You know, I knew some Obama troll would jump in and post immediately that this diary has no supporting links, even when I said clearly that I would update it as soon as I get a link.

Someone needs to clean house around here, and boot some trolls to the curb.  You guys are getting tiresome.

Go back to KOS.

No one ever (and I mean ever) talks about this, but none of the delegates (pledged or "at large" a term I prefer to superdelegates) is obligated by any rule to vote in any particular way.  Those of you old enough to remember the 1980 primary season will recall President Carter's attempt to get it codified in DNC rules that pledged delegates be required to vote according to their constituency's votes, but it didn't happen.

If this is not decided definitively before the convention, the delegates, ALL of them, will vote according what serves their own interest, any split or edict from the party/candidates be damned.  Their interest may be getting re-elected, which means doing what their own voters say, or it may be according to who they think can win.

If the delegates are seated, they will do whatever they want, make no mistake...

Insurmountable delegate lead? If Florida and Michigan are counted, he's got a delegate lead of four - or something like that. And Democrats in blue states won't turn out to vote for Obama, if Clinton would have been the nominee if Florida and Michigan were counted.

The Democrats need Florida to win, and they need the blue states Clinton has won. Twice as many Clinton voters are telling pollsters they won't vote for Obama if he is the nominee, as Obama voters are telling them they won't vote for Clinton. Those Clinton voters are in blue states that Obama didn't win. If there's low turn out because Clinton supporters don't turn out, Obama won't win.

I don't know what you guys are thinking. Are you under the impression that Obama can engate in misogynist rhetoric against a deeply beloved Democratic party stalwart and have his campaign hurl racist accusation at two of the best allies African Americans have ever had in this nation, disenfranchise two large states and that you'll still be in good shape with the vast majority of the Democratic party? The refusal to vote for Obama may only shave a point or two off here and there, but those points will be in blue states he needs, and that may be enough for him to lose.

And your reply to it?  Could you perhaps share with us your own very thoughtful and purposeful motives?

Here's Dean's comments, reported an hour ago, from http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/co ntent/state/epaper/2008/04/02/dnc0402.ht ml :

It is our intention to do everything that we can and we believe we'll absolutely seat a delegation from Florida at the convention. That is absolutely in the best interest of all of us" Dean said the party feels confident that the delegation will be seated and it has even staked out hotel rooms for the delegation. Dean called on Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to agree to a solution to the impasse with the delegation.

This shows that the question is still open as to how the delegates will be apportioned.  That's what this sentence means: "Dean called on Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to agree to a solution to the impasse with the delegation.".

but is is in reference to comments made by Dean to the Palm Beach Post

Its only 'boilerplate' because you and the Obama arrogance wants it to be.

Florida's Democratic Party rejected a revote.

Here is Florida Democratic Party Chairwoman Karen Thurman: "The consensus is clear: Florida doesn't want to vote again,"  in a letter distributed to Democratic activists late Monday. "So we won't."  http://www.bnd.com/news/politics/story/2 83831.html

That will be the result.  Anything else will tear this party apart.

It's the only way out.

GO HILLARY

supporters argument of: "He should not have taken the name off"

Presumably the uncommitted was a split between Obama and Edwards (and Richardson < 1%?) - especially considering the aggressive advertising campaign run on Obama's behalf suggesting his voters vote uncommitted.  I would imagine that if Obama get's all of the uncommitted that might be fair, since we have no way of knowing what percentage of the uncommitted went for Edwards.  Of course, the fairest way would be a revote, but it's probably too late for that.

Obama decided not to campaign in Michigan...tough cookies.  Judgement is important in politics.

Obama supported Deans attack on democracy and should be punished.

Good luck.  The Clinton supporters here suck up any BS line from the Clinton campaign put out every day.  No thought or reasoning necessary, as the diary here proves.

As unfair as counting Michigan is, it is actually less unfair than not counting it.

Obama decided to remove his name from a primary.

If he had done that in any other state he wouldn't have it disqualified.

Obama decided to block a revote because it wouldn't favor him unless his supporters got to vote 2 times once for a GOP and once for a democrat.

So Obama is twice trying to block Michigan's vote.

The most fair thing is to count their votes as cast which ends Obama's chances.  

One mans fortune vs 1 states democratic voice.

Comes down to which you value more...

When Iowa and New Hampshire voters were threatening to boycott anyone who stood up for Michigan and Florida and the media was ready to jump on even losing the first state as Hillary being finished.....

Yes then she conceded it likely won't count.

But she was never FOR it.

That was Dean, That was Obama, That was all the other candidates who hoped to win the first two states by screwing Michigan and Florida.

If she was FOR it she would have pulled her name.