I’m real What. And ya know what else? I felt really bad for the voters in MI and Fl back around 6 or so months ago, because I thought they should have been able to vote.

However, that doesn’t invalidate the other 48 states (including my own) or the ‘territories’ that voted as well.

So, I’m sick of all the whining after the fact…MOST of which isn’t even coming from the voters in Michigan, who knew over six months ago, that their votes weren’t going to count. Now since I presume that like other states, there were OTHER issues on that ballot to vote on besides the Presidential nominees, it made since for the voters of those states to go through the motions. That’s why I encouraged my Michigan friends, (who weren’t going to bother to vote at all) to at least do that much. But all of your ‘creative math’ after the fact is little more than that..creative math when they knew that the nominees weren’t going to be recognized anyway.

So you’re right I guess. Maybe the DNC should have stuck with their original F-up created by the State legislators in Michigan, and not bothered to seat ANY of the delegates from that state, since that’s the deal everybody agreed to before the contests began.

As for Florida, Troublesum reminds us in the above post, that Obama had long ago offered to just give the whole flppin swamp to Hillary. Of course that would have pissed off some of his supporters as well, it wouldn’t have mattered in the final outcome, because Hillary still LOST! Don’t you get that? Don’t you get that no matter how you fiddle with the Michigan numbers, Hillary STILL LOST? She would have LOST even if she got the votes that she demanded from Michigan for Christ’s sake! She LOST as soon as she started with the kitchen sink tactics.

Get over it. Save you spinning math skills for something else.

Get real Cyrena, “an accommodation” is a change of rules.  What about New Hampshire’s move from 3rd to 2nd and the “established” rules?  Don’t say that’s covered by a “DNC waiver” – it’s just another selective change in the DNCs “written in stone rules”.  Obama never received one legitimate vote in Michigan.  Write-ins were not allowed, and his name was withdrawn from the ballot at his request.  Even if he considered the Michigan primary not to count at the time, he could have left his name on the ballot for supporters to express their preference, if nothing else.  Before the election Obama supporters were encouraged by his campaign to vote uncommitted.  There is a definition of uncommitted.  They are “at large” and the candidates are expected to convince those delegates to vote for them.  Are we to assume 100% of uncommitted were for Obama?

After halving the delegate votes (an accommodation or rule change, you choose), the DNC awards Obama 32 delegates and Clinton 38.  Clinton won Michigan with 55 percent of the vote; uncommitted got 40 percent and 5% went to others.  Out of 70 delegates that’s 38.5 for Clinton and 28 for uncommitted and 3.5 delegates that neither got.  Well let’s just give Obama all the uncommitted, the “other”, and round it up with Clintons extra 0.5 delegate.

The DNC has ruled that election results in Michigan can be changed after the fact.  The DNC has told Michigan they will set aside election results it does not like.  Where are we?  Russia?  Cast your vote, it counts (if the DNC likes the result).

I vote for candidate over party.

I guess I don’t suffer from “Herd” mentality nor do I pick the lesser of two evils, I choose the candidate whose positions best reflect my own.

Ron Paul 08’

In order for democracy to work people have to pay attention to what’s going on and the majority does not.  This has been in the news for months but still a lot of people don’t seem to have a clue as to why the delegates in Mi and Fl are getting only a half vote each.  They think that the DNC got together and decided to stick it to Hillary because they are biased in favor of Obama.  Apparently Obama wanted to give her Florida outright but decided to abide by the decision of the rules committee.  Another “minor detail” overlooked by Hillary supporters is that Harold Ickes, legal advisor to Clinton, took a position as an advocate for her at the meeting while he was a voting member of the rules committee.  He made proposals on her behalf and then voted on them as a member of the committee, which is against party rules.  Obama could have challenged it but he didn’t.

•  “As far as their professed need to stick by rules, they really make it up as they go along.”

Gee, and all of this time I thought these rules had been established long before the campaign even kicked off. Like…way back when all of the candidates agreed that Michigan and Florida were in violation of these rules that had already been established, and they all agreed IN WRITING (with the exception of Dennis Kucinich) that these states would be stripped of their delegates, because of their violation of the rules. Now of course all of that was based on long ago established rules about the long ago established time schedule, and everybody knew that going in.

