MI State Dems Approve Compromise on Delegates

According to the CNN political blog and Eric Kleefeld at TPM Election Central, the Michigan Democratic party has agreed upon a compromise plan to seat Michigan's delegates at the Democratic convention. According to the plan, the delegates are to be divided with a 59/69 split, with Clinton being awarded 10 more delegates than Obama.

But why? Why should Clinton be granted 10 more delegates than Obama, in a state in which he played by the rules by not placing his name on the ballot, while she attempted to do an end run around them. For what purpose, at this point in the game, should Clinton be awarded additional delegates?

From the Ferraro comments about race to the the constant questioning of Obama's electability (which seem me an attempt to create a self-fullfilling prophecy), to the jumping on the McCain/Bush/rightwing bandwagon over the Wright flap, Clinton and her surrogates have shown her willingness to fight dirty at the expense of party. Even with the numbers so clearly against her, can we afford to grant her anything that might later be used to advance her (hopeless) cause and harm our chances in November?

Had she indicated her willingness to withdraw and support the presumptive Democratic nominee, this arrangement may have made sense as a symbolic offering to her supporters, but without any indication from Clinton that she intends to withdraw soon, a red flag is raised by this compromise. What kind of mischief at the convention might those 10 delegates support?

•  Tip jar

  Can we trust Clinton without a concession?

  by Wordie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:59:45 AM PDT

  •  No

    No we can't.
    
    
    ````
    peace
    
    

    by peace voter on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:11:10 AM PDT

  •  Slight Correction

    The "MI Democratic party" didn't come up with this solution.  A bunch of Clinton-backers who control the party did.  From the Detroit Free Press:

    Under that proposal -- hammered out weeks ago by Sen. Carl Levin, Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, UAW President Ron Gettelfinger and National Committeewoman Debbie Dingell -- Sen. Hillary Clinton would get 69 of the state's delegates and Sen. Barack Obama, 59.

    State Party Chairman Mark Brewer said he was directed during a conference call with the state party's 80-member executive committee Wednesday night to bring the plan as a challenge to the Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws panel when it meets May 31 in Washington.

    This is another BS attempt to legitimize something totally illegitimate and change the rules after the fact.

    by brightstar on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:59:17 AM PDT

    •  Apparently the MI Dems just approved the plan,

      although I agree completely that it's bogus.

      Doesn't it seem that Clinton wouldn't be fighting for those delegates unless she intends to use them somehow?

      And another poster downthread raised the issue of MI SDs. What happens with them under this plan? Gov. Granholm (a longtime Clinton supporter) is in many ways responsible for this debacle in MI (she could have vetoed the bill that moved the MI primary up). Does the plan give her a vote as a SD?

      I guess I'm worried that Clinton has something up her sleeve, and yeah, I realize that the math just doesn't indicate that she could do anything to wrest the nomination from Obama, but I'm still worried.

      by Wordie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:09:54 AM PDT

      •  The Executive Committee is not representative

        of the Michigan Democratic Party.  

                 Don't get me wrong, it includes a lot of good people.  I walked precincts for Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick when she beat the ineffectual incumbent in that district in her first primary.

                 But take a look at the "executive committees" of your own state parties and decide whether they're representative of Democratic activists or Democratic voters in your state.

        by JTML on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:31:44 AM PDT

  •  We don't have to trust her

    A ten-delegate margin in Michigan won't mean beans for her; it's worth having peace.

    by Seneca Doane on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:22:41 AM PDT

•  it is an arbitrary and stupid solution

  meant to placate both camps (Clinton wants 73 delegates and Obama wants to give her 64), but it may be the only thing people can agree upon, and if so, the Obama people will surely swallow it, just to take the issue off the table.

  If Michigan had had a real (non-Soviet-style) election, I think Obama would have won, but we'll never know for sure. So just get the problem fixed and over with. Even if Florida and Michigan are counted exactly as Clinton wants them to be counted, she will still be behind.

  by Nathaniel Ament Stone on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:00:12 AM PDT

  •  Yes, I understand all that, but

    given the way she's handled things so far, I wouldn't put it past her to create more havoc at the convention.

