What To Do With Michigan's Votes
By Nicole Belle Friday Apr 25, 2008 7:45pmMarcy Wheeler aka emptywheel has come up with a rather brilliant solution to seating Michigan's delegates at the Democratic convention.
She's now started a petition to ask Mark Brewer and Howard Dean to resolve this issue quickly.
My proposal is this: you seat the 83 delegates selected (plus alternates) on April 19 with full voting strength. That would net Hillary 11-16 delegates from having won the Clusterfuck in January. It would also ensure that the only reasonably democratic vote Michiganders got to cast this year--April 19's district caucuses--counts.
You treat the PLEOs (spots for locally elected officials) as is. This would net Hillary another 3 delegate advantage from the primary.
You split the At-Large delegates 50-50 (that is, 14 each). This would give Obama the opportunity to influence the selection of 14 of the delegates in Denver (his campaign did not vet any of the people who ran as uncommitted delegates on Saturday and at least some of the delegates selected are not solid Obama supporters). It would also partially incorporate Obama's demand that the delegation be split 50-50.
You do not seat the super-delegates, at least not as super-delegates. The campaigns are perfectly free to use their 14 At-Large delegate slots to give to the people who would otherwise be super-delegates, but they will be delegates just like any other.
This solution accomplishes everything everyone has said they want to do. It would give MI's voters--the people who will do the grunt work to get our Democratic nominee elected in the fall--a say at the Convention. It rewards Hillary, slightly, for having won the Clusterf**k. It penalizes Obama, slightly, for taking his name off the ballot in January. And it penalizes MI, 28 total delegates, for having broken DNC rules and moved its primary up.
But it focuses that punishment on those who played Chicken with the votes of MI and lost, last year, rather than punishing those who had no choice in the matter and lost their ability to cast a vote in a truly fair election. It penalizes the super-delegates, many of whom were instrumental in the decision to defy the DNC and many of whom are engaging in the worst posturing right now.
Please sign the petition asking Michigan's Democratic Party Chair, Mark Brewer, and DNC Chair, Howard Dean, to adopt this proposal.
Login or Register to post comments.
I disagree that this is the best option. Obama pulled his name in good faith that this was not a state that was ever supposed to be seated, so why should anyone be rewarded for essentially rule breaking? If MI & FL need to be seated, just split their votes down the middle and be done.
I am really starting to get annoyed with this election. Why is it that when things look so promising for the Dems, they always screw it up? Now we have Hillary and Obama playing tug of war with delegates. Jesus, I think I'll spend the rest of the Spring in my garden.
I can imagine Hillary right now, thrashing around on the floor clutching her pearls and screaming "I am inevitable damn it!"
Abolish the electoral college, get rid of the caucuses and super delegates and have a nationwide primary in 2012. End the nonsense.
I will not sign such a petition.
The race to move up State delegate selection processes to one-up other States is a disaster for the Democratic party. The result is that political insiders like Hillary Clinton can capture many votes early on, without their being tested by the campaign process. This gives them an almost unsurmountable advantage over newer people, regardless of the strength those new people may show. This is how we ended up with the pathetic Kerry, and this is how we have nearly ended up with Clinton, whom the Republicans will tear to shreds, rather than the much more electable Obama.
If Democrats are going to field credible candidates in the future, this race to the earliest date must be stopped. We must at least hold firm on already agreed-upon rules. The chance to run as our candidate is not an entitlement.
So what are we doing here? Giving a whining B!^ch a break when she agreed to the deal way back when. I have really grown to hate her in this election. Who's elite? Who gets to stomp and fuss and get her way. Screw the whole deal.
>>It rewards Hillary, slightly, for having won the Clusterf**k. It penalizes Obama, slightly, for taking his name off the ballot in January.<<
Shouldn't this be the other way round? All the other candidates except Clinton did the right thing and removed their name from the ballot and she should get rewarded?
Cheers,
In effect, creating a problem to step in with a solution? Not impressed. Chips fell where they did.
tell hillary there's a sack of cash from exxon-mobil up in the north pole, about 3 miles from santa claus's house.
she'll go up there and look for it, while the rest of america has an actual election.
