In Florida, the Democrats there wanted to hold their primary on a date in February that would have been fine and legal and wouldn't have gotten them in trouble with the DNC. It was the Republican controlled legislature that set their primary back earlier.

Personally, I think that the Florida primary should count if they can't do a re-vote since it wasn't the Democrats who are responsible for their primary being held too early. Its just another case of vote fixing by the Florida Republicans.

And Hillary may be a hypocrite, but I fail to understand how Obama or people around him (his wife, "Pastor" Wright, etc) keep sticking their feet in their mouths yet he comes out smelling like a rose every time when some of the explanations or excuses are fairly weak and these incidents should add up.

Keep on drinking Obama's Kool-Aid, folks.

****************************

Obama said last night on Larry King that he wants the MI and FL delegates sat at convention.  As long as it's fair and equitable for one and all.  That's he's worked within the rules set down by the Democratic National Committee and he hopes that everyone else does.

As far as it being the Republican legislature in FL changing things....  Good excuse, but it doesn't fly.  They still need the ok from BOTH parties to do the switch, which they did not get.  And what was MI's excuse?

Once again, both FL & MI knew well in advance and were ordered to not change their primaries.  FL & MI just wanted to be in the limelight more and take it away from IA and RI.  Pure and simple.  In the end the state governments for both states screw their own voters.

Personally, I want ALL states represented at the DNC.  But why allow all 50 states, plus Wash. DC, Guam and Puerto Rico, to participate when 2 of those states didn't abide by the rules?  It's not fair to one and all who did abide by the rules.  Period.

It would also be not fair if Florida allowed a revote this time, and not in 2000.

I'm pretty much done with Florida.  Can we swap it for Puerto Rico?

The thing that is interesting about this whole "Wright scandal" is how it reveals the complete hypocrisy of how we look at black and white candidates. We all know the connections and support the republican party has had with Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson.

************

Not taking sides here in the whole Obama vs. Hillary deal, but I think if Obama had simply gotten an endorsement from an outspoken, controversial religious leader, it wouldn't be an issue. For example, if Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton endorses Obama, I doubt most people will hold it against him.

I think most Americans accept that politicians in the middle (like McCain or Obama) sometimes have to cater to the more far right or far left elements of their party. That's just politics.

But I think what has some people concerned about the "Wright scandal" is that Rev. Wright is Obama's pastor. That's a far more intimate, personal relationship than simply getting an endorsement.

Having said that, I accept Obama's explanation and think it's something he will be able to get past. However, I do understand why that relationship might have made some folks uncomfortable.

Uncomfortable is acceptable.  Because you can process that and move past it, which is the most extreme this should be.

Anyone notice the funny trend here - Republicans and Clinton supports teaming up?  Doesn't that lend credence to my point that Hillary is more Republican than anything?

***

Keep looking for evidence of of Republican-Clinton conspiracy, but it certainly isn't happening here.  This is nothing more than two people recognizing the incredibly stupid decision the DNC made which runs a very real risk of alienating huge amount of voters in two states.

Obama's tactics in regards to seating the delegates, through any suggested means, has been transparent as far as I'm concerned.  He's neither approved nor overtly opposed any suggestion, instead the Obama camp has been dragging their feet to ensure that ulimately nothing will happen.  Not that I particularly blame the guy; he has the delegate lead, why would he want two more primaries that could potentially shift against him?  But don't pretend that it's anything other than cynical politics.  I can't imagine that he's doing himself much good in those two states, though.

Well - my main connection between Hill and the Repubs is all of her policies and voting record.  My secondary thing is how she's running a Rovian campaign.

But more to the point - isn't Florida and Michigan a big juicy meaty steak for Obamaphobes to sink their teeth into... The state did the wrong thing and knew what it was getting into.  And is facing it's consequences for it.  (Funny how Repubs and Clintons are usually so Law and Order and tough on crime, but when it's to their benefit or if it's their friends, suddenly they're all about pardons and second chances)  But even still - Obama should call for two states that don't support him to get a second chance?   Well, that's just silly.

If there were legitimate shenanigans going on, then Obama should stand up for these states, even if he's poised to lose them.  But they did the wrong thing, and now they must take their punnishment, and it wouldn't make sense for Obama to help them break the rules, just to thow some more support to Hillary.

Now - look - let's say they did revote - it would actually balance out in the long run - currently she has all the delegates if awarded.  If they voted, and the patern held, he'd get about half.  His lead would continue. So it's not like anyone is afraid of these states.  They just need to face the consequences of thier actions.

Matt, while the media is saying the "Obama camp" released the photo, I believe it was a Trinity Church member that did so on a blog the other day.  It did not come from the Obama camp directly.