digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at firstread.msnbc.msn.com

BREAKING: MICHIGAN COMPROMISE PASSES

firstread.msnbc.msn.com — By a 19-8 vote, a compromise allocating Michigan's pledged delegates by a 69-59 formula -- but counting each by just half a vote -- has just passed the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee. The compromise will give Clinton 34.5 delegates and Obama 29.5 delegates. It would also seat all of Michigan's superdelegates but also give them just half a vote.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • diggeradoo, on 05/31/2008, -13/+68Almost There!
    • kilt42, on 06/01/2008, -7/+28i wish, the media will probably pass this off as a "big win" for Clinton.
      • nofrickenway, on 06/01/2008, -5/+3It IS a big win for Clinton, didn't you see that they increased the total # needed by 93? I know it's not in the summary but it's there. That gives Clinton another 63 votes of leeway to make an arguement that she is the stronger candidate and more potential Supers to throw out the will of the people.
    • mrdoolittle119, on 06/01/2008, -5/+2blarny stones!!!!
    • Qeveren, on 06/01/2008, -1/+25Good job DNC, you just pulled what little teeth your own bylaws had. XD
    • plimpton777, on 06/01/2008, -4/+21Wow, I almost regret switching to the Republican party to vote for Ron Paul because it prevented me from voting against this insane, power-hungry, constipated (full of *****) bitch.
      HC: GTFO
      • Lazydriver, on 06/01/2008, -1/+1Be Indy!
      • inobla, on 06/01/2008, -4/+10It has to suck knowing you're vote disappeared into the void.
        • skankyBacon, on 06/01/2008, -0/+9It has to suck not knowing the difference between "you're" and "your".
    • fuzzynyanko, on 06/01/2008, -6/+3True, but I rather have all of the votes counted, even if it does help out HRC
      • chaosium, on 06/01/2008, -1/+12If that was true, Caucus states would count for the "popular vote".

        Why should we consider poisoned elections such as Michigan and Florida's valid?
        • starkruzr, on 06/01/2008, -1/+4My question is why the MSM never talks about the fact that the elections were in fact poisoned so badly. Even a revote at this point would not be a true democratic process.
        • chaosium, on 06/01/2008, -0/+4The media doesn't investigate the news anymore, it either regurgitates it, or it "makes" it up out of whole cloth.

          They have no interest in calling people and ESPECIALLY politicians out on their ***** for fear of losing the intensely loyal demographics that respond best to their advertisers.

          Pander pander pander, play dumb.
        • KMye, on 06/01/2008, -0/+3@star

          That's been bugging the hell out of me, too. I'd say only one in four stories I hear/read mention the fact Obama (and everyone but Hillary) took their names off the ballot in MI. But chaosium likely has the answer in his second ¶
    • roflbrothel, on 06/01/2008, -9/+5BREAKING: BREAKING NEWS IS SOMETHING THAT JUST HAPPENED! This is not BREAKING news.

      This is good news in my book though, doug.
      • robbh66, on 06/01/2008, -3/+2BREAKING: Nothing on Digg is breaking- ever.
      • breadfred, on 06/01/2008, -2/+1doug? You sound like me, being Dutch and not pronouncing 'th' correct all the time and forgetting the 'h' on the end.
        • poxonyou, on 06/01/2008, -1/+1BREAKING: ........
          8 hours pass and it hits front page
    • mobbo, on 06/01/2008, -1/+5I wish they would have just not counted both of the primaries and then had all the Hillary supporters who said they'd leave the Democratic Party do just that. Good ridance!
      • DivisibleByZero, on 06/01/2008, -1/+9Yeah, like all those democrats who moved to Canada when Bush got re-elected...
      • chaosium, on 06/01/2008, -5/+2"Think of the children" Dems are the worst. The sooner they turn (and lieberman, etc.) Rep, the better for the sake of the party.
        • mrsteveman1, on 06/01/2008, -2/+2who said anything about children?
        • chaosium, on 06/01/2008, -2/+3"who said anything about children?"

          Catlady soccer mom conservative Dems, "it takes a village", etc.
    • Fordi, on 06/01/2008, -0/+17Yay! New data, so new update!

      Total
      ....Delegates: 3438
      ....SuperDelegates: 795
      ....Overall: 4233

      Simple Majority: 2117

      Standings
      ....Obama
      ........Delegates: 1723.5
      ........SDs: 328.5
      ........Overall: 2052
      ........Needed: 65
      ....Clinton
      ........Delegates: 1586.5
      ........SDs: 290
      ........Overall: 1876.5
      ........Needed: 240.5
      ....Remainder
      ........Delegates: 128
      ........SDs: 176.5
      ........Overall: 304.5

      Required for Clinton to remain competitve:
      ....Obama: 64 (50.00%)
      ....Clinton: 64 (50.00%)

      Needed SD's
      ....Obama: 0 (0.00%)
      ....Clinton: 176.5 (100.00%)

      Delegate tie no longer possible
    • ThickGreenPuke, on 06/01/2008, -4/+1can you see the pit from where you are standing?
    • israfeel, on 06/01/2008, -14/+6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _________
      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./ It’s a trap!
      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _,,,--~~~~~~~~--,_ . . . . ._________/
      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,-‘ : : : :::: :::: :: : : : : :º ‘-, . . /. . . . . . . . . .
      . . . . . . . . . . . . .,-‘ :: : : :::: :::: :::: :::: : : :o : ‘-, . . . . . . . . . .
      . . . . . . . . . . . ,-‘ :: ::: :: : : :: :::: :::: :: : : : : :O ‘-, . . . . . . . . .
      . . . . . . . . . .,-‘ : :: :: :: :: :: : : : : : , : : :º :::: :::: ::’; . . . . . . . .
      . . . . . . . . .,-‘ / / : :: :: :: :: : : :::: :::-, ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ; . . . . . . . .
      . . . . . . . . /,-‘,’ :: : : : : : : : : :: :: :: : ‘-, ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;;| . . . . . . .
      . . . . . . . /,’,-‘ :: :: :: :: :: :: :: : ::_,-~~,_’-, ;; ;; ;; ;; | . . . . . . .
      . . . . . _/ :,’ :/ :: :: :: : : :: :: _,-‘/ : ,-‘;’-‘’’’’~-, ;; ;; ;;,’ . . . . . . . .
      . . . ,-‘ / : : : : : : ,-‘’’ : : :,--‘’ :|| /,-‘-‘--‘’’__,’’’ ;; ;,-‘ . . . . . . . .
      . . . :/,, : : : _,-‘ --,,_ : : : ||/ /,-‘-‘x### :: ;;/ . . . . . . . . . .
      . . . . / /---‘’’’ : # : : : : : | | : (O##º : :/ /-‘’ . . . . . . . . . . .
      . . . . /,’____ : : ‘-# : , : : : : ‘-,___,-‘,-`-,, . . . . . . . . . . .
      . . . . ‘ ) : : : :’’’’--,,--,,,,,,¯ :: ::--,,_’’-,,’’’¯ :’- :’-, . . . . . . . . .
      . . . . .) : : : : : : ,, : ‘’’’~~~~’ :: :: :: :’’’’’¯ :: ,-‘ :,/ . . . . . . . . .
      . . . . .,/ /|| | :/ / : : : : : : : ,’-, :: :: :: :: ::,--‘’ :,-‘ . . . . . . . .
      . . . . .’| |/ ‘/ / :: :_--,, : , | )’; :: :: :: :,-‘’ : ,-‘ : : : , . . . . . . .
      . . . ./¯ :| | : |/ :: ::----, :/ :|/ :: :: ,-‘’ : :,-‘ : : : : : : ‘’-,,_ . . . .
      . . ..| : : :/ ‘’-(, :: :: :: ‘’’’’~,,,,,’’ :: ,-‘’ : :,-‘ : : : : : : : : :,-‘’’ . . . .
      . ,-‘ : : : | : : ‘’) : : :¯’’’’~-,: : ,--‘’’ : :,-‘’ : : : : : : : : : ,-‘ :¯’’’’’-,_ .
      ./ : : : : :’-, :: | :: :: :: _,,-‘’’’¯ : ,--‘’ : : : : : : : : : : : / : : : : : : :’’-,
      / : : : : : -, :¯’’’’’’’’’’’¯ : : _,,-~’’ : : : : : : : : : : : : : :| : : : : : : : : :
      : : : : : : :¯’’~~~~~~’’’ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : | : : : : : : : : :
    • Stormwern, on 06/01/2008, -0/+3What really pisses me off about this is the superdelegates. If they were looking for any oportunity in history to promote their existence, this is it.
    • LeeSoong, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Obama should think of learning a trade,
      some jobs skills to support his family
      for after he loses the race.
  • livegreenordie, on 05/31/2008, -18/+155 It sounds very fair & hopefully will finally unite the party except for Clinton supporters who were disruptive of the process & vowed to continue angry protests until the end of time~
    • Coven, on 06/01/2008, -4/+61Clinton supporters will still be protesting when they are inaugurating Obama in January.
      • locamama, on 06/01/2008, -19/+3Yea, maybe inaugurating his 10 foot sailboat on lake Michigan. You just kidding yourself if you think this guy can win. I dont care what color you are.
      • Hubb3329, on 06/01/2008, -17/+2Clinton was the party's only chance. Obama cannot carry the General election. Sorry! Does that make me racist?
        • PhantomPhoenix, on 06/01/2008, -1/+10No, it makes you an idiot.
        • winampman2, on 06/01/2008, -2/+4Obama is the party's only chance. Clinton cannot carry the General election. Sorry! Does that make me a sexist?
        • Ravatar, on 06/01/2008, -0/+7No, just ignorant.
        • CoMpUtErITGuY, on 06/01/2008, -1/+0Yes. You have spoken against Digg's God. How dare you!
        • Hubb3329, on 06/01/2008, -1/+1Lets see. We now know that no Jewish people will vote for him. No Hispanic. No women. No blue color whites in the Midwest. Seems to me these are key demographics for a Democrat. He's won exactly two primaries since February. Sorry if I confused anyone with the facts. After the elections over though, I heard there is some good land available in Guiana that Jim Jones left vacant.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 06/01/2008, -8/+26theyll also be voting mccain and losing the election for the dems.
      • chaosium, on 06/01/2008, -3/+7They will be a tenth of the Republicans writing in Ron Paul, that is to say verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry few.
      • locamama, on 06/01/2008, -16/+4Sorry, I'm a Dem and I am now voting McCain. Cant stomach Obama. His whole game is political expediency. Unacceptable. He is worse than the average politician. I'm not impressed that he is just now quiting his church. He is a liar...
        • bella2k, on 06/01/2008, -2/+4and Hillary isn't?
        • FairDinkumMate, on 06/01/2008, -2/+11If you are voting McCain you ARE NOT A DEMOCRAT!
          You can try & convince yourself you are but it just ain't so. Virtually all of McCain's policies are the polar opposite of what Democrats stand for. Your comment sounds to me like political expediency - UNACCEPTABLE!

