now it's about what kind of deal they cut and who it helps or hurts.

FL must be alloted according to the vote counts--MI i don't know.

... lost their votes due to those rules. That's pretty f-ing far from taking those votes seriously.

They were shitty rules, and the decision to punish the states was of course done with the hope that there would be a clear enough winner that everyone could just shrug this off.

And, as I noted earlier today, those who are hardcore about holding to those rules have no interest in sticking to the rules about superdelegates, instead imposing a metarule designed to advantage their preferred candidate.

and hopefully at least FL votes will count fairly--after 2000 they can't dare not count votes there.

What if Hillary had done what the the other top candidates did for MI and removed her name from the ballot, like Obama, Edwards, Biden did?

What would they be doing then? And are they only proceeding because they assume that there are two pools of elected delegates?

Obama still plans to help himself to 50% of the delegates in spite of the fact that Clinton got 60% of the votes. And Boo and others who should know better are all for it.

Sounds fair, sounds like consensus, sounds like Unity, and it's a total ripoff.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Obama remains popular with Michigan bloggers

AP:

As the Michigan plan died, Obama met Michigan resident Jeff Lynch during a campaign stop at a sports bar in Charleston, W.Va., Thursday.

"When am I going to get to vote for you in Michigan?" asked Lynch, of Mount Pleasant, Mich.

"Probably in the general election," Obama replied. "A redo vote is very complicated."

Wait, wait. I thought that The Greatest Speech By A Sentient Being In The History Of The Known Universe meant that Obama was really willing to tackle the tough issues? It's confusing....

If I understand CD, her argument is that the redo sets a very bad precedent.

To which my response is that not counting people's votes sets an even worse precedent.

At least, with "very complicated," we'll hear the end of all the "change" and "transformation" bullshit. It's just like not helping filibuster FISA -- If not now, when? When things aren't complicated any more? Because it's plain as day that if Obama had put his weight behind the revote, things wouldn't have been complicated at all. What he plans to do instead is steal the votes of people who didn't vote for him with his 50/50 plan. Jeralyn:

Hillary got 55% of the vote. The uncommitted, who either were truly uncommitted or for Obama, Edwards or Biden, all three of whom voluntarily withdrew their names from the ballot, got 40%. Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel won 5% of the vote.

Barack Obama now proposes he get 50% of the state's delegates. That would be vote-stealing. It would be disenfranchising 5% of Hillary's voters. It would be assuming that every uncommitted voter and every voter for Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel now want their vote to go to Obama.

That's called stealing an election.

Lovely. Well done, Mr. Hopey.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

feel my wrath.

i never said anything about "not counting the votes." krist! you/anyone can't honestly believe i would endorse or suggest that.

MI had a primary. people could vote, i did. we were told that some candidates didn't want to play here. we didn't know why, nor did we care. but we were upset. why don't we vote for the same ticket as everyone else gets to vote this time of year? that's my question, Vicki's and pie's and DWD's and a host of other MI bloggers. all we know for sure: we got fucked. by out-staters, people who don't live here, who don't care in truth about what happens here.

i've said it before: no one made "them" take their names off the ballot. would you have done that? similarly, no one living here has forced some to make MI and FL "essential" or "controversial" states or primary battles. if you shit in your bed, you don't expect others to sleep in it, no? well, that's what happened to us. we were determined, in advance, by outsiders, to be "fungible." fuck them.

afaic: they ALL shit in this bed. all the state and national party hacks. but not me. and i don't have to lie/lie in the bed they made. yo?

this "choice" is simple. does MI (and FL, and NH, and so on) deserve the right to determine when we hold a primary? yes or no?

if yes, then your "side" is clear. the people of MI, via their dem party leadership, as well as republican congressional leadership, said yes. i am a voting member of one, i said, "yes." the national party said, "no." from there the merit and validity of all arguments on this issue stem. and end, in total horseshit. as an MI voter, i perceive this. very, very clearly. why do outstate Villagers get to tell me when my vote matters? any of them? so far, no one has explained this to my satisfaction. even my chosen, idiot on this issue, candidate.

others are "fighting" for "my rights" as a voter. but oddly, almost no one has actually asked me. fwiw, i voted for a republican in the primary. as a direct result of the fact that my chosen candidate wasn't on the dem primary ballot. all i ask is that people think about what it was like to be someone like me, and then wonder what they would want, in this post-no-do-over reality.

trust me, no option makes me "happy."

"Pick some rules, stick to them the whole cycle through."

That sounds, to a T, like what the people who don't want the MI votes to be counted say.

