ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC Political Researcher



The Delegate fight: Re-do on June 3?

Posted: Thursday, March 13, 2008 9:13 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under:

The Florida Democratic Party’s mail-in primary plan could be unveiled as early as today. According to one memo obtained by the Washington Post, Election Day would officially be June 3. "In a document obtained by The Washington Post, dated yesterday, Florida Democratic Party Chairwoman Karen L. Thurman urged Florida's Democratic members of Congress, along with Clinton and Obama, to consider the vote-by-mail proposal carefully. ‘Because of the unprecedented nature of the national race, a situation that previously was a relatively minor, party-insider issue now has the potential to result in irreparable damage for years to come,’ she wrote, before detailing at length a mail-in-primary process.”

“Under her timetable, fundraising and a public comment period would begin today and end April 12, about when ballots go to production. Overseas and military ballots would be sent out April 19. Fifty temporary election offices would be set up May 1 in poor areas to ensure access to voters with mail difficulties. On May 9, the bulk of the ballots would be shipped out, and the election would officially be on June 3, a day shared with Montana and South Dakota."

The AP adds, however: Florida's nine Democratic congressmen voted Tuesday night to oppose a mail-in vote. Thurman urged them to reconsider.” Clinton's Florida surrogates and the Obama campaign also oppose the idea.

Meanwhile, in Michigan, either a state-run primary (paid for by private donors) or a mail-in primary is still on the table. "State Elections Director Chris Thomas said Wednesday that he had not been contacted about the primary alternative, but he said the Legislature would have to approve a law allowing the state to accept private funding for a primary. If such a law were approved, he said, ‘The issues involved are no different than trying to run any other election.’”

“That said, it is probably too late for a primary to piggyback on the May 6 school election, meaning a new June primary would have to be held if such a do-over to the state’s disallowed Jan. 15 primary is in the cards."

On NPR this morning, Clinton called the Jan. 15 Michigan primary a "fair" election. When asked by interviewer Steve Inskeep how it was fair when Obama's name was not on the ballot, she replied, "Well, that was his choice, Steve."

Former Edwards spokesperson Jennifer Palmieri writes in a Politico op-ed that Democrats ought to be patient during this protracted fight. Why? If Clinton can't prove she can bring change against Obama, she'll fail against McCain. And if Obama can't prove he'll be a better commander-in-chief than Clinton, then he'll fail against McCain. So she argues the two Dems need more time to get their change/commander messages refined.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

I can only say that the great majority of conversation where I come from opposes any revoting. If you don't like the punishment don't break the rules. If you didn't understand the situation when you voted be better educated next time. If you did then you should have objected at the time. This whole redo smacks of finding religion in prison.
It was his choice, but I still think they should do a mail-in redo. That said, taking your name off the ballot is pretty short-sighted for a visionary. Obama also co-sponsored a bill to promote mail-in voting.  Now he seems to be against it.  I wonder why???  Some people will do anything to win (sound familiar, Clinton bashers :)
Two things...

First, I think it would be an overwhelmingly wise and offensive move for Obama's campaign to push in any way for the delegates to be counted in Florida, and should be 100% behind a revote in Michigan.  Yes, they broke the rules and deserve to be punished, but the quicker this issue is put to bed - and the more delegates he can put on the table, the quicker he will seal the nomination for himself.  He's not really in a threat of losing the pledged delegate count, popular vote, or number of states won, even if the Michigan and Florida delegates are seated as they are now.

Second, Hillary's claim that the Michigan primary is LUDICROUS.  I hope I'm not simply pointing out the obvious.  All the candidates, Hillary included, signed a pledge in acknowledgement that Michigan and Florida delegates would not be seated according to party rules.  Hillary v. Undecided in Michigan does not a legitimate primary make!!!

