Is this a joke? Obama wants to count Florida and Michigan

Behave in this way? Senator Obama has had to follow these rules like everyone else, and yet he is getting blamed for the actions of the representatives from these states? That is utterly ridiculous. Senator Obama never asked them to move their primary dates. If that had not done so, this would not be an issue. Was it the republican representatives that caused this problem? All things considered...maybe the fingers should be pointed another way.... Hillary was not concerned about those votes, until it turned into her only chance for victory.... this is politics. And they make him look like he's trying to "disenfranchise voters" maybe it's the representatives of these people that are causing the problems...

"Was it the republican representatives that caused this problem? All things considered...maybe the fingers should be pointed another way...." The DNC decided to disenfranchise voters. Last time I checked there were no Republicans in the DNC (DEMOCRATIC National Committee). "Hillary was not concerned about those votes, until it turned into her only chance for victory...." This is 100% true. Mike Gravel was the only Democrat in the race who spoke out against the disenfranchising of voters. He also actively campaigned in Michigan. You seem to think that Obama had no say in what happened with these states. While it's true that he couldn't have single-handedly forced the DNC to count the votes, he could have spoken against their choice to deprive people of their right to vote. He could have at least made a token effort. Mike Gravel did, but the media and the DNC chose to ignore him. It is for that reason that he is now supporting a third party candidate instead of Obama. It's nice to see a politician who actually cares about voting rights more than the push to "fall in line" with the party.

On another note, I absolutely loved Mike Gravel (and still do) from the very beginning, but I knew he had no chance because he was too honest. So, now, I have come to the conclusion, as I have in previous election years, that I must do my best to vote for the lesser of two evils. As cliche as that may sound, it is what it is.

Well I'm not a fan of either Clinton or Obama. Even before they chose to disenfranchise voters I simply didn't agree with them on any major issues. The big difference for me was the fact that Clinton has largely kept her views and goals over time. If she one, I would trust her to do what she's been saying. In the case of Obama, he's just consistently lied and changed his mind to whatever would help him gain the most votes. It's not flip-flopping, since that involves and active change in one's stance on an issue. I think he's had his mind made up on issues for a long time and he's just saying different things to different people. I vote not only on issues, but on who I trust. I voted for Kerry over Bush because I felt he was the better man for the job even though I largely disagreed with some of his stances on the issues. Sometimes there's more to it than what words you agree with. Especially if the words change from day to day.

"On another note, I absolutely loved Mike Gravel (and still do) from the very beginning, but I knew he had no chance because he was too honest." That's nice to hear. He's a democrat I might have actually voted for. He has a lot more integrity than most politicians. I don't think his honesty hurt him as much as the media's decision to make Clinton and Obama the front runners. In a 2 hour CNN debate he was only allowed 5 minutes of time to talk while the majority of the debate was just Clinton and Obama. He also lacked the funds to get his message out there. I really wish we had a more fair process that allowed each candidate to get their message heard without the need for millions of dollars. Then we might actually get a few politicians that we respect in Washington.

I kind of gathered from your other comments on this discussion, that you don't support either. I hope this doesn't mean that you're not going to vote, because I saw that you mentioned Mike Gravel before, too. I am a huge fan of Gravel and was totally supporting him from day one, but when I saw that he had no chance, I felt like I had to find someone else that I could support. None of the Republican nominees looked appetizing in the least. I do understand what you're saying as far as voting for someone you can trust. Well, I don't trust McCain as far as I can reach, so again, I gotta go with Obama. I just feel like not voting would be like throwing in the towel, and I refuse to give up on this country just yet.

You just don't get it do you? The DNC, with the full support of Obama, CHOSE to disenfranchise voters in Florida and Michigan. Nobody forced their hand. The representatives who chose to change the primary dates didn't suffer ANY form of punishment. The only people punished were the democrats living in those states who broke absolutely no rules whatsoever. Hillary Clinton made every attempt to get those votes counted (for selfish purposes of course) and Obama blocked every single attempt she made. "Senator Obama's name was not even on the Michigan ballot. Is that really hypocritical?" Obama CHOSE to remove his name from the ballot. Since he made that choice, and not someone else, shouldn't he be required to face the consequences of his decision? Of course not. Not only did he disenfranchise voters in Michigan, but the DNC chose to pretend he recieved votes there so he could recieve enough delegates to put him over the top. Just so you know, the emocrats in Florida voted "Just because his views align with following the rules and agreements made, and understood, by both parties....that is why you believe he is out to disenfranchise voters?" He is out to disenfranchise voters because he did not want the votes from Florida and Michigan to count in the primary elections. It's pretty straight forward. As for the agreements made, they simply aren't fair. Why should some votes mean more than others? Why is New Hampshire or Iowa more important than Florida or Michigan? The rules don't explicitly say that any states who vote before Februrary 6th should have their entire democratic population disenfranchised. If so, please link me to that rule. It was a clear decision made by the DNC because they really didn't care about the innocent voters in Florida. Obama supported that decision and nobody was forcing his hand when he did it.

It's not the people who broke the rules that got punished, it was the innocent voters who had nothing to do with the decision. If a woman robs a grocery store do you also think it's ok to lock her kids up in prison for it?

I agree. The rules were clearly there in place. The Democratic Party of Florida chose to break the rules laid out by the DNC, and hence a punishment was enacted. They new the rules before they broke them and should be punished.

Well Obama shouldn't have to worry about that since he's already proven he genuinely doesn't care about the people in Florida and Michigan. He cared so little about Michigan that he removed his name from the ballot. Besides, there are degenerates out there willing to kill presidents regardless. There have been attempts on the lives of 3 of our last 4 presidents. It's a risk that goes with the job.

If by scandal you mean the recounts in Florida, then yes, I remember. There was a statewide recount of all votes due to the close margin of victory. After that recount, Bush was still the winner. Gore then asked for a recount of 4 hand picked counties that were majority democrat which was according to the rules in Florida. It cut Bush's lead a bit, but one county didn't finish counting in time. The Supreme court ruled it unconstitutional to do a recount in only those for counties. Gore then tried to get a third statewide recount. That recount started, but was cancelled when the supreme court pushed to take the original count with Bush as the winner. In the end, no matter what anyone says, there were two official statewide recounts that showed Bush as the winner.

Nice to see a fellow Floridian who isn't blinded by the celebrity glare. Thank you for your comment.

And does your long memory include the scandal with the first election of George W.?