June 2nd, 2008
02:13 PM ET

Memo to Obama Campaign: Why Fight Over Four Delegates?

[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/06/02/art.vote2.jpg caption="Protesters rally as the Democratic National Committee Rules and Bylaws Committee prepares to meet at the Marriott Park Wardman hotel."]

Lanny J. Davis
Former special counsel to President Clinton
Supporter of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign

The thousands of Clinton supporters in the streets on Saturday in front of DC's Marriott Hotel, many of them from Florida and Michigan, were angry in the beginning of the day. At the end of the day, they were even angrier – with the prime focus of their ire Senator Barack Obama.

And the difference between a happy vs. an angry outcome was – I am not making this up – just four Michigan delegates, a forced switch of just four delegates from Senator Clinton's to Senator Obama's total.

This decision was made by a divided DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee over the strong objection of Senator Clinton's representative on the committee, Harold Ickes. It was made with the support of Senator Obama's campaign and his representatives on the Rules Committee.

Put aside the merits of the arguments on both sides and let's just look at the politics.

Senator Obama says at this stage he wants to promote party unity. The DNC Chair Howard Dean says the same thing. The party "leaders" we hear about more and more in the media say the same thing.

Yet when it came down to the crucial moments during Saturday afternoon's deliberations of the Rules Committee concerning the seating of the Michigan delegation, Senator Obama and his supporters on the committee drew a bright line over four delegates. Why?

Beats me.

Here's the simple math. The final split of the Michigan delegation supported by Senator Clinton's campaign was 73-55, reflecting the percentage results of the Michigan primary (55% votes won by Senator Clinton, 40% won by "uncommitted.") The Rules Committee decided to take four of those votes from Senator Clinton and give them to Senator Obama, so the final total was now Clinton 69 and Obama 59.

Mr. Ickes argued that the word "hijack" was appropriate regarding those four delegates because there was no legal basis for the Rules and Bylaws Committee - either under party rules as well as the Charter (constitution) of the Party for a DNC committee to take delegates from one candidate and award them to another; and certainly not to award delegates inconsistent with the "fair reflection" of the will of Democratic voters. Mr. Ickes rightly pointed out that the "fair reflection" requirement is a core requirement of the DNC's Charter – as fundamental a constitutional value for the Democratic Party as the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is to the American people.

The pro-Obama forces would argue that the Michigan primary was "flawed" because not everyone, including Senator Obama, was on the ballot. (It is also a fact that Senator Obama could have kept his name on the ballot under the party rules, as did Senators Clinton and Chris Dodd, but chose not to).

But putting the arguments pro- and con- aside, let's go back to the opening question, based on plain political considerations:

Why would Senator Obama want to draw a bright line over a difference of plus/minus four delegates? If that's what it would have taken to bring unity out of the Michigan – Florida rules fight, why not agree? Why risk exacerbating the problems Senator Obama already could have among the most loyal Clinton voters, many of them women, in the millions across the country and many in the critical battleground states?

Beats me.

The Clinton campaign has a decision to make – whether to go to the national convention's Credentials Committee to challenge what they argue is an unconstitutional and illegal transfer by the non-valid fiat of the Rules Committee of delegates committed to one candidate to another candidate. They feel they have a constitutional core principle to defend – the Charter's commitment to small "d" democracy and the rule of law. Rightly or wrongly, that may seem to be a principle worth taking to the Credentials Committee or even the convention floor.

If they do so, and the party remains divided between a candidate who won more delegates by a sliver of a margin vs. a candidate who won more popular votes out of more than 34 million cast - and virtually all the battleground and border states - it may well be that Senator Obama some day will ask senior officials in his campaign organization – why did we fight over four delegates when we didn't need to?

I can just hear someone answering him,

"Beats me."

Filed under: Barack Obama • Hillary Clinton • Raw Politics
soundoff (100 Responses)
  1. Stacey B

    I don't understand why this conversation is on the table. ALL candidates agreed that the votes would not count should the states not have their primaries when designated. I wonder if we would be talking about this if the circumstances were different and Sen. Clinton was ahead. Our society is built on rules.....I guess that's not the case when your last name is Clinton.

    June 2, 2008 at 8:57 pm |
  2. Noelle Upah

    Finally CNN is talking about the role women play in the Democratic Party! I have been so angry at the unfair coverage Hillary has received in the media. It is about time that women's vote be considered important. I have heard over and over again (from the media) that women will "get over it" easier than African Americans – why should we? The government told women to "be patient" during the 70+ years women fought for the vote. This race has proven that the glass ceiling is still alive and well, women DO still need to work 2x as hard to be at the same place as men and there is a lot of work yet to do for sexism to truly be put to rest. Hopefully this has awaken a younger population of women activist – I know my eyes have been opened.

