Off topic but can you look at this diary:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/9/01452 /78428

Thanks.

Ultimately it's about delegates, but what I think it's really about is shoehorning Michigan into the popular vote equation, and then springing from that to an argument to superdelegates.

Obama always said FL and MI would be seated.  He's not just saying that now.

It seems like almost everybody in Michigan is in favor of the compromise except the Clinton campaign.  So I don't think she has the upper hand on anything, and certainly not that Obama has agreed to a pretty reasonable compromise.  Now its the Clinton campaign that appears to be disenfranchising voters.

"Or even after, all the way to the convention. And that's why Clinton will wait, with as many pledged delegates as possible, because everyone knows that the SD's like Joe Andrews can change their mind, all the way up to the convention."

Great.  So McCain and Clinton will double team on Obama all summer instead of us reuniting for the very slight chance that supers will flip the election in July.  That sounds like a winning strategy for the general.

the bitter end, eh?

Who honestly doubted that they would be seated in some form?

Bowers has a look at what the delegate spread could be with the above MI proposal and FL being seated, and Obama ends with about a 100 seat pledged-delegate advantage. There are an additional 217 delegates that will also be chosen by early June, leaving only the remaining 300 super-delegates to choose.

Actually he says that's Clintons best-case scenario, which is worth mentioning.

Also, there's nothing stopping Clinton from suspending her campaign in case something drastic happens to Obama.  To continue to campaign, and campaign negatively as she has (the whole "white people won't vote for Obama" meme), is incredibly frustrating.

So Jerome is advocating Hillary take it to the convention?

Now, I heard chatter and opinion that some super delegates will hold off on endorsing Obama out of respect to Senator Clinton, you know, to give her time and room for an exit. Also, some are holding off to minimize the embarrassment of Obama getting droves of supers yet managing to get blown out in WV and KY (which is a forgone conclusion).

On the flip side of this equation, many (including the NY Times editorial) are asking the super delegates from states that voted to get off the fence and endorse.

What's the conventional wisdom here? To endorse, not to endorse, or why the hell do people think it's over?

From the economist blog, Democracy in America:

Yesterday Michigan Democrats came up with a fair and quick resolution, agreeing to a plan that would give Mrs Clinton 69 delegates, just four fewer than she would have gained by winning the state's unfair primary. But the deal would also take into account the fact that Barack Obama's name wasn't on the ballot, so he would receive 59 delegates. Reasonable, no? Even the co-chairman of Mrs Clinton's Michigan campaign said it was a fair deal.

But the Clinton campaign said today that they oppose the plan and won't support any proposal that doesn't give Mrs Clinton the full slate of delegates she earned from the January primary. Again, that's the primary where Barack Obama's name wasn't on the ballot. And yet they're going to insist on those four extra delegates. It's sad.

Tell me, how exactly is this different from when Obama was the one opposed to the deal on the table?

Personally, I think MI and Florida are the Clinton Campaigns Version of Rove's Roe v Wade spin?

They need some issue to keep the troops in a lather, LOOK how worked up the most ballastic Clinton supporters get about FL and MI?

If it's off the table, she starts to lose all her arguments?

Then, it's not about those POOR disenfranchised voters...

It's about the fact she is still behind.

Jerome forgot to mention that in Michigan we spiked the uncommited so Hillary Clinton will get 80% of Michigan delegates. Talk about a smart woman.

People can play with the numbers like modeling clay if it amuses them to, but Obama is the nominee. Those who don't know it yet are so few as to not matter.

But by all means they should send Hillary some more money. Maybe if she can pay herself back she'll end this silly distraction her candidacy has become.

Why start now?

She waits?  Or does she continue to attack behind the scenes, hoping for her chance?  

Regardless what happens now, at some point this will have to be worked out and they will be seated.  There is no doubt in that.  Considering this is the world's greatest democracy it is completely rediculous that we cant pull off a simple 1person=1vote election without screwing it up royally.  (especially in Florida (no offence to those that live there... ;)

There has been tons of speculation and finger pointing etc... but who really believes (or would accept) seating the delegates as they currently stand. (especially Michigan... like really I dont even live there and even if I did and had voted for Clinton, I would not think it was right and agree that she get her delegates and Obama get none... because he followed the rules.  The only people that believe this is right are people that put their candidate above their country.  Period.)

