Obama Expresses Support for Superdelegate Primary

I have a suggestion regarding Florida and Michigan: give Senator Obama half of the delgates and Senator Clinton half of the delegates. This makes sense to me and would not cost anyone any money. Seems simple enough to me.

That would negate the vote that was taken in both states. It would also negate what would occur today if there was a revote. This is disenfranchisement at its worst. The DNC screwed up and Obama does not want to agree to a revote in Michigan because he knows he will lose again.

This is the outcome when rules are broken. Always we end up in problems and uncertainity. We all learn through mistakes we make!

You cant have a decision until the convention because Michigan and Florida will now have to petition to be seated at convention.
If Obama doesn’t give the go ahead to Michigan tocay, this goes to convention.

How about support for primaries where 2.3 million democrats voted or redo’s for 8% of the electorate and electoral college, i maight add?
No that would be democracy. obama isnt interested in that.
I’m sure he does want a superdelegate caucus not a primary.
By the way, there is a superdelegate primary, its called The Democratic National Convention.

Yeah that’s a great idea. On the same day that superdelegates get to vote to send themselves to convention, MI and FL delegates get to vote to send themselves to convention.
Great idea Barack, you may have solved this whole mess.

By the way, undeclared or undecided would have to be one of the coices as it always is in primaries. So it would be straw poll, not a primary because these delegates are already selected where the neutral super delegates could still vote undeclared.
This man’s attempts to subvert the process are amazing. He doesn’t want prmaries, because he doesnt win them, doesn’t want votes to count, and now doesn’t want a convention.

Based on the results from WA and TX, we need to ban all results from caucus states, or transfer them to popular vote based on the data from WA and TX.

The DNC truly is to blame for this fiasco and they are showing no leadership at this very critical point in time. I think the DNC is pro OBama and are buying time, hoping this will go away. However, Obama is damaged goods and we need MI and FL in the GE. Disenfranchising voters in those 2 states will hurt the Democrats in NOV. The DNC should have vetted Obama before supporting him. If you take note of the latest polls, he is dropping like a brick and it saddens me to say this, but the Dems will lose bigtime in NOV.

In TX, Obama won caucus by 10%, but was defeated in popular vote by 4%.
In WA, Obama won caucus by a stunning 37%, but only won the popular vote by 5%.
Should we let him steal the nominee?

Based on his record of saying one thing and doing another, I don’t trust Obama about a Super delegate primary. He is also on the record as saying he would support a Michigan re-vote. He is on the record saying he would over turn NAFTA, he is on the record saying he never heard Rev. Wright’s inflammatory speeches, he is on the record saying he doesn’t take corporate money. All of these “on the record” statements have been unveiled as the political spin and outright deceptions that they are – so why should we trust Obama. His words don’t match his actions.

The superdelegate system encourages insider wheeling and dealing with higher priority than the Voters have.
They need to get with the times and toss out the Superdelegate system “.”

Not only should the results from the Texas and Washington primaries trump the caucuses at least in the minds of superdelegates, Fl and MI should count.
They exist as states and there are no caucuses or the general election, just winner take all states.
Super delegates need to do the winner take all real vote math and choose accordingly.

Deep Release, clearly you don’t understand the difference between a caucus and a primary. With a *finite* pool of voters (in the case of the superdelegates, about 800) GOTV and turnout is a non-issue. So call it a primary or call it a caucus, but in fact it would be neither. It would technically be a delegate convention.

Humm: Gov. Bredesen’s proposal specifically calls for the superdelegate vote to take place in “early June, *after* the final primaries.” Did you even read it? The link is in the article, for crying out loud.

Why not a two-day superdelegate primary in June to decide whether Florida and Michigan delegates should be seated before the Convention.
Superdelegates primary in June to select the candidate: Any reason to have a Convention?

we should be just as clear that Obama opposing a revote is just politics too because he knows he would lose. he’s perfectly willing to change the rules when it comes to superdelegats. removing his name from the michigan ballot originally was also just politics and done to ingratiate himself to the voters in iowa and new hampshire

HIllary is not done, a new Rassmussen poll shows her ahead by 28% in west Virginia. POTUS matchups show her leading Obama in Kentucky by about 30%, She’s ahead in Penn by 26% and she’s drwn even in North CArolina.
Obama is trying to say this is over again because he knows he is going to lose big time come April and May.
You know what happens when Obam tries to say its over and she can’t win?? People come out en masse and vote for Hillary.
She is going to win Penn, Kentucky and West Viriginia by 30% margins, Indiana by 20%, Puerto Rico by at least 30%.
Add to that MI and Fl, states that will be seated at convention 100% guarenteed, and Hillary wins.
The DNC is not dumb enough to not seat 8% of the American voting public.
The super delegates will have to consider FL and MI in their votes.
The numbers for Obama are looking bad. Will supers vote for someone who is losing contests by 30% at the end of the cycle??? Probably not, nor should they.

