Michigan Dems send latest delegate plan to DNC

[GaryC 7]

Clinton Rejects Latest Michigan Delegate Plan

By Marie Horrigan, CQ Staff

Thu May 8, 1:29 PM ET

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday rejected a compromise plan to seat Michigan's delegates to the national convention that would give 69 delegates to Clinton and 59 to Barack Obama.

"This proposal does not honor the 600,000 votes that were cast in Michigan's January primary. Those votes must be counted," Clinton spokesman Isaac Baker said.

The Michigan Democratic Party had approved the plan and intended to submit it to the Democratic National Committee meeting on May 31. Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer said in a statement that the plan was a "good step toward a solution that unites Democrats and ensures that our state will not face a McCain presidency."

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) had stripped Michigan of its delegation to the Democratic National Convention because the state party scheduled its Jan. 15 primary in violation of national party rules. Several plans have been proposed to find a way to seat Michigan's delegation.

Clinton's campaign has maintained that the delegation should be allocated according to the vote in the Jan. 15 primary (73/55) but Obama's campaign had argued the delegation should be split between the two candidates (64/64) because he was not on the ballot. Clinton won that contest with 55 percent of the vote but most of the other major party candidates, including Obama, had removed their names from the ballot because the state violated national party rules.

Since any plan must be approved by all the players -- the state and national parties and both candidates -- it is unclear what will happen now.

The Michigan Democratic Party's Executive Committee on Wednesday had endorsed the 69/59 plan offered April 29 by a group of senior Michigan Democrats including Sen. Carl Levin, Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, UAW President Ron Gettelfinger and DNC member Debbie Dingell.

Elizabeth Kerr, a spokeswoman for the Michigan Democratic Party, said the Clinton campaign's assertion that the votes "weren't honored" was "incorrect."

"This proposal honors the result of the January 15th primary but also takes into consideration that Obama's name was not on the ballot," she said.

If the state party ends up offering the plan to the national party, the DNC would consider it at the Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting in Washington on May 31. The DNC did not have any comment on the plan.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, who has endorsed Clinton, said the former first lady would not make any decision about the future of her campaign until the status of the Michigan and Florida delegations had been settled at the May 31 meeting. The Democratic National Committee stripped Florida of its delegates to the national convention because the state legislature set the primary for Jan. 29 in violation of national party rules.

Some Democrats have pushed Clinton to consider suspending her campaign, particularly after her narrow victory in Indiana and her heavy loss to Obama in North Carolina during the primaries Tuesday.

"She's going to make the decision when the time comes," Feinstein said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20080508/pl_cq_...politics2719785

Just remember that if they seat MI the total to get the nomination is no longer 2025.

The number would be 2,104....Obama will still reach that by June 3rd.

And if they seat FL?

Same.

Same? Are you sure of that? The more total delegates the more it takes to win.

It'll take 2209 or something like that. But Clinton did not carry FL by 100%. Hence, whatever delegates get seated, they both gain. And even though she'll gain more, it won't be enough to close the gap. Remember, according to the rules, neither state can count. If they seat them - and they will - it'll be on a compromise basis and it will be in such a way that they don't alter the outcome. The DNC is not going to reward the renegade states by allowing them to reverse what those states that complied with DNC rules decided. In other words, the seating of FL and MI is more of a symbolic nature.

From the OP it looks like they are giving Hillary more delegates. Who knows what the final outcome will be? And the flood of SD's rushing to back Obama? All I see is a trickle.

She's gaining 10 for MI. She's over 160 behind. What's the problem?

And the flood of SD's? Where is that?

[Sheriff Uling 3]

It's more of a trickle of SD's...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Clinton Rejects Latest Michigan Delegate Plan

Just remember that if they seat MI the total to get the nomination is no longer 2025.

The number would be 2,104....Obama will still reach that by June 3rd.

And if they seat FL?

Same.

Same? Are you sure of that? The more total delegates the more it takes to win.

It'll take 2209 or something like that. But Clinton did not carry FL by 100%. Hence, whatever delegates get seated, they both gain. And even though she'll gain more, it won't be enough to close the gap. Remember, according to the rules, neither state can count. If they seat them - and they will - it'll be on a compromise basis and it will be in such a way that they don't alter the outcome. The DNC is not going to reward the renegade states by allowing them to reverse what those states that complied with DNC rules decided. In other words, the seating of FL and MI is more of a symbolic nature.

From the OP it looks like they are giving Hillary more delegates. Who knows what the final outcome will be? And the flood of SD's rushing to back Obama? All I see is a trickle.

She's gaining 10 for MI. She's over 160 behind. What's the problem?

