It sounds like they're trying to GOTV through Tuesday, actually.

When they gave some of the MI delegates to BO they broke their own rules and handed Hillary and her team the golden ticket to take this to the Credentials Committee.

This would have been an easy fix - seat all the delegates with a full vote.  If BO's as close to wrapping this up as he says he is - would it have really mattered?

If, in some absurd circumstance, she ends up within 4 delegate votes she reserves the right to challenge the ruling.

She isn't going to challenge it unless it will change the outcome.  Just covering all her bases.

She can certainly challenge based on her principles even if the nomination is decided.  So I don't think we have to necessarily see a scorched earth policy.

Hey Todd sorry to jump into your diary but can you look into the diary ,

I'm Sad.....   thats the title  .

Its an inappropriate diary as most commenters have indicated .

Hey, it's four delegates and won't make any difference.

And if the Clintons want to claim that an election without Obama on the ballot was fair, maybe they should work to get the sanctions listed from other countries with fake elections, like Belarus.

They had their fight over Michigan, they lost it.

Obama could have gotten 50/50, he didn't take it.

An appeal would yield no different a result. And if it did, she still couldn't win.

Clinton can choose unity or not. Its her choice to make now.

Four delegates. The Clinton campaign was cheated of four delegates and Obama got 59 free delegates for doing absolutely nothing. This could of and should of been avoided. The RBC gave all the more reason for Clinton supporters to feel cheated out of this nominating contest. I know some people must be saying it is only four delegates, but think about the message it sends.

The 69-59 split was the decision of the Michigan Democratic Party, not Obama's. The DNC just accepted it and split it in half.

Obama had called for a 50-50 allocation based on the notion that the entire Michigan Democratic primary was illegitimate. 69-59 was a compromise. Arguing that assigning "uncommitted" to Obama was somehow unwarranted was an absurd overstretch.

I'm glad Clinton is fine with the Florida ruling.

A better outcome would have been 73-55 with delegates counted as half delegates--Obama would
have lost only two delegates, and Clinton gaining two more.

Hillary would have to be really close in delegates
to succeed on Michigan, and the Michigan "compromise" got more votes in the RBC
than the Florida deal, which the Clinton forces
are accepting.

Unless Clinton gets a bunch more SDs, this ain't going to succeed.  She would have been better off
taking an earlier 69-59 (full delegates) deal on Michigan, but I really think Obama should have
gone for a revote in Michigan.

The revote would have been close, and it would have avoided this mess.

Excellent decision.

a voter in Florida and Michigan are only worth 1/2 that of a citizen of Iowa or New Hampshire. I don't respect any of them, including Clinton, for not fighting that

You'd think getting walloped 18-9 on the MI vote would be enough humiliation for the Clintons. Ickes looked like he'd been kicked by a mule.

No one can stop Hillary from making a similar fool of herself before the Rules Committee and on the convention floor, but hopefully she'll realize she only has more to lose by continuing her quixotic death march -- since she obviously doesn't give a damn about her party.

They came pretty close to the delegate/vote ratio for all the other states.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump /archive/2008/05/31/scenes-from-today-s- rbc-hillary-protest.aspx

Obama is now 64 delegates from the nomination, Clinton 240.5

If 4 delegates were to shift it would be 68 Obama, Clinton 236.5.

It was a messy situation that demanded a political compromise.  I don't see what anyone else expected (unless they naively thought that there would be no compromise).  I think that the demonstrators gave ample evidence why this will not "go to Denver," as some say.

Well, I guess I have a rec diary that conveys my thoughts, but I'll just say this.

They are bitching because they were given an opening to bitch.

For the cost of a mere four half-delegates from what actually happened, the Obama campaign and the RBC could have bought themselves an iron-clad argument that the rules were followed.  Instead, they went with a compromise that was surely well-intentioned on Michigan's part, but was clearly outside the rules.  Even the DNC's own lawyers said the RBC had no authority to do this.

If you're an Obama supporter and you think those four half-delegates might end up making a difference in who gets the nomination, then I guess it was a pretty excellent choice to pursue that strategy.  Otherwise, I can't fathom what they were thinking.

Sometimes I wonder if anyone in this party understands politics.  Gee, how will it look when people see that some committee took one candidate's votes and gave them to another candidate, based on exit polls?  Forget the arguments, think about how it LOOKS.  Terrible!

My reaction?