Anyways... it is stupid that this has been an issue, but it is twice as stupid that supporters from either side believe it is the other sides fault.  Of course both sides want to give up as little as possible... wouldnt you do the same?  Thus this is why it drags on.

Clinton's only edge is that she has enough delegates to screw up the convention. That she would use them that way would not be surprising. It's always been about the Clintons first and formost.

For months she used that as the goalpost.

Obama can call all the shots when it comes to this. He is now the presumptive nominee and FL/MI will be decided on his terms. Either now or May 31st or at the credentials committee. This is a non-starter for Hillary only meant to obfuscate her inability to gain the nomination. It isn't surprising to see people here pushing this spin.

This is over.

She was offered a great compromise and turned it down.

Why? It's all she's got and she needs her troops to believe she has a shot at this so they can keep sending her money.

55-0 is not an option and it is sad how some people spin this as an option knowing how stupid they sound.

This is an interesting read from First Read.

Oppo research

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2 008/05/08/998470.aspx

>> Clinton does seem to have the upper hand here, at
>> least for now. The Obama campaign would like to
>> end the fiasco, as shown by Obama's nod to
>> Florida, and would like to move over the top in
>> delegates. Clinton's position that she will not
>> give up a delegate that she's gotten through the
>> votes already counted, is also, like it or not, a
>> strong argument.

Jerome, you've done more for the progressive cause in this country than I have or ever will, so I say this with the greatest respect: You need to reconnect to reality, Jerome.

Saying "I won't give up delegates I've already gotten from these states" isn't a strong position when you haven't actually gotten any delegates from these states.  The DNC rules committee voted to strip MI and FL of those delegate seats well before the contests were held.  The contests in Florida and Michigan did not bestow any delegates upon either candidate.

If an amicable arrangement can be worked out, delegate seats may be attached to those contests retroactively, but at the present Clinton (like Obama) has no delegates from Florida or Michigan.  Grandstanding as though she does have them doesn't magically change things in her favor; if anything it's liable to annoy the people who set these rules in the first place and make them less likely to be willing to come to any kind of agreement.

This is a pretty clear case of damned if you do, damned if you don't for Clinton.

Either
- she accepts a fair resolution to Florida and Michigan and doesn't gain nearly enough delegates to close in on Obama's total

or
- she insists on seating Michigan as-is, the DNC and Obama keep Michigan from getting seated at all, and Obama still wins.

If Clinton's goal were truly to see Florida and Michigan represented at the convention, the only way to do it is to accept the compromise.  That would mean conceding the nomination to Obama, but Obama will win one way or the other.

another congressman SWITCHED to Obama.

Expect MORE not LESS of this.

This is not going to the convention.

My mantra on Michigan and Flroida will be truncated to this from now on.

Whatever the solution is on Florida and Michigan it will be a compromise which will not favor either candidate significantly enough to sway the outcome as it is now (thats reality talking).  Neither sides die hard supporters will agree with the compromise as fair and continue to make BS arguments to their graves about this 'travest of justice'.

That said, a compromise will happen and some form of Michgan and Florida will be seated.  It will not impact the outcome.

But all I care about at this time is penalties must be applied.  Under no circumstances should Michigans or Floridas super delegates have a vote, this is their mess and they should get a 100% penalty.  Pledged delegates?  Id love to see 50% penalty, but anywhere between 25% and 50% would be cool.  Rules are rules and this will give states pause in the future from playing chicken.

Done.  No Supers and Pledged with Penalties!

If HRC racks up more SD's (saying within 100 of BO) - is she still trying to get to the magical 2209? (or whatever the # is)? OR....

She's simply trying to get as many delegates as possible? and if this is the case - why? if she can't win what would be the purpose of getting as many as possible but still coming out short?

Is there a RULE or something that they may have to SPLIT the nomination or power or something???

Seperate issue - Hillary must not 'suspend' her campaign.  She must concede.  She must concede before the convention.  Im not saying concede now, there are still races left.  But if she is where she is now after the last race she must concede then.

If we are to unite as a party it must be crystal clear that she is out of the race.  She can not have her campaign hiding in the shadows hoping for a collapse.