And the flood of SD's? Where is that?

It's coming. Read the papers.

ETA: Hillary has a choice to either seat MI on a compromise basis or not seat them at all. They won't be seated solely on her terms. She's in no position to dictate her terms.

Edited May 9, 2008 by Mr. Big Dog

[GaryC 7]

It's coming. Read the papers.

ETA: Hillary has a choice to either seat MI on a compromise basis or not seat them at all. They won't be seated solely on her terms. She's in no position to dictate her terms.

She has a lot of pull on the DNC’s Credentials Committee. A lot more than Obama does. The nuclear option is in play. It isn't over. Not even close.

[Sheriff Uling 3]

It's coming. Read the papers.

ETA: Hillary has a choice to either seat MI on a compromise basis or not seat them at all. They won't be seated solely on her terms. She's in no position to dictate her terms.

She has a lot of pull on the DNC’s Credentials Committee. A lot more than Obama does. The nuclear option is in play. It isn't over. Not even close.

It might not be over, but dahmnit we want it to be! She's going to stay at this thing as long as she can. It will be interesting to see how the Democrats move forward after this all plays out.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's coming. Read the papers.

ETA: Hillary has a choice to either seat MI on a compromise basis or not seat them at all. They won't be seated solely on her terms. She's in no position to dictate her terms.

She has a lot of pull on the DNC’s Credentials Committee. A lot more than Obama does. The nuclear option is in play. It isn't over. Not even close.

Edited May 9, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[GaryC 7]

I will bet this ends up in the courts. Wouldn't that be fun?

Obama plans to declare victory May 20

David Paul Kuhn

Thu May 8, 5:55 AM ET

Not long after the polls close in the May 20 Kentucky and Oregon primaries, Barack Obama plans to declare victory in his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

And, until at least May 31 and perhaps longer, Hillary Clinton's campaign plans to dispute it.

It's a train wreck waiting to happen, with one candidate claiming to be the nominee while the other vigorously denies it, all predicated on an argument over what exactly constitutes the finish line of the primary race.

The Obama campaign agrees with the Democratic National Committee, which pegs a winning majority at 2,025 pledged delegates and superdelegates--a figure that excludes the penalized Florida and Michigan delegations. The Clinton campaign, on the other hand, insists the winner will need 2,209 to cinch the nomination--a tally that includes Florida and Michigan.

"We don't accept 2,025. It is not the real number because that does not include Florida and Michigan," said Howard Wolfson, one of Clinton's two chief strategists. "It's a phony number."

Wolfson said they intend to contest the DNC's 2,025 number "every day," as well as any declaration of victory made by Obama based upon that number, because it does not include Florida and Michigan.

In January, Clinton won both states by wide margins when Obama did not actively contest them. The two states were stripped of their delegates for holding early primaries not sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee.

Obama will not reach the 2,025 magic number on May 20. Rather, on that date he is all but certain to hit a different threshold--1,627 pledged delegates, which would constitute a winning majority among the 3,253 total pledged delegates if Florida and Michigan are not included.

"On May 20 we're going to declare victory," said an Obama senior advisor who asked that his name be withheld to speak candidly, adding that after those contests they will be "the ones with the most pledged delegates and the most popular votes."

While the nature of that declaration of victory is "still developing," in the advisor's words, the Obama campaign contends that the winner of a majority of pledged delegates should be the party nominee.

"Senator Obama, our campaign and our supporters believe pledged delegates is the most legitimate metric for determining how this race has unfolded," wrote Obama campaign manager David Plouffe Wednesday in a memo to superdelegates. "It is simply the ratification of the DNC rules - your rules - which we built this campaign and our strategy around."

But the Clinton campaign's insistence on counting Florida and Michigan would alter not only the overall delegate math, but the pledged delegate math as well. Because if the two states are included in the count, the total number of pledged delegates would rise from 3,253 to 3,566--which means the magic number for a majority rises to 1,784, not 1,627 as the Obama campaign asserts.

By hewing to that interpretation, the Clinton campaign would thus be able to raise doubts about a May 20 declaration of victory by Obama.

Since the earliest possible resolution of the Florida/Michigan dispute is May 31, when the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will meet in Washington to address petitions from Michigan and Florida DNC members, the 11-day period between the May 20 primaries and the RBC meeting could produce a chaotic stretch where Obama claims to be the party nominee while Clinton argues otherwise.

Already, the two campaigns are gearing up for the battle.

"With the Clinton path to the nomination getting even narrower, we expect new and wildly creative scenarios to emerge in the coming days," wrote Plouffe in his memo. "While those scenarios may be entertaining, they are not legitimate and will not be considered legitimate by this campaign or its millions of supporters, volunteers, and donors."