Let's get on with this.  Superdelegates, where the heck are you???
My opinion is that a re-do is unnecessary: In the MI primary (that wasn't counted) Obama elected not to be on the ballot -instead, his followers made a strong effort to vote for 'Uncommited' in that primary; as for FL, I believe he was on the ballot. It's clear to me that Hillary Clinton won these primaries fairly, and the delegates should be given to her. I'm not a Democrat, but consider myself an Independent voter who feels that Obama is too liberal on most issues & doesn't have the credential to run against John McCain in the fall.
All of this hoopla is a result of Clinton's inability to accept the will of the people thus far.  What arrogance to sign a document of agreement and then flip-flop because things are not going your way.  She doesn't mind stealing more money from supporter's just to feed her ego.  For her to continue in this manner is a sure win for McCain.  I will never vote for her.  I will only vote for OBAMA or McCain.  She has lied and it's on paper.  If I were over the Obama campaign I would be sending out fliers of her signed agreement to not campaign in those states.  And by the way ,just why was your name on a ballot when you said it would not be?  Clinton is lying , denying and throwing away the democrats chance at the White House.  I dislike her rehetoric more everyday.  She is not a fighter, she's a whiner and all of you journalist just keep her going to get a story.  This election is much too important to be played around with for personal gain.
This is ridiculous.
Hillary WON Florida. Count the votes and award the delegates.
PERIOD!
All of this hoopla is a result of Clinton's inability to accept the will of the people thus far.  What arrogance to sign a document of agreement and then flip-flop because things are not going your way.  She doesn't mind stealing more money from supporter's just to feed her ego.  For her to continue in this manner is a sure win for McCain.  I will never vote for her.  I will only vote for OBAMA or McCain.  She has lied and it's on paper.  If I were over the Obama campaign I would be sending out fliers of her signed agreement to not campaign in those states.  And by the way ,just why was your name on a ballot when you said it would not be?  Clinton is lying , denying and throwing away the democrats chance at the White House.  I dislike her rehetoric more everyday.  She is not a fighter, she's a whiner and all of you journalist just keep her going to get a story.  This election is much too important to be played around with for personal gain.
http://twocanpete.blogspot.com
Sounds like the primary rules are a lot like the immigration rules for the scofflaw Democrats. Who cares if you break the rules, just demand your own way and in the end you'll get it. We can call them undocumented voters!
I thought you guys would know this Chuck.

A mail-in election is illegal in Florida and cannot be conducted by the State unless the current law was amended which will not happen. A private company could take on the mail-in process in Florida but in order to do that they would have to have all the registered voters names and signatures now on the Florida registers. But it is illegal for the State to provide or release this information. The mail-in suggestion is therefore a mote point. It will not happen.
To the Obama's group and Media,you are all haters,the only way you find to get support for Obama is picking on a slight remark and turns into a racial comment. Bill Clinton has every right to campaign for the wife just like most popular figures have supported and campaign for Obama. If people with low intensity of mind and the media continues this route,we as nation is heading into war in this nation against white and blacks. So stop the madness.Let us excercise our rights of free speech. Of course both Clinton and Obama knows quite well that when they took the challenge of running for the highest office in the nation that they will be undert scrutiny and will hear things or comments they will not appreciate. Again the media and those conducting the polls you seem to be bias,it seems you are only focusing on Obama supporters,any this media has been criticized nationally for dirty and bad coverage throughout this campaign.

On NPR this morning, Clinton called the Jan. 15 Michigan primary a "fair" election. When asked by interviewer Steve Inskeep how it was fair when Obama's name was not on the ballot, she replied, "Well, that was his choice, Steve."

