Clinton could have some MI delegates, but refuses compromise deal

[themaguffin]

"Michigan Democrats on Wednesday voted to back a plan that would give Clinton 69 delegates — four fewer than the 73 she gained by winning the state's Jan. 15 primary. Obama would get 59 pledged delegates even though he took his name off the ballot, forcing his supporters to vote for Uncommitted."


Sorry the only fair thing to do is to cut the number of delegates and then split them evenly. The unsanctioned contest should be recognized in its illegitimate form. It creates a horrible precendent and it's not right - or fair to the other states.

That said, at this point, it doesn't mean much and the proposed split would be essentially ok, but nope not for her.

Given that attitude, the proposal should be removed and grown ups should have a talk with her.


http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/michigan/index.ssf?/base/news-53/1210278259196040.xml&storylist=newsmichigan

[LisaM]

1. Some of the uncommitted votes are Hillary supporters

My family, for three.

[Independent-Voter]

33. Probably should have voted for Veruca when you had the chance then.

[last1standing]

35. And many, many Obama supporters didn't vote because they were told it wouldn't count.

Others voted in the repub primary to throw off that contest for the same reason.

Should these people be punished for the backroom dealings of our legislature?

[LisaM]

38. They were told to vote uncommitted

in the event that they could take an uncommitted slate to the convention and possibly seat delegates based on that. Presumably, they did so.

[last1standing]

40. I was here, Lisa. We were told a lot of things by several people.

The worst of which was that voting uncommitted could lead to giving our votes to Hillary because the pro-Hillary legislature would be deciding who would represent the "uncommitteds". At this point there is no really fair way to fix the shambles our reps made of this primary, but the best way is to do what they've finally done. Apportion the delegates in a somewhat reasonable manner that does not silence the voices of people like myself who were not given a chance to vote for our candidate.

And before you suggest that it was Obama's fault for taking his name out of contention, all the candidates signed pledges to do just that. Anyone who didn't deserves less of my respect than those who did (excluding Kucinich who apparently screwed up his paperwork).

[LisaM]

42. Well, I made my views clear well before the primary

I thought that Michigan and Florida, as two hugely important states, both with severe economic issues, deserved to have earlier primaries. It still pisses me off that the DNC couldn't see this. Yes, as events transpired, they would have had a voice anyway, but who knew that then?

When my mother gets a mailer from the DNC, she mails it back with this message: If you don't want my vote, why do you want my money? And she is probably the most committed Democrat you'll meet; she's worked in her county party for over 40 years, and was a delegate at the last convention.

As it turned out, the chain of events ultimately favored Obama. Florida at least would have gone for Hillary, Michigan had a good chance. But Iowa, and then South Carolina injected Obama's campaign with momentum. Even in Nevada, which Hillary won, Obama STILL ended up with more delegates and people were all over her case when a union that endorsed her complained that a union that endorsed Obama got to vote ON THE JOB. (What's my solution? Hold a primary, not a caucus).

At the time I was an Edwards supporter. When Obama won Iowa, I knew it was over for Edwards. It was extremely upsetting to me. It still bothers me that his candidacy was so ignored by the media.

[last1standing]

45. I would have liked having Michigan's primary moved up as well, but they agreed to this.

ALL the states agreed to the schedule and it was only after that the MI politicians decided to do a end around for Hillary's campaign. The proper method for highlighting our dire straits was not to try and make it a slam dunk for a single candidate. Instead they should remained uncommitted, themselves, and worked to get as much interest in the state's primary as possible. By endorsing Hillary, en masse, they were trying to do anything but that.

