Wow! This is amazing. These guys are working overtime to save Howard Dean's rear end.

Well, it's nice to know that Howard Dean is so well loved in the party. Even though he's such a screw-up.

Hey, I wonder how close it was the Eliot Spitzer was going to announce that he was also in on the deal to fund the Florida project. Being that New York and Florida are so closely connected moneywise.

Except Spitzer got busted for being with dirty women. Expensive but dirty women.

How Democratic Party-ish it would have been had Spitzer been in on the announcement with Rendell and Corzinne, and then the FBI announced the wiretap bust on Spitzer.

Timing is everything.

Kind of like the Democratic Party finally got the schematic to the Diebold voting system, and they screwed up and let Obama get too far ahead. And know they have to figure out another way to dump Obama.

The Democratic Party: a dumb guy hostage situation where the hostage holds a gun to his own head.

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 8:40 PM ET | 03-10-2008

As a democrat I am appalled by the complacency of the Florida democratic party. A re-do will not do. I have read, re-read and read again the US constitution since this fiasco. And while I am not yet an attorney, I have found no language in the Constitution that allows an organization like the DNC to disenfranchise millions of voters. If the delegates are not seated and if we continue on this path to a re-do, we set a precedent approaching a slippery a slope the consequences of which could be detrimental to the future. It is beyond me, why people are not examining terms like disenfranchise, equal protection and constitutionality. Those who support a re-do better be careful what they wish for. This thing is not about the candidates, it is about our democracy. We have already lost a number of rights and freedoms over the last seven years. Can we risk losing this?????

Sent by Kelly Ackerman | 11:16 PM ET | 03-10-2008

Once again the DNC has brought a knife to a gun fight.

The Republicans NEVER make that mistake.

Best regards.

Sent by Dave Rosen | 11:18 PM ET | 03-10-2008

According to the Clintons and their surrogates, "caucues are undemocratic" but privatized vote-by-mail is democratic?

If Rendell and buddies "raise the money" from private donors, wouldn't those donors want a return for their investment?

We can't trust this process or any other that the Clintons try and float. I'm with Chris Dodd: split the delegates and end this thing.

Sent by Nick | 12:46 AM ET | 03-11-2008

Key operative words:

Michigan and Florida Democrats voted in January, ahead of schedule, even after the Democratic National Committee refused to sanction the contests. Now the D-N-C doesn't want to siphon money away from the general election. And Michigan and Florida don't want to spend tax dollars for a second go-round.

Inaccurate "reporting": Hillary Clinton beat Barack Obama in both states' unsanctioned primaries.

How could Hillary Clinton have "won" what was never a contest in the first place? The perpetuation of Sen. Clinton as having "won" only furthers in misleading the public that a "contest" took place when, the writer, as a reporter should recognize that in violating the party rules, and in the rejection of the actions taken by local state officials, the DNC had every right to institutue sanctions, which - the local state officials now want everyone else except themselves to pay for. This is not only the essence of why the public is disgusted with irresponsible elected officials who play these kinds of games in politics, but it smacks of a complete disregard for answering to the public - something all elected officials should be held accountable to. To suggest that Hillary Clinton "won" something is to perpetuate the fallacy that an "election" took place. There was no "election". There was only one name on the ballot in Michigan, - hardly democracy in action, and in Florida, there was no campaigning (the process by which the public has the opportunity to meet the candidate).

The media has known for months that the DNC rejected both these contests, but persisted in reporting them as "won".
Why? What purpose did that serve, and whose agenda did it serve?

Why misrepresent to the public what actually took place? There was no contest. The outcome was never accepted by the DNC, but - there seems to be a push within the media to suggest that these were "contests" and that they were "won". Is this not a disservice to the public to misrepresent the outcome of what was never even accepted as an election?

Does this not then lend to misinforming the public by not highlighting the fact that the DNC never accepted this as an election?

Meanwhile, several media entities proceeded to not only report these states as "won" by Sen. Clinton, but they even misrepresented the graphics to the public by coloring in those states as belonging to "wins" by Senator Clinton.

Isn't there an ethical concern here, regarding the reporting of the truth to the public that needs to be considered?
What would the standards of good journalism suggest? ( We should ignore and pretend that the DNC has a very clear, and a very well stated position on this - but we fail in reporting that it was never accepted as a win in the first place?) Furthermore, the media then proceeds to ignore the fact that because the candidate AGREED to the conditions as set forth by the DNC, that Clinton's initial rejection of those delegates - only to do a back-pedal (because she was now losing) to claim now that she suddenly wants them counted, is not cause for concern regarding the candidate ( Sen. Clinton) demonstrating conduct that violates agreements made between all the parties involved) and questions over whether this does not constitute cause for concern about ethics, standards of integrity concerning what a candidate's word means - when they give it?

Sent by Hope | 8:59 AM ET | 03-11-2008

So, I call long distance to my voter's registration office in Florida, and I say to the kind lady who answered the phone:

"M'am, I need to know exactly when you guys are going to have your mail-in election, cause I might be in New Mexico. And I need to know if you can forward my mail-in ballot to Roswell? But, if you hold the election when I'm in Florida, can I get my mail-in ballot mailed to me at my Florida address? And one more thing, M'am, when I voted in Florida last January, I voted for Bill Richardson. Will his name still be on the ballot in the mail-in ballot?"

