These days I don't think 72 is all that old. You can be that age and still be healthy and active both physically and mentally. However, his 72-year-old mindset and goals aren't necessarily in sync with the majority of voters. His experiences, which those younger than him haven't had (and vice versa) don't reflect today's standards and values. His beliefs reflect the way things were when he was coming of age and maturing. He's simply out of touch with today's middle-aged and younger voters.

Sent by Karen | 11:10 AM ET | 03-06-2008

Funny thing is that the GOP has no problem with Florida or Michigan.

It's only the BIG federal government state of mind of the Democratic Party and Howard Dean that creates chaos.

Magnify the problems the DNC has created in Florida and Michigan into the other 48 states, and you have the pattern of the Democratic Party's plan for vast federal bureaucratic catastrophe.

As opposed to the GOP's overall plan for more private enterprise as opposed to larger federal government intervention.

Not to forget mentioning that Liberal Utopians want to place the highly inexperienced Barack Obama in charge of an overwhelmingly toppling federal bureaucratic machine.

Why not just give artillery pieces to children?

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 11:24 AM ET | 03-06-2008

Howard Dean is correct.
You cannot address the upholding of the people's right to participate in the democratic process to the exclusion of the violation of the very tenets of ethics and principles of good governance that are at the foundation to preserving their right to vote.

What kind of an election process would we have if every state in the nation decided to disregard agreed upon principles, and serve their own self-interests? How does such conduct serve the public's best interest? Whose interests are being served in conduct by public officials that knowingly seeks to play a game off the something as sacred and fundamental as the voter's right to participate in the election process? And Michigan and Florida want to blame Howard Dean for their surreptitious conduct that backfired on them because Dean had the courage to stand on principles that preserve democracy from becoming corrupted by hidden agendas?

You cannot address adherence to the principles of participation to the exclusion of the violations of the public's voice through conduct that violates the very rules and principles in place to protect the voter's voice.

Violations of agreed upon rules not only undermines the spirit of democracy but it sets the stage for the underhanded tactics of corruption to fester that seek to use the public's vote as some slick game piece in a surreptitious agenda where the real goal is to serve self-interests over the public's best interest.

Howard Dean cannot allow those who would demonstrate chaotic conduct as a premise for "leadership" to then infect the entire body politic with cheap, underhanded, and self-serving conduct that ultimately leads to chaos and opens the doors for corruption of the democratic process to take place.

The PROCESS is equally as important as the actual right to participate.
A corrupt process leads to a corrupted outcome.

Rules based behaviors are one of the gold-standards to upholding transparency and ethics in good governance. So is the notion of accountability and responsibility.

Florida and Michigan local officials who robbed democracy from the hands of their own people, need to stand up and take responsibility for the choices they made to the detriment of the inclusion of their own citizens in participating in the election process.

Dean models integrity and ethics to the democratic process that everyone agreed to, prior to Michigan and Florida local officials choosing to violate that agreement.

We need standards for ethics and transparency in how we are goverened - qualities which appear to be sorely lacking in politics and desperately needed if we are ever going to achieve anything remotely resembling the tenets of democracy.

The notion that a one-person's name only on the ballot in Michigan as being somehow representative of democracy, when it was clear that all the candidates agreed to abide by the party rules (which one candidate then proceeded to violate while the others modeled integrity to the principles of democracy) is a sham in the face of democracy.

The notion that what took place in Florida as being an "election" is another sham. There was no campaigning in Florida. It was nothing more than a name-recognition contest that some want to now manipulate into representing "democracy".

Dean is modeling the leadership that the Democratic Party needs in holding everyone accountable to transparency, everyone accountable to the rules agreed upon by all the stakeholders.

Those espousing that we look at the failure by Florida and Michigan's officials to abide by the rules that protect ALL of us in the voting process - and that we see this as a disenfranchisment of the voters, should re-think the steps that led to that disenfranchisement. What took place was nothing less than a failure on the part of Florida and Michigan's legislative officials to use the sacred right to vote - as a means of serving a hidden, surreptitious agenda that ultimately robbed the electorate of their right to participate in the democratic process.

Florida and Michigan officials should be held accountable and responsible for this reprehensible conduct.