    A diarist over at MyDD mentioned (based on an article that is incorrectly credited in the to Thomas Frank in the diary; the author is actually Thomas DeFrank) that he/she thought that the real reason Clinton was staying in is that, rather than thinking there might be an electability problem for Obama, the Clinton camp believes that this year is a sure win for the Democrats. The diary offered no links to the article, but it's here: http://www.nydailynews.com/... and although disturbing, it's worth reading.

    I feel the same way about the idea that's been floated about Obama paying off Clinton's campaign debt. Why should she be rewarded for these abomninable tactics?

    I want to believe as you do that because the math is impossible, that Obama is safe now, but the math has been obvious for quite some time, and Clinton has continued her attacks on Obama.

    by Wordie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:12:26 AM PDT

•  It is to put this issue behind us...

  so we are not having a credentials fight at the convention...I think it is clear that this will not have an effect on the final outcome of the primary...

  by dvogel001 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:00:16 AM PDT

  •  This proposal won't put the issue behind us

    The radio talk shows in the city were full of callers angry about this solution.  Since Hillary lost Super Tuesday, Black voters have been putting up with all sorts of "compromise plans" to give Hillary a win in Michigan and are totally fatigued by them.  Many just see this as yet another attempt to make sure she comes out on top.

    by brightstar on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:02:37 AM PDT

    •  Someone should tell the callers

      to take a deep breath.

      Then go out and register voters, and on election day give Obama a massive win in Michigan that they can shove in Hillary's face.

      by reklemrov on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:11:19 AM PDT

      •  I've been trying

        But the atmosphere here in Michigan, especially in and around Detroit, is just bad:

        1. An ineffectual Democratic governor, blamed by many voters for an abysmal economy.

        2. Homeowners literally walking away from unsaleable homes in a dead market.

        3. Other homeowners surrounded by vacant foreclosures.

        4. Record unemployment rates.

        5. Horrifying economy - when America is in a recession, Detroit is in a depression.

        6. The mayor of Detroit embroiled in a multiple scandals involving contract bid-rigging, defamation of police officers, perjury, adultery, and murdered strippers.  That's right, not one, but TWO murdered strippers.

        I don't even want to get into the government's suppressed report on carcinogens in the lakes, rivers and water supply.  Most of the Michigan public hasn't paid too much attention to that, yet.  Damn, reading this, I'm wondering why the hell I even live here...lol.

        by brightstar on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:14:18 AM PDT

        •  Too bad

          In that case, it's really too bad that the Michigan Dems did that to the state. It would've probably ended this campaign much earlier if Michigan had been any time in that 6 week gap before Pennsylvania.

          And the Michigan supers should be appropriately punished.

          by reklemrov on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:35:28 AM PDT

•  It sure won't build her an advantage at all

  if this is the split.

  She'll really have nothing to rely on.

  by beholderseye on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:00:57 AM PDT

•  The why

  is because Obama is Presidential and she's not.  Because by ceding these 10 he picks up a lot more than 10 in superdelegates who respect him for seeking a solution.

  by dougdilg on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:01:25 AM PDT

•  Who Cares...

  The sooner they are seated...the sooner this can all be over.  Let's find a way to seat FL now too.

  by bleigh82 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:01:26 AM PDT

•  10 supers

  can declare for Obama and wipe out the gain for Clinton.  Get er done, off the table, and it's yet another reason for Hillary to leave.  Perhaps she has some rationale for continuing that says something like, "I have to stay in this for the sake of the voters in MI and FL."

  by bigforkgirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:02:58 AM PDT

•  if it prevents that bogus popular count metric

  from being floated, the one where Clinton gets a popular count total out of MI, but Obama doesn't (WTF?), then I'm all for it. Let's just deal with it and  move on.

  by geejay on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:04:01 AM PDT

  •  But would it? If they split delegates based on

    the vote, then Hillary will claim she won the state and add those votes to her popular vote total.

