Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Michigan Case Begins

INSIDE THE RULES AND BYLAWS COMMITTEE MEETING -- Mark Brewer, the chairman of the Michigan Democratic Party, has taken his seat in the eye of the storm to make a pitch for the full recognition of the Wolverine State.

Solving Michigan is likely to prove far trickier than the Florida debate, which seems headed to an adoption of the Ausman proposal -- a full seating of the state's 23 superdelegates and a seating of half of the 185 pledged delegates -- due to the fact that Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) removed his name from the ballot in Michigan.

That meant that while Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) "won" the state's primary, the validity of the results remains a major hurdle. And then, even if the results are validated, the question of how to parcel out the "uncommitted" votes remains unresolved.

Brewer is backing a proposal that would split the state's delegates 69 for Clinton to 59 for Obama -- arguing that both candidates' urged their backers to cast a vote in the primary and therefore grants Michigan the right to have their primary counted. He called the compromise a "fair representation" of the views of voters in the state at the time the primary as held.

The Michigan proposal is based on primary results, exit polling conducted on the day of the debate and the state party's survey of uncounted write-in votes, according to Brewer.

During the question and answer session, Brewer acknowledged the difficulty of Michigan's situation -- seeking to reverse engineer the results of a primary in which only one of the two remaining candidates appeared on the ballot.

"I wish there was more, I wish it was better," said Brewer. "It's all we have."

Elaine Kamarck, a Clinton backer and RBC member, dismissed the proposal as "willy nilly" in terms of its allocation of delegates, adding: "This way lays chaos."

Remember that no matter what happens today or tonight (gulp) will not change the fact that Obama has a clear pledged delegate lead over Clinton. The debate is largely a symbolic one. If the Rules and Bylaws Committee recognizes Florida and Michigan in one form or another, it will give Clinton some level of standing to insist that she is the popular vote leader and to continue on in the contest.

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 31, 2008; 12:33 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Wexler: The Rules are the Rules
Next: Michigan Blames New Hampshire

Comments

As a woman, I am deeply saddened by the complete ineptitude of Hillary Clinton's campaign and the no-rules alternate reality that she's created for her more hysterical supporters through a series of ever-changing variations on the theme of "I'd be the nominee IF..."

Enough is enough. This is NOT about feminism (or racism). It's about the FATE of our nation!

It's time for the Clintons - and their supporters - to get real. By any RATIONAL measure, she lost (largely due to her own poor judgments and outright blunders).

So PLEASE just get quiet for awhile as you go through the grieving process and come back when it's possible to public forums like this one once you can have a RATIONAL conversation about the FACTS of our COLLECTIVE reality.

THEN this conversation can be productive.

But NOT till then.

Posted by: Carmen Cameron | June 1, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

I would be satisfied with either candidate, however I think it was Hillary who proclaimed "If you can't stand the heat .. get out of the kitchen" ? If Ms. Clinton doesn't like the unfolding scenario -- perhaps she should have never sanctioned it in the first place. It's a repeat of her failure to stand up against the war. Flip-flopping after the fact only weakens a candidates credibility.

The American people don't like hypocrites or cheaters. Neither do they like shills acting on behalf of the candidates. ESPECIALLY THOSE WHOM NEED TO CAPITALIZE THEIR ARGUMENTS. It's unfortunate both states weren't denied credentials or if necessary split down the middle. Now there is a perception that some justification exists for changing the rules. What a way to legitimize the Bush legacy.

Posted by: Nun A. Tak | June 1, 2008 3:36 AM | Report abuse

I would be satisfied with either candidate, however I think it was Hillary who proclaimed "If you can't stand the heat .. get out of the kitchen" ? If Ms. Clinton doesn't like the unfolding scenario -- perhaps she should have never sanctioned it in the first place. It's a repeat of her failure to stand up against the war. Flip-flopping after the fact only weakens a candidates credibility.

The American people don't like hypocrites or cheaters. Neither do they like shills acting on behalf of the candidates. ESPECIALLY THOSE WHOM NEED TO CAPITALIZE THEIR ARGUMENTS. It's unfortunate both states weren't denied credentials or if necessary split down the middle. Now there is a perception that some justification exists for changing the rules. What a way to legitimize the Bush legacy.

Posted by: Nun A. Tak | June 1, 2008 2:34 AM | Report abuse

Thank you DNC for attempting a fair, balanced judgment based on the entirety of the situation. I expected no more or less for either candidate, without bias. I am appreciative of your efforts.

Posted by: Obama2008 | May 31, 2008 10:37 PM | Report abuse

CALL FOR DNC TO REMOVE RACIST RULES AND BY LAW COMMITTEE MEMBER:
DONNA BRAZILE


To: DNC Chairman, Dr. Howard Dean
From: Informed Democrats
Re: Donna Brazile's Overt Racism
Date: Until Michigan and Florida are Seated

Dr. Dean,

As a lifelong Democrat, I was horrified to hear DNC member Donna Brazile representing, speaking and acting as the card carrying, overt racist of the Rules and By-Laws Committee.

In America, where racism has been a deep and tarnished thread in the fabric of our nation's diverse and quilted history; it would appear to all thinking and informed Democrats that you, Dr. Dean would have placed diverse, patriotic and openly aware individuals on the committee to represent our fine and beloved party.