"You can declare mission accomplished but that doesn't mean that the mission has actually been accomplished," Wolfson said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080508/...KaeKukZRn5snwcF

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It's coming. Read the papers.

ETA: Hillary has a choice to either seat MI on a compromise basis or not seat them at all. They won't be seated solely on her terms. She's in no position to dictate her terms.

She has a lot of pull on the DNC’s Credentials Committee. A lot more than Obama does. The nuclear option is in play. It isn't over. Not even close.

They'll remember that it was her pull that put FL and MI out of play last summer. The DNC is not going to sacrifice the party to Hillary and Bill. Neither are the supers - many of which will have to defend their Congressional seats in the fall as well. They need a functioning party not whatever changing the rules after the game was played will elave behind. It's just not going to happen. There won't be no nuclear option. But you keep on dreaming that dream of yours. You've got roughly a month before they'll wake you up. And don't come complaining that I didn't warn you.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I will bet this ends up in the courts. Wouldn't that be fun?

You can dream that dream, too. Won't happen either.

[GaryC 7]

I will bet this ends up in the courts. Wouldn't that be fun?

You can dream that dream, too. Won't happen either.

We will see.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I will bet this ends up in the courts. Wouldn't that be fun?

LOL

[dalegg 143]

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday rejected a compromise plan to seat Michigan's delegates to the national convention that would give 69 delegates to Clinton and 59 to Barack Obama.

"This proposal does not honor the 600,000 votes that were cast in Michigan's January primary. Those votes must be counted," Clinton spokesman Isaac Baker said.

No disrespect to the Clinton Supporters out there, but at this point I don't see how people are standing behind her anymore with this type of response. How can she possibly think that Obama should get nothing in Michigan because he followed the rules? Even here loyalists have to see that that is wrong.

or is there another side to this I'm not understanding?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I will bet this ends up in the courts. Wouldn't that be fun?

You can dream that dream, too. Won't happen either.

We will see.

Her support is clearly slipping. And she knows it.

Jennifer McClellan had her head under a beauty-salon hairdryer when the call came. A Virginia state House member--and Democratic superdelegate--McClellan had endorsed Hillary Clinton for president the day after January's Iowa caucuses. But now it was April. Over the past three months, Barack Obama had amassed an insurmountable pledged-delegate lead in a series of primary wins--including one in her home state. So McClellan was wavering. ""This is the most stressful thing I've been through in my whole life," she told the Washington Post. "It was never supposed to be like this." Luckily, when McClellan picked up the phone, it was Clinton herself on the other end of the line. After congratulating McClellan on her recent engagement, reports the Politico, the former First Lady "thank[ed] me for my past support and [said] that she thinks when the primaries are over, she will have the popular vote." McClellan was "touched."

Apparently she wasn't touched enough. On Wednesday morning, McClellan announced that she had switched her allegiance to Obama. "I think the time has come to support Senator Obama as the likely nominee," she said in a conference call with reporters. "Given what happened last night, it's very unlikely we will have a different result, and it is time to come together as a party and prepare for victory against John McCain in November."

She's not alone. In the 36 hours since Clinton lost the popular vote in North Carolina--and the expectations game in Indiana--a growing number of her supporters haven't been particularly, um, supportive. As McClellan told the Politico, "there are many of us who believe--regardless of who we endorsed--that if Sen. Obama goes into the convention with the most pledged delegates and the popular vote, and doesn't get the nomination, that could cause problems." On Wednesday, George McGovern--a former South Dakota senator and Democratic presidential nominee--jumped ship for Obama, and California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Clinton superdelegate, told the Los Angeles Times that although "I have great fondness and great respect for Sen. Clinton and I'm very loyal to her... I'd like to talk with her and get her view on the rest of the race and what the strategy is." Feinstein's reason? "I think the race is reaching the point now where there are negative dividends from it, in terms of strife within the party." When asked yesterday whether Clinton should stay in the race, New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, another vocal Clinton backer, sounded equally glum. "It's her decision to make and I'll accept what decision she makes," he said.

And the hits keep coming today, with two additional pro-Clinton pols adding their voices to the chorus. In an interview with The Hill, Rep. Dale Kildee, a Clinton supporter from Michigan, said the New York senator should halt her campaign and carefully consider whether it makes sense to keep going. “I urge her to take the day off and think very seriously about doing what’s best for the country and best for the party,” said Kildee. “I got straight A’s in math." His Congressional colleague from Florida, Rep. Alcee Hastings, agreed--“It’s improbable to suggest she’d be at the top of the ticket"--and gave Obama "a big hug" this morning on the House floor. (Another Clinton superdelegate, Rep. Yvette Clarke of New York, asked him to sign the cover of today's New York Daily News, according to the Politico. Headline: "It's His Party.") Even some of Clinton's advisers are now "resigned to their candidate’s likely loss," according to the Wall Street Journal. "They have turned in favor of her bowing out for party unity, according to several who asked not to be named.”