The kind lady started to cry. I started to apologize. Realizing how much pressue these people at the voter's registration office must be facing.

Then the kind lady asked me, "Do you also want me to mail you a form so that you can change your registration from Democrat to Republican?"

I asked, "Why would you ask that?"

She replied, "Because almost everyone else wants one."

After that, I started calling family and friends around Florida, asking them what the heck was going on down there.

They told me that everyone was sick and tired of the Democratic Party, and that if there was any question whether Florida would go Republican in November, that the world needed to stop worrying about that.

Because there no longer is any doubt that Florida is automatically in McCain's corner well before the elections even begin.

Florida is the land of Sunshine and leisure. One thing you don't do is inconvenience Florida voters and make them feel like you think they are stupid. And they call this Florida's 'Dumb Mail-In Vote.'

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 9:40 AM ET | 03-11-2008

If the states knew the rules and that they would not be seated at the convention, why should there be do-overs? The citizens should be upset with their state government, but not expect special favors from the Dem party.

Sent by Judy - Michigan | 9:51 AM ET | 03-11-2008

fred camorra call said: Except Spitzer got busted for being with dirty women. Expensive but dirty women.

Tom Regan this guy must be your friend because I've posted reactions to him that you WONT post!!! I guess you may have felt that they were not relevant but you let this guy make irrelavant comments like the above. YOU biased (sexist is implied in the earlier adjective)unfair unbalanced gatekeeper. I'm going to write to your boss about this!!!!

Sent by Fran | 10:03 AM ET | 03-11-2008

this all absurd ...reason number 561 why dems will lose in november ...leave the michigan /florida problem alone ...if you didn't try to work it out before the primaries ...why bother now ...it only makes lots of people turn off to politics...i mean look at all the people who say that if hillary "steals" the nomination from obama ...they will vote for mccain ...how stupid can you be ...to vote for a politically opposite party candidadte who is an avowed conservative makes no sense ...i can understand staying home and not voting ...but to not vote for hillary or barack and say you will vote for mccain is "cutting off your nose to spite your face" ...with mccain president we will get 4 more years of war,bigger deficits and all the dems legislation will be vetoed...yeah 4 more years of stagnation...thats what we need ..

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

According to Texas Democratic Party Rules, those persons controlling
the administrative materials for each caucus are not required to phone
in the results until the State convention. Like much of the process, it
operates on the "honor system".

So, is it possible that the 40% reporting number in the Texas
represents the percentage of administrative packets secured by the
Obama camp who diligently reported their results, while the remaining
unreported results are being covered up by Clinton people?

Unfortunately, it seems like a strong possibility.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/the-clinton-texas-cover-up.php

Sent by nish | 10:09 AM ET | 03-11-2008

I think it is quite interesting that Florida is offering Democrats the opportunity to register as Republicans.
Are Republicans being offered the chance to change their party for the "mail in" democratic primary?

I assume this means that a registered Republican could theoretically change their party affiliation, just for this primary, and vote for Sen. Clinton, exactly as Rush Limbaugh instructed them to do? Is this correct?

And then ... at the end of all of this, we'll call that an "election"?

Let's see if I have this straight.
Will Republicans be getting the chance to vote twice (once in the previous election, and now - again in the democratic "mail in" primary?) - if they decide to re-register as Democrats for the "mail-in" election?

Sent by Hope | 10:11 AM ET | 03-11-2008

Sent by Hope: Let's see if I have this straight. Will Republicans be getting the chance to vote twice (once in the previous election, and now - again in the democratic "mail in" primary?)

No, Hope. It's not that easy. As I learned for myself several years ago when I tried to go through the process of changing from Democrat to Republican in Florida.

It was a strange time in my life and I wanted the experience.

Anyway, I go get the forms and I fill them out and I send them in.....and the Republican Party ignored me.

So, I write them a nice letter asking why my forms had not been honored so that I could change from Democrat to Republican.

And the Republican Party ignored me.

I made phone calls. They hung up on me.

I learned the hard way that in Florida, if you made the mistake of at one time in your life registering as a Democrat, there is some sort of arcane and mysterious cult ceremony you have to go through if you want to prove yourself worthy of becoming a Republican.

I'm not sure if it's anything like going into a basement with Tony Soprano. Cause I just didn't have the energy to follow up on the experience that far.

Put it this way, the Florida GOP is very clannish and you just don't go on a whim to intrude in on their luncheons.

You basically need a sponsor who will vouch for you while on probation.

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 10:44 AM ET | 03-11-2008

The Democratic party leaders are a disgrace. To give in to the Clintons and their foot soldiers who have taken control of the party and are small minded enough to think that nobody notices it (some of the foot soldiers are leaders in the party). If this continues the Republicans would occupy the white house for a long time to come. How can the Clintons agree on the Florida and Michigan issues and turn around because they are losing and want to win no matter what happens. Hillary left her name on the ballot as a hedge for what is happening now, it allows for legal action or confusion.
The party needs some leaders with enough guts to speak out. Barrack should consider running as an independent just as Lieberman.

Sent by concern | 1:30 PM ET | 03-11-2008

Hopefully the Cuban community in Florida remembers Elian Gonzalez. Yes Hillary who works on behalf of children could not stop the Clinton's administration from shipping Elian to Castro. This is good food for Rush Limbaugh

Sent by concern | 3:23 PM ET | 03-11-2008