However, as I viewed Ms. Brazile's overtly, Ebonically displayed tirades; I realized you must have been hoodwinked to have placed such an overt racist, the likes of Donna Brazile on the Rules and By-Laws Committee.

Ms. Brazile's buffoonish, gyrating, and overt Ebonic antics as she communicated with the African American press corps, during the break, shows there is no room for this type of person on the Rules and By-Laws Committee.

Now before you scream RACISM, I am an intelligent, educated, Christian, articulate, true African American female-who is more AMERICAN than anything else. My nationality supersedes my ethnicity.

Again, my nationality supersedes my ethnicity. I am an AMERICAN.

Ms. Brazile's comments, behaviors and actions were more in the tradition of the post Civil War, Reconstructionist Republican Party.

Throughout the history of the United States of America, we have been fortunate to have had many major political parties: Republican, Federalist, Democratic Republican, Whig, Free Soil Party, Know Nothings, Populist, Progressive, Bull Moose, Reform and of course, our beloved Democratic Party.

We are Americans; therefore, we are bright, intelligent, literate, passionate, honest, and hard-working and sometimes Bible thumping and Second Amendment gun-totters.

Therefore, for the love of our Democratic Party, please cease and desist your Rules and By-Laws Committee member-Donna Brazile's deplorable actions against Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and seat Michigan and Florida as the voices of the voters intended, and award her the delegates she EARNED fair and square.

Why embarrass the Democratic Party any further by awarding the nomination to the media created Manchurian Candidate Obama and wait for the Republicans and the 529 to unload to the world Obama's unelectable dirty laundry: Antoin Rezko, Larry Sinclair, Father Michael Plerger, William Ayers, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Iraqi born Aiham Alsammarae, the former electricity minister convicted of corruption in Iraq and his deal with Obama and Rezko to build nuclear power plants in Iraq-a nation we are currently at war?

Why would our party want an Illinois Combine, mob-backed, mafia owned, as of today, unindicted criminal as Barack Obama as our parties nominee?

Senator Obama is arrogant, presumptive and condescending to say, "I will allow her half of the delegates". Who does he think he is? He is not the Great Barack O'Mighty the media has created; he is only a CANDIDATE for the presidency of the United States of America. He is not President, or even God-forbid the Democratic nominee.

Donna Brazile has embarrassed America today.

Her lack pf professionalism, inarticulate Ebonics and gyrations were inappropriate and uncalled for in the setting.

Since Ms. Brazile's comments, behaviors and actions were more in the tradition of the post Civil War, Reconstructionist Republican Party, can she pleased be removed from our fine and illustrious Democratic Parties Rules and By-Laws Committee?

Dr. Dean, there is no room for her overt marginalism for one race, one candidate at the disenfranchisement of all other affinity groups within the Democratic Party.

Ms. Brazile's actions show us she is the Scott McClellan of the Democratic Party. As Senator Dole said yesterday regarding Scott McClellan's betrayal of the Bush Administration, I am in agreement today regarding Ms. Brazile's betrayal of the Clinton's.

Ms. Brazile would have received more respect if she'd left her cushy job during the Clinton administration; instead today she is only an INGRATE.

Ms. Brazile's from the Democratic Party Rules and By-Laws Committee must come immediately.


Democratically Yours,


Informed Democrat

Posted by: Informed Democrat | May 31, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

I'm sick and tired of hearing about apportioning delegates based on nothing more than caucuses composed of party loyalists voted upon by no one. I'm sick and tired of hearing about apportioning delegates based on nothing more than an arbitrary method of determining how many delegates are awarded from each district. I'm sick and tired of hearing about uncommitted delegates with the power trash the will of the voters simply because the party doesn't like the people's choice. I'm tired of watching Hillary's surrogates and Obama's surrogates try to finesse the Rules Committee for their candidate's advantage.

Whatever happened to MAKING EVERY LEGITIMATE VOTE COUNT?

It's time the Democratic Party ran their Primaries the same way the Federal Government runs its election. Delegates are apportioned according to population and WINNER TAKE All.!!

Posted by: Tired | May 31, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

OK you young folks settle down. Obama's representation is trying to manipulate this vote the same way he eliminated the two from Ill. that were running againts him for Senate. Did you watch 360 last night. He adopts his own rules and searches for ever nix and cranney he can to achieve his Activist Liberal objective. I suggest you young folks stop blogging and start researching and vetting him. Because believe me the republicans have enough on him to cause our election in NOV.

Posted by: bettyeVA | May 31, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse


Michigan is complicated. Seat them fully (or seat half the delegates) at 50/50. Its the only fair thing to do-- all the DNC people are calling the election "flawed" --- you can't pretend a "flawed" election is legitimate. It's the DNC's fault for nullifying the vote.

Posted by: metalica | May 31, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Neither primaries or the general election are decided by the popular vote.
The rules for the Democratic Party were determined before the primaries/caucuses started. In the rules there should be at least 50% penalty of delegates seated if the rules are violated.
Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama signed an agreement to abide by the rules.
Delegate selection in many states does include any provision to account for the popular vote. No rule agreed to by the candidates provides for the use of the total popular vote to count for any thing.
With all the grievances perceived by both candidates, why should the DNC add another wrong decision to the count?

