Okay, let's see if I get this? Both states were aware of the consequence of moving their primaries up - and did so anyway? Candidates were also aware and agreed not to campaign in those states?

Choices and commitments have been made. Whether the choices are in ones favor or not - we must acknowledge and honor them. We could perhaps cry foul if we were unaware of the consequences but that is not the case. While I am sad for the people of both states and the candidates - it doesn't change the situation.

All of this is showing me where the integrity is (and isn't) and is making it crystal clear who I will cast my vote for.

Sent by LaDonna Coy | 9:42 AM ET | 03-14-2008

Is it unfair? Yes. Did they have fair warning? Yes. But a do over is the only thing that will make sure that Michigan and Florida voters have a say in an historic election. I support Obama, but on this issue I think he should actually stand with the voters in Michigan and Flordia and let them have their voices heard. That is part of the ultimate message that Obama's campaign of fairness and "rising above politics as usual" stands for. Whether or not the elections take place in these two states, he should boldly stand by his principles. That way, if they donot take place (which seems more and more likely) then at least he doesn't look like he took away the right to vote from Michigan and Florida. Think about it Obama! Obama-Bloomberg 08!

Sent by Amit Uttam | 11:53 AM ET | 03-14-2008

Since when did the Florida and Michigan voters have ANY say about moving up the primaries..it was their State delegates called the shots. So now all the voters of those two crucial states are without a voice...Obama is scared of the possible results no doubt...

Sent by Ann Bush. Columbus OHIO | 1:08 PM ET | 03-14-2008

I also think the voters in Michigan and Florida should have a voice. I would hate for Obama to get in with this over his head, like Bush's stolen victory over Gore. Often the everyday voter does not understand or put thought into what is being done with primary moves, they just believe they can vote on the day. In Washington State, where I live, so many people are upset when they realize the caucus has already decided on the democratic candidate before they vote.

Sent by Lily | 1:16 PM ET | 03-14-2008

Amit - if it were free to redo the FL and MI primaries, you would be right.

Since redos would not be free, who should pay for them?

I really don't know who made these decisions, which would surely be redone if we could go back in time (but while that would be the best solution, it would be both economically and physically impossible).

Now, I think that someone has to come up with something creative and not too costly. What about dividing up the delegates evenly (that seems to happen in any close contest anyway) and then having the FL and MI leaders (and the DNC, since they certainly have some responsibility) send personal apologies to those people who voted in the earlier straw polls?

Sent by Jim Stukas | 1:27 PM ET | 03-14-2008

First of all, I though NPR was supposed to be different from the regular media and not be biased. These two interviews have shown me that it is not the case. Mr. Inskeep was very confrontational with Senator Clinton, to make her look bad. He did not apply the same standard for Barak. Taking his word and just accepting the judgement issue. George Bush entered the White House with no experience, and look where that has put our country and the world.

And can anybody tell me with absolute certainty that if Barack was in the same position as Mrs. Clinton he would not be making similar arguments? Also as stated above, they both knew of the consequences and acted accordingly.

Sent by Alex -Fed up with the media bias | 1:46 PM ET | 03-14-2008

Regarding Florida,

1) All candidates were on the ballot,

2) 1.7 million democrat voters voted, twice the number as in 2004,

3) Please do not try to argue that since the candidates did not campaign in Florida, that none of the voters in Florida knew how to vote, the voters did not know anything about the candidates to make an informed decision. Do Floridians have TV's & newspapers?

Regarding Michigan,

1) Voters here in Michigan were made well aware ahead of time, that if they supported either Edwards or Obama, that they were to vote "UNCOMMITTED." The neighbors on either side of me had lawn signs put out two weeks before the election that read, "VOTE UNCOMMITTED." One of them supported Edwards, the other supported Obama.

2) The results of the election here in Michigan pretty much reflect what would be expected. "UNCOMMITTED" did extremely well in the City of Detroit and in college town areas. The 55% that Senator Clinton received reflected exactly what the polling said, when Michigan voters were asked at the time who they supported (and all candidates names were available.) Take a look at the numbers from our neighbor Ohio just a few weeks ago, they are very similar to what we saw in Michigan.

3) 4 times the number of democrat voters voted in this year's primary as in 2004. Please do not try to claim that record numbers of people showed up to vote for noone in an election that was not real.

