This is the fairest solution. If Hillary doesn't agree to this, then she's disenfranchising the Michigan delegation from being seated!

I can't wait to hear the first whine from a Hil supporter that 50-50 isn't fair.

LOL!

Ball's in your court, Madame Clinton.

re: "this is like nullifying the vote"

It was nullified when they pushed the date too far forward (with the help of pro-Hillary governor who thought that'd be to Hill's favor). It was nullified when Hillary was only one on the ballot.

From the Hillary campaign's perspective, of course, this is like nullifying the vote completely and not seating the delegation at all.

I'm not one to pick on you, Greg, for editorial bias; in fact, I've gone to bat for you and TPM generally here and there in threads where people lobbed that charge at you. But I was really struck by the construction of your final comment, above. I get that you're summarizing why, from HRC's point of view, this compromise is tactically unfavorable for her and that, as a matter of mathematics, a 50/50 split of delegates between two candidates amounts to a wash, numerically.

But you appear to have conflated (A) the Clintons' justified objection to this compromise on campaign-strategic ground, with (B) how they'll pitch their objection in the language of principle to the plebs. "Nullifying" the vote and "not seating the delegation at all" are precisely the sort of talking points that her campaign is already abusing to imply that Obama is responsible for the "disenfranchisement" of Michiganders like me. Which is, of course, a demonstrably false claim. Again, I'm not accusing you of bias, I'd just ask that you be on guard against doing any heavy lifting for either side, consciously or no.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/election2008/story/32613.html

HOUSTON — A Texas oilman who's accused of defrauding the Nigerian government by illegally pumping and exporting 10 million barrels of oil is a major fundraiser for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

Kase Lawal of Houston is at least the fourth person accused or convicted of criminal wrongdoing to help finance Clinton's political ambitions since 2000 and the second in her quest for the White House. The list also includes Chinese and Pakistani fugitives and a former Miami lawyer who was convicted of defrauding Cuba.

There's no indication that Clinton's campaign was aware of Lawal's legal problems when it accepted his help in raising more than $100,000, but a McClatchy investigation in the U.S. and Nigeria suggests that her campaign did little to scrutinize the background of one of its top fundraisers.

Jay Carson, a campaign spokesman, brushed off such criticism.

"While no vetting process is perfect, our vetting department does extensive vetting in order to catch any issues with donors," he said. "And to our knowledge, Mr. Lawal is an upstanding member of his community in Houston."

However, a simple Google search by McClatchy produced reports of serious allegations about some of Lawal's business dealings in Nigeria and South Africa.

Clinton's campaign lists Lawal among about 250 "Hillraisers" who pledged to collect at least $100,000 in donations. Clinton attended a fundraising luncheon at Lawal's home in Houston last Aug. 11 that generated more than $100,000, and she spoke to about 250 guests gathered around Lawal's indoor swimming pool, including two former Houston mayors and Shell Oil President John Hofmeister.

the senator must not feel all that comfy with his upcoming primary states. short term gain for obama long term gain for mccain. not really good thinking.

i know all about the rules, along with the math, i know the rules too and perhaps hillary and others said at some time in the past that michigan and florida should not count, they were making said statement firmly believing the process would be over and clearly over by now.

times change, refusing to understand the consequences of insisting on rules when you may be tossing two key states in the general election

i am more often disappointed in obama lately, he is not as on top of things as many seem convinced, he is unsteady and this is a sign of how unsteady he must feel. he should, this is a recipe for disaster in november

"From the Hillary campaign's perspective, of course, this is like nullifying the vote completely and not seating the delegation at all."

Not the best way to avoid charges of bias, homie. I know you think you're offering perspective, but really, you're claiming to speak for the campaign here. I suggest you either re-word it or remove the comment altogether until we...well, actually hear from the Clinton campaign.

