David - the question was a bit confusing. The inclusion of "without any changes" left open another question - should they be seated with some changes? If it had just been "should Fla & Mich be seated at the convention?", I know you'd have had at least 1 more "yes" vote.

Posted by: Rob | Feb 28, 2008 8:13:43 AM

David - the question was a bit confusing. The inclusion of "without any changes" left open another question - should they be seated with some changes? If it had just been "should Fla & Mich be seated at the convention?", I know you'd have had at least 1 more "yes" vote.

Posted by: Rob | Feb 28, 2008 8:13:51 AM

I think the intro is also misleading. If I understand correctly, Obama's name did appear on the FL ballot, making FL and MI completely different. If Obama and HRC both appeared on the FL ballot, and since we know neither campaigned there, FL should be seated. It would be a shame to disenfranchise FL Democratic voters who turned out in record numbers to cast their vote. First, it is good politics, given the importance of the state in the general. But it is also good ethics - we should be trying to include voters in the process, not exclude them. I can't imagine the Obama campaign, of all people, could disagree with that.

Posted by: Matt | Feb 28, 2008 10:39:59 AM

I think the information about Florida is not true.
1.Obama had paid television ads in florida and had people walking theroughout florida with cardboard cutouts of him. When Obama was asked about that he said he bought ads and was not told they were were going to run in Florida. How dishonest!
2. I believe almost 2 million people came out to vote in Florida even though they were told the votes would not count.People in Florida are upset about that-that's a lot of votes. Interestingly enough Clinto beat him by almost 500.00 votes. What does that tell you? Do you think if Obama was ahead by 500,000 votes he'd have a different view? And going into the Tuesday primaries their votes would be even. So I think it would be interesting to see the larger states votes e.g. Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania before we make a rush to judgment.
2.I would like to hear from some of the women reading this column as to whether they believe there is a lot of sexism in the anti-Hillary vote by the white male talking heads.
TALK AMONGST YOURSELVES.

Posted by: barbara | Feb 28, 2008 10:42:11 AM

Here's what one white female talking head has to say:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/27/opinion/27dowd.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

Posted by: Joel | Feb 28, 2008 3:49:18 PM

Regardless of how many people actually voted in Florida or what level of campaigning was done, the fact remains that Florida voters knew IN ADVANCE that their votes would not count. Therefore it is impossible to know how many people chose to stay home and not vote. Maybe Obama would have gotten significantly more votes (or maybe Clinton would have). We will never know, and the delegations should not be seated at the convention. To do so would be astoundingly unfair.

Posted by: Mike in LA | Feb 28, 2008 3:57:46 PM

David, your ability to spin on behalf of your candidate and on behalf of gay issues is impressive. However, to do so at the expense of voters in Florida and Michigan does us all a disservice. Let's make on thing clear, most people who read your blog support Obama. And those of us who don't support Obama are only taking a peak because what you're doing irritates us.

Posted by: Jeff | Mar 1, 2008 7:24:32 PM