Since it seems almost inevitable that there will be some form of a do-over in Michigan and Florida, what do you guys think is the fairest way to go about it?

They already voted once, and Clinton "won" both times. However, only her name was on the ballot in Michigan and in Florida no one was allowed to campaign.

    "Well that was his choice, remember. There was no rule or requirement that he take his name off the ballot, and his supporters ran a very aggressive campaign to try to get people to vote uncommitted. So it wasn't that he didn't participate at all. In fact there was a real effort to get people to vote uncommitted and I still won 55% of the vote."

    You say that was a fair result even without Barack Obama's name on the ballot?

    "Well that was his choice, Steve"

    Wasn't it the Democratic Party's choice that it would not be a result that  be counted and most people took their names off the ballot?

    "No...I think that the Democratic party said that they would not under the circumstances count the votes. But we all had a choice as to whether or not to participate in what was going to be a primary. And most people took their names off the ballot, but I didn't. And I think that was a wise decision because Michigan is key to our electoral victory in the fall. And I think if there is to be any difference between my proposal that we count those votes and any other course of action, it should be a complete redo of the primary. Nothing else is fair and I feel strongly about that."

Clinton apparently is trying to get the delegates seated as-is or have a revote, while Obama has been kind of ambiguous.

So what do you guys think? Should the delegates be seated as-is, or should there be some form of a do-over? And if so, should it be by primary, or caucus, or mail-in vote, or what?

Well, I think the delegates should be able to attend the convention and take part in stuff, but there is no reason that they should be counted unless there was a revote. Didn't Obama offer Clinton a revote in a debate? As for the do-over, a caucus would be less draining on taxpayers, who will get the bill floated for a revote. (it would also be more favorable to Obama hohoho)

yeah the main obstacle right now is the cost. the florida and michigan democratic parties claim they can't afford it, and the DNC is claiming it is not their responsibility to fund it.

Yeah well the DNC has a point. They set the rules for funding and delegate counting, it is a primary FOR THEM, so the legislatures knew that they would be disobeying this. I don't see how they should get any special treatment by the DNC, who they actively disobeyed. It comes down now to: does the legislature have the right to force an extra tax burden on the people for something they fucked up on. Technically they do, but I don't see that it is morally right to do so.

The funny thing is that I heard Obama say something terrible on this very issue. When asked about Florida, he said that nobody campaigned there and thus the voters "did not know what they were voting for". I'm surprised this wasn't magnified by the Clinton camp.

well, i think he was referring to the fact that when the Florida primaries took place, he was still relatively unknown to most of the country. That and the fact that he usually makes up tons of ground after campaigning in a certain state, such as in Ohio or Texas where he was 20 points down in the polls just 2 weeks before the votes took place. He certainly phrased it very weird and sounded kind of pompous, but yeah.

Yuup.

hey how about not posting one word replies