Ahhhh... as usual - rewriting history - no Hillary - his name was not on the ballot as YOU ALL agreed to that - but then you just forgot and left your name on the ballot! ... Wake up DEMS - if she is our candidate - we are doomed to 4 more years of a Republican President - as a lifelong Dem - I can tell you know - neither I nor the other 4 voters in our family would vote for her ... never ... ever ... even if we just don't vote ... and we are most likely a vast majority who will never unite behind this self serving and dulpicitous person... sorry ... but that is the cold hard facts....
Senator Clinton continues to advocate "mutually assured destruction" as a political strategy. Her party and her country be damned!  
Looks like the DNC's decission not to count mich. or the texas votes is going down the drain. I can see now that the Clintons have all the power in the DNC as they alone are forcing this movement. Therefore the DNC's word or anything would have to be taken with a large grain of salt.
There's no way to conduct a re-vote that will satisfy the concerns of everyone.  

There's no way to count the current results from FL and MI because all the campaigns agreed they should NOT count although Clinton changed her mind afterwards.

The only solution that will allow FL and MI to have a voice at the convention is to split their pledged delegates between Clinton and Obama.  I don't know what this means for superdelegates because I don't know if they are counting at the moment or not.

There's really no solution other than splitting the delegates and everyone needs to come to grips with that ASAP.
Its the fairness thing.  I have no problem with a revote (and kind of revote) as long as its on the up and up.  That's the key thing.  Anything that smacks of partisan or unfair practices will destroy the credibility of the whole election.
I KEEP SAYING THE WOMAN IS BIPOLAR -- THAT IS WHY MOST THINGS COMING OUT OF HER MOUTH ARE IRRATIONAL.

SHE SHOULD NOT BE PRESIDENT!  LOOK AT THE DISORGANIZATION OF HER CAMPAIGN, MISMANAGEMENT OF FUNDS, INTERNAL FIGHTING, ETC.

SHE HAS BEEN CAUGHT LYING AND CONTINUES TO DO SO -- SHE WILL CONTINUE TO LIE AND DECEIVE IF SHE GETS TO THE WHITE HOUSE.  WE WILL MORE OF GEORGE BUSH WITH CLINTON!!!!!!!

LOOK AT ALL HER ACTIONS, SHE HAS EMULATED GEORGE BUSH DOWN TO THE "FLORIDA VOTE"!!!
'On NPR this morning, Clinton called the Jan. 15 Michigan primary a "fair" election. When asked by interviewer Steve Inskeep how it was fair when Obama's name was not on the ballot, she replied, "Well, that was his choice, Steve."'

The gall of this woman is infinite! Blame Obama for taking his name off the ballot---which every other candidate but Clinton did?  What about all the quotes from the Clinton campaign last fall and winter that the MI and FL votes won't matter?  Why doesn't the media pound her daily on these flip-flops and contradictions?
The solution to this Dem mess,would be to;count Fla. and award the according to the previous primary.If either state re-do it should be Mich. because Hillary was the only one on the ballot.When this is settled Hillary will have the delegate lead tha is why he opposess a re-do.
‘Because of the unprecedented nature of the national race, a situation that previously was a relatively minor, party-insider issue now has the potential to result in irreparable damage for years to come,’ she wrote, before detailing at length a mail-in-primary process.”

Give me a break, Florida, Michigan and the DNC, should have been proactive about all of this.  It's somewhat audacious to say that situation was minor then and huge now.  The damage has been done, the party is losing credibility by the day and there must be someone who could have looked into their crystal ball to see that stripping Florida and Michigan of their votes would come back to haunt them.  Retrospect does little to repair the damage.  Perhaps the primary season should be shortened for all states instead of spanning over 6 months and the rules should be steadfast and followed.  This rule change sets a negative precedent.  I agree that the voters should be heard, however, the how election process was skewed from the beginning.  If I lived in Florida and Michigan I probably wouldn't feel very inspired to go out to the polls if I knew that my vote wasn't going to count. Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in MI and real campaigning never even took place in either state.  At  least Obama tried to go along with the rules and fairness of the whole procedure by removing his name.  As a loyal democrat, I like many others am disappointed in the party for floundering around.
Doesn't Florida State Law expressly prohibit mail in votes?
Leave it to the liberals to rewrite the rules....
Of course liberals never follow the rules in the first place....
The solution to this Dem mess,would be to;count Fla. and award the according to the previous primary.If either state re-do it should be Mich. because Hillary was the only one on the ballot.When this is settled Hillary will have the delegate lead tha is why he opposess a re-do.
Of course Hillary Clinton would view the Michigan primary as fair. She announced her candidacy with a strong sense of entitlement. As far as Hillary was and is concerned, her name should be the only one on the ballot.
Based on Florida popular votes in unofficially primary, clinton should win 35 more delagates than Obama (though delegates calculation is not based on popular votes and Obama may win more), but lets say she won 35 more delegates in Florida. Since in Michigan Obama was not on ballot paper so lets call it a tie.