As for your mother, she's certainly entitled to her opinion, as I am mine. I've stopped giving to the local pols and send more to the DNC now. Perhaps she can make up my difference with the MI politicians as I make up hers with the DNC. :)

And I was an Edwards supporter at the time as well. I'm not pissed off because Obama is losing delegates in this state (he wins regardless), I'm pissed off because I was never given a chance to express my support due to the power grubbing of back room dealers. Edwards wouldn't have won Michigan, but he would have been represented. In losing that representation, the entire nation loses out on hearing what REAL blue collar, rust belt workers in a depressed economy think about the direction of this country. Maybe that's what the media wanted as well. :shrug:

[LisaM]

46. I think we essentially agree. What bothers me the most

is that some of the reasons for moving Michigan's primary up were good ones. Michigan slipped into recession a while ago and wanted a voice to address those issues. I started framing this concept of having the primaries on a need-based system - you know, like the football draft. Of course, if the states used their "picks" the way the Lions do, my system would fail!

[last1standing]

53. I'd prefer your method as well.

And there were good reasons for moving the primary up, but those weren't the reasons it was done. What would have really brought attention to Michigan's plight would have been a full page ad in the NY Times or USA Today featuring Michigan representatives asking the candidates what they would do to specifically help our state. If that had appeared in January or February, it would have created a storm of controversy and the media would have been forced to ask the candidates their opinions. Instead we got a no show primary and a presidential nominee who owes Michigan absolutely no allegiance. Not the brightest move.

I'd also like to ask what the DNC was supposed to do when Michigan broke the rules they had agreed to? If you remember the season was already moved forward because of their antics and was in danger of being pushed into 2007. If Dean and the DNC hadn't revoked our delegates, the legislature would have continued pushing it forward as they were talking about doing. If they had let Michigan get away with this, what would have stopped more states from doing it in the next primary? Nothing. There was no choice but to do what was done.

I hope that now the MI politicians are trying to resolve their stupidity that we can find a way to bring the state back on board, but we also have to remember that it was the state that pushed for the showdown. They can't whine too much when they find that they were outgunned by the DNC.

[rox63]

48. So why didn't you vote for her on election day? n/t

[marshall]

50. Why not vote for Hillary then?

Why vote uncommitted when Hillary's name is staring back at you from the ballot, probably the only recognizable name there?

[lligrd]

2. Why Does Hillary Want To Disenfranchise Michigan?

Why does she hate the people of Michigan?

[BenDavid]

3. I agree with HRC. Hell, it was obama that pulled his name off the

list. No one forced him too. Just like Dodd and Dennis left their names on. Now obama is wanting ten less delegates then HRC cause his sorry ass believes he is entitled to them. DAMN! What an arrogant prick.

Oh and to you obama folks, maybe you can answer this question. What the hell is the goal now of the democratic party? Is it to nominate a black man for the sake of saying the dems were the first to nominate a black? If that is the case then vote for obama. BUT what if the goal of the Dems is to win the White House?

[themaguffin]

4. The contest was not sanctioned. Please go to the freepers if you want to treat someone like a fool.

and to your ridiculous question, Obama WON more DELEGATES.

Look at the rules and then look at the numbers.

Then come back.

[DevonRex]

6. That poster's remarks made me so angry. He has to bring race

into this issue? What the fuck is wrong with some people. I'm so pissed off I'm shaking.

[Kittycat]

19. He ALWAYS makes racist comments.

This is nothing new coming from BD.

[DevonRex]

24. I have had that poster on ignore for a long time but now he's

visible again. OMG.

[Independent-Voter]

34. I don't get that crazy Jewish dude. Seems to have some race issues.

[DevonRex]

5. Why the hell do you bring race into this???? WHY????

Did you see ANYTHING in the OP about race?

Good God.

[SoonerPride]

7. Another racist post from ignored, huh?

Why the mods don't tomnstone that shit is fucking beyond me.

TO IGNORED (WHOEVER THEY MAY BE): HEY, YOU RACIST MOTHERFUCKER. THERE IS ONLY ONE RACE. THE HUMAN RACE. STOP THE DIVISIVE BULLSHIT OR GET THE FUCK OFF DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND.

[DerekJ]

11. You mean Benny?!! He just forgot his Meds again.

[grantcart]

21. he needs an implant drip seems to forget a lot

[scheming daemons]

8. BenDavid may be the most racist poster in DU... and THAT is saying something....

It's a pattern.


