party is not about to foot the bill for local Florida and Michigan party screw up's and neither will the states of Florida and Michigan. Furthermore, no matter what Hillary does, including the extremely unlikely event of her winning all the remaining primaries, including proposed rescheduled primaries in Florida and Michigan, by 10 points, she cannot catch up with Obama in either the popular vote or the delegate count based on the delegate math provided Newsweek's Jonathan Alter (see http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010)

How low will the Clintons sink just to gain a tainted nomination? Now that the numbers are against Senator Clinton acquiring the number of delegates to overcome Senator Obama's lead, she wants to create a furor over the illegal primaries held in MI and FL!

This act of hers should make everyone aware of her character and determination to "win" the nomination at any cost, not giving one whit as to the fracturing of the Democratic Party. Just the mere mention of including the votes of an ILLEGAL primary, should give one reason to wonder if she thinks that cheating, or ignoring rules agreed upon prior to the primary should be the way to become the next President of The United States of America? Where is the ethical position one should have, given the enormity of the office? Do we want a person that cheats, or attempts to change rules agreed to in the beginning, to represent us as our leader?

I wonder if she is more interested in her own ambitions, rather than a fair, contested set of primaries, where she has a definite disadvantage, given the outcomes of the justly conducted prior primaries.

Seems that a test of true character is called for here, especially since she wants to violate a pledge made when she was the "presumable likely Democratic candidate," and the voices of the majority of the States have proven that she is not!!

With respect to Fla. & Mich. just split the delegates equally giving 1/2 to each candidate.Then everyone should be happy. The delegates get seated, the voters have voted, and the spirit of the rule is followed and it costs no extra money.

What's it difference if their votes count or not? Our specific votes do not elect people directly. The so called super delegates and the Electoral College are the ones that have the vote that counts. Think about it. Its not who we the people vote for, at the end of the day its these 2 groups that have the final say.

It is interesting reading and listening to all of the commentary re the "bad Florida voters". It is as if I chose to change the dates for the primaries. Take a look at who did. The result for me is a simple one. If you did not like my vote the first time and did not count it, the Democrats can "kiss my ***". I have re-registered as Independant after 41 years of of voting solid Democrat and and contributing to the Party and candidates. Want my vote? BEG ME!

I want to know why the media hasn't pressed Crist as to why he decided to ignore the rules and moved up the primary. He was on CNN and never once asked this question. This action was also in direct violation of the RNC. Why did the RNC not abide by the rules? This smells.

Whatever games the State officials played, taking away citizen's votes is wrong! Their votes should count along with the rest of the country! I would think a redo would be the fairest solution. Giving Hillary everything when Obama didn't even try in those states is not right. But it does say something that Hillary cared about those citizens, even though their votes weren't going to count. The Obama camp idea to split them all down the middle is completely preposterous.

The NDC laid down a party rule, clearly defined and stated, a was broken by a section of its own members in these states. The NDC annulled the votes in these states. Now the party functionaries and big shots are overruling their own words again. The Democratic Party in this year has consistently proven to be a Party without resolve and courage. It simply wants to pander to the whims of the Clintons. It is not serious about winning the White House. The Party's lack of resolve and wisdom is paving the way for McCain. It is a terrible shame. It is a party of defeats. Obama, like Powell, will go Republican 4 or 8 years from now. Why follow a bunch of idiots.

Florida & Michigan should pay for do-overs if they want their votes counted. In all fairness, FL is somewhat debatable but, Michigan is definitely out of the question! It is so unfortunate, because it should have been a slam dunk for Democrats to take back the White House.

The NDC laid down a party rule, clearly defined and stated, a was broken by a section of its own members in these states. The NDC annulled the votes in these states. Now the party functionaries and big shots are overruling their own words again. The Democratic Party in this year has consistently proven to be a Party without resolve and courage. It simply wants to pander to the whims of the Clintons. It is not serious about winning the White House. The Party's lack of resolve and wisdom is paving the way for McCain. It is a terrible shame. It is a party of defeats. Obama, like Powell, will go Republican 4 or 8 years from now. Why follow a bunch of idiots.

