the MI Dem state party, governor, and politicians were the leaders on changing the date. Per Barrett, they were not--and the Dem pols who pushed it were in the Obama camp. Later they also realized it was not a good thing, but by then it was too late.

This is such a mess--and that the DNC goes for the death penalty instead of the standard punishment is truly amazing.

Now, it seems the DNC "leaders" are caught in supporting their own stands just to prove they were right initially and are unable to look at reality on the ground.

Dear goddess, power does disturb reasoning ability at times.

FL Dems were simply and purely bumrushed by the ReThugs--who are enjoying every minute of the state Dems' distress. Very Rovian. And in the ReThug contests, with winner take all, losing even 50% of their delegates merely makes for fewer Convention goers, not loss of of impact.

It kind of hilarious because when I've posted comments on this article elsewhere and claim that Florida and national dems were duped by Republicans, I get a long list of quotes from those democrats claiming they weren't duped. As if that should be decisive. What are they going to say, played by the Republicans, AGAIN!

And via Anglachel, Elizabeth Edwards just had the nerve to go on national television and say that not only does Hillary have the better healthcare plan, but the nominating contest should go to the convention:

Elizabeth Edwards, wife of former presidential candidate John Edwards, remains unwilling to endorse either of the two remaining Democratic contenders, but the health care advocate told ABC News she preferred Sen. Clinton's health plan to Sen. Obama's.

In an interview with "Good Morning America's" Robin Roberts, airing Wednesday, Edwards - who recently began work as a senior fellow at the liberal think tank, the Center for American Progress - said she believed Clinton's health care plan was more inclusive than that of the Illinois senator.

"You need that universality in order to get the cost savings ... I just have more confidence in Sen. Clinton's policy than Sen. Obama's on this particular issue," she said.

As to how the contentious Democratic nomination will end, Edwards said she thought letting the race end at the convention was a good idea.

"I don't actually think it's a bad idea to have an open convention, where we actually got to hash out what the differences [between the candidates] were and how important they are," she said. Edwards said she liked the idea of Clinton and Obama running together on a so-called dream ticket, and discounted the idea of her husband, John, accepting a place as either candidate's running mate.

"[Clinton and Obama] are the two strongest Democrats running. It's hard not to believe that together they are stronger than they would be apart."

I guess she hasn't been reading Kos.

See http://www.abcnews.go.com/print?id=4614612

...is, Dean is going to declare Obama the winner in July, then they are going to retroactively either give him the Florida and Michigan delegates, or split them 50/50, then they will seat the delegates in Denver.
By doing this, they hope to pacify the voters in those two states by trying to convince them that their votes really did matter, when in reality they had nothing to do with choosing the winner.
Of course, when they do this, they can kiss the votes of many supporters of Hillary, such as myself, goodbye come November.
If Obama where to win the election fair and square (which he can't unless there are fair elections in all 50 states), then I would have nothing to to gripe and feel cheated about.
But Howard to Dean is too much of a coward to make a stand and force (or at least try) those two states to have fair elections which could determine the election because he's afraid of Obama's supporters.

I think this is a case scenario of a power srtuggle between the two factions within the party. These would be the liberals/ the New Left and the progressives/ the New Democrats. The New Democrats moved the party to the center and restructured the platform built by FDR. Liberals tend to get stuck in identity politics. Progressives want the same things but tend to prioritize with economy/labor issues. HRC's healthcare plan is about labor/economic issues, a traditional progressive priority. When Ol' Bill signed NAFTA into legislation, it seemed to make sense as a response to the emerging economic power house European Union. HRC wanting to re-work it is a classic progressive response to problems within the treaty and enforcement. It is incredible to me that the advances of the New Democrats exemplified by Clinton/Gore administration and currently by Sen. Clinton are systematically being dis-mantled within our own party. Expected of the GOP, but within our own party ? No wonder Gore isn't inerested in being in politics anymore.

can they explain how any Democrat can win without Florida and Michigan?

Toss out Ohio and Pennsylvania and it's not "virtually impossible," it's simply "impossible."

OxyCon: Dean can declare that the moon is made of green cheese, it's still going to the convention.

------------------------------------------------
"The thing about democracy, beloveds, is that it is not neat, orderly, or quiet. It requires a certain relish for confusion." - Molly Ivins (RIP)

Unless you live in MI or FL.

It's not just about legitimizing the eventual Democratic nominee. It's about the legitimacy of the entire Democratic Party. Rules are rules are rules. But when an institution is allowed to make up rules that result in the deliberate disenfranchisement of innocent voters and get away with it, the excrement has hit the air conditioner.

As much as Hillary or Obama partisans like to make this into a legitimacy of one or the other candidates, they are both failing to notice what is really wrong. Would this be an issue if it were two different candidates? Yes. Would this be an issue if it were 2012 instead of 2008? Yes. A fundamentally unjust system is, well, fundamentally unjust.