Now at the end of rest of the states primaries, if Obama leads over Clinton is less than 35 pledged delegates then he should leave it to Clinton and if his lead is more than 34 plegde delegates then Clinton should call it a day and go back to her hut.
Well most democratic minded would not consider a contest fair if only one of the two candidatees names were on the ballot.  HRC response is "that was his choice."  She fundamentaly misses the fact that the election is not about him or her, but about all those disenfanchised voters she keeps talking about.  If she respects them (the voters)as she claims to, she should want the disenfranchised voters who wanted to vote for Obama in Michigan to have there voice as well.

Her judgement about what is and is not fair is one of those testements to her real judgement.  Unless you really believe we should wait till we know the results of an election and then push to certify it or not based on the out come is fair then you have to question her judgement.
Clinton's comment to Steve Inskeep this morning is a very good reason to not vote for her.  She is willing to go back on her agreement for the sake of "winning".

She would rather  blow up the party than lose. I hope the press blasts that comment all over the T.V. today. It is alarming  

The Democratic Party will Self-Destruct with Hillary at the helm of the Destruction.

Her remark that MI was a fair vote it just an example of thought processes that will help accomplish the destruction.  

She is attempting to turn the Democratic Party into the Party of the Clintons, For the Clintons, and By the Clinton's

Perhaps the time has come for a True Third Party.

As a Registered Independent I do not have an affiliation to any Party.  What I would hope for though is equality and fairness in the election process.

In my opinion Hillary will hand this election to the Republicans once again.

With the help of course of Gerry Ferraro who makes remarks reminiscent of the 1980's and then CRIES that SHE is being attacked.

As a Senior Citizen, and a female who was in the work force for over 50 years I cannot tolerate a female who resorts to tears and poor me tactics.

If you want to be considered on an equal footing with your male counterparts than act responsibly.

Respect is Earned Not Given!!!
NO HILLARY, the primaries were not "fair", and Obama followed the rules, which by the way, your campaign agreed to as well.  You said that Michigan didn't matter anyway, so why do you care so much now?

Contact everyone you know in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and urge them to vote for Obama!  This caustic campaign waged by Hillary Clinton must end in April, for the good of our country.

And they can spend the time from June 3 until Election Day tracking down bad addresses and "return to senders"
and calls from people who 'have lived here for 30 years
and didn't get a ballot'...Good grief. What is it with
Florida.
Hill is losing it. It was every fair minded person's decision to get off the ballot.  I think even most Hillary supporters think she's a little off for trying to get those previous votes counted.  Her situational ethics are so blatant and disgusting- who doubts that she'd be fighting against the previous results if she was in Obama's position?  There are only 2 choices- redo them or don't count them.

I was excited to vote for her, until Barack got me more excited.  Yes- I'm black, but clearly the majority of whites and women have no problem favoring the white woman in this election, so its reprehensible that imbeciles would fault black people for being excited about the first viable black candidate ever- especially when the only experience difference is a MARRIAGE to Bill.  Damn- if only we'd legalized gay marriage earlier, perhaps Barack could've married Bill through some stroke of fate and had the advantage on Hillary.  W/out her marriage she's Dennis Kucinich.