Penalize Obama for following the DNC....
Yeah.. GREAT IDEA.
Here's a better one: MI and FL can go **** themselves for breaking the rules.
This is a horrible idea. MI and FL simply do not count. They knew it before hand, why act surprised about it now.
From the very beginning have said it was not fair to penalize the voters in Michigan and Florida for what the officials of the state did. A lot of people from Michigan and Florida are thinking if their vote didn't count for the primary, why show up for the GE. This seems fair. IT PENALIZES the officials....that's what should be done.
If you can't stand the heat, redesign the kitchen.
My thoughts exactly. Why should Obama be penalized for playing by the rules?
AbsolutTBomb @ 10:
Exactly! Stamped & co-signed! :)
The anti-Republican factions had better come up with something. Do you want a situation like the 6th Century where the titans of the left are exhausted from a brutal intercine war and are suddenly up against a well-oiled and prepped RWNM? It would be a worse situation and worse luck than what happened to Byzantium and the Sassanids.
True Brad, but the kitchen is on fire.
How about NO.
Fl, and Mich. fucked up. No delegates. They'll get over it.
No
There is no telling how the vote would have come out IF Michigan was to count in the beginnign AND if everyone had left their name on the ballot.
Thems the rules and along with HIllary's ever shifting goal posts Hillary should be ashamed of acting like those who have kept the glass ceiling for women alive. Keep changing the rules or what it means to succeed so that someone who has earned it cannot claim it, good job Hillary.
And if Obama loses by this punishment? What happens then? It's too close to screw one candidate out of even a few delegates.
Bovine Scatology!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are trying to shine a cow patty.
I know people in Michigan who voted for Clinton because they didn't want to vote for uncommitted and their guys name was not on the ballot (sorry Kucinich). We were told that our votes wouldn't count, it was just for show.
We were told it meant nothing. That is what it means.
It is a mess, there is no denying it. The tally as it appears, with Clinton winning over uncommitted means nothing. The whole thing was skewed and must be thrown out. PERIOD.
I knew the Barbarian attack machine was going to be in full swing on this, and they were.
Here is the Arch Kriminal Karl Rove going after Clinton, saying that 'she barely won even though she was running against no one", or some such crap.
Get over it!
The voters in FL and MI should be angry at their state assclowns that did this to them against the expressed wishes of the DNC. I'm sick of this "everybody tried their best so they should get an A" crap.
What a mess. Maybe we should just hibernate until November.
May I politely say this idea blows chunks. Huge, nasty chunks. Really.
Michigan's politicians cheated and got burned. Those they represent need to take it out on their hide, not the other 48 states that followed the rules (you FLA, too, need to take it out on YOUR elected officials).
Hillary signed said letter of intent not to "do Michigan". She should be PUNISHED for GOING BACK ON HER WORD. WTF?? Obama should be penalized for following the rules? When the fuck did the Rethugs take over? I know the DLC is rotten to the core, but, c'mon.
Why one 'clusterfuck' and one 'clusterf**k'??
How does Nicole Belle have the balls to ask us to sign a petition that says flat out that Obama should be penalized for following the rules and Hillary should be rewarded for being an out right liar?
As a Michigan voter, I disagree with this plan.
Obama, and everyone (with the exception of Dodd and Hillary) took their names off the ballot because they were asked to not participate by the party leadership.
If anything, they should strip Hillary of her MI delegates for violating what (I understand to have been) a signed pledge not to participate.
It frosts me that she’s walking around talking about “winning” Michigan, while we here know that a) she was nearly beat by “undecided” and b) she won it by cheating.
Either you follow the rules that you are given or you don’t. I see no need to reward people who break the rules.
And one more thing…
James Carville is going around talking about how Obama was against having a recount in MI, even though he (Carville) offered to pay for it.
In truth, the Michigan legislature nixed the idea because it would have conflicted with the special elections we already have scheduled this year.
Being local to the situation, we in MI know how full of s**t the Clinton campaign is concerning Michigan.
