All Due Respect and even as an Obama Supporters Hillary's position on MI is correct.

I think the voting was fatally flawed... but it is the only valid thing to count.At certain levels it really does not matter. It is only four delgates... but I can't justify Obama being awarded AUTOMATICALLY the 55 uncommitted delegates.....even though they will all likely vote for him But I certainly can't justify taking delegates away from Clinton based on any measure. It set a very bad precedent. A terrible ugly precedent.

This isn't some freaking dictatorship where there's only one name on the ballot and that's who gets all the so-called "votes."

party gave them a pass. Hillary didn't win shit. she cheated by staying in. She has no class.

was quite a separate matter regarding a BRAND NEW delegate selection plan offered to the DNC by the MDP:

The vote that took place in January was null and void as a delegate selection plan.

The Michigan Dems wished to attend the convention and so...

They offered an ALTERNATIVE delegate selection plan that was accepted as valid if a bit unusual by the RBC today by vote.

Therefore that is the accepted plan and those delegates are now credentialed.

The allocation of delegates was created out of WHOLE CLOTH by negotiation and compromise(a mini-convention, if you will) within the Michigan Democratic Party and not related to the invalid vote. No delegates were "hijacked" from anybody.

That's my understanding of how this matter was resolved within the rules.

was deeply unjust and undemcratic. They should have seated MI 50/50 at 50% voting power.

A significant percentage of the 'uncommitted' were votes for Obama, and all of them were votes for 'not Hillary'. The Michigan primary may have been fatally flawed, but awarding Clinton delegates from it and awarding no delegates to ANYONE ELSE, despite all the 'not Hillary' votes, is not the answer.

It would have calmed her supporters, and I STILL think Obama would win it anyway!

Obama follows the DNC rules and Clinton disobeys them. Clinton gets rewarded while Obama would get Fucked for following the Rules.

What a reason to follow rules. :wtf:

We were told upfront that write-in votes would not be counted. We were instructed to either vote for a name on the ballot, or for uncommitted. If we wrote in a name it wouldn't be counted.

But hey... considering that they aren't doing what we were told in the first place, then I guess they should go ahead and count those write-ins.

would be counted as write in votes by the machines? That happened.

Because that's the logical follow-through to your argument--uncommitted would remain uncommitted, and suddenly the contest would count (just for Hillary) when the DNC and all candidates agreed it WOULDN'T count (for ANYBODY). If the MI Dem party supported the decision, then that's what Michigan considers fair. Who are you to decide otherwise?

.

on the ballot. What we see in MI is a compromise.

The four Michigan Democrats who made the proposal are Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger, Sen. Carl Levin and Democratic National Committee member Debbie Dingell, wife of Rep. John Dingell.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/29/michigan-democrats-split_n_99273.html

So now they count.

She didn't expect all the MI delegates, did she? I thought she wanted her proportion based on the 55% she got - with Obama getting nothing.

square the seating any Fl or Mi delegates. If had Obama pushed it,there would have by the rules none seated.

I really thought a 73-55 split would have been more equitable. As the DNC lawyers had said, the Uncommitted could be assumed to be for Obama, Edwards, Richardson, or Biden. So I did think it was fair to give those to Obama. I really didn't think the 69-59 split was fair or necessary -- it just gives the Clinton campaign something to drag to the credentials committee, and Obama didn't really need the extra four delegates in his column to win this.

Guess we'll see where the Clinton camp goes from here, but I don't think it will be softly into that good night.

For 4 delegates they will most likely get a fight through the summer.

got what they wanted. They did not pretend the election was fair or valid.

Oh, my mistake.

1/2.

The slavery 3/5 did not equate to voting.

so I'll respectfully disagree.

Since the MI Democrats -- AND reps from both candidates -- support this as fair, the rules committee agreed.

I think it was the best possible outcome for all. Why do you go out of your way to second guess this process?

Because of all the screaming rude Hillbots in the audience?