Ferraro's comments were dumb because though she admitted her gender gave her an advantage, she failed to admit that part of Hillary's viability is just as contingent on something beyond her control (her gender) as is Barack's (his race.)  By her logic, no black person can legitimately run- they all benefit from race.  Except she's wrong- Carol Mosely Braun, Al Sharpton, Shirley Chisholm & Jesse Jackson might take issue with that.  She made the same comment about Jesse Jackson in '88 to the Washington Post.

It's come down to integrity and moral compass, since they virtually agree on every thing.  I think it's clear who the better person is.  Hillary is very smart and actually might make a good president, but its hard to vote for someone who just doesn't come across as a good person.
Clinton's assertion that the Michigan primary was "fair" is absolutely ridiculous.  While there is no shortage of evidence that Clinton is in this to win by any means possible, this situation is perhaps the most blatant.  Blaming Obama for not having his name on the ballot is deceptive.  In fact, he and the other candidates, except for Clinton, intentionally removed their names from the MI ballot (which FL rules did not permit)because the contest was not sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee.  She said in October that it didn't make a difference because the MI and FL contests would not matter anyway.  This is a matter of public record.  Most disturbing is that the situation is now being portrayed as Clinton defending the voters of MI and FL from disenfranchisement by Obama.  The decision to not allow states  to move up their primaries was made two years ago by the Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling.  That Hlllary Clinton and her campaign did not defend the rights of the voters of MI and FL until nearly two years later, the primary season was already underway, is characteristic of how her campaign has continued to bend the truth to  the purpose of having her nominated.  The Commission that made this decision (http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/
democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/
pdfs/commission/20050325_roster.pdf)
was appointed by Terry McAuliffe, then DNC chairmen, and currently chair of Hillary's presidential campaign.  The members of the commission include major supporters and advisers of Senator Clinton, including Harold Ickes (close friend and adviser)and PA governor Ed Rendell.  The hypocrisy of not acting until now, and then posturing that this is anything other than a means to gather as many delegates and "big states" as possible, should be a major topic of discussion.  This is not a question of whether the voters of MI and FL should be enfranchised, but why there has been little or no scrutiny of hypocritical nature and the basis on which the Clinton campaign seeks to portray Hillary as the defender of the voting rights of MI, FL, and Hispanics.  While these members of the electorate certainly should be represented, one might ask why a similar desire to ensure the enfranchisement of activists, caucus goers, and residents of small states has not been as major an issue for the Clinton campaign.
Wow- some people don't read a lot.  If you give hillary the percentage of popular vote he got (40 I beleive)  in Fla and give Barack the 40 percent that voted for no one in Michigan he still leads popular vote.  I'm guessing w/proportional awarding of delegates he'd still have a delegate lead.  What we know is she wouldn't win by more than 10 pts in either state if he campaigns in them, and I actually think he'd win Michigan. She can't blow him out anywhere- but he blows her out some of everywhere.
I'm a Michigan voter who wanted to vote for Edwards in January, but couldn't, so I voted for McCain. How is it remotely fair to people in the other states that I now may have the chance to vote both in the GOP and Dem primaries—because Michigan screwed up! No one complains that we don't have a say in who is nominated in the Natural Law, Libertarian and Green parties. Fair is fair. We in Michigan screwed up. No revote.
Hillary sure has a twisted understanding of what "fair" means. But then, she she fobs off appearing at a concert with Sinbad as vital experience necessary to be commander-in-chief. She's even said that McCain is better qualified to be commander-in-chief than Obama - perhaps because he was as foolhardy about supporting Bush's disastrous war as she was.

Quite simply, Hillary has proven herself to be reckless and untrustworthy - qualities we most definitely do not need in our next chief executive.

Obama will go to the convention having won more states, more of the popular vote, and more delegates. It's time for superdelegates to put an end to Hillary's selfish, futile and destructive quest, and to endorse our terrific new Democratic champion.