          IF you were a TRUE Democrat & for whatever reason don't like Obama that much, the most you could bring yourself to do is not vote, but to actually vote for McCain puts you on the same team on election day as George Bush & Karl Rove!
        • Naieve, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1He is a liar????
          Have you missed everything Hillary has said???
          Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. The Clinton Motto.
        • marx2k, on 06/01/2008, -0/+0You fail at political life
      • Hubb3329, on 06/01/2008, -7/+2You're right. Loca. Oooh! Let me quit the mob before the felony conviction comes down. Don't think so. Too little, too late. The man was exposed long before this. He is unelectable! Say it now. President McCain. Don't blame me, I voted for Hilary! I see a bumper sticker. Think I'll buy stock.
      • ralphodog, on 06/01/2008, -0/+2You can digg me down because you don't agree with me, but you have to understand where we're coming from. I want a primary vote that's on equal ground with people from the states that party arbitrarily decided got to go first. The party can either do that, or stand by their rules. While they're totally within their rights to stand by their rules, I am also totally within my rights to take my vote elsewhere where it will be welcomed.
      • stonewaljacksn, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1locamama
        I respect your decision to vote for McCain. He is equally as viable of a candidate as Hillary or Obama. Now in no way do I consider McCain to be a true religious right pandering zealot deep down like Bush, but I still wish you were voting Democrat just to keep the republican religious right's influence that much farther from the Oval Office. Still, I'm not worried about a McCain presidency like I would be about say, a Huckabee presidency. We moderates lefty's really lucked out running against McCain. It's really win-win for us...or win-not lose too bad for us.
        I only stuck with the Democrats for so long because of my ultra-liberal stance on morality. I'm writing in Ron Paul this year though because he is the only candidate to keep morals out of Federal Government AND he is a fiscal conservative.

    • twiztidsinz, on 06/01/2008, -6/+86How is that fair?
      They both agreed NOT to have the delegates, but Clinton bitched and moaned and got her way. Fair my ass....
      • ldkronos, on 06/01/2008, -2/+30It's fair in that it make my stupid state feel important while still punishing us (to serve as a deterrent for the future), it makes Hilldog feel like she's got another victory that she can brag endlessly about, and it changes absolutely nothing result wise. Everybody walks away a winner.

        Well, except for me. I feel personally cheated because I was told my opinion didn't matter, I acted accordingly, and then found out I was lied to. But again, it didn't change anything, so I guess I really don't care that much.
        • twiztidsinz, on 06/01/2008, -0/+9Bull
          All this did was show that with enough crying you can get any "punishment" or "restriction" lifted.
        • jp12380, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1No, although it was not what was agreed upon orginally it certainly isn't what Clinton hopped for.

          I think she will take it but bear in mind that they did this knowing it really does not change anything and that Obama is still in the lead.
      • Fordi, on 06/01/2008, -0/+8"This will hijack four delegates"

        ... four out of your 176.5 delegate deficit. Good win there, Hill.
      • ngmcs8203, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1It's fair to the voters. We all know that Obama's got this thing pretty much wrapped up. Let the voters in those states feel like their vote counted. If it happened here in California I would have liked that my vote be counted.
    • ambiguus, on 06/01/2008, -0/+24Well, it's somewhat fair because the original rules say that the penalty is a minimum of 50% representation of delegates for states that break party rules, so they are in essence just going by that.
      What really gets me though, is how the Clinton side is saying they still might challenge it. WTH? Seriously, if you don't agree to the rules of the party that you are running under, maybe you don't belong in that party. This passed committee, why are her reps still inciting divisiveness? This could of been her chance to bring these people back in to the process, but instead, stands by the fact that they are still "disenfranchised". Clinton FTL.
      • jp12380, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1Of course they will challenge it, it will not help Hillary win and that is all she wants.
    • tech42er, on 06/01/2008, -3/+45How the ***** can they seat Michigan when Obama WASN'T EVEN ON THE BALLOT? And Hillary has the nerve to complain she's not getting enough? ***** bitch.
      • charm803, on 06/01/2008, -2/+21You forgot to mention how Hillary was one who said they shouldn't be counted in the first place!
        wah wah wah

      • xBDVx, on 06/01/2008, -3/+11They gave the uncommitted votes to Obama. That was a part of the compromise. But you're right, she's going too far in rejecting this. According to the numbers, she 'won' the state. What more does she want?
        • twiztidsinz, on 06/01/2008, -0/+10I want the candidates, NAMELY CLINTON, to stick to the rules they agree to and not throw a fit when she doesn't get her way.
      • locamama, on 06/01/2008, -18/+3Obama removed his name from the ballot. Just another of his political miscalculations. I'm from Michigan. I'm a Democrat. I don't know anyone who likes this guy. End of story.
        • twiztidsinz, on 06/01/2008, -0/+11Amy (locamama)
          A 97 year-old grrrl from the Texas prairie (US) who joined Digg on December 21st, 2007

          Make some valid points or quit spamming.
        • FairDinkumMate, on 06/01/2008, -1/+9You're NOT A DEMOCRAT because you said in your last comment you would vote McCain so GO AWAY to republicans-r-us.com or wherever you freaks hang out online!
      • Hubb3329, on 06/01/2008, -11/+1I to am from Michigan. I'm a life long Dem. Union all that. This guy will not win in Michigan. We blame the Democrat party and Obama for this. Sorry this isn't Oregon. We work for a living around here. To us that means something. To us our vote means something. Obviously to the former party for the working man this no longer means anything.
        • byrdgang, on 06/01/2008, -2/+1Hub3329, if you are a hard working individual, you wouldn't be voting Democrat to begin with. You wouldn't be voting for your average Republican either (Republican politicians love to promise tax cuts...at least Democrats don't pretend).
        • winampman2, on 06/01/2008, -0/+8Why the ***** do you Clinton supporters keep blaming Obama for this? He had NOTHING to do with your delegates becoming unseated. YOUR candidate (Clinton) supported this. Obama is simply following the Democratic party rules. If they say they will seat your delegates, he will follow that too.
          Now go back to your Clinton camp and tell all your Clinton buddies that its NOT Obama's fault.
        • Coven, on 06/01/2008, -0/+2Explain, in detail, why it is Obama's fault that Michigan was penalized for moving their primary date earlier in the year. Please cite sources.
      • Naieve, on 06/01/2008, -0/+2Didn't you hear what a senior member of her campaign said?
        She wants the votes, but since Obama wasn't on the ballot he doesn't get any.
        See, she is worried about her disenfranchised voters, not Obama's.
        Clintonesque.
    • Gemfinder, on 06/01/2008, -0/+8Unfair? Up until this morning, the delegations were SOL out on the street, and now they have tickets to Denver. The Clinton team's heckling and catcalling is just the latest manifestation of greed.
    • dinot, on 06/01/2008, -0/+3What amazes me the most was that no one in that committee pointed out why they were all there in the first place. BECAUSE HILLARY IS LOSING.
  • GroundhogBoy, on 05/31/2008, -12/+378Just watched the conclusion and Clinton supporters should be ashamed of their behavior during this meeting.
    • blackinthmiddle, on 06/01/2008, -3/+79They should, but they won't be. The more Hillary keeps this up, the more she ensures that a senile war monger will be in the white house next year.
      • ralphthemagi, on 06/01/2008, -22/+3It's not just Hillary. Hillary believes that she's the better candidate, and more electable in the fall. She believes that Obama can not win in the general election. And you know what? 45%+ of Democrats agree. They may be right, they may be wrong. Time will tell.

        Don't get me wrong, she's in it for herself... but so is every other politician.
        • jsqurred, on 06/01/2008, -1/+16Believing that you are the better candidate in no way entitles you to be exempt from the rules - that's what the crux of the argument was - not Hillary's electability.
        • ralphthemagi, on 06/01/2008, -7/+1Yes, they agreed to the rules, but BOTH candidates knew they'd eventually have to seat the delegates from these states. The Dems can't win in the fall without the support in these states. We are talking about 45 electoral votes here.

          They both agreed to the rules, and both knew they'd have to do something with these states in order to avoid alienating voters.
      • radiofrequency, on 06/01/2008, -31/+2John McCain is the best candidate for the White House. He's not in the business of negotiating with Hamas or appeasing America's enemies like Iran and Cuba.
        • pintomp3, on 06/01/2008, -2/+13LOL, i'm shaking in my boots because of Cuba.
        • chaosium, on 06/01/2008, -3/+4"John McCain is the best candidate for the White House. He's not in the business of negotiating with Hamas or appeasing America's enemies like Iran and Cuba."

