Because that is exactly what the deeply bogus 50/50 solution does. The candidates are "splitting the difference" as if they owned the votes. But they don't. Voters own their votes.

Clinton tells Inskeep that the Michigan and Florida pledged delegates should count because both are seen as key battleground states in the general election. But if the national party does not agree, she says, the states should re-do the primaries. "If there is to be any difference between my proposal that we count these votes and any other course of action, it should be a complete re-do of the primary and nothing else is fair," she says.

Clinton Reviewing Proposal

Clinton said yesterday that the Michigan and Florida primaries should count toward the Democratic nomination or be held again. Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said the campaign is reviewing the Florida proposal.

The campaign's preference is ``to honor the elections that have already taken place,'' Singer told reporters today. ``If that's not possible, we believe that there should be a re-do of the vote.''

Obama expressed reservations about the mail-in plan.

``It's not just me, but the entire Florida House delegation, including Clinton supporters, that have expressed concern,'' he said today. ``In Oregon they have a mail-in system, but it's something that's been in place a long time and they've scanned all the signatures of all the registered voters so there's a verification system in place. I know some of the Florida folks are also concerned that since there's such large number of Florida residents who don't live in Florida during the summer that they would all be missing in this.''

this is the proposal ... mailin and in person..

`We are positive that a combination vote-by-mail and in- person election can be conducted in the time available,'' Florida Democratic Party Chairwoman Karen Thurman wrote in a draft proposal to the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama presidential campaigns and party leaders. ``It is the best option that has been presented to me that offers Florida voters a voice in the nominating process,'' she wrote.

1. Their internal polls probably tell them that they are not going to get any significant boost in Michigan and that their margin of victory in Florida will be considerably less than it was before, especially with Edwards now out of the race.

2. The cost of campaigning in Florida and Michigan outweighs the likelihood and magnitude of benefit to them.

3. It is possible that Obama could pick up enough pledged delegates in Florida and Michigan to make it even more difficult for Clinton to overcome his margin with superdelegates.

4. Senator Clinton is less hewed in by leaving Michigan and Florida open, and instead arguing that she would have taken Florida by her previous margin of victory.

1.  Repairing the DNC's relationship with Florida.

2.  Doing what's fair.  Looking at the rules, and realizing that if you can't follow them to the letter then you should be able to make an assessment about the intent of the rules and enforce that.

That was the question.

Now go ask this question.  Run this Poll in Florida.  "Which do you prefer.  The Jan 29 vote being certified or voting again?"  Well, I think we can infer an answer there.

So.  If you are to address number 1 above, what does Florida want, then I think we have an answer there.

Certify Jan. 29 and  you maximize to the greatest possible degree Florida's Democratic participation in Novemember, no matter who the nominee ends up being.

Now.  number 2.

Because we know that the rules can no longer be followed to the letter we have to ask ourselves what best reflects the intent of the rules.

And to that I say Florida was never INTENDED to be a state that was isolated at the end of the process.  It was INTENDED to be a state that was grouped with other states near the beginning of the process.

A revote betrays the intent of the rules in this regard.

If you care about Florida, stop whining about what will or won't happen, make it happen, make Jan. 29 count.

If you care about the rules, make Jan. 29 count.

Clinton has said she will accept the ruling of the DNC if the ruling is a revote.  Her camp has put up the money.

But the right thing to do here is to add the delegates and popular vote.

There is no way in hell anyone is ever going to convince me that a vote on Feb. 5th would have been in any way different than a vote on Jan. 29.

By the same token, there is reason to believe that a vote 3 months later would be different.

It's not their job to push the solution.

It's Dean's.

They can establish the swing they need counting the Jan. 29 vote.

Not saying that is right...

To be perceived as the popular vote winner, its needs revote wins in Florida and Michigan. I do not understand the Clinton campaign strategy at all on Florida and Michigan.

[Fixed your typo of "inn" in my quote because I noticed it :) ]

I think it's a mixture of not being able to let go of the argument of having the initial vote count (the fighter instinct) and not doing all of the research when it was time to finalize Plan B.

We've gone to mail-in in WA State and it's a HUGE improvement over polls with semi-trained volunteers/pollworkers - a nightmare open to much fraud (not to mention stupidity).  

To be perceived as the popular vote winner, Clinton needs revote wins in Florida and Michigan. I do not understand the Clinton campaign strategy at all on Florida and Michigan.

Neither do I.  Question is : what would expect the Clinton camp to do if

(a) the Obama camp offers nothing but reverts to
"we will do what the DNC says"  and

(b) the DNC does nothing....