Sent by Hope | 11:39 AM ET | 03-06-2008

Hope,
Are you aware that it was the Republican machine that pushed the dates in FL & MI, and not the Dems? Are you also aware that the "Rules" also state that only 50% of delegates need be removed, as the Republicans did. So we have Dean (and Donna Brazile & Nancy Pelosi-type characters) making an "example" out of this election an over-extending this "punishment". Which in turn only disenfranchises huge numbers of American voters. They can insist that the rules be followed, but they need to follow the rules themselves, and not take liberty with "interpretation". That sounds like a power play to me. Say what you will about the holiness of these "rules", and the example being made, but we all know that the majority of American people do not give a fig about these antiquated processes. They go vote, and expect their votes to matter. This "rule" stuff is political bunk, but nevertheless, it must be respected.
But for those of us that are paying attention, we see that the DNC has made a contradictory stance, and enraged voters, a very stupid thing to do.
This is neither candidates fault.

As far as MI ballot, Sen. Obama willingly took his name from that ballot, no one forced him. And he did run millions of dollars in TV and Radio ads in FL before that election, so please remove the "St. Obama" pallor from the argument. The situation is annoying enough without it. The whole thing is messed up in general, and the DNC has not handled it well.

And it is to be noted that SC, NH, and IA all broke the RULES and they were not punished.
The question to those of us that do try to understand this process is not "should rules be enforced?" , but how? If you do it to some, you do it to all, right? But then that extends the campaign process indefinelty, right? So maybe these RULES need to be re-examined, huh?
There is something really stinky about this whole, "Let's make an example" out of FL and MI.
And it is also telling that it was the Republicans that put that ball in motion, and also solved the problem on their side so diplomatically.

So instead of defending disenfranchisement (which in my mind is akin to defending abuse), we should be taking a cue from the Republicans in this case and preserve the faith of our voters and SPLIT THE VOTE. That way we can move on!
Fair is fair, and no more of this bogus high & mighty stuff. For I think we all know it will come down to the superdelegate preference in this race anyway.
So maybe us Dems should just grow up and learn a lesson from this, and realize that this stupid, selective "Rule" posturing, and hard-core punishment stuff does more to weaken the party as a whole, more than it does anything else.

It's time to respect the people's right to vote first, and stop wasting the electorate's time and money.
And to think, we are the ones telling the rest of the world they need to be Democracies! Ha!

Sent by Young American | 3:10 PM ET | 03-06-2008

Leave it to the Democrats to screw things up. Why is this talk about disenfranchising Michigan and Florida voters only coming up now? Didn't anybody feel that way when the Democrats decided so hastily to punish the two states? Why didn't they work towards a solution when a solution would have been less costly, more timely, and more fair? Howard Dean and his colleagues showed no tact, no insight, no management skills whatsoever. Typical Democratic money-wasting!

If the Democrats think that Michigan and Florida redos will help seal the nomination and spare it from being decided by superdelegates, think again! It's a certainty by now that, with or without redos, the primaries will not decide the outcome. Superdelegates will. This is exactly what the Democratic Party wanted to happen when they decided to allot so many votes to party delegates. The Democratic Party did not trust its own voters. The Democrats won exactly what they asked for. Another big Democratic mess.

And the Texas two-step? Why, of course, just another uncraftily designed mess that probably produced unintended results. The Democrats just cannot do anything right. How can I trust them with answering a phone call at any time of the day or night?

Sent by Charles Fiott | 4:10 PM ET | 03-06-2008

Young American, it seems you want the right of the people to express their vote to be preserved, but you want it to be done through a process that opens itself up to corruption.

There are reasons for the rules, whether you like them or not.
Clearly, those who didn't like those rules didn't have to vote in favor of them in the first place. These agreements are not pulled out of a hat, they were agreed to by the stakeholders.

The fact is - the stakeholders did agree to the rules. And clearly, rules do serve a purpose in maintaining order, organization, clarity, transparency. Without them you have corruption, chaos and anarchy.

There are words to describe somone who in the final hour, attempts to shift the rules of the game, and clearly - the thinking is - that if you don't wish to dance with the devil, why break the rules that you agreed to in the first place? Why break the rules at all? There is an element of respect as well as transparency in abiding by the rules. There are elements of concern that suggest manipulation and the possibility for corruption - when rules become meaningless, while touting such phrases as "the people's right to vote" - in the absence of their RIGHT and expectation that integrity to the voting process be protected.

