Historic Election Theft--Delegates Given To Presidential Candidate not on State's Ballot.
Now it is not being talked about but in the future it will be!--A presidential candidate taking election ballots from a State where he was not on the ballot.'
This is more than goofy, it is wrong and crazy.
If Barack Obama is as high minded and moral as he pretends to be he would not accept those delegates. If History were on his mind he would not do it. This situation and day will haunt him down the rode.
In the present only the Clinton's are screaming foul.
This is to disenfranchise the votes of Michigan and creates a dangerous political precedent.
This is the kind of thing dishonest dictators do. Compromise a ballot. Howard Dean and the DNC have compromised people's. votes. Scarier yet Barack Obama is going along with it showing disrespect for the electoral process, taking votes that literally were not made.
This is dysfunctional, crazy, insane, and unthinkable. There you have it. The First black Presidential candidate taking votes he did not receive! Now it is obvious that one reason that Hillary Clinton is this MIchigan vote disaster.
Truly an item for the History books.
Presidential election 2008. Votes given to someone who was not on the ballot!
In Michigan, 45% of the voters wrote on their ballot box "undeclared" while Hillary Clinton got 55% of the vote. Many of the potential voters may have stayed home in that state, because their state broke the rules that was set by the DNC. In addition, a number of the candidates (including Clinton) signed a pledge saying they would not campaign in MI and FL.
So you see, the fact that the state of Michigan broke the rules makes this situation disastrous. Are you suggesting Barrack Obama who was not on the ballot in Michigan pay the price for Michigan's folly? Your solution, as I read it, would appropriate each delegate to Obama's rival. You may see the irony in Hillary Clinton being the recipient of all those delegates. This would be about as UNdemocratic as the situation you've written.
my documentary...
Wanna smile on the spot?
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com/rbrianblog
understood the fraud the DNC and Howard Dean were confronting voters with....
She understood how the ruling was bound to fail.
Obama does not have a legal right to any votes when he was not on the ballot.
The fact that he took those delegates...shows his lack of respect for the process.
If he would have refused those delegates he would have been a true political hero.
He would have been hailed as such maybe by even me.
Instead he showed his politics of the moment and expediency...just like the rest.
He still would have be the nominee and would be a magnanimous politician.
The last 24 hours have revealed much about Obama!
The solution I suggest is the true democratic solution'
Moving the primary up shows lack of respect for the process. Campaigning in a state in which all Democratic candidates agreed not to campaign shows lack of respect for the process. Bitching about the fact that the DNC won't bend the rules for you shows lack of respect for the process. Obama has wisely stayed out of the fray. He is abiding by the wishes of the DNC, and has all along.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com/rbrianblog
Howard Dean and the DNC Has not the right to disenfranchise voters. The RNC was wise enough not to do this. Giving Obama delegates to a state where he was not on the ballot is the worse type of Back Room Deal. It smacks of his mentor, Richard M Daley.
Back room party deals are back room party deals. It is not honest and more than likely there is already a voter fraud lawsuit. THE DNC Rules committee is a back room party affair that has nothing to do with me. It has everything to do with the voters.THEY CHANGED THE RULES for Obama against the voters of Michigan.
I do agree with your anti-smoke-filled rooms sentiment. That's powerful stuff, quite progressive.
The only problem is that in this case, it's quite misleading to say 'oh you poor Michigans and Floridians--you don't deserve this' when in fact they do. If those states had not signed the agreement to have their primaries on certain dates (if they had protested) I think you would absolutely have a point. And yet, they agreed to push their primaries earlier than they'd signed up for, and now we're made to feel sorry for them. Well, I won't do it. And I won't pin the blame on Barrack Obama.
my documentary...
Wanna smile on the spot?
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com/rbrianblog
the situation is it was not the voters who agreed to the rules but the party leaders in a back room.
Party leaders create the schedule. Doesn't the secretary of state in Michigan and Florida and the other states sign the agreement?
For an interesting debate on the subject, follow this link... (http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=4143055n)
my documentary...
Wanna smile on the spot?
It's an unfortunate and unfair situation all the way around. How many people didn't bother going to the polls because their votes weren't supposed to count? How many people didn't go vote because their candidate wasn't on the ballot? Isn't it strange that 40% of the voters claimed no candidate? Do you really not believe that it had anything to do with the fact that Obama took his name off the ballot? Blame the states, not the candidates or the party.