I'm drinking.

Not only am I a second-class citizen as a homosexual, my and all of my loved ones are second-class Democrats because we happen to live in FL and MI.

I'm awfully tired of being second-class.

There is one person in this whole mess who stands up for what is right; for what are the state-certified vote totals in each of these two states.  She's never quit on me, and I'll never quit on her.

The Democratic Party has left me behind this election, but I'm not giving up without a fight.

I think the reason why so many Clinton supporters feel "cheated" is that they thought that if they were all seated Hillary would be ahead of Barack somehow. Why? Because Hillary has been going along saying that it is "really close" when in reality she lost this thing back in February.

Reality bites sometimes.

I got that email too, and when you go to the link you(people) should read the comments.

It's disturbing at how many Clinton 'supporters' are racist and say they will vote for McCain. One would think Senator Clinton would discourage such things. Especially on her own website.

but everyone knows a good chunk of the uncommitted vote was for Obama,

I'm sure Ickes feels like he has a legitimate argument or he wouldn't bother, IMO.

contests weren't fair. They should have zero effect on the race. She was given a gift today.

BTW, John McCain hates America.

News flash...neither election was sanctioned.  She did not win delegates in either state and Obama did not win any in either state.  She got a lot more than she deserved today.

I dont know what the Hillary supporters from hillaryis44 are complaining about.  Obama actually had the votes to get a 50-50 delegate split out of Michigan but decided to concede it to Clinton out of party unity.

http://tinyurl.com/4h7hbc

They are objecting because there are 30,000 write-in votes for Obama that they don't want to count.

But I disagree this signals anything more then them trying to get some negotiating advantage.  The problem is I don't think they know what they want from any negotiation and time is working against them.  Like most things of her disastrous campaign, it didn't appear they came into this with an achievable gameplan and ended up looking divisive and petty.  As each day goes forward they will look all the more so.  Today, the Party threw out the Clinton regime and Obama showed he's got both outside and inside game.  He beat them on their own turf by understanding the mood of the Party at this particular moment in time, just as he understands the mood of the Country.  

I would add that I am disgusted by the conduct of the R&B Committee itself, but not for the reason that some are.  Not once in all of those hours of debate did they acknowledge that they created this problem, so far as I know.  Flournoy and Ickes sat there lecturing the speakers and the public about the sacred duty that they had to "enfranchise" the voters of those two states, as if they never took part in the "disenfranchisement" in the first place.  It was political opportunism of the worst sort.  At the very least, the people on the committee who were paid operatives of either campaign should have recused themselves.

I have a real problem when tools like them actively sow dissention within the party and against a candidate, when they have only themselves to blame.

Here's real disenfranchisement...  voters being told that it wasn't a real election and should stay home... and then, surprise, four months later, it counts!  Then add insult to injury by not even having their candidate on the ballot!

We've harshly criticised Republicans for trying to trick voters into staying home, yet the Clinton campaign decided to do just that with FL and MI by rguing that the sham election should count after all!

But, votes aqre votes!  Count all the votes 9except in caucus states)!  Well, if that's the case, I'd like to insist that my office pool count be added to the popular vote totals.  It was just as legitimate as these two elections.

Sure Obama took himself off the ballot in Michigan, but everyone knows a good chunk of the uncommitted vote was for Obama, so if the Clinton team is really making an intent of the voter argument then they should be pleased with this result.

Look, the fact is that you don't allocate votes on the basis of what you imagine people were voting for. You allocate them based on who and what they did in fact vote for.

When Obama had Alice Palmer kicked off the ballot, no one could seriously argue that the "intent of the people" was not fulfilled because she was not on the ballot, and that the election was illegitimate, right? Presumably we accept that such an election reflects the will of the people, even if, in some counterfactual sense, if her name had been on the ballot, it's quite possible that people would have voted for her and she might have won. The fact is, she was not on the ballot, and if the people don't vote for her, they don't.

Where is the precedent in any election where votes are awarded to a candidate when there are no votes in their name?

And the fact is, we say, rightly, that Alice Palmer lost the election, and that that result is legitimate, and that it reflects the will of the people, even though she clearly did NOT want to have her name taken off the ballot: it was Obama and his lawyers that saw to that. Yet it was Obama himself who took his name off the MI ballot, quite voluntarily -- several other candidates -- and not only Hillary -- chose to keep their name on the ballot (which pretty well implies that it was not some scheme of Hillary's to do something that was not really allowed.) Surely, if anything, this makes it only more correct not to count votes for him that weren't, in fact, cast for him in his name.

