Does Obama care about MI delegates?

"Hillary Rodham Clinton will get the lion's share of Democratic national convention delegates after winning the state's Jan. 15 presidential primary.
The Michigan Democratic Party said Friday that Clinton will get 73 pledged delegates after winning 55 percent of the statewide vote.

Another 55 delegates will be uncommitted since 40 percent of the Democratic voters chose uncommitted."

********************
After perusing 'Blogging for Michigan' re MI dems awarding Clinton her share of delegates, I came across this thread. Interesting take by some bloggers:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I find it interesting that (4.00 / 2)
there has been no comment from the Obama camp on the idea of do-over.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's because Obama doesn't like Michigan (4.00 / 1)
He hasn't campaigned here.
He has said publicly that our vote doesn't matter.
He only came here once to trash our already god-awful employment sector.
But, yeah, sure, I'll vote for him.....
NOT!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't understand the dismissive tone (0.00 / 0)
If you want to say the vote doesn't count, that's one thing, but put in a special word for those that do support your candidacy.
It is possible to do both.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They were what they were. There's two possible ways this should play out. An election or caucus should be scheduled for May or June in Florida and Michigan. Do it over.

I think it is disgusting that Hillary is trying to use the two primaries as legitimate contests. For god's sake second place in Michigan was 'uncommitted'.

The candidates decided to remove their names from the Michigan ballot out of respect to the DNC a long time ago. Hillary however, left her name on the ballot. Why?

Hillary didn't win anything, she ran unopposed. (Kucinich was also on the ballot even though he tried to remove it).

If the delegates were seated and were the deciding factor for Hillary, how could that be considered legitimate? It's not a matter of whether or not Obama cares about them.

A possible solution is to redo the primary - hold a special caucus so the delegates can be fairly seated.

:eyes:

...to prevent what Hillary did the next day. Crowing about a victory in a non-event that was orchistrated and directed by pro-Clinton state officials. C'mon Debbie Stabenow an avowed Clinton supporter was whining about how voters shouldn't penalize Hillary for staying on the ballot. Voting uncommitted was the only way to oppose what Clinton ended up trying to claim.

It was flawed, unfair, defective, and should not count plain and simple. The situation is out of Obama's hands so there is no reason for him to say a word about it.

Hillary vs. None of the Above

That's a fucking joke if I've ever heard one. Worse than a Floridian butterfly ballot.

If you have evidence of your assumption, we'd be grateful! :hi:

I'd far rather relax then be this pissed off about this political trickery!

told that our vote didn't matter.

The primary here was not free, fair or open.

The DNC has stated that the delegates will not be seated until AFTER a nominee is chosen. the nominee can then make the decision as to whether or not the delegates can be seated.

Dont try to fix the facts to fit your agenda please.