Posted by: Kevin Sullivan | May 31, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

How do you folks think the Democratic party can rule this country if they can't get their s--- together? They are a mess. Never seen anything like it. Everything about them is really screw up: the primaries, caucases, Florida & Michigan, etc. And the comments coming out of you Democrats sound like you have no intelligence or education.

Posted by: Clyde Nugget | May 31, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

in caucuses they like make believe....you know..they saying you voted but you didn't......how do you know I would have voted or which way...how do you count it as a popular vote if they didn't vote?

Posted by: lucygirl1 | May 31, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

"it will give Clinton some level of standing to insist that she is the popular vote leader"

Chris, this is simply untrue, and as a reporter, you should be debunking this myth, not perpetuating it.

The only way Clinton claims popular the vote lead is to give Obama 0 votes for MI and to ignore a number of caucus states that Obama won. That's like saying the Patriots won the Super Bowl if you ignore some of the Giants' points.

Please, please, please correct this in a future column.

Posted by: Dan | May 31, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

duh Like I just said....obamas like you can't figure correctly....you failed math right?


lucygirl1 cried,

"you are correct dyinglikeflies..but the obamas can't figure..they will have to wait to see it on fox news"
________

Nope. You're just WRONG. And lying. Hillary is 600,000 behind in the popular vote as per the ACTUAL PRIMARY SEASON and the agreed-upon guidelines.

Sorry sweetie, but caucuses DO count and primaries Hillary agreed wouldn't count (and in one she was the only candidate on the ballot - what is this? Cuba?) DON'T COUNT. Nothing you can say will change this. There is no legitimate argument that Hillary leads the popular vote. None. Zero. Nada.

But as Hillary said after Iowa, "This isn't about states or popular vote. It's about delegates."...until she lost that, too.

Drink your Kool-Aid, darlin'.

Posted by: Shawn | May 31, 2008 4:56 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

lucygirl1 cried,

"you are correct dyinglikeflies..but the obamas can't figure..they will have to wait to see it on fox news"
________

Nope. You're just WRONG. And lying. Hillary is 600,000 behind in the popular vote as per the ACTUAL PRIMARY SEASON and the agreed-upon guidelines.

Sorry sweetie, but caucuses DO count and primaries Hillary agreed wouldn't count (and in one she was the only candidate on the ballot - what is this? Cuba?) DON'T COUNT. Nothing you can say will change this. There is no legitimate argument that Hillary leads the popular vote. None. Zero. Nada.

But as Hillary said after Iowa, "This isn't about states or popular vote. It's about delegates."...until she lost that, too.

Drink your Kool-Aid, darlin'.

Posted by: Shawn | May 31, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Dale Suppappola wrote:

"Are you people nuts!!!! Hillary Clinton stole nothing. She just had her name on the ballot. Please get in touch with reality."
________________

Here's some reality, Dale. In October, 2007. Hillary SAID:

"It's clear, this election they're having [in Michigan] is not going to count for anything."

Clinton said thid during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio's call-in program, "The Exchange."

Now she is trying to change the outcome because she lost. This is just a fact.

What is WRONG with you people?

Posted by: Shawn | May 31, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

you are correct dyinglikeflies..but the obamas can't figure..they will have to wait to see it on fox news


dyinglikeflies wrote:

"Clinton won the popular vote and neither won enough pledged delegates to win. She should be the nominee."

"In November, Obama, the illegitimate Democratic candidate, will lose. It doesn't take Nostradamus to figure this out."


Posted by: lucygirl1 | May 31, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

How can people say Clinton cheated thats rediculous. She kept her name on the ballot thats not illegal , the others chose to take their names off to embarass her. Oops, they made a mistake. Now, your telling me it was illeal for MICHIGAN to vote early ut its not illegal for the dnc to change the rules any way they want by giving Obama uncommited votes as if they voted for him. wH IS IT OK FOR THEM TO BEND THE RULES AS THEY PLEASE.

Posted by: Dale Suppappola | May 31, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Are you people nuts!!!! Hillary Clinton stole nothing. She just had her name on the ballot. Please get in touch with reality. Obama took his name off the Michgan ballot to embarass her,oops.

Posted by: Dale Suppappola | May 31, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

dyinglikeflies wrote:

"Clinton won the popular vote and neither won enough pledged delegates to win. She should be the nominee."

"In November, Obama, the illegitimate Democratic candidate, will lose. It doesn't take Nostradamus to figure this out."

__________

Except that she didn't win the popular vote by any rational standard. What - not counting caucuses and counting primaries where Hillary was the only one on the ballot? The fact is, Obama leads Hillary by 600,000 votes. Try again.

You know Obama is the rightful nominee and Clinton is trying to steal it. Everybody knows that. Though if you are stupid enough to believe otherwise, obviously your BIG PREDICTION is hilarious. You morons truly live in your own fantasy world, don't you?

Obama will beat McSame just like he beat Hillary.


Posted by: Shawn | May 31, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

who really cares what you want and does it really matter


Hillary Clinton and her deranged followers have made me sexist. I really don't want a woman president if Hillary and her screaming, delusional supporters are any indication of female "leadership" and approaches to problems. Yikes!

Posted by: Dave | May 31, 2008 4:19 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

"If the Rules and Bylaws Committee recognizes Florida and Michigan in one form or another, it will give Clinton some level of standing to insist that she is the popular vote leader and to continue on in the contest."

Seems like you're inflating or overstating it, Chris.