I know 'suspend' versus 'concede' may seem like a petty semantic difference to some, but to me it is vitally important.  There must be finality to her exit so she has no wiggle room to play back door games.  We've seen it enough times that when she says she will play nice she comes out the next day and says 'shame on you Barack Obama' or starts making wild electability arguments to the public.

She must concede.

And if Barack was in this place Id say the same thing.  There needs to be finality to the primary and that happens when the last person concedes.

Come on in for a landing, Jerome.

It's over.

Jerome, your analysis is honestly really strange here:

"Clinton does seem to have the upper hand here, at least for now. The Obama campaign would like to end the fiasco, as shown by Obama's nod to Florida, and would like to move over the top in delegates. Clinton's position that she will not give up a delegate that she's gotten through the votes already counted, is also, like it or not, a strong argument."

How does Clinton have the upper hand when:

1. Obama has effectively won the nomination at least according to the vast majority of the media now.  Counter-arguments to this are now being basically dismissed (whereas before they were being given equal weight to the "math" argument).
   
2. The status quo regarding MI favors Obama, and Obama doesn't have to agree to anything.  For that matter, neither of the candidates need to agree to anything, and there's absolutely no reason to think that the DNC will suddenly completely reverse their decision regarding MI delegates (the most likely outcome outside of this compromise is probably giving the delegates half a vote, which, if I'm not mistaken, would actually be slightly worse for Clinton than the compromise proposed).
   
3. This delegate compromise was likely the absolute best option Clinton could realistically hope to get, considering it basically gives half-weight to an unsanctioned contest where her opponent wasn't even on the ballot.

So exactly how does she have the "upper hand" here?

Not like anyone cares, but here's my compromise idea.

Knock both states down to 50% for breaking the DNC calendar, then seat Florida as-is and Michigan 55-45 Clinton-Obama. I'm not sure on the superdelegates, but they should get either half a vote or no vote, since they're in large part responsible for this whole mess.

The folks who proposed the MI compromise seem to be either Hillary supporters or at least sympathizers, although they are all officially neutral.  There is a negotiating principle that says "never take the first offer," but realistically I doubt she's going to get a much better deal than this one.

I can understand why Clinton will remain in the race until June, but not wrapping this up before the convention is insanity.  It'll be a huge handicap for the Democrats if they have an eight month long primary season which ends only two months before the general.  If something dramatic (and, frankly, unexpected) happened between June and the convention, superdelegates could make whatever adjustments were necessary.

This will be Clinton's first big test of party loyalty.  If the primary season ends and Obama has a clear lock on the nomination, Clinton has a responsibility to stand down.  It's unsupportable to squander two months (and a unified convention) so that she can hope that something career destroying appears on the Drudge Report.  Understand there are plenty of Clinton supporters who would cheer her playing the spoiler, but they're crazy if they don't think this wouldn't lead to a long-term rift in the party (eg. one which carried into the next presidential cycle).  

2 issues with this:

--well at least she comes right out and says it that she's not for the plan unlike Barack a couple of months ago saying "i'll do whatever the DNC decides...." all the time just deflecting the argument. if I have to hear those words from his mouth one more time ill blow off my ears. He knows he was impeding the process by not agreeing with any of the proposed plans..

--you realize the actual split favored Clinton more. 73- 54. (something like that) So essentially they are reversing the voters true wishes by discounting their intentions and giving Brack some of Hillary's voters. I mean if we are going on principal that means she should n't agree to it. It does not represent the results accurately.

I think the most hilarious part of this is to hear some Obama supporters saying she is the one trying to silence peoples votes by not taking this offer. You realize the offer silences the voters wishes according to the primary results.  And to hear that she is the one who doesnt want the voters to count!! hahaa. Guys come on that was Barack a couple of months ago. Now that he is the pressumptive nominee he has the balls to accept the results (while accepting a plan that skews the results in his favor), but not until Clinton has no chance and will not benefit from the results does he allow them to count.

MI and FL will not help determine the nominee, since it is already chosen,now only because he is winning is he willing to find a solution for the results to count.

Now if that is a political and calculated move I dont know what is.

Im calling it like I see it. Im being honest. This solution is just another BEAUTY CONTEST. its a FAKE political move. How can you not see that.