-Sonja :)
"Democracy works only when you vote. When you don't take the time to vote for the candidate you find the least offensive, you run the risk of electing the candidate you find the most offensive."
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com/rbrianblog
The Party and their back room deals is the responsible party. The Party made the rules and changed the rules to fit the circumstances. Obama took the delegates when he WAS NOT ON THE Ballot..
It was their own states that broke the rules. They are blaming the entire election process, which, I believe is in need of an overhaul anyway.
The states are the ones that disenfranchised their own voters, claiming it was to make their votes count, in case this was a short primary season. When the DNC and RNC threatened the rule change (cutting delegates in half and not counting delegates) it was in hopes that they would stick to the schedule they originally signed on to. They were the ones that broke the rules, but it would have a negative affect on the election. There was no "right" or "fair" way to deal with FL and MI's mistake.
Who benefited from this backroom deal? Clinton moved a little closer to Obama with this when, had he left his name on the ballot, possibly would've taken Michigan anyway. You can't disagree, no one knows.
-Sonja :)
"Democracy works only when you vote. When you don't take the time to vote for the candidate you find the least offensive, you run the risk of electing the candidate you find the most offensive."
although we both revere it. I'm of the mind that delegates from Florida and Michigan should be sent to the convention, but that they would have no effect on the electoral process (punishment for breaking the rules--slap in the wrist). Doesn't sound democratic? I submit that breaking the rules and moving your state's primary ahead of the schedule that was agreed upon is undemocratic and this is an unfortunate end of that act.
Honestly? What would have stopped you from taking the perspective that he didn't worship the democratic process? ...that he was somehow giving citizens who had voted in Michigan the finger by as you put it "refusing those delegates"?
my documentary...
Wanna smile on the spot?
Michigan and Florida went against both the DNC and RNC when the smoved up the date of the primaries. The RNC's solution was to cut the number of delegates in half. The DNC's decision was initially to not let any delegates count in hopes that no one would follow through with the states' plans to reschedule the primary dates. Personally, I think the people in MI and FL should be blaming those responsible- their state representatives- instead of the candidates or the party.
In order to back up the party's decision, all Democratic candidates signed on to refuse to campaign in the two states before their primaries. Clinton did, however, hold a rally in Florida to celebrate a win. Obama did remove his name from the Michigan ballot. I don't think it's a coincidence that even though Clinton received 50% of votes in this state that didn't count, 40% voted "uncommitted."
Obama has stolen no votes. True fairness would have been for the reps of MI and FL to have kept their original primary dates. With that inability, the next fairest would be a revote. That's expensive. I don't think the delegates should be counted, but I understand why the DNC feels they have to.
-Sonja :)
"Democracy works only when you vote. When you don't take the time to vote for the candidate you find the least offensive, you run the risk of electing the candidate you find the most offensive."
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com/rbrianblog
the rules to fit the game!
I can also see their reasoning. I might draw a parallel to the war in Iraq. The state of the country is in such a disarray that solutions seem pointless when you bicker and argue about who's fault it is. Shux.
my documentary...
Wanna smile on the spot?
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com/rbrianblog
But it does not give them the right to play with people's votes.
What percentage of dems stayed home that day thinking their votes wouldn't count? Add that to the number more of people that stayed home because Obama had taken his name off the ballot, and you have an unfair and inaccurate count.
-Sonja :)
"Democracy works only when you vote. When you don't take the time to vote for the candidate you find the least offensive, you run the risk of electing the candidate you find the most offensive."
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com/rbrianblog
a real vote....and Obama compromising the democratic process by taking delegates when he was not on the ballot...opens him up or maybe SHOWS HIS PARTICIPATION IN FOUL PLAY! THe suspicion can be legitimate now.
..Obama fighting for those delegates. I do know Clinton pushed for it.
So basically what you're saying is that we should ignore the people that would have cast their votes for Obama? Just what exactly is your idea of fairness in this situation?
-Sonja :)
"Democracy works only when you vote. When you don't take the time to vote for the candidate you find the least offensive, you run the risk of electing the candidate you find the most offensive."
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com/rbrianblog
those delegates in the back room of THE DNC---no one voted for him in Michigan -Why did he take the delegates???