Actually... there may be those that are more racist than him, but they hide it better.

[FlaGranny]

12. Why does someone bring race into it?

Because . . . you know why.

[Lucky 13]

9. Yes BenDavid and the only reason Lieberman was the VP nom was...

for the sake of saying dems were the first to nominate a jew.

:sarcasm:

GET SOME SENSE.

Don't you understand that the rest of us see him has an incredible candidate who just happens to be black? NOT the black candidate we support for his skin color?

[KAZ]

10. The goal? To get you the fuck out.

Racist POS.

[DevonRex]

14. LOL. Thank you. I needed that. :)

[Jazzgirl]

32. He is a racist piece of shit which is why I have him on ignore

too. I'll be glad when the pizza gets delivered to him.

[KAZ]

58. Ain't gonna happen with this one. BD is Davey's best Friend.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

13. "Is it to nominate a black man for the sake of saying the dems were the first to nominate a black?"

You are such an ass.

[onenote]

17. The goal is to nominate the best candidate for the party. And that's Obama

Sorry. And if you want to see an arrogant prick, I suggest you get a mirror.

[graycem]

25. You really should be ashamed

of those remarks. You insult everyone who voted for him for plenty of VALID reasons other than his color. You insult him by saying he is nothing more than his color. You implying that he's an affirmative action candidate absolutely sucks. The entire problem with your little theory is that, if things are as Hillary wants us to believe, he's only attracting the "black" vote and the "college educated" vote, then I will trust the college educated people to make a wiser choice than her low information voters who are voting for her because they want good ole' boy Bill back in office or because she's a girl. I probably should remind you that racism and sexism go hand in hand. So essentially, even if she did get the nomination, those "hard working WHITE males" voting for her now, won't be voting for her in the fall. Her WHITE southern governor husband couldn't even win a majority of them, no Democrat ever does, and she certainly would not. So I think you should reframe your argument because it is patently false.

[reflection]

27. The "goal" is to embrace the black candidate

when he has effectively won, not sacrifice him on the altar of proxy racism for short-term gain.

[Doityourself]

30. Yeah like your Shero...the black man can't win. Nice.

[Exilednight]

36. He wasn't forced to take his name off the ballot, he was asked. Hillary was also asked, but .......

decided to go against the wishes of the DNC.

There’s the fact that Hillary Clinton’s name and the uncommitted slate was the only thing that was on the ballot in Michigan because the Democratic National Committee asked the other candidates to withdraw their names from the ballot. So, here you have the institution itself asking people to pull their names off the ballot.



All of them, yes. That’s what--I don’t know what I just said-But, OK, that’s what I thought I said.

[salbi]

41. What a racist thing to say

"Oh and to you obama folks, maybe you can answer this question. What the hell is the goal now of the democratic party? Is it to nominate a black man for the sake of saying the dems were the first to nominate a black?"

My support for Obama has NOTHING to do with the color of his skin. I hope for the sake of our country and future generations that Obama is our next president. I wish you could see that most democrats can see past color, I'm sorry you can't.

[TahitiNut]

43. Just keep beating that racist drum. Despicable!

:grr: :grr:

[rox63]

52. I just emptied out my ignore list a couple of days ago

And your racist comments are making me seriously regret that decision. :puke:

[Brundle_Fly]

54. oh and thinking

all the delegates should NOW go to hillary who signed off on and was quoted as saying the votes there wouldn't count.

if there had been an election there, going by the balance of all her other wins, you can extrapolate she'd have maybe just broken even or slightly ahead, giving her 60% IS MORE THAN FAIR.

WAHH OBAMA WASN'T ON THE BALLOT, HE SHOULDN'T HAVE ANY OF THE WORTHLESS DELEGATES...

Funny, to me you're the one sounding like a prick.

[lligrd]

56. Yeah, It's Obama's Fault For Playing By The Rules

Whatever!!

[MonkeyFunk]

15. Only in Obamaland is it fair

not just to give Obama delegates in a state he didn't even run in, but to give him MORE delegates even uncommitted got.