Senator Obama's campaign needs to be more up front about what really happened in Michigan and Florida, and Senator Obama needs to quit spinning what happened in these two states. Of course, Senator Obama is far behind in these two states, and is afraid to live up to what his campaign claims to be all about. Senator Obama is a politician just like the rest of them.

Sent by GraceJeanJones | 2:02 PM ET | 03-14-2008

What is really at stake here is integrity, regardless of who is running for president.
How is a democracy run? What do we stand for as a nation?
Integrity means standing by agreements.
The Florida and Michigan votes did not count and that was their choice.
No do-overs. No victims.
End of story.

Sent by RG | 3:04 PM ET | 03-14-2008

I don't think the voters in Florida and Michigan should be penalized for decisions that were made over which they had no control. If the DNC wants to alienate all the democrats in Florida and Michigan, not counting their votes is a good way to do it. And I'm just wondering -- all those record numbers of people who voted, why do you think they went to the polls? To "not vote"?

Sent by Jean | 4:15 PM ET | 03-14-2008

On one hand, I think the DNC needs to stand by its sanction and NOT seat the Michigan and Florida delegates, period. On the other hand, why didn't Clinton honor the agreement? How fair is it to honor votes for Clinton against "UNCOMMITTED"? If I remember correctly, there wasn't a candidate named "UNCOMMITTED"! Obama hasn't spun anything! People are just stating what's happening...Clinton expected to be the nominee by now, didn't get her way, and now she wants votes under her name to count against "UNCOMMITTED" votes. Where's the fairness in that? Michigan and Florida's "UNCOMMITTED" votes not only took away from Obama, but Edwards also! Doesn't matter that all the candidates' names were available. IF IT WASN'T A VOTE FOR CLINTON THEIR VOTES DIDN'T COUNT.
And FYI, I haven't decided who I'm voting for, but Clinton looks less and less desirable everyday.

As for Obama's campaign being "more up front"...seriously, how up front is Clinton who won't open files from the Clinton Library and won't open her tax statements? And why should we depend on the candidate to inform us of what is going on beyond what we see/hear in the news? Stop being lazy and do research for yourselves. Learn how the processes work. Learn background about the candidates' lives and voting history. Then use common sense and intuition, these people are human.

Sent by Leslie | 4:18 PM ET | 03-14-2008

I do think that the best decision would be to hold each of the primaries again. I makes no sense to count the results as they currently stand because of the overwhelmingly poor conditions under which the primaries were held. If there is any way possible to hold the primary in each state again, it would be in the best interest of the Democratic party to do so. As to whether or not this is actually possible, I have no clue.

In my opinion, the title of this article ("Obama: Do-Overs in Michigan, Florida Not Realistic") is misleading and sensationalistic. I heard the interview on my way to work this morning and listened again a few moments ago. I did not get the impression in either case that Barack Obama is against holding the primaries in each state again. Rather, I got the impression that he simply is not sure whether it is possible.

Sent by Duane Edmonds | 4:37 PM ET | 03-14-2008

I live in Michigan. We were told that if we voted uncommitted, the democratic party would allocate our votes as THEY chose.

If the voters in Michigan are not happy they should make their voices heard by Marching on Lansing and Tallahassee and calling for the resignation of the Governors of those two states.

And it is not too late for people to make their voices heard. If they truly believe in their candidate, they can donate to a campaign, make phone calls, hang posters, mail out letters, or write editorial letters in support of their candidate. Democracy is not just about spending 5 minutes to put a paper in a box.

I am from Michigan and I know when I cast my vote for OBama in November that I will be part of the reason he is there. My one vote would have little impact but my talking to people and getting out Obama's message will have a far greater impact. If people want to hear what integrity sounds like, they need only listen to Barak Obama

Mama for Obama!

Sent by law | 4:38 PM ET | 03-14-2008

With respect to what the full legislatures and governors in MI & FL did (and we're talking both Democrats & Republicans here):

The DNC had a meeting wiht all the state's Democrat parties about 18 months ago to decide how the 2008 primary season was to be run.

At the meeting, MI and Fl wanted to be moved up in the schedule. So, after a lot of haggling, it was decided by all that as a compromise, South Carolina could hold the first in the nation primary, right after the Iowa caucuses, and the New Hampshire would then have the third vote.