So, help us out here ‘What?” in understanding what rules were ‘made up’ as they went along? It would appear that this latest (and ONLY) ‘ruling’ by the DNC was the only thing that’s been ‘made up’ as an accommodation to the voters in MI and FL. Because if the DNC had determined to ‘stick by rules’, the voters in these states would not have their delegates seated at all.

That’s what makes this question you’ve posed seem so bizarre:

•  “Obama has been selected, can you think of any DNC rulings that have gone her way?

WHAT rulings are we supposed to be looking at, (among the ‘any’) that have gone ANYBODY’S way? This is the only ‘ruling’ that has been made in the whole thing, besides the original ‘ruling’ to strip the states of their delegates, which didn’t go ANYBODY’S ‘way’, but to which they all agreed.

Based on that agreement, Hillary Clinton wouldn’t have gotten ANY delegates from either state, just like nobody else would have gotten any delegates from either state.
As a result of this ‘ruling’ (to accommodate the voters in those states) Hillary has picked up delegates that she wouldn’t have otherwise had. And how do you figure that she lost 4 ‘hard won’ delegates? How could they be ‘hard won’?

As for Obama being ‘selected’, there’s obviously some truth to that. He’s been SELETED by the majority of the democrats voting in the primary process of the majority of the states.

No wonder your name is “What?!” You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

There were no Clinton “tricks” played on Saturday.  Carl Levin gave a good defense of Michigan’s moved up primary and finally brought to light that New Hampshire moved up their primary (from 3rd to 2nd) ahead of schedule without any penalty from the DNC.  Funny how thats never brought up by the media.  Levin purposed the compromise division of Michigan delegates with Obama getting 32.  Remember Obama took his name off the Michigan ballot and many people voted uncommitted, but not just for him.  The DNC has a remedy of how to seat the uncommitted, the canidates must win the over. This too was overlooked.  Clinton instead had to give Obama 4 of her hard won delegates to top it off!

The DNC is not a democratic organization, they are a country club.  As far as their professed need to stick by rules, they really make it up as they go along.  If the average voter thinks they have a real say in who is the nominee they are mistaken.  Obama has been selected, can you think of any DNC rulings that have gone her way?

Cyrena, I will not give up. They (the Clintons) are just so bad that at times they seem to suck the wind out of me. You make good points, though, and I will continue to keep the faith.

I think that you’re looking at the mention of exit polls out of context. In other words, exit polls were considered in Michigan, WHERE OBAMA WAS NOT ON THE BALLOT and voters were advised that if they WROTE-IN any names, the ballots would be invalidated. And they were considered as a boot-legged way to come up with something ‘democratic’ out of a primary contest that obviously WASN’T!

Now please tell me how that applies to ANY other state’s exit polls, (including W. VA and Kentucky) when the contests there were normal contests, with both of these candidates on the ballot, and voters free to mark it for anyone they wanted.

Meantime, the Democrats are NOT relying on exit polls anywhere else. They never have, and they never will. If they did, things would have been a whole lot different in other states as well, beginning as far back as New Hampshire, where all of the exit polls put Obama as the winner of that state.

And, if Hillary supporters are willing to support McSame in the GE, then they aren’t democrats anyway. They’re repuglicans, just McSame as Hillary is. I don’t understand why she didn’t run on the repug ticket to begin with. There’s still time for her to be the McCain VP.

Now, i didn’t say that i would vote McCain.  I generally vote third party for President (unless voting against W. Bush).  It is possible to vote for someone other than Dem or Rep for President.  And i don’t buy the reasoning that not voting Dem is the same as voting Rep.

Besides, in most cases our vote doesn’t really count…i.e. it isn’t going to make a difference.  If for some reason my state looks nail-biting close i’ll go against my conscience and vote Dem this year (unless Clinton is on the ticket).

I resent being trapped in a lesser of two evils equation; moreover, i resent the fact that when i vote for the lesser of two evils, the party that represents the lesser takes my vote as a signal of support…rather than what it is: a groaning, reluctant pull of the lever against something hideous.

And maybe without Clinton fighting him, i’ll return to thinking that perhaps Obama is a commonsense, left-libertarian type.  And i would like to vote for a black man…just not this black man’s party. (I’ve already voted for a woman and i’d do it again.)