It's really a moot point. He has 2,158 delegates. Even 36 delegates, he's still over the needed 2,118 delegates if you subtract Michigan's 36.
-Sonja :)
"Democracy works only when you vote. When you don't take the time to vote for the candidate you find the least offensive, you run the risk of electing the candidate you find the most offensive."
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com/rbrianblog
In light of other scandals of ethics surrounding Obama!- Tony Rezco his major fund raiser at the start of his career was just now convicted of 16 felonies.
Well, it's probably good, then, that Tony Rezko isn't running for President.
Read my Blogs!
This is Why I'm Hot
And My Other Blogs
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com/rbrianblog
Obama would not be where he is without Tony Rezko
I would not be where I am today without my mother. What's your point?
my documentary...
Wanna smile on the spot?
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com/rbrianblog
most likely was not convicted of 16 felonies as Tony Rezko. 16 felonies and close ties to Obama are not good for any Presidential candidate.
I don't get it. Everyone has at least one shady acquaintance, and most likely we don't know how shady the people are until a lot later. Why is it that any different than this case? Presidential nominees are supposed to be psychic or do thorough background checks on everyone they talk to? Oh wait, Rezko wasn't known to be under investigation until later...
Obama hasn't even had that much contact with him. So... guilty of association by association of association with an associate? And what does he have to do with Michigan??? Pick a topic.
From Chicago Sun Times, 11.05.06
Q: Senator, when did you first meet Tony Rezko? How did you become friends? How often would you meet with him, and when did you last speak with him?
A: I had attracted some media attention when I was elected the first black President of the Harvard Law Review. And while I was in law school, David Brint, who was a development partner with Tony Rezko contacted me and asked whether I would be interested in being a developer. Ultimately, after discussions in which I met Mr. Rezko, I said no.
I have probably had lunch with Rezko once or twice a year and our spouses may have gotten together on two to four occasions in the time that I have known him. I last spoke with Tony Rezko more than six months ago.
Q:. Have you or your wife participated in any other transactions of any kind with Rezko or companies he owns? Have you or your wife ever done any legal work ever for Rezko or his companies?
A: No.
Q: Has Rezko ever given you or your family members gifts of any kind and, if so, what were they?
A: No.
Q: The seller of your house appears to be a doctor at the University of Chicago . Do you or your wife know him? If so, did either of you ever talk to him about subdividing the property? If you ever did discuss the property with him, when were those conversations?
A: We did not know him personally, though my wife worked in the same University hospital. The property was subdivided and two lots were separately listed when we first learned of it. We did not discuss the property with the owners; the sale was negotiated for us by our agent.
Q: Did you approach Rezko or his wife about the property, or did they approach you?
A: To the best of my recollection, I told him about the property, and he developed an interest, knowing both the location and, as I recall, the developer who had previously purchased it.
Q: Who was your Realtor? Did this Realtor also represent Rita Rezko?
A: Miriam Zeltzerman, who had also represented me in the purchase of my prior property, a condominium, in Hyde Park. She did not represent Rita Rezko.
Q: How do you explain the fact your family purchased your home the same day as Rita Rezko bought the property adjacent to yours? Was this a coordinated purchase?
A: The sellers required the closing of both properties at the same time. As they were moving out of town, they wished to conclude the sale of both properties simultaneously. The lot was purchased first; with the purchase of the house on the adjacent lot, the closings could proceed and did, on the same day, pursuant to the condition set by the sellers.
Q: Why is it that you were able to buy your parcel for $300,000 less than the asking price, and Rita Rezko paid full price? Who negotiated this end of the deal? Did whoever negotiated it have any contact with Rita and Tony Rezko or their Realtor or lawyer?
A: Our agent negotiated only with the seller's agent. As we understood it, the house had been listed for some time, for months, and our offer was one of two and, as we understood it, it was the best offer. The original listed price was too high for the market at the time, and we understood that the sellers, who were anxious to move, were prepared to sell the house for what they paid for it, which is what they did.
We were not involved in the Rezko negotiation of the price for the adjacent lot. It was our understanding that the owners had received, from another buyer, an offer for $625,000 and that therefore the Rezkos could not have offered or purchased that lot for less.
Q: Why did you put the property in a trust?