Here is my analogy to the controversy regarding the FL and MI primaries.
Supppose the Pittsburgh Steelers were scheduled to play 2 football games in August against the Bengals. The league tells them the games don’t count (ie purely exhibition games) and won’t affect the regular season standings. The Steelers don’t even field a team to one game and in the other game they sit Big Ben and the rest of their starters. They lose both games. The regular season ends and they have a record of 11-5. The 2nd place Bengals are 10-6. All of a sudden, the Bengals claim they should go to the playoffs because they won the 2 games in August.
Any 5 year old would know the Bengals argument is ridiculous.
This is exactly what the Clinton camp is doing.

Clintons are asking for playing again the game using the same rules. Doing Caucus or Mail in vote is changing the rule.
So, I think even 5 year old will understand that

S.b. is living in a fantasy land…..and Obama fans are supposed to be the ones with our head in the clouds. Desperate attempts by a desperate woman.

To: Humm “a tie”???? How do you figure there is a tie. Obama is leading her in the popular vote, elected delegates by an insurmountable margin, and states won. How does that figure to a tie? If Hillary was ahead by one delegate, one popular vote or one state won she would be screaming for Obama to get out of this race. And, I guarantee, that if Obama had lost 12 contests in a row he would have been drummed out of this thing by the media. In fact, it wouldn’t have taken 12 contests. If he had lost 3 in a row they would be calling for him to quit…the media and Clinton included. Give me a break! We need the leadership the Obama exhibits. We do NOT need the status quo!

Look, everyone saying that Obama won’t support a revote needs a reality check. Obama WOULD support a caucus do-over, and this would actually be easier and less expensive than a primary. But Clinton won’t agree to that, for obvious reasons. She has not done as well as Obama in caucuses. So it’s OK for Clinton to turn down a caucus revote, but if Obama won’t agree to a primary where Republicans and independents can’t participate, and it’s financed by Hillary Clinton supporters, some how HE’S standing in the way of a revote????? This is spin at it’s absolute worst. Both candidates WILL, and HAVE A RIGHT TO, look out for their own political interests. The real culprits here are the state parties that voted to move the primaries up in violation of DNC rules. I support the DNC holding firm to their decision because it would not be FAIR to ignore a pre-existing and pre-agreed to decision just because Senator Clinton is no longer “inevitable” and needs the votes to count in states that she previously stated “don’t count.”

Surely the blame for this lies with the state leaders who decided to flout the rules?
No one including these state leaders expected the primary race to be this close at this stage. So when they decided to move up their dates it was to position themselves in a more important part of the race.
So its pushing in line – for understandable reasons – that has caused this mess… no?

Ken: She signed a pledge agreeing with the DNC ruling that Michigan and Florida won’t count and promised not to participate in the two primaries. Quit being so pedestrian. Hillary is breaking a signed pledge. Simple as that.

I keep hearing people talk about a record turn-out in Florida and that oh a lot of people went to the polls because of the property tax amendment was on the ballot. And I just ask myself, how about the folks who DON’T OWN PROPERTIES and who decided not to waste time because EVERYBODY INCLUDING HILLARY, knew that the results wouldn’t count because of the BREACHING OF THE RULES. Come on people, grow up

On the streets of the South Side, where the Black Panther movement, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, and the Rev. Jesse Jackson flowered, Obama was mocked as a dispossessed newcomer who failed to grasp the historical urgency of the black struggle. “The white man in blackface,” a political rival once called him.
Though Obama would later convince many black skeptics of his commitment to justice and equality, he made clear he would not be bound by their antagonism toward the white power structure.
“Historically, African-Americans have turned inward and toward black nationalism whenever they have a sense, as we do now, that the mainstream has rebuffed us and that white Americans couldn’t care less about the profound problems African-Americans are facing,” he told an interviewer in 1995, before his political career had begun. “But cursing out white folks is not going to get the job done. Anti-Semitic and anti-Asian statements are not going to lift us up. . . . We’ve got communities to build.”

