<p>Maybe this “news” will make the preacher story slowly vanish in to oblivion…</p>
<p>^ good wishful thinking.</p>
<p>
Why do you say such stupid things about me? When I gloat, you will know it. I was trying to keep those interested in the issue (you started) informed of the lasted developments. There is nothing about my post that suggests I was gloating. Regardless of party affiliation, this is a pretty serious issue because voting is a pretty serious issue. Understand?</p>
<p>BTW, this is a legitimate dispute within the Democratic party and I don’t think Democrats are fools because of it.</p>
<p>Hmmmm… which is more important to the Clinton campaign?</p>
<p>Further discussing the controversial musings of a zealot preacher, or 210 (or whatever the magic # is ) Delegates ??? ;)</p>
<p>See ya’ later Reverend Wright… :o</p>
<p>Well here’s a real resolution:
Eliminate Party Official opportunity to re-shape voter decisions. A mandate is a really important aspect of a democratic decision. Whoever wins, I want it to be representative of the popular will, overall. I think that the electoral system stinks, but this party politics business is also not inclined to invite faith in the system. Whether HRC or BO, effective leadership partly depends on the electorate’s conviction that you’re the transparently elected choice of the country.</p>
<p>I don’t see how anything other than a revote can be a fair solution to this mess.</p>
<p>OK razor my apologies.</p>
<p>The rules were set forth at the outset to all concerned. </p>
<p>The Dem party in FLA and MI broke the rules. </p>
<p>All the candidates pledged to abide by the party “ruling” that these primaries would NOT count.</p>
<p>So now, in mid-stream, let’s change the rules.<br>
Presuming there is a justification for that, it is the PARTY that made the rules, it is THEIR rules and the party, NOT the candidates and their self interests, needs to establish the “new” rules. (just saying “needs to establish “new” rules” tells me this is nonsense)</p>
<p>be easy on the rules thingy. According to rules superdelegates can vote anyway they please. Isn’t Obama camp trying to make them vote according to popular vote?</p>
<p>How can democratic voters not be infuriated with their party? In 2004 the dems certainly had an edge in the election and managed to let it slip away and, this year, they seemed determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t say that I’M gloating, but I am enjoying a good snicker. I particularly enjoyed the comment about Howard Dean being Fool of the Year. I could just picture him in a dunce cap. I’ve always imagined him as a giant baby a la “Baby Huey.”</p>
<p>Oh my I’m cracking myself up.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>First the 2000 debacle and now this. They ought to have a team of observers and officials from third world countries come over and teach the state of Florida how to hold a proper election.</p>
<p>“First the 2000 debacle and now this. They ought to have a team of observers and officials from third world countries come over and teach the state of Florida how to hold a proper election.”</p>
<p>Is Jimmy Carter available?</p>
<p>I’m highly annoyed by this, but I primarily blame the party leaders in Florida and Michigan. They played chicken, and they lost, and now they want to ignore the consequences of their own rule-breaking. Unfortunately, it appears to me that there really is no good solution to the problem. (The now-rejected idea of a mail-in vote is not that different from my suggestion of a poll, by the way.)</p>
<p>Can Florida ever have a decent fair election? Who runs or ran that state anyway</p>
<p>“Can Florida ever have a decent fair election? Who runs or ran that state anyway”
The democratic party is in charge of the primaries. Cool how that works, isn’t it?</p>
<p>no, the STATE is in charge of the PROCESS, cool how that works isn’t it</p>
<p>“no, the STATE is in charge of the PROCESS, cool how that works isn’t it”</p>
<p>Ah, but you misunderstand here. The date was set by the PARTY at odds with the national party, which is why the delegates don’t count. Is that more clear?</p>
<p>It looks like Michigan may be following Florida.</p>
<p>
[WWJ</a> Newsradio 950 - Democratic Re-do Likely Won’t Happen](<a href=“http://www.wwj.com/Democratic-Re-do-Likely-Won-t-Happen/1844462]WWJ”>http://www.wwj.com/Democratic-Re-do-Likely-Won-t-Happen/1844462)</p>
<p>This is very sad.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/us/politics/04florida.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/us/politics/04florida.html</a></p>
<p>ublished: May 4, 2007
Correction Appended</p>
<p>MIAMI, May 3 — Casting more uncertainty over the presidential nominating process for 2008, the Florida Legislature on Thursday moved the state’s primary up to Jan. 29, ignoring the threat of sanctions from the national Republican and Democratic parties.</p>