I know that you DO NOT want FL or MI Delegates Seated ... BUT ...

[musicblind]

What if they came to an agreement where FL and MI held a NEW primary in May. Did the whole thing over, let Obama and Clinton both campaign their hearts out. That would be fair AND, most important, the voters of FL and MI would be heard rather than disenfranchised.

I say that with no candidate bias, because we do not know which way MI or FL would go if full campaigns were launched in the states between now and May. I say this with only concern for the voters of FL and MI in mind.

[tyne]

1. Agreed.

[pampango]

2. Great idea to satisfy everyone. The people of Michigan and Florida have their voices heard.

The rules of the timing of the primaries would be adhered to, so that wouldn't be a problem.

[Meshuga]

3. That would be fair

And I agree with it. Those two states would be punished enough by having to run late primaries. But, realistically, who is going to pay to run the primaries again?

[musicblind]

5. You are right

it would cost a lot of money, and I do not know who would pay for it.

But still, throwing away logic, you can't put a price on a person's right to vote. :(

[Meshuga]

7. I know what you mean

What a crappy situation!

[K Gardner]

4. Sounds like a helluva plan to me ! That would be more than fair.

[stillcool]

6. an agreement..

It would be nice if the people in those states understood that their "State" Democratic Party broke the rules, and is responsible for this mess. It would seem appropriate that the 'fact' of where the onus lies should be made evident to the American people prior to any 'agreement'. Otherwise what would prevent more states from 'breaking the rules' in the future?

[cindyw]

8. My understanding is that Florida and Michigan have the right to hold a caucus

at any time.

[Flabbergasted]

9. How much would that cost the state?

[Arkansas Granny]

10. The State Legislatures of both Florida and Michigan knew that

they were breaking the rules of the DNC when they voted to hold their primaries before 2/5/08, but they went ahead with them anyway. They didn't follow the rules and their delegates will, therefore, not be allowed to vote in the National Convention.

----------

February 5 controversy
Under Democratic National Committee rules, no state may hold their primaries or caucuses before February 5 with the exceptions of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina.<14>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008#February_5_controversy

----------

If we allowed those states to have a "do-over" it would set a precedent that could possibly be repeated all over the country as each state tried to be the first to have primaries. It may be a bitter pill to swallow, but actions have consequences.

[UALRBSofL]

12. I think Clinton and Obama would fight it

And it would involve attorneys taking legal actions. Obama wouldn't want a "do-over", where Clinton would. Either way, I am sure they already have there legal team ready for Denver.

[joeybee12]

13. Agreed because Hilary will still probably win those states...

..Florida and the midwest are two of her storngest areas.

[Moh96]

15. Well said

[Apollo11]

11. I approve this message.

Definitely Michigan was not a fair contest because Obama's name was not even on the ballot.

But I think Florida is a different case because both candidates' names were on the ballot.

I actually think Hillary could win more than 50% in Florida, now that Edwards is no longer running.

[Mojorabbit]

14. Yes but a lot of people

did not vote cause they thought their vote would not count. I will be major pissed if they seat our delegates.

[UALRBSofL]

16. I live in florida and we had a record turnout

For a primary. The fact noone campaigned didn't effect turnout.

[Mojorabbit]

17. I live in fl too

and I know a lot of people who did not vote thinking it would not count.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

18. Yeah I'm sure you do..."I say this with only concern for the voters of FL and MI in mind."