Are you aware that there was another choice - other than moving the primary in violation of the party's rules?

Howard Dean's message in my view is: Give honor to your word, which has to mean something - if indeed it is to hold any purpose in protecting the sanctity of the vote.

There were rules agreed to. In the absence of the entire nation following the rules, you have anarchy; you have chaos.

Unless of course you are proposing that everyone else in the entire nation (all the other 48 states) should all be mandated to abide by and follow the rules - but somehow, Florida and Michigan should be exempt from following those rules.

Was there the threat of someone holding a hanging chad over the heads of the democrats in Florida who voted in favor of moving the primary to an earlier date? But now - that the reality of their CHOICE has met a consequence, they want to cry foul, and blame Howard Dean for "disenfranchisement"? !!!

Please. Howard Dean has offered multiple options which Michigan and Florida have sat on - thinking that somehow, they could shove the responsibility for THEIR CONDUCT on the Democratic National party!

I personally think that the good people of Florida and Michigan were robbed, but the individuals responsible are those who voted to violate the rules that ALL had agreed to.

There was another choice! Florida and Michigan wanted to dance with the devil, and now - they don't want to have be held accountable for what price that dance cost - innocent voters who don't appreciate having THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE used as a slick game piece in manipulations and back room deals that end up denying their own consituents their right to participate in the democratic process. The suggestion that this is somehow the fault of those who stand up for preserving the democratic process by mandating EVERYONE follow the rules that EVERYONE agreed to - is the only thing resembling democracy taking place in the discussion.

The notion that honorable conduct - that of John Edwards and Barack Obama abiding by the rules and removing their names, while HIllary Clinton left her name on the ballot - something that some might perceive as a very manipulative and not in keeping with the agreement that ALL gave their word to, suggests - using your logic, that slick manipulative conduct that clearly disengages from the agreement that everyone gave their word to - should be perceived as honorable, while John Edwards and Barack Obama's conduct in honorably removing their names - because THAT is what was reflective of what EVERYONE AGREED TO, should somehow be perceived as not honorable! How interesting. How very undemocratic, and to be honest, some would even say - unethical.

The reality is that both democrats and republicans voted in support of moving that primary - it was never stolen from the democrats. The fact is, they agreed to it.

Why? Whose interest were they protecting and serving?

And now those local officials in Florida and Michigan who voted to move that primary - knowing it would incur consequences for breaking an agreement that all parties made, - now, those same individuals want to blame the Democratic national committee for their choice in violating an agreement they knew they were violating?

What good is their word if it can be broken?
What good are rules if they can be violated by two states, while everone else across the nation is expected to adhere to those rules? What would happen if all the states across the nation just ignored the rules that everyone agreed to? You'd have chaos, you'd have corruption.

Both Democrats and Republicans voted to move that primary, while realizing fully what the sanctions would be.

And now - those who made that choice, don't want to live with the responsibility and the accountability to the people, whom THEY disenfranchised - NOT Howard Dean and NOT the democratic national committee.

It's like the infamous vote to go to war in Iraq. Now that 4, 000 precious American lives are gone, billions of dollars spent, and an infrastructure across the nation - literally in some states falling apart, with poverty at an all time high amidst certain populations, it would very convenient to blame the entire vote to go to war on the Republicans, and suggest that those Democrats who ALSO VOTED FOR IT, were somehow not responsible for their choice - their vote.

You are attempting to take Peter Pans shadow and sow it back on with the hopes that no one will notice where his shadow went when it disengaged from the body, and what it was doing while it disengaged itself from Peter Pan.

You can't disengage from the party rules, and then whine and complain that you should somehow not be held accountable and responsible for your conduct while claiming you shouldn't be held accountable, and that everyone should just blame your shadow!

The local party officials have some explaining to do to the thousands of voters whose voice they used in a gamble, and they want to toss all kinds of shadows out into the mix to suggest this is somehow about something - other than - THEIR CONDUCT that led to the disenfranchisement of their own voters.