Well, come the end of 2007, five states broke the rules before Florida & Michigan got mad and voted to move their primaries up. One clear example of this rule breaking was New Hampshire deciding that it wanted to go right after Iowa (as it had done in the past, NH decided after the fact that they did not want to give up their status as holding the first in the nation primary), even though that is NOT what was agreed to at the DNC meeting 18 month prior.

So...as a Michigan voter, I am not upset with my state party, legislature, and/or governor. I am upset with the DNC for allowing five other states to break the rules before they put their foot down regarding MI & FL.

And...don't be mad at MI & FL, for they were ok with all the compromises worked out at the DNC meeting 18 months ago.

The DNC is the one who is to bear full blame for this one.

Sent by GraceJeanJones | 5:43 PM ET | 03-14-2008

I heard the interview. I didn't like him laughing and saying that even his six year old could figure it out... Wonder what Obama would be saying if Florida was a truly democratic state.
I believe the delegates should be seated at the Convention and votes counted. It should not be about Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton but about the people who casted their votes regardless of the party and states mess. MI has uncommitted votes. Give them to Obama. (More or less fair regarding to polls). Hate the idea of spending more money and time on this primary...

Sent by magda | 7:05 PM ET | 03-14-2008

Sent by GraceJeanJones: The DNC is the one who is to bear full blame for this one.

How refreshing to hear intelligent conversation around here, GraceJeanJones.

What is ever more galling to Floridians is that so many people, from so many other states, have tried to tell Florida how to run their business.

You have provided one of the very rare insights into intelligent portrayal of the situation as it actually happened.

If I can ask you a question....being as this blog is predominately a pit for lost Air America Radio souls and Michael Moore Liberal Utopians....but, how many more of you intelligent people are out there who read, but maybe don't respond as often as the Liberal Utopian spammers?

Is it possibly a case that intelligent people, as yourself, just get turned off by the Liberal Utopian spam and don't want to be bothered? That I can understand.

I'll be honest with you, gracejeanjones, one of the reasons I put up with the inanities of the Liberal Utopian spammers is that I can show their mindset to others.

I let the Liberal Utopian spammers speak, and the intelligent people read and decide for themselves.

Anyway, Rolling Stone began as an underground newspaper and evolved into mainstream. Maybe NPR blogging can get a little more mainstream, too.

That was being a bit fascetious. NPR is a business that has to deal with the cards they are dealt.

I just have a hard time conceptualizing that the only listeners to NPR are far, far leftist radical Michael Moore Liberal Utopians.

I just know that can't be true.

There are more intelligent people out there. I just know there are.

And I can understand why they don't want to deal with the Liberal Utopian mindless prattle.

All the same, I've shown a good many undecided voters the prattle of NPR Liberal Utopians...and they've thanked me for helping them see the underground chaos in America.

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 8:59 PM ET | 03-14-2008

It seems to me that Senator Obama would have no problems with 2 of our most populous states not having a voice in this very important primary election. I don't really care what the DNC says about "punishing" these states. That was an outrageous way to handle this disagreement and not at all in keeping with what is supposed to be democracy. Hasn't Bush et al destroyed enough of our rights without the DNC contributing to it? I'm having a real problem "feeling good" about Obama if he thinks this is all okay. By the way, the people of these states did not decide on their primary dates, their politicians (some republican) did.

Sent by Lisa Gordon | 5:28 PM ET | 03-15-2008

Hillary signed the same pledge that Barack Obama did, along with John Edwards, etc. FL or MI were not to count, nor were presidential campaigns to be conducted in their borders.

These events were non-sanctioned and being held by state local D leaders in defiance of national DNC rules and explicit warnings not to jump ahead out of the preset order in their caucuses and primaries. They wanted to jump ahead of Iowa and New Hampshire, and ignore the agreed-upon rules set at the last 2004 DNC convention.

If Hillary is willing to renege a signed pledge (to her home political party and fellow candidates), and step on a competitor who out-polls her, out-won state by state, and out-won her in total delegates, in a desperate and increasing shrill bid to secure the presidential nomination, she is not worthy of being entrusted with the highest office. And I cannot imagine New Yorkers feeling inclined to give her a free pass in the next Senate race. Going from hardball campaigning to dirtball catapaulting is rebounding at a wicked angle, making her character the issue.