[onenote]

18. How would you divide the delegates?

I'm not sure what the right answer is. I'm sincerely soliciting input from those that disagree with the proposals described in the OP.

[themaguffin]

20. the focus should only be MI representation, not rewarding an unsanctioned election

seating them 50/50 lets Michigan be recognized without recognizing the flawed, illegitimate results.

[MonkeyFunk]

29. a 50/50 split

has the same exact effect as not seating them at all.

[themaguffin]

31. no, it doesn't mean that at all

[MonkeyFunk]

47. Yes it does

as far as getting closer to the nomination, it's the same as not seating them at all.

[thoughtcrime1984]

39. She was offered 69-59

Let me guess, she wants 128-0, right? This is over, regardless. There has to be repercussions to the breaking of DNC rules. The blame lies with the state legislature and Governor.

[Exilednight]

37. Is it fair to allow any MI delegates to be seated considering 'all' the candidates were asked ......

to remove their name from the ballot? Why should Hillary be rewarded for breaking the rules?

And before you said she wasn't asked to remove her name, read this.

There’s the fact that Hillary Clinton’s name and the uncommitted slate was the only thing that was on the ballot in Michigan because the Democratic National Committee asked the other candidates to withdraw their names from the ballot. So, here you have the institution itself asking people to pull their names off the ballot.

-Fellow panel member says: “Not the other ones; they asked all of them.-

All of them, yes. That’s what--I don’t know what I just said-But, OK, that’s what I thought I said.

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/05/dnc_rules_commi.html

[MonkeyFunk]

49. Who asked the candidates to remove their names?

Did the DNC? Did Howard Dean?

HOw come nobody at the time, and nobody now, is saying that the candidates were asked to remove their names. Is Howard Dean making that case? No.

It's just another obama fan lie.

[Exilednight]

57. The DNC asked them to remove their names. n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

59. When? How?

Why did nobody complain at the time at they were violating the rules by keeping their names on the ballot? Why does nobody make that claim now?

I'm supposed to believe it just cuz you say so? You'll have to do better than that - Obama fans don't have a good record with the truth.

[TexasObserver]

16. Hillary should have taken that deal. It's never going to get better.

It's that irrational quality about Hillary that has killed her campaign and dreams of being president. Every battle with her comes down to either a tantrum or a pout, neither of which work.

Time to send the brat packing.

[bobbert]

22. wow, if she it too stubborn to accept a 69-59 split I hope it goes

64-64 in the end. The DNC will not give her more leverage on a sham election that was against the rules, I'm sure this is the most she will get.

[AtomicKitten]

23. She is the one officially mucking up the process with her unreasonable demands.

[graycem]

26. Because the truth is

she doesn't want it settled. If it were settled, the results would show she still loses and then she'd have no argument left for remaining in the race. Even with FL and MI seated, as is, she still loses. I really think she's staying in at this point in hopes that he implodes. That's the only thing that makes sense.

[ShortnFiery]

28. Superdelegates?!? CLEAN-UP on aisle 666.

:evilgrin:

[TahitiNut]

44. The poltical carpetbaggers continue to play vultures over the carcass of Michigan's Primary FUBAR.

The Democratic Party "Insiders" FUCKED UP ... BIG TIME! Insult added to injury. Keep it up and the margin of the GOP 'win' in Michigan keeps growing.

Imbeciles!

:grr:

[jillan]

51. Hillary wanted a RE-VOTE! It was Obama that stopped democracy.

[kwenu]

55. No. The committee should split the delegates 50-50 leaving an appropriate punishment

in place. Michigan and Florida earned the DNC whoopin honestly and it should stand as a clear reminder to any other states considering such an arrogant move.

[Aloha Spirit]

60. Can someone tell me how HRC will get anything done as Prez if she cannot compromise on this?

[Tatiana]

61. Why can't they just do a June caucus? n/t

[mattclearing]

62. Where was this backbone when the IWR was being debated? n/t