          Ah, another micropenis trying to shake his baby-toe sized junk at people who remain unafraid.
        • Hubb3329, on 06/01/2008, -1/+2You people care more about insulting someone than whats actually good for this country. See, thats the problem. If you disagree with an Obama supporter, you get the size of your penis insulted.
        • AnOMNOMymous, on 06/01/2008, -1/+1Learn what appease means, warfag.
        • marx2k, on 06/01/2008, -0/+0radiofrequency: Show me where that tactic has worked for America at any point in history and I might be persuaded to agree.
      • nakani, on 06/01/2008, -0/+2Actually, that's the moronic voters' fault, not Hilary's.
    • whygohome10, on 06/01/2008, -44/+5Well of course mccain is better than obama....
      • madisonskyline, on 06/01/2008, -3/+23......for me to poop on!!!!
      • whygohome10, on 06/01/2008, -1/+10sarcasm is hard to convey on the internet... my bad. Woohoo Obama '08
    • InetRoadkill, on 06/01/2008, -4/+77I don't know what was worse: The retarded Hillary supporters making a scene in the audience or Harold Ickes's whining and threatening to drag this out thru the convention. Someone call the waaahhhhhbulance.
      • Tanishh, on 06/01/2008, -0/+9 But they cheated her out of a whole four delegates! (2 when you consider that they only count for half now) Obama leads by 176.5 when he should only lead by 172.5! Obviously if he only led by 172.5 superdelegates would go for Hillary in droves and she would win as the people have demanded!

        ...Ah hell, I give up. The fact that this guy, who previously voted to take away all the votes from MI and FL, has the balls to cry about them not receiving their votes back and about Hillary getting four delegates less than she should have shows how much integrity he has and how much he really cares about unity in the Democratic party.

        Harold Ickes is a douchebag of the first order and is no better than the douchebags in the audience who booed and interrupted the very Clinton supporter who put forth the proposal to seat all the delegates in the first place. I rather wish we could take an island somewhere, ship all these douchebags there, and make John McCain president of said island. They're saying they'll vote McCain in November and "Nobama" and "Unity never" so why the hell don't we just give them what they're asking for? I wonder if these same people are going to cry and engage in such histrionics when McCain loses in November.
    • ahoy, on 06/01/2008, -2/+125they literally yelled "McCain 08!" and "No-bama"

      If you watched the debates between Clinton and Obama, you realized that they're identical on a lot of issues. McCain, on the other hand, has entirely different politics. For what purpose were these people voting for? Sometimes I question allowing everyone to vote... the superdelegate argument has never made more sense.
      • inhaler, on 06/01/2008, -24/+7Can't we just vote "No contest" and forgo a president for 4 years? Seriously, I don't like my options.
        • tech42er, on 06/01/2008, -3/+1Absolutely. I disagree with Obama and McCain on a number of important issues. And Clinton? Not only do I disagree with her on almost all issues, but she's been such a bitch through the primaries, there's no way I'd ever consider voting for her.
        • Me1000, on 06/01/2008, -0/+54 more years of Bush?
          I was about to say "Canada here I come" but then I thought about how Bush affects the whole freaking world!

          The sooner bush is gone the better!
      • Kautylia, on 06/01/2008, -5/+17Some people don't vote on issues; they vote on personality. And although I know most Obama supporters don't believe it, it is possible to like McCain as a person more than Obama.

        That being said, I'm going to vote for Obama in November since Hillary isn't going to get the nomination.
        • chaosium, on 06/01/2008, -1/+3"And although I know most Obama supporters don't believe it, it is possible to like McCain as a person more than Obama"

          I'm guessing you're going by military service and not everything that's happened since.
        • FairDinkumMate, on 06/01/2008, -1/+7What sort of MORON votes on personality?
          It's not like whoever's elected is going to be having dinner with you 5 nights a week! The impact of the President on your life(& almost everyone elses) is going to be primarily through the impact of their policies. If the nominated candidate was a lying, cheating, untrustworthy, two faced person that you thought was likely to change the policies 180 degrees once they were in power I could understand, but seeing as this decision basically rules out any chance of Clinton getting the Democratic nomination I fail to see you point.
        • crowbar77, on 06/01/2008, -3/+11I doubt anyone likes McCain for his personality. Here's the difference

          McCain = White
          Obama = Black
        • Kautylia, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1"What sort of MORON votes on personality?"
          Wasn't that the argument for Barack Obama? It's all about his personality. He feels the same on issues as a number of the other democratic candidates, but because he happened to be a better speaker, tons of people voted for him. Look at the 1960 election between Kennedy and Nixon. It was charisma that gave Kennedy the edge. In my opinion, this election is exactly the same. Obama got the edge over his opponents through his speaking ability, not through his policy.

          "McCain = White
          Obama = Black"
          So anyone who disagrees with your judgment of character must be racist? What a horrible generalization to make. Though a good deal of McCain's support is racially based (a lot of Obama's is too; look at his win % among African Americans), you can't honestly believe that all of his supporters only like him for that reason. I like McCain as a person more than I do Obama because I feel like his public persona is far more real than Obama's. But I still plan to vote for Obama based off policy.

          Don't be so narrow minded fellas. Realize that people can disagree with you and not be insane or hateful.
        • blagoaw, on 06/01/2008, -0/+2For a president, strong speaking ability and charisma are valuable assets, and I would argue that these attributes are practically essential (and I am speaking as a person who most certainly does not possess those attributes).. but to consider these attributes to be attributes of the candidate's "personality" and to then extrapolate this to considering every aspect of the candidate's personality with equal weighting might be a mistake (does charisma == personality anyway?). It's true that a lot of people vote based on personality, and perversely, it arises that a candidate's perceived personality is of real importance since it's important to your well-being that the leader have the respect of the people you care about. Perceived personality is a contrived production that is easily built up by campaign advisers, so I hope that we can get further away from this in the future.
    • adml_shake, on 06/01/2008, -3/+19They should already be ashamed for being Clinton supporters. I doubt this will make them wake up.
    • boonesfarm, on 06/01/2008, -11/+3The only thing worse than having an f'd up delegate structure in the DNC is creating an unprecedented, impromptu clause to try to ***** their nomination process. It reminds me of how Democrats tried to rewire the Electoral College when things didn't go their way in 2000. Gratz.
    • ldailey06, on 06/01/2008, -1/+9I couldn't bear to watch the coverage of the testimony to the commitee. It was such a shameless display of political hackery (i.e. people supporting whatever benefits their candidate).
      • blagoaw, on 06/01/2008, -0/+10I watched it too. The saddest thing was the number of people who pretended they felt it would only be fair to count all the votes.. entirely neglecting that there were no proper votes to count anyway. The gap between Hillary and Obama is such that she needed all those votes, so they went for it all and made arguments that made no sense.. hoping that their own supporters were too ***** stupid to realize it and would buy the whole David vs Goliath thing.
    • Naieve, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1No one believed me a year ago when I said the Democratic Party would find a way to keep the Republicans in the game.
      I'd laugh, but with a Democrat I respect running for office, I almost want to cry instead.
      It's funny listening to my friends talk down on Clinton. I don't say I told you so, I just sit there with my little smirk and they all know they are finally agreeing with me, only about a decade later.
  • BabushkaBlue, on 05/31/2008, -8/+140Hillary will hang on to this campaign until her dying breath. She WILL take this to the credentials committee and this thing will never ever ever end. Her disruptive campaigners were obnoxious, as is her refusal to gracefully step aside.
    • clubdirthill002, on 06/01/2008, -2/+36I love the Clintontard that yelled "YOU SHUT UP" when someone told her off for interrupting. I LOL'd.
      • marx2k, on 06/01/2008, -0/+0That pretty much sums up the Clinton camp right there
    • offthewagon, on 06/01/2008, -36/+4For the record, Obama supporters are far worse. As evidenced by this thread. As evidenced by every single Obama/Hillary thread on digg.
      • SillyDigger, on 06/01/2008, -6/+5Durrrrr!!

        Hilkarity 08!
        • offthewagon, on 06/01/2008, -5/+5I'm thinking McCain. Neither Dem Candidate seems worthy.
      • babar77, on 06/01/2008, -4/+10You evidence is completely lacking. You're trying to compare anonymous posts on a website as equivalent to showing up to a major committee meeting and acting a fool in public?