Remember folks, this is the party that wants EVERY vote to count.

Anyone in either state that would vote for a Democrat after pulling their right to have a say in the primary is an idiot.

I LOVE all these law-and-order, rule-following posters. Someone I know said this this morning, at the fitness center. Problem is, her remark right before that had been abotu pulling strings to get her daughter into college; her in-law is an in-law of someone important who COULD pull strings to get her daughter off the deferred list and onto the "admitted" list. Breaking rules? Well, yes. And no, she didn't see the irony.

I find most people love to trot out the "rules are rules" and "they knew the rules!" lines when it supports their decisions. When it comes to their own lives (inflating charitable conttibutions on income tax returns, for example, or claiming something that really WASN'T a business expense), well, they're not nearly so fussy.

Typical Dem fiasco...and all the sanctimonious posts about the party playing fair while those dastardly Repubs didn't, are laughable. It was your brilliant party bosses who decided to break the rules in the first place...but as usual, Dem rule/law breaking gets a pass from the party faithful. I'll bet if we look close enough, this is all Bush, Cheney, or Rove's fault somehow. Looks like the right was just once again smarter than the left...you got beat yet again.

It's very funny watching the democrats self destruct like this.
Posted by: Realist | March 7, 2008 8:53 AM

Yes...we should have done what the republicans did. Change the rules in the middle of the game. What the heck..we know the republicans have no problem breaking the rules. Some law and order party.

Sorry, but Hillary's call to count her "victories" in FL and MI violates even a child's understanding of fairness. I like Ms. Clinton but it infuriates me that she cannot even acknowledge that those results are tainted.

Want my vote? BEG ME!

Posted by: Tom Leghart | March 7, 2008 9:16 AM

You are obviously not a deep thinker. You want to blame the DNC when in fact it was YOUR state officials who ignored the rules. Go ahead and take your deep thinking to the republicans...you'll fit right in.

I am surprised that the author hinted that it is OK to seat the delegates who were just elected by part of the electorate primarily the supporter of Hillary Clinton. Don't you think its even worse to count the votes of supporters on one side when the supporters of the other side virtually abstained. That is not democracy.
The Florida governor is playing politics being a Republican and the Michigan Governor is trying to recover from a bad decision, which should cost her governorship.

Posted by: Liz | March 7, 2008 9:33 AM

Right on Liz...rules are over rated...I've always wanted to rob a bank and now have the courage to do so thanks to you.

To David:

"It's your smug self-assurance that appealing to people's fears is the way to leave an America better than you found it."

I think you are missing the point. The DNC has to realize that this is bad news. There has to be someway to appease the voters. The problem, as you are trying to put it, isn't "voters are stupid". Its that it isn't the voters job to make sure their votes count.

In my user analogy it was because users dont care and they aren't paid to make sure applications work. Thats my job.

And its the DNCs job to work with the state government to make sure the voters have a functioning system.

You made some sweeping assumptions about what I do and my views on people that I found pretty silly.

Where is the onus of responsibility? It isn't on the voters - they did their job. That was my point.

Selected not elected...hummmmm wonder what "Play by the rules or go home" means to Paulo dosen't understand? FL & MI knew what they were giving up but since both Gov. of those states support Clinton they now want to change the rules without taking responsibility for their own actions. As for selected or elected? At this point, and even including the vote in FL & MI, Obama has more delegates and would still hold the popular vote so if he gets it? He will have won the nomination and been "elected" regardless of the Clinton spin.

Howard leaves out that there is a third option. He could simply do the honorable thing that the RNC did, punish the offending state parties without completely disenfranchising the voters by stripping them of half or more of their delegates, but not all of them.

p.s. Crist didn't move anything, himself, the bill to approve the new primary date was passed by the Florida house and senate with only two nay votes. This was bipartisan legislation all the way.

p.s. Crist didn't move anything, himself, the bill to approve the new primary date was passed by the Florida house and senate with only two nay votes. This was bipartisan legislation all the way.