Ickes et alia are just stirring up trouble. The extra few delegates will make no difference, and anyone could see that the Michigan vote was not an accurate representation of Michigan voters' wills. As the excellent fivethirtyeight.com puts it:

"Harold Ickes keeps shouting about 600,000 votes in Michigan being thrown out. But as I've pointed out before, the turnout situation in Michigan wasn't remotely normal. According to Jay Cost's spreadsheet, turnout in Michigan was equal to 24 percent of John Kerry's vote in 2004. However, the average in other states with open primaries was 79 percent. In other words, turnout was only about one-third as much as it should have been. The judgment of two-thirds of the voters in Michigan was essentially that the primary didn't matter and wasn't worth their time."

It is time for the Hilary die-harders to give up the ghost and work within a united party for an Obama victory in November.

They gave all the uncommitted, which encompassed Edwards Obama Richardson and Biden.  Giving that Obama no doubt received most of them....they gave Obama ALL the uncommitted AND, afforded him more votes that weren't even cast in uncommited.  They just pulled votes for him out of guessing and exit polling.  That's outrageous AND NO WHERE in the rules they claim they want to follow.

The Clinton campaign and her supporters better not complain about a lack of party unity from here on out.  Because what happened today, with Clinton's blessing, by people under her employ, was undoubtedly the single most divisive thing I've seen in this race.

Obama has been extremely gracious with Clinton for weeks, hasn't said a thing that wasn't complementary.  And THIS is what she does?

I went into this primary supporting Clinton, but at this point I'm honestly not sure I could vote for her even if she had won.  How depressing.

During the meeting the guy from the Michigan Democratic Party said that Obama had 30,000 write-in votes right?  So that pushes the turnout to at least 624,398 (assuming that there were no other write-in's).

That means that Clinton actually received 52.6% of the vote in Michigan, not 55.2%.

Going off of percentages (I know that's not the way delegates are proportioned, but it's a nice way to quickly estimate it) Clinton would receive 67.3 delegates instead of 70.7 delegates.

Round the numbers up to 71 and 67 and subtract them, and guess what you get?

4.

So, I ask this, isn't it possible that they didn't unfairly take 4 delegates away from Clinton?  In fact, they actually ADDED two delegates to Clinton.

If I'm wrong, I'd love to be proven so.  I just haven't seen anyone talking about this anywhere.

And yes, if every vote counts, so do the discarded write-in's.

Well, it's a dumb law, but there is nothing I can do about it.  Thanks for making me aware of it though.

Of course, perhaps they felt the situation warranted them to at least keep the fact that there were so many write-in's in mind when coming up with their proposal?

Remember, the 69/59 proposal was put forth by the Michigan Democrats.  Don't you think they know what's best for their party?

I was extremely satisfied with the results.

Ickes, on the other hand, behaved like a hot mess! I thought the man was Amy Winehouse for a second!

Why are Flournoy and Ickes bitching?

Do you mean:

- Why do their claws come out?
 - Why do they, periodically, when they're feeling down, launch attacks to boost their appeal?
 - Aren't they likeable enough?

The Democratic Party made clear today that voters don't matter.  Flournoy and Ickes, along with the others who voted against the MI scam, are heroes for fighting back.  

I am ashamed of my party.

***A

While I seriously doubt if they will take this to the credentials committee, this was a preposterous decision.

Ickes and Flournoy are pissed coz they assigned 'uncommitted' delegates to Obama. The RBC has no authority to do that. They essentially made the mind of the voters for them. It is tantamount to disenfranchisement. It was a pretty sorry spectacle.

It was more than likely that all the 'uncommitted' delegates would have anyways gone to Obama. I can't understand their rules based argument. There is clearly a political argument, but no rules based argument.

Ickes today reminded me nothing so much as Claude Raines in Casabalanca:

I don't see the argument that a purely rules-based solution was possible.  If one accepts the premise that the most the RBC could have done was dock Florida and Michigan 50% of their delegate strength, then the election could have turned on this odd issue: which candidate was more willing to defy the previous rulings of the RBC?

The rule which prevented both candidates from campaigning in Florida, can we agree, had more potential to hurt Obama than Clinton (because she had greater name recognition--I don't think it happened during this entire contest that Clinton finished a race with scoring better than she was doing in the polls 2-3 weeks before).  