Jim –
A caucus isn’t democratic? Ok. Was a caucus undemocratic when she was ahead? Was a caucus undemocratic when Bill won? Was the caucus undemocratic when any other the other nominees ran for office? For Hillary, the process didn’t become undemocratic until she was losing. That speaks volumes about who is playing politics here, as if this needs some sort of sophisticated analysis.
She knew what the road to the nomination included, both primaries and caucuses. Unfortunately for her, she couldn’t out-organize, out-think, or out-strategize the Obama camp. Now she wants to change the rules when she and everyone else knew rules. Pathetic. She couldn’t command her campaign, why should we believe she’s the most qualified to command the country?

Donn – your argument is not backed up by data. While it is true WA changed their rules to award delegates based on a caucus, they also agreed to keep the primary so that all voters can participate. I spoke to one of the WA committee folks who told me the reason that was done was because they did not have a solid majority agreeing to use the caucus for delegate apportioning. The opponents felt all the voters would not be able to participate and a primary provides data to either support or negate their argument. In this case, it supports the argument that a select few voters in a caucus can skew the numbers so that they do not represent the will of the voters. If it were an all or nothing apportioning it would not matter. Since it is proportional, it does matter. I suspect WA will be arguing in the future about changing their rules.

Hey Jim- you need to get over the exit poll categories and realize that not all Obama supporters are young or rich News Flash! We Aren’t! lol but I’ll tell you what if this election was important enough to ME I would be taking a couple hours off of this “dream job” that I have to attend a caucus. It’s all about priorities… Home in time for the game? …President of the United States..hmmmm you decide!But I suppose my opinion doesn’t matter because WI had their act together and voted within the rules..so mine did count ( not to Hillary because I know I know Wisconsin didn’t matter)…

Actually a revote in Michigan is opposed by many election clerks – as it will disinfranchise voters more than they were before the January 15th primary. A revote at this point would not be fair – many reasons – including the number of people who voted a republican ballot because there were assured their vote for a democrat would not count. These individuals would not be allowed to vote in a primary.

Caucuses are a traditional way of selecting Leaders. Guess you could say they are a truly AMERICAN institution.
And yes the Caucus favors the Candidate with high:
a)Likeability; and/or
b)high numbers committed supporters.
A caucus measures depth of support as well as the breadth of support. A primary measures name recognition and/or familiarity.
So Hillary is at a disadvantage in a Caucus because of the Likeability Factor (or lack thereof) as well as the lack of truly committed supporters.
But Hillary does better in a Primary where the Clinton name is well known.
The rules are the rules, however. It is something they try to teach you in kindergarten.

DC Voter — I think that many of the points you make about caucuses are valid. But it is a bit unfair to walk into the contest, painfully aware of all of the rules and expectations up front, and then complain about it as soon as you start losing. I think most, objectively, would approach an individual with this approach with a healthy amount of skepticism. This is a Clinton, she knows what the systems are, she claims to be the experienced one, and yet she’s only crying foul about this system that she’s been familiar with for decades, coincidentally, once she starts losing.
The exercise here isn’t whether caucuses are democratic or not, it is why did this experienced candidate get the rule book and get out-organized and strategized by a neophyte? Hillary knew the game and has been beaten thus far by a candidate who played by the same rules she was given.
BTW, the rules also say that superdelegates can vote for who they please. So, she’s well within her right to seek their support now that that’s her only road to the nomination. That’s what the rules say. Simply put, she needs to follow them across the board, but she won’t because that’s not politically expedient for her.

Commander,
I agree with much of what you say, but caucuses also measure who can get to the caucus. But this brings me back to organization. All the candidates should know that and need to strategize around that. Obama has been the much better and innovative commander of his campaign, which is the first test of the prospective commander in chief. HRC hasn’t shown the same ability to do this, especially given all that “experience” she has.

DCV say – CG – I dont think that is totally true.
Maybe. But close enough. My sources say that if the O supporters pounded the polls on Primary Day, O would have won the state by 33.82% instead of 38% he won on caucus night.
But the rules are rules and nobody is above the law. ANd we all gotta respect the law.
BTW, DCV did you hear there was one county (garfield or a nearby Cty off da top o my head, good pheasant hunting there) in WA where NOBODY caucused for Hillary…lol.