If Obama was on the ballot, he would have wiped the floor with Hillary (Detroit determines the state, and Detroit would have gone for Obama had they been given the opportunity)
The only solution that is totally equitable is to split both delegations 50:50. That way the charade can be played out and neither candidate is hurt or benefits.
FWIW - the electoral college has absolutely nothing to do with primaries. Trashing it would require a Constitutional amendment which isn't going to happen. the small states would committing political suicide.
A national primary might make it through the RNC - those guys are brainwashed to fling out an arm and shout "jawohl mein fuhrer" whenever an authority figure speaks.
The Democrats might screw up one car funerals, but at least they try to be democratic about it.
What about the people who wished to vote for John Edwards? Clinton should not benefit from the aptly titled Clusterfuck.
If you take them, 50/50.
Then broom Mark Brewer and Debbie Dingell for forcing this decision on us. They are the reason I am not a registered Democrat (well, them and the Clintons).
The mess in Michigan is because of our Governor Jennifer Granholm, who I like, except on this one, wanted to tilt for Clinton, whom she supported.
The DNC told them what was going to happen, they went ahead and did it anyway. If had they left well enough alone at February 5, Michigan might have been the make or break state for someone.
As it is, there is no way to seat the delegates unless you split them 50-50, which means that the state doesn't really count. Except that it might put someone over the top.
It is a mess, there is no good way out.
Horseshit. I will not reward Clinton one delegate for being a pain in the ass. Compromising with the annoying loser sets precedent that the democrats will regret forever. The condition of contest was that the two states were not seated. All candidates signed off on that. To change the rules after the fact, to favor one candidate, especially one that is trying to destroy the party is insane. Whatever the final outcome of Mich and Fla must be done after the primaries. Personally, I'd seat them as nonvoting on president but voting rights on other stuff. I'd give Clinton a one vote edge in Fla and Obama the same in Michigan
Alice (formerly Hussein, live free of the Borg or die) @ 21:
but rove's right...
Obama followed the rules and now he may get stabbed in the back by the same weaked kneed Democrats who don't have the balls to enforce their own rules?
Sounds about right I guess.
I think this "compromise" is simply a huge concession to Clinton. Don't sigh please.
Ruthless, it does sound about right, and it's depressing. The Dems always shot themselves in the foot. If McCain wins, we better get used to bread lines.
Ruthless People @ 33:
obama's going to get the nomination.
start preparing your can of whoop ass for diapers mccain, it's going to be fun.
I love marcy's body of work, but agree that this is not a good solution. Obama should not get penalized for following the rules, nor should Hillary reap the benefits. She didn't win anything in MI, there was no primary, it happened against all the rules. Personally, I think Hillary reaps an unjust reward even if they decided to just split the delegates (and leave the supers SOL), but that's a better plan than this.
I also don't think that not seating the delegates at all is not a bright idea. The election that truly matters is in Nov. so MI and FL must be brought back into the fold somehow, just not in a way that hurts those who followed the rules.
THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: The Front-Runner; Like Voters, Superdelegates Have Doubts About Clinton
By R. W. APPLE JR.,
Published: April 10, 1992
http://tinyurl.com/6rl4yl
As a Florida resident whose vote (for Obama) didn't count, I'm more pissed at my state's Democratic Party than anything. Yeah, it sucks not having my vote count, but hey, we're kinda used to it here by now. Last thing I want to see is the rest of the country having to puss around with errors made by FL (and MI) politicians. FL and MI residents--suck it up. You got F^&*@D by your own elected officials; take the appropriate steps and deal with them. Save the rest of the country the grief!
And Hillary, shut the F*^K up about claiming FL and MI voters and delegates as yours. At least Obama and the other candidates were playing by the rules of your party. If you get your name on the ticket in Nov, I'll vote for you. But you ain't retroactively getting my primary vote!
I fail to see why MI and Clinton should be rewarded for breaking the rules.
No less than Terry McAuliffe recommended giving them the stiff arm when MI threatened this stunt years ago.
The only way to seat MI and FL fairly is with a 50/50 split. But even fairer is not to seat them at all.
