?! Ickes thinks it's "fair reflection" to give Obama 0 (as in zero) delegates from Michigan

That on the face of it is so hypocritical and wrong headed - to assert that Obama did not deserve even one delegate from Michigan- that it totally undercuts his premise that 4 were "hijacked" from Hillary. He was willing to hijack ALL the delegates for Obama.

Imagine actually saying out loud that Obama was not deserving of even a single delegate from Michigan. Their hubris and arrogance and situational ethics have literally no boundaries.

Carl Levin got it exactly right when he said it was impossible to have a "fair reflection" of a primary that was so incredibly flawed in so many ways. The Michigan Democratic Party came up with a formula that THEY thought (and it is their state) was about the closest anyone could get to attempting to approximate fair reflection.

Not one single delegate in that Primary was actually "won" or apportioned to anyone until the outcome of the Rules meeting. Hillary "won" the equivalent of a North Korean election. Personally, I think the fairest thing to do would have been to just divide the delegates equally between the 2 remaining candidates. I think Hillary got MORE than a fair shake.

You people are such two-faced little brats.

very carefully, and double-check them, you'll see Obama received exactly 0 votes.

votes to be pulled into the popular vote, LEGAL votes at a SANCTIONED democratic party vote.. and we know how many voted for who (in Iowa here).. that is how we know when a candidate has reached viability.. so I am having a terrifically tough time finding sympathy for people who participated in a non sanctioned vote.. with most of the other candidates were not even on the ballot, they took their names off in deference to the rulings put down by the party...Senator Clinton agreed that this would not count .. an illegal vote.. and then crying to the universe that all votes are not counted.. they want to count an illegal.. let me repeat that an illegal and unsanctioned primary...but not count legally sanctioned votes.. Senator Obama along with the other candidates who dropped out could have fought it.. and demanded no votes be counted from Michigan, or that they would all be uncommitted..because there is no way to know what was in voters minds when they voted Senator Clinton or uncommitted or did not show up at the polling place because they were told this ..was an illegal democratic primary.. the vote would not count.. but much to Obamas credit.. he is trying and agreed to compromises not in his favor.. in fact he should not have agreed to them.. but just trying to get the people of Michigan in the hall..

this is not the fault of the people of Michigan.(Florida is a totally different animal.. the republicans were playing games with our vote there).. but the powers that be.. and I hope the good people of Michigan let them know that.. just glad it all got worked out

:eyes:

There was no "win" - the election was a FUBAR and "didn't count." In no way, shape, or form did that abomination reflect the free choices of the desingated electorate. The DNC is obliged, within their rules, to accept the delegate slate proffered by the state party, subject to any penalties imposed for noncompliance.

Right after you get de-programmed.

Hillary Clinton: "Well, you know, It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything".

That was what she said before she realized that she would "benefit" only by counting disqualified states and NOT counting four of the caucus states. It is only a pretend talking point. Obama and Edwards interpreted the meaning of not campaigning or participating in Michigan as not being on the ballot. So did Kucinich, but he was too late for the deadline to get his name off the ballot. So did Chris Dodd, but he couldn't pay the fee to remove his name. But you probably know all this, and just choose to ignore these facts - among many others.

Here's the bottom line, the election in Michigan (and Florida) did not, I repeat, NOT "count for ANYTHING" - and that would include "popular votes." It is truly a gift to Hillary Clinton that she got ANY benefit from those two states. But "ahead in the popular vote?" Not.

:eyes:

Now you want to change the rules that Hillary agreed to, the Hillary campaign is trying to cheat by changing the rules that she was perfectly fine with before the people of Michigan voted.

Biden, Edwards, Richardson, Obama removed their names.

They were attempting to support and validate the ruling of the DNC that the Michigan Primary WOULD NOT COUNT and no delegates would be rewarded as a result. Hillary herself said that the Michigan election did not count.

She did not care if it counted at all period when she thought she would sweep and be the winner by February 5th. It only became an issue to her when she NEEDED "her" ill-gotten delegates.

Of course, the irony is that she could be awarded ALL of the Michigan delegates and it wouldn't matter a whit.

that out of the 40% of "uncommitted" votes cast, that not a single person wanted to vote for Obama? Or did Hillary lose votes to a fictitious character? What of the people who didn't show up at all because they knew Obama's name wouldn't be on the ballot.

Isn't that EXACTLY what Hillary Clinton supporters are threatening to do with the GE? Yet, somehow, they can't get their heads wrapped around the concept in Michigan? Give me a break. There is no logic to your post. You can't have a representative Democracy where one or more sides are not represented.