I dont doubt that CG – every state has its share of areas that include mostly prejudiced people. That is why it is a good thing there are systems that do not allow any one demographic to determine the outcome of the election. It works both ways. So I dont pay much attention to small area statistics like that. That would be just as bad as paying attention to a poll that only sampled one area of a state and called it a national indicator. LOL

I am a Democrat from Florida. It is disingenuous to say that Florida had a Primary Vote. The Primary Vote which we Floridians all knew would not count was held the same day as a Property Tax Reduction amendment. This accounts for the high turnout, not people showing up for a primary. However, I almost did not vote in the Primary because it was not going to count, but I figured I was there anyway so why not. To count the vote when it was not supposed to count disenfranchises everyone who believed that their votes were not necessary and disregards the wishes of renters who did not vote because they had no stake in the tax reduction amendment being passed. Furthermore, there may have been a large number of potential voters who decided not to vote because they believed that their vote did not count. If you check the tallies, the Republicans had a larger turnout. How many states did that occur? For me, it is a redo or nothing…. a 50/50 split is ok too.

CG – i didnt say that.. i will clarify… we all know there are certain areas that are anti-Clinton because of Bill or her statement in 1992 telling a reporter her work would never have been under scrutiny if she had stayed home and baked cookies. Homemakers (typically republican, rural, or evangelical) were offended. She was quoted out of context by the Republican incumbent camp when Bill was running against them… no big surprise but it has had a lasting effect. Unfortunately, conservative women are worse than men about keeping women from succeeding. They tend to think it is not a woman’s place to be in charge and these end up being anti-Hillary voters. Why is it prejudicial? Because it is gender bias from both male and female voters. Over the national picture, the majority of women are voting for Clinton so that is helping her. My point is… if there were no gender bias she would get a fair shake. But that is not realistic because we are all human and the facts support the gender bias in our society and its effect on the election. Is there a racial bias too? Certainly, and I am sure there are areas that are prejudicial that would never vote for a black candidate. However, on a national level, the facts show that the only racial disparity in voting is actually the black voting bloc in favor of Obama. This supports what Ferraro was trying to say even if she didnt say it softly.

Marjory – i am sorry things are so screwed up with the FL votes yet again. I read a letter from your state dem committee that stated most FL voters do not want a revote and that is why they were not doing it. They are asking for their vote to count as is form the primary. I think what you say is true but the facts show the FL turnout for the dems was twice what it was in 2004 so they may have a point there too. Hopefully the DNC will decide in committee in April or the 11th circuit court will decide when they issue their decision in a month or so.

Rstar – even if the campaigns somehow strategized around getting the disabled and elderly to the caucuses that does not take away from two very important aspects: many have to work (the core of the dem party) and the people that attend the caucuses (not all) are easily influenced by peer pressure. Caucus results cannot therefore represent the will of the people who support democratic candidates.
Given the fact that Obama’s strategy was designed around the caucus system it is not a surprise he does well in them. He has the liberal latte (rich enough to attend), the housewives and retired (if they can get a babysitter and transportation), and the college students. Let’s be realistic about peer pressure. Housewives and retired people care about getting along with their neighbors. College students care about getting along with the other students. So now we have 3 of 4 types of his supporters who would likely be affected by peer pressure. We saw in Nevada that union workers were pressured to caucus for Obama and the majority got mad and stood up to them and caucused for Clinton. But you see, they can do that because they were caucusing at the workplace not the neighborhood places where peer pressure would affect their home life. One could say it was his speeches and motivation but that isnt relevant since he was not at every caucus. So he did well because it matched his supporters. He is assuming it would be enough momentum to get him some primary states and he was right. But he lost that momentum long before the Wright scandal and the race can still go either way regardless of SDs. It will be an interesting primary season to analyze come July.