Your word is your bond, but if your word is worthless and meaningless because you suggest that the entire nation should be held to the rules - or everyone should just do whatever they want ( which is the recipe for chaos and corruption), suggests that we set into motion self-serving conduct that completely disregards the rest of the nation so that two states can do whatever they feel like doing without any accountability or responsibility for their actions.

In this instance - the voters were violated, and the violation of THEIR trust cannot be taken back, anymore than Hillary Clinton can take back her vote to put the United States at war in Iraq, which has now led to 4,000 young American lives filled with promise - that are gone forever, billions of dollars spent on a war we should never have engaged in, and the heartbreak of its impact hitting families all across America where in some cases - soliders are on their second and third tour of duty.

Good governance and the capacity to lead involves the ability to make the RIGHT DECISIONS, because in making those choices, you are weighing the very trust of the American people that you suggest is fundamental to the PROCESS of democracy.

The electorate's trust was violated by those who used it as a political football, in a "game" where the stakes were nothing less than the very sanctions that were crystal clear from the moment that local leaders in Michigan and Florida chose to violate their agreements with the National party.

Ethics, honorable conduct, integrity and honesty mean every bit as much to TRUE LEADERSHIP, as does the capacity and the ability to be RIGHT when crises knocks on the door.

Sent by Hope | 4:44 PM ET | 03-06-2008

The final result: Howard Dean could be out of a job.

Howard Deam must either come up with the money to redo elections in Florida...which Howard Dean says that the DNC won't do.........of Howard Dean will be replaced for having created total mess of the Florida primaries.

Meanwhile, the call continues among voters as to who is Barack Obama and where did Barack Obama come from. And more importantly, why won't Barack Obama answer any questions.

A large question on voter's minds: Do you really trust Barack Obama's finger to be on the red button trigger of America's nuclear arsenal?

Where does Barack Obama's heart really lie?

No one knows. Barack Obama isn't saying. Doubts continue to grow about Barack Obama.

And Howard Deam may become a distant memory in the DNC.

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 5:19 PM ET | 03-06-2008

It is ridiculous to see the Florida Republican governor interfering in the democratic party primaries process and claiming the role of democracy. His argument is totally flawed. He ignores or pretends to ignore that one of the basic principles in democracy is the right for candidates to campaign. (If he is so keen about democracy, he should push for a public hearing on how the Iraq's war was launched and the use of the fictitious or false claims about weapons of mass destruction.) It is clear that the Republicans would love to see chaos in the Democratic convention. Then Mrs. Clinton compounds the problem with her ridiculous sickening claims of victory in the uncontested primaries in Florida and Michigan. The roles and the campaign calendar for the Democratic primaries and caucuses set by the national Democratic party were very clear from the beginning. She enforces the strong perception that she would or may do anything to win, and in the process proves how a divisive figure she has become. It should be very clear that if she cannot win fairly, yet becomes the nominee, some and probably many of the Obama's supporters will not vote for her. I know she is probably very happy particularly about Ohio, but a deeper insight of the result shows that her victory is almost hollow; she did not win any of the big 4 cities in Ohio: Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus and Toledo. She won by a huge margin in the rural areas which will, highly likely, be won by Mr. McCain in November.

Sent by Fred Farid | 6:25 PM ET | 03-06-2008

Democratic Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm has joined forces with Republican Florida Governor Charlie Crist in demanding that both Michigan and Florida's delegates be seated.

Florida Governor Bill Nelson reiterated that if Howard Dean and the DNC want a redo vote, then Howard Dean should come up with the fifty plus million per state needed for such a redo election. Both Governor Granholm and Governor Crist concurred with Bill Nelson's assessment of Howard Dean's responsibilities in the DNC.

Michigan Governor Granholm went a step further in suggesting that if the DNC does not want to pay for the election redo, then the DNC should secure private funds to pay for her state's election redo. Warren Buffet's name was mentioned. But thus far no private benefactor has come forward to offer to pay for a Michigan and/or Florida redo vote.

Meanwhile, more pressure is being placed on Howard Dean to either produce, or resign from the DNC. Questions are being raised over the Constitutionality of Howard Dean's decision that Florida and Michigan did not have the right to hold their primaries at their choice.