"If...one form or another....": Surely it depends on *which* form somewhat, doesn't it?

"it will give Clinton some level of standing to insist that she is the popular vote leader": becomes more difficult *if* she doesn't prevail in all remaining contests (and Puerto Rico doesn't vote for President of the United States), and *since* caucus states with obdurate popular votes, notably Iowa though arguably even Texas, cast most votes not for her but for Obama.

"to continue on in the contest": Whether Hillary Clinton "continues on" and thereby extends the contest to the detriment of all Democratic candidates and remaining loyal party members is less a function of her accumulation of popular votes than her willingness to continue acting as spoiler and to diss Barack Obama with Florida and Michigan voters, destabilizing his effort to head winning tickets across the nation in 2008 or potentially to hobble him for re-election in 2012.

Posted by: FirstMouse | May 31, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse


Hillary Clinton and her deranged followers have made me sexist. I really don't want a woman president if Hillary and her screaming, delusional supporters are any indication of female "leadership" and approaches to problems. Yikes!

Posted by: Dave | May 31, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Clinton won the popular vote and neither won enough pledged delegates to win. She should be the nominee.

Any other result is illegitimate.

In November, Obama, the illegitimate Democratic candidate, will lose. It doesn't take Nostradamus to figure this out.

Have a nice day!

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | May 31, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Both Clintons are pathetic. They need to go back to NY or Arkansas, or crawl back under whatever rock they came from & just leave america alone.

Posted by: acohn | May 31, 2008 4:05 PM

Do you mean to say crawl back under Little Rock where they came from? You got it.

DNC cannot govern its own party.
How can DNC govern the country?
BTW, I am an Independent, but this is very disturbing to watch.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

How is Clinton the "winner" in Michigan when she was the ONLY MAJOR CANDIDATE on the ballot??? Give her 100% of the delegates and Obama ZERO???

HOW"S that FAIR??? Find a couple wood stakes for the CLINTONS vampire somewhere!

Posted by: gregs | May 31, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

the end result is -howard dean like an old obstenate man demolished the wall and now trying to rebuild the same way which never happens.
OBAMA WILL BE THE NOMINEE , DEMOCRATIC PARTY WILL BE SPLIT AND SOME DISGRUNTLED VOTERS WILL BACK MCCAIN AND OBAM WILL BE THE LOSER AND HIS EGO WILL BE THE ROOT CAUSE OF FOR PATH OF DESTRUCTION OF DEMS AND AMERICA BECAUSE THE LAST PERSON WE WANT TO LEAD US AT PRESENT TIME IS MCCAIN.
MAY GOD BLESS AMERICA AND MAY MAKE AMERICANS TO THINK CLEAR.
bhagwan deol . los angeles

Posted by: bhagwan | May 31, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Is it really too much to expect a candidate for "leader of the free world" to follow the rules?

Those rules state MI & FL do not count. End of story.

Or maybe it all depends on the meaning of the word "is".

Both Clintons are pathetic. They need to go back to NY or Arkansas, or crawl back under whatever rock they came from & just leave america alone.

Posted by: acohn | May 31, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Well, after watching and listening to the Democratic Committe, the state reps, and the representative for both Senator Obama and Hilliary, I thought I'd bee take a break!! How can Ickes be allowed to represent Hilliary when he is a member of the DNC?? He & Wolfson helped creat the DNC rules as they stand today. Hilliary wants it ALL without compromise. She has lost the game already!! Damned her, she agrees with the rules when she is wearing the inevitability crown, when she finds herself losing, suddenly she wants those rules thrown out the window!! Those primaries in MI & FL were INVALID, how in the heck can she claim she won in these states when they were not valid primaries to begin with?? That woman is absolutely contemptible!!

Posted by: NinaK | May 31, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

I don't know why we're having this debate. Michigan DNC broke the rules and they should accept the consequences that were laid out long ago... and so should Hillary..

Hillary is pathetic

Posted by: kurthunt | May 31, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Please, people. I assume everyone commenting here is a Democrat. We all believe Bush is a terrible president; we all want to turn the country in the right direction again; we all know voting for McCain would mean 4 more years of Bush-like terrible policies. How can anyone who is a Democrat and concerned for our country's future consider voting for McCain even if your favored Democratic candidate isn't, in the end, the Democratic party candidate for President? Both Clinton and Obama are progressive Democrats even if they differ on some policies, and neither is anything like McCain.

Posted by: Chris H. | May 31, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

The penalties were laid out almost a year ago. This is typical Democratic Party spinelessness: never enforce the rules as everyone agreed to, because it's not fair.

This is why McCain will win in the fall: the Dems are soft on enforcing the law.

Posted by: Sirius | May 31, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

As a resident of Michigan and therefore in a state without a seated delegation, how does Sen. Carl Levin take it to the floor of the convention?

He cannot even step onto the floor without a credential, and it is a credentials fight over seating Carl Levin, among many others.

Posted by: Kacoo | May 31, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

What a waste of time and money (Obama is the inevitable nominee) just to appease Hillary!

All-or-nothing Hillary supporters claim they will defect and vote for McCain (or not vote at all) because Hillary is an also-ran!

Is Hillary a loyal Democrat or the head of a cult?