FAIR?? Only a Clinton could come up with that one and say it with a straight face.  The candidates pledged
not to campaign. Once more Dean and the DNC botched it all. Did he require them to also remove their names from the ballot if possible? Clintons being too clever by half once more.
Maybe we should ask Hillary whether she thinks her opposition in MI "Sen." Uncommitted, who so many preferred to her, has crossed the threshold to be Commander in Chief?
A couple of thoughts for delegate assignments in Michigan and Florida. How about giving Clinton her percentage of delegate votes based upon caucus math, and give Obama the remaining percentage, not the undecided, but the whole difference of what Clinton didn't win. That would give her a few more delegates than Obama gets, and allow the delegates to be seated, and participate. The delegates could be chosen at county convention, then state conventions.
The other option is to come up with average wins for each candidate in states each won, and apply those proportional to number of states and % average win-loss ratio, and choose delegates with those numbers in both states, again at county/state conventions, so they can be seated at the National convention, and delegate numbers can get closer to the total needed. For this second idea, there would have to be agreement of when the deadline is, such as before or after Pennsylvania.
No matter how the dust settles from this particular problem, there needs to be a comprehensive look at the WHOLE primary process.  After the November elections, there needs to be a non-partisan look at the system.  The way it is set up now squarely lends itself to these knids of problems.  It was a train wreck waiting to happen with no good solutions to the present conumdrum.  Having every state rush to be firs in line so that they can "have some say" is what caused the mess.

My own view is that the primary is too early and too extended.


 VOX POPULI.  The candidates aren't the main thing in
          this. As much as this may shock them.  It's about the voters. MI and FL were
         NOT fair, Hillary. The voters were told one thing-they were told it didn't count- and now it might? Stop just thinking about yourself. It is UNFAIR
to the VOTERS of MI and FL. Period.
It is nonsense like that (Jan. 15 election was fair) that really turns intelligent people against HRC.  No wonder people perceive her as being divisive; no wonder she never had any security clearance in her husband's administration:  she is dangerous.  It is the kind of abrasiveness that she showed here that tells us that she will never be able to implement universal health care in this country because that would require diplomacy and wisdom, which she obviously lacks.  She can claim all she wants that BO is just lucky, but the fact is BO ran a much smarter campaign than she ever will.  It is her own false assumption that she would have the nomination in the bag by Super Tuesday, combined with her own arrogance and sense of entitlement, that has placed her in the hole that she is right now.  HRC insults people without even realizing it, and she has very little insight on why some people react to her the way they do.

CJG/
St. Louis, MO
Obama is not against a mail-in vote. He is worried that the state does not have the time to do one in a fair and consistent manner. He still supports the idea of a mail-in voting system, but only when done properly. His bill called for states to set up and test the mail-in system before making it the standard way of voting. That way any unforseen errors could be corrected. Both canidates should be cautious of states rushing to set up a mail in voting system and they are. Clinton's surrogates in Florida are also opposed to the idea.
Are there seriously any Clinton supporters that really think that its fair for Obama to get zero votes out of Michigan?

Is there one Obama Michigan voter willing to say that he or she supports Obama since it seems that Clinton doesn't think that your vote needs to be counted but her voters votes should get counted even though she is the one calling for the rules change?

I am trying not to go negative but I will simply say that this is PRECISELY the games playing and the "I need to win at any cost" tactic that makes us not want to support her should she become the nominee.

Does she really truly believe that that would be fair?  If she really truly does then I go completely back on saying that Florida and Michigan should count at all since THOSE STATES BROKE THE RULES.

Sorry Michigan and Florida supporters, I absolutely support your right to vote, in my heart I really do...but Clinton is doing you wrong by insisted that Mich. be counted as zero votes for Obama.