Now, as for the item - Clinton can stuff it. Look, the voters were "disenfranchised" when their Hillary-supporting governor and the state moved their primary up (after being warned against it) in order to attempt to give her an early boost. Senator Obama has said all along that he wanted to see the process play itself out. I'm not naive - sure, they weren't as eager to get the delegates seated as Clinton's folks were; she was trying to flaunt the rules she AGREED TO in order to salvage her only chance of winning. 50/50 is fair enough for a state whose delegates weren't even going to count. Settle this and let's move on. You cannot count as legitimate delegates selected in a race that was invalidated and in which only one candidate left her name on the ballot. I can't even believe we're still discussing this.

Actually it would be slightly worse from the Clinton perspective, looking at the past only. I think Uncommitted only got 40% or so.

On the other hand, Obama would probably win handily currently so it seems like a fairly equitable solution for a race where of the two only she participated, in violation of the pledgie thingy.

"From the Hillary campaign's perspective, of course, this is like nullifying the vote completely and not seating the delegation at all."

I think you meant to say:

The Clinton campaign had originally asked that the Michigan primary results count, and that the delegates be seated accordingly. The prospect of a revote was ultimately rejected by the Michigan legislature.

The Clinton campaign has yet to weigh in on Obama's newly proposed solution.

Greetings from Michigan,

Obama is a cynical politician just like the rest of them...

He can say goodbye to my vote in the fall.

i know all about the rules, along with the math, i know the rules too and perhaps hillary and others said at some time in the past that michigan and florida should not count, they were making said statement firmly believing the process would be over and clearly over by now.

Nice. I know the rules, and was prepared to follow them as long as they benefited me. Uh uh. It's all too convenient for Hillary to pretend she "won" the MI vote. It's laughable.

The other thing is, actually I think this shows Obama as steady, not shaky. He's dealing from a position of strength and knows it. He's making Hillary an offer that's difficult to refuse.

If she does, she looks like she's trying to game the system. And of course if she accepts, it wipes out one of her rationales for continuing.

I think Obama's doing just fine.

Of course it's like nullifying the vote - but that's the only fair thing to do since everyone else took their name off the ballot!

I bet we could ask 100 8 year-olds the best way to resolve this and they'd all come up with a 50-50 split.

Guys how can you keep arguing when tonight - TONIGHT -

Starbuck returns!

Battlestar Galactica! Woo hoo!

ok now dis me for being juvenile and irrelevant. I can take it.

:)

My prediction: the DNC will seat MI & FL with a 50/50 split after all the primaries are finished in June.

From the Hillary campaign's perspective, of course, this is like nullifying the vote completely and not seating the delegation at all.

The reality is that the January vote in MI was nullified before it ever took place. The statement today from the MI Democratic leaders merely acknowledges that reality at long last. If the Clinton campaign is finally accepting this reality too, however grudgingly, that is some progress.

The second part of the statement is factually wrong. Seating a delegation is not the same as not seating a delegation, simple English. A seated delegation, with a 50/50 split, could be able to have an influence on many matters in the convention subject to a vote, with the one major exception of making a difference on the eventual nominee. I can believe that a 50/50 split delegation would not be 50/50 split on all votes in the convention. Not seating a delegation from MI becomes the ultimate insult to the largely blameless MI voters, while seating a 50/50 split delegation makes the best of a rotten situation.

So Obama essentially wants to be given votes that were never cast for him. Can any Obama supporter point to a time in our history when a candidate has been given votes he didn't earn, especially a candidate who voluntarily removed hs name from the ballot?

For the poster who said this: What proof do you have of this prediction as it is not at all self-evident or even logical to me?

Dean is on record in WSJ saying:
Mr. Dean said. "I don't think we can have a vote in Denver about whether or not Florida is to be seated" without prompting a divisive floor fight that could damage the party in the November polls, he added.

A request to split the votes 50/50 is equal to 0/0, and Michiganders will see right through it. Prior to McCain getting the Repub nod, all Dems thought they could foul up these 2 key states' votes. Not so much anymore. Hillary sees that (and of course it could help her) and Obama is taking a gamble that it won't matter. As a Democrat, i don't want to take that chance, and no other Democrat should either.

Greg and Josh:

Are you getting the message about election central?? Can so many people be wrong??

Are you going to rethink the way you mindlessly post Clinton's "perspective" on this (politics)page????

Maybe Obama needs to start whispering in your ear!!

Clinton, Hillary Rodham 328,309

Uncommitted Obama 238,168.

There ya go.

Now count the Florida votes and its over.

HRC = Cheatocrat

OK... let's seat the delegates and then let them "vote their conscience".

I thought the lastest wisdom from HRC's campaign was that no delegates we're committed by their states voting process.

When the candidate approaches all questions with the ethics of a trial lawyer, I just de-commit.
"I get knocked down and I get up again." is OK to a point... then it descibes the behavior of a "monster". You can't ever kill the "monster". It just gets up again.

It takes a village to stop a monster.

AJM says earlier, "Obama is not even a small d Democrat."

You're kidding, right? (1) "community organizer" = small d Democrat; (2) His campaign is funded by nearly half a million people, not pharmacuetical and Wall Street PAC's like his opponent; (3) His campaign is responsible for millions of newly registered voters who otherwise wouldn't have participated in this or any other election; (4) The entire premise of an American citizen getting to this point in a nationawide election...with a father who is foreign born, from a multi-racial family, raised by his grandparents, graduating with honors from the most distinguished shcools in America, with student loans as recently as 16 months ago...that is the definition of the American Dream idealized by every immigrant to this country over the past 200 years...an possible only because of our small d democracy.

"So Obama essentially wants to be given votes that were never cast for him."

And Hillary wants votes from a state wherein she pledged not to be on the ballot in agreement with candidates who stayed off the ballot. Uh huh. Hillary has no case, in either MI or FL.

I'm an Obama supporter, but I think this is a tactical error. The offer should have been a 55-45 split in Sen. Clinton's favor with the same percentage of the popular vote being added to their totals, and nobody given bragging rights on the state. This would have honored those who voted for Sen. Clinton, only "disenfranchised" the people who didn't come out to vote (because they thought the primary would not count) and those who voted for the other candidates, and it would have showed his strength. If he did this, and also a 50-48 Clinton split for Florida, she would gain a net of 20 delegates and 100k votes, but he would have solved an impasse. With a ~130 delegate and ~700k popular vote, he could afford it. A public announcement with Dodd, Kucinich, and possibly Edwards, endorsing the plan, would have gone a long way towards party unity instead of playing this out through the press. I'm disappointed, but not discouraged.
peace.
gkp

Okay, say you have a baseball game. You are on the team that is expected to win. You are told that you have one practice game to warm up, before the real game begins. The score, of course, will not count for anything. This is just an unofficial warm-up.

You play the practice session and your team does better than the opposing team.

Later, you play the real game, and your team is losing, but not by much, in the top of the ninth inning.

Suddenly, it rains, and lightning is a threat.

The game is stopped, and is called for the other team.

But, WAIT! NO! You're the better team, dammit! This game can't be called just like that! It's unfair!! All the great teamwork you displayed earlier should count! You're being disenfranchised!!

So your captain starts demanding that the results of the practice game, the warm-up session, should be factored in, because he knows that the earlier, unofficial score, added to the real score, would give you the advantage.

Is that fair? Is that how the world should work?

I just don't get it.TM.

Even with a 50/50% split, Hillary nets +6 delegates from the super delegates.

demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html

Obama
Rep. John Conyers (MI)

Clinton
Gov. Jennifer Granholm (MI)
Hon. John Cherry (MI)
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (MI)
Rep. Sander Levin (MI)
DNC Joel Ferguson (MI)
Rep. Dale Kildee (MI)
Rep. John Dingell (MI)

The votes of the people are not something for two campaigns to seize as they see fit. The suggestion by the Obama camp to do this represents a greater change of the rules than the simple and obvious solution of repeating the primary. What does the Obama camp fear from such a re-vote? Do they not realize that whoever the Democratic nominee turns out to be will need the legitimacy of a true mandate? All the talk of how undemocratic it would be for the superdelegates to exercise their own judgment in casting their votes goes out the window now, because the Obama campaign has shown they do not care about democratic mandates-- they only care about winning. And that is what they have been demonizing the Clintons for all this time!

Hillary Clinton has done everything in her power and beyond to corrupt and disrupt this process. Michigan and Florida's leaders broke the rules, knowing the consequences. Neither should be rewarded, however, a 50/50 split would certainly give each one a leg up in reaching the 2025 number without super delegates having to weigh in. That seems fair. Hillary discounted both states until she realized she was getting spanked. Now, she wants these two states as leverage to help her convince super delegates to overturn the will of the people.
Give it up! Wait to see what the credentials committee decides and go on with primaries as scheduled. By then, the super delegates will make their choices and one of these candidates will reach the magic number. Hint: It will not be a Clinton!

This Youtube clip (via kos) sums up Hillary's MI position in 40 seconds.

"Nobody forced Obama to take his name off the ballot."

It was informally understood that they would all take their names off, but only after the others followed through, did Clinton announce that she wouldn't.

"He knew he would lose that state and he gambled on keeping the votes out."

Prove it. On the other hand, HRC gambled that she could get MI and Fl on the early schedule, assuming she would win those big states and lock up an early nomination. (Maybe she shoulda checked with the rest of the party before helping to orchestrate an early schedule, eh?) Then, she assumed she'd still whup Obama's booty in the other early states, so she supported the decision to not seat those state's delegates - until it became clear that she needed them in order to try and catch up to Obama.

"Obama's people obstructed the revote, they should not be allowed to deny a whole state a voice."

On the other hand, Obama has every right to insist that the rules of the game not be changed in the middle, especially when that change favors his opponent. It isn't Obama's fault that Clinton and those states decided to go with an early schedule against the wishes of the party - and they did so with the full understanding that their delegates wouldn't be seated.

"Now they are doing their cry baby act it is rather demeaning."

The only group crying is the Clinton team.

"It is absolutely so not unfair to count the results when people go out and vote."

Of course it's unfair. In one state, Obama didn't even have his name on the ballot for goodness sake. Exactly how would you split out those votes for "other"? Furthermore, Clinton is a well-known politician who came into the race with the huge advantage name recognition and double-digit leads in most states against Obama. But when Obama has a chance to campaign in a given state, he always narrows the gap or passes her up and wins. He never had a chance to do that in FL or MI, so it is safe to assume that Clinton's results in those states are inflated above what they would normally be if a real campaign took place in those states. It is also unfair because the candidates agreed to support the party in not seating the delegates, but now that Clinton is grasping for any bit of flotsam to keep her campaign afloat, she does a complete about-face and wants to change the rules in a way that only favors her campaign. Talk about a cry baby.

ObamaDupees, who do you think was campainging in MI urging voters to select "uncommitted" on the ballot?

And what about all those life size cardboard cut-outs of BHO on every street corner in FL during the primary. He did have his his name on the ballot in FL (but not MI). Why this inconsistancy, so he could play it both ways?

I say , split the FL delegates as elected, and give BHO the uncommitted in MI, after all he campainged for those. Why is he now dissatisfied with the count, because Hillary beat him, and that's the only reason no matter what he says.

I hope California is learning from this (and the lesson is "fuck the everybody else! democracy means doing whatever the fuck we want!"), so in 2012 we move to the head of the line in the primaries.

Or, you know, we could be smart and scrap the stupid phased primaries and have a national primary. The phased system is an anachronism anyway. However, if we're going to have it, the states who cheat should be punished. It sucks for the voters, but the villains here are the state officials who threw their votes in the dumpster. The Clintons didn't make a peep until the ability to game the system became apparent.

Bet you didn't know Barack's middle name was Hussein either,

You mean Obama X HUSSEIN?

I think we all know, darlin.

So Hillary only got 60% of the votes in a race where she was the only name on the ballot.

How impressive. Hell, I expect that a flatulent skunk would get a higher percentage of votes than that in a one candidate election.

Why are people overlooking the fact that Hillary, when she had the ballot all to herself could only get 60% of those who even bothered to vote in a non contest. Senator Obama has gotten higher percentages than that is some states where Hillary was also on the ballot.

The real revelation about Michigan is that Hillary damn near got beaten in a one person race.

Since Clinton won't agree to 50/50, she's corrupt.

But anything BHO proposes is on the up and up. He wanted to be a new type of politician (whatever that is), but "fierce urgency of now" overtook him and now he's as sleezy as any other.

If the "uncommitted" had won in MI, you can bet BHO would be trying to grab those delegates. But now he wants 50/50. Giving him all the "uncommitted" is overly fair, since some were for other candidates, maybe even Clinton at that time.
You are too smart for Clinton to snow, but BHO has had you duped from day one, Wright

God Tena, darlin, I didn't know about the X either. Does that mean he isn't or wasn't or never was. More to pity.

I have been so busy trying to decipher BXHO's histerical speech, that I may have missed X President Carter's endorsement,but I have been hearing the rumors, which may even be true by now, what ever will HRC do.

It's been said by maybe Will Rogers, that you can't make a silk purse from a pig's ear, but with audacity to hope, and dreams, and enough pig's ears, anything is possible, maybe,hopefully Wright. (Wright,df has urged us to say that often)

WOW! What a grear idea...

Dr. Dean, please shut the mother fuckers up! And propose this solution...A 50/50 spliy is awesome!

Greg is right .

Rejected.

"When it comes to counting votes, the Obama campaign seems content to only count the ones that it got. Senator Obama voluntarily removed his name from the Michigan ballot and wants a backroom deal that ignores the nearly 600,000 Americans who voted in Michigan. Instead of distorting Senator Clinton's words, the Obama campaign ought to honor the votes in Michigan and Florida, respect the bedrock principles of our democracy and stop giving the Republicans an issue to use against Democrats in the fall."

Count the votes and move on to Florida and count those too.

I'm not naive - sure, they weren't as eager to get the delegates seated as Clinton's folks were; she was trying to flaunt the rules she AGREED TO in order to salvage her only chance of winning.

Actually she was trying to flout the rules she agreed to, but yeah.

Some people claimed she was flaunting when she wore the dress that showed a little cleavage.

Howzabout give Florida and Michigan half their originally alloted delegates, just like the Rethugs, and divvy them 50-50 for Michigan and proportional to the actual vote for Florida.

Yes, the Michigan Democratic Party held a Cuban style vote.... ya know, only one name on the ballot. The arrogance of the Michgan Democrats has got them into a peck of trouble with a lot of card carrying members and an untold number of Independents. My guess is that the so-called Democratic 'king makers' in Michigan will accept just about anything to extricate themselves from their stupid, ill considered rush to show what they thought would be a sure bet that they were her super supporters and win some browny points with the incoming Washington power structure. Really pathetic isn't it?

FAIR!!!--not to mention the fact that Michigan polls show Clinton/Obama equal. Actually, while it does not give Clinton the off the block before the whistle blows advantage that she wanted, it does give both candidates some advantage. Remember that the whole point of these elections is to reach 2024 delegates. Whoever does that, wins the nomination. This solution puts both of them closer to that magic number. Clinton still has her chance in the last ten elections and so does Obama.

The whole mess is FUBAR. Howard Dean bears full reponsibility for this debacle. He needs to resign his position

O please.

LOL!

Michigan and Florida are responsible for this.

If the vote was legal in Michigan, which it was, but the vote isn't recognized nationally ...

This statement betrays a phenomenal level of ignorance w/r/t the law, generally, and electoral law, specifically. "Legality" doesn't even enter into the primary equation, Lville, largely because the primary process is the legal equivalent of the Elks Lodge electing a Chief Elk (or whatever the hell they're called). That is, they're the private actions of private actors (state political parties, as I assume you know, aren't "state actors" so far as the law is concerned). Again, this invocation of "legality" with respect to a primary election (in my state's case) that involved only one out of the the two remaining candidates on the ballot would be some admittedly choice stand-up comic material for the Seinfelds of the world's banana republics, but really?

Sounds fair. Split the vote evenly and reassign a bunch of votes from Hillary to Obama. Sounds like something Obama would agree to. Everybody gets counted, even if not for the person they actually voted for. Who could object to that?

For all of the Obama supporters crying about "the rules," the DNC rules clearly state that the Credentials Committee can vote to seat the delegations. Hillary has said that she is encouraging her delegates to vote to seat them. Could somene please tell me how that would violate "the rules"?

First Rule of Resolving All-Things Contested:

Consult the rules and then follow them.

Let's see if I understand this. The sainted Barry took his name off the bollot in a craven political low blow so...

...obviously we should give him 50% of the Michigan votes when he didn't even leave his name on the ballot of a state he was sure to lose.

Hell. That'd sound fair to anybody. Who could disagree with that?

Michigan shouldn't be seated at all, because it's impossible to fairly apportion the delegates. And unlike Florida, the Michigan party doesn't have the excuse of an asshole Republican legislature foisting a date that broke the rules on them. They chose to break the rules and the result was an outcome that now cannot be reasonably or fairly apportioned or interpreted.

Then, go ahead and seat half the Florida delegation per the regular DNC rules, since the party there did not engineer the situation and that is a legitimate extenuating circumstance in how the Florida party should be sanctioned. Also, in Florida all the candidates appeared on the ballot which at least lends some credibility to interpretation of voter intent. Delegates pledged to anyone other than Clinton or Obama should be released to support one of the remaining two candidates. In the Florida primary, Clinton got 55%, Obama 33%, and 12% went to other candidates. So in the unlikely instance that every delegate pledged to "other" went with Hillary, she'd have 67%, which in the half delegation amounts to 62 delegates. Obama with 33% picks up 30 delegates, for a net pickup for Hillary of 32 delegates. And that's the best possible scenario for Hillary - not the likely scenario, with at least half of the "other" delegates going for Obama...

Bottom line: Obama will still be kicking her ass on the pledged delegate count, even if Florida is seated under the DNC sanction included in the regular rules. Because it's becoming apparent that PA is not going to be a Hillary tsunami. She's losing ground there and is now down to about a 10 point lead. Same in Indiana. And in NC, Obama is going to completely wax her ass and pretty much wipe out whatever her final PA advantage might be.

Imagine the nerve of that Hillary Clinton! She wants all the votes from the people who voted for her. Can you imagine?? Obama's name wasn't on the ballot, probably because he knew he was going to lose Michigan anyway. She offered to give him all the uncommitted votes, which included everyone who didn't vote for Hillary, like those who voted for Obama, and those who voted for Edwards. She offered to give him all those votes. But naturally he insists that she also give him some of the votes that were cast for her... I mean, who wouldn't? AND SHE REFUSES!! What's fair about that? What makes her think that just because somebody checked the box that says "Hillary Clinton" they weren't voting for Barack Obama? Clearly about ten percent of the people who voted for Hillary expected their votes to go to Obama. Geez... that woman is SO UNREASONABLE. In fact, I think it would only be fair to give Obama ALL the votes from Michigan. Or at least I'm sure that's how Obama feels. I mean, Michigan broke the rules, right? They deserve it.

Can you imagine?? Obama's name wasn't on the ballot, probably because he knew he was going to lose Michigan anyway.

This is just going to be the same argument over and over isn't it?

No matter how many times Clinton's people are told that she agreed to this going in and just wants to change the rules because she's losing, they are going to keep saying somehow she should get votes off a ballot that only she was on.

That's absurd and it's settled anyway - no revote, no do overs.