DC — Sure that is one perspective, but not the only one. I see you’ve bought into the latte sipping BS that Clinton has been walking around talking about. Obama’s coalition is broader than you, and obviously HRC, give him credit for. I know tons of moderate, middle aged, lower-middle class supporters for Obama. I live in neighborhoods with tons of them. I was in a working class area of Ohio for the primary and there was noticable support for Obama. Sure, he didn’t win Ohio, but the point is that your latte description of Obama supporters is not supported by fact and is just a devisive tool used by the Clinton camp to say, he’s not for you but for rich progressives, when in reality, her policies are 90-95% the same as his.
Also, if Clinton has a lock on those voters you mention, why has she won only about half of the states as Obama? Why is she lagging in the popular vote? Are you saying that all the states that Obama won are full of latte-sipping rich people? Come on. You showed yourself to be a little more intelligent than that. Additionally, when it comes to the general, there will be stark differences between whoever is the democratic nominee and McCain. There will certainly be some realignment once everyone’s testosterone comes down a notch. If there aren’t enough people to support either democrat’s agenda vs. what McCain has to offer, we’re in bigger trouble than we think.
But back to your point. Should it be a surprise that someone with the support from the start of the Democratic machine is being outraised? In short, yes. Let’s not forget that this game started with Clinton ahead by 20 points almost across the board. So to put things in perspective, he has out-campaigned and raised someone who was the presumptive nominee. He has brought so many people into politics, which is a good thing, whether they sip whisky, lattes, or milkshakes. Looking at the big picture, Obama, since this game started, has gone from down 20 to up a few to about even (or even down slightly). He’s still in an undeniably strong position, although Clinton is obviously still alive and kicking.
Final point: Let’s not conveniently rely so much on Ohio and Pennsylvania that we lose perspective. Obama has fared well in many states across many types of voters. He has a coalition, albeit a different coalition that Hillary, that can be successful against Bomb Bomb McCain. To assume that because he loses to a democrat in a particular state, he will lose that state to a republican, especially with the policies being trumpeted by McCain, is not exactly a logical argument. At the end of the day, for anyone who would have considered voting for Obama anyway, when his policies are put up against McCain’s, I think the choice will be a bit clearer. And to be honest, I think the same holds true for Hillary if she somehow ends up the nominee.

CG – I am opposed to a SD primary because technically it cannot exist within the current party rules. The last state caucus convention is June 29. I would agree to moving the democratic national convention date up to July because that is what the convention is for. This would be done to combat the RNC fixing of the dem primaries and caucuses along with Dean and the DNC screwing up with their fuzzy logic and posturing/playing chicken with the states. Al of the court challenges and the DNC credentials committee processes would be exhausted by that time and the FL and MI delegates would be seated per whatever decision is made by that time.
In FL, the RNC, knowing it would cause havoc, set the dates in opposition to the FL state party and the DNC. But they could not have taken advantage if Dean and his cronies were not so stupid and egotistical. As the attorney stated in the 11th circuit court, had the DNC simply treated all the states equally and said no one can go before Feb 5, there would be no dispute.
In the end, no one will be disenfranchised hopefully. I think too many people do not understand the rules and the appeals processes within the rules and all the options that still need to be exhausted. Most of the superdelegates are leaders who accepted the responsibility that comes with making tough decisions. We need to let the system work as designed in every way. Then maybe the dems will get smart and oust Dean and revamp the rules completely for 2012.

DCV say “I am opposed to a SD primary because technically it cannot exist within the current party rules.”
So party rules are important. OK.
Seem to recall the nefarious scheme was approved by the FL House 118-0 and the FL Senate 37-2. The People of MI and FL should remember who broke the rules come time for re-election and act accordingly.

CG – yep the voters in FL and MI have to take action to oust the ones responsible for attempting to disenfranchise them.
On Clinton potentially passing Obama in pledged delegates, last night’s expert stated the exact same calculation I ended up with. If she “averages” about 60% of the remaining delegates she ties, passes him slightly, or pulls to slightly behind Obama. No matter what happens the SD’s will add to the pot to get close to the numebr of delegates for the nom.
Several weeks ago, it was considered mathematically improbable but you see that was based on historical trends and standard probabilities. This election cannot be analyzed using conventional tools as the pollsters and pundits are learning. Given the current polling for KY, WV, PA and possibly IN and PR, showing very strong wins projected for Clinton, it is now no longer improbable and very much a possiblity. I dont know where you got the 70-30 numbers.

hiya llulu – yes I agree he stereotyped white people and in doing so he has lost a lot of supporters per the polls. He is right that white people cannot know what it is like to be black. But he is wrong to say white people are all prejudiced. In fact, his support prior to TX from white voters proves that he is wrong. He was already losing ground for other reasons and the Wright scandal tipped the barrel over. I feel sorry for his grandparents. I am angry that he did not bother to go to his mother’s bedside when she was dying of ovarian cancer. I have to wonder if he does not have personal issues with people that are white based on his actions. Perhaps he really just does not accept his white side. However, I think most voters will agree the office of the President is not the place for him to work on his personal demons.