        As for the website argument you've never been to HillaryClinton.com or TaylorMarsh.com have you? There's a collection of calm, reasonable, and rational people. /sarcasm. Hillary Supporters have proven to be the supporters drinking the proverbial kool-aid. They will cut off their nose to spite their face by threatening to vote for a candidate that will destroy everything they supposedly believe in.
        • offthewagon, on 06/01/2008, -2/+2I know this site does not stand for the general public. If it did Ron Paul wouldn't have been humiliated so early in the race.
      • NativeAlien, on 06/01/2008, -3/+3Subjective-Statement Man to the rescue!
        • offthewagon, on 06/01/2008, -2/+2Three people on my comment who have proven my point. Keep 'em coming!
      • cheezintern, on 06/01/2008, -3/+5Worst than Hillary Supporters? I think not. Obama supporters seems to be grounded in reality while Hillary supports are clinging to the hope that Obama will be assassinated, since that's the only way she has a chance. Pretty sad I think.
        • offthewagon, on 06/01/2008, -5/+3If they are so grounded in reality, why don't they realize how ridiculously underqualified he is to run this country?
        • IpecacNeat, on 06/01/2008, -2/+1If Obama is underqualified, then McCain is just as bad.
    • pablo0713, on 06/01/2008, -4/+19I'm so sick of this notion that she has the popular vote too. Remember folks, not every state had a primary. So, it is impossible to claim a popular vote lead!!!! WTF!!!!!
      • pintomp3, on 06/01/2008, -1/+17not to mention the fact that she's counting an election where obama wasn't even on the ballot. i guess that's her idea of a fair election.
    • Gemfinder, on 06/01/2008, -1/+5The party heads and the ranking Democrats in Congress have said that the race WILL be over June 4th, one way or another. For all her bluster, Hillary doesn't outrank Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
    • Withnail1955, on 06/01/2008, -0/+2I don't think so. This will be over Tuesday Wednesday after the final primaries. At that point, the remaining Superdelagates will line behind Obama and put him over the finish line. Clinton will. have to concede. If she does not, her future in the Democratic Party will be over. She will lose her Senate seat and will to take a job on the lecture circuit.
      • marx2k, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1Didn't she already say she may not return to senate?
  • livegreenordie, on 05/31/2008, -7/+13 They were encouraged to do this and they won't be going down easy~
  • mcduck, on 05/31/2008, -6/+80Finally. Now its time to focus on Obama vs McCain rather than Obama vs Hillary.
    • xaxxon, on 06/01/2008, -2/+8wishful thinking. I share in your dream, but I'm not holding my breath.
    • Marijuana, on 06/01/2008, -4/+1Finally. Now its time to focus on Obama vs Ron Paul rather than Obama vs Hillary. (Nothing wrong with a little wishful thinking)
      • dannydyer1000, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1That's not wishful - it's just not happening this time around. Most of Paul's views are wonderful, along with his passion for fair-minded libertarian thinking, and I do wish that they were supported by more politicians; however, Paul does not have the means by which to compete with Obama, and he's noted that problem himself.

        In an upcoming interview with Newsweek (Jun 9, 2008 issue):

        Q: The nomination is out of reach. How does this end for you?
        A: It's always been about changing the party and changing the country. So I don't see things in conventional political terms. I'll continue to do what I started out to do: to change the direction of the party as well as the country.
  • DaFunk, on 05/31/2008, -7/+322Ultimately, this looks like it won't affect the outcome of the primary, but it's sad to see that the Democratic party will penalize Michigan and Florida for violating party rules only to cave in to one candidate's supporters. I'm sorry that the residents of Michigan and Florida feel slighted in the whole mess, but that's their state's Democratic leaders fault. The idea that a candidate could get votes, even half-votes, when it was known before campaigning even began that a state's votes would not count, to the agreement of all candidates, is wrong. I realize that this is a primary and not a general election, but giving votes to a candidate when other candidates were not on the ballot or simply didn't campaign in a state is the opposite of democracy.
    • blackinthmiddle, on 05/31/2008, -0/+101I couldn't agree with you more. Yes, this Obama within a whisper of the goal, but it's simply not right. This is the kind of thing we teach children. Play fairly and follow the rules. What this is teaching pretty much everybody is that if you whine and bitch long enough, you'll get what you want regardless of whether it's fair or not.
      • blackinthmiddle, on 06/01/2008, -1/+7I meant to say, "this *puts* Obama..."
      • Kazaki, on 06/01/2008, -0/+15As someone who works in customer service, I'd let you know that a lot of people do this. My favorite are the ones who walk in knowing they're wrong, so they're already mentally prepared to raise hell itself.
        • lisaawesome, on 06/01/2008, -0/+3So so true Kazaki. It's sad trying to talk to these people. No amount of logic has any effect upon them.
        • marx2k, on 06/01/2008, -0/+0And now imagine it's Hillary Clinton telling you she is entitled to a discount even though the sale was over 4 days ago...
    • jp0692, on 06/01/2008, -0/+89I am a Michigan resident, and I completely agree. It was agreed upon by the DNC that our state's delegates would not count at the convention. That was the rule. Our delegates should not count. Had I known that the rules would inevitably be changed, I would have gone out and voted uncommitted that day, rather than not voting at all.
      • badqat, on 06/01/2008, -18/+2The actual DNC rule is to only award 1/2 of the delegates, not give the death penalty, and disqualify them all. That was a DECISION, not a "rule".

        You CHOSE not to vote. You could have went and wrote in your choice, if they were not on the ballot.

        Don't see why you're complaining, as your choice got awarded delegates without being on the ballot.
        • BriscoCountyJr, on 06/01/2008, -0/+12Write-ins did not count in Michigan.

        • badqat, on 06/01/2008, -8/+2@Brisco - According to the DNC, nothing was going to count in Michigan.

          I guess they lied to you, didn't they?
        • ldkronos, on 06/01/2008, -0/+5Yes, but write ins were not counted at all. From everything I heard (including all the news reports) they would essentially be discarded, so it was worse than voting uncommited. Essentially the same as not voting at all.
        • sullyz0r, on 06/01/2008, -0/+8How is it a choice? If you know you're vote is not going to count, you're told it will be worth absolutely zero, what meaning does your vote have except the symbolic?

          Hillary supporters are idiots to think that everybody that would have voted if the votes counted actually did vote. If Obama and Edwards' names were on the ballot and the votes counted, I am sure the percentages would have turned out very differently.

          And do your homework, there were no write-ins on the Michigan ballot.
        • badqat, on 06/01/2008, -4/+4@sullyz0r - So, it boils down to the DNC lying to voters, telling them their votes wouldn't count.
        • flander, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1Michigan violated the rules last year by setting their primary date before they were supposed to have set it. In doing so, ALL the votes would not have been counted. Clinton violated the agreement and put her name on the ballet when she agreed to follow the rules last September. Obama agreed with the ruling and did not put his name on the ballet. I am a Michigan resident and have been following the crap that Clinton has been saying all the time. She doesn't follow rules and what makes her think she will be a good president. Her sick mind.
      • thebellmaster1x, on 06/01/2008, -0/+17Thank you, sir. You've given me a story to go along with my stipulation that contrary to what Hillary might assert, maybe, oh just maybe, at least one person was discouraged from voting who otherwise would have by the thought that their vote would have meant nothing, making the entire vote a sham.

        @badqat
        He chose not to vote because he knew it would be useless. Lots of people did. And Obama pulled his name off the ballot because staying on it was also useless. Hillary only stayed on so she could claim a fake victory.
        • badqat, on 06/01/2008, -12/+2It was only useless because the DNC told you it was useless. They lied.
        • Fordi, on 06/01/2008, -0/+5@badquat:
          No, that's what they (Hillary and Obama included) decided. Then Hillary went and put her name on the ballot anyway, and fought tooth and nail to get her ill-gotten win counted.

          If anyone was lying here, it was Mrs. Clinton.
      • Junpei, on 06/01/2008, -0/+16I did the same thing as you man, I live in Michigan and decided it wasn't worth my time. This is bogus.
      • babar77, on 06/01/2008, -0/+6Well hopefully people take away from this mess to always make your voice heard when you have a chance, even if it is symbolic.
    • haxcorner, on 06/01/2008, -0/+8It's hard to tell which set of supporters you're talking about... Clinton's who pushed to get things seated or Obama getting the uncommitted vote+4 in Michigan.

      My opinion is that none of them should be counted, just as we were told beforehand (even though Blanchard stated otherwise - apparently the former Gov. doesn't read local or national news). I'm upset at our leadership because they chose this time to try & fix what they saw as broke in the midst of a very critical election and I'm upset with the DNC cuz they're not standing by their word. I'm not a Democrat, but I'm voting that way because there aren't any viable choices beyond the Democratic & Republican candidates.

      It's frustrating...
    • SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/01/2008, -1/+34Totally agreed. I would add, though, that a lot of Michigan voters (including myself) didn't vote in the primary because it was understood it didn't count. Who would have guess that the DNC, after making all that noise about how my state broke the rules, would turn around and break it's own rules? I would have much rather seen the party follow their rules and not seat our delegates at the convention at all since they do not represent the choice of Michigan voters any more. It's like a teacher who tells their students homework is optional and then at the end of the semester changes their mind claiming that "Those who did it deserve credit." and offering no way for everyone else to make it up. It's unfair and undemocratic. A lot of people here feel more cheated this way than having no delegates seated at all, because at least those were the rules we were told to play by months ago.
      • haxcorner, on 06/01/2008, -1/+9Good analogy.
      • badqat, on 06/01/2008, -5/+4Face it...the DNC and democratic party just flat out lied to each and every resident of Florida and Michigan. But they're doing it for your own good.
        • Fordi, on 06/01/2008, -2/+2They weren't lied to by the DNC, you asshat. If it weren't for Hillary's self-interested self-righteousness in agreeing to the disenfranchisement, then slipping into the ballot anyway, then crying bloody murder when the decision *SHE VOTED FOR* came down, there'd be no deception.
    • slearwig, on 06/01/2008, -2/+11The only supporters who will "feel cheated" are Hillary's supporters for pulling that ***** and bull against what was agreed to in the first place.
      Today's decision was made only to appease them, like trying to appease a dog with a steak in his mouth seeing his own reflection in a puddle.
      • obamacan, on 06/01/2008, -1/+3This is my opinion only, however I think there was more to it than "trying to appease Hillary". If that was the case, she would have won everything. She actually was the loser today; it is now Barack's party.

        I feel the Committee took into consideration the election in the Fall and how (a) how the Republicans have (purportedly) been going around MI and FL bad mouthing the Democrats for not allowing their votes to count. (b), Hillary and her crew. What she actually wanted today (so I've read) was to get nothing so she could continue on vehemently making the FL and MI voters victims.

        Obama was the true hero because he was reasonable and he made concessions. President Obama is a class act, one Hillary couldn't emulate if she took 20 years of drama classes.