A: I was advised that a trust holding would afford me some privacy, which was important to me as I would be commuting from Washington to Chicago and my family would spend some part of most weeks without me.
Q: A Nov. 21, 1999, Chicago Tribune story indicates the house you bought "sits on a quarter-acre lot and will share a driveway and entrance gate with a home next door that has not yet been built." Is this shared driveway still in the mix? Will this require further negotiations with the Rezkos?
A: The driveway is not shared with the adjacent owner. But the resident in the carriage house in the back does have an easement over it.
Q: Does it display a lack of judgment on your part to be engaging in real estate deals with Tony Rezko at a point his connections to state government had been reported to be under federal investigation?
A: I've always held myself to the highest ethical standards. During the ten years I have been in public office, I believe I have met those standards and I know that is what people expect of me. I have also understood the importance of appearances.
With respect to the purchase of my home, I am confident that everything was handled ethically and above board.
But I regret that while I tried to pay close attention to the specific requirements of ethical conduct, I misgauged the appearance presented by my purchase of the additional land from Mr. Rezko. It was simply not good enough that I paid above the appraised value for the strip of land that he sold me. It was a mistake to have been engaged with him at all in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow him, or anyone else, to believe that he had done me a favor. For that reason, I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it.
Throughout my life, I have put faith in confronting experiences honestly and learning from them. And that is what I will do with this experience as well.
Q: Why did you not publicly disclose the transaction after Rezko got indicted?
A: At the time, it didn't strike me as relevant. I did however donate campaign contributions from Rezko to charity.
Q: Have you been interviewed by federal investigators about this transaction or about your relationship with Rezko? If not, do you intend to approach them?
A: I have not been interviewed by federal investigators. I have no reason to approach them.
Q: Did Rezko or his companies ever solicit your support on any matter involving state or federal government? Did Al Johnson, who was trying to get a casino license along with Tony Rezko, or Rezko himself ever discuss casino matters with you?
A: No, I have never been asked to do anything to advance his business interests. In 1999, when I was a State Senator, I opposed legislation to bring a casino to Rosemont and allow casino gambling at docked riverboats which news reports said Al Johnson and Tony Rezko were interested in being part of. I never discussed a casino license with either of them. I was a vocal opponent of the legislation. (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/srollcalls91/pdf/910SB1017_0...)
Q: Has this disclosure about your relationship with Rezko changed your thoughts about a White House run?
A: No. As I have said, how I can best serve is something I will think about after the 2006 election next Tuesday.
Q: Did Rezko ever discuss with you his dealings with Stuart Levine, Christopher Kelly or William Cellini or the role he was playing in shaping Gov. Blagojevich's administration?
A: No.
Q: Are the Obamas the only beneficiaries of the land trust?
A: Yes.
Q: Are you aware of any efforts by previous owners to develop what is now the Rezko lot, possibly as townhomes?
A: I was not aware of any prior effort by the seller to develop the property, but always understood the other lot was to be developed upon sale.
Q: Did Rezko have an appraisal performed for the 10-foot strip?
A: I had an appraisal conducted by Howard B. Richter & Associates on November 21, 2005.
Q: Was there a negotiation? Did he have an asking price, or did he just say, whatever you think is fair?
A: I proposed to pay on the basis of proportionality. Since the strip composed one-sixth of the entire lot, I would pay one-sixth of the purchase price of the lot. I offered this to Mr. Rezko and he accepted it.
Q: How many fundraisers has Mr. Rezko hosted for you? Were these all in his home? How much would you estimate he has raised for your campaigns?
A: He hosted one event at his home in 2003 for my U.S. Senate campaign. He participated as a member of a host committee for several other events. My best estimate was that he raised somewhere between $50,000 and $60,000.
-Sonja :)
"Democracy works only when you vote. When you don't take the time to vote for the candidate you find the least offensive, you run the risk of electing the candidate you find the most offensive."
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com/rbrianblog
Like the Chicago Sun Times....is sad. I worked for the Sun Times and it's owner sits in a Canadian Prison. It is like Fox News defending Karl Rove. The Chicago Sun Times is to the left of the galaxy.
Obama has more than 1 questionable associations, and t two are on his vice presidential selection campaign., and do not include JFK's daughter.