Unbelievable, and frankly, I'm surprise this was even posted here as a serious suggestion - like everyone else said, Obama followed the rules Clinton didn't. In no way should Obama be disadvantaged by that.
Alice (formerly Hussein, live free of the Borg or die) @ 21:
Gee Dubya's Turd Polish
No. Michigan did not have a legitimate primary and should not be seated. if they HAVE to seat delegates, divide them 50/50 and seat none of their superdelegates. Actions have consequences, and Michigan chose to act outside of the nomination process.
It doesn't look like Marcy is going to get many signers and I have to ask, why should I be one to influence the people of Michigan as to how the delegates should be designated? I already made my decision in my state. I don't have the right to make decisions for another state.
L.A. Confidential @ 38:
And here we are again.
I suggest as an answer this funny video and song about USA president election with Obama, Clinton and McCain, and Bush, of course...
on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBrrsq6lu7U
The petition has been posted to Digg
you should remove this irresponsible post immediately. [OK. Done-Sitemonitor]
way off topic, but i won't be awake much longer...
i just wanted to give a tip of the cap to larry david.
that s.o.b. is one funny, fearless comic. i love jerry seinfeld but i think david's even better.
Nope. The answer is simply to seat ALL the delegates from Michigan and Florida to vote on all issues except the Presidential and Vice-Presidential nominations. They vote and speak on platform issues. They vote and speak on policy. They simply don't vote on who the candidate will be.
Personally, I think a better solution would be the one I posted on March 23rd:
http://malcolmrant.blogspot.com/2008/03/hillary-and-barack-way-out.html
Hillary gets out now in exchange for Obama nominating Hillary to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court.
It's the only real win-win solution
I am so far out of touch with the screwed up systems and methods of american politics. Can someone please simply explain what the hell are 'super-delegates'? How the hell does that work? When did it come about? Who/What came up with that concept? Tried Googling for answers and got nowhere. Anyone, please?
I would have to agree with the proposal's detractors. I like the intention of giving a voice to the states' respective populaces, who had no say in their legislatures' rule-breaking, while simultaneously trying to prevent those rule-breakers from influencing the process, but I can't see how the ultimate result is fair. To anyone.
I'm tired of hearing all the "ifs" about Florida and Michigan with respect to how the election might have gone had their elections been legitimate. Not only can we never know what the results of a legitimate election have been, but even if we could, so what? They weren't legitimate elections. Hell, if the first primary were held in Connecticut instead of Iowa, I'll bet Chris Dodd would have received a huge boost, and would not have had to drop out so soon. If we had Instant Runoff Voting in all the primaries maybe Dennis Kucinich would have taken everyone's second choices, and ended up a major player at the convention. Who cares? Those aren't the rules by which every candidate agreed to abide.
Does it suck that Florida and Michigan voters won't get a voice in the primary? Yeah. It also sucks for Oregon voters who go somewhere near last every year. How might Florida and Michigan feel if Oregon started saying that it deserves more delegates than proportionally allotted for waiting so long, and that it wouldn't support the Democratic candidate if it didn't get them?
I'll tell you one thing, though. If Florida and Michigan do manage to have their delegations counted in any way resembling the elections they held, the DNC will be no more. Each state will simply do whatever it wants. You think it's chaotic now? Wait until 2012, when each state holds its elections whenever it feels like, even calling do-overs for no reason just to get more influence, and then hoping to strong-arm the DNC into bending to its will.
Sadly, I think the best thing to do is to tell Florida and Michigan, "Sorry, but your votes simply can't count. Next time, wait in line like everyone else." States need to know now that there are consequences, so that the next time a state legislature tries to pull this on its people, the people do something about it before it gets to this point.
terrible idea, for the reasons that everyone has already mentioned.
From the emptywheel link (and maybe slightly OT):
This is a way to avoid disenfranchising the voters of MI and to maintain the authority of the DNC.
I'm getting tired of that rhetoric. We, the general public here in Michigan, and those in Florida, or anywhere else in the country, are not guaranteed, in any legally binding manner, the right to vote to select the nominees of any political party. Primaries as we know them are, basically, a publicly funded opinion polling system- and not a very accurate one, open in many ststes to the "astroturfing" by members of the opposing parties- as a suggestion to the political parties which may be used in any way they see fit.