A bit of trivia: Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm is a Canadian born who became a naturalized American citizen in 1980.

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 7:18 PM ET | 03-06-2008

Charlie Crist doesn't want to put his money where his mouth is.

If Charlie Crist wants another election, then he needs to foot the bill in order to compensate for his conduct that sought to put voters at odds with their own party, and in essence disenfranchised his own voters.

But he wants Democrats to pay for his arrogance that played a "game" at the voters expense, only for Crist to have the gall to stand up now and claim he's concerned with the sanctity of the vote and the right of the people to participate.

If I showed up at the board of elections without identification, should I be able to demand that I be permitted to vote? If I move into a community and do not register, can I just show up on election day and demand that my voice be heard? What if 1,000 people show up where registrations are required before one can vote?

Can I show up at the U.S. border and demand to be let in, because I didn't feel like carrying my passport?

Charlie Crist conduct doesn't match his words. His actions don't agree with what he states is his concern.

Afterall, if he were so worried about disenfranchising VOTERS and THEIR VOICE from the democratic process, why then did he elect to engage in conduct that he KNEW would disenfranchise those voters that violated agreements that had already been made? Why didn't Crist caution the legislature that this could hurt those voters for whom holding a primary early - in violation with their party's rules, would end up with those voters being sanctioned?

Where was the leadership, Mr. Crist?

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT AMERICA IS SICK OF!
It is this kind of slick politics that has disgusted America. It is this kind of politics that has led to Americans wanting something different that represents honorable, ethical conduct driven by integrity.

Charlie Crist - like others, made a really bad decision, and now he wants the rest of America to clean it up for him. Take resonsibility, Mr. Crist and apologize to your constiuents whom you disenfranchised. Stop blaming everyone else for YOUR CHOICE that took a gamble off the trust of Americans for whom you were entrusted to act on their behalf.

Sound judgement is as critical to great leadership as is experience in LEADING (which is measurable by SOUND CHOICES, THE RIGHT DECISIONS, GOOD JUDGEMENT).

Sent by Hope | 7:32 PM ET | 03-06-2008

No elected official from either Florida or Michigan agreed with Howard Dean's arbitrary decision not to allow Florida and Michigan to seat their delegates, because there was, and is a Constitutional question concerning Howard Dean's personal interpretation of American voting rules.

Howard Dean made that call on his own, without anyone's agreement from either Florida or Michigan. And now the governors of Florida and Michigan, as well as the voters of Florida and Michigan, are questioning the Constitutionality of Howard Dean's personal decision not to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates. The people of both Michigan and Florida are demanding their Constitutional rights to have their delegates seated. Constitutional rights that Howard Dean arbitrarily made a personal decision on.

Hence, Howard Dean has egg on his face and is in jeopardy of losing his position within the DNC. There is massive question concerning Howard Dean's ability as DNC chairman, and Howard Dean's Constitutional interpretation of the democratic voting process.

On top of all this, the DNC continue to claim they are the party of government for the people, by the people.

Yet, the DNC has taken away the people's choice and given the choice to superdelegates.

Meanwhile, the Republican voting in Florida and Michigan went off without a hitch. No problem.

And people wonder why voters are weary of BIG federal government intrusion via the DNC.

And this is what voters will be deciding in November.

Not to forget mentioning that some of the Democrat voters want to give a scant three year term junior senator the button to the American nuclear arsenal.

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 9:05 PM ET | 03-06-2008

Hope,
Whew, I'll try to condense here...I didn't say what FL and MI did was right. They should've known better, and it was a stupid thing to do. But disenfranchising voters (again) is also a stupid thing to do, and hurts the party. The DNC has an issue. They "warned" the states of punishment, but did not specify the extent of that punishment. And according to the written "rules" that is an interpretation the DNC can make (by docking 50%). The Republicans docked the states in question 50%.
The DNC pushed that further, which stinks of an ego-lashing. This is an over-punishment, and in the end, the electorate loses, and the Democratic party once again shoots itself in the foot. They also did not punish the other 3 states that augmented their polling dates. That is a violation of the written RULES. What is your moral response to that?

Bringing the past vote for the Iraq war is off the subject for this particular talk. That is the definition of a tangent.

