Ickes Shows all his Class at Once

Wait till you're kids embaras you someday. It will reflect on you and your good name. Unfortunately, those who don't like it will shuffle your name to a different section of their rating book.

I understand the logic of it, but I think it would have been better for the national party to seat the delegates at half a vote with an allocation of 73-55, with unpledged left unpledged.

Why does Clinton deserve any delegates from MI when she agreed the race wouldn't count for anything? The resolution they came to is fair. End of story. The way Ickes acted is typical of a child who doesn't get his way. And moreover, typical of the sort of leadership Clinton has demonstrated.

Well, Christian as I said...if it were not for her insistance to seat the delegates what do you propose the outcome would have been? (Spiff, would love to hear your "what if" theories. I agree with your assessment. Clinton's website has a lot of angry supporters vowing for either write ins or push her towards the Independent party. I hardly see her moving away from the Democrats.)

Christian, don't you think it was unfair of the Democratic party to leave the voters hanging?

I could comment on how Obama remained neutral...some might say aloof or out of touch with the voters. Had they seated the delegates as the Republican rules are set...he'd have lost his seed. And, what if the tables were turned in Clinton's favor? I imagine Obama's supporters would be all over it with phrases such as: "It's a conspiracy!! Clinton rigged the vote...or some such." Get a grip Obama fans.

caltha,

if it were not for her insistance to seat the delegates what do you propose the outcome would have been?

At the point where we had a definite nominee and MI & FL could not longer affect the outcome, the nominee (or perhaps the convention chair) would have moved at the convention to admit and seat both delegations in full. Prior arrangements would have been made (in fact, prior arrangements for accommodations for both states' delegations have been in place for months) by the DNC and both delegations would, in fact, have already been in Denver for the beginning of the convention.

would love to hear your "what if" theories

The most convincing argument I heard yesterday, which I didn't find very convincing (but whatever) was Levin's appeal that the RBC not upset the tenuous consensus among the MI state Democratic party. Additionally, although I didn't hear this stated outright, since MI has already held congressional district-level conventions which were held under the compromise split, 69-59, I have to wonder if holding the state-level convention under a different split wouldn't have led to challenges, both political and legal, destroying any chances of the MI state party to organize for November. Switching delegate allocation mid-process, when district delegates had already been selected for the state convention, sounds risky to me.

Having said that, since district and state conventions are purely political processes under the control of the DNC and state party, I'm pretty sure the risk would be less than the risk in the party tinkering with delegate allocation as voted. From a purely political standpoint, I think giving MI the allocation they asked for was stupid, because I can already imagine the RNC campaign commercials: "The Democratic Party believes a committee of 30 partisan hacks can disregard the voters of Michigan. They ignored an election, an allocated delegates based on a secret back-room deal that went on for three hours outside the view of honest Americans. America is supposed to be beyond party machine politics. Are these the people you want in charge of Washington?" Dumb, dumb, dumb.

At the end of the day, I think full MI state party unity is less important than not giving the Republicans the commercial I just laid out above. Additionally, I don't think that seating them as voted would have been as painful for Obama supporters as taking delegates from Clinton was for Clinton supporters. When this is all over, Obama is going to win this; his supporters will have a reason to be gracious, even with a "loss" at the RBC. What reason will Clinton's supporters have to be gracious?

The RBC should have given MI the same deal they gave FL: seat the full delegation as voted, give each delegate half a vote. If they really felt something needed to be given to Obama, give him all the add-on delegates like they did in FL, and give him a chance to fight for the uncommitted delegates. By Levin's own testimony, at the congressional district conventions Obama had already overwhelmingly won those delegates, so the net gain to Clinton of seating the delegates as voted instead of as apportioned by the RBC and state party would have been negligible to the overall delegate count.

Additionally, giving Clinton that apportionment would have taken away one of her and her supporters' central arguments for remaining offended at the process. If the RBC and Obama really wanted to start uniting the party with this meeting, they should have given her almost everything she wanted, except seating the delegates with full votes (because I still think, on principle, that the DNC needs a punishment for MI & FL for blatantly violating party rules). I have my own doubts whether anything would have really satisfied the Clinton campaign, but there's no reason to give them a excuse for continuing bitterness on a golden platter.

Spiffie,

At the point where we had a definite nominee and MI & FL could not longer affect the outcome, the nominee (or perhaps the convention chair) would have moved at the convention to admit and seat both delegations in full.

Regardless of whether the DNC ruled early on about the votes in MI & FL, I still don't understand how the popular vote can be discredited? What a horrible thing to do to the electorate.

Clinton has every right to appeal and to stay in the race until the Primary season comes to a close early this month. That is her decision to make, and no one else's. And takes quite a bit of courage to do it.

