Much Ado About a Re-Do

The Democrats are still wanting a re-do of the Florida primary. Oh, boo-hoo. Florida and Michigan chose to hold their primaries on January 29. The DNC said no, you'll hold it when we tell you to. Florida and Michigan said, "Excuse me? We'll hold our primaries when we choose." When Florida and Michigan wouldn't cave, the DNC got their boxers in a bunch and said "okay, we're not going to seat your delegates at the convention." So there! I think there might have been some tongues sticking out and some "Nyah nyah nah nah naaa!" being said.

If I were a Democratic voter, I would be rip-roaring mad about this debacle. A re-vote is unnecessary and stupid. Democratic voters cast their votes once, why should they do it again? Since the primaries wouldn't count toward delegate count, Obama didn't even appear on the Michigan ballot. Hillary ran in both states. She won Florida outright and won by default in Michigan. Default was by the DNC. (Sorry I couldn't resist.) If Obama wasn't far-sighted enough to appear on the Michigan ballot, or wouldn't stand up to the DNC and was the Party's yes-man, then too bad, so sad. Tells me if he'll cave to Howard's demands, he'll cave to anyone. Hillary should get the delegates.

Now, since the race between Hillary and Obama is so close, Florida and Michigan have become very important. Howard Dean, chairman of the DNC, says a re-do (he says re-vote, but since they're behaving like kids, we'll call it what it is: a re-do or a do-over) has to be done so that voters in Florida and Michigan aren't disenfranchised. But, he won't use DNC money to pay for it. Huh? It's the DNC's fault the votes weren't counted in the first place. If they want a do-over, then let them pay for it. The voters weren't disenfranchised, they voted; it's not their fault the DNC couldn't see beyond getting back at Florida and Michigan for "just saying no".

Karen Thurman, chairwoman of the Florida Democratic Party, suggested a mail-in vote that would cost $10-12 million. I don't see who would pay for it - it was conveniently left out of the article I read, so my guess is the taxpayer would foot the bill.

Howard, if you insist on a re-vote, then you pay for it.