    Obama does not have to concede anything to Hillary.

    by jeepdad on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:19:10 AM PDT

    •  and if she stays in until they're seated? n/t

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:25:57 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, it's a question of what she'll do with

      this concession as well. She's so effective at twisting things to her advantage - that's what she's done with the entire issue of MI and FL in the first place. Why give her any ammo to use at this point?

      by Wordie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:27:51 AM PDT

•  Why get one's undewear in a twist over 10 dels

  when he's ahead by 160 pledged delegates?

  it's not like it's going to make a difference at this point.  And they're given 1/2 a vote, so in reality it's only giving her 5 delegates.

  by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:05:48 AM PDT

  •  She should get nothing.

    Obama has no reason to concede anything to Hillary at this point.

    by jeepdad on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:20:50 AM PDT

    •  Thank you, it's the principle of it...

      He followed the rules, she didn't.  Why should she benefit from lying?  First she agreed to it, but then conveniently "forgot" to have her name removed.

      by balancedscales on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:27:43 AM PDT

      •  yes

        while she's down, let's continue to kick her. and let's impale her with a sword while we're at it.

        by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:28:30 AM PDT

        •  I want to be conciliatory, but

          given the way she's operated, I just don't trust her. I don't hold this against her supporters. Heck, I was a supporter of Hillary Clinton in the 90s, when the Republicans were attacking her so horribly.

          I don't want to kick her, but I don't want her to be rewarded for the way she's run her campaign. And I especially don't want for anything to encourage her to stay in. And I also realize that 10 delegates may not seem like something to encourage her, but then the math shouldn't have encouraged her for quite some time now, but that didn't have much of an effect, did it?

          by Wordie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:44:44 AM PDT

        •  What should we do? Should we allow the people

          with the most power to continue getting away with shunning the rules?

          So, because she lost we should forget about our principles?  This isn't about emotion, it's about rules.

          If we don't follow them, then we become what he despise most, Republicans.

          Give a better argument for it than "gosh, I feel sorry for her so let's give her a few extra delegates".

          Pat her on the back, offer her your hand, but don't forget rules and principles...

          by balancedscales on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:52:21 AM PDT

        •  And actually, I have no problem with

          impaling her while she's down.  The sooner we purge politicians who take advantage of racist sentiment, and perpetuate the use of racist language from the Democratic party, the better.

          by balancedscales on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:53:57 AM PDT

•  Arbitrary, but get's it off the table

  They all agreed in advance that the delegates from MI and FL would not count in the nomination fight.  Clinton even signed the pledge.  Case closed.  Do we count spring training baseball games or pre-season football games in the official regular season standings?  No.  Why?  Because everyone agrees up front that they won't count.

  The fair solution is simple.  Seat the delegates from the offending states based on a 50/50 allocation between Obama and Clinton and don't let any superdelegates from those states vote.  

  MI and FL tried to move early to influence the outcome of the nomination.  They should not be rewarded by allowing seating their delegations to benefit Clinton.  

  I don't like giving Clinton any advantage in any of this, but I can understand the value of taking the issue off the table.

  by Michael James on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:05:57 AM PDT

  •  asdf

    No.  Why?  Because everyone agrees up front that they won't count.

    But would people care if we counted them after the fact if they had no impact on who makes the playoffs and who plays where?

    Probably not all that much.  They may find it stupid, but if doesn't affect the outcome...

    And this is of course a matter of having two swing states seated at the convention to make sure it doesn't cause us potential problems later.

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:09:38 AM PDT

    •  I don't think there is a question

      that they will be seated at the convention.  Everyone seems to want that.

      And, yes, I would care if pre-season games were suddenly added in because it is unbearably stupid.

      At this point giving her a split that gives her +10 is just pandering to her ego.  Really, at that point why not go 50/50?

      Mostly, I have MI/FL fatigue.  Let's just end it and let her have the +10 in MI.

      by llamaRCA on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:19:37 AM PDT

    •  Agreed

      It would still be unfair to give any net gain to Clinton but, sure, if doing that ultimately has no net impact on who wins the nomination, I agree that it wouldn't really matter and, therefore, would be tolerable.  

      As I said, I don't like giving Clinton any advantage in any of this, but there would be value in taking the issue off the table.  Getting it off the table is the only reason to even consider doing anything other than 50/50 or re-voting.

