« Hillary Supporters Please think about this | greatgranny's Blog | Is Obama Gary Cooper and Gregory Peck? »

Michigan decision fair?


After watching all day and listenening to all the speakers and blowhards  I was happy to see the Florida decision which I thought was fair to all.  As they began to discuss Michigan I thought "they can't seat any of them, this is just too much of a mess"   I was very surprised by the decision on the delegate split.

I tried to understand the MI state party's proposal and find a way to support it but I couldn't.

You all know by now I am a very strong Obama supporter.  I think the best way they could have handled MI was to not seat ANY of their delegates.

That said, I think Ickes made an ass of himself.  The audience also were rude and disprspectful even to Clinton supporters on the panel.  Democracy is not a pretty thing to watch :)

What I'd like to know is how FL and MI party officials came up with their proposals. 

But now that it's done I think eveyrone has to live with it.  After all, Hillary said this last week:

"Last week, Clinton indicated that she might take the fight to the convention in August if Michigan and Florida want to challenge an unfavorable ruling on their delegates. The two states were stripped of their delegates for holding early primaries; a special Democratic National Committee panel meets Saturday to decide their fate.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Clinton was asked whether she would support the states if they appeal an unfavorable rules committee decision to the convention floor, the former first lady replied:

“Yes I will. I will, because I feel very strongly about this.”

“I will consult with Floridians and the voters in Michigan because it’s really their voices that are being ignored and their votes that are being discounted, and I’ll support whatever the elected officials and the voters in those two states want to do.”


5 Comments

| Leave a comment

I agree with pretty much everything you've said, but I don't know that fair or unfair are really a part of the decision process here. It's a bad situation all around, but I suppose it's a good sign that no one is coming out satisfied - that's often the case in compromises.

Hillary chose her words carefully for room to maneuver. Note that she said she would support, not only what the elected officials want, but also what the "voters" want in Florida and Michigan. As long as she can convince a group of voters that "they were not heard," that the RBC rulings were a "hi-jacking," then she, as their "champion," can justify an appeal in July and/or a ruckus at the convention. She is redefining the term "Fox Noise."

user-pic

No it is not fair. If you are looking for fair, the ONLY solution would be to apply the rules as they were agreed upon by all BEFORE the race started.

Now the goal post has been moved and when Obama reaches 2025 delegates, he won't be able to claim the nomination; instead, he'll have to keep running.

This solution was arrived at not in the search of Fairness, but in the search for Unity.

Hillary may well not be interested in that Unity, though; she might still think that the goal post wasn't moved far enough and may continue riling up her supporters.

Then the Rules Committee would have really shot itself on the foot, no?

Short of a re-vote in Michigan, I don't think there was any way to resolve the conundrum there that was completely, 100% fair to either candidate.

Clinton's camp will say it's unfair because she should get all delegates as voted, none for Obama, etc.

Obama's camp will say it's unfair because, had he known that the 'primary that wasn't going to count' would suddenly count 5 months later, he wouldn't have taken his name off the ballot.

So, yeah, the Michigan legislature peed in the party's punchbowl, and now we're all pissed off.

I don't think the decision in MI was fair, but I think the RBC thought they were using the principle of fairness to make a politically expedient decision. The problem is that the RBC punished MI on the principle of law and order. The Rulz! and not fairness.

The RBC's decision on MI, dispensed with the rules.
To me they had 3 real choices, based on the rules.

No delegates
1/2 delegates
All delegates

But they had no choice about allocation of the delegates. There is no rules based way of simply dividing up the delegates as what they feel is "fair".

Leave a comment

greatgranny

user-pic

Following:
Followers:

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address