Obama could afford to let MI and FL be seated completely according to the January results, even chancing it with the uncommitted delegates from MI, and still be way ahead.  Yes it would be closer, but the real question is, would seating MI and FL according to the very flawed January elections actually convince any superdelegates to endorse Clinton?  Unless she starts bringing the superdelegates her way it's kind of a moot point.  Everyone has known for a long time which way the superdelegates are going.

Obama on the cover of time.  I think they have been saying Clinton should drop out since Iowa.  Now all day about how Clinton can't win and should drop out but we've been hearing that for ever.

Intimidation at caucuses, refusal to count two entire states (that one is all of their faults and truly pathetic but after the fact because it was an Obama disadvantage suddenly the "rules" became oh so important).

The spin that goes unchallenged, such as the gas holiday.  Notice none of them mention at all that Clinton is using it as an excuse to investigate the oil companies profits, that is why it's called a windfall profits tax...

What I'm more surprised about is how this spin machine, so mammoth is hardly ever called out and it's assuredly Obama spin machine.  

I'm in Oregon and I just saw an Obama ad that was pure spin, confusion and plain manipulation (lies) about Clinton and the gas tax and gas prices.

I just am just positively disgusted by them at this point.  I'm sorry, that's where I"m at.  They have gone way too far for so long, I've just had enough.  

Jerome,
I owe you an apology. My eyesight is not the best. I mistook user "Jerome Arnnstrong" for you, Jerome Armstrong in the post below.

The timing is a bit off (2.00 / 3)
That was something to offer him from a position of strength. When you've completely lost you don't turn around and say "good game, here's second place".

by Jerome Arnnstrong on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:11:48  

I just wanted you to know that it was an honest mistake/act of half-blindness/stupidity. The "Arnnstrong" with the 2 n's next to eachother, look like an m.

Obama has wo, let it go....

Jerome is a partisan with the Clinton campaign. The stuff he says can be interesting, but it is all spin all the time.

Obama took +17 in North Carolina and by some miracle Clinton actually pulled out +4 from Indiana, meaning that on the night Obama gained 13 delegates. He was somewhere around 140 in the lead for pledged delegates, so he is up at 150 now with 217 delegates yet to be awarded. He cannot lose the pledged delegate race. In fact, it is hard to see how Hillary even cuts that hard into his lead in the remaining contests.

Though "popular vote" in the primary/caucus system is a interesting metric only relevant to the loser of the delegate count, there is no way Clinton can win in this either. Counting straw polls where Obama gets 0 and Clinton gets 328,309 doesn't make anyone believe she is the more popular candidate. It makes her instead look desperate to find a measure where she just barely loses instead of one where she loses by a small but decisive margin.

Obama has announced the date where he will attempt to shut the door. I think he will be successful since no other Democrat has been willing to show leadership on this issue of ending uncertainty.

Senator Clinton's reputation has been damaged by an even greater measure than her war vote entailed, and will likely face a strongly contested primary if she chooses to run again in 2012.

Clinton loses?

Given that federal election law states that a losing candidate can only recoup $250K of personal loans from their campaign committee after the convention, and given that the Clinton campaign has been unable to stay competitive in fundraising with the Obama campaign this year, how can we expect that she will be able to raise enough money to both run the day-to-day operations of her campaign and repay herself the remaining $11.15 million before August?

Considering that she max'ed out her DLC list early on, it would seem that the bulk of her contributions from here out would consist of small donors, many of whom are probably scraping together what they can to try and maintain what by many accounts is a long shot. If she infuses any more of her own fortune, it constitutes a considerable risk of this becoming an extremely costly vanity campaign.

Obama giving his "blessing" to the delegates of FL and MI because he wants to try to appease the voters who have been disenfranchised.  

But I don't think it will work.  Enough FL and MI voters are feeling their voters are just being used by the DNC to push their chosen deity.  

McCain is still admired by conservative and moderate Democrats and the Republicans will re-vitalize their base.  Hillary would have pulled moderate and socially liberal Republicans to her, but not Obama.

Voters matter and Hillary is the only candidate who has been fighting to let ALL Democrats have their voice heard.  There is much more loyalty to Hillary than the Democratic Party would like to think.

