But if the national party does not agree, she says, the states should re-do the primaries.

"If there is to be any difference between my proposal that we count these votes and any other course of action, it should be a complete re-do of the primary and nothing else is fair," she says.

and this is intresting

University of Central Arkansas poll:

Clinton 51%, McCain 36%

Obama 27%, McCain 43%

COSPONSORS(3), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]:     (Sort: by date)

      Sen Cantwell, Maria [WA] - 9/27/2007
      Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] - 3/23/2007
      Sen Obama, Barack [IL] - 6/27/2007

If a candidate is fighting for something, you know it.  You know it because they have surrogates on every talk show, you know it because they're making that issue the headline every day.

And on this issue, Obama gets D's from me, I'm afraid.

Ah, it seems like only yesterday that the Dems wore the white hats regarding vote counts in FL!

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071217/moser

...to nobody's surprise, the Republican-controlled state legislature passed a law in May scheduling the state's primary for January 29. (In most states, primary dates are set by the parties.) The primary date was wrapped up in a bill mandating a paper trail for the 2008 election--a popular measure the minority Democrats could not afford to oppose. Besides, the loss of delegates was largely a toothless penalty, since according to precedent the Democrats' eventual presidential nominee controls the seating of delegates--and surely wouldn't alienate folks from the nation's largest swing state by turning them away.

But the DNC did not leave it there. In August the rules committee voted to strip all the state's delegates unless Florida came up with an alternative to the January 29 voting. "I understand Florida's dilemma," DNC rules committee member Donna Brazile told me later. "But this is not about states' rights; this is about a process we're trying to keep some control over." Two weeks after the DNC vote, Democratic chairs in the "First Four" primary states jacked up the ante with their notorious "four-state pledge" demanding the candidates focus exclusively on them. The signees--including John Edwards, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton--agreed to do no campaigning in Florida or any other state that might try to jump the gun. And under party rules, "campaigning" means just about everything: e-mail messages; calls to voters; TV, radio or newspaper ads; rallies; hiring campaign workers; holding press conferences. The only thing Democrats are allowed to do in Florida--where folks have been complaining for years, with some justification, about being used as an ATM for the party--is fundraise.

At this point, neither campaign can really afford to exert undue influence over the manner in which any prospective primary votes are first cast and then tallied, and risk being publicly perceived as having its finger on the scale. That's why the Obama campaign has been roundly criticized for its threat of legal action.

fwiw, I agree with you. I think she isn't "really" pushing for a revote, and if there is no revote I think she's toast.

She might also be toast with a revote, but I think that is less certain.

The only logical conclusion is that she disagrees w/both of us - she thinks she has a better chance of getting the nom w/o the revote.

I think we're about two posts away from.

"DO IT MY WAY OR YOUR ALL COWARDS, DAMMIT!"

The thesis of the post above is that the voters who voted on Jan. 29 wasted their time.

Bad Post, BTD.

The FL Repubs got a twofer on their decision to move the FL date earlier--they got to create a problem within the DNC, and, now, they'll get to say they're the good guys on letting votes count.

DNC should do say seat the delegates with, as menitoned earlier, one half vote for each delegate. Not good enough for FL, but covers both FL and MI.

First, a getting a revote to work looks almost impossible right now. And not because of the DNC or Obama but because of local Florida politicians, almost all of whom are Hillary Superdelegates. Hillary can't exactly put them on the hot spot, because she'll need them come November. So pretty much all she can do is stay out of it.

Second, it lets her focus on the argument that the delegations should be seated as is. Personally, I don't think that's likely to happen, but even if it doesn't, the whole mess creates legitimacy problems for Obama. She needs that kind of uncertainty if she's going to win over Supers at the convention.

Finally, if she can push the perception that this mess is all Obama's fault, it gives her an additional attack angle.