Wow. You did NOT just go there.

Keep in mind that Florida's Republican convention delegation lost half of its strength due to its violation of RNC primary scheduling rules.

You might want to also keep in mind that the Florida Legislature had to authorize by law the change to an earlier primary date for both parties.

Since both party's primaries are a function of law in addition to party rules, there is a basis for a court challenge. I predict that the state's delegations will be seated at their respective conventions.

You may very well be right about that, I just think if that it decides who gets the nomination, there will be Hell to pay.

They should just simply re-vote. Obama, Edwards, others didn't campaign because they pledged to the DNC not to...yet Hillary did.

And hell, Obama wasn't even on the friggin Michigan ballot.

I respectfully disagree Ronnierocket about re-voting. The states were warned ahead of time not to move the primary dates and were warned about the ensuing consequences of violating the rules. Just because the DNC was short-sited in believing Hillary would easily win the nomination (last year when the decision was made) is a poor excuse to re-vote (I'm not saying this is your reason) when she is not leading now. A re-vote will disenfranchise minorities and the youth vote who had their voices cast aside.

I feel bad for the people of Florida & Michigan who want their voices heard. But there must be consequences for violating the rules. The DNC or whomever should levy heavy fines against any states who violate the primary rules. The voters in Florida and Michigan should look to oust the leaders in their states who allowed this to happen (maybe use the approach California did when they threw out the governor in 2003). They have to stick to their guns here to give the message that this will not be tolerated now or in the future.

Make sure you distinguish between political parties and the governments of the states in which they operate. It is state legilsatures that, operating under thir respective state election codes, that set primary dates.

In Florida, its legislature changed to an early primary date as part of a comprehensive election code bill. The parties had no choice. The loss of National Convention delegates is an admonishment that the national parties apply to the state parties as a means of applying political pressure to the states legislatures.

By the way, I don't understand how a re-vote, as you call it, would disenfranchise anyone.

There is a "grass roots" movement to raise the millions of dollars necessary for a "revote" in Floirida. In this sense "grass roots" is synonymous with "Clinton supporters."

The DNC shouldn't change its mind on these issues and say, "Those states, who knowingly violated our primary code such that we found it necessary to strip them of their delegates, will now decide the party's nominee." Howard Dean nevertheless seems to be hinting at finding a way to hold additional elections. My problem is that the legislatures knew that by moving up their elections, they were bucking the system and risking having their states stripped of its delegates. The decision was made accordingly and all of the candidates agreed to the rules.

A challenge in federal court won't or shouldn't examine whether the stripping of the delegations was just. Rather, the inquiry should be limited whether the DNC has the authority to impose such a sanction in reference to the selection of its presidential nominee.

If Clinton is within striking distance after the Pennsylvania primary, there will be growing pressure on the DNC to allow the delegates to be seated.

Keep in mind that if this matter makes its way to the Supreme Court (a la Bush v. Gore), there are now two more strict constructioinist judges seated on the Court.

Are you kidding me? Regardless of whether you would feel disenfranchised if it happened in your state, I guarantee that many African-American and minority voters will feel that way. Think about it - we have the first African-American candidate in history come this far in a presidential primary (leading the delegate count with over 30 states voting). Obama has earned that lead by adhering to the rules that have been long established by the DNC. Whether or not it is true, there will be accusations that bending the rules was to help the white candidate and to keep the African-American candidate down. Having a re-vote puts the Democrats in a nearly impossible situation: let the voices of the voters in Michigan & Florida be heard or risk offending a huge number of minority voters.

Its academic anyway. Fla and Mich screwed up, but if Hillary wins both the delegate couunt wont change much.

Could you, um, amplify your answer?

Seriously, I thought the whole point of the proposal to re-vote in Fla & Michigan is because the lack of delegates prevent both candidates from the possibility of hitting the number needed for the nomination.

Hillary was in Scranton yesterday evening, and is speaking at noon in Harrisburg while Obama is outside of Philly.

On Saturday Scranton holds its St. Patrick's Day Parade, which has always been one of the largest in the country and attracts tens of thousands of people to the city. Reports are that both Hillary and Obama will march in the parade. Northeastern PA has always been staunchly Democratic, and the pair will be well received (if they do attend). I always return to Scranton for this parade, but will miss it this year as my younger son has a basketball tournament in Williamsport.

On Sunday night Bill Clinton is expected to attend the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick dinner in Scranton. This is the third largest Friendly Sons dinner, and this year's speaker is the President of Ireland although I'm sure there will be room for Bill on the dais. Usually, the keynote speaker during an election year is one of the presidential candidates.

You know senator, the party had a lot of buffas.

Oh gee, we don't want to offend any minority voters. Golllly. Shucks, darn, heck. Their poor feelings.

You still haven't explained how a re-vote would disenfranchise anyone.

Look here
http://undercoverblackman.blogspot.com/2008/03/black-bloggers-are-focusing-on-hillary.html

The only reason the Clinton camp is even talking about a revote is because their candidate is behind in the delegate count and absent something truly astounding taking place is not going to surpass Obama in pledged delegate count before the convention-unless she gets the delegates from Florida and Michigan. That eventuality, combined with a decisive win in Pennsylvania will put Clinton in a better position to twist arms of superdelegates to give her the nomination.

If she had won, rather than lost 12 straight contests, she wouldn't be at all interested in either seating the Michigan and Florida delegates or in having another election. Clinton would likely be lecturing people about rules and agreements.