Excellent post Hud, and I think we can all agree. (At least I do, and after hearing from those regulars who have posted here for a long time, I know that many are also in agreement with you).

That said, it will be up to us to make sure that THIS part of your analysis does NOT happen..

•  “..She has already damaged the Democratic cause to the point that I think it quite likely we will be stuck with a President McCain…”

I’ll agree that she has done much to damage the Democratic cause, and has assaulted the principles of the Democratic Party. More than anything, she has caused a division within the party that is worse than anything that I’ve ever witnessed. That isn’t to say that the Democratic Party has been without internal problems before, because it has, and I’m making no excuses for that. HOWEVER, Hillary and her campaign have agitated to the point of rupture, and that is more than unfortunate. It can be fatal.

But WAIT! Can there be a silver lining somewhere in all of this chaos? Well, having experienced similar meltdowns and other catastrophes of the same basic nature, that’s what I’m choosing to believe. To be blunt, the Democratic Party has been in need of a makeover for a while, and maybe it took this for us to notice that. Maybe it took the hijacking of our government, and our witnessing how the neo-cons highjacked the repug party, to bring us out of the apathy that so many of us have fallen into, even without realizing it. In short, even those who have always been politically active, and loyal to the principle of the Democratic Party, have missed the decline that has come from what is inevitable..CHANGE.

You spelled it all out very well here. The Clinton’s are no longer what they once represented (or at least made us think they represented) as leaders of the Democratic Party. Times have changed, and we have to adjust. I believe that’s what is happening now. Our 21st Century has no place for these old politics of a Monarchy, rather than a Democracy, and that’s what the Clinton’s, the Bushes, the Cheney’s, and the McCain’s represent. They do not represent or even connect with the needs of an American population in the 21st Century. It’s that simple.

So from the chaos, maybe we will rebuild what we need in the way that it needs to service our 21st Century challenges. If we can save the good of those foundational principles, that would be ideal. However it happens though, it NEEDED to happen. When the stuff is old and doesn’t work anymore – WHATEVER IT IS – we need to change, repair, correct, rebuild. There is always resistance to that, but we have to get beyond it, or else be buried by it. The choice seems obvious enough to me.

Now this movement that Barack Obama has begun, and which has gained it’s momentum from US, can continue. HRC and the old tricks of the old DNC have no place in it. So, they can either get with the program, or they can melt into reflections of their own bygone glories. (and they all have enough money to do that). But, they can’t be allowed to stop the progress that we’ve begun, and we aren’t going to allow that to be interrupted by a McCain presidency. I don’t think that will happen, because those old destructive practices have already been rejected. The proof is in the rejection of Hillary as the Democratic nominee, in favor of one who will lead the progressive ideology. Hillary and McCain are NO DIFFERENT from each other, and no different from what we’ve experienced over the past decade. The American people are rejecting that.

So…let’s just keep up the momentum.

From your posts, Conservative Yankee, it is apparent that you favor McCain in office with a strong check by increased majorities of Dems in Congress. There are times when i might agree, but given the current state of affairs i would prefer to see a government with a mandate for action rather than four years of veto fights and potential gridlock. i mention this because i want to illustrate that two well-reasoned positions can stand in opposition to one another without either being “stupid or smart.”

i’m pretty sure that you are observant enough to know that you were mischaracterizing my comment, and that i was using exaggeration in an attempt to be humorous, not to pass judgement. The emphasis was on “corrupt” not Republican, and the purpose of my reply was to ask that petty bickering not be the “reason” for abandoning a potential vote for the Dem ticket. Nonetheless, thank you for the opportunity to clarify my remarks.

Half a vote each? Crimminy! That sounds like page out of the old slave days when the blacks were given the right to vote but their vote only accounted for a fraction that was even less than 1/2 if I am not mistaken. Man, democrats sure know how blow a hole in their foot at every turn.
And yes, this whole Mich. Fla. thing sounds like a clinton trick or treat job about like the 2000 presidential election was for w & dick.
Good luck to us all.

Nice one, CY.

... and she probably will, but leaving the meeting with a net of 26.5 delegates when before she had zero, isn’t going to a strong argument for disenfranchisement.

