Florida and Michigan are still throwing temper tantrums like three year old children. Some people on the right are still having difficulty in understanding the DNC’s position in all this. (My own feelings were presented in an earlier post.)
So&#8...

From the Wisdom of wiki....

""The show emphasizes conflict resolution, co-operation, socialization and various learning skills.{Builder} Bob's catchphrase is "Can we fix it?", to which the other characters respond with "Yes we can!" This phrase is also the title of the show's theme song, which was a Comic Relief hit in England.""

Both Michigan and Florida knew the rules and had agreed to them before this process started. They then decided to break the rules. I wish one of you folks on the right would explain to me why you feel they should be rewarded for this. Why should the rules be changed in the middle of the game?

This Crist character in Florida is really a piece of work. I hope McCain picks him as his running mate.

This is imporant, I think, because of the degree of emotionalism that the Democrat party tends to base it's campaigns... and it's chocies of campaigners.. on. The combo is a deadly one, either way Dean were to rule on this one. The party is divided at near enough 50/50 as to not matter much, which way he rules... any choice at all is bound to tick off half the party, and likely cost the independant vote, as well... and across the country, not just in those states.

Either way, it comes off as high-handed, and we'll see charges of both an arbitrary ruling, and a pre-selection by the DNC.

However that goes, there's the image of a party that is in extreme disarray, and over the last 4 presidential cycles, a situation that's been getting worse.

In all of this the one thing that shows rather clearly is something I've been lamenting for some time; the only thing that makes McCain look good is the Democrats.... now, not only from a matter of policy, but as a matter of sheer organizational inability.

Given the above line in the Democratic party rules for selecting delegates, wouldn't holding a second vote be in violation of the democratic rules? As such, whomever loses would be incentivized to go into court to throw it out. How would going ahead and seating the selected delegates be any less a violation than holding a second vote?

And if they are going to be breaking the rules anyway, why not let them just do a final state convention to select delegates?

They could've been smart like the Repubs and said that they'd seat only half the delegates, which would still have allowed for campaigning & a primary.

And if Hillary won a large majority in both, and seating the other half would give her the nomination, don't you think we'd be right back where we are now?

They could've been smart like the Repubs and said that they'd seat only half the delegates

A fair point.

Honestly, I don't think it occurred to anyone at the DNC -- quite reasonably, it seems to me -- that it'd ever get to this stage. HRC was supposed to benefit tremendously from the tightly clustered primaries and wrap things up by Super Tuesday. So taking a bold stand wasn't going to really cost anything and the FL and MI delegates would be seated when it didn't matter.

Oh!!! I forgot the the slogan which was plagiarized from Builder Bob..."YES! WE CAN!!

It was actually taken from Cesar Chavez: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%AD_se_puede

Then if Florida was very very sorry etc., horses could be traded and the remaining delegates seated, or not.

As it stands, they had NO real primary and face the obstacles you've described.