Shrug. Rules, shmules... "Rules are sometimes meant to be broken." If I were a MI or FL voter, then I'd be pretty freaking pissed off with party leaders, if the delegates weren't seated prior to Denver.

I recall Jack alluded that the delegates wouldn't have been seated until after the first round...perhaps I misread his assertions on the subject.

Any way for persons like me, who declared their party JUST to vote for Clinton...it's quite disingenuous. (btw most voters don't follow the punditocracy...or party rules, affiliations and declarations...and rather vote according to what their mailed ballots state!)

Your John Dean seed says it all about ordinary voters. I'm guilty as charged, so sue me.

The DNC has shot itself in the foot, if it thinks it will retain the "independent" voters over the long term. I certainly don't intend on remaining a Democrat for very long, based on this nonsense of penalizing states that moved up their primary dates without the Committee's permission. Just sayin...and Jack will come along any minute and tell me to mind my own business.

Thanks for your theories...

I still don't understand how the popular vote can be discredited?

Because it doesn't matter if you make a touchdown if you were offsides when you did it. Rules matter, and that's as American a principle as anything else.

What a horrible thing to do to the electorate.

I agree. What MI and FL did to their electorates was pretty horrible. Hopefully this is the last time they'll pull that @!$%#. I'm personally hoping that Howard Dean is retained as head of the DNC, and that he chooses to address the presidential primary schedule problem in 2009.

Clinton has every right to appeal and to stay in the race until the Primary season comes to a close early this month.

She has every right to stay in past that. In fact, any candidate has the right to stay in as long as they want, up to the convention. I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that. What people seem to be discussing is whether her staying in past the last contest has a practical, negative impact on the Democrats' chances to win the White House in November. The discussion is not whether she can stay in; the discussion is whether her decision to stay in has undesirable consequences.

If I were a MI or FL voter, then I'd be pretty freaking pissed off with party leaders, if the delegates weren't seated prior to Denver.

I would be pissed with my state party leaders, especially in Michigan. You can bet they would get an unhappy letter from me. This was their mess.

I recall Jack alluded that the delegates wouldn't have been seated until after the first round...perhaps I misread his assertions on the subject.

I'm pretty sure that Jack has been arguing that the delegates wouldn't be seated if as long as there was a chance of them affecting the first round of voting.

it's quite disingenuous

Well, it's politics, so there's a lot of disingenuousness to go around. But I'll certainly agree that Hillary Clinton has been somewhat disingenuous in her arguments to seat FL and MI when she flat out said they "wouldn't matter" last year. I'll agree that Harold Ickes is being disingenuous when he claims that the RBC "hijacked" the process when he was one of the RBC members who voted 23-1 to strip FL and MI of their delegates last August.

Your John Dean seed

Obama is the candidate for misanthropes everywhere! No wonder I like him.

The DNC has shot itself in the foot

Probably, but just its little toe, hopefully. I'm not sure there will be lasting damage from this, and there's a good chance there will be lasting benefit (if it lights a fire under the DNC to standardize delegate selection across the 50 states and several territories, and finally address the scheduling problems).

if it thinks it will retain the "independent" voters over the long term

As I see it, whether the Democrats retain the independent voters depends more on the policies and laws the Democrats can get passed over the next four years. Four years from now, this will be just another answer to a Trivial Pursuit question, and people will be worrying about whatever the news of the day is.

and Jack will come along any minute

Where is jfx? I would have figured he'd have been here days ago. He must be slacking. I might have to leave him a trail of bread crumbs, since some of the comments above were as much for his consideration as yours.

caltha:

(btw most voters don't follow the punditocracy...or party rules, affiliations and declarations...and rather vote according to what their mailed ballots state!)

I know. Which is why Hillary's Guys have been getting away with legal and logical murder.

The fundamental problem Hillary's argument has that dooms it to failure is that it mixes broad moral/philosophical principles with detailed technical premises.

If, for instance, you simply want the broad principle of "count the votes" vindicated, well, actually, the votes were roughly counted, which is why Hillary got ten more delegates out of Michigan than her opponent got. But to then switch to the technical argument: Oh, well, we want 73 rather than 69 delegates because technically, that's what we would've gotten had all the votes been counted exactly, that begs the question of counting them at all: Technically, NONE of the votes should count.

spiff can explain this better, but it's the difference between a suit at equity and a suit at law.

broad moral/philosophical principles

Broad moral/philosophical principles neither the candidate nor her supporters in the DNC stood up for when it mattered, to boot. If this was a matter of principles, Clinton and Ickes probably could have prevented the full stripping of FL and MI, which would have created a great disincentive for Obama and Edwards to remove their names, which would have made for a fairer election.