I'm perfectly willing to lose a true democratic election. I'm not willing to participate in a system that ceases to be democratic. The silly thing is that super delegates are going to decide this thing no matter what happens with FL and MI. But Obama supporters seems perfectly willing to throw democracy out the door to protect his tiny lead, even if it delegitimizes the entire Democratic Party. The urgency of the situation is muted by focusing on Hillary and Obama. It's the legitimacy of the process and the Party that I'm worried most about.

I majored in history, and I learned that the most horrific crimes of mankind were perpetrated by people who convinced themselves they were doing the right thing.

The slope is slippery. First you set a worthy goal. Then you convince yourself that achieving that goal is worth sacrificing a few principles.

On that path lies darkness.
------------------------------------------------
"The thing about democracy, beloveds, is that it is not neat, orderly, or quiet. It requires a certain relish for confusion." - Molly Ivins (RIP)

iq, what you say is precisely what scares me most about this whole thing. This disenfranchisement isn't some electronic voting conspiracy theory. This is deliberate and in public. And the blogger Boiz are happy to let it happen since it helps their candidate.

Personally, I think electing John McCain will have worse effects than abandoning democracy. It seems like I'm one of the few that thinks that these days, though.

There is all this ink spent on how if we don't count MI and FL delegates the dems will loose both states. I live in MI and blame the fiasco on the state party, not Obama. When we went to the polls, the choices were Hillary (not my favorite), Kusinich (I'm all for him, but no chance to win), Gravel (ditto), Dodd (I appreciate his stand on the telecos, but no chance to win)and UNCOMMITTED. Who was that? Maybe they are for Obama, maybe for Clinton, maybe for who knows whom? There was no Edwards offered. I chose to vote for Ron Paul just because I had no choices I wanted, and Paul was such an embarassment to the repugs. Let them waste money by sending me stuff, since the repugs were going to get the voter list.

Counting Hillary's Michigan votes and calling it the will of the people is way off the mark. For Florida, on the other hand, both names were on the ballot, both candidates played by the same rules, so I could see counting them.

Does not counting them write off either state in the general election? Where is the data? Have polls showed that this would be the case? Most people in FL and in MI (I would think) are going to vote or not vote for whomever for a lot of other better reasons than who got to vote on the first ballot at a convention some months before.

Obama and Clinton both have their flaws, but most folks will do what they do in all elections -- try to decide between the lesser of evils, hold their noses and choose.

totally gizzardboy.

MI was a sham of an election. But who chose to make it so, by removing their name from the ballot? Who chose to continue to make it so, by having their supporters block revotes. Since the FL\MI delegations must be accepted, because the could have an affect on the outcome(it was obvious that the party heads figured the primaries would be concluded early and then MI & FL could be forgiven), they must be accepted as is. I don't like it, I wish Michigan voters had a better election, but voters are only guaranteed a right to vote, not a right to vote for the candidate they want, if that candidate is not on ballot. Obama put himself in this position, and refused to rectify that problem(which demonstrates things about his judgement, just not good things).

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

I'll say it again
He's in it for the money. Win or lose he wins $$$$. Do you really believe for one moment someone who has less regard for his grandma than the average dude in the South does, is going to be loyal to any jack anyone but himself. After the election he'll be able to scam off of the black population just like Wright is, just like televangelists do, without the hassle of the white house.
Dudes it's time you guys woke the frell up.
This is not a hard working guy, he likes his stupidly expensive sandwiches, and let everyone else eat cake for all he cares. He's even stiffin the guys who worked 12 to 16 hour shifts for him in campaign HDqtrs PA.
He could give a cow poke for these weirdos. He's in it for the green, and lots of it.

That would have been the equitable solution. Obama blocked it.

(I can see an argument why FL should be counted as is, since all the candidates had equal advantages. But MI is a total Clusterfuck. And I know Obama took his name of the ballot voluntarily, so he ought to pay a price, but OTOH the controlling principle should be the voters.)

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Jeqal, Obama's not in it for the money, any more than Clinton was. He's in it for the power. And that's a desireable trait in a politician.

Now, if you want to give a link on the 16 hour shifts thing, that would be useful. Otherwise...

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

campaigns spread money to ward leaders and other volunteers to GOTV in Philly, but Obama says he won't do it-- i bet he's gonna do it secretly but pretend he didn't have to.

here-- LA Times-- Barack Obama may lose support in Philadelphia over 'street money' -- http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-...

Forked over money for FL & MI, what?

Please elaborate.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

to get chairs

http://www.dc.state.fl.us/secretary/pres...

they're going to be seated in those chairs. OK.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!