Unity in the party?  I don't see it happening.

I don't understand why Obama doesn't just agree that Clinton should get 73 delegates.  Plus or minus four doesn't really make much difference to him, does it?  And if he agrees to 73, he takes away the argument made by Hillary's supporters that 69-59 unfairly gives Obama delegates attributable to votes actually cast for Clinton.  

I realize Clinton's supporters still would argue that the uncommitted delegates should remain as such, subject to wooing by both candidates, but I don't see that as a reason for Obama to miss an opportunity to take an arrow out of Clinton's quiver by simply being magnanimous about the 73.  

Why doesn't he do it?  What is it that I'm missing here, because I'm convinced there must be something.

And I meant to add this:

why are we afraid of Clinton supporters not voting for Obama?  Do we really believe that, come November, millions of women and working Americans will cut of their own noses to spite their own faces and vote for the anti-choice, anti-labor, war-mongering McCain?  On "patriotism" issues no less?  After 8 years of Bush?

If so, we lack "testicular fortitude" and may need to find some.

What I'm surprised at is there has been little to no discussion about what probably would have happened if Obama and Edwards had both been on the MI ballot.

Does anyone reasonably expect under that scenario that HRC would have taken Michigan by 55%?

Apologies if this has been mentioned upthread - no time to read all comments - but it is being reported on DK that Edwards made an unintentional slip on Morning Joe this - when asked who he would endorse, he said he "just voted for him", but would not announce just yet.  Nobody seemed to pick up on the slip at the time.  Interesting, non?

That pretty much seems to sum up the reality of the situation.  Florida will be interesting to see...  I'm surprised how stubborn both candidates are being over a small number of delegates (Clinton loses 4 delegates in this scenario), but I guess with it as close as it is every little bit counts.  I wonder if the SDs from Michigan will give Obama a bump up with 4 of their votes so that he could get the 59 promised in this scenario and she still gets her 73?  

Depending on the RBC committee and their feelings, I wonder if she pushes too hard if they will do the 50% penalty on the original totals, giving uncommitted to Obama.  

...until Barack takes the lead in superdelegates.

These are the people that are supposed to deliver the nomination to her, right?

It doesn't matter why Obama took his name off the ballot. At the time that it occurred nobody could have possibly foreseen this kind of result in the race so ascribing some dark reasons for why he did so is silly. He will get a large number of delegates in Michigan and in Florida if they seat them. They will not be enough to close the gap and will therefore end the controversy. All of this breathless speculation about how Clinton could still win is such an exercise in futility I wonder why you spend so much energy on it.

Yesterday, the Clinton campaign effectively made it clear that it's either their way or the highway as far as MI and FL. They refused a reasonable compromise in Michigan, and Howard Wolfson went on TV last night basically saying that the rules committee meeting at the end of the month will only solve things if it totally agrees with the Clinton campaign and seats the delegates as is.

Unfortunately, I think this both puts the Clintons at odds with the majority of the electorate and the Democratic Party, but also makes them looks small.

MI and FL are never going to be seated as is. Even the Republicans punished MI and  FL by 50%, and to let the two states off scott free is just not going to happen. This should be about representing the people of the two states and seating the delegations and not about what maximizes Hillary's benefit.

I think the Clintons have taken an untenable position, set themselves up to be viewed as obstructing a compromise solution, and risk losing superdelegate support because of it.

LOL.  C'mon, Hillary, count MI.  You can't win in the fall if you exclude a critical state like MI from the convention.  Or something like that, right?  Man, is she getting desperate.

As an Obama supporter, I find nothing wrong with Sen. Clinton continuing her campaign until all the votes are counted and trying to persuade supers to vote for her.  In fact, I don't think there are many people who disagree ... but with one very important caveat.

She needs to go positive - promote her own strengths and what she has to offer - and stop making the Begala argument that Obama is the candidate of eggheads and minorities.  She ran a strong campaign, and if Obama self-destructs she should be our party's nominee.  But it's time for her to stop trying to knock him down.  He's the presumptive nominee.

I'd second that.  

Except that she started poorly by saying that she owned the working class white people vote.  I'd like to see more of the Hillary I (almost) would have voted for last year.