Dop the Hillary sock puppets really think that Democratic voters in Michigan and Florida won’t vote for Obama is he is the nominee after having won it fair and square? Those Democrats get another chance to vote in November. And hey sock puppets, think about this one. There were plenty of people who voted in the Republican primary who wanted to vote for Obama in Michigan once they realized their vote wouldn’t count. Now Hillary wants to disenfranchise them and not allow them the chance to vote for Obama if there’s a revote. The voters anger in Michigan and Florida should be addressed to their state leaders who had ample time and warning to get back in line. Obama is right, Hillary was telling everyone Michigan and Florida wouldn’t count but know that she needs those votes she plays the victim card once again. Pathetic. Oh, and she LOST Texas. Can we all agree on that one? Bill said she’s get out of she lost Texas. Obama got more delegates after both parts of the election in Texas were tabulated. She lost!!! So why hasn’t she stepped down Bill?

CG – did you change numbers for all the states? what did you base your changes on? did you read the note about the numbers not apportioning by district because that would be too complex? they assumed their math would be ok since there was a 1.6% disparity caused by district delegate proportioning within the states so we can think of that as a margin of error. What I did was use the current polling data for each of the remaining states for projections. Remember slate does not allow us to have a percent undecided so you have to adjust for that too. Another way is to play with CNN’s slider delegate tool but you have to do some backgorund math to know what to slide to. ON the number you got, that is higher than last night’s expert who said slightly over 60% but I think even your number is possible considering the current polls.

MarkieBee – you sound really angry and upset which is understandable. But I wanted to point out she did not lose TX. She won the popular vote by a clear margin, she wond the primaries by a clear margin of delegates apportioned, and the caucus delegates are still being counted and will likely be contested because TX is not allowing an audit. The TX SOS does not expect the counting to be completed until Mar 29 at the earliest. The caucus voters are part of the exact same ones who voted in the primaries. These are not new voters so the will of the people was decided in the primary. The caucus is just for the other 1/3 of TX delegates and those are still in question. The MSM sites and TV channels and the campaigns all have different “guesses”. The final tally on all pledged delegates for all states and other entities will not be complete until June 30.

Rstar – i think you meant pro-choice judges LOL but I will note that Clinton has worked to reduce the number of abortions for years… Obama used what she said to make it sound like his idea LOL (he does that a lot but hey she is his mentor in the Senate)
I agree it will come down to who the voters think is most likely to “bring about” the change we want… throughout the race, Clinton has the confidence of the voters on the issues… voter opinions on character issues like judgement, likability, etc are what we see changing…
i think she has been successful in making her case to the voters regarding confidence in her qualifications… and i am sure she is expecting a lot of gossip and flack in the review of her schedules as First Lady, earmarks, and her taxes… but he has not released all of his returns, schedules, and earmarks either.. McCain has no earmarks cuz he doesnt do anything but rant and rave (earmarks are mostly good and indicate whether you are doing your job for your constituency) and he has not released his tax returns or schedules.. of course he is in no hurry and the dems have not pressed it (they should)
I think a lot of voters are going to be turned off by May because we will have court challenges, party fighting, petty vetting, gossip, media hype trying to keep people interested, campaign attack and defenses, and then finally a primary April 22 followed by one May 6.. the media admits it has a lot of space to fill till then

The DNC is *not* to blame for this mess, at least in Michigan. It is the sad, sad political leadership in the Michigan Democratic party that has effectively disenfranchised Michigan voters. Not the DNC, not either of the candidates. Jennifer Granholm and her cronies are the problem. Turnout was extremely low in the January primary here, and many of us who are loyal Democrats stayed home — there was no one on the ballot we wanted to vote for.

Florida and Michigan: do not vote for this Monster. He does not care about you. He is in it for himself. That’s all. He is going to get creamed by McCain.

I wonder what Obama’s afraid of , not allowing re-vote in Michigan and Florida. Give Obama the uncommitted votes in Michigan, since in the Detoit newspapers Democratic voter were told to vote for him that way. So it would be 40% Obama and 50% Hillary. His name was on the ballot in Florida, let him have the votes he obtained and Hillary the votes she obtained. Republican legislature and Republican Governor decided to have the vote early.