Sounds like a good Republican plan.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/5/14345/50395/126/469746

He went out of his way to file paperwork to take his name off the ballot. It was a political ploy to try to get "uncommitted" to beat Hillary. It backfired. Live with it.

Obama supporters again trying to make race an issue.

yawn.

yes.do a revote in may.

Why on earth should they have to vote again?

I ran into Dennis Kucinich's brother at the gym the other night and told him about this website. (I mentioned that the front page article for that day was about his brother, which is why it came up.) I said I thought he'd like it, that it was full of intelligent commentary.

Wow, am I kind of embarrassed. (and now my cover's blown if he happens to be reading this exact letter).

I am shocked at the tribal thinking that characterizes these camps, at the complete abandonment of logic by seemingly otherwise intelligent people. Like the people who are actually suggesting that seating the current Michigan delegates is fair. WTF? I mean, really, WTF? Pointblank, are you out of your mind? That people who were told that the election wouldn't count AND Obama wasn't on the ballot BECAUSE HE FOLLOWED THE RULES AND HILLARY DIDN'T and you think it's fairer to count the existing delegates rather than hold another election? Jesus. It's a concession to begin with that Obama would even agree to another election rather than demand, mantra-like, that we made the rules, now we have to stick with them. What is it about that that you don't get? It's a concession to Hillary to hold another election there.

For the Obama supporters who think we should just stick to the rules and who are sure that a Hillary win involving seating the current delegates would taint her victory: What is it about your scenario that you think wouldn't taint his victory? I mean, really, do you think all those FL and MI voters (who want Hillary--b/c the Obama ones are on record as preferring disenfranchisement over counting the current results) won't completely see not counting FL and MI as tainted?

Neither should want to win this way, which is why they need to broker some kind of deal. I've suggested something here and in another thread, which upon reflection probably will end up not solving the problem. While no scenario is going to please everyone, and all parties need to concede something, we can start by eliminating the asinine, illogical, undemocratic, and mean-spirited positions of the extremes.

Now, go to your rooms and don't make me come up there again!

(LOL - Sorry for the lecture--but, really, I'm kind of embarrassed)

How is Obama taking his name off the ballot following the rules? Seriously, explain that to me. What rule are you talking about? It was a political stunt. It backfired. They had a pledge not to campaign in Michigan or Florida (which Obama reneged on, but we don't mention that), but nothing about taking the candidates name off the ballot to my knowledge. Please provide a link if you know that taking the name off the ballot was part of any agreement or "rule." So please, stop with the misinformation about Clinton "not following the rules."

Nice try but even folks who voted for hillary concede that she is running a dirty campaign.

BTW AKASmith, I appreciate your rooting for hillary. I will most certainly hire you as my national campaign manager when I run for president. And I mean that as a compliment.

Could someone please provide some piece of objective evidence to suggest that she is running a dirty campaign.

The purpose of the Democratic Party rules is to allow some smaller states to go first, allowing less well-known candidates to build name recognition and momentum before the really big states come in, where a lot of money is needed to play the game.

Florida and Michigan went against this.

I live in Florida and a few days before the Florida primary I was talking to some Black Floridians, and they had never heard of Obama, but they had heard of Hillary Clinton. I wrote about this in a letter to Salon. I doubt if Hillary would have done so well if she had run as Hillary Rodham.

OK, Obama had some ads on cable TV. I don't have a TV, but even I know that there are hundreds of cable stations and if Obama was not on the one that shows the Florida Gators games or the golf channel, then his ads were irrelevant.

So that primary was just a straw poll and a lot of (white) retirees will have voted, but few (black) workers will have taken the time off to vote.

I don't think the Democratic party can now change the rules again without royally pissing off the black vote in Florida, a state, which I hardly have to remind the nation may hold the very Presidency in its hands on a warm balmy Florida evening next November.

Also, the date for both parties primaries was set by the Republican state government and I don't know what the Democrats could have done about it. Since many voting stations are schools I imagine that it was much more economical to have the primary the same day as the Republicans rather than choose a different date.

This is really making a laughing stock of American democracy. Maybe we need to get some Ba'ath party consultants in here to get us sorted out.

On the bright side, it looks like the state of the economy makes it unlikely that the Republicans can pull out Ohio and again, and if the Democrats can take Ohio and Florida, then surely they are home and dry.

How about a joint Presidency, folks? Hillary has always been keen on the twofer concept, so what better time than now?

So she thinks Hillary is calculating. So do I. You think Obama is arrogant. So what? Slackie takes the time to provide lots of thoughtful commentary. She has opinions that you don't share. That's OK here.