He said he wanted transparency--well, a blind man could see through this ploy.  There has to come a point in all of this where someone says that the only reason Obama doesn't want revotes is because he knows he will lose.  If Obama cannot win in MI and FL, then why on earth would he get the nomination?

  Clearly, the Clinton and Obama campaigns are stakeholders. A compromise will either be reached or it won't. The voters -- and not just in Michigan and Florida although they would have valid  claim to bigger stake-- are fairly considered stakeholders as well but in our system they have no direct voice and can only exert their wills through representatives and those representatives have competing and perhaps conflicting loyalties so they may not accurately reflect the "will of the people" even to the extent it can be imperfectly ascertained.

  So the people to whom power has been delegated will decide but they must decide knowing that they simply cannot impose a solution that each campaign will not back. The only other outcome is paralysis and default to the existing, previously enacted rules. If we don't want that then we have to understand each campaign is going to continue to press for proposals tilted in its favor to preserve bargaining position so that the compromise if reached is marginally more favorable to it. Does anyone ever do anything differently?

   There are numerous possible solutions but none of them can provide total fairness in any objective sense of the word. Some important interest[s] is going to have to give way to some other important interest[s] to some extent. We all should know that.

  The incessant assertions that one particular proposal is so overwhelmingly more correct than some other is just not tenable.

  Argue for and fight for whatever you prefer, but to do so honestly requires explaining why it is better. That requires acknowledging the interests opposed to it and making the cases the interests in favor of it should be accorded greater weight. It is not accomplished by duplicitous arguments that countervailing interest do not exist or are illegitimate.

The more Hillary is out there, the more she's getting traction, and good democrats are coming home. Thank Goodness.

Why anyone should think themselves entitled to count unsanctioned results is literally incredible.

If Clinton gets the nod by virtue of the superdelegates or some other reasonable process, then I'm voting for her.

Clinton has said she wants to count the 55 delegates she won in the Jan. 15 Michigan primary or have a second election; Obama has advocated a 50-50 split of Michigan delegates if a do-over can't be negotiated.

State Sen. Buzz Thomas, D-Detroit, co-chairman of Obama's campaign in Michigan, said the primary idea is worth considering.
"If we can have a fair, open and inclusive election, that is always something you have to consider," Thomas said Thursday. "I have to see details before openly endorsing something. But I'm pleased folks are still talking, and we're all on the same page of trying to resolve this."

The 50-50 idea is not a quote, and I am sure Obama would accept such a resolution.  However, he has not rejected a re-vote either.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Dodd spoke to campaign leaders. Burton said they agreed it would be an equitable way of handling Michigan, where Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in a renegade Jan. 15 primary.

The Clinton campaign immediately rejected the idea of splitting the delegates. "Michigan is populated by people, not numbers, and those people need to have their voices heard in this process," said Clinton spokesman Phil Singer.

If you want to crucify someone, crucify Dodd for suggesting it.  While Obama agrees that it would be fair, Clinton disagrees.

Title is slightly misleading.

Also:

Obama prevails in this crazy theory at his peril. There will be hundreds of thousands of Democrats across the country who will refuse to vote for him in November, thinking better a Republican than a cheat.

There is not much time to waste. Obama is playing out the clock on this one. P^%!ing and moaning about the Michigan Democratic Party is useless and counterproductive at this point. Dean needs to take the lead in making sure their delegates are seated or the retribution from Michigan Democratic voters is going to be disastrous in November. Same with Florida, as Jeralyn has mentioned repeatedly (25% pledging not to vote in November if delegates aren't seated).

Unfortunately, that is fair and smart politics...but seriously flies in the face of Obama's Hope and Change campaign.  But, Obama wants to win, his constituency wants him to win, his donors want him to win, so they'll stand behind this artificial blockade as long as necessary.  

But wouldn't it be cool if they did a 50/50 split in MI saying you're officially for Obama and you're officially for Clinton, and then at convention time, those delegates said something else.

And similarly, can delegates from other states change? Then a campaign to all the other regular delegates could be interesting.

As several states continue to elbow each other to go earlier and earlier in the 2008 presidential calendar, the Democratic National Committee decided to draw a line in the sand and say "enough."

"The whole system is goofy, completely out of kilter and way too early," said Harold Ickes, a rules committee member from Washington, D.C. "The whole damn system is way, way too early."

Here are a few links to get you started:

From the Florida Dems FAQ...

Florida Law, DNC Rules, Punishments, and Primaries

"They don't want a revote because they are afraid they will lose."

But all is not lost.  Michigan delegates can still be seated at the convention if the Michigan Democratic Party holds a DNC-approved caucus that will choose delegates to the national convention.

Deconstructionist is in time out, he repeatedly violated the sites rules on the two threads I've read so far today. He's also chattering. If he's allowed back he'll be limited in the number of comments he can make per day.

One last thing: To clear up the issue of Kucinich being on the ballot, if you read the links in this post to my prior posts, you will see that I not only explained it but linked to the actual notices from the Michigan Secretary of State explaining this.

  I disagree with you o0n many issues and I challenge yo and others where we disagree. Being incapable of intelligently countering my challenges all you can resort to is censorship.

  The irony is that I get banned for pointing out that unappealing aspect of your character shortkly following some of the kool-aid drinker's fervent denials that was how you behave.