Was the Michigan January election fair and legitimate?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Couldn't he still get behind a revote?

J. J., you haven't presented a compelling reason why he'd be stupid enough to get behind one.  If your best argument is that he'll be the "disenfranchiser".....fuggetaboutit.  He's already calculated that out and is not getting behind it.  His campaign has been anything but stupid....if it would hurt him to not support it,  he'd be screaming for a re-vote.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I certainly agree that it's wrong for Obama to be doing that. As I said, I think the DNC should have handled it differently to begin with. Without the benefit of time travel, the next best option is certainly a revote and I believe that to be preferable to either sitting or not sitting the delegates.

I'm sceptical of Clinton saying "just seat the delegates" and I'm sceptical of Obama saying to not seat them. They're both doing it because of what the end result would be, I think the best thing to do would be to revote.

First, I agree that problem was created by Howard Dean.  Clinton, however, encouraged a revote; Obama did not come out in support (big Mistake, INO)

A big mistake which only you are holding his feet to the fire for.....when I see Hillary flat out say it (not subtle innuendo)....maybe I'll agree with you.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I certainly agree that it's wrong for Obama to be doing that. As I said, I think the DNC should have handled it differently to begin with. Without the benefit of time travel, the next best option is certainly a revote and I believe that to be preferable to either sitting or not sitting the delegates.

I'm sceptical of Clinton saying "just seat the delegates" and I'm sceptical of Obama saying to not seat them. They're both doing it because of what the end result would be, I think the best thing to do would be to revote.

First, I agree that problem was created by Howard Dean.  Clinton, however, encouraged a revote; Obama did not come out in support (big Mistake, INO)

A big mistake which only you are holding his feet to the fire for.....when I see Hillary flat out say it (not subtle innuendo)....maybe I'll agree with you.

She said it less than a week ago:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/19/784367.aspx

Her comments about his pastor have been more of a lightning rod......the VOTERS are blaming this squarely on the DNC....not Obama.  This just doens't have the legs you think it does.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I certainly agree that it's wrong for Obama to be doing that. As I said, I think the DNC should have handled it differently to begin with. Without the benefit of time travel, the next best option is certainly a revote and I believe that to be preferable to either sitting or not sitting the delegates.

I'm sceptical of Clinton saying "just seat the delegates" and I'm sceptical of Obama saying to not seat them. They're both doing it because of what the end result would be, I think the best thing to do would be to revote.

First, I agree that problem was created by Howard Dean.  Clinton, however, encouraged a revote; Obama did not come out in support (big Mistake, INO)

A big mistake which only you are holding his feet to the fire for.....when I see Hillary flat out say it (not subtle innuendo)....maybe I'll agree with you.

She said it less than a week ago:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/19/784367.aspx

Her comments about his pastor have been more of a lightning rod......the VOTERS are blaming this squarely on the DNC....not Obama.  This just doens't have the legs you think it does.

The key is, Obama "blocked" it, though in reality he just didn't push it.  It's a big issue in FL/MI, and possibly with the super delegates.

Please don't take it that a lack of further responses indicates any agreement with you.  We've had too many of these round and rounds over the years, that I know better than to keep this going, even when you're wrong.