Jimmy Carter is a GREAT man. He was hampered by a horrible economy but he is without a doubt the most honest and most moral man to ever hold the white house.

And he has proven his moral and honesty time and time again in his years since 1980.

He is to be one of the most honored and respected elders in our party.

Why is Carter not publicly calling for these votes to be counted?

Sadly the initial votes in Florida and Michigan did not meet election standards for anywhere in the world.  And, it is too complicated for revotes to take place.  So, everyone is in a hard lot on it.  My guess, though, is that the delegations get sat as-is after Obama has enough Supers to cover their votes, and Clinton has dropped out.

And so what?

Whats wrong with meeting with other people and places?

Jimmy Carter gets what George Bush never did. George Bush has proven Jimmy Carters foreign policy of peace (Israel and Egypt anyone?) was brilliant and should be the model for all future presidents.

He's made himself radioactive to Likudniks and NeoCons but they don't want peace anyway.

The courts have ruled that political partyies are free to establish guidelines/rules for managing intraparty contests.  So, it's not entirely accurate to suggest that anyone's right to vote has been violated.  It's a party election, not a government election.

So, there's nothing that's really happened in MI or FL that is illegal or crooked.  People might not like it; they might strongly disagree with it, but the Democratic Party is allowed to set the rules to select their nominee(obviously, so long as they do not violate state/federal laws) and to mete out punishment when those rules are violated.  The Democratic Party isn't keeping anyone from voting in the Fall elections.

That's just my opinion.  But for those reasons, I don't think it's fair to lash out at Carter.  Nepal is just beginning its democracy; the matters they are concerned about and might face are a little more serious than our's.  I don't mean to belittle voters' rights; not at all.  In fact, I'm fairly certain that Carter has spoken up in recent years regarding "irregularities" with our elections.  It's simply that we are not talking about the same thing when we are discussing MI and FL.  Again, you might strongly disagree with that sentiment but with regards to the law, it is viewed as a matter for the Democratic Party to resolve.

As registered Democrats, we are certainly free to disagree with the rules and procedures of our party.  However, when we choose to disregard those rules and their consequences, we undermine the party; and when we undermine the party, we undermine all Democratic voters.

To fault Howard Dean or Obama for supporting the party's rules, which the Clinton campaign had also agreed to, is considerably unfair.  The point of establishing rules in the first place is to prevent one faction from trying to impose its will on another.  When factions such as the Obama camp and the Clinton camp have a disagreement or dispute with regards to the nominating process itself, the entire purpose of agreeing to the rules in the first place is so that there is something to guide a resolution.  If the Clinton camp disagreed with that, they should have spoken up much sooner.  Instead, Sen. Clinton was on record months ago, stating with some confidence, that the whole thing would be over by February 5th.

The point is, that there was a time and a process when and by which the Clinton camp could have and should have raised the matter of MI and FL.  It undermined it's purpose on that regard by failing to do so sooner.

And therin lie the incongruity of the Clinton camp's position on MI and FL - they did not speak up until it became politically expedient.  When the campaign beleived that there was no way they could possibly lose, that it would all be wrapped up on February 5th, they were conspicuously quiet.

Beyond that, it is hardly fair of them to blame the DNC, or any other Democratic leader, for standing by the rules of the party.

Let's just say that Jimmy Carter has never particularly cared for the Clintons - esp. Bill.

...let's not overrate his endorsements, tacit or otherwise.

As a former paid communications staffer on his '80 reelection campaign, the issues related to our economy, at the time, paled in comparison to "America Held Hostage, Day: 1,000,056," as Koppel, et al were conveying it on ABC at the time. At the time, very little else mattered as far as public perception and opinion was concerned. Having done more than 20 campaigns since 1980, I can honestly say that, to this day, I never felt as helpless as I did that year, in terms of being unable to affect the outcome of a campaign.

I was the campaign's field press secretary in--of all places--Detroit, in the general election.

Ayatollah Khomeini was the most valuable asset Ronald Reagan's campaign had. Period. End of story.

Pocketbook issues ran a very distant second as far as the public was concerned.

IMHO, since Carter's left office, he has been--without question--the best elder statesman the Democratic Party's had, certainly in my lifetime, if not in the past 100 years.

As a Jew and an avid Clinton supporter now, I can only say to others, say what you wish about Carter, but don't ever question this man's philosophical integrity.

As a Jew, I support almost everything the guy's said and done as far as his comments about Israel are concerned, even now. (And, I think a lot more Jews in this country, albeit ones that may not be speaking up as much now, agree with me and with Jimmy Carter, too.)

As a strong Clinton supporter, I have no qualms about anything Jimmy does as far as his endorsements are concerned. Frankly, this whole endorsement thing is waaaay overrated, at least in  terms of its actual effect upon public opinion.

Getting back to 2008, I can say that Carter would most certainly stay away from publicly interfering with the DNC's position on the matter, no matter what.

And, for the record, I strongly disagree with the DNC's position on this matter (seating the FL/MI delegates, and failing to support at least re-do's in those respective states, too) now, as well.

Like most truths about politics, there's a lot of grey areas to the issues I'm discussing here. But, reiterating one thought I mentioned in this comment, one thing's very clear: Jimmy Carter is the best elder statesman this Party's had in a very, very long time!

To say that Carter's integrity is beyond rapproach is, without a doubt, IMHO, one of the highest compliments one may bestow on someone in his profession.

On Stephanapolus on Sunday Jimmy Carter said his children and grandchildren are supporting Obama, however he and Rosalind have not decided yet and he would not endorse anyone until the primary elections are over.
He also reiterated that SD's are Independent voters according to the rules of the DNC.

As far as MI and FL, nobody asked him what he thought, but he certainly knows the DNC rules to take it before the Credentials Committee for a final decision on how or if to seat the delegates.

Our system sucks- but this will probably go to the convention and either way it will definately be decided by the super delegates who have the independent responsibility to give us an electable candidate for the GE.

BTW- Jimmy Carter has my deepest respect for all that he has done since he left office. I think by the time Bill Clinton reaches his age- he will have the same type of respect from both sides for his humanitarian work. I am proud that we dems can say that because I can't think of a rep ex pres that did much of anything for the country or the world except retire. Then we have Al Gore too. :)