        The bottom line is that the committee wants to unite the party and they want to MOVE FORWARD. They have seen the divisiveness demonstrated by Hillary and her rabid supporters - which has only increased as Hillary became more and more desperate. I truly believe they were trying to put an end to the process so that mid week, Barack can be named the nominee.
        • winampman2, on 06/01/2008, -1/+3"They have seen the divisiveness demonstrated by Hillary and her rabid supporters - which has only increased as Hillary became more and more desperate."
          Yup. They're just trying to appease her brainwashed supporters, especially the idiotic ones who say they'll vote McCain over Obama.
    • PurdueJohn, on 06/01/2008, -2/+16The only one who should be ashamed is Hillary Clinton for putting everyone through this *****. They agreed not to count those primaries five months ago, the selfish bitch.
    • babar77, on 06/01/2008, -1/+5Don't forget this whole mess could've also been avoided had the DNC just followed the automatic sanction in place instead of making it tougher. The automatic sanction was that each state would lose half their delegation, same as the GOP. Instead they had to take it one step further and completely strip them.

      Hopefully the DNC also learns from this - just follow the sanctions already in place and were agreed upon before politics entered the equation.
      • Hillsfar, on 06/01/2008, -1/+2Yeah, and that stripping was participated in by Clinton supporters, including flip-flopper Harold Ickes, who works on her campaign.
    • topgigmedia, on 06/01/2008, -1/+5Clinton reminds me of a name-player receiver in the NFL, screaming for a flag after the play - demanding pass interference when in fact there wasn't any. The DNCis essentiall the ref that decides to cave in a throw the flag. Even tho there is no time on the clock and the other team has already won the game.

      Hillary: Go back to the Senate and refocus energy on earning your salary that I AM PAYING FOR!
      • pilzburybizkit, on 06/01/2008, -1/+3Hillary = T.O. Keep crying, you'll never win the big one.
        To both of them.
    • Fejerro, on 06/01/2008, -1/+9So where were these rabid Clinton back when Michigan and Florida decided to hold their primaries early and knowingly disqualify themselves and their voters? The rules were there in front of everyone. It was no secret what was going to happen. If the voters wanted their votes to count, THAT was the time to protest. The time for protesting has long past.
    • facelesscoward, on 06/01/2008, -0/+3Honestly, I don't think the Rules and Bylaws Committee compromised for Clinton. The compromised because they wanted the people of Michigan and Florida to feel like they have some representation at the convention. Obviously, because neither candidate was allowed to campaign in Florida or Michigan and because Clinton was the only name on the ballot in Michigan, there is no fair way to distribute delegates between the two candidates. The only truly fair thing to do would be to uphold the penalties passed last year. I watched most of the meeting and I think the committee really tried their best (barring Harold Ickes -- what an *****), despite the problematic primaries to achieve a fair distribution based not only on the results, but on other data collected on primary day, and although there is no doubt that it was not entirely fair, I think allowing Florida and Michigan to be represented at convention is worth the sacrifice.
  • nonsequitor, on 06/01/2008, -51/+15Buried for using "BREAKING"
    • peestandingup, on 06/01/2008, -7/+13You're buried.
    • whygohome10, on 06/01/2008, -5/+7actually i would say it is warranted
    • 471776, on 06/01/2008, -4/+6I agree that "BREAKING" is annoying, but that doesn't mean the article is bad. Burying it wont stop it from happening again.
    • mimigins, on 06/01/2008, -3/+6I thought it was fitting... as this is was submitted only a few hours ago
    • 5celery, on 06/01/2008, -2/+2bury you for not knowing what BREAKING means
  • amawg9, on 06/01/2008, -2/+4666 delegates to go.
  • happyseamonster, on 06/01/2008, -14/+7Harold Ickes: ""Mrs. Clinton has instructed me to reserve her rights to take this to the Credentials Committee." We see where he takes his instructions from, whose pocket he's in.
    • swrostmore, on 06/01/2008, -4/+9He works for Clinton's campaign, why wouldn't he take instructions from them?
    • badqat, on 06/01/2008, -2/+6Gee, you think him picking up a paycheck from the Clinton campaign has anything to do with where he takes his instructions from?
  • Depthfunction, on 06/01/2008, -6/+206Now let us never speak of Florida or Michigan again.
    • ralphthemagi, on 06/01/2008, -7/+7They are going to play a big role in the general. Obama won't win unless he carries them. Expect to see them back in the news 6 months from now.
      • Deanblackoak, on 06/01/2008, -1/+12Actually, if he wins out west he doesn't need either.
        • ralphthemagi, on 06/01/2008, -8/+5Why do people keep saying this? It's not going to happen.

          I'm not sure why people think he's going to win the West. Sure, he'll win California, Oregon and Washington, but those are given. Outside of Denver, the West is concerned with low taxes, gun rights, and conservative values. Even combined, "the West" is worth less than Florida and Michigan, and he's not going to win Idaho, Montana, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. He would have to win every single one of those states, and he'd still be 1 or 2 delegates short of being able to make up for a loss in Florida and Michigan.

          But go ahead and bury; and continue to think that Florida and Michigan don't matter. Honestly, I'd be surprised if he even wins one of the eight states I mentioned above.

        • centerblack, on 06/01/2008, -1/+3Ah yes, "conservative values" like constitutional bans on homosexuality, abortion, and stem cell research.
        • jwkpiano1, on 06/01/2008, -1/+3And the last time a Democrat lost Michigan was.... 32 years ago. Nice try.
        • logicet, on 06/01/2008, -2/+1centerblack: Those are all big government values. Certainly not Conservative.

          ralphthemagi: The Libertarian ticket might do well in Nevada, and the Ron Paul faction of the Republican Party is going to be awfully pissed off in Nevada, their convention STILL has not been reconvened.
        • sulthernao, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1@ralphthemagi

          Then why is he leading in Colorado, NM, competitive in Nevada, ND, surprisingly close in Montana, SD, KS, and on track to be competitive in two of NE's CD meaning he can get up to 2 EV?

          Hmm...I'm thinking that nothing is safe for Republicans this year outside of UT, AZ, OK, KY.
        • Deanblackoak, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1ralphthemagiralphthemagi you really should do some investigation. Obama is perdicted to do very well out west.
    • prisoner24601, on 06/01/2008, -3/+3As much as this has been an incredible debacle in some ways, I think both states ought to be given some sort of award for pointing out the utter insanity of letting Iowa and New Hampshire go first every single election cycle and manipulating national policy.

      Ethanol is an astonishing boondoggle that never would have seen the light of day if it wasn't for farmers in Iowa holding every candidate hostage. The country needs to start rotating the first primaries fairly each cycle. 2012 first is NV and PA, 2016 is OR and TN, 2020 is ME and NM, etc. I'm personally glad that FL and MI told the national party leadership that they were not going to tolerate being ignored any longer. No state should be willing to just let IA and NH essentially make or break the candidates every cycle, especially since IA has so blatantly abused their public trust in this by making it all about ethanol. Burning food as a way to reach energy independence. What utter nonsense! If you want to see wind, solar, nuclear, or anything else ever have a chance, you have to applaud FL and MI.
      • Lazydriver, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1How does this make sense? IA will always have a stake in the general election...
        • prisoner24601, on 06/01/2008, -0/+2"How does this make sense?"

          Iowa has the first primary every election cycle. Every candidate HAS to campaign there first. Every candidate HAS to have a strong showing to get the ultimate nomination. Any candidate who is against ethanol gets obliterated in Iowa. Iowa has influence FAR beyond any other state, and far beyond just their number of votes in the general election. They *decide* who you and I will GET TO vote for in the general by killing the weak ones early on. The problem is they are killing ANYONE who doesn't agree with ethanol.

          It's really that bad, perhaps you've just never heard the analysis of this problem before. That, by the way, is exactly why I made the comment. Just for "educational purposes" and the fact that I'm getting buried means either there are far more people who just aren't aware of the severity of the problem, or perhaps that there are a lot of Iowa farmers on digg tonight. ;-)
      • ray86, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1Can I ask whats the problem with holding all primaries/caucases (or just primaries and eliminate caucases) for both the republican party and democrat parties on the one day (in all states)? To me it seems that if a candidate looses the first 2 or so primaries even if they have massive support in other parts of the country those voters will switch contenders.
        • prisoner24601, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1It's a reasonable question, and there's actually a good answer to that. Having a staggered approach lets candidates who might have great ability and appeal, but not much money, compete as well. Someone like Obama would have never gotten off the ground if there was one single Judgement Day when *every* state had their primary. Hillary had WAY more money at the beginning because she basically could jsut get Bill to write a check.

          Only rich candidates (Bush/Hillary) could afford to even get their names out. A Barak Obama/Ron Paul would simply disappear. We really do NEED to have a primary system, but ours is badly broken because the same states get to go first EVERY time. It's unfair and FL and MI (and everyone else) is sick of getting ignored.
    • dartmanx, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1Obviously, you've never read fark.com or thesmokinggun.com
  • chicoer2001, on 06/01/2008, -3/+35Let's call truce and Clinton needs to get out of the race.
    • xaxxon, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1if she drops out, we can seat them all with a full vote. O:)
    • soulkitchen, on 06/01/2008, -0/+6I'm going to push for my state to have its Democratic primary in 2010 now. Ya know, since the rules don't matter anymore.
  • chrisgeleven, on 06/01/2008, -6/+13http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/31/ ...

    According to this, Obama actually had the votes (within 1 or 2) to do the 50-50 split in Michigan, but instead chose to give up a little to get a wider margin.
    • GroundhogBoy, on 06/01/2008, -0/+25He's been far too generous with her throughout this campaign considering some of the things that she's said and done.
  • hooksie, on 06/01/2008, -2/+72"This motion will hijack, hijack, remove four delegates won by Hillary Clinton and most importantly reflect the preferences of 600,000 Michigan voters. This body of 30 individuals has decided that they are going to substitute their judgment for 600,000 voters."