But I now gather you meant something rather different by it.

and so i think (rightly, ethically) i know more than paid village hacks who opine about what "we want" as MI voters.

here's what we "wanted:" a full ballot like everyone else, that would be counted in the convention like everyone else. why don't/didn't we get that? none of the campaigns can tell me satisfactorily.

some dropped out and didn't run here. some ran here, but only on a "stealth" campaign. some ran here sort of full on. in the end, it was not "the voters" who determined if our votes would count. we're angry about that. give us an election. is that so hard? put candidates on the ballot; all of them who are 'viable' at the time we vote. stick to the results, whatever they may be, for all time.

i really don't know what is so hard about those "rules." just as i know: the DNC "rules" are as firm as, chimpy's strap on. or something equally limp.

I think we're agreed that the MI situation is fucked, even if we disagree about how it got there (and I'm not sure we do, I'm just not sure I can do a review of the bidding right now).

Why wasn't the redo the best of the options on offer?

1. I buy the argument that Obama and the others gamed the system by taking their names off the ballot, which the pledge most definitely did not require.

Hillary left hers on. Suppose she gets all the delegates who voted for her. What about the Undecideds? How are they allocated? And what about the Dems that followed Lord Kos's advice and voted Republican?

2. I don't buy the 50/50 thing for a minute, see Jeralyn's post. If you buy her numbers, it really is election theft.

3. Nor do I buy Obama's argument that "it's complicated." If he's supported the idea, things would have been very simple. And shoving it off on the DNC is just disingenuous.

Given that we can't roll back time to get the full ballot, why would the redo not have the best option?

And assuming the will of the voters is paramount, which I do, what is the way forward?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Thanks for putting that image in my mind, CD. I was hoping to sleep tonight, but maybe I'll do something to cleanse my mental palate, like finish up watching Alien.

So what or who does he do with the strap-on? His pet goat? Condi? Cheney? Jeff?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

chicks. soft, gentle flesh that sighs at your touch.

is that better ,dear?

what do "we want?" we want to vote, like everyone else. let me put it on them (not you): does this seem fair, in MI and FL, compared to what everyone else gets to do?

if you think no, you understand how i feel. it's really that simple. don't ask *me* to come up with a 'better' way;' i didn't make this mess nor should i have to lie in it. i should only be expected to vote. i did, but that doesn't count. to some. but not a majority, not here. we're just little, stupid people. according to the Village.

In fact, it's reinforcing the Alien theme.

But IIRC, you rejected the redo too. Why was that not the best solution available given the givens? That's what I'm not getting.

Or should the delegates just be seated according to the origal vote?

What's the right course of action?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Re: "i don't care whom i sound like in this. i live here"

I wasn't chiding you for your words resembling someone else's.

I meant that I took your initial words about having rules and sticking to them to be an endorsement of living with the operative plan, which was that MI and FL votes wouldn't count.

Your comments since then have clarified that that is not your position.

i never said *anything* about cheney!!! lambert...um, i was talking about the gentle and dulcet scapes of women's bodies and you think of cheney?

Time for You to Take a Break, Dood. ;-) or: don't finish watching aliens. goodness, i know it's traumatizing, but i had no idea you were that sensitive!

vast- sorry, late night poor sentence construction. lemme try again.

before this mess started, the DNC had a "rule." 50% of the delagates are stripped from non-conforming states, but the discretion of party higherups can change that.

now, i guess i'm "ok" with the 50% part of that. it seems "fair," as far as such things can be said to be so. but here are my questions:
-why did MI and FL lose 100% of delagates, instead of 50%?
-why didn't iowa, NH and the other state that also and subsequently did not conform to the "original" "new" calendar of primaries, lose 50 or 100% of their delagates?

the ONLY reason you can give me for the lack of equal treatment for all states is that national people and some of the candidates wanted to keep the Game the way it's 'always been.' the machine element of iowa is too important to them to give up, fucking actual voters is a small price to pay. whatever they decide at this point, it won't be "fair," and it won't reflect the will of the voters. for example: edwards still has 31 delagates at the convention. why shouldn't he get 10 or 20% of the uncommitted in MI? given how close things are, even a small amount could put him in a position of kingmaker. don't we as anti-war progressives want that, for the only "i was wrong" and "the war must end now" candidate left in the mix to have some power.

tell me how i have any of this wrong.

Is that it assumes that all those who didn't vote for Clinton would have voted for Obama. Obviously, that's just not so. I really don't see what that's not election theft. Of course, Lord Kos advocates it, so what do I know? As He himself has said, Hillary supporters don't deserve fairness.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

--that should not be the answer, no matter what.

Since 55% (was it 55%) voted for Clinton, at the very least, she should get 55% of the MI delegation. Appropriating delegates with complete disregard to how they voted is theft pure and simple.

That the Orange Frat house advocates it is no surprise, but that Boo is good with this truly breaks my heart.

when you played marbles, did you change the rules midgame, when you were winning (but by not enough), or losing? prolly not.

so again, i ask: what (were) the rules? before all of this started? i know what they (were). why are we talking about changing them, "midstream?"

and CD--you voted already--i don't think any solution would give you another vote unless they nullified the GOP primary too, no?

your vote did count--it just didn't count for the right party's totals.