      The other thing is that if Clinton wants these delegations seated so badly, all she has to do is drop out of the race.  Shortly after that, I'm sure there would be no need for them to appeal to the DNC or the credentials committee.  If she really wants to be a hero and make sure they aren't "disenfranchised," that's the way.

      Naturally, it would be best to not give the Republicans any talking points by preventing these states from participating in the convention.  However, the supers, as party leaders for their states, should not have let it come to this when the DNC made it very clear what would happen, so they are the only ones who should be disenfranchised.  Especially the Florida ones.  They flat out rejected any sort of re-vote and insisted that the original vote stand even though there was no campaign conducted.

      by Michael James on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:13:07 PM PDT

  •  I completely agree with the idea of a 50-50 split

    and although I see why the Obama camp wants to get the situation resolved, it just galls me that Clinton would get anything, symbolic or real, out of a situation where she broke the rules, and riled up a bunch of Democratic voters to believe that the Democratic party and Obama was doing something questionable by enforcing the rules. Haven't you heard the pundits going on and on about the "disenfranchisement" of the voters by the Democratic party? Clinton, in my view is responsible for much of that, and I don't want to see her get anything for her efforts to damage the Democratic party.

    by Wordie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:21:02 AM PDT

•  I think that is only half the story...

  If this is the same story as what DCW is talking about there is, in addition to the 69/59 split, 45 additional Pdelegates and 2 SDs would be elected at the State convention. This is more or less partisan votes and it is likely Clinton would likely pick up the majority of them.

  Want to know when the State convention would be? June 14th, the day before the rumored Clinton drop out.

  Myself? I'm fine with the 69/59 split, less so with the additional Pdelgates.

  by edgeways on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:06:16 AM PDT

  •  err...huh?

    Yes, it's true that they get to elect 2 addtional superdelegates - as every state gets add-on delegates.

    But 45 additional pledged delegates? I don't see where you get that.  69/58 is 128 delegates, which is the total number of delegates they were being allocated.

    You are perhaps thinking of the number of uncommitted delegates Obama would have won using the existing results.  Those are being awarded to Obama in this compromise.

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:13:06 AM PDT

  •  Wait, Michigan only gets 128 pledged delegates

    So, a 69/59 split accounts for all of them.  They wouldn't get to select anymore, unless they were the DNC were to give them more out of thin air.  Not gonna happen.

    Of course the compromise does apparently allow for all the Michigan SDs to have a free vote as they please, which I think is BS.

    by typo ink on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:16:13 AM PDT

  •  What are Pdelegates?

    Do you have a link? If the Pdelegates are something that might keep Clinton's hopes going, and hence her campaign, then the additional 10 delegates in MI only add additional fuel to the fire (well, at least kindling).

    by Wordie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:16:19 AM PDT

    •  Pledged delegates

      And I see where the problem was in what I was reporting, it was a little confusing when I read it.

      http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/

      Thy have already picked 83 of their delegates and will pick 45 more come June 14th under this plan.

      So, I guess if they pick to follow the 59/69 compromise  I withdraw my objections, except that the SDs should still be stripped (imo).

      by edgeways on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:29:51 AM PDT

      •  You raise an interesting issue: MI SDs

        If the MI pledged delegates are seated, does that mean that the votes of the MI SDs will be counted too? That might be a further disadvantage to Obama. Gov. Granholm, who is in many ways responsible for this mess, as she signed the bill that authorized the early MI primary, is a long-time Clinton supporter, as is Sen. Carl Levin. I don't know how many other SDs might be awarded to MI if the MI pledged delegates are seated, but it would be good to know if the current plan would result in more than 10 delegates overall. I haven't read anything yet that clarifies the issue of MI superdelegates under this plan.

        by Wordie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:54:31 AM PDT

        •  Th4e plan says in effect:

          The plan would shrink Clinton’s delegate edge in Michigan from 18 to 10 and allow the state’s 157 delegates and superdelegates to be seated at the convention.

          So I am guessing they want to seat the SDs as is.