A similar situation existed in Michigan.  Whether one believes Obama gamed the situation by taking his name off the ballot, or Clinton did the same by leaving her name on, or both, it's just a fact that the RBC required candidates to sign this pledge not to campaign.  

Do you see the problem?  Any "rules-based" solution to MI and FL which was based upon the results of January required acknowledging the legitimacy of elections which the RBC, before the fact, had declared would be illegitimate (and this would, and to some extent still does, put future candidates in the odd situation of having to ascertain which rulings by the RBC they should just ignore, because, well, they might have to change their minds later).

There is no purity here.  The only pure position I can see is if the RBC had simply enforced its original stipulation that the FL and MI elections simply wouldn't count (I'm not suggesting they should have done that, btw, but only because of the likely political consequences).

if this reveals the Obama camp strategy in the GE it's a total loss. Judging the election based not on votes cast but on exit polls and 'intentions'. thos ghost voters for Obama. No ifs and or buts about this. Uncommitted is uncommitted and should be left to vote as they want but at the convention. Obama will go into DEM history as the candidate that stole votes from not only Clinton (4 delegates clearly selected based on clinton votes were taken by Obama, but also those uncommitteds were not necessarily for Obama!).

it's a Banana republic.

I spoke with a few a friends in Europe and with couple of my GOP friends (yes, they are Americans too!).
They all laughing about stupidity and illegitimacy of RBC ruling.
GOPs think that RBC gave huge talking points to McCain.

Stupid part:
50% cut is like cutting of the baby in half, which Solomon will object; but RBC people not as wise as Solomon.

Illegitimate part:
RBC has no right to assign uncommitted votes to the guy who was not even on the ballot;
and RBC has no right to steal 4 delegates from Hillary and give it to the guy who was not even  on the ballot.
In total, they decrease - illegitimately - Hillary's count of pledged delegates by 2 and
they increase illegitimately - Obama's  count of pledged delegates by 29.5. If you will take
1722-1586 count from
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/democratic_delegate_count .html
you have to correct it this way:
1692.5-1588

yep I can agree many of the uncommitteds were votes for Obama. why? because the Obma camp said they were actively informing MI voters as much, to vote uncommitted as a vote for Obama. THAT is plainly an admission of CAMPAIGNING. HRC did not campaign in MI, but now it's clear the Obama camp did - which by the rules disqualifies Obama from even a single delegate! the rules.

Of the MI election, yet people keep framing it as though it was only Obama that had removed his name. He wasn't the only one--and the race wasn't even over yet.

Obama
Dodd
Edwards
Richardson
Clinton

Clinton really did luck out in regards to MI, and she won't take it to the convention unless she pulls within 25 delegates or so--WHICH WILL NOT HAPPEN.

Your word choice is unfortunate.  May I suggest the use of "complaining" or "whining" in the future?

There was no way to sit any delegates for Michigan based upon the outcome of the primary.  MI politicians broke the rules.  Many candidates removed their names from the ballot in good faith and everyone refused to campaign there

The primary was invalid and was not going to count at all before yesterday.  

This compromise is as valid as its going to get

The 4 extra delegates could be explained by all the Obama write-ins on the ballot in MI.  

Not everyone was going to be happy with this decision, it was a given.  Those Clinton protesters outside, are most likely not voting for Obama and they probably weren't going to be happy with anything less that 100% seating.

Maybe Clinton "reserving" the option to take it to the Credentials' Committee is her in for VP or another position she's looking at.  I would be pissed if she dragged this out all summer over these delegations.  That's not what we need.

Other than obnoxious behavior on the part of the audience, I'm not surprised at all by the outcome.

Consessions were made, more was allowed than any rule allowed, and Ickes threatened the party.

I cannot believe that Ickes - both a member of the board and a partisan candidate supporter - would have reserved that statement unless the board had ruled that no-one in MI voted for Obama.

The duplicity of the man is staggering.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he fully support the original 100% punishment?  Didn't every Clinton supporter on the council explicitly support the 100% penalty?  Wasn't that action in opposition to the original 50% punishment the board initially proposed?

If there is any reason for Ickes fighting for 100% punishment in 2007 other than setting up the opporunity to do exactly what he did yesterday, I can't imagine what it would be.

-chris