Posted by: Jeff | March 7, 2008 10:45 AM

Quite frankly Jeff...I don't care who did it..but it was Crist on CNN saying that it was the DNC's fault so again, why wasn't he pressed as to why the state changed the rules. Do you believe in rules Jeff? or do believe that caving in like the RNC was the right thing to do? If you don't believe rules are rules ...please explain why. If you think the RNC did the right thing by not demanding that rules are rules...do you think that criminals should be allowed to negotiate their way out of the crime?

Where were Hillary, her campaign officials (one of whom participated in making the rules) and her supporters BEFORE the primaries in Florida and Michigan? Certainly not arguing for the need to enfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan -- the consequences had been made crystal clear. Of course they are squawking about the need to change the rules in retrospect because it is to their advantage. It is unfair to change the rules in the middle of the game PERIOD. Michigan and Florida are responsible for this mess and should take the consequences and/or the burden for resolving this (including the financial burden).

Posted by: ILDem | March 7, 2008 8:52 AM

ILDem,
I couldn't have said this better myself. The states' gambled the trust of their voters by breaking the DNC rules and now that Hillary is drowning slowly, they choose to blame the DNC? These are the same rules the states decided to break in the first place. Who cannot see thru this debacle? So I agree with Howard Dean, the ball is in the court of FL and IL.

It was your brilliant party bosses who decided to break the rules in the first place..
Posted by: Steve | March 7, 2008 9:37 AM

Maybe you can answer who those "party bosses" would be. Would it be the DNC would had the states sign off on this and then stood their ground? Or is there someone else you have in mind?

How about Hillary Clinton's campaign paying for a re-do in Florida and Michigan? She's the one who would apparently benefit from it.

Bill Hussein R, the RNC didn't "cave in" to anyone. They punished the state parties for violating the rules by taking away half the delegates in Michigan and Florida. They upheld the rules without disenfranchising the voters and if you think the democrats did the right thing and they the wrong, then please enjoy the mess you've got on your hands right now.

Rules are rules and punishments are punishments. The RNC felt stripping half the delegates fit the violation. The DNC felt that only stripping them of all delegates would suffice. Look ojectively at the situation and tell me who you think was right.

Democrats...split the delegates 50/50 for Florida and Michigan. The candidates get needed delegate count-EVENLY. So the voter's get some say, BUT, don't make a difference.(that was the DNC intention)-every one saves face and butt...
Use the millions of saved $$$ and fix a road or give it to the needy!
We're Democrats. The "change party". Let the Change start here!

MI shouldn't hold a redo primary election because Rush Limbaugh will just get his neocon republicans to vote for the nominee that the republican can beat.

They should hold caucus so that they know who is voting and who will be the delegates.

"I am surprised that the author hinted that it is OK to seat the delegates who were just elected by part of the electorate primarily the supporter of Hillary Clinton. Don't you think its even worse to count the votes of supporters on one side when the supporters of the other side virtually abstained. That is not democracy.
The Florida governor is playing politics being a Republican and the Michigan Governor is trying to recover from a bad decision, which should cost her governorship."

We should leave the govenor of Michigan out of this since she is a personal friend of the Clit-on

Jeremy Ring, Jeremy Ring, JEREMY RING. Remember that name. If you want to hold someone accountable for paying for the cost of recasting Florida votes, try getting him to pay for it. Aa the laughing Democrat who co-sponsored the Republican bill that moved the vote forward, he's your guy.

"My hope is we've blown up the whole primary system," Ring said. "It would be the biggest legacy we'll get from this legislation."

Mainstream media refuses to note this truth but lets Crist off the hook by not asking the hard question. Why in the world should working class or even the rich pay for this foolishness when this man disenfranchised his own voters? Impeach him first then maybe we'll consider digging up money to fund this fiasco.

I am annoyed by this problem. Right wrong or indifferent everybody knew the consequences of their actions at the state level long before they decided to move up the elections anyhow. Secondly, something has to be done about this or we'll soon be in a situation where we begin the primary season right after the current president's inauguration as states continue this malarky in an effort to have the first primary. This need to be first to bolster the local economy and have bragging rights has made a mockery of this entire process. Its not about having the candidates eat at your restaurants or sleep in your hotels. ITS ABOUT SELECTING THE NEXT LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD!

