This part bothers me: "shall not campaign or participate". (emphasis mine)

For purposes of Rule 20.C.(1)(b), internet advertising shall not constitute "campaigning" in a state unless such advertising takes the form of paid advertising on the website of a publication or media outlet based in that state or on a website or web page targeted to persons in that state, or is paid or unpaid internet communication specifically targeted or limited to that state.

So, I'm correcting myself.

It turns out, while it's true the Florida Governor is Republican, and the overwhelming majority of the Florida Legislature is Republican, it was a Democrat who cosponsored the bill to change our state primary.

That makes it a bipartisan bill, even if a majority of Democrats opposed it.

Therefore, I WAS WRONG to blame the Republicans for Florida's primary prattle and battle.

That having been said, I hope you and your supporters will try to quell any knee jerk reaction to what I'm about to suggest as a solution to the Michigan and Florida vote -- a suggestion not yet made by anyone on behalf of the voters in both states.

Understand, this isn't about a small band of (mostly) men hammering out rules in back rooms and making ultimatums to demonstrate their level of power.

This is about Democracy; both ideals and realities.

It's about the voice of the people. It's about a nation of majority rules trumping committee rules.

It's about the world watching us, and thinking democracy might not be the way to go, if we refuse to elevate the ballots cast by millions of voters above a dispute over changing a calendar date.

So, I'm asking you the consider this Florida fact:

Another primary won't net you more college students selecting the perception of change over the votes of us old ladies knowing if Hillary doesn't win we'll die before breaking the 232 year stronghold of men in the White House.

Because, regardless of race, you're still a man.

To us, real change is putting a woman in charge.

As for Michigan, do you deep down honestly believe those votes will increase for you should a revote be held?

Think seriously about it.

You're being offered ALL the uncommitted votes (that's yours + John Edwards + any others), while Hillary gets just hers.

Then mull over this:

Since the Florida and Michigan primaries on January 29, you've suffered the Canadian NAFTA stumble, the Powers interview suggesting your plan for Iraq is political puff, the New York Times front page article revealing your top advisors are primarily white while your office staff is primarily African-American, and the perception that the true feelings of your staff is that Hillary Clinton is a "monster."

All this has cracked your calm facade, while exposing the true nature of some of your advisors.

So, if the revotes are to happen -- what's your very worse case scenario?

You lose by a wider margin in both states.

And, what's your best case scenario?

You don't lose quite as badly.

Either way?

You'll lose Florida and Michigan. Us old ladies feeling scorned are out in force and adament about that.

Plus, with the revote you'll engender the rage of millions who were forced to repeat the process in order to get virtually the same results.

SO, BE A HERO HERE OBAMA.

Only you can be.

And, you can even proclaim you're being PRESIDENTIAL when you do it.

(1) Admit that rules are made to be broken when the voice of the people and the good of the country are at stake.

(2) Accept the votes of Florida and Michigan as they were counted, with your piece of the pie as they stand in Florida, and all the uncommitted votes of Michigan.

As a lawyer, you know better than to ask a question of witness if you don't already know the answer.

A revote for you is like asking millions of witnesses a question without knowing the answer.

So, step up and tell the DNC you accept the votes of the two states, and you move to allow the delegates be seated and counted.

If you're really as good as you say, and if you truly believe you'll be chosen as the nominee based on your merits -- you have everything to gain by MAKING A DECISION that no one can make but you.

However, if, instead, you continue to rely on saying you wouldn't have voted for the war in Iraq -- if you'd been in the position to vote against the war in Iraq -- which you weren't -- as your ace-in-the-hole to be President, then guess what?

Eventually someone will call your bluff by saying, "Every man and woman in America who voted for Gore wouldn't have voted for the war in Iraq --  if they'd had a chance to vote against it -- which they didn't -- either.

And, we were ALL making speeches opposing it.

Ok, maybe not as a young man newly elected to office in Illinois who had superior oratory skills.

But we spoke before our family and friends, and over poker games, and in bar rooms, and in restaurants, and around kitchen coffee klatches, and on public transpotation, and at social gatherings, and in schools, and while knitting in circles, and the rest.

That makes you one of MILLIONS who thought the same, and spoke out against the war, the same as you.

And, also like you, NONE of us had the power, or  were in the position to vote.

It makes your strongest claim to be President very ordinary; not extraordinary.

So, take some action while you still have the quickly closing window of opportunity.

Stand up -- not for the "rules" governing a "calendar" change that hurts the political process and enrages the electorate.

Instead, stand up for the people.

Stand up for Democracy.

Stand up for 5 million disenfranchised voters in Florida and Michigan who clearly made their choices.

In doing so, you lead in letting US be counted. You make the choice of our nominee about US.

Otherwise, ask yourself, what kind of president could you possibly make if you can't even resolve a calendar date dispute, when you're the ONLY person now who can?