    I love how the Clinton camp complains about Michigan (despite the no participation pledge) and when they finally get it to count, they still complain...
    • badqat, on 06/01/2008, -21/+1So, exactly how many votes in Michigan did Obama get, seeing as he wasn't on the ballot due to his choice to remove himself? He shouldn't get a single delegate from Michigan...
      • Deanblackoak, on 06/01/2008, -2/+9Ummm... actually since they broke the rules, none of their delegates should count. Neither candidates should get a single one.
      • Pake, on 06/01/2008, -0/+7And seeing how Michigan was told their votes wouldn't count, how many of their votes should count? Shouldn't it be 0?
      • InetRoadkill, on 06/01/2008, -0/+4@badqat:

        Why? Because Obama followed the rules and Hillary didn't?

        If, as Hillary is demanding, we make every MI vote count, then we can divide the pledged delegates based on the polls which showed Hillary 46% and Obama 37%. That means that Hillary would have received 59 delegates and Obama would receive 47 delegates. Hillary ended up with 10 more delegates than she would have had Obama stayed on the ballot. Why is she bitching?
        • badqat, on 06/01/2008, -18/+1Where is this so-called "rule" which Obama followed? Cite it, please. There is none.

          However, if you're going to proclaim Obama a "rule follower", explain his advertising in Florida. Advertising and campaigning in Florida and Michigan were against the rules. Yet Obama ran television commercials there...hmmm...

          I don't know why Clinton's bitching, and I could care less as to why she's doing so. I just happen to get a kick out of the dems fighting among themselves.
      • Laminarcissus, on 06/01/2008, -0/+2*He pledged not to participate and kept that pledge,* as did the other candidates. Only one candidate reneged on her promise.

        Overall though, this whole mess is the DNC's fault for making threats that any reasonable person knew they couldn't follow through on.
      • mysedai, on 06/01/2008, -0/+3You're right. He shouldn't. Neither should she.
        • badqat, on 06/01/2008, -8/+2I say they just fight it out at the convention...it'll be good entertainment, and it'll be a bloodbath. Probably will be anyway.
    • SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/01/2008, -0/+23They have absolutely no shame. It's really disgusting.
    • Dgen_X, on 06/01/2008, -0/+16I know the guy quoted works for Clinton...but how could he not think about the 500,000+ that DIDN'T vote for Clinton.

      If Clinton had 100% of the vote I'd give her all of Michigan...but there were other names on the ballot, and she wasn't all that far ahead of "undecided"
      • badqat, on 06/01/2008, -11/+1Undecided does not = Obama. Undecided does not = Clinton.

        But, the end result is the same. The DNC lied to each and every voter (and those who stayed home) in these two states. They're doing it for your own good, though...trust them, they won't lie again.
        • yacks, on 06/01/2008, -1/+5but Undecided does = a vote against Clinton.
        • kreneskyp, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1i dont think anyone on the committee expected this to happen. its pretty rare to see a fight like this.
      • ZenMojo, on 06/01/2008, -0/+11Uncommitted does not mean "undecided" it means "anybody but the person on the ballot." Considering 30,000 write-in votes for Obama were THROWN IN THE TRASH, as the Democratic Chair ADMITTED, then how the hell is anyone going to say uncommitted should not go to Obama? There was no other option.
    • yacks, on 06/01/2008, -0/+9I was reading an article on CNN and a Clinton lawyer was complaining that Obama got delegates from Michigan by saying that there is no rule that gives undecide votes to anyone.. I guess he is ignoring the rule that strips the delegates of voting power when Michigan moved up their primary. If you want to follow the rules Hillary gets no delegates from Michigan either.. nor in Florida.
    • Gemfinder, on 06/01/2008, -0/+6The woman who got escorted outside said "God damn the Democrats!"
      I think we have an Operation Chaos or Red Flag operative here.
  • whygohome10, on 06/01/2008, -8/+282from the new york times
    One woman, wearing a blue “Team Hillary” shirt, shoved a man in a suit and tie wearing a small Obama button on his lapel. Another woman in a white Clinton shirt hung her head in her hands.

    “That was a crime!” a man shouted. “McCain in ’08! McCain in ’08!” a woman yelled from the back of the room. “No-bama! No-bama!”

    thank you Clinton's for succesfuly creating these monsters
    • CharlesDance, on 06/01/2008, -9/+35You guys managed to elect Bush over Gore, then you chose to elect Bush again, and now you're gonna elect McCain in '08 only to elect Hillary in 2012. Maybe by 2016 Americans will get their act together.

      Who am i kidding? The majority of America will always be ***** retarded.

      Good luck world (just laugh, it works out the same but at least you get some fun out of it)
      • fakekevinrose, on 06/01/2008, -1/+25The majority of americans voted for Gore in 2000. The election was stolen
      • Lazydriver, on 06/01/2008, -3/+5Yep.

        God damn Supreme Court should've never had a say in that... Should've been a recount.
    • winampman2, on 06/01/2008, -0/+2Yeah. I'm more disappointed in what I've seen her supporters say than in Hillary herself.
  • FatLoser, on 06/01/2008, -8/+112Just like the Three-Fifths Compromise, except without slaves and it has nothing to do with that.
    • Dgen_X, on 06/01/2008, -5/+6That's nearly offensive...
      • FatLoser, on 06/01/2008, -1/+17Only if you're nearly black or nearly not racist.
      • noelsusman, on 06/01/2008, -0/+3Wrong, that is humorous...
    • caramba420, on 06/01/2008, -2/+0And what does any of this have to do with the dude from Flight of the Conchords?
    • purzzzell, on 06/01/2008, -3/+5What's any of this have to do with you peeing in your diaper?
  • Spartandog, on 06/01/2008, -7/+39For us non-American folks across the border, what exactly does this mean?
    • sovereign3, on 06/01/2008, -3/+73What it means is that Hillary Clinton is still losing.
      • GroundhogBoy, on 06/01/2008, -1/+7Which is how it would have been even if everyone were reinstated. These people really need to get lives.
    • whygohome10, on 06/01/2008, -1/+42Florida and michigan both decided to hold their primary elections outside of the "official" time periods or something. So the DNC punished them by removing their delegate votes rendering the voters of florida and michigan useless. However this was known before the elections even started and even though all the candidates agreed not to campaign in these two states Hillary thought she could use the "white people method" (south park reference) and campaign there anyways earning her a for sure win in primaries that werent supposed to count under prior agreement (i'm wondering why these ***** crazy hillary supporters didn't bring this up before hand) So now that Hillary had won she completely 180's and makes this massive failed attempt at securing delegates for her camp which will ultimately end up in appeal to a higher committee that is scheduled to meet a few weeks from now
      • Spartandog, on 06/01/2008, -0/+17Thanks for that explanation, whygohome10. That's all I wanted to know. Sometimes there's an assumption in the mainstream press that the whole world understands the American campaign process, when in fact it's quite unique.
        • SQLserver, on 06/01/2008, -0/+4I never knew 'Unique' was a Synonym for *****!
          (As long as they continue to let stuff like this happen)
        • bxblox, on 06/01/2008, -0/+2Unique is being very generous. Our candidate selection process is somewhat ridiculous at times.
        • LemmingJesus, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1I don't even understand half of it and I've lived here my whole life.
        • marx2k, on 06/01/2008, -0/+0bxblox: Our general election process is downright nonsensical most of the time.

          LemmingJesus: That's because it keeps changing.
      • mysedai, on 06/01/2008, -1/+16To compound the issue, the other candidates removed themselves from the ballot, meaning that Hillary was the defacto winner. Also, many people from those states decided that the DNC rules made voting in the primary pointless and didn't do it.
        Despite all this, Hillary is still loosing.
        • 0ceanic, on 06/01/2008, -0/+2yeah i have absolutely no idea how they could even begin to resolve that issue with florida, outside of a revote.

          ***** florida.
      • almightyzam, on 06/01/2008, -2/+7And Americans still can't spell (*losing*).

        I"M SORRY, THE FUHRER DEMANDS THAT WE UPHOLD THE LAWS OF THE GRAMMAR!!!!
        • mysedai, on 06/01/2008, -3/+5Yes. I made a typo. You, on the other hand, forgot a comma, threw some arbitrary punctuation marks around the word losing, used a quotation mark in place of an apostrophe, wrote in all caps, and used multiple explanation marks.
          The Fuhrer will be along to issue you some soap soon.
      • 0ceanic, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1the DNC is the commitee responsible for organizing the Democratic Party and the selection of their candidates.

        the RNC is the commitee responsible for organizing the Republican Party and the selection of their candidates.

        the DNC has a more complicated way of selecting their candidates. which includes superdelegates, which are essentially political superstars, that have a vote that roughly is equivilant to 13 thousand regular voters.

        *just adding info*
    • yojiffyskippy, on 06/01/2008, -2/+22Nothing really. When all the dust settles, Obama will face McCain in the general election. Everything else is just drama.
    • sethorama99, on 06/01/2008, -2/+10It means hold on to your hat, jack, because things just got a little more polarizing.
    • twiztidsinz, on 06/01/2008, -1/+23Hillary lied (agreed not to campaign there, then did), cheated (went back on her agreement to NOT count those delegates) and stole (cried and complained till she got her way) Michigan.
      • charm803, on 06/01/2008, -0/+4Then, hey, maybe she is ready to be president......*sarcasm*
    • Laminarcissus, on 06/01/2008, -3/+7It means that someone who is less likely to march on you is more likely to be elected President.
    • TremorX, on 06/01/2008, -2/+10It means you can break rules and if someone whines enough about it they won't punish you.