Obama relied on Clinton's misrepresentations that the primary wouldn't count. So did all the other candidates who weren't listed on the ballot.

As such, all the results (inlcuding the votes for Clinton) coming from that day are fatally flawed. You can't assign delegates to Clinton based on such a flawed event.

there either has to be an equitable way to address it, or the whole flawed deal has to be tossed out. Counting Michigan at all is the ugly precedent, but that is the ruling of the RBC. There are still the uncounted votes of those who played by the rules and didn't turn out to vote. Hillary should have taken the lead in not seating either state; by doing this, yes, there was a compromise reached, but in a way that signals that only certain voters count. The people who had a choice between "uncommitted" and staying at home were disenfranchised. And Michigan doesn't count the votes of those who tried to write in Obama.

How fair is any of this to them? Or since they don't advance the Clinton monarchy, I'd guess they don't count for shit?

You are assuming they took the votes and then stole some delegates from Hillary and gave bunches for Obama. This is not what happened. They did not even mention the results of the Michigan vote because...it. was. flawed.

This was a compromise, not a theft of existing "real" awarded delegates. None existed. Nor is a contest with only one candidate anything other than an old USSR election.

than it was to disenfranchise the many that didn't vote because they were told their vote wouldn't count or those whose Uncommitted or write in vote wasn't counted for Obama.

This is the fairest solution.

The primary wasn't sanctioned, and if you look at it from the point of view that The seating of the delegates in and of themselves are not necessarily sanctions of the voting percentage totals from that state, it could also be argued that Hillary Clinton was given a concillaratory 20 delegates. Any other moral weight you put to that is your own, which may or may not also be shared by others,obviously not by the majority of the RBC if their ruling is any indication. It also seemed to have the support of the very same supers who made the original primary law date change (which was also found to be unconstitutional I must add)

And MI is being represented. I thought it was about the voters, not about the candidates?

fuck ALL the legalistic straining at a gnat

if you think THIS was unfair... you should SEE REALLY FAIR...

no delegates allowed... they did THIS in the interest of unity... it's almost charity...

ya'all are swallowing a camel

get it?

I'm not sure of anything

someone here will provide cogent analysis... they usually do

that's why I hang out... that and the links... current happenings discussions...

oh, and therapeutic roughness

Which part of unsanctioned do you fail to understand? It's not valid in a vacuum. Validity is defined by the DNC process, not your opinion or hers.

Hillary and Obama were both given delegates that by rule they shouldn't have receives. The point there is that Hillary was given delegates - she had no delegates taken from her.

Maybe 4 delegates were hijacked from every state? :rofl:

primary.

Lesser known candidates rely heavily on campaigning to get votes. Famous candidates do not need to campaign to get votes.

Obama was extremely disadvantaged by that straw poll. There was no way anyone but Clinton would win it. You know that. We all know that.

So the MI state Dem. Party recognized that fact, recognized the fact that most of the "uncommitted" votes were for Obama, and they came up with a compromise. I thought Obama's camp's position was teh correct one: the vote should've been split 50-50.

Clinton's camp itself has acknowledged that most of the uncommitted votes were for Obama.

If this was wrong, it was wrong because it was overly generous to Hillary.


Mock elections should not stand.


You certainly can justify taking delegates away from Hillary, and you can use her own words to do so "this election will not count".

Nothing?

You're welcome.

then perhaps it would cause Democrats in future to really focus on what their state parties are up to. I am actually annoyed they got any delegates out of those two states. I understand why they did it....with an eye on November and Obama vs. McCain. But any votes Clinton got out of those two states she should be EXTREMELY grateful.

Hillary's was the only major candidate on the ballot. An uncommitted vote was clearly an anti-Hillary vote. Edwards was the only other potentially viable candidate, and with his endorsement of Obama, their combined delegates, which by all measures is the entirely of the uncommitted delegates, should go to Obama. Why does Hillary deserve any of the Uncommitted delegates?

HOORAY FOR AMERICA!!! HOORAY FOR DEMOCRACY!!!