The target of the Rezko trial is Rezko and the governor of Illinois, not OBAMA.
There will come a time when Obama will be the target.
Bottom LINE OBAMA IS the first to take delegates from a state where he was not on the ballot...He is starting off with a bad mark on a a Presidential Legacy!
The source is irrelevant- it's an interview. It really wouldn't matter who was asking the questions, they were answered by Obama.
Guilty by association doesn't fly with me. It's not like all these questionable associates had anything to do with Obama as a politician or a person. To what exten is he associated with these questionable characters anyway? What makes you think Obama is guilty of anything that Rezco did? That seems to be what you are implying.
Obama took himself off the ballot and he would have won even without those delegates. Again, how do you explain such a high number of uncommitted voters in MI? You can't honestly believe that those, or at least most of those, votes weren't for him.
-Sonja :)
"Democracy works only when you vote. When you don't take the time to vote for the candidate you find the least offensive, you run the risk of electing the candidate you find the most offensive."
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com/rbrianblog
Obama has so many bad associations, One in all honesty has to question his judgments.
You do not want me to list his bad friends...many are not mentioned in the media. Tis post will quickly come to 200 words..
Selected Not Elected! - those words seem vaguely familiar for some reason. They are certainly apt in this case.
The entire Democratic Primary Process was specificially designed so that the Party elites had the power to over-ride the will of the people and select the nominee. It is a system designed to appear democratic without actually being democratic. The people only get to elect their nominee if they happen to elect the nominee that the elites want them to select.
In this case, Hillary won the popular vote but the elites wanted Obama so that is who they selected and democratic processes be damned! The entire Democratic primary was a complete un-democratic sham! It would have been more intellectually honest if they had done it Communist style and only put one name on the ballot.
And that is before you even consider the fiascos in Florida and particularly Michigan. Obama did not win a single delegate in Michigan but the Democrat elites stepped in and in fine non-democratic tradition selected a bunch for him .
If I were a Florida or Michigan Democrat I'd be feeling pretty dissed no matter which of the candidates I supported. By only allowing their delegate's votes to count for half, the DNC just sent them the message loud and clear that they are not even worth 3/5ths of a vote. In a dispute between the State Governments and the DNC it was the rank and file Democratic voters who ended up being punished with 50% disenfranchisement. It's not like it really matters though because as I noted above, the voting was just for show and the elites were going to select the nominee regardless of who the rank and file elected.
I thought the Democrats thought "every vote should count". Those words sound familiar too.
The indicator needle on my hypocrisy detector is pegged at red-line! I think they should start re-counting some hanging chads and keep re-counting until the right Democrat candidate wins.
From what I understand, the Democratic party system was built by elites in the 1970s to safeguard the mainstream from progressive thinkers and unsure times. You know, candidates the young generation dug (people like George McGovern). It's a travesty to one man one vote, because it enables superdelegates to dictate close tallies--those party elites that have as much pull as thousands of voters. We can probably both agree on this.
This current conundrum is especially messy because the Dems in the Florida legislature who drew up the primary bill put it in the same bill as an initiative to reinstate paper ballots in the state (because of the problem you mentioned--hanging chads and also voting machines). What a terrible mistake combining the two --in the name of expediency-- turned out to be, because legislators didn't wish to be seen as stagnant on improving the electoral process.
So legislators like Debbie Wasserman Schultz forced themselves into a terrible choice. The result is that we're talking about the electoral process instead of issues like the war, health care and education.
my documentary...
Wanna smile on the spot?
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com/rbrianblog
a Bill Clinton Convention....when Barack Obama's mentor Mayor Richard M Daley was refused to be seated along with his delegation--enter super delegates and non winner take all primaries.
If Winner take all delegate counting were in play Hillary would be the nominee!!
winner-take-all districts is somehow more democratic than proportional voting...
my documentary...
Wanna smile on the spot?
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com/rbrianblog
has protected our country from mob rule along with checks and balances for more than 200 years.
Heavens no! Not mob-rule! That's too French...
How do you reckon it protects us from mob rule?
my documentary...
Wanna smile on the spot?
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com/rbrianblog
Mob Rule or Obama Rule?
I really think that whoever is elected, his choices will be limited because things are so Freakin screwed up. So there is a sense that whoever wins is the loser!
