After seven years of Republican rule, I am confident that we will elect a Democratic president who will fight for America's families in the White House.

But, why doesn't Dean address those other states that held their primaries b/4 the DNC-imposed date?  

I think he's doing precisely the right thing... not taking sides, and passing the buck to the credentials committee where it belongs.

There is one thing he could do, however, that might resolve this mess...  Set up a special DNC fund for people who want to contribute toward the cost of new primary elections in Florida and Michigan, and if the cash donated reaches what is needed to hold primaries by May 15, the money goes toward holding primaries in late june if the nomination has not been settled.  If not enough money is raised, or if the nomination is settled, the DNC keeps the money.

The plain fact is that holding new elections won't get either candidate to the number of delegates needed to lock in the nomination... nor will seating the delegates allow Clinton to lock it in without Superdelegates.

You think that the Democrats have a shot of winning if they turnoff the AA vote?  

let me repeat, for those with short-term memory loss:

AA's, while certainly an important and valued democratic constituency, constitute a mere 12% of the total population. white women outnumber the entire AA population by themselves.

 as well, the greatest density of the AA population is situated in the southeast. specifically, in those states which have gone republican in the past few presidential campaigns, since at least reagan in 80.

statistically, this is not likely to change radically, regardless of who the democratic nominee is, the increased AA vote notwithstanding. while the loss of AA votes would certainly be unfortunate (and shooting themselves in the foot), it wouldn't be the overwhelming catastrophe that some would have us believe.

you conveniently overlook another, much larger minority constituency that has thus far provided a bulwark of support for sen. clinton: the hispanic community. in florida, hispanics outnumber AA's by about 2-1. excepting the miami cuban hispanic community (disproportionately loud for its actual size) florida hispanics have traditionally voted democratic.

many more hispanics came out to vote in the florida mis-primary than had previously as well. i suspect they'll make up, in large part, for the loss of many AA's, should obama not be the nominee.

all of which leads me to the comment i was originally going to make. in all the talk by howard dean and other DNC grand poobahs, they've conveniently glossed over the potential disenfranchisement of close to 3 million democrats (FL & MI), none of whom had anything to do with the premature scheduling of their state's respective primaries. and yet, SC seems to have been given a free pass.

[cricket noise, cricket noise]

I don't see Crist moving forward to authorize state money to pay for a new primary, I see him issueing a grandstanding press release that helps John McCain. And the Florida Democratic Party chair Karen Thurman isn't interesting in solving problems, she wants Howard Dean to peel her a grape.

FL Democratic Party chairwoman Karen Thurman:
"It is important also that we are clear about one issue. At this time, no suggested alternative process has been able to meet three specific and necessary requirements: the full participation from both candidates, a guaranteed commitment of the millions of dollars it will cost to conduct the event and a detailed election plan that would enfranchise all Florida Democrats, including our military service members serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

The Florida Democratic Party cannot consider any alternative that does not meet these requirements. Indeed, it is very possible that no satisfactory alternative plan will emerge, in which case Florida Democrats will remain committed to seating the delegates allocated by the January 29th primary."

Howard Dean called Crist's bluff, said 'go ahead, hold a new primary that conforms to DNC rules' and Karen Thurman moves the goalposts yet again. The Florida Democratic Party leadership isn't interested in resolving this situation. They're still issuing ultimatums.

I accuse the Florida Democratic Party leadership of bad faith in this entire process -- FL Dem. chair Karen Thurman, Sen. Nelson, Rep. Wasserman-Schultz, Rep. Alcee Hastings, Rep. Corinne Brown. I've seen FL Democratic chairwoman Thurman make clear misstatements on FL TV where she's said she had 'assurances from Speaker Pelosi's people' that the delegates would be seated, only to have Speaker Pelosi say the exact opposite. And all the other elected officials (Nelson, Wasserman-Schultz, C.Brown, Hastings) are part of the Clinton campaign and acting in that capacity, not on behalf of all Florida Democratic Party members.

I'm tired of the entire double game that Florida Democratic leaders are playing, saying one thing to the national press, saying another to the Florida press, all the while putting their thumb on the scale for the Clinton campaign. It's time to either submit a plan that conforms to DNC rules or accept the fact that the gambit to mute a Jan. 29th Obama win in South Carolina blew up in your cheating faces.

One, he hasn't shut the door on new contests in Michigan and Florida.

And, two, he suggests that a seating of the delegates by the credentials committee would be following DNC rules.

He didn't campaign in Florida?  Big deal.  Neither did anyone else.  But they get national news like everyone else, they get internet access like everyone else, and they get local news reporting on the election like everyone else.  That's where most people get their information on the presidential primaries.  At best it's a weak argument to say that it shouldn't count because he didn't campaign there (especially because he campaigned more than anyone else).

I grew up in a town where I would have to drive at least 4 hours to see a presidential candidate in person.  Should my vote not count? I never got to see the candidate in person!

I personally think it gets most sketchy for Obama when we're reminded that he said he would see to it that the Florida and Michigan delegations were seated if he were the presumptive nominee.  What kind of unity message is that?  I'll only respect their vote if it either benefits me, or if it can't hurt me?  I understand he's a politician, but this should remind everyone that he's a... POLITICIAN.  If he's doing so well that his campaign and surrogates are telling Hillary to drop out and that she's finished, shouldn't he be doing well enough to say that we ought to just seat them?  Again, I know, he's a politician.  I wish someone would tell -him- that.

And $18 million to run a primary for 1.7 million people?  More than $10 per vote?  And there's no way to do some sort of absentee deal to registered democrats that would cost 41 cents for postage, a few cents to print a ballot, and a whole bunch of volunteers to staff the counting machines?  It seems iffy, as if Florida won't take re-do for an answer, and the DNC won't take seat-the-delegates for an answer either.  Who loses?  Floridians who just want to be counted as real Americans for once.

Despite the fact that many voters are not rational actors, many people decide to vote strategically based on the system and the race as it looks at the time they vote. There are many, many people who voted for John Edwards after it was clear he could not win. Why? Probably in part to send the message that they wanted his issues included in the platform/GE campaign. Same with Huckabee on the Republican side. I also know Democrats who registered Republican for the Florida primaries so they could have some impact on who the GE candidates were, since we understood that Democratic votes would not affect the nomination.

It's difficult to say how campaigning would have affected the outcome of the primary. Yes, there were ads. But Obama has consistently won over voters in person. On the other hand, if Obama and Hillary had a real debate about Cuba policy, perhaps her lead would have been even stronger. The point is that we don't know what would have happened had there been a contested election that the candidates and voters thought would impact the general election.

To say that because many people voted the results necessarily reflect what the outcome of a true primary neglects the fact that both candidates and voters are entitled to make strategic decisions based on the rules at the beginning of the game.