I’m curious as to exactly what the “pledge” everyone keeps talking about actually says. I heard an interview with a woman from the Michigan Dems who said the pledge was strictly that the candidates wouldn’t campaign in FL or MI. It said nothing about them supporting or resisting efforts to seat the delegations. It seems clear that Obama did more to violate the pledge, both by talking to reporters in FL and running ads that appeared in the state. I know it’s impossible to think of the Obama campaign doing anything for reasons other than purity of heart, but has anyone questioned why they needed to run a 50 state ad right before the Florida primary? The fact that they sought permission indicates that they were well aware that the ads would run in FL. On Super Tuesday, his campaign did regional buys. He was under no obligation to run national ads, and considering how many people are accusing Hillary of violating the spirit of the pledge, I think it’s fair to raise these points.

I also don’t think it’s coincidence that Obama somehow decided that South Carolina was the only state he had to consult about the ads. Iowa, NH and Nevada were also part of the deal, but I think it’s fair to surmise that he was most wired in with the South Carolina Dems. He knew exactly what he was doing.

And by the way, fundraisers were allowed under the pledge, so neither candidate was in violation for attending them. Hillary made it a point to not arrive in Florida until the polls were closed, so she clearly was making every effort to honor the pledge.

It was widely assumed that both delegations would be seated at some point, because it’s nuts to go into the general having dissed the voters in two major swing states. It was generally assumed that there would be a presumptive nominee, who would ask that the delegations be seated. If Obama has it wrapped up going into the convention, I fully expect him to make such a request. It’s just smart politics. Will any of the Obama supporters huffing and puffing about this today have any objection then? Will your focus be on “punishing” the lawbreakers? I doubt it.

And the idea of giving the uncommitted MI delegates to Obama is just ridiculous. Why not give them to Edwards? It’s interesting how people can go on about respecting the process, then turn around and advocate for changing “uncommitted” to “Obama” just because it helps their candidate.

And finally, the fact that Obama wasn’t on the Michigan ballot is no one’s fault but his own. The pledge said nothing about removing names from ballots. Obama’s beef is with whoever advised him to do that. I don’t see why Hillary should be punished because Obama made a bonehead move. I think any actions taken by the candidates on their own should have no impact on the decision. Hillary decided not to campaign in North Dakota. Is it “unfair” that Obama gets those delegates?

I say, count their votes. They went out and voted. I am sick of hearing how New Hamshire and Iowa know more about Democratic politics than Michigan and Florida. Maybe if we gave some true blue states some choice in the candidate,we would win an election. Obama ran campaign ads in Florida, so he’s got no reason to gripe about Hillary.

I am for a national primary day, with consistent rules for voting in those primaries. I resent the fact that my 18 year old daughter, a registered Democrat could not vote in Colorado because she registered late (in January), while in many states we have REPUBLICANS, “Independents” and “one-day Democrats” choosing our Democratic candidate.

-MS

Biased much on this one?

-MS

-MS

No, they can’t get a do over. The states chose this, not the DNC. Those states essentially selected to not participate in the primary and the governor signed off. The DNC is legally able to tell them when to have their primary and they chose not to so that’s that.

So whatever the seating arrangement, fine. They still cannot be counted.

Yes, a committee of the DNC will vote on what to do about the FL and MI delegations, just as other committees will hold hearings and hammer out a platform, etc. But, correct me if I’m wrong, doesn’t the convention, when it meets, have to vote to accept or reject the committe findings, with the alternative of minority reports to choose from? What’s the likelihood, if the FL and MI votes could make the difference about who wins, that no matter what the committee decides, there won’t be a minority report that goes 180deg opposite? If that’s the case, which delegates get to vote on these committee reports? If not the FL and MI delegates, then whoever is ahead without FL and MI instructs his/her delegates to vote for the report that leaves his/her lead undisturbed, and that person wins.

It goes downhill from there. The side that sees itself losing to this effect will simply have to challenge enough delegates from the other side that it won’t be behind on these votes to seat delegates. The other side will be forced to respond in kind. Before it’s over, there won’t be any unchallenged delegates availalbe to vote on seating any delegates, so they’ll just call the whole thing off.

Still don’t see how he’s going to take the nomination if he’s winning the Red States. When push comes to shove they’ll not be turning Blue!

I hope it runs right to the Puerto Rico caucus!

And they will seat both delegations but in what capacity I can only guess. No do-overs. Too expensive and extend the campaign … don’t change the goal posts once the game is being played.

Just because Obama showed poor judgement by not being on the ballot in MI, let’s not tip the lifeboat in his favor.

Candidates use their kids all the time. McCain’s daughter, Cheney’s daughter, Romney’s “boys” (will they enlist now that their patriotic duty campaigning for Dad has ended?) The problem is that not only was it a mother that had her daughter campaigning – seems to be perfectly acceptable for fathers – but a Clinton as well.

Super delegates are approached by the campaigns all the time if you have not committed.

You know that all the anti-Hillary vitrol just fuels her supporters and makes them even more determined?