Is It Over?

[Dr. Shane]

Officials say Fla., Mich. delegates will get half-votes

Democratic Party officials agreed Saturday to seat Michigan and Florida delegates with half-votes, ruling on a long-running dispute that has threatened the party's chances in November and maintaining Barack Obama's front-runner status as he moves closer to the nomination...

The sticking point was Michigan, where Obama's name was not on the ballot.

Clinton's camp insisted Obama shouldn't get any pledged delegates in Michigan since he chose not to put his name on the ballot, and she should get 73 pledged delegates with 55 uncommitted. Obama's team insisted the only fair solution was to split the pledged delegates in half between the two campaigns, with 64 each.

The committee agreed on a compromise offered by the Michigan Democratic Party that would split the difference, allowing Clinton to take 69 delegates and Obama 59. Each delegate would get half a vote at the convention in Denver this summer, according to the deal...

Obama picked up a total of 32 delegates in Michigan, including superdelegates who have already committed, and 36 in Florida. Clinton picked up 38 in Michigan, including superdelegates, and 56.5 in Florida.

Obama's total increased to 2,052, and Clinton had 1,877.5.

Hillary Clinton to be offered dignified exit

Senior figures in the Obama camp have told Democrat colleagues that the offer to Mrs Clinton of a cabinet post as health secretary or to steer new legislation through the Senate will be a central element of their peace overtures to the New York senator...

Another Democrat who has discussed strategy with friends in the Obama inner circle said that Mr Obama was openly considering asking Mrs Clinton to join his cabinet, alongside two other former presidential rivals: John Edwards, who is seen as a likely attorney general; and Joe Biden, who is a leading contender to become Secretary of State.

Mr Obama hinted at the plan last week. “One of my heroes is Abraham Lincoln,” he said. “Lincoln basically pulled in all the people who had been running against him into his cabinet because whatever personal feelings there were, the issue was 'how can we get this country through this time of crisis?’ And I think that has to be the approach that one takes.”

...Dee Dee Myers, the former press secretary to President Clinton, said: “It seems clear to me from watching her, and talking to people, that she doesn’t really know what she wants.” But after 17 months of campaigning, and $150 million (£76 million) spent, the question that haunts the Clinton camp is: how did someone who a year ago had unrivalled name recognition, a legendary campaign organisation and more money than her opponent contrive to throw it all away?

The answers come down to wrong message, wrong tactics, complacency, character – and, ultimately, the opponent. Even Clinton aides agree that she wrongly sold herself as a candidate of experience, when voters yearned for Barack Obama’s message of change. Her campaign machine then failed to win January’s crucial opening Iowa caucuses, handing lethal momentum to Mr Obama.

[text taken from links]

[Dr. Shane]

Hillary claims she won the popular vote. Well... this is how she gets there. She counts the votes in Michigan that were cast for her but doesn't count any votes for Obama - because his name wasn't on the ballot. If the votes cast for "undecided" on the Michigan ballot are given to Obama, then Clinton didn't win the popular vote. The reason Obama's name wasn't on the ballot in Michigan is because he was following the rules. So if we count the votes for Hillary and give Obama none, that means the canidate (Hillary) that didn't follow the rules gets to claim she won the popular vote.

Does everyone understand what Hillary wanted the rules committee to do about Michigan? She wanted all the delegates that she won in the primary there PLUS she wanted to split all the delegates that were cast for "undecided".

The fact is that many people that live in Florida and Michigan didn't even go out and vote because they were told their votes were not going to be counted. We will never know who would have won and no compromise would be fair.

[Woody]

Hillary is just like Bill. This is why they call her Billary.

Old Bill was confused with the word 'is'.

Hillary has similar issues.

What does the word 'rules' mean?

What does it mean when you promise to agree to a set of 'rules'. Does your word mean ANYTHING?

[jasd]

A coupla points only...

>>Democratic Party officials agreed Saturday to seat Michigan and Florida delegates with half-votes,<<

Hmm, half-vote, eh? Why does 3/5ths come to mind? How ridiculous!

>>The sticking point was Michigan, where Obama's name was not on the ballot.<<

Didn’t he remove it himself? As I recall, no one asked him to remove his name. He was only asked not to campaign; after which, his campaign, nevertheless, worked the State asking supporters to vote ‘uncommitted’. Now, upon this point alone we might allow that his opponent was the better, smarter candidate in that she left her name on the ballot and did not campaign. So now,

enter the whine, “Let’s divide the votes evenly” Duh, ‘uncommitted’ is legally that – ‘uncommitted’. Trust the Dem’crats to translate ‘uncommitted’ to ‘bama. And this is the Party that

is purported best to serve John and Jane Q Public!?

>>...the only fair solution was to split the pledged delegates in half between the two campaigns, with 64 each.<< [ed.jasd]

“Fair”? How about taking the man at his own words, “...do the will of the people.” So, the majority of the people voted for his opponent. Now, out of which side of his mouth

will he be whining.