To my great surprise Hillary Clinton has exposed herself for what she really is over the last 4-5 months. I had no idea that she is so self-centered, selfish, a liar, and completely immune to the greater good around her. It’s more than obvious that she simply doesn’t care.

However, even if I’m wrong, even if I am somehow misreading her, it’s evident to me that she absolutley would have no chance of winning in November. Surely, even she must realize this, even if it’s unfair. Yes, she is a brilliant former first lady (and all the rest) who has worked tirelessly over many years to realize her goal of becoming president. Then along comes Barack Obama, carefully following all of the rules and out of seemingly nowhere, to snatch the nomination out of her grasp. I don’t think we can really grasp how much of a shock, and the degree of disappointment, that must have “hit” her. I would think it similar to an athlete engaged in a contact sport who suffers a cerebral concussion. Understandably, it would take some time for her to regain her balance and composure.

But it is a reality that it happened. And I’ll be damned if I am going to feel sorry for Hillary Clinton. I could go on and on about how she brought this on herself (by being untruthful, etc.). She and her husband are supposed to be big-time Democrats, acting for the good of the party and the country but, just like Bill Clinton, when he was caught in the Oval Office and let all of us down, where is her action for the common good?

In light of her behavior I think that she has forever damaged her standing in the party and, frankly, to every smart-thinking Democrat. I read rumors that she might consider running for governor in NY instead. However, I don’t believe she would win and don’t even think she could get re-elected as senator. At a minimum, her rascist, callous behavior, disqualifies her from the support of the Black community, an integral part of the backing she would need for either of the two aforementioned positions.

So, what alternative does she have left for her future political career? Probably none. And that’s just the point: to her way of thinking why not plow on with her doomed and destructive “cause” through the convention? I don’t believe for a minute that she is doing this for the sake of her women supporters, or “for” the voters of Florida and Michigan. To the contrary, she accidentally found herself in a convenient position to assert these causes as the justification for her actions. She has already damaged the Democratic cause to the point that I think it quite likely we will be stuck with a President McCain. She will in fact continue with her selfish and destructive campaign renderiing a Republican victory in November an accomplished fact.

When Bill Clinton came to office they offered so much to be hopeful for and proud of in this country. As alluded to before, on reflecting over the last few months, first there was his irresponsible behavior that I have to conclude was responsible for the initial Bush election more than anything else. Who did he think he was risking our future like he did? And then she comes along insuring a loss in 2008. History will judge them appopriately. Maybe we’ll at least be lucky enough to have the Clintons slip into obscurity.

let change the rules where each party has 2 primary election. both parties have their primaries on the same day in all 50 states. Let this first round be in Feb. then let the top 2 or 3 in each party face off in again in mid may.

This is what Hillary wanted.
Now that Democratic race is over and this ruling by the party Hillary is the winner because now she can say she didn’t lose the race but was cheated out of the democratic spot on the ticket.

Was Harold Ickes out of line threatening, as an advocate for his employer, to hijack the Democratic Party ?

You bet your ass he was.

“Ickes explicit assertion that he is an authorized representative of a candidate, and his use of an independent forum to promote that candidate’s agenda regardless of the views of the majority, as expressed by his threat to dismiss the majority RBC decision and appeal to Credentials Committee is at best disingenuous, and at worst a blatant abuse of privilege for which he must tender his resignation.”

Am i taking crazy pills? Tell me if i’m getting this right:

The DNC accepted proposals from the FL and MI State Parties which reinstated delegates in FL and MI, reversing its ruling that those states would be stripped of their delegates for knowingly violating primary scheduling rules.

These states had held primaries for which no candidates campaigned.

All candidates and many voters were aware that primary results would not result in delegated representation.

Despite the previous decisions and agreements, every delegate from both states was seated with only a symbolic decrease in voting power (note that the “magic number” needed to cross the threshold for nomination increased in direct proportion to the sum of the reinstated delegate’s voting power, not the number of delegates)

Hillary Clinton just acquired a net gain of 26.5 delegates.

Given all of this HIllary Clinton is the offended party!?