I disagree with Jerome and Todd.  The number of delegates to reach the nomination will not change even if Michigan and Florida's delegates count because they broke the rules.  Florida and Michigan delegates will not be seated until there is a nominee.  After Obama gets the magic number he will than agree to Michigan and Florida delegates being seated.  I am right and all of the people who disagree will be in for a big disappointment.  The nomination is over in all but the announcement.

Delegates, electoral college, all crap.  When Obama wins the popular vote, but losses the electoral college this fall it will destroy our country and we will demand a re-writing of the election process part of the constitution. Why the hell should states like Ohio and Florida get to decide an election every 4 years?  It's not fair.

No, she doesn't. She has already lost this thing. In any reality based best chance scenario, she has lost. Obama is surpassing her in SD's today.

This thing has been over since February. That's a long time to be in denial.

netted superdelegates since 5/5/08.

16 is Obama's amount.

At this rate, he'll have overtaken Hillary on the superdelegate count by monday or Tuesday.

Paul Krugman has a column this morning with a smart warning to Obama.  It's what folks have been saying loudly and frequently about Obama's campaign and it is can't really be said enough by those concerned about a win in Novemember.  It particularly needs to be said and said over again by his allies, those of us who want a Democrat in thw White House:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/opinio n/09krugman.html?ref=opinion

"More tirades from Obama supporters against Mrs. Clinton are not the answer -- they will only further alienate her grass-roots supporters, many of whom feel that she received a raw deal.

Nor is it helpful to insult the groups that supported Mrs. Clinton, either by suggesting that racism was their only motivation or by minimizing their importance.

After the Pennsylvania primary, David Axelrod, Mr. Obama's campaign manager, airily dismissed concerns about working-class whites, saying that they have "gone to the Republican nominee for many elections." On Tuesday night, Donna Brazile, the Democratic strategist, declared that "we don't have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics." That sort of thing has to stop.

One thing the Democrats definitely need to do is give delegates from Florida and Michigan -- representatives of citizens who voted in good faith, and whose support the party may well need this November -- seats at the convention.

And to the extent that campaigning matters, Mr. Obama should center his campaign on economic issues that matter to working-class families, whatever their race.

The point is that Mr. Obama has an extraordinary opportunity in this year's election. He should do everything possible to avoid squandering it."

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/politics/election_20082/2008_presiden tial_election/daily_presidential_trackin g_poll

Rasmussen Reports has been tracking the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination daily for nineteen months... since November 2006. For the last few months, the most remarkable feature of the race has been its consistency and stability. Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both running historic campaigns and both have captured the votes and hearts of distinct and important constituencies within the Democratic Party. Obama has won Primaries in states where the demographics favor his campaign and Clinton has won in the states that favor her campaign.

However, while Senator Clinton has remained close and competitive in every meaningful measure, she is a close second and the race is over. It has become clear that Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee.

This is just sad.  I guess the reality distortion on this site really has gotten bad.  After reading diary after diary after diary about "disenfranchising" the MI and FL voters, now you are backing Hillary when she holds up seating the delegations?

Say what you want about the MI election, but there is no way you can defend giving Hillary a majority of the delegates while Obama receives none.  It was an election people were told wouldn't count, with abnormally low turnout, and Obama wasn't even on the ballot.  How the f*** can you say that counting those election results is democracy?  

Hillary Clinton is beginning to make me sick.  Her cries of "disenfranchisement" were a thinly-veiled political ploy from the get-go.  Now this is just getting ridiculous.  The proposed solution is completely fair to the voters considering the election that took place.

Now that Hillary is holding up seating the delegations I expect cries of outrage from all of you who were previously so mad?  Cries that Hillary is "disenfranchising" the MI voters because she won't seat their delegations.

Oh, wait, I forgot.  It's only disenfranchising when the delegates aren't seated the way SHE likes them.  My mistake, how could I be so stupid.

Clinton does have a strong argument and Obama needs to have the party to unify as quickly as possible. Since Florida and Michigan will no longer make that big of a difference in the nomination, its time to allow to seat them in proportion to their vote. Obama can get a 40-55 split in Michigan by assuming that those voting uncommitted were voting for him.