      Too bad this doesn't work with weed.
    • MindyB, on 06/01/2008, -1/+18It means that here in America if you are a Clinton you get to get rewarded if you pitch a big enough hissy fit and temper tantrum. It means that here in America, rules don't really count for much. It means that if you follow the rules, you might still get punished and if you break the rules you might still get rewarded.
      But in the end, it means that Clinton still looses, and is hoping/planning really hard that something bad happens to Obama to take him out of the race.
    • sugarazor, on 06/01/2008, -2/+6It means absolutely nothing.
    • CoMpUtErITGuY, on 06/01/2008, -0/+0It means more snipers along the borders to keep you illegals out. Booyah!
  • bhattathiry, on 06/01/2008, -20/+0Excellant and informative article. In the storm of cricket life they struggle through myriads of stimuli of pressure, stress, and muti-problems that seek for a solution and answer. We are so suppressed by the routine of this every life style that most of us seem helpless. However, if we look closely to ancient techniques we shall discover the magnificent way to understand and realize the ones around us and mostly ourselves. If only we could stop for a moment and allow this to happen. May all beings be happy. If players take yoga and meditation all the stress can be avoided and could win easily. Win or loss is a part of the game.
    • Laminarcissus, on 06/01/2008, -1/+3Okay, put your ear nice and close to the screen. Ready?

      DON'T POST WHEN YOU'RE STONED.
      • jchrome, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1Funny, but I would say English is not his/her native language is more likely.
        • Laminarcissus, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1It's not the phrasing, it's the message.
  • URnotheonly1, on 06/01/2008, -42/+4OBAMA WAS JUST SELECTED, BECAUSE HE WAS NOT JUST ELECTED
    • Rndm_Tngnt, on 06/01/2008, -1/+8Well, since the party primaries are, in fact, a selection process, you are correct.
    • Deanblackoak, on 06/01/2008, -0/+7Man, you are a moron. It is a selection process. Not an election. Does no one understand how our government works?
      • URnotheonly1, on 06/01/2008, -8/+1Obama has stolen the nomination
        • hawkspur, on 06/01/2008, -1/+4You're an idiot.

          Hillary Clinton as with all the other candidates SIGNED AND AGREED to not campaign in MI and FL. Despite this, she still campaigned in both states where Obama and the other candidates weren't even on the ballot because they followed the rules and remained true to their word.

          Clinton supporters are trying to weasel their way back into the White House.
        • dinot, on 06/01/2008, -0/+3You're a long way from home. Hillaryis44.org is that way ---->
    • StarlessKnight, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1Jesus Christ on a pogo stick. Troll, bridge, get thee to one.

      Who did you think the "Other" votes were for? You? Maybe you should be as righteously upset Hillary was even on that ballot as you are the committee listening to the complaining in direct contradiction to an agreement she, herself, signed.
    • enki25, on 06/01/2008, -1/+1YOU ARE STUPID. GROW A BRAIN.
  • ToddSchishler, on 06/01/2008, -4/+146I can't believe that the Clinton campaign honestly feels that Obama deserves zero delegates out of Michigan. Why punish the state that held its primary early when you can punish Obama for following the rules and taking his name off the ballot?

    I'll be grinning with glee when they finally announce Obama as the nominee.
    • xaxxon, on 06/01/2008, -1/+11Not much "honest" has come out of the Clinton camp in quite some time.
      • wolvin, on 06/01/2008, -1/+5"in quite some time"
        There was ever honesty from that camp?
    • winampman2, on 06/01/2008, -0/+3There's nothing to grin about when a huge percentage of Hillary's uneducated, brainwashed supporters decide to vote for McCain over Obama.
  • orion846, on 06/01/2008, -12/+53hey, you guys remember when ron paul supporters were the crazies and ones we made fun of?
    • badqat, on 06/01/2008, -25/+4Now it's the Obama supporters who are crazy and made fun of...
      • themonkman, on 06/01/2008, -1/+2Obama supporters didn't look or sound like the crazy ones at the Democratic Rules Committee meeting. Quite the opposite, actually.
        • badqat, on 06/01/2008, -5/+1And what does that have to do with digg?
        • themonkman, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1Congrats. You successfully made yourself look like a moron.
    • jeremymccurdy, on 06/01/2008, -12/+9This is where the Ron Paul crazies congregated. Not saying he's a bad guy or anything, just saying Digg was pretty much a source of Ron Paul fanaticism
      • badqat, on 06/01/2008, -1/+1Like digg is pretty much a source of Obama fanaticism now?
    • mysedai, on 06/01/2008, -6/+8...Those were the good old days...
    • diskit, on 06/01/2008, -3/+7Um... they still are.
    • plimpton777, on 06/01/2008, -4/+18Ron Paul's looking a helluva lot better than Hillary these days.
      • SQLserver, on 06/01/2008, -1/+6I don't agree with Ron Paul's ways, but I believe EVERYONE likes him more then Hillary.

        Well, Everyone on Digg.
        • diskit, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1"Everyone" being a gross generalization aside...thank you Captain Obvious!
        • evfinkelstein, on 06/01/2008, -1/+2Obvious comment is obvious.
        • thebigbradwolf, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1hyperbole -obvious and intentional exaggeration to make a point.
  • aaaleman, on 06/01/2008, -11/+2Stop it with the DAMN gingerballs!
  • AkatsukiNoTobi, on 06/01/2008, -7/+124I just looked at the CNN delegate calculator and in order for Hillary to win, she would need a 100% victory in Puerto Rico, Montana, and South Dakota along with 82% of the super delegates, which results in Hillary 2025 vs Obama 2018. She still has a chance!!!!

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/delegate.co ...
    • MacMan88, on 06/01/2008, -1/+8/sarcasm, right?
    • mysedai, on 06/01/2008, -0/+20That's right. The tide is turning!
      /s
    • diskit, on 06/01/2008, -0/+11Oh god, I long for the day when her winning is considered a mathematical impossibility.
      • ldkronos, on 06/01/2008, -0/+6Mathematical impossibility didn't stop Huckabee
        • Metasquares, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1But McCain is the nominee, even if Huckabee prefers to believe in miracles over mathematics. You can deny logic all you want, but it always wins in the end.
    • leamanc, on 06/01/2008, -1/+11Yes, Clinton has a huge uphill battle in winning pledged delegates. But who's to say that the party won't overturn the popular will of the voters at the convention? Somehow, I have a feeling that Clinton just won't go away, even when the numbers are totally against her.
    • Modiga, on 06/01/2008, -0/+15Forgive me if I'm wrong, I'm not American, so maybe I'm wrong about all this, but the magic number is now 2,118 isn't it? Looking at the delegate calculator, Clinton can't win before the convention, even if she got 100% of all remaining pledged and super delegates. That'd give her a total of 2,059.
      • funmerlin, on 06/01/2008, -0/+5Sounds that way to me. The irony of asking for every vote to count is that it takes her further away from the magic number as well.
        • kreneskyp, on 06/01/2008, -0/+3if she was good at basic math she'd have given up long ago
    • Kral, on 06/01/2008, -0/+17'Tis but a flesh wound!
    • SquigglyP, on 06/01/2008, -0/+3A question enters my head whenever I read or hear anything about these elections and the crazy ***** that goes on in each state... "How the ***** can a simple multiple choice question take this ***** long to answer?" It's A or B. Why is there such a need to drag the whole process out this long? Why can't we just all go ***** vote, have the votes determine the delegates, and then boom. Maybe a week or two to make sure the votes are all accounted for.

      Adding this much bureaucratic ***** to something as simple as a representative democracy just can't be a good thing. There are too many layers between the voters and the results, and then the results often don't even matter, when some ancient rule no one ever heard of comes into play for no apparent reason and one of the candidates gets an advantage over another one... This whole process seems extremely backwards to me, and non-conducive to a Republic which is supposed to represent it's citizens. It's like they take this time every four years to see how they can get around the will of the people instead of bowing to it.

      Make any sense?
      • jud420, on 06/01/2008, -0/+2But that doesn't make the news corporations any money! Why cover for 3 weeks what you could cover for an entire year?!
  • jlee2081, on 06/01/2008, -3/+10great, can we please move on now?
    • felixleighton, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1"We're moving on now! Lets talk about more important things! Stop focusing on diversions!"

      You can keep stuffing these things under the rug, but when your rug stops touching the ground, you have an issue.
  • JJCDAD, on 06/01/2008, -2/+73Does this mean Hillary only "half-cheated"? ***** this! No voters were disenfranchised. They ALL KNEW their votes would not count. It makes me sick how the Clintons gamed the system.
    • one2gamble, on 06/01/2008, -17/+2thats *****, they were in fact disenfranchised because their votes were negated. The party should not be in a position to dictate whos votes count. If they want to play that game then they can start paying for the elections.
      • Rndm_Tngnt, on 06/01/2008, -0/+12They weren't disenfranchised. They can still vote in the Election. The Democratic party is a (technically) private organization. They could, in theory, do away with the entire primary system and just present a candidate to the public with calling for a nationwide selection process.

        Of course, if they did that, 3rd parties would be more strongly encourage to organize a national campaign to get their candidates recognition and airtime.
        • one2gamble, on 06/01/2008, -2/+1that would be their prerogative, but if they are going to "hold" the primary system and require each state to hold said primary then each and every states voters should have their vote counted and in fact it should become a legal mandate to do such. Disenfranchisement in this case has nothing to do with the general election. Each "election" is and should be looked at independently.

          If they want to hold self funded private elections and control whos votes count and when they are held they are well within their right to do so.
        • GroundhogBoy, on 06/01/2008, -0/+4They require each state to hold said primary within a certain window of time. If those states can't follow the rules, they don't deserve to have their votes counted.