Just like W.

He can't.

You think it is fair to award nearly half of the state's delegates to a candidate who got exactly ZERO votes?

The reason he got ZERO votes? He decided to take his own name off of the ballot.

He takes his name off the ballot and still gets nearly half of the delegates.

If that isn't Soviet/Cuban/Iraqi, than I don't know what is.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

You can not change the rules of an election after the election has already taken place, Hillary agreed before the election that the votes would not count and she supported the decision not to count the votes. She only changed her mind after the election had already taken place, you can't change the rules after the game has already been played.

disproportionate amount of delegates.

So that makes it about even.

Cope.

The changing of the rules favored Clinton enormously and still they manufacture this false outrage.

They bent over backwards for her by counting any of these votes at all after they had already determined they would not count. Hillary got more delegates than Obama did, you have nothing to complain about because they did not have to give you a single delegate from these contests, but instead they gave you the majority of delegates.

They just can't grasp that no matter what, SHE LOST.

participate in a discussion.

So it's time to put away the carrot and bring out the stick.

green tech, controlling nuke tech, more tech for everyone. Its all about tech!

made not to participate in the primary.

Clinton didn't feel so bound by her pledge, apparently.

reason is upstream in this thread

if im not going to participate in the indy 500, should my name be up there?

the pledge. go read it. then come back and we can discuss it.

Are you high?

Four State Pledge Letter 2008
Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina
August 31, 2007
WHEREAS, Over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a
2008 nominating calendar;
WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic
diversity of our party and our country;
WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the
nominating process, to insure that money alone will not determine our
presidential nominee;
WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and
the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the
nominating calendar.
THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge
I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential
election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa,
Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as “campaigning” is defined by
rules and regulations of the DNC.

What am i missing?

How is it not participating, when you leave your name on the ballot so that people will vote for you?

I'm sure the Clinton campaign has another word for it. One that means "participating" but sounds better.

if your not going to participate in it.

Im just glad obama won. Woohoo!

supporters on the committee though. I can see it's a bitter, bitter pill for you to choke down. You'll get over it. Or not.

I see no basis for that assumption. :shrug: Hardly more than a brain stem. :eyes:

that made me laugh.

:eyes:

Good god, but I'm sick of that weasel.

Making it obvious that he and the campaign he represents, has no interest in fairness, or in the best interests of the party. No one is interested in negotiating with a bully. So no surprise that he didn't get what he wants - why should he?

It was a farce of a contest anyway.

I've never understood the "count every vote" mantra, when they have been pushing for Obama to get zero delegates from MI, and when her big push to claim a popular vote lead excludes caucus states who don't publish popular vote totals.

That anyone, with a straight face, could make such claims is absurd. You have to wonder whether they really have convinced themselves that it's fair, or whether they accept the intellectual dishonesty because it's politically advantageous to do so. I tend to think the latter.

1) The MI primary was not valid
2) You cannot divine votes (there's no way to get a fair count from an invalid primary)
3) The powers that be would not allow a revote

More of the same shit as BushCo fed us for 8 years, lies and BS to get what you want. We're not going to take that shit from politicians any longer. Are we??!!?

No net delegates to either candidates. The 24 delegates Hillary received should be taken away.

a mirror, cracked.

the Obama camp pick them.

No sense making a false claim and then knocking it down.

He will never be a significant player again.

no one else fairly reflects Obama.

Icky's quite insane.

There's no way that Obama should get zero delegates, especially since a large percentage of the "uncommitted" votes were probably Obama supporters. The MI primary was a total mess, but IMO the agreement the DNC reached was probably the best solution. If Ickes tries to take this to the convention, I'll switch to Obama. Actually, even though I support Hillary, I really hope that Obama gets the superdelegates needed to clinch the nomination after June 3. This process has to end at some point.

rest of the Clinton shills? This is a game to them. Just a political game. They're making money hand over fist off of it and, whether we win or lose in November, they'll be just fine. They sit there and make their absurd pronouncements knowing they'll never have to worry if they can afford to put gas in the car for the weekly commute. Their utilities will never be shut off. Their homes won't be foreclosed on. I imagine they laugh and joke about their performances over drinks at the end of the day.

He has no one to blame but himself. It was a bad strategy.

she is living with her own words.. unless of course she is a liar??

why should Hillary get any delegates from MI?

Check out the link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6215246&mesg_id=6215246

Tex Shelters