Hillary, the Queen of Spin and a Legend in Her Own Mind!

http://klintons.com

Posted by: Bob | May 31, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton and her followers...her legions of Hillary Wenches have managed to make this the most embarrasing and just plain stupidest primary I have ever witnessed. I am glad that I am a Independent and God knows my former party the Republican Party is full of morons. That being said. I will vote for a Democrat this year and I pray it is the legimate winner Barack Obama and not that shrilly witch Hillary Clinton. Call me sexist...I will call you that back.

Posted by: John Taylor Houston,TX | May 31, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

"Heck Obama was shouting "Race-card" so loud and often, I thought he was selling programs for NASCAR."

Now THAT is funny! Also pathetically true. Obams is a big NOTHING, all fluff and no substance.

McCain will be the next president being the lesser of 3 evils............

Posted by: toofunny | May 31, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Here is a newsflash for DYINGLIKEFLIES

The current Democratic presidential nomination process provides for a candidate to be selected base on the NUMBER OF DELEGATES.

The number of votes is only relevant in each state's primary to determine how to divide that state's delegates.

The caucuses' states do not track the popular vote. Also the Clinton were instrumental in putting the caucuses process in place in some states.

DO.YOUR.HOMEWORK.

Posted by: ZenNonna | May 31, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Here's a thought... Since the rules were known ahead of time why not do the law abiding thing and ignore both.

Wouldn't that be so simple.

Posted by: Mike DeBurgh | May 31, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse


Split it 50/50 or nothing. Hillary doesn't get points for cheating.

She is a disgrace.

Posted by: moi | May 31, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Either...(1) The Democratic Party should stick by their rules and seat neither state because they violated party rules (note: this would require some level of intestinal fortitude therfore making this impossible) or (2) Michigan and Florida should be seated in full with their delegates split equally among all candidates who had active campaigns at the time of primary. In any case, neither state should be allowed to influence the outcome of the primary; to do so will invite every other state to break party rules in future elections.

Posted by: Solomon | May 31, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

1. MI DNC broke the rule, NOT MI VOTER. MI votes should be counted, period.

2. OBAMA REMOVED HIS NAME FROM MI PRIMARY TO PLEASE ESTABLISHMENT (he is good at the game), HE DESERVE NO DELEGATE (who can prove those uncommitted would vote for him).

3. Regardless, I'll vote against Obama in the fall even if it means I have to vote for McCain. It's too risky to vote for some talker who has proved nothing. McCain is a decent man. He is not Bush, much safer than Obama.

Posted by: demformaccain | May 31, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

The party officials who voted to move their primaries too far forward should be stripped of their superdelegate status. It is they who broke the rules and should pay a penalty. In Michigan give Clinton the votes she received and Obama the others and let the chips fall. Everyone gets their vote counted except those who caused the problem.

Posted by: Valjean | May 31, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

1. MI DNC broke the rule, NOT MI VOTER. MI votes should be counted, period.

2. OBAMA REMOVED HIS NAME FROM MI PRIMARY TO PLEASE ESTABLISHMENT (he is good at the game), HE DESERVE NO DELEGATE (who can prove those uncommitted would vote for him).

3. Regardless, I'll vote against Obama in the fall even if it means I have to vote for McCain. It's too risky to vote for some talker who has proved nothing. McCain is a decent man. He is not Bush, much safer than Obama.

Posted by: demformaccain | May 31, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Why doesn't she just quit?

She won't be happy until all the votes are counted.

We don't need no stinkin' votes.. this race was over on January 7th, when the media, feeding on the polls that gave Obama the lead in New Hampshire, called it over for her.
Nevermind that Clinton won New Hampshire the following day, the die was cast. The media had their story line... and story ends in November ... with a new story to tell: "What went wrong with the Obama Campaign"


Posted by: mediahack | May 31, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Nutty Politics! I conclude the simple reason the Govenor gets so much tv presence is they feel if they sway the panels for Hillary he will have a chance for vp, vice president. Ickes doesn't look like a wrestler can't bend the arm that is winning.

Posted by: watching the debate | May 31, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

DONNA BRAZIL,
MY MOM SAID "FOLLOW THE RULES", TOO!! BUT THEY WERE ALWAYS THE SAME RULES! MONOPOLY RULES WERE ALWAYS THE SAME! WE DID NOT LET SOUTH CAROLINA GO AHEAD OF THE OTHER BOARD LOCATIONS AND SAY THAT IS FINE! YOU CANNOT PICK AND CHOOSE WHICH IS WHAT THE DNC DID! SO YOUR "FOLLOW THE RULES" SCENARIO IS A JOKE! ALSO, YOU GAVE NORTH CAROLINA 35 MORE DELEGATES! HOW NICE FOR OBAMA! THYE DNC IS CHEATING AND WE WILL NOT PUT UP WITH IT! OBAMA WILL NEVER BE OUR CHOICE. BETWEEN HIS LACK OF EXPERIENCE AND HIS WRIGHT "BLACK THEOLOGY" DEDICATION, HE IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL AMERICANS!
aND HE TOOK HIS NAME OFF THE BALLOT IN MICHIGAN AND WENT WITH LAWYERS TO MICHIGAN TO KEP MICHIGAN FROM HAVING ANOTHER PRIMARY! CHEATER! PERIOD! CHEATER! SO DO NOT SAY RULES ARE RULES! THE DNC HAS RULES FOR OBAMA AND RULES FOR HILLARY! AND THEY ARE NOT THE SAME! THIS IS RACISM AND SEXISM AT ITS WORST!!!!
HILLARY IS AT THE TOP OF THIS TICKET OR McCAIN WILL BE THE PRESIDENT! OBAMA WAS NEVER QUALIFIED! NEVER!! HOW HARD IS THIS TO UNDERSTAND??