Source

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Jennifer McClellan had her head under a beauty-salon hairdryer when the call came. A Virginia state House member--and Democratic superdelegate--McClellan had endorsed Hillary Clinton for president the day after January's Iowa caucuses. But now it was April. Over the past three months, Barack Obama had amassed an insurmountable pledged-delegate lead in a series of primary wins--including one in her home state. So McClellan was wavering. ""This is the most stressful thing I've been through in my whole life," she told the Washington Post. "It was never supposed to be like this." Luckily, when McClellan picked up the phone, it was Clinton herself on the other end of the line. After congratulating McClellan on her recent engagement, reports the Politico, the former First Lady "thank[ed] me for my past support and [said] that she thinks when the primaries are over, she will have the popular vote." McClellan was "touched."

Apparently she wasn't touched enough. On Wednesday morning, McClellan announced that she had switched her allegiance to Obama. "I think the time has come to support Senator Obama as the likely nominee," she said in a conference call with reporters. "Given what happened last night, it's very unlikely we will have a different result, and it is time to come together as a party and prepare for victory against John McCain in November."

She's not alone. In the 36 hours since Clinton lost the popular vote in North Carolina--and the expectations game in Indiana--a growing number of her supporters haven't been particularly, um, supportive. As McClellan told the Politico, "there are many of us who believe--regardless of who we endorsed--that if Sen. Obama goes into the convention with the most pledged delegates and the popular vote, and doesn't get the nomination, that could cause problems." On Wednesday, George McGovern--a former South Dakota senator and Democratic presidential nominee--jumped ship for Obama, and California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Clinton superdelegate, told the Los Angeles Times that although "I have great fondness and great respect for Sen. Clinton and I'm very loyal to her... I'd like to talk with her and get her view on the rest of the race and what the strategy is." Feinstein's reason? "I think the race is reaching the point now where there are negative dividends from it, in terms of strife within the party." When asked yesterday whether Clinton should stay in the race, New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, another vocal Clinton backer, sounded equally glum. "It's her decision to make and I'll accept what decision she makes," he said.

And the hits keep coming today, with two additional pro-Clinton pols adding their voices to the chorus. In an interview with The Hill, Rep. Dale Kildee, a Clinton supporter from Michigan, said the New York senator should halt her campaign and carefully consider whether it makes sense to keep going. "I urge her to take the day off and think very seriously about doing what's best for the country and best for the party," said Kildee. "I got straight A's in math." His Congressional colleague from Florida, Rep. Alcee Hastings, agreed--"It's improbable to suggest she'd be at the top of the ticket"--and gave Obama "a big hug" this morning on the House floor. (Another Clinton superdelegate, Rep. Yvette Clarke of New York, asked him to sign the cover of today's New York Daily News, according to the Politico. Headline: "It's His Party.") Even some of Clinton's advisers are now "resigned to their candidate's likely loss," according to the Wall Street Journal. "They have turned in favor of her bowing out for party unity, according to several who asked not to be named."

Interesting and it makes sense. This is all going to come to end soon...in 2 weeks or less.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Check this out...

Both a Hillary Clinton superdelegate on the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (R&BC) and a spokesperson for the Michigan Democratic Party seem to contradict the Clinton campaign stance on the seating of the Michigan delegation, in interviews given earlier this week.

Liz Kerr, the Communications Director for the Michigan Democratic Party re-emphasized what State Chairman Mark Brewer has been saying all along. "We want full participation for the Michigan delegation, and we'd prefer to settle this sooner, rather than later." But above all, the MI Dems stress, "both camps must agree" to any solution presented for ratification to the R&BC on May 31. Brewer is a member of R&BC, but not eligible to vote on issues regarding his own state.

Mame Reiley of Virginia is also a member of the R&BC and a long-declared superdelegate for Hillary Clinton. She says she will keep an open mind and try to be fair to all parties involved on May 31. She feels that both states have paid a price by not hosting full-out primary campaigns, which would have brought considerable revenue to them. In Florida, she is inclined to seat the delegation as is, due to the full slate of candidates there. "But," she says, "this is a whole different ballgame with Michigan." Her decision there, Reiley said, "might make Hillary not happy with me."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chip-collis/...e_b_100895.html