Left Flank

Welcome to the Do-Over Democrats! Not content with waffling about its own by-laws or allowing Florida and Michigan legislators to run roughshod over it, now there's talk in the "Wishy-Washy" DNC of new primaries (or caucuses, whatever!) in the two detestable states, and only the faintest whisper about who or what will pay for this extravagance. This is not a computer game!

I agree with TalkLeft's Jeralyn on do-overs, until she talks about seating delegates. "I say no new election, seat Florida and Michigan. The delegate allotment should reflect the views of the voters on the date the vote was held." No, both states broke the DNC rules, so let them suffer! Why is this concept so hard for pundits (and Dems) to accept?

Mark Schmidt is a perfect example of this limp-wristed opportunism.

My first reaction is, nothing. Support the rules. The Florida and Michigan parties made their choice and have to live with the consequences. But what if that's untenable -- because  it seems potentially damaging to the Democratic nominee in November to have two large states disenfranchised, or if you assume that something is going to happen eventually?

Well, Mark, I'm sorry, the damage is done, and now you're insulting me, one of the disenfranchised, even more! Just fuck me, Mark, don't tell me you love me, too! I didn't expect erectile dysfunction and lies from the Dems!

The Economist is very generous.

We support the idea of new primaries in both states, assuming no clear victor emerges from the other, previously scheduled primaries (highly unlikely). They could serve as a sort of «sudden death» tie-breaker, and would be far better than leaving the decision to superdelegates. The options to pay for new primaries are a) the DNC, b) the state parties, c) the campaigns (which are both touting their record hauls in February) or d) a combination of the above. We advocate «d», but welcome your thoughts.

Of course, The Economist doesn't have to pay. Hand the bill to Howard Dean and the Florida and Michigan legislatures—out of their own pockets. There's no need for the taxpayers to get double-stuffed!

Only Matt at 2008 Dem Con Watch and Chris Bowers can make sense (and deliver informative posts).

There are a number of ways this could play out, and they are all "within the rules"

• Status Quo. No delegates from Florida or Michigan.
• The Credentials Committee seats one or both delegations as is. Totally within the rules. The Credentials Committee has the total power within the rules to seat or not seat any delegate as they choose, regardless of any previous DNC rules.
• The Credentials Committee seats the delegates, but makes each delegate worth half a vote, essentially restoring the originally proposed 50% penalty. Totally within the rules.
• The Credentials Committee seats the delegations, but makes sure they are split 50-50 between Obama and Clinton. Totally within the rules
• Either state submits a new delegate selection plan to the DNC. It is approved, and new delegates are selected. Totally within the rules. (And Delaware supposedly did this in a previous election year).

Put me down for #1!

Even more than the original debacle, what infuriates me now is the naked opportunism displayed by Democrats. Forgive me if I wax Mr. Smith-like, but what about selecting the best president in the fairest way? before January 29, I believed that process began with the Democratic primary, but now I have lost all faith in either party—in the two party system entirely! There needs to be more competition, and less corporate cash, in the electoral process.

Yes, Ralph Nader makes sense!

I'm sorry, Dr. Dean, voters are looking at the entire package, party and candidate. You can't do-over, because who will a Democratic president scapegoat the next time he/she screws up from the Oval Office? The Dems (and GOP) can't run a primary, so can a Dem run the country? If only we could do-over, and add a few more choices to the ballot!