Saying, "I'll do whatever the DNC says" sends a message to the DNC (and superdelegates) that you're willing to be a "puppet" president.

Americans have had nearly 8 years of the Pinocchio and Gepetto ticket. We don't need or want 8 more.

So, here's your big chance, Obama.

LEAD!

I ahve to say that your solution re. FL & MI seems to me the one that makes the most sense. There were record turn outs and the current polls suggest
the FL vote will be the same (if not better for Clinton). In MI  they are about even in the polls today. And I it seems to me (at least in terms of delegates) the Jan. vote will be about even. Giving Obama the Edwards uncommitted vote seems more than fair for whatever his supporters seek to balance.  

ALL CANDIDATES including HILLARY CLINTON agreed [delegates] would not count, they will not be seated by the DNC

or

CLINTON AGREED THAT [the delegates] WOULD NOT COUNT

or

Has Hillary been advocating against something she agreed to that [sic] before she had decided to go against?

Sorry to be so twisty with the language, but that's what happens when you're dealing with a hypocrite. Why did Hillary decide to change her position on Michigan and Florida after those primaries?

Did she suddenly gain more experience about representational voting? Did her concern for counting every vote suddenly fill her heart? No, it was because she won those primaries. She is being a hypocrite because it's in her political interest.

Well, Bob, how do you explain all that ugliness on your part?

Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina
August 28, 2007

WHEREAS, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, along with approval from the full body of the DNC, established the 2008 Presidential nominating calendar in 2005.

WHEREAS, the nominating calendar increases diversity with the early participation of African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans, Native Americans and labor members.

WHEREAS, the nominating calendar honors the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process.

WHEREAS, the nominating calendar provides geographical balance with contests in the Heartland, East, South and West.

WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.

WHEREAS, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will strip states of 100% of their delegates and super delegates to the DNC National Convention if they violate the nomination calendar.

Here's a definition of "participation":

"engagement: the act of sharing in the activities of a group; "the teacher tried to increase his students' engagement in class activities"
the condition of sharing in common with others (as fellows or partners etc.)"

Here's the definition of primary:

"a preliminary election where delegates or nominees are chosen"

I guess that you are trying to bifurcate the election from the delegates. Unfortunately, folks, it's all part of the same thing.

Judging from the comments the Obama supporters are leaving on TalkLeft, it appears there's a fundamental misunderstanding on what the candidates promised and didn't promise regarding the outcomes of the Florida and Michigan prim

Can a presidential candidate remove their name from the ballot in Florida?
Florida Democratic Party Chairwoman Thurman, Senator Geller and Representative Gelber submitted to Florida's Secretary of State the names of our Party's presidential candidates for placement on the January 29, 2008 Democratic Presidential Preference Primary ballot. State law allows candidates who wish to withdraw from the Florida primary to do so by filing an affidavit stating that he or she is not a candidate for President of the United States of America. In other words: to get off the ballot in Florida, a candidate has to swear that he or she isn't running for President.

  But I later found out that they couldn't remove their names from the Florida ballots unless they signed a statement they didn't intend to run for President.

2.  Obama specifically asked voters in Michigan to vote UNcommited.  In other words he requested that they vote ANTI-Clinton.

   This meant he felt the votes might mean something.

3.  While the Democrats co-sponsored the move of the primary, they later submitted a motion to move the primary back some to the 2nd Tuesday of February because of the DNC rules.

    The Republican Legislature voted that down.

    Fla Dem party did not entirely decide on that date against DNC rules, as they did try to remedy that.

4.  So, I've felt the Florida vote, confirmed, should be accepted, since the party DID try to move that date to a proper one.

    ALSO, as someone said, Obama had nat'l tv ads that ran in Florida in the last 10 days or so before the Florida primary.  The package automatically ran them in Florida, but I would bet he could have asked them not to run them in Florida.  His surrogates never mention this in their arguments on the tv talk shows.  They continue the line that he never campaigned there, while saying she did (!)

    He also walked across the street after a fundraiser
to talk with reporters for awhile.  That was considered campaigning.  He said he didn't realize that.

5.  Pundits did erroneously say Clinton broke the rules by campaigning in Florida at the end but she didn't.  She attended a fund-raiser.  Those were within the rules, and both held many fundraisers there.

6.  Washington Post:
   

   Clinton Campaign Events in Florida
     http://tinyurl.com/yu4kbp

7.  They criticized her for showing up to thank the voters
   -after- she won the primary, even if it wouldn't count
   at the convention.

8.  I really liked Marguerite's letter to Obama.
    When the DNC asks me for money, I say, not unless they
    seat Florida and recognizes its voters.  

    I've recommended they give Obama all the Uncommitted
    votes.  one would think that would be enough for him.