SEVERAL STATES WENT AHEAD OF THEIR SCHEDULE!!!! SEVERAL! WHY WERE THEY NOT "PUNISHED?" WHY NO "TIME OUT?"
AND IT ALSO COST SUPER DELEGATES TO LEAVE HILLARY CLINTON WHEN MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA WERE NOT COUNTED!!!! IT MADE IT APPEAR THAT OBAMA WAS THE FRONT LEADER WHEN HE WAS NOT! SSO YOU HAVE BADLY HURST HILLARY! THE CANDIDATE THAT WAS DEDICATED TO THIS PARTY! OBAMA IS DEDICATED TO NOONE BUT WRIGHT AND AFRICA! NOT AMERICA! HE HAS DONE NOTHING FOR ASMERICANS! NOTHING! THE DNC SHOULD BE ASHAMED.
SO COUNT ALL OR NONE! COUNT FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN AS WELL AS SOUTH CAROLINA AND THE WEST SSTATES THAT WENT EARLY...OR DROP ALL OF THEM!!!! FAIR IS FAIR!
AND OBAMA WILL NEVER WIN A GE ANYWAY! AND THAT IS THE JOKE OF THE WHOLE THING!! ONLY CHANCE IS HILLARY AT THE TOP OF THE TICKET! AGAIN, AT THE TOP!
THIS WAS NOT JUST AN ELECTION FOR OBAMA!

Posted by: DEM THAT WILL LEAVE IF ALL NOT SEATED | May 31, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

yes you are confused


I am confused. Michigan has not had a sanctioned contest this year. So there have been no delegates selected. So why do Hillary's people keep whining about delegates being taken away?

No delegates have been apportioned. This meeting is to decide whether there should be and under what circumstances those delegates would be apportioned. Hillary will have not Michigan delegates until and unless that is decided. So how could any be taken away if she has none to begin with?

I know Ickes is claiming she has delegates. But the way things stand right now, that is a typical Clinton lie. Why isn't anyone pointing that out? Why are they letting her people present her a a victim who is going to have something taken away??

Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

As a practical matter, Michigan has proceeded to elect pledged Clinton and uncommitted Michigan delegates at district conventions. So, the process has proceeded despite the flawed primary.

Posted by: Marletter | May 31, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Clinton won the popular vote and neither won enough pledged delegates to win. She should be the nominee.

Any other result is illegitimate.

In November, Obama, the illegitimate Democratic candidate, will lose. It doesn't take Nostradamus to figure this out.

Have a nice day!

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | May 31, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

I am confused. Michigan has not had a sanctioned contest this year. So there have been no delegates selected. So why do Hillary's people keep whining about delegates being taken away?

No delegates have been apportioned. This meeting is to decide whether there should be and under what circumstances those delegates would be apportioned. Hillary will have not Michigan delegates until and unless that is decided. So how could any be taken away if she has none to begin with?

I know Ickes is claiming she has delegates. But the way things stand right now, that is a typical Clinton lie. Why isn't anyone pointing that out? Why are they letting her people present her a a victim who is going to have something taken away??

Posted by: CJKatl | May 31, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Both MI and FL voters should protest in their own state against their own Dem officials, instead of D.C.

They did not speak up when their party leaders decided to go against the rules.
What's the use to protest now?

Rules are rules. Even little leagues understand fully "Rules are rules."
If their party leaders do not represent the voters, vote them out soon as they cannot lead.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Armchair quarter-backing is a wishy-washy way to sew things up. It's unfair to both candidates and also state delegates. I'm disappointed in Ms. Clintons interpretations, as it reinforces her image as a sore loser and a cheater. I'm also disappointed in Mr. Obama's willingness to make concessions and risk looking weak. It's a slippery slope to being painted as too accommodating.

If the rules were never absolute, then why bother having them? If everything is open to interpretation -- how can primaries be valid? If it's absolutely necessary to appease Michigan and Florida, then the best that should happen is a neutral outcome with votes being split straight down the middle. This isn't fair to Hillary, but it also isn't fair to armchair quarterback. Cheating or breaking rules is not a very good way to demonstrate political leadership.

Posted by: Nun A. Tak | May 31, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

why should they count..they didn't vote or did you know that?


I'm very sceptical of Hilary's claim to the popular vote. My understanding is she not counting the caucus states in her argument that she has the lead in the popular vote.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

How can people say Clinton cheated thats rediculous. She kept her name on the ballot thats not illegal , the others chose to take their names off to embarass her. Oops, they made a mistake. Now, your telling me it was illeal for MICHIGAN to vote early ut its not illegal for the dnc to change the rules any way they want by giving Obama uncommited votes as if they voted for him. wH IS IT OK FOR THEM TO BEND THE RULES AS THEY PLEASE.