Secondly, Long before this process began everybody agreed to the rules. I was angered by Ms. Clinton's call for those votes to be counted right after the elections in both states. I was angered because it was nothing more than a political stunt to capitalize on the emotion of the voters in those states who's delegates were stripped. I actually was very much in her corner until I saw her say that. The moment I heard that I donated 100 to Obama's campaign.

Regarding Michigan, I must ask how is it Ms. Clinton's name was the only one on the ballot? While I feel for her supporters it seems nobody else got a fair shake in that state. IF there wasn't a revote, and the votes counted as cast, then what about the disenfranchisement of the Obama supporters that didn't bother to go out into the cold because their candidate wasn't on the ballot nor were their delegates to be seated? But there goes HRC wrapping herself in the "savior of disenfranchisement" flag up to the point where she's concerned for your disenfranchisement just short of if you didn't support her. Talk about appalling.

In FL, there is a slightly different set of circumstances. With name recognition like her's she has a natural advantage in any state where no campaigning was allowed. If you look at Texas we see what happens with Obama comes out to campaign. He comes from 20 points back to nearly tie or outright defeat her. As such I wasn't at all surprised to hear this talk of her not supporting a revote...and I think that is because she knows there is a big chance she might lose if she actually had to run against Obama in a straight election.

Thirdly, I strongly feel that a vote recount should not at all happen. I say this as both a former resident of Michigan and Florida. Were I living there now I'd feel exactly the same way about this. The states were pushing their elections forward to "make more of an impact in the election." As punishment they lost their delegates. This was clearly communicated before they moved up their primaries. Were there to now be a re-vote in these states we'd have a situation that effectively rewards these states more so than what they were seeking in the first place. They not only get to make more impact, they arguably now get to be the deciding factor. Gee, such a punishment. No. The rules need to stand, even if we don't like em, because if they don't then the rules have no meaning.

MI, FL, its elections officials in YOUR states that created this. If you don't like it write your state leadership. Its not the DNC that disenfranchised you...it was your own state leaders. Next time these people try to make this type of decision get involved!

What is wrong with everyone? Dems are the ones who told their supporters their vote would not count even if they voted. Aren't the dems the ones who said every vote should count?

Well the DNC obvioulsy doesn't believe what they say, only what they do.

The DNC decided when and how votes would count then how any dem can support their party who would deny their vote to them to begin with is dillusional. The candidates agreed with the DNC and only when two are left in the fight for the nomination do the rules go out the window. If they make rules and promises, how can you believe them with anything if they go back on their own rules and promises going forward?

Does this mean only the dumb are so gullible to believe everything dems may say or do. As an independent I am outraged that the DNC even made the rule to begin with and the candidates pledged not to campaign or count the votes cast.

Do-over? Schmoo-over.

An after-the-fact “oops” option is both unfair to taxpayers and unfair to the party.

Florida and Michigan did it wrong, so they should be out.

What's so hard to fathom about that?

The DNC is run by a very rational and sane man so clearly the regulations he laid down are completely fair and logical. And if they're broken, entire states should lose their rights to vote. It all makes sense.... give me a break! How many people out there are from Florida and support what has happened? (and don't just lie about it in your response) If it were your state you'd never call it justified. Face it, if you are a Dem supporting this outrage, it is because you want Sen. Obama to win the nomination (again I've read your responses full of lies all before...)You can talk circles around this debate with your big words and "fair" reasoning, but it will never change the fact that my rights have been truly violated. This is not acceptable as a citizen of the U.S. I might as well move to ... you get the picture.

The only campaign ad that ran in Florida was a national ad run by Obama. All of the candidates names were on the Florida ballot. People that came out to vote were people that cared enough to do so. Clinton got 50%, Obama 33% and Edwards 14%. Clinton only spoke there after she was declared winner. I can understand a redo in Michigan but Florida was won by Clinton and it would be unfair to do it over. If the Obama people use the same tactics they did here in Texas during our caucus, such as bringing people in from other states and reporting larger numbers than they really had, I can see why he would rather have a caucus instead of a primary in Florida and Michigan.