Don't believe me? The proof is before us. The governments of both Michigan and Florida moved up their elections against the will of the national organizations of those parties, and now the members of those parties- unelected to their positions by the general public- get to be the arbiters of the fate of Michigan's and Florida's delgates. If there was an appeal to be made to some Federal Court to promise the franchise in the primaries, it would have been made. That appeal has not been made because it cannot be heard.
[One possible exception to this is if the Democratic Party does go back on their own rules and decides to seat delegates based on the primary elections. Seems there might be a basis in contract law on which the candidates might base a lawsuit. But it also seems that the primary results must be set aside in the consideration of selecting the delegates.]
It's this simple- we in Michigan and Florida played chicken and lost. Sorry to the rest of you that the selection process is now so fucked up. I suggest that those of you who happen to be delegates to the convention that you bring some deodorant, mouthwash, toothpaste and snackfood to the floor- you're going to be down there a long time. Hope the AC is working well.
No Way ... Obama would have taken this state if he had been on the ballet. Hillary knew better ... the only reason she wants to seat these is because she has to to have any chance at all. Florida and Michigan are over ... it's too late ... next time they will have learned a lesson and maybe they won't repeat the same mistake.
Man this is so convoluted, rules are rules are rules. Clinton and Obama agreed to them and that is the way it should be!
It has to be obvious to everyone that when Clinton agreed to the ruling she thought Michigan and Florida were going to be irrelevant. Her hubris got her into this mess. Serves her right for miscalculating the strength of Obama. Clinton thought that she would sweep Iowa and New Hampshire and so on knocking Obama out before MI an FL were even in the picture.
I think that this once again shows that Clinton does not have good judgment.
It's encouraging to see that after eight years of the undoing of the rule of law, some find it foolish to reward those who break the rules.
Hillary had every intention of taking advantage of the Clinton's name recognition and were pulling strings to get the primaries moved up in the first place. It's the only thing that makes sense of Mark Penn's "inevitability" strategy. Jennifer Granholm (Michigan) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Florida) seem to have been a lot more involved in getting things straightend out AFTER Hillary fell behind on Super Tuesday, Feb. 5th, not at first when the DNC voted to penalize them for moving the dates.
I'm sick of being gamed by the DLC's minions. This plan is like "affirmative action" for political miscreants.
Solomon's Baby? That was about a dispute over uncertain claims of motherhood. One mother said yes, the fair thing to do would be cut the child in two.
Even if the situation was actually muddled-- and it's really not, just unfortuanate-- I can imagine which mother Hillary would be.
"It penalizes Obama, slightly, for removing his name from the ballot"
Why in the world should that happen? Hillary, the Party, and Obama decide that Michigan's unauthorized primary won't be counted, and he keeps his part of the bargain. She doesn't.
It's a sucker punch.
Remember that she not only didn't keep her word in this thing, she suckered HIM into not getting votes there by pretending to make an agreement that she then didn't keep.
How anyone can argue with a straight face that she somehow deserves any reward from this, or him penalty, is astonishing.
Terrence @ 57:
I don't think you can say that at this point. It might work out for her, and I'll hazard a guess that what she perceives as being in her best interests isn't what you perceive to be in yours.
Am I wrong?
AbsolutTBomb @ 10:
Yeah, absolut, that works for me
Terrence @ 57:
it's like i said earlier. just tell her there's a fat sack of cash from exxon-mobil up in the north pole, about 3 miles from santa claus's house, and she'll run off looking for it.
meanwhile, the rest of us can save democracy and usher in a bold new era of world peace.
There is nothing brilliant about that solution. It's ridiculous.
Why does everyone pander to this monster? Michigan doesn't count. Deal with it.
bullfrog @ 32:
Karl Rove is never right, ever.
On this he was claiming she 'barely' won against nobody when it was 55% apparently for her versus 40% for 'uncommitter' which he called 'nobody'.