Posted by: Dale Suppappola | May 31, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

This is disgusting; a pox on all political parties and their machinations. Hillary is the last person on Earth I want as my leader; except for Bush and Pappy McBush. I'll vote for the witch while holding my nose and pray she decides she can have more balls than George or Bill without bombing the world back into the stone age...or is that the solution to global warming? One thing is sure; nothing like Hill to invigorate the Republican nut cases; and Hill will continue the national split for as long as she exists; and she and Bill are charter members of the Fascist corporate culture and their bucks!
What a sick, sick lady; I know you women are surely pissed at men in general; but can you not find someone with a little less baggage? Does it not matter that she has already had 8 mediocre years in the White House? Surely you ladies can do better!

Posted by: Chaotician | May 31, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

I live in Michigan and can assure you the process here was screwed up beyond all rational belief. But I believe Andrea Mitchell was suggesting that Obama may have worked out a deal with Governor Granholm--the idea being I guess that our delegation gets seated on terms that are not humiliating but Michigan's superdelegates, led by Granholm, go to Obama.

Anyone who thinks Hillary is ahead in the popular vote is either an idiot or an Ickes.

Posted by: Quentin | May 31, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has ended her political career. She has many independents and Republicans that don't like or trust her and now she has added many Democrats to that group. She will never be president, even if she was the nominee now or in 8 years because she has burned too many bridges of trust. She won't get reelected to the Senate and she will never be elected Governor. The best she can hope for is Obama to win and appoint her to the Surpeme Court because many Democrats are not going to rush out and vote for Hillary after this campaign. She has destroyed her own credibility

Posted by: Scott | May 31, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

WHAT CHANGE? . . . . Barack Obama says he's for change, but he's never laid out a real plan.

However, if you look at the way he does business, there is no change at all.
1) Stonewalling Florida and Michigan, much like George Bush did Florida in 2000.
2) Ultra-quick to accuse his chief opponents of playing race-cards, even though his reasoning has been so convoluted as to leave anyone dizzy who tries to believe it or defend it for that matter. . . . . Is this how the White House is going to CHANGE in the next four years? Instead of accusing opponents of being "unpatriotic," Obama will accuse them of playing "race-cards."
3) No one has received more campaign money from the Health Industry than Obama, and look at his second-rate health care plan. . . . . . Just what the Industry ordered. . . . No change there.

I see nothing of any change for the better in the way Obama runs for the nomination. . . . . . In fact, the insulting way in which he lies about his opponents playing race-cards is damaging race relations in America. . . . . . . And now more ragings against whites by another of Obama's friends from Rev. Wright's pulpit.

I will never vote for someone who worked as hard as McCain did to urge Americans to put George Bush back in office in 2004. . . . But, I'm having a hard time thinking about supporting that racist Obama.

Bill Clinton's "fairytale" statement, or Hillary's "RFK" statement, and many other statements that Obama has sighted were not race-cards. . . . . . . . You want to see a real race-card? . . Look at the ad for the Tennessee Senator election in 2006 -- now that's a race-card.

. . . . . Oh and, Pfleger (another of Obama's spiritual advisers) has made large monetary contributions to Obama (D-Ill.), and in return his church programs have received thousands of dollars in state earmarks championed by Obama when he was a state lawmaker. . . . . . no change there, just politics as usual.

Heck Obama was shouting "Race-card" so loud and often, I thought he was selling programs for NASCAR.

Posted by: Coldcomfort | May 31, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

The way forward is to award 1/2-2/3's of Fla Delegates the way the state voted, and then award 1/2 of Mich the party there wants. It gives a slight boast to Senator Clinton, and gives her a graceful way out. Far More Importantly, it finishes the Primary, and so the Super Delegates can finally decide the primary. Until one candidate gets enough delegates or the voting is over any attempts to push one candidate out will be greatly and rightfully resented by that candidates supporters.

This is the only way Senator Obama can get a clean victory, and its the only remotely honest way forward.

Posted by: Muddy | May 31, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton, December 17, 2007, on Fox and Friends:

MR. DOOCY: Would you be "the comeback senator"? Would you be "the comeback gal"? Have you thought about that yet?

SEN. CLINTON: I'm going to leave that to you. You all have a great way with a turn of phrase. But what I'm going to do is to just keep working hard every day, knocking on doors, making phone calls, talking to people.

I feel very good about where we were. This has always been a challenge. I'm going to start on January 3rd with the caucuses in Iowa and go all the way until February 5th, because at the end of the campaign what you need are enough delegates to actually get you the nomination.

--------------

Hillary wanted to disenfranchise all voters after Super Tuesday!!

Posted by: BlueDem | May 31, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's path to win: Weasel the DNC into Recognizing some form (any form) of the misvote in Michigan & Florida -- thereby allowing Clinton to claim she gets the larger proportion of the popular vote. Up the required winning delegate count from 2206 to something neither candidate can reach before the convention because of the recognition of MI and FL, then go to the convention and wage a floor fight saying she should be the nominee regardless of who has the larger delegate count. Gen up some polling showing her beating McCain in a few key states -- et voila . . . see Hillary's coronation.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

If the committee is going to allocate delegates based on invalid January primaries, which in itself is a bait-and switch, they should keep in mind that the intentions of Michigan's "uncommitted" voters were clear. There can be no doubt that they were voting against Clinton.

Posted by: DoTheMath | May 31, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Harold Ickes was acting as a Clinton partisan when he voted to strip Florida and Michigan of delegates, as a member of the DNC rules committee.