Its not just unfair, but it puts the whole credibility of the Dem. primary on the line.
Mary in Al, You are very offensive. Get your facts straight before you rant your smut. Both Obama and Hillary signed they would not campaign in Fl.Hillary dint but Obama did. He said it was an oops and no one whined. You prob. would have voted for McCain any way so your wont vote for Hillary means diddley.
you are right this election is to important and we dont need this blather.Talk about whine better look at your Obama.Another doubleface here by him. He cosigned a bill for write in votes and now says ummmmmmno its no good.LOL typical Obama only if I benefit.
I have been reading the blogs here for quite a while now and one questions looms in my head.  Why are there so many people "appalled" at the thought of "disenfranchising" Florida and Michigan voters now?  Where were you when the DNC punished these states initially?  Why now?
Doesn't Florida State Law expressly prohibit mail in votes? Naseer Ahmad, Toronto, Canada (Sent Thursday, March 13, 2008 10:00 AM):

Yes it does. And in order for a private firm to handle the mail-in election they would need the voter registration rolls and signatures from the State of Florida. It is illegal in Florida to release such information to anyone including private firms.

Here is another example for us to see the difference between Hillary and Obama.Hillary cares about everyone and Obama only if you can help me will I care.Hillary went to Florida after polls closed to thank everyone for there voteing and same in Michigan.She also took time out for Latino Chamber of Congress meeting and also for Black State of Union. Obama told them he was to busy even after all they had done for him. It has been said if not black and the fact they galvanized for him he wouldnt be where he is and I believe it to be true.Still he didnt have time for them.Hillary will take time out for people cause she cares about all the people. Difference is she cares all the time too.
The DNC needs to STOP this madness now. There should NOT be a re-do in EITHER state. They broke the rules they AGREED to a year and a half ago. Too late to cry wolf now. Take whatever delegates each state has and give half of those delegates to BOTH candidates. The delegates would then be seated, the people's votes counted, and the party can move on. This is the only fair way to handle this mess, because supoorters for both candidates will find a way to argue the decision in support of their candidate and this further divides the party. Grow up and move on.
Obam took his name off the ballot because that is what the majority of the canidates decided to do. Only two democratic canidates decided to keep their name on them - Clinton and Kucinich. The DNC asked all of the canidates to remove their names and so the majority complied. They wanted the national race to be fair so no one could come back and say "I won Michigan". They would have taken their name off the ballot in FL too, but state rules there prohibit them from doing so unless they decide to drop out of the national race. So the canidates decided not to campaign in FL again so that no canidate could come back and say "I won FL and those delegates should be seated". All canidates, including HRC, agreed to this. Now HRC is doing exactly what the canidates promised not to do at the start of the race. Baiscally she is trying to cheat. If she wanted to be fair she would say the delgates should NOT be counted or there should be a re-vote. Otherwise she is acting just like Bush did in 2000.
Keith Olberman should be fired immediately or you should change the slogan to your network!!  I'm sick of this biased nonsense.  I'm sure your network is proud to be more biased than Fox News...Congrats!!
We need a Female Present. The male Presents we have had in the past have messed up this country so bad it will take a female to straighten it out.
Lets face it. The only 'fair' thing to do here that will satisfy the people, the politicians, and the people, is to split the delegates 50/50 (thereby seating the delegates, but not letting them hold any weight - they did, after all, knowingly break the rules, didn't they?).

Popular vote? Either 50/50 it, or don't count it at all (this appears to be Hillary's strategy - to somehow steal these votes so she can almost beat Obama by popular vote).

Mail-in ballots? Why would Florida consider using a NEW system of voting which they have never done before -- doesn't this spell trouble and conflict - won't the results be challenged and it will be worse that it is already?

Why not a Primary or Caucus (I know why not a caucus - thats too favorable to Obama I guess, and I hear the Clinton stance on that is that a Caucus is not fair, although it was fair enough for Bill in 1992)?

ANY OTHER WAY other than a 50/50 (or 0/0) is unfair to someone, and will be viewed as skewing the results in favor of one candidate or another.

Sorry Hillary - I like you (sometimes), but no (reasonable) person wants you to win by cheating. It would not be good for the country, or the party.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=764831

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google