He could never muster the intellectual honesty to state the facts correctly, 55/40 let alone interpret them correctly, ie the results were completely meaningless. Worse than meaningless.
He has been wrong from the day he was born.
I am not a Democrat, and I am not a Clinton supporter. This was before she turned to the dark side and revealed her true colors. She is a republican. Let her run with the Barbarians.
I would have voted for Edwards.
Didn't everyone agree on this already? Or is this just being explored because it provides Hillary with a possible way of winning? Is there some big line for McCain in Michigan? I doubt it.
craig @ 58:
As a concerned Michigander, I didn't perceive the move of our primary to be intended as any kind of rubber stamp for Hillary or anyone else.
I thought it a good idea because we'd have had, theoretically, a broader slate of candidates from which to choose than we did in the past. Ours is a state that's been in economic trouble since '01, ours is more representative of the nation than Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada or South Carolina. But tradition alone once again kept us from having a legitimized voice.
Don't get me wrong- I'm not trying to be a truly selfish asshole, but why should the four afforementioned states get to vet the slate of candidates? Had John Edwards not withdrawn his name from the ballot, I could have voted for him in January. Had we our normal primary slot, he would have been gone already.
So why don't we have national Primary Day, or two days, a month or two apart. If we have two, the first to appoint 30%-40% of the delegates- effectively narrowing the slates-and the second , a month or two later to apportion the remaining delegates (and rotating which states vote when, on a rotating basis), we might avoid this catatrophe in the future.
Shorter Nicole: "Can't you see Hillary's turning blue? Give the baby her bottle".
Nope, definitely NOT signing this one.
I've had it with petitions. I've had it with rewarding those who break the rules, while punishing Barack Obama for FOLLOWING the rules.
The squeaky (SHRILL) wheel gets the grease?
"Not this time."
I've about had it with the democratic party. We have a candidate and Hillary and Bill and Carville and the media et al are doing everything to take him down so they can say to the super whimps that he's not electable? FEH!
We're supposed to have a democracy (Diebold aside). Hilary herself says let the votes count, but only when they count in her favor? Uh Uh.
"NOT THIS TIME!"
Go ahead and seat them, but not 50/50. Should be 75Obama/25Clinton. He gets the bonus for following the rules. And he would have ended up with Edward's delegates, so it would be doubly fair.
Lou @ 1:
i am with you. the votes should just be split. that's fair.
obama complied with the rules and hill did not.
you don't reward those who break the rules to win.
and that includes hillary.
This nickel has long since been spent. Why anyone thinks the point is worth arguing now is one too many for me.
If Hillary's truly got the goods, as she likes to go around saying, then by definition she shouldn't even need Florida and Michigan. All her posturing about the rules doesn't make her look fair-minded; it makes her look like a whiny, pathetic panderer.
Florida and Michigan's voters got screwed, and the blame rightfully goes to those officials who wouldn't follow the rules. Giving a pass now would set a dangerous precedent, to say nothing of giving the GOP plenty of ammunition between now and November('those liberals won't even follow their own election rules; why should anyone trust them to 'restore the rule of law?').
moniker @ 4:
that seems best for the next election.
the electoral college should have been dropped
yrs ago. this should be a vote by the public
and popular vote should win. the only reason the
repigs don't like this, is because it's just harder to rig.
Long Tooth @ 68:
I'm sorry, Long Tooth, but your wrong concerning Nicole.
In Michigan this plan helps Obama a hell of a lot more than Hillary. If there was a do-over, I'm pretty sure she'd beat him by a bit more. The only county she lost to "uncommited" in the primary was Washtenaw (Ann Arbor), and she won by a wider margin in most of the rest of the state by comfortable margins.
And if the Dems found a way to hold the do-over there would be no stopping Repugs from astroturfing en masse. We had pretty high turnout in our GOP primary, due to native Michigander Mittens Romney then-still-breathing campaign.
DD @ 70:
Thye rules weren't that the candidates be required to remove their names from the ballot. The rule was that any candidate who campaigned would be sanctioned.