Hillary's mathematical chances of winning by state delegate counts, which is and remains the DNC rule for determining who wins the nomination -- a rule reiterated by Rep. Pilosi yesterday, are no longer even probable. She would have to take all remaining states and achieve 70%/30% in all 12 over Obama to gain on his total and projected win rations, and even so he'd remain ahead. This is why she is working so hard to overturn the rules, accepting the support of rightwing TalkRadio (who fear McCain going against Obama), and has so many working so hard to vilify Obama using Karl Rove's old playbook of catapaulting the B.S. faster than anyone can dig out from it.

Pilosi will run the convention in Denver, so her reiteration of the rules isn't just an idle soundbite. Hillary's campaign management must heed this. Pilosi's other atatements do not sound like she approves of Hillary's efforts to hijack the process and toss out the rules, or to even dream of being on a ticket with Obama.

No party in a democratic nation can afford to tolerate this sort of major manipulator, nor can the DNC afford to venture such a dubious candidate against McCain, whose campaign team has prepared 6 years+ to battle Hillary.

I've not bothered in the past to contribute to political parties. After the results were in from last months primaries, and the negative direction of Hillary's campaign became apparent, I resolved that for every Friday that goes by without an honorable concession from Hillary, I shall make another contribution to Obama. Three weeks worth is already in the coffers. It's especially good because pledges this month are being doubled by other long term supporters.

At this point, given the Republican predilection to interfere in the Democratic Party primaries, the truly fair thing to do with MI and FL delegates is the biblical approach of Solomon, just 'cut 'em in half' and apportion equally, if they are to be seated at all.

The ambitions of these two individual states, nor of any one candidate, cannot take precedence over the entire national Party's rules. And, after the last 8 years, we'd want the presidential nominee, who, if elected, would be the leader of this party, and we'd want this president to be one who respects the rules, respects agreements signed and made with other party members, and respects the legitimate voting process.

Sent by Steve | 6:47 PM ET | 03-15-2008

Look at the CNN website and click on the delegate counting game. It will show you that Obama may have the needed votes by the end and will not need to have Michigan or Florida. That is why Billary is pushing so hard for the establishment of a re-do in those states.

Sent by Koffey | 9:46 PM ET | 03-15-2008

A 50/50 delegate split is the only fair way to settle the Florida & Michigan situation. It becomes a wash and therefore their delegates not really affecting the outcome ("not counting") yet they still get seated at the convention and it wouldn't cost a penny. It would also keep Florida and Michigan happy when the general election rolls around!

Sent by R. Mondragon | 1:57 AM ET | 03-16-2008

"He also said the ideas of do-overs in Michigan and Florida are unrealistic"

Of course Obama would say this. He knows if there were a do over, the chances are better that he could be denied the nomination. The Democrats need these voters in November, and in the end, their cries to be heard will be fulfilled. And they should be heard. The leaders in their States are the ones who let them down, and to punish the voters themselves is just plain wrong, and immoral. Anyone who is selfish enough to not want these voters heard, in one way or another, they are morally bankrupt zealots IMHO.

Sent by Kevin - OR | 3:00 AM ET | 03-16-2008

Sent by Steve: Hillary signed the same pledge that Barack Obama did, along with John Edwards, etc.

Again, more Liberal Utopian Orwellian style misinformation.

Hillary and everyone else did not agree with Howard Dean's assumptions....mostly because Howard Dead was violating Michigan and Florida's Constitutional voting rights by Howard Deam presuming he is a justice of the United States Supreme Court and an Constitutional Rights expert.

Hillary agreed to not campaign in Florida or Michigan.

Hillary did not agree with Howard Dean's Unconstitutional presumptions.

Funny how the Liberal Utopians spent seven years claiming the GOP was dissemenating misinformation, while the Liberal Utopians seem to have no qualms about distorting the truth in their favor.

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 11:24 AM ET | 03-16-2008

According to the DNC 2008 delegate selection rules, Michigan and Florida are allowed to present:
1) their challenge to the credentials committee at the national convention
2) an alternative plan that is in compliance with the rules. A revote is not excluded.

Also, the DNC does recognize that its members are subject to state legislatures that are not bound by DNC rules. Therefore it is allowed to seat delegates from non-compliant states as long as the state party leaders have shown sufficient effort to change the state laws.