“But I wanted a golden pony!” [stamps foot]

JPS and Patrick Henry (below), please don’t help a handful of immature malcontents in Hillary Clinton’s cadre undermine the slim chance our nation has to begin correcting its course.

i’ve spent too many years now cursing stupid people for keeping corrupt Republicans in office, i don’t want to spend the next four cursing thoughtful people too.

If she loses the nomination, Hillary has decided to take it to the Electoral College when they vote in January.  She probably knows a lot of them and feels that with her powers of persuasion she can turn this thing around.  She’s got the big Mo.

6 regions would be good. Each one could have their primary day, and if they wanted, they could take it a step further and select their own person to send to the nationals, and all of us could choose from them.

Seems like that’s a version of how Australia does it. They vote for whomever they want, and then the offices are determined in order of who gets the most votes, and on down the line. The one with the most votes is the Prime Minister, and then the next highest count determines the VPM, and so on. Or…that’s how it seems like I remember Kath Cantrella explaining it. I could be wrong.

Now that might solve C. Yankees issue with having the party power split up differently, but there’s no guarantee that these offices wouldn’t be filled by people from the same party.

Thing is, while troublesum has pointed out that ‘people in other countries’ don’t have these problems, there is no ‘other country’ with the size and of this one…at least not one based on a democratic system. There’s no one President and VP of Africa…all of those states have their own. There’s no one President and VP of Europe…they all have their own as well. Same with South America and Central America. What other country has 50 states plus a whole bunch of ‘territories’ and only one President? Russia I guess, but even it doesn’t have all the states and territories it once had, and I don’t know how we could call theirs any more of a democracy than Egypt, Saddam’s Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or any of the other countries that still operate based on Monarchies or other Dictatorships.

Maybe Canada is closest to our size and using the same system, but they still don’t have this many states and territoris that select their PM.

And, that’s the difficult part of keeping everyone informed. We want greater participation, but that means participation from the candidates themselves. Kind of hard for them to put in appearances in all 50 states, in a short period of time.

Of course I would have to agree that it would help if more folks decided to read what the candidates offer via the media, but then…that wouldn’t work here either, since we can’t count on the media to make the important stuff available, even if everybody COULD read.

Forget about debates as well. Even if folks were willing to give up ‘American Idol’, they’d just hear about flag pins and other meaningless stuff.

On Nov 5, the Southern Maryland precinct I live in will overwhelming vote for Obama, right or wrong.

While libertarian in my beliefs, as a union member I usually side with the democrats, however in good conscience I believe I will write in Ron Paul.

As one who was willing to give Clinton a little more time to make her case, if only for the sake of her supporters, I have to say she is showing the same arrogance and lack of regard for facts as the current holder of the job she wants.  She is proving every day that Obama is the right choice.  We can’t afford another president with a tendency to distort the truth.

Well take comfort in the fact that you can always vote for John McBush.

Which of course will guarantee four more years of
disabusing you of your silly notions.

People in other countries don’t have problems with this because they pay attention to public affairs.  They know the candidates and what they stand for, and usually their are three or four major parties on the ballot.  Why should we go on with this system in which the campaign has to go on for two years to get the attention of people who don’t really care?

So after all this (and probably more to come), the DNC ended up with the most logical solution to the problem.  Isn’t this the same solution that the Reps decided on before those primaries were even held?

Christ, Democratic aim is always straight and true…dead on their own feet.

And which side made it a protested shout fest?  The Clinton camp didn’t get their way, so its high time for another political temper tantrum.

Last time i checked, this country was founded on compromise and consensus.  Sen Clinton obviously has no use for either.  Is this the kind of “fighter we need”?

I suppose that i was foolish to even flirt with voting Democratic for the Presidential election; thankfully, the party and its adherents have done an excellent job of showing me the light and disabusing me of my silly notions.

I agree about instant runoff voting; however, a national primary day would give a strong advantage to the candidate with the most name recognition.

I’d rather see the nation divided into 4-6 regions; each region would have a primary day…say one per month with a random rotation of order.

I whole heartedly agree with a National Primary Day, maybe even a weekend.

All of this nonsense could be avoided by having a national primary with instant run-off voting.  If a committee were organized to come up with the worst, most undemocratic way to elect a president this is what they would recommend.  Democracy is not for us.

