Creepy? honorable?

First denial... then anger...

I think this is what Kubler-Ross called the "bargaining" stage.

I am sure at Mrs. Bill Clintons request, these folks want to buy the election for her.

I politics just brings out the worst in everyone.

So you are saying that since Obama and the DNC has spoken its sinful for someone to find a way for the voters who were disenfranchised to vote. Obama has a lock on the nomination and wants to keep it which is why he dosent want a peoples vote. Why would a democrat worry about weather the republicans can vote in a democratic primary. The republicans have been encouraging crossover votes from the beginning of this election and Obama knows it. Many of them will go back to Mc cain during the presidential election. The repubs have outsmarted the dems a every turn. When the election starts in earnest they will destroy him. No saying Im sorry from the republicans when Obamites start screaming their lieing.

I would be angry were I a Florida voter myself. However, one candidate's associated donors funding a "solution" seems infinitely questionable to me.

Florida voters have only themselves to blame. the Florida Democratic Party claimed to be representing them, the time to object was when the state party was deciding to blow off the national party.

I agree with that, hawkeye.

Why did the National party elevate the rights of those in Iowa and NH to be 'first' over the interests of those in all the other states?

The National party should treat all the states equally.

Set a date, say January 3 , as the first possible primary/caucus date, and let the states decide for themselves when they want to vote.

If 25 states all opt for Jan 3, so what?

The National party ill serves us by favoring 2 states over 48. It's about time a few other states said 'enough, we'll vote when we want to.'

It's the control freaks in the National party that set this ball in motion. Why? P-O-W-E-R

If the National party can have a few early contests that they can heavily influence, then they can 'weed out' the candidates that THEY don't want before very many of the people in the nation have a chance to have their voices heard.

If 5 or 10 states all had their primary on the 'first' day, then centralizing control in the National party would find it much more difficult to steer things the direction they want it to go.

Don't be fooled by platitudes about an 'orderly process'. That's code for control, folks. That's the process following THEIR orders.

The dates when primaries or caucuses are held is not determined by the national committees of the Democratic and Republican parties.

I didn't say they were.

But the National party penalizes states for 'jumping ahead' of IA and NH.

What's the big deal?

The big deal is power. The nomination process is a lot easier to influence if you start out with just a primary in a small state like NH and a caucus in a relatively sparsely populated state like IA in the first few weeks.

Then you can attempt to winnow out who you don't want and tell the rest of the country what their 'choices' will be.

Couldn't do that if 10-15 states all had their primary/caucus on the 'first day' (whenever that was determined to be).

The power play doesn't seemed to have worked. It frequently doesn't work. I'm not surprised, though, to see you attempting to construct a tissue of paranoia.

Depends on if you know what the power play was supposed to be. How do you know it didn't work?

But how often and to what degree it 'works' or doesn't during any given election cycle is not really important.

States shouldn't be penalized for having their primary/caucus 'ahead' of another state.

There simply is no reason for it.

Unless you're a control freak who enjoys making arbitrary rules and forcing others to follow them.

Apparently that's what we have in fair measure in both parties when this issue comes up. Both parties seem to think it vastly important to keep IA and NH first.

Maybe you disagree, I'd be interested hearing why.

I disagree that the parties are attempting to anoint particular candidates by controlling the primary process, and i've already given the reason why--it doesn't work out that way.

States like IA and NH were put first, because it is possible to win those states without a huge amount of money. It helps keep the playing field level, for those candidates who aren't front-runners from the beginning.

States like FL and MI cost many, many millions of dollars, just to do TV ads in, let alone other kinds of campaigning. See, there are actual reasons why things happen, when one bothers to research them a little, instead of shooting off their mouth.

Cycloptichorn

Obama, who wasn't the 'front runner' at the beginning, was raising money on par with Hilly at a fairly early point in the process. Didn't seem to be a problem.

Other non-front runners such as Huck did well in the early contests despite NOT raising much money.

Perhaps I'm the only one who thinks IA and NH shouldn't steer the bus. That's ok.

That's precisely the point Cyclo was making . . . this is why people despair of ever getting a sensible answer or statement from you on any topic.

Yes, I posted two contrasting statements. He made a fair point, and I posted an example of that. What's wrong with that?

I also posted an example where not being the front runner didnt hinder the fund raising process, at least it didn't seem to much.

Not sure why you're so bent up about this.

I'm not "bent up" . . . i'm also not surprised to see you attempting to employ your lame debating tactics here . . . if you could create the impression that those with whom you like to disagree are "bent up," you might make yourself look reasonable (to anyone not familiar with you) and make them look unreasonable.

Why are you so touchy about this subject, "real life?"

Touchy????????

Who's touchy??????????

Who you callin' touchy there big boy??????????

Wanna take it outside?????????

Huh?????????

ok I'm done

Happy 4/1