We're in such a mess all the way around right now. There is going to be no miracle with this next presidency. It took Bush et al 8 years to dig this hole; it'll take even the best circumstances and people twice that long to get us out of it. I just hope people realize that.
-Sonja :)
"Democracy works only when you vote. When you don't take the time to vote for the candidate you find the least offensive, you run the risk of electing the candidate you find the most offensive."
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com/rbrianblog
The Recent Democratic and Republican Congress members were contributers along with the Bill Clinton Administration!
Reread that sentence...
The meaning of "et al." is "and others."
-Sonja :)
"Democracy works only when you vote. When you don't take the time to vote for the candidate you find the least offensive, you run the risk of electing the candidate you find the most offensive."
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com/rbrianblog
your comments have been appreciated
The electoral college was put into place because of the lack of education in the public. Of course, now people are being miseducated or just listen to headlines, so people tend to be much more, but still miseducated still. Stomping your feet and going for the other party is still not going to get Clinton in the White House. How is winner-take-all even fair? The only thing it does is break a tie, and what are those odds?
I think it's only fair and just that the popular vote wins. Because Michigan and Florida broke agreed upon decisions, they are outside of the popular vote. They broke the rules, they should be sanctioned. For both parties to cut the delegates in half is the only thing to do. If the dem primary would've been a landslide, this wouldn't be an issue, and neither would superdelegates. Superdelegates' votes do not count any more than yours or mine, and I've heard the misunderstanding before. If neither party penalized the states that broke their agreements, no one would take their schedules seriously, and people could potentially start primaries whenever the hell they wanted.
Clinton did step down. Obama is the Democratic nominee running against McCain, the early set GOP nominee. Get over it.
-Sonja :)
"Democracy works only when you vote. When you don't take the time to vote for the candidate you find the least offensive, you run the risk of electing the candidate you find the most offensive."
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com/rbrianblog
proportional voting never worked even in ancient Greece.
Our Representative Democracy is really what this about and not this election.
The Electoral College protects us from Mob Rule a la the French Revolution!
The electoral college was not do to lack of education of the public--please tell me where that thought came from!
The RNC also only counted half the delegates from MI and FL because they BROKE THE RULES. There is a schedule for a reason. They wanted to go earlier because they wanted to make their votes count more. They had agreed previously on a schedule and the representatives from both the Dems and Reps broke it. They should feel dissed by their state not the parties.
Second of all, not including superdelegates, Obama still won the higher number of delegates. To imply that the superdelegates stole the nomination from Clinton is just inaccurate. The only thing that could make this unfair would be if they decided that Clinton should be the nominee. I would be saying the same thing if the situation was reversed.
Finally, even though Obama won more states and more delegates, I looked into your comment about how Clinton won the popular vote. I dug around for a while and found a few sources to further explain how Clinton wins the popular vote, although that's only when you include MI which wasn't supposed to counht in the first place BECAUSE THEY FUCKED UP. The fact is though, if Michigan and Florida wouldn't have tried to push out other states, Clinton might be the nominee.
http://www.slate.com/id/2185278/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_c...
We definitely have a far from perfect system. If it was, elections would all be on weekends and you would have all weekend to do it, everything would be based on a popular vote, primaries would always be national, no one would decide they wanted to hold their primaries early, campaigning would not include mudslinging, people would focus on real issues instead of acquaintances of acquaintances of an associate's best friend's sister's college roommate, people wouldn't mass-mail everything they got in their inbox, media wouldn't ignore the real issues,.... I could go on, but I'll stop. The point is, I don't think this was unfair, but I feel like the DNC should've stuck to their guns- don't threaten if you aren't going to back it up. Of course, you can't please everyone all of the time.
My favorite quote about cutting the delegate number in half is from the onion: "Given the emigration rate in Michigan and the mortality rate in Florida, I bet the revised delegate counts will actually be more representative of the states' populations come convention time."- http://www.theonion.com/content/amvo/michigan_florida_get_half
-Sonja :)
"Democracy works only when you vote. When you don't take the time to vote for the candidate you find the least offensive, you run the risk of electing the candidate you find the most offensive."
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com/rbrianblog
and elected. Yet it appears that the back room crooks of the DNC wrote the rules. There is strong case for back room dealer and Dem Chairman Howard Dean is arguably crazy!