Look, I'm not saying, "Let's act like this never happened". I'm just saying that the DNC overreacted in its punishment and is damaging its image with all those voters that came out (even if the states screwed up) and there may be a way to meet in the middle. This is an exciting election, and I think voters from all primary states would like to be counted, no matter what the big dogs say, and how "stupid" they behave. Give them and smack on the back and move on.

Oh, and by the way, all 3 Dem. candidates were on the ballot in FL, but only 1 campaigned w/ TV and radio ads--Sen. Obama.

And with or without the issue in FL and MI, it's pretty apparent that the Superdelegates may ultimately decide this election, and not the popular vote, as it is so close.

And it's funny that you mention voting violations, I just experienced the Texas Caucus system firsthand, and I can tell you, those rules were rather creative, since most were inexperienced with it. In fact no one knew what the heck was going on. Violations galore. And that insanity will stand as a legal representation of the vote. Once again, way to go Dems! Of course, the Tex. Republicans voted once and went home.
But I have a feeling that Howard Dean will probably be Ok with this one.

Sent by Young American | 1:12 AM ET | 03-07-2008

I'm not yet saying that Howard Dean's actions are comparative to Watergate as a scandal.

But I am saying that as a registered Democrat voter of Florida, I find it insulting that Howard Dean suggests that the voters of Florida are not capable of making their own decisions.

That the voters of Florida should be treated as children and made to redo our votes.

Then I'm doubly insulted that Howard Dean suggest that the Florida taxpayers pay for the mistakes that Howard Dean made.

From what I'm hearing, the voters of the state of Michigan are likewise insulted that Howard Dean suggests that they are not capable of making voting decisions the first time around.

Now, Howard Dean is saying one thing. The governors of Florida and Michigan are saying another thing.

Someone is lying. Or, at best, someone made a personal decision that violated Constitutional rights. And did so without consulting proper Constitutional legal authorities.

I'm not yet saying that Howard Dean's actions constitute a dilemma as large as Watergate. What I am suggesting is that some legal authority must rule on who said what, and who had what authority to make personal rulings on whether Florida and Michigan delegates can, or can't be seated.

I'm not saying yet if this investigation should be conducted by federal judges, or the investigation should go as far as the United States Supreme Court.

What I am saying is that an investigation needs to being, somewhere.

That it might be prudent for Howard Dean to at least temporarily step down from his post in the DNC until such investigation can be concluded.

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 8:58 AM ET | 03-07-2008

Fred, I think you have a right to expect your media to report and investigate the truth - and to exhaust their efforts in investigating the truth because that is the job of the media. Think about it this way: what other possible means do you have in knowing what the truth is - so that you can be fully informed and making a wise and well informed decision - than through the media?

But what if the media were being "controlled" through "special interests" - that appear through PAC dollars that are expressive of corporate interests?

Would you have a right to know about that Fred?

What if one of the presidential candidates - was being funded by a news media entity. Would you want to know about that and at the very least expect that - that media entity FULLY DISCLOSE their involvement with that candidate before they begin to represent what they report as being "the news"?

Does America have the right to FULL DISCLOSURE when it concerns individuals they would elect to be their president?

You capture it well, because this much is indeed going on, and someone is not giving the public the information they have a RIGHT to know about:

Now, Howard Dean is saying one thing. The governors of Florida and Michigan are saying another thing.

"Someone is lying. Or, at best, someone made a personal decision that violated Constitutional rights. And did so without consulting proper Constitutional legal authorities" (Quote by Fred C.)

I cannot say that someone is lying, Fred.
But I can say that I absolutely have come to believe that someone is very much distorting and misrepresenting the TRUTH to the American people. And we should ALL be outraged by that as it is the job of journalists to maintain standards of ethics, integrity, and HONESTY in doing their job to tell the truth, report the facts, INVESTIGATE and INFORM THE PUBLIC so that THEY can make INFORMED DECISIONS.

Are you aware Fred, that yesterday, a Canadian official called for the firing of the man who floated the memo, that is now being admitted as being FALSE in its representation of Sen. Obama?

Did you know that there was indeed a conversation about NAFTA between Sen. Clinton's staff and Canadian offials where it was Sen. Clinton's staff who stated that their comments about NAFTA was for political positioning and should be takens "with a grain of salt".