          From day one (heh) I, personally, have not had any real issues with a compromise in MI and FL (even though part of me wants them just to be stripped for fucking up so badly) as I can understand the argument of not wanting to alienate the voters in those states who had little to do with the fiasco.  But, I have ALWAYS thought the SDs from those states need to be stripped. They are the ones primarily responsible for this and as such should bear the brunt of the sanctions.

          by edgeways on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:03:20 AM PDT

          •  So that means there are 29 MI Superdelegates.

            I know that both Granholm and Levin are big HRC supporters. What about the rest of the MI superdelegates?

            It looks like there's a great likelihood of this resulting in more than a +10 for Clinton.

            by Wordie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:15:05 AM PDT

            •  Levin hasn't really said

              I think you're right, he's probably in her corner, but he really hasn't said.  Stabenow is even bigger for her than the governor. She was at Clinton's announcement party. john and debbie dingell have announced for Clinton but they might pull a Charlie Rangel and split their votes.  Cherry is a good little puppy and will do what JG says. Joel Ferguson has been in the tank for Clinton for months, if not years.

              Gettlefinger I'm not sure of. He's got a large AA constituency in the UAW and going whole hog for her might jeopardize his position in the union.  He's been pretty noncommittal according to UAW guys I know. Brewer's been making noises like he wants to go for Obama, but he won't say either. Kildee switched the other day to Obama.  Conyers is pretty solid for Obama. I think Kilpatrick's constituency and her son's problems will force her to go for Obama.  The rest I'm not sure of.

              by dougymi on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:31:15 AM PDT

              •  There are two other probable Clinton SDs

                in MI: SD Mark Brewer is thought to support Clinton, and SD Richard Wiener, who originally supported Richardson, donated $2000 to Clinton campaign after Richardson withdrew.

                It's unknown which of the candidates SD Elizabeth Bunn supports.

                Clinton campaign surrogates, just a few days ago, were threatening a "nuclear option" in the Rules Committee to throw the nomination her way, so is it not possible she still has something up her sleeve? If not, why is she still campaigning?

                by Wordie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:11:22 AM PDT

                •  The nuclear option was to try and

                  force the rules committee to seat FL and MI as is, really a non starter and imo a lot of hot air to try and keep people thinking she has an outside chance.

                  by edgeways on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:18:31 AM PDT

                  •  But the question is, why does she need people to

                    believe she has a chance, if she doesn't intend to do something to further her cause? I realize that after Obama's win her chances of pulling something off become more remote, but they were remote before the win. And any something that she might do would risk further damage to the party and to Obama. Perhaps Obama's team should require that she concede (in writing!) before they consider signing off on this plan.

                    Also, apparently, Clinton had earlier rejected the split that's now being proposed by the MI Dems. I wonder if there's a lot more going on behind the scenes than we're aware of. Well, I'm sure there's a lot more going on behind the scenes...LOL I just wonder what it is.

                    by Wordie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:59:31 AM PDT

                •  Brewer's funny

                  He's an acolyte of Dave Bonior and was fairly solid for Edwards when he was in. After Edwards dropped out, he seemed to go for Clinton as you said, but he's been listening to a lot of people who aren't for her, along with going out of his way to elicit the Obama camps views, which JG and the other hard core Clinton supporters don't do. I think Bonior's announcement today might put him over the edge, but he won't say anything to preserve his so-called impartiality.

                  Oh and Stupak is solid Clinton. I forgot about him.

                  by dougymi on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:20:39 AM PDT

•  Why not give Obama the 69 delegates

  and Hillary 59? I mean, he has won twice the number of states than she has.

  Seriously, I agree. Anything allocation remotely based on the fraud election is by also a fraud.

  50-50 or nothing at all.

  by jeepdad on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:17:05 AM PDT

•  I call this bullshit

  If you must appease the bully, then nothing is acceptable than a 50/50 split. You cannot send this kind of message of rewarding bad behavior. 59-69 is a REWARD FOR BREAKING THE RULES, THEN LYING
  Why would any canidate take their name
  of the ballot of a 50 state campagin?