          It's that simple and just the way that Terry McAuliffe, Clinton's campaign manager, wanted when he introduced these rules for the 2004 election.
      • mysedai, on 06/01/2008, -0/+3Sure, it's crappy that the votes didn't count. But, arbitrarily awarding delegates is a pretty bad solution to the problem. If FL/MI were going to be reinstated, they should have had to hold new elections with both candidates' names on the ballots that voters would actually have turned out for.
        • yacks, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1well since Hillary was begging for them to be reinstated, they did it in the only fair way. The states still get punished, but a candidate cant stand to game the system just because they happen to be losing at the moment. HRC"s Campaign was just hoping to reinstate the vote just so they could claim victory.. If they were ahead, this would have been quietly slipped under the rug.. Hillary thought she had the nomination in the bag even without michigan and florida.. but it turned against her.
          and even if the tables were turned an Obama was the one clamoring for the delegates to be seated, I'd rip him hard as well. but that would leave my completely discouraged about the 2008 presidential election.. I never liked HRC even before the primaries started. I had a dislike especially when she moved to NY for the senate seat.
      • SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/01/2008, -0/+7"The party should not be in a position to dictate whos votes count."

        Well, seeing as it's their primary, they have always been in that position.

        Furthermore, the STATES themselves chose to break the rules and so chose for their votes not to count.

        No one was disenfranchised until now. Now everyone who didn't vote because they understood it didn't matter has been disenfranchised. Congrats.
        • one2gamble, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1Your last statement may be the best point in this thread
      • rhoffer21, on 06/01/2008, -0/+0As a michigan voter I can assure you we were not disenfranchised. Our vote wasnt negated either. As far as Im concerned our vote never happened because we knew it wasnt going to count. It wasnt like we voted and then like a week later they said "Oh hey, yeah, your vote didnt count."
    • starkruzr, on 06/01/2008, -1/+2I don't understand why the DNC didn't just say "You can hold all the early primaries you want, have fun with that. However, the ONLY results we will honor will be those that take place on the day you are supposed to actually have your primary." That would have laid ALL the blame squarely on the shoulders of the states, no ifs ands or buts about it.
      • terracottapai, on 06/01/2008, -0/+4That's exactly what they did from the outset.
        Then Hillary found out she might lose and decided to put on a guise being bought by quite a few stupid people right now of 'voting rights crusader.'
  • one2gamble, on 06/01/2008, -22/+3It still amazes me that they would disenfranchise their own party members like that
    • TremorX, on 06/01/2008, -1/+4Someone doesn't know what 'disenfranchise' means and that person is one2gamble!
    • MindyB, on 06/01/2008, -1/+3You seem to have selective amnesia. Both states knew of the consequences for breaking the party's rules, and they decided to break the rules anyway. ALL the rest of the states and territories fully complied by the rules. ALL the candidates, including Hillary, signed an agreement that stated their full support for the rules of the party, including the consequences of breaking such rules. ALL candidates agreed in writing that Florida and Michigan lost their right to participate in the Primary selection because they willingly and knowingly BROKE THE PARTY RULES!.
      The Democratic Party is NOT the ones who "disenfranchised" the voters of Florida and Michigan, Florida and Michigan did that all by themselves. Even after they knew that they were going to loose their votes, both states went ahead with their plans to break the rules anyway.
      Now, since Hillary has been loosing up a streak she decides to pretend she didn't sign those agreements and claims she is the new "champion for the rights of Florida and Michigan" --Once again, she FLIP-FLOPS on a firm decision she made in the fall of 2007. This is her pattern, a flip-flopper, rule-breaker opportunistic lying politician who will sell her own daughter is that would give her what she wants.
      We already has someone with similar traits running the White House, and look at were we are? Look at the way our own Constitution has been broken and violated, look at our economy, look at our standing in the world! America cannot afford another Bush in the White House, even the female version of a Bush would be a huge disaster.
      • one2gamble, on 06/01/2008, -1/+2Answer me this, if the Party doesnt pay for, nor run the election. Why would they have any say in when said election should take place.

        Secondly, the states may have "broke the rules" but would that then dictate that each of that states voters shouldnt have a say in whom the democratic candidate should be?

        Regardless of whos fault it is their "right" to choose that candidate was taken away from them.
        • kreneskyp, on 06/01/2008, -1/+1they do not have a "right" to select a candidate. The parties can pick whomever they want. for instance libertarian and the green party do not have countrywide primaries (im sure they ahve something similar on a smaller scale, not sure exactly, it just isnt a national primary). The primaries are only conducted to get a candidate that the majority of the party will support.

          There was only one way to prevent disenfranchisement of some group and that was a complete re-run of the primary. If you seat the delegates then the people who didn't vote are disenfranchised. If you dont seat the full delegate then you disenfranchise the people who did vote.

          Since noone will pay for a do-over then the next best thing is somewhere in the middle.
  • jh9110, on 06/01/2008, -3/+44Now Obama is even closer...Will that bitch go away now???
    • kilt42, on 06/01/2008, -1/+5fat ***** chance
    • shawn1122, on 06/01/2008, -0/+4Obama was 42 delegates away before, now he is 68 delegates away. I don't see how he is closer...

      But, in the end, none of this really matters, Obama's got this...

      And the Clinton supporters were disgusting in that meeting, couldn't even behave like adults...
  • Jenadae, on 06/01/2008, -2/+136This is complete bull *****. They knew the rules, they broke the rules, and now they compromise? No ***** that! This is BS and a poor precedent to set for the next election.
    • ralphthemagi, on 06/01/2008, -0/+3Yes, they compromise in order to avoid alienating 50% of the votes needed for anyone to win in the general election.

      Obama can't win in the fall without Michigan and Florida. Refusing to seat those delegates means that the Hillary supporters in those states may sit home and not vote, and there is no way he'll win either of those states without that support.
      • chaosblade77, on 06/01/2008, -0/+6Considering how whiny some of them are it would probably be for the better if they don't vote, since some would rather vote for McCain out of spite rather than vote for a candidate that is more similar to the one they preferred. Politics should be the last place for such childish behavior.
      • rhoffer21, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1Saying that people in Michigan and Florida aren't going to vote in the general election is a complete perversion of logic. As a michigan voter I can tell you that nobody I have talked to said they arent going to vote in the general election because their primary election that doesnt mean anything didnt count.

        Why dont we just have all the primaries and caucuses on the same day anyway?
    • Laminarcissus, on 06/01/2008, -0/+6The stupidity was in the DNC enforcing rules using threats everyone knew they couldn't follow-through on.

      Not actually seat delegates? Ridiculous. They should have made the penalty for early primaries something that is actually meaningful to local party leadership: If they hold the primaries early the DNC gets to remove the local party leadership.
      • yacks, on 06/01/2008, -0/+2That would been a good point, however it's not always the local party leadership that creates the problem. But if residents in MI and Fla really want to be upset, they should be upset with their local politicians.. they knew the risk but went forward anyways with the plan. I do think the DNC may have been a little harsh in the penalty, but it is their party and they can run it how they choose. If you don't like it, don't vote democrat. But when you vote also remember there is more than 2 parties.
        • Laminarcissus, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1-- "If you don't like it, don't vote democrat" --

          It's really not that binary, I can support something and still want to reform it.

          And what other parties would you have me entertain? The Republicans? Yeah. The Green Party? Their candidates have traditionally been flakes. Libertarians? The biggest joke of all -- mis-guided ideologues with not even a single pinky's worth of grip on reality. Very nearly Ron-Paul-level crazies.

          If I'm forced into party politics (which I wasn't for years, as an independent, although I changed this year because of the importance of the race) the Democrats come closest to reflecting my values.
        • yacks, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1@Laminarcissus
          You can just vote in terms of the best candidate. That is the way I choose. Regardless of party. I don't play into party politics much. I just vote for who I feel will be better at the job. and I don't stick with democrat and republican. I may start there, but I move one even neither offers anything.
    • GroundhogBoy, on 06/01/2008, -0/+5Yet Hillary supporters still are bitching about having their voices not heard. It's absurd.
      • yacks, on 06/01/2008, -0/+2yeah because the decision doesn't give Hillary the lead..
    • truerobotech, on 06/01/2008, -0/+0I knew i wouldnt be first to post a reply like this.

      Totally agree, both states broke the rules = no delegates and Clinton should get penalized in some worth while fashion.

      This makes the party look pathetically worse thna the long drown out BS campaigns
  • gridbread, on 06/01/2008, -2/+55So Clinton still loses.
  • pantone286, on 06/01/2008, -16/+8The US electoral system is so broken. No wonder nobody votes.
    • NeverReturnKid, on 06/01/2008, -0/+6These primaries are run by the parties and their rules...
      • pantone286, on 06/01/2008, -1/+2The fact that we in no way elect our president is the problem. I don't care who made the rules - they are stupid. BTW I am not a Hillary lover.
        • evanconklin, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1If you're complaining about the US Presidential electoral system in general, don't make pointed statements about specific parts of the electoral system (especially statements that have nothing to do with what's currently going on).
    • vault, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1It needs improvement, but that's no reason not to vote.
  • Vaktathi, on 06/01/2008, -2/+47So Harold Ickes thinks its a violation of democratic principle to not give everything to Hillary, when Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot (and thus many likely Obama supporters may have voted for Clinton since she was on the ballot) and none of the candidates actively campaigned there, AND Hillary had agreed and signed a statement to that effefct, with the rest of the nominee's, that Michigan's and Florida's delegates wouldn't count. So only when she is getting her ass handed to her does she suddenly think its undemocratic?

    Give me a break. If he wants a