That MI Primary was a clear example of Election Rigging. As a Mi Prim voter I have NO Doubt it was Handed to her. I’d have preferred we not give her ANY delegates for the obvious underhanded crap she and her state’leaders’ Pulled. Levin is going to be Run Outr Of OFFICE for his complicity in this Crime against Our State- I’ve kept your E-Mailed EXCUSE CARL for why You though it was a good time to Screw US!S.O.B!!!!
But at least they didn’t give her all. Butseh had Better STOP COUNTING US in her “Popular Vote’ Tally- This OUTRAGES me everytime she Claims This LIE!!!They Suppressed voters by encouraging the media to repeat the mantra ‘Clinton the Only Dem on the Ballot’ and ‘Will Not count’ So only HER supporters basically bothered to Vote- SO OBVIOUS!
her campaign tactics have not only hurt the Dem Party, she is doing a disservice to the nation and most certainly WOMEN by continuing her Demands that th eBar Be Lowered Just For HER! I WAS a Bill & Hill Supporter & DEFENDER, Now I HATE BOTH and FEAR her (Obliterate Iran)
SUPERDELEGATES NO DLC’ER HAS BEEN ABLE TO CON THE BASE SINCE BILL- CAN’T SEAL THE DEAL!!! Becasue we can smell the Corp Stench a mile away.This Ol Dem would Love to NOT have to Hold My nose to Vote this Election.So I will Not ...If you hand her the Nomination (lower the bar/steal it) I will be voting for Ron Paul!!I already intend to work very hard to Run such BS Dems out of Gov’t- Levin is first On MY LIST here in Michigan!Time to knock the old Crap Off our States Shoes!I’d like to see the DLC ,along with those who placate is Blue Arm of the Neo CONS Run Out of OUR Party nationally.What Old School Republicans should have done with their Infiltrators decades ago TOO!

•  “There’s been a lot of talk about party unity—let’s all come together, and put our arms around each other,” said Ickes, who is also a member of the Rules Committee that approved the deal. “I submit to you ladies and gentlemen, hijacking four delegates ... is not a good way to start down the path of party unity.”
Ah, this from one of the highest ranking of the Hillary Team, (who has far more representation on the Rules Committee than any of the other candidates, not to mention Obama). So, wasn’t Harold Ikes there when they decided this up front, before any of the shit got going? Wonder why Harold didn’t advise his ‘client’ that it wouldn’t be such a good idea to ignore the voters of these two states, REGARDLESS of what the States Party leaders wanted to do. Actually, I’m wondering why his ‘clien’ didn’t figure this out for herself, unless she didn’t see anything problematic about it at the time. Sort of like her support for the war on Iraq, until it became a political liability.
Anyway, pretty desperate that Harold is having all of these heart attacks and drama about FOUR DELEGATES that he claims have been ‘highjacked’.
•  “How can you call yourselves Democrats if you don’t count the vote?” one man in the audience shouted before being escorted out by security. “This is not the Democratic Party!”
Humm..I wonder where this guy was from, and how he could consider the MI primary as being settled by ‘counting the votes’ when the leader to this point, wasn’t even on the ballot. Now he could call the primary itself as Undemocratic, since it was. But the only way to fix that and ‘count all the votes’ would have been to redo the primary, and NOT by having it paid for by the Governor of the State that overwhelmingly supported Clinton in their own primary. (New Jersey). I mean, COME ON!

Still, for the past several weeks, I’d kind of been wishing that they WOULD re-do those primaries, especially in MI. At this point, it’s not at all inconceivable that Obama would have garnered more votes than Hillary, since he’d be on the ballot, and Michiganites would be assured that their votes were actually going to count. (which is why so many of them didn’t bother in the bogus primary).

Now THAT would have been a hoot, and even worth paying for. On the other hand, it wouldn’t have made any difference in her acknowledging that she has already LOST, and she’d probably insist that they use their original bogus numbers.

Meantime, I’m sure glad that’s settled. Obama now needs 66 more delegates, which he’ll easily pick up on Tuesday. The supers in California, Ohio, and Maryland need to get their acts together as well…too many still uncommitted. I wonder if I should check in on the ones here in California, to make sure Hillary isn’t holding them hostage.

Ohioans..DO you know where your uncommitted superdelegates are? Better make sure they’re safe.