MJAG @ 54:
Ditto
I am really tired of this the MI and FL delegate issue. Both Obama and Hillary agreed to the rules before they started, but Hillary didn't think Obama could touch her...well she was wrong and now she is whining about the unseated delegates. I believe they should stay unseated and that is that.
I am going to just go ahead and call it now. McCain wins! The way the dems are handling this whole situation is terrible and I am sick of watching it. Saying that I am sick of watching it is huge...I am a political junkie and enjoy keeping tabs on everything. This one though has taken me over the edge.
Let the votes rust in the rust belt.
Why break the rules for hillary's benefit?
Why allow hillary to set the rules in her benefit?
How about penalizing Hillary for keeping her name on the ballot in violation of DNC policy (and for whining) by seating everyone except her delegates? That makes as much sense as this.
Before the Michigan vote, Hillary said she didn't have to remove her name because the delegates would not be counted. Now she's changed her story.
Nope, not signing this at all.
Sorry, no one can go back in time to correct this error. Voters and candidates were told that the votes would not count. You cannot count them in any way now except maybe, take half the delegates away and split them 50/50 to give them a voice. Listen to how McAliffe threatened Michigan in 2002 or 2003 when they tried to move up. I don't get this 'penalize Obama for taking his name off' business. This sounds alot like Hillary 'he didn't have to take his name off'. Why did anyone leave their name on or off? This sounds odd to me. Either all on or all off. You cannot go back because people did not go to vote because they were told it would not count. Those 2 primaries are invalid, you cannot base anything on them, they are tainted beyond repair. Look at the statements of Ickes and McAliffe in the past. I saw the snark from the guy from Florida when they moved up the primaries. Dean needs to keep his foot down on this. Fix it for next time, but this crap is DONE!!
moniker @ 4:
2012? Hmmm...that coincides with the year the Mayan calendar ends. The Dems must have screwed that up, too.
If hillary is so concerned about seating MI and FL why didn't she so from jump street?
hillary is looking more like a big fat lying clown.
If she undermines the process she is no better than her husband.
She needs to buck up and take her medicine.
"... a rather brilliant solution to seating Michigan’s delegates ..."
May I ask, what is "brilliant" about it. As has been said numerous times above, the rules were clear and Hillary decided to violate them. Now she wants to be rewarded? Why?
When this selction process started, I had an open attitude toward all of the candidates. I was content that whoever prevailed, I could get behind the result. My belief was that e we were all joined together as part of larger process, and we could put aside our difference for the larger goal.
I now have a large problem with Hillary. I doubt that I could support her in the fall. She seems to think that the object of this exercise is for her to win, no matter what it takes. She has approached the process with the idea that she will do whatever it takes to win no matter how her actions affect the prospects of our party in the fall. To her and her husband, the object is their victory, not the victory of the Democratic Party. At this point, I am really not OK with handing the presidency over to Hillary and Bill so that they can collect another $109 million -- primarily by selling themselves to interests that are seeking to screw the American public.
Let's let the process follow its course according to the rules that were established before the game began. If Hillary can win according to the rules (not rules that are bent to satisfy her unreasonable demands), so be it. If she can prove to me that she really does support the larger purposes of the Democratic Party, I will support her. But changing the rules in midstream is simply another demonstration of Hillary's insatiable arrogance and I cannot support that approach.
Yeah, I have to agree. Any solution that rewards Hillary for breaking the rules means every candidate now always has to leave his name on the ballot just in case. Plus, it's gross.
Marcy Wheeler and Crooks and Liars (Nicole Belle in particular) are starting to show their true colors. They support a Democratic Crook and Liar. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
While it isn't the fault of the person proposing this solution that the is, in fact, a Clusterfuck, but this idea is inherently flawed. The fact that Obama is penalized, even slightly, for complying with DNC rules and removing his name from the ballot is simply a non-starter. You can't make up a new rule that penalizes the only candidate that complied with and continues to support the rules that were in place in the original contest.
Michigan and Florida made choices, and choices have consequences. We are not the GOP, we can't run away from our mistakes.
No!
Not no, but HELL NO!
no way am i signing a petition that advocates penalizing Obama for following the rules while rewarding Clinton for breaking them.