>>Each delegate would get half a vote at the convention in Denver this summer, according to the deal...<<

That is why it is always advisable that the ‘puli’crats never, ever, trust the Dem’crats to deal squarely. Sheesh! the concept cannot be expressed except in Dem’cratese.

>>...doesn't count any votes for Obama - because his name wasn't on the ballot.<<

Again, no one asked him to remove his name from the ballot.

>>If the votes cast for "undecided" on the Michigan ballot are given to Obama, then Clinton didn't win the popular vote.<<

Umm, Shane, ‘bama had his front groups campaign, asking that his constituents vote ‘uncommitted’. Legally, those votes are just THAT, that is, ‘uncommitted’ – and does not – translate to ‘bama. By any other name (to quote reason) cigar smoke is just that – it even smells the same.

>>The reason Obama's name wasn't on the ballot in Michigan is because he was following the rules.<<

The rules did not prevent having one’s name on the ballot: it asked the candidates not to campaign in the State.

>>...that means the canidate (Hillary) that didn't follow the rules gets to claim she won the popular vote.<<

That sounds pretty. The fact is, Clinton followed the rules more closely than did ‘bama. (so, we forget that ‘bama ran campaign ads in Florida?) Again, the man showed less astuteness than did his opponent.

>>Does everyone understand what Hillary wanted the rules committee to do about Michigan? She wanted all the delegates that she won in the primary there PLUS she wanted to split all the delegates that were cast for "undecided".<<

Saying “she wanted” is quite different from defining her ‘bargaining position...’. Per the “undecided”, read my above.

>>The fact is that many people that live in Florida...<<

Ahh, year 2000 redux. How oft we cast the Florida voter ‘ignorant’. Fact is, 1,800,000 Floridians voted in the Dem’crat primary.

>>...and Michigan didn't even go out and vote because they were told their votes were not going to be counted.<<

Urban legend.

>>We will never know who would have won and no compromise would be fair.<<

Not when dealing from the bottom of the deck. Might just as well shill as to give ‘ghost’, or nonexistent, votes to the one or the other. What one can do is count the votes in the same spirit they were cast; that is, with expectation of due diligence.

Tchah! on Dems. Leave it tah the rest of us tah vet their candidates.

[jasd]

>>What does it mean when you promise to agree to a set of 'rules'. Does your word mean ANYTHING?<<

Read my above.

So, one may, at least, establish that 'bama does not abide by 'rules'. What else do we really know about him?

[Bravus]

Quote:

>>...doesn't count any votes for Obama - because his name wasn't on the ballot.<<

Again, no one asked him to remove his name from the ballot.

Technically correct, but all candidates agreed to remove their names, and Hillary reneged. Which is the less honorable course?

[Dr. Shane]

The right thing to do would be not to count any votes in Florida or Michigan because that was the deal up front.

[jasd]

>>...but all candidates agreed to remove their names,<<

That may be so. I was apprised differently. I don't recall 'the pledge’ containing language re the removal of the candidate’s names from the MI ballot. Further, the request made by the DNC is characterized as an informal request. Nevertheless,

‘bama took occasion to promptly removed his name from the Michigan ballot for the reason that he was projected to lose heavily (remember all the blue collar workers in MI?) and ‘the pledge’ provided a graceful ‘plaint with no downside.

Strategy-wise...! kudos to his handlers: witness the nonsensical and ‘fair’ division of the half-fundament delegates. Hah! funny Party.

>>...and Hillary reneged.<<

Given that her actions might be characterized as “reneging” and saying that that characterization is shared, and notwithstanding the urban myth that it was impossible for ‘bama to remove his name from the Florida ballot – one asks,

why did ‘bama allow his name to remain on that ballot?

>>Which is the less honorable course?<<

Indeed. We, ‘bama and I, must share the handicap of functional dyslexia

[jasd]

>>The right thing to do would be not to count any votes in Florida or Michigan because that was the deal up front.<<

Might not one be justified to treat an alleged “deal” as nullified when a party to said alleged ‘deal’ permits two other States to vault forward the dates of their primaries? Silly me, I’d think so.

Null deal - as in void.

The concerns of disenfranchisement is now no more than faded and colourless principles – given the airy-fairy thinking of today’s Dem’crat :-o

[jasd]

All said: and nothing unforeseen occurring...

and barring the horrifying occurring to the American narrative...

Congrats to BHObama and family.

Taking nothing from BHObama at this point - the accomplishment is noteworthy.

Fairly and sincerely given.

(this does not insulate the man from my further critiquing him)

[Neil D]

The right thing to do would be not to count any votes in Florida or Michigan because that was the deal up front.

I agree with this...

THe problem is not the people, but it is a people problem.

The problem lies with the leadership of that state. They knew and they violated the rules. It is the people's problem and the people can vote them out of office and send a very strong message..."Play by the agreed upon rules, and don't leave us out, ever again!"