Ickes was stacking the deck for Clinton by creating a de facto national primary, that they mistakenly thought would guarantee a Clinton win.

>>>>>The crocodile tears that are now being shed about Florida and Michigan are the latest and most disingenuous of the Clinton campaign. The fact is that the idea of drawing a line in the sand so that you would end up with a de facto national primary was from page one of the Clinton playbook.

Having twenty or thirty states vote on the same day, the theory went, would favor the candidate with the most money, the most experience and the most organizational support with connections with many local governors and mayors already on board.<<<<<

Posted by: BlueDem | May 31, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

"I'm going outside the primary window," [Michigan Sen. Carl Levin] told me definitively.

"If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses," I [McAuliffe] said. "We will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost."

He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.

"You won't deny us seats at the convention," he said.

"Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."

We glared at each other some more, but there was nothing much left to say. I was holding all the cards and Levin knew it.

[Source: McAuliffe, Terry. What A Party!, p. 325.]

Posted by: BlueDem | May 31, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Chris says, "..it will give Clinton some level of standing to insist that she is the popular vote leader and to continue on in the contest." However, the only way she can insist on this if we give Obama 0 votes in Michigan, treating it as a North Korean style single-candidate election. If "Uncommitted = Obama", then Obama remains ahead in the overall popular vote.

Posted by: nalakop | May 31, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

I've been a Hillary supporter, but after watching much of this hearing, I must say that the Hillary supporters on the DNC rules committee are a nasty bunch. I'm thinking Obama's ideas for "change" might be just what we need.

Posted by: Dottieb | May 31, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

I love how Mark Brewer was clear that he represents the interest of the voters. I laughed out loud at his exchange with Harold Ickes.

Posted by: laurie ruettimann | May 31, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

If that was a woman yelling for her candidate,like Wexler did everyone would be calling her a bi---.SOOOOO can we call him a Ba-----?Why is it that men are never critized for angry comments?He was just very rude if he wants to unite the party.Not all of us are ready to jump when Obama calls after being called everything nasty.

Posted by: ggranny21 | May 31, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

I'm getting so sick of the punditry arguing that Senator Clinton leads in the popular vote when there is no empiracle way of determining the actual popular vote b/c 4 caucus states have NOT released their number. By estimates alone of the vote in 4 caucus state and counting both FL and MI and allocating 0--NO--vote to Senator Obama in MI, Senator Clinton would only be leading by roughly 60,000 votes. Add in the 150,000+ "uncomitted" votes in MI for Senator Obama that everyone and their mother knew was a vote for Senator Obama, and he leades by 90,000 votes.

Posted by: Dawn | May 31, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Why is no one mentioning that Michigan has an open primary and many voters crossed over and voted on the Republican ticket where their votes would count?

It's so distressing that our leaders are so ill-informed about their own party and how each state holds their primaries and caucuses.

And that fact that Carl Levin isn't even mentioning it - and isn't taking responsibility for moving the primary up. It's a Democratic government in Michigan - they could have held their primary whenever they wanted. So idiotic. Mr. Levin should watch his back next election along with Gov. Granholm....we're tired of both of them here in our beautiful state.

Posted by: iris jones | May 31, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

NEWS FLASH


BEN JOHNSON MAKES AN EXCELLENT POINT


The ENTIRE process which resulted in the exclusion of Michigan and Florida had an AFFIRMATIVE ACTION MOTIVE.


BEN JOHNSON CLEARLY STATES THAT THE MOTIVE WAS TO DILUTE THE WHITE VOTING STRENGTH.

THAT WAS THE OBJECTIVE OF THESE PEOPLE - THEY TOOK EVERY OPPORTUNITY PRESENTED TO THEM.


THANK YOU BEN JOHNSON FOR CLEARLY SUPPORTING OUR POINTS WE HAVE MADE OVER THE PAST WEEKS.


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 31, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

NEWS FLASH


BEN JOHNSON MAKES AN EXCELLENT POINT


The ENTIRE process which resulted in the exclusion of Michigan and Florida had an AFFIRMATIVE ACTION MOTIVE.


BEN JOHNSON CLEARLY STATES THAT THE MOTIVE WAS TO DILUTE THE WHITE VOTING STRENGTH.

THAT WAS THE OBJECTIVE OF THESE PEOPLE - THEY TOOK EVERY OPPORTUNITY PRESENTED TO THEM.


THANK YOU BEN JOHNSON FOR CLEARLY SUPPORTING OUR POINTS WE HAVE MADE OVER THE PAST WEEKS.


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 31, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

The Michigan proposal is of breathtaking arrogance -- we have agreed to a reasonable allocation at 69-59, says Sen. Carl Levin. "That is the best we can do. If you can do better, I congratulate you."

He goes on to explain that what Michigan did was to challenge the primary schedule. "We were put in a position in taking on that prepetual problem that no state should have. We decided to wage this battle."

Posted by: Marletter | May 31, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

I'm very sceptical of Hilary's claim to the popular vote. My understanding is she not counting the caucus states in her argument that she has the lead in the popular vote.

Posted by: sferris. | May 31, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Why on Earth does it matter which state goes first? Senator Levin sounds like a petulant child.

Posted by: P Diddy | May 31, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

I guess it's all over but the pouting.

Posted by: aleks | May 31, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company