Interestingly, when you were at DKos, you would just get mashed up in comments. Here, I guess they are afraid they will just get deleted so it requires the classy personal touch.

Every time a problem with the re-vote was solved Obama's camp raised another one.  When no practical barriers were left Obama's campaign came out of the shadows and blocked enabling legislation.

We in Michigan know who blocked the re-vote.

There are two senses in which votes count in these races. The sense in which they "count" at the convention, and the sense in which they are "relevant" in the choosing of the nominee.

In MOST primaries historically, there are many many votes which COUNT but are IRRELEVANT. For example this is always (almost always?) the case for Puerto Rico. The citizens of Puerto Rico typically have votes that COUNT but are IRRELEVANT to the nomination since it has been decided by that time.

Indeed one could argue that the further up in the process a state has its vote, the more relevant it becomes to the nomination. It is for this very reason that states tried to move up in the process in the first place. They wanted their state to be more relevant.

Given that there is thus a massive historical precedent for voters in many states having borderline irrelevant or completely irrelevant votes, since the entire primary structure creates a situation where votes typically (but not this year!!!!) become less and less relevant, I think it is hard for some people to get up in arms about FL and MI because many people know that these delegations will be seated right after they become irrelevant.

I'll admit I had not until this argument given sufficient thought to how much the normal primary season disenfranchises voters that are significantly downstream in the process, but the imbroglio over FL and MI in fact mirrors a kind of disenfranchisement that is inherent in every primary season...the disenfranchisement that is hooked to the timeline of the process.

Obama seeks to place FL and MI at the end of the timeline...a place where they will count, but be irrelevant. This is certainly a valid cause for anger...but will that same anger be channeled into making future primaries national primaries? Because as I see it that's the only way to stop what I'm starting to see as timeline disenfranchisement from occurring every single primary season.

His site is as bad as DailyObama or Total Pony Manure.  It's infested with HillaryHating trolls.

The other night I watched a rational Obama supporter get bashed for suggesting that they dial down the attacks on Hillary and her supporters because they'll need us in November.

The commenters act as if it is rational and reasonable to believe delusional ideas like Hillary accepting the job of McCain's VP.

Yesterday John started backing away from his promise to vote for Hillary if she is the nominee.

I was a regular there but I decided to evacuate before they quarantined the place.

If you treat all the rule breakers (NH, SC, Iowa) the same as Fl/Mi, you get a 133 spread in AP reported delegate totals.  

However, if you treat Fl/Mi like the other states (and use demcon watch estimates) then you get a 101 delegate spread in delegate totals.

What this means is that of all the basic rule enforcement outcomes that rely on existing votes, the decision to treat FL/MI differently had the best impact for Obama--a net benefit of 56 votes.

Current:
Clinton 1249, Obama 1406 (157 diff)

"Look, we're going to abide by whatever the Democratic National Committee determines is fair," he says.link

As for this quote:

"We were told that these contests would not count," he tells Steve Inskeep.

But then again, that was well before his campaign sent out a memo announcing that Fla would not count.

Ultimately he points out that

"Our position consistently has been that the Michigan and Florida delegations should be seated  and that we should come up with a system that is fair to all the parties involved," Obama says.

"The first of his two appeals asks that all 23 Florida superdelegates -- party and elected officials, including members of Congress -- be seated because they are guaranteed to a state under the DNC charter."

"It's the second Ausman appeal that leaves politicians with a math headache. He asks that half of Florida's 185 pledged delegates be seated, saying that's the penalty the DNC rules committee should have levied in the first place."

He's the journalist who's responsible for a great deal of the reporting about the corruption of Rudy Giuliani's two terms as mayor, and on the business shenanigans he pulled after he left office. He criticized the 9/11 Commission for letting Rudy slide and not accurately assessing his role in the events of (and leading up to) that day. And he reported on the failures of the Giuliani administration in protecting the city and adequately equipping the first responders.

That said, I want to examine the assumption that this fiasco makes it impossible for the Dems to win MI and FL in November.

If MI and FL voters are so angry about the lack of revotes, why:

1. Did FL elected officials overwhelmingly oppose a revote, despite Clinton's support?

2. Did MI elected officials not approve a revote, despite Obama's opposition?

3. Is Obama doing slightly better than Hillary in MI general election polls -- with both within the margin of error of McCain (in a week where McCain is up nation-wide)?