Originally Posted By: the G-man
As I understand it, the states that fucked up in the first place don't want to pay for the revote (among other issues). Under law, each state pays for their own primary. Therefore, unless and until FL and MI decide to do that, they can't even get to the point of going to the DNC for permission on how to have the votes count.

But that's just what I seem to recall. I didn't really research the issue so there may be more to it (and, by more, I mean something substantive on the law, not "Hillary cheated" or "Obama is trying to disenfranchise people").

Also, according to at least one news story, contrary to what MEM seems to be saying, the people in Florida aren't that eager to revote anyway:
  • Last week... party officials in Florida had proposed a repeat presidential primary on June 3 that would combine mail-in ballots with in-person voting.

    But [Congresswoman Karen Thurman, chair of the Florida Democratic Party] said the party was swamped with thousands of responses from voters who voiced opposition to a revote, and noted that several counties "do not have the capacity to handle a major election before the June 10th DNC primary deadline."

    "The consensus is clear: Florida doesn't want to vote again. So we won't," she said.

 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

I think that's a case of many feeling their original primary should count. Obama says nope that's not fair. He also didn't support a revote. So what option does he leave them with? So far he's suggested splitting the delegates evenly. This would be changing the rules but since it favors him by getting delegates that would have been Hillarys, it's ok by anyone who was upset that Hillary asked for the delegates to be seated. It's because it helps the candidate they like...because he's so great


I have to agree with M E M.

The tendency is to blame Hillary, when Obama is just as much to blame for this impasse.

And Hillary has just as much right to push for the nomination. Neither has enough votes to secure the nomination, so why should Hillary give up prematurely, when she still has a slim chance of winning, and Obama's campaign... (Rezko, Rev. Wright, "don't worry about it" to the Canadians about NAFTA he vowed to voters to renegotiate, his liberal voting record, his 100-plus "present" votes) ...could still implode?

Hillary is portrayed as evil and selfish (and yeah, she's a hardened infighter, but Saint Obama, for all his above-the-fray-ness, has launched or at best passively endorsed some nasty attacks on Hillary), but she expressed openness to an Obama/Hillary ticket, which Obama rejected flatout. And she was willing to change the rules to allow admission of FL and MI primary results in some capacity, not necessarily in a way that favored her.

They both want the job, and she has just as much right to fight for it. As much as I consistently like columnist David Brooks' commentary, I think he was a bit hard on Hillary in this one, and gave a bit of a pass to Obama's own ruthless ambition.