Delegates by committee-Michigan
I seriously would like to know how taking 4 delegates from ones side and adding 55 unearned delegates to them, and packaging them like a nice early christmas present--How Does This Bring Party Unity?!?!
This committee couldn't see the forest for its trees of rules.
If they had given Hillary the Michigan votes even at 1/2 and not given any of the uncomitteds, he still would have been able to "claim" his victory sooner than later.
But now....
A legitimate reason for her supporters to push to Denver....
Obama supporters I think you lost this one even while winning.
This committee couldn't see the forest for its trees of rules.
If they had given Hillary the Michigan votes even at 1/2 and not given any of the uncomitteds, he still would have been able to "claim" his victory sooner than later.
But now....
A legitimate reason for her supporters to push to Denver....
Obama supporters I think you lost this one even while winning.
Advertisement
Yawn. If you ever return to reality, let us know.
May 31, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think they were talking Party unity in MICHIGAN. The Michigan Dems proposed this as their compromise, and I think the argument was made that Michigan was okay with it. The mess we saw there shows that lunatics elsewhere in the country are not okay with it.
But, let me turn your question back at you: are you willing to sacrifice party unity for FOUR delegates? Really?
May 31, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think what you are missing is that talk of unity is premature. It feels a bit like goose stepping at this point if those with opposing views are expected to comply.
Why is it so hard for the Obama supporters to understand that he is not the choice for all and only a minimal majority- at this point?
May 31, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
No primary candidate is ever the choice of all voters. Ever. Yes, Clinton still has the support of a very significant minority, but at some point a winner has to be declared. Historically, the vast majority of the party has gotten behind that candidate.
I think many Obama supporters (and others) grow increasingly impatient because at this point some Clinton supporters seem to be arguing that the candidate who didn't win should win, simply by virtue of the fact that they prefer her. Regardless of her very strong showing, she didn't win.
How do you justify her continuing crusade once we have a nominee (which now is assured of happening in a matter of days)? How does what happened today (Clinton's loss of four delegates in Michigan, as you characterize it) provide "a legitimate reason for her supporters to push to Denver"? This is a sincere question.
The Michigan issue is settled in the eyes of the state's Democratic Party, and any appeal to the Credentials Committee can't change the fact that Obama is the clear winner . . .
May 31, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
IMO, this was the committee trying to avoid being "in the tank" for one candidate or anthoer. Seating them all as voted was viewed as being too pro-Hillary (since Obama wasn't even on the ballot, so some of his supporters didn't vote, others voted for Hillary, and most probably voted uncommitted). The 50-50 split proposed by the Obama camp would of course be too "pro-Obama". The 69-59 split, which was proposed by the Michigan party, including Clinton supporters like Gov. Granholm, was deemed a middle way.
You can't pick either extreme, and this was somewhere in the middle. And they cut the votes to half-votes, like they did with Florida, so the DNC still keeps some punishment for trying to jump the queue. Nothing was going to may everyone happy anyhow, and this isn't as bad as it could have been.
Sticking to the no delegates punishment would have given the GOP an election issue in the fall (albeit perhaps a phony one), so this may well have been the least bad option.
May 31, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
And where is the mention that he chose to take his name off the ballot with edwards and richardson in a cynical and political (read non unifying) move?
May 31, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. You are not back in reality yet. Try again.
May 31, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I left this site because there was no breaking into the "mentality" and achieving a discussion.
Thanks you remind me why I left and why I leave again.
I will check back in November when your untested candidate takes his finals.
May 31, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Thanks you remind me why I left and why I leave again.
I will check back in November when your untested candidate takes his finals."
Except, of course (like Hillary), I;m sure this is a promise you will not keep.
May 31, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alter, don't go away angry and don't even go away. You've just run into a group who don't agree with you.
You may not like the the result, but it is what it is. You see it as not fair others see it as fair.
Not trying to be a smart ass here, but... such is life.
May 31, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The primary was flawed. This is an imperfect but fair way to seat the delegates, and be fair to Obama. It isn't meant to reflect the vote, but to porvide a fair way to seat the delegates. THe other option would have been to not seat the delegates.
May 31, 2008 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, but perhaps calling the Michigan primary flawed is inaccurate.
It was an unsanctioned primary to begin with. All results were rendered null and void in 2007. The DNC, including Harold Ickes, chose to strip the state of its delegates. All candidates agreed to uphold an agreement that it wouldn't count.
Months before any state primary was held, the leading candidates took their names off the ballot with one exception--Hillary.
But here's the thing: You can't fault Hillary for exercising her option to keep her name on the ballot. Therefore, in fairness, you can't fault the other candidates for exercising their option to take their names off.
The flawed part of the unsanctioned primary was that one of the candidates acted in bad faith, broke her agreement, and petitioned to have the results count--after the fact.
All parties involved got together to hammer out a fair compromise except one--Hillary Clinton.
The State of Michigan, the rules committee and Obama acted in good faith and chose to work out as equitable a compromise as possible.
May 31, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary supporters, please go here:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/an-honest-question-for-clinton.php
May 31, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink