Nothing else can be done. Michigan screwed up so badly there is no way to know what the results of a fair election would have been.

It's a tough one.

Ickes is right, of course: taking delegates from uncommitted and giving them to a candidate seems deeply wrong, as does taking candidates from an actual candidate and giving them to another.

Although I didn't appreciate the affirmative action crack.

But once you decide to consider this Soviet-style primary AT ALL, all bets are off.

What REALLY should have happened here is that HRC pulled her name from the ballot, too.

Then virtually all votes would be uncommitted and we'd know to split them down the middle--if we decided to count such an election at all.

But that didn't happen. So we end up seating delegates from a bogus election and trying to hammer out some kind of compromise.

As they say, it's imperfect.

I'm an Obama supporter, but I gotta say that the 69-59 split sounds more fair than splitting it all down the middle.

I've always advocated the 50/50 split. Otherwise you have a committee deciding how poeple voted, and in what manner they voted, and then those who didn't vote. That is too lofty a task for a comittee to do. Taking delegates from one candidate to give to the other, or deciding what uncommitted means. It's all silly to me. The primary shouldn't count.

Keep the punishment as stated. the primary did not count.

In the spirit of party unity and inclusion, seat the Michigans delgates in full, split 50/50. Then, as the Rules Committee stated, the primary doesn't count, yet they are included and seated.

The State of Michigan broke the rules on purpose as a stand against the way the primary is run. Let that count. There are penalties to civil disobedience, that is what makes if a stand. There are consequences, your primary doesn't count, which is what a 50/50 split does, discounts the primary, as the Rules Committee said it would be. yet, we include the state in the Convention.

I think the amount they give in to Clinton beyond 64-64 will be a quantification of the distance we still have to travel toward reform in U.S. politics.

That makes perfect sense. A 50/50 split accurately reflects the will of the voters back in January when the Michigan primary was held and Hillary was not only the Democratic front runner, but won the majority of the votes. That gives Obama all the vote that went to Edwards, plus some of the votes that went directly to Hillary. Yes. That's perfectly fair and logical.

Obama camp should have never conceeded 19 Florida delegates without resolving MI.

The Michigan Primary was told it wouldn't count by this very body. They are arguing against their own decision. How can you argue that the non-binding, illegitimate beauty contest held in Michigan should count for anything? Then you have the other woman saying that they shouldn't have taken their names off for any reason, even if they were told it wouldn't count, because basically it would have been great polling data or something. So Barack Obama accepts the almost unanimous RBC ruling (one person voted against it) and tells his supporters as much - it will not count. Hillary is on record saying "it will not count" yet all of a sudden the very primary the RBC said would not count, some are arguing that it should now count? And that Obama should be penalized for his silly thinking that this very RBC decisions were to be accepted and followed?

I'm dumbfounded.

what could be more fair than 50-50%? Every other proposal is just another plea to make a determination based on things that cannot be determined now.

50-50% is the only thing that makes sense.

Keep in mind that in Michigan voters were not allowed to even write in a candidate.

So Obama supporters in Michigan are being disenfranchised.

And Hillary hacks like Levin in Michigan contrived this scheme to benefit her. That's why the cheating liar left her name on the ballot.

HRC = Cheatocrat

This is Bush 2000 all over again.

Complete with attempts to overturn the vote, and mobs bussed in to cause chaos.

The Clinton campaign argues that voters must not be disenfranchised, yet they want to disenfranchise the voters who have voted in the previous 48 contests in favor of the voters of two states that didn't count.

Is there any hypocrisy in their position? Possibly a little...

You're all ignorant jackasses:

It was Obama's (flawed) strategy to take his name of the ballot because he knew he wasn't goint to win!!

Wassamatter with you, people! It's all his fault!!

I am an avid Obama supporter - but I cannot go along with this 50/50 is 'fair' nonsense.

Hillary was ahead in every pre-primary poll - and she won the Exit Poll by around 10%.

First - no you aren't, so don't bother.

Second - let's just skip elections altogether, then and let polls decide who wins.

That's how much sense that makes.

How awesome is Donna Brazille?

When you change the rules in the middle of the game, that's called cheating.

Name it, Donna.

I can see it now - We could argue from now on over which poll was going to settle which race.

Jesus fucking Christ on Cap'nCrunch with cashews!

My prediction: MI goes 50/50.

Easy. Just ask Hilary how many delegates it would cost to get her to drop out, then give them to her gift-wrapped.

I say giver her 73 delegates. Give Obama the rest. That nets her less than 40 for the day. She still loses the delegate count.

Either way, if she orchestrates Obama's loss in the fall, she won't be the nominee in 2012.

It is tempting to say "oh, support the 69/59 split" and move on. The problem with that is that 69/59 gives legitimacy to a flawed primary -- as if the proportional numbers really mean something in terms of representing voter wishes. Whereas the 50/50 plan (which is not accurate in terms of exit polls or anything else) effectively acknowledges throwing out a flawed primary and forging a compromise to seat the delegates. Yes? No? Alternatives?
I'm already spooked by the new graphic on MSNBC showing Hillary "ahead" in the popular vote. More ammunition for HRC to take on the road toward Denver.

It is tempting to say "oh, support the 69/59 split" and move on. The problem with that is that 69/59 gives legitimacy to a flawed primary -- as if the proportional numbers really mean something in terms of representing voter wishes. Whereas the 50/50 plan (which is not accurate in terms of exit polls or anything else) effectively acknowledges throwing out a flawed primary and forging a compromise to seat the delegates. Yes? No? Alternatives?
I'm already spooked by the new graphic on MSNBC showing Hillary "ahead" in the popular vote. More ammunition for HRC to take on the road toward Denver.

Chuck Todd just said that he's hearing that the Clinton camp wants to take MI to the credentials committee but they don't have the votes and it's looking like the RBC will default to the MI party solution of 69/59.

I'd be okay with that.

Hillary has the entire party working on trying to make her happy.

How can we best console Hillary?

What will she demand we do next?

The Clintons have a seriously flawed psychological mindset.

I have no tolerance for her or Bill or Rendell or Lanny or any of her surrogates.

More importantly, I don't think the Democratic party needs them. Not as much as the Clintons would lead them to believe.

This couple has a difficult time becoming irrelevant.

I'm for Obama, and I'd really hate to see HRC as VP. I think she'd try to weaken him. But you can't deny that she's a close second, and that does at least give her a seat at the veep table. You gotta give her that.

Having said that, if she scorches the earth to get there, it'll be her own feet that get burned. Who knows what's next. She and Bill aren't going to concede. I think we better resign ourselves to a close one in November that we might lose. Hillary may try to do Barack in. She's for herself more than the party. You can bet if she were in Obama's shoes with his delegate count, she'd be humming a different tune. Same for Bush had he won the popular vote.