This may be the reason for Obama removing his name from the democratically controlled Michigan ballots but leaving his name on the republican controlled Florida ballots. Michigan will have a difficult time proving sufficient effort to change state laws. However, Democrats in Florida have a slim chance of seating its delegates at the national convention.

Sent by Mike | 9:49 AM ET | 03-17-2008

I think the order in which the states hold their primaries has mostly to do with managing the amount of influence each state is allowed to have on the race as a whole. Florida and Michigan are getting and will get even more from a do-over. They will in essence be able to sway the course of the race twice. Although the delegates do not now count, Hillary Clinton has claimed and continues to claim victories in both states as if they do. A do-over would allow both Michigan and Florida to have even more influence on the whole of the race than they have already.

This is a problem since the whole point of reprimanding these states was to keep them from having the influence they tried to take by moving their primaries forward.

Sent by Carrel | 12:22 PM ET | 03-17-2008

If Hillary thought Michigan and Florida voters were being disenfranchised, she should have fought for their right to be counted at the time of the decision. She agreed with the DNC to disenfranchise them. If she had fought the decision then, we might have avoided this mess. That would have shown some leadership.

Unlike her vote for the Iraq war, in this case she can do something positive about it. She can stand by her agreement with the DNC and the other candidates and drop the MI and FL issue. At this point she can't make up the delegate count, so what does she have to gain by a re-do, anyway?

In my opinion, if she had real concern for the Country, she would make the best of a bad situation for her, concede to Obama and let the Democratic Party get on with preparing to win the November election. That would show some true leadership!

Sent by oakley | 6:04 PM ET | 03-17-2008

i laughing at all your comments

Sent by cazgirli halil | 6:30 PM ET | 03-17-2008

If I drive down the street at 75 miles an hour and I have state registered drivers license. Then a police officer pulls me over for doing 20 miles over the posted speed limit. Can I say, wait a minute officer, now that this isn't working in my favor. May I put my car in reverse and do those last few miles over at the posted speed limit? No you may not sir. You saw the signs and you know the law but now that it's not working in your favor you want to do it over....ha ha

As for feeling sorry for Florida I don't. Actually I think it's rather ironic that the state that should have done a do over in the presidential election (when there was documented cheating) Now wants everyone to give them a second chance. When they gave the rest of the country no such chance in 2000 and the results are a terrible president and destruction of Iraq.

Sent by marc | 10:29 PM ET | 03-17-2008

Let me clear a few things up to all of you who don't have all of your facts straight since most of you don't live in Michigan or Florida, so didn't vote in our primaries. Yes, we knew that our delegates were being stipped by the DNC for moving our primaries up. However, there is an appeal process that is taken up with the appeal committee of the DNC and they make the final decision whether to sit a state's delegates. Now Sen. Obama, in a very cowardly move, CHOSE to take his name off the MI ballot (as did John Edwards) and they made this cowardly and calculating politcal decision because Sen. Clinton was so far ahead in the polls here, that the only way they knew to actually nullify our primary election in Michigan was to pull their names off the ballot, so when our delegation took our case to the appeals committee of the DNC he could state "that wasn't a fair election, my name wasn't even on the ballot." Talk about playing politics. Dare I say Sen. Obama "will do ANYTHING to win." Even sinking so low as to pull the most undemocratic move I've ever witnessed. His people continue to go on national t.v. and say (lie) that he removed his name from Michigan's ballot because he was following the rules. If that was a rule, why didn't he remove his name from the Fl. ballot??? There was no rule and no agreement that the candidates should remove their names from the ballots. The rules said our delegates would be stripped but that there is an appeal process. The agreement said that the candidates wouldn't do any MEANINGFUL campaigning in Fl. or MI.

Before all of this started, I said I would be happy with any of the 3 democratic candidates. Obama has acted like a coward over MI & FL. He played politics with our votes in MI and it's unfortunate that people can't see that. By the way, the people of the states of MI & Fl didn't vote to move our primaries up, it was a decision made by our legislatures. Yet it's the people who are being punished. What's ironic, is that the Democratic Party always likes to say it represents the people. Yet again, they've shown that they don't care about the people. So if Obama does get the nomination, he shouldn't even bother campaigning in MI or FL. He didn't want to allow us to take part in the most basic democratic process then don't come begging for our votes in November. For the first time in 20 years I don't think I'll be voting for a democrat for president.

Sent by cmf1267 | 8:39 PM ET | 03-23-2008