Okay, it's been a long day, so maybe that's why I can't figure out how that would effectively enfranchise those voters.

I think this might actually be the Obama strategy - when there is no longer anything at stake, then he can argue for the rules committee to seat the delegations.  

Problem solved, delegates seated.  

And it is equally disingenuous to suggest seating them once the monimation is SETTLED, as some have done.  That amounts to the same thing - making their votes meaningless.

So, a record number in the 3rd largest state turn out, and vote for you by a large majority. You're not supposed to do anything with that, because, well, it doesn't count. The endorsement of 850,000 voters is not important. But the endorsement by (a) member(s) of a political dynasty is something that needs to be reported on for 48 hours.

The primary date was set by the Florida republican party, Florida democrats had no choice. While it is true that the democrats in the Florida legislature did vote yes on the final bill, it was to vote yes on another, essential, provision in the bill: the mandating of a paper trail for the 2008 ballots. While most people know about 2000, few outside Florida are familiar with the missing votes in one Florida race for the US House in 2006. The lack of a paper trail made a recount impossible. Even with the changed primary date, Florida's democratic state representatives still had to vote for the paper trail.

So he should drop out.

It's not my job to tell anyone what that looks like.

And I realize this might cross the lines of polite discourse on this blog (this similiar thought has been deleted before), but this is very much what's at stake here.

The reason I don't like the "you'll disenfranchise the voters" line is because, to me, it seems like it is just politics but it is being wrapped in ethics or some higher cause.  This is the same way of arguing that told me I hated the troops because I didn't support the war in Iraq.  Do you know what I'm saying?  I'm not trying to play "gotcha" or anything, but I don't like hearing that we must do something that benefits one candidate over another because of "the voters, the voters" when no one was making that high minded argument (at least that I can tell) back when the decision was made.  

Question: Do you still think the Democratic race can be resolved before the convention?

Reid: Easy.

Q: How is that?

Reid: It will be done.

Q: It just will?

Reid: Yep.

Q: Magically?

I think he's accurate in that too, but only to the extent that the Clinton campaign doesn't continue to whip up public sentiment about disenfranchisement of MI and FL voters. Their primary votes don't count because they broke DNC rules, not because Obama blocked a new vote.

If either Florida or MI proposed a new vote that was consistent with DNC rules, and the DNC rejected it, then the voters might have a legitimate gripe.

I'm sure you talked to a couple of folks down there.  I'm also sure that you can't extrapolate that to the Dem FL electorate.

Objection, also, to using the disgusting Republican buzz word of "elitism" that serves no purpose in the discussion.

Do the elitist bloggers know they're being wingnut arrogant or are they so infatuated with themselves that they don't even know they're doing it?

The DNC overreacted and decided to punish the Florida voters by disenfranchising them. It wasn't required they do that. It certainly wasn't their only choice.

It just seems like the tail wagging the dog.  If Clinton were not still in the race, Michigan and Florida would not be an issue.  The primary race would be finished.  

She takes whatever they throw at her and comes out standing.  The grit, the tenacity, the strength...admirable.

One other point, the DNC and their anointed candidate, Obama, get no respect from me.  I really resent having Obama the Unready shoved down my throat.

So, people like me will turn them on their ear in November, and there are alot of us.

Perhaps the most instructive take-away from all this is that the Democrats can't manage their way out of a wet paper bag.  The fact that they couldn't see this coming when they originally announced that they wouldn't seat Michigan & Florida delegates is hilarious.

In 2004 they managed to lose against an astonishingly unpopular president who should have been impeached for first amendment violations (and still should be, for that matter), trampled our civil liberties and got us mired in another Viet Nam.  Why?  They couldn't find a single candidate slightly to the right of Karl Marx to run against him.

Now, four years later, they're on the verge of making the exact same mistake.  Republicans are on the ropes, but Clinton's 'scorched-earth' campaign is providing all the ammunition needed for McCain to beat Obama in the general election.  And Obama is the Dem's only hope, since Clinton is so despised among both Republicans and independents that her nomination would virtually guarantee an otherwise improbable McCain victory.

What Democrats don't understand (or than the Republicans, for that matter) is that we're sick to death of their polarizing political posturing.  Most Americans don't want a socialist state with a motto of "from each according to their ability to give, to each according to their need".  Nor do we want a corporate state in which big business owns the government.  We want statesmen who put the good of the people ahead of their personal political ambitions, and we want a country where everyone is free to succeed or fail under their own steam, without excessive government intrusion.  As long as we're not offered this choice, we'll just continue to vote for whomever we consider to be the lesser of the evils.  And sometimes that will give us two "W's" in a row.

What this country needs is a good moderate party and a place to vote for it that isn't in a church.