The DNC can find other punishment for future violators. My suggestion would be to allow the national party have the power to meddle in the affairs of a state party, if the state party violated the primary timing rules.

Jerome,
   You keep claiming that seaating all of Hillary's Michigan delegates is a fair argument.

what is the state of our party when anyone can think that Michigan was a fair election?

I want, sincerely, for someone to explain to me how Michigan is considered a fair election?

Thanks,
Alec

Wow! After staying away from MyDD for awhile, I just had to come back to see what was up.  So nice to see that Jerome is still smoking the same crack, and still apparently doesn't care that his credibility as a commentator is forever shot.  I'm guessing that he'll be supporting Nader next.  Sad.

Hillary's argument that Michigan delegates should be seated based on the votes is NOT a strong one since none of the other candidates were on the ballot.  Before she realized that she wasn't going to get the nomination she agreed that Michigan and Florida wouldn't count per the DNC ruling.

Let's at least be honest.

yes, they're flipping to obama.

i don't think hillary has any doubts about her chance in the contest. i think she'll stay in at least to KY/OR, perhaps even until PR and the decision about MI/FL is brought before the DNC. but she's done, and she knows it.

if the supers will continue to go to obama, so that by the end of the primaries, it will be clear to everyone, even the most die-hard hrc fans.

hrc knows this, and she knows it's over.

It should have been clear all along that the FL and MI delegations would be seated--but that their delegates would not be determinative of the nominee.

One thing you absolutely DO NOT do is sanction two states for breaking the rules (that 48 other states plus various territories followed) and then, at the end, somehow bestow upon those self-same states the final voice in who our nominee will be.

That would be the most absurd scenario imaginable.  It's not even remotely conceivable.

(I have no problem with Hillary staying in the race and helping Obama triangulate all remaining fire on McCain, allowing her to raise enough money to pay off her debt along the way--so long as she holds back on Obama.  It is no longer productive for the Clinton campaign to go after Obama, who will be our nominee, and it needs to stop.)

I was agnostic until South Carolina.  I was always somewhere between Edwards and Obama, but have not been that strong either way until recently, where I feel like this needs to be stopped.  This has to be ended.  I feel like I am approaching a point where it is "us or them".  Here is what will happen in my state if we cross that threshold, just so you start to get a little idea of the area we are heading into, what a civil war might look like in a political party.

All Hillary Superdelegates go on a list of people to get thrown out of the Party process.  The primary target will be DNC members since you can't get rid of electeds quickly.  All it takes is 50+1% to push through a malfeasance charge, and in my state.  Also, since there are enough Obama people to push through rules changes at the State convention, they can amend the rules to allow people to drop Hillary, and then put the screws to the delegates, especially local elected officials who need support and money.  They will switch or face brutal reprisals which will cost some of them their seats.  The total loss to Hillary will be somewhere in the realm of 10 delegates at a minimum if my math is right.  After that, they will go after the groups that supported her and make sure they get cut out of the process as well, they will not be left unharmed.  A vote for Hillary will be political suicide.  Her entire base will be crushed. This process will continue until new State Party people get elected.  They will all be Obama people.  The Hillary people will get whipsawed out of office. Will some people go over to the Republicans?  Yes.  Will this create divisions for a generation? Probably.  But that is what will happen.

I don't think anyone likes my scenario, but that is what will happen.   If you believe for one second that it will not be anything but a bloody mess putting the fix in for Hillary, you can forget it.  What is going on is not minor, this is not merely a difference of opinion, this has the potential to rip the entire party to shreds, this is explosive, and this is becoming a much bigger and more important issue than Hillary.  Hillary has a lot of power and connections, but she has also lost this contest, and with that loss, the power has shifted to Obama.  She has lost.  The sooner she realizes that, the better.  She is no longer a viable option for the party.  

I don't want a war in my party and I don't expect one.  This scenario will not happen because everyone with a vested interest in the Party will soon realize the stakes for them personally.  This is not a game.  They have a week to make up their minds if they want a war or not, and then the bodies start to drop, a few at first, but then it will start to get bad.  This must be resolved before the Rules meeting, Obama needs to be recognized, or all hell is going to break loose.

"Even Obama"!! That bastion of disenfranchisement!!!

Silly season is an understatement. This season is one of delusionment.