  CALLILNG ALL SUPERDELEGATES WHO IS NOT OPENLY SUPPORTING OBAMA IN THE DC PRIMARIES FEB 12 TO TAKE THE SHEETS OF THEIR HEADS.  REV WRIGHT IS NOT DANGEROUS.

  What's happening to all the SD who is supporting still supporting clinton(about half) the  undecided/uncommitted SD that Obama won FEB 12 primaries? Would someone on this board help me? jim webb, joe biden and a host of others.

  by lcarr23 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:18:22 AM PDT

  •  er, what does the DC primary have to do with this

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:27:43 AM PDT

  •  I was with you through the first paragraph...

    then you seemed to lose your mind.

    by balancedscales on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:30:54 AM PDT

•  I'm fine with it

  if it settles this issue for once and for all.

  by paintitblue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:21:19 AM PDT

•  I didn't see anywhere in the diary

  where the Obama campaign had agree to this. As a matter of fact the last I had heard regarding this particular plan was that the campaign yesterday said it looked like we were moving in the right direction but it needs to be understood that there is no approved plan unless the Clinton campaign, the Obama campaign, the state party and the DNC all, repeat, ALL, agree on the plan.

  I've not seen it reported that Obama's team has agreed to this "approved plan" and that would be an important tidbit.

  by PointGuard on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:28:12 AM PDT

  •  Thanks.

    I revised the diary's title to make it clearer.

    by Wordie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:38:39 AM PDT

•  all this just outright rubbish

  there is a simple solution to Florida and Michigan. Enough super delegates line behind Obama so that he is guaranteed the nomination irrespective of what happens to Florida and Michigan and in exchange they get seated whichever way Hillary would like. She saves face and their seating has no impact on the election.

  All that has to wait until the last primary so everybody knows what the delegate count is and whether seating of Florida/Michigan matters.

  by keepingitstraight on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:31:48 AM PDT

•  Good deal if true

  10 delegates for her isn't going to change anything, and as others have noted, he could bring in 10 SDs just by being magnanimous and approving this compromise, negating the delegate gain.  At this point, 10 extra delegates isn't going to help her.

  Just one less rationale for her to be in the race.  

  by Sauceman on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:32:06 AM PDT

•  i worked at a summercamp with eric kleefeld

  in 2001.  Even if I didn't recognize the name it'd be hard to missidentify him what with the accurate picture provided.  That's cool he's on TPM!

  He was the first person I knew of who called 2004 as Kerry's race.  I don't remember much else that we spoke of in politics at the granular level, just that we talked about it a lot, and his take on the 2004 race turned out to be pretty insightful.  

  by abundibot on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:36:06 AM PDT

•  Sufficient rough justice?

  A deal would dramtically reduce uncertainty about the single biggest question mark in the race.

  It bears some vague resemblance to the likely intent of the voters in Michigan.

  It means that the party is including all but one state, instead of all but two, reducing the pissed off factor in Michigan down the line.

  It is cheap to implement.

  If the interested parties, who are the DNC, and the campaigns, agree, so be it.  This may reduce post-nomination recriminations.

  Letting Clinton get a 10 delegate lead out of MI is small enough in perspective to her current several hundred delegate lag, that it doesn't have much impact on who gets the nomination.  Indeed, it may sway a lot of superdelegates over to Obama, but reducing a wildcard that could have come out much more strongly in favor of Clinton.

  by ohwilleke on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:39:01 AM PDT

•  This is B.S.

  at the very least it should be an exact 50/50 split...or not at all...

  by chabuka on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:39:54 AM PDT

•  Crap proposal, but

  probably for the best.  I agree that she ought not be rewarded, but I also don't want to hand out "anti-democracy" ammunition to McCain by blocking it.

  I just hope that the next time somebody comes up with a frat house idea, like jumping over and voting for Mitt to keep the Republican game going, that people will look at it long and hard.

  Had Clinton lost to Uncommitted, she wouldn't be braying so loudly now.

  by oxon on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:43:02 AM PDT

•  Anything to shut her up.

  This is a small ding in Obama's lead and well worth it.

  by Yoshimi on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:49:58 AM PDT