Bottom line is that because she wants to win she is interested in changing the rules mid-contest. Understandable, of course but the side which is currently winning is not going to let that happen without a fight.

Should she win that battle, get those delegates and be awarded the nomination there will be a LOT of bad blood, a LOT of bad blood. She won't be able to count on huge Black turnout in the general election. She is already burning a great many bridges.

Why haven't ya'll realized that it is the legislatures of the various states that set the primary dates. It is not the parties.

No, actually I did explain. You obviously disagree and do so in a condescending manner.

Let me put this in even more plain English. If Obama's lead and nomination are taken away as the result of a re-vote, most minorities who voted for him will feel like the deck is forever stacked against a minority candidate being president. A re-vote gives the wrong message: all anybody has to do is whine long enough until they get their way, regardless of the rules. That's not the kind of standard I want my kids growing up to see.

Let me be even more condescending just to show you that I'm not a hard-hearted man, that it's not all about dollars and cents.

If a re-vote date is announced, no new voter qualifications will accrue to potential voters. Voters simply go to the polls on that date and vote. It's simple. If one is simply stupid and/or lazy, then one won't go to the polls on that date and vote.

On the other hand, if a re-vote is not permitted, than all of the Florida voters who voted on January 29 will feel disenfranchised.

As Spock would have said, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.

"Feelings, whoa, whoa, whoa feelings."

Someone on MSNBC did a mathematical analysis in which he threw in FLorida and Michigan AS THEY ARE TODAY for Clinton. She would still have to win at about a 60-40 margin in every upcoming primary to secure the nomination. This aint gonna happen.

She wants the re vote in these two states because she thinks she can carry them both. I think she is up double digits against Obama in Florida. None of this is going to get her the nomination, but if Florida and Michigan go into her clumn it strengthens her argument that she can carry the "big states" in the fall. Unfortunately for her she is also getting a little heavy handed with the race card, and her real message is "the working class whites in the big swing states will NEVER vote for a black man in overwhelming numbers, and if they go over to McCain, the election could actually be pretty lopsided.

The Clintons are alienating the very people who put them in office. Without the black vote, Bill Clinton's still boffing Paula Jones in an Arkansas Super 8 motel room. He would be mentioned as an afterthought, like Gary Hart.


As far as Geraldine Ferraro, she should really quit talking.

A very small group of important people made an arguably stupid decision for these two states. They deliberately chose to violate those rules. Now they want another opportunity to comply when they should have complied in the first place?

And Hillary really has no argument. She agreed and at the time obviously thought that not counting them was fair. She has only changed her mind now because she needs the seats.

I agree completely that the revote is a last-gasp attempt for the Clinton campaign. In the end, it most likely will not accomplish anything positive for her. Like RR, Saladbar, DT & PB said, all she'll really accomplish is turning off some of her own supporters.

It can't put Obama over the top, but I'm wondering who Edwards will award his 26 delegates to or if Edwards is waiting to see who hits the magic number, rendering his delegates moot.

The state of Florida, knowing the consequence, deliberately flouted the rules of the DNC. There was no reason to hold the primary earlier, except to garner more publicity and perhaps more clout for the state.

The election schedule has been in place for a long time. In general it has worked. Florida and Michigan are under obligation to follow the terms dictated by the DNC [ reference link ].

The State of Florida gambled and lost.

Their citizens should go after their gov't, not whine about the DNC.

So the solution? Do it again, only with both candidates on the ballot and campaigning? I don't particularly want my tax money to go to fix up their screw up. And I don't want it draining the Dems' war chest before the election, so screw it. Florida, Michigan, and Hillary Clinton all messed up and they can suffer the consequences.

Yes, in Flori - DUH it was the republican legislature making some mischief for the Dems.

Yea, the date was chosen by their Republican house, Republican senate and Republican governor. But some pu**y house and senate democrats voted for the measure too (IIRC).

Amazing how "The First Black Presidency" quickly threw the black base under the bus. I mean, when Hillary ran that "3 AM" ad with a WHITE GIRL, and a booming voice asking if voters want a BLACK MAN running the show....

That's blatant race baiting this side of the infamous "Call Me!" Ad during the 2006 Tennessee Senate race that was run against the black Democratic candidate.

Then again, that's the Clintons for you.

As for Ferraro, amazing how the Feminist Generation has gone all "racial concious," and if this was any other election, it would be American Liberalism itself split apart...to the benefit of the GOP.

Ferraro is a senile old bag. ANd she was a huge help to Mondale in '84. HE carried Minnesota his home state, and nothing else. Al those rumors about her husband's mob ties were also a big help.

I saw a story yesterday that Ferraro's Obama comments were eerily similar to what she said about Jesse Jackson in 1984.

Similar? She used the exact same words. What a racist bitch she is. Ferraro, you wrinkled old hag, if being a black man has the political advantage, wouldn't MORE be running for president? Does any black man that does any similar run for a political office as a white man suddenly there only because they are black? Yet the white guys can run without that claim? Why was it when John Edwards ran for president four years ago with the same experience as Obama has now, did anyone say "he is there because he is white"? Yet, you racist old biddy, say Obama is lucky to be black or he wouldn't be in this race?

Obama doesn't overtly appeal to the black community to vote for him because he's black. Yet Hillary Clinton tells women to vote for her because she is a woman. Is Hillary there because she is a woman? NO, because she was a first lady?

ALlegedly she is a woman. Has anyone checked?