I wonder whether the intent to tamper with the outcome of an election process by promoting false information would constitute criminal conduct?

I wonder whether the FBI is obligated to investigate this matter?

One thing is for certain: Sen. Obama will have nothing to fear. He didn't lie. He did not misrepresent the truth.
But SOMEONE DID, and a Canadian official was reported yesterday as stating that it was his belief that this was done to ALTER THE OUTCOME OF THE OHIO PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY.

That should frighten you, Fred.
That should frighten all of us.
And if the media fails to report, or investigate this matter and get to the bottom of it - .... that should terrify all of us.

Sent by Hope | 9:56 AM ET | 03-07-2008

Sent by Hope: Fred, I think you have a right to expect your media to report and investigate the truth -

Howard Dean and the DNC's actions goes way beyond investigation by the media.

The investigation, I would assume, should start at the level of a federal judge. And quite possibly could move up to review by the United States Supreme Court. And most certainly could undergo a congressional investigation. Or any combination of the three alternatives. If not all three.

The media can cover the judicial investigation and congressional investigations. It is not up to the media to be the arbiter of such investigation.

Potentially, Constitutional Rights have been violated in the states of Florida and Michigan. Howard Dean potentially needs to step down from his position in the DNC until such time as the judicial and/or congressional investigations are complete.

Florida Republican Governor Charlie Crist and Michigan Democrat Governor Jennifer Granholm (as well as Florida Senator Bill Nelson) have publicly disputed Howard Dean's version of his and the DNC's account.

This is a situation that had gone far beyond media investigation. This is a Constitutionally legal matter.

Quite possibly, had Howard Dean consulted legal experts before making his personal ruling, some of these problems could have been averted. Far as what is known, there were no prior legal opinions presented before Howard Dean made his summation that the delegates of Florida and Michigan should not be seated.

As in Watergate, the media followed the reportage of congressional and legal investigations into the Watergate break-in affair. The media did not exercise the right of legal declaration.

This is a situation that far surpasses mere media coverage. To say that this scandal can be solved by media investigation is yet another attempt to sweep facts underneath the proverbial bureaucratic rug.

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 12:28 PM ET | 03-07-2008

This debate is only present because Hillary Clinton needs all the help she can get to have a better chance at securing the nomination. This is quite unfair to Barack Obama, who has run an incredible campaign.

Hillary Clinton was the proverbial frontrunner coming into these primaries and her big powerful Clinton political machine was expected to overwhelm the opposition. But Barack has proved far more formidible than Hillary expected which speaks to Hillary's incredible lack of judgment, judgment that caused her to vote for Bush's war when such a vote was in conflict with her constituents. She is losing the campaign, and two states who broke the rules should not be considered. Even if they were, Obama would more than likely still maintain his lead.

I say that since the Republicans have their nominee, the smart move for the Democrats is to support as their nominee the candidate who is ahead, which is Obama. The object is to beat McCain, not give Hillary the best chance to be placed in the best light and prevail, when Obama has clearly done so by playing by the rules that all had to abide by. It is ludicrous to do otherwise

Sent by Victor D | 4:16 AM ET | 03-09-2008

Sent by Victor D: I say that since the Republicans have their nominee, the smart move for the Democrats is to support as their nominee the candidate who is ahead, which is Obama.

I say that your entire argument falls apart because there are too many people in America who do not trust Barack Hussein Obama with the red button to the American Nuclear Arsenal.

There are the Michael Moore Liberal Utopians who have latched onto the Barack Obama bandwagon. Much as the Michael Moore Liberal Utopians locked onto the John Kerry bandwagone in 2004.

The Michael Moore Liberal Utopians did not have enough to win in 2004, they won't have enough to win in 2008 with Barack Obama.

And there were more people who trusted John Kerry with the key to the American nuclear arsenal than there will be who will trust Barack Obama with the nuclear arsenal code passwords.

When it comes time to walk into that voting booth in November, voters will be thinking about their children. Barack Hussein Obama is too big a gamble for voter's children's sake.

Thankfully, there are safeguards against mob rule by Michael Moore Liberal Utopians in America.

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 8:58 PM ET | 03-09-2008