    June 2, 2008 at 8:43 pm |
  3. Bren from Atlanta

    There is an old saying, "Those who do not ride the waves of change will find themselves crushed beneath them." If the tapes that we have been seeing of Obama talking out of both sides of his mouth are any indication, we do not need this kind of change. I used to believe in him, but he truly has begun to frighten me. He "mispeaks" so many times that if elected I fear he will "mispeak" us into another conflict. He "changed" his mind about the delegate count 3 times and now thinks he's giving Mrs. Clinton a gift. This is no gift. He needs to step down and let experience move on.

    June 2, 2008 at 8:33 pm |
  4. Mike

    Lenny according to all reports from various news organizations, The Obama campaign was flexible and wanted to honor the illegal voting which occurred in both states. Second the Obama camp will count all of the delegates from Michigan at the convention so what exactly is the argument? It’s time to unite and defeat McCain and win the white house.

    I love you Lenny I am eager to have you on our side.

    June 2, 2008 at 8:02 pm |
  5. Yvonne

    I am so glad to hear all your people express your future, however, are you running for President? Your future is not your future, it is not Obama, or McCain, or Clinton it is far more global that a simple statement of Our Future. Simple minded people get simple minded results.

    June 2, 2008 at 7:50 pm |
  6. chris

    The FL and Michigan debacle!!!!
    The entire event seems underhanded. NYTIMES reports today that Michigan and Florida will have full votes at the convention once a nominee is named. Why make hurt so many voters? Seems like a deal was made behind closed doors. I have been waiting for DNC leadership to show up and take charge. Stop with excuses and talking and start executing a plan to win the easiest Presidential Election in history. We have only elected 2 Democratic presidents in 40 years?

    June 2, 2008 at 7:45 pm |
  7. Ann Marie

    Hillary's supporters would have carried on in the same crazy manner even if Hillary got her 4 delegates. They had planned to act crazy if Obama got any delegates from Michigan. It's time for them to take their medications and go on a vacation.

    June 2, 2008 at 7:44 pm |
  8. Yvonne, Atlanta, GA

    Hillary should be grateful that she got anything from Michigan. Thousands of young voters and African-American voters in Michigan and Florida were robbed of their vote being included in these two primaries because Hillary played gotcha. Hillary�s supporters are complaining about 4 delegates; well four delegates is a small price to pay in order to get the DNC to agree on cheating thousands of voters in Michigan and Florida, who stayed home and didn�t vote because they believed the DNC when they said the primaries would not count. This was very hurtful to my relatives in Florida.

    June 2, 2008 at 7:38 pm |
  9. Marie

    I am quite stunned about the outcome of the DNC decision. The reason that MI blames Obama is he did not want a re vote in that State nor did he want one in FL. Clinton's supporters offered the monies do just this. Delegate votes as the only thing that counts is what Obama's campaign wants and simply saying this is the DNC wants. Individual votes should count. The person that said earlier that Clinton disregards caucus States completely as if they do not count is probably right. Caucus voting is not a fair way to vote. I voted in both the election and in the caucus in TX and many of the folks who voted were disenfranchising the next morning because they could not hang around all night long for the polls to finally close and the caucus process to begin. So, what did they do in this state a state that the popular vote was overwhelmingly for Clinton they gave Obama delegates that he did not really earn. Caucus voting is a way to badger voters and humiliate them into voting along with the bully out front yelling the loudest. A voting booth is the way most people feel comfortable voting. There are many States that Obama may not have right now if the real vote was counted and not the caucus vote since those numbers were not released. This is not democracy in any way shape or form. I do not want to be called racist by those folks out there if I cross party lines. I just do not like the candidate, his unclear polices, his inexperience, his waffling, his church affiliation, his willingness to scream prejudice at the drop of the hat. Please look at this candidate, look at Clinton and rather than think about some dream look at reality of what is going to happen after the convention and what the republicans will do. He has no chance because there are many people like me walking over to the other side or registering Independent and hopefully Clinton will run on this ticket. Why will not CNN ask her this question. Simply ask would you consider running as an Independent so that those that feel they have been disenfranchising have someone to vote for. Otherwise McCain is my man....Argh!

    June 2, 2008 at 7:34 pm |
  10. Jan from Wood Dale IL

    Because even though it has been known for some time, it has never become so blatantly apparent than now. Not every vote counts. Only delegates count. Sadly, the American people do not get to vote for their delegates or even some of their superdelegates, and they yield more power than the American voters.

    Also, Senator Obama isn't a man of convictions. For someone who CHOSE to take his name off the MI ballot, he had his delegation at the RBC fighting hard for every delegate they could get. Obama wants to end the "old ways of doing business in Washington", yet when it came to MI and FL his campaign just got down in the dirt by playing by those rules. Rather than choosing to address the congregation of the Trinity United Chuch of Christ for their rude and disrespectful conduct towards a fellow member of the U.S. Senate and Presidential candidate, he did what was best for his campaign. That puts distance between Obama and his church, but contributes little to unifying those who respect and have supported Senator Clinton.

    BTW, for those of you who have wondered about the Holiday Gas Tax, on May 8th HR 5995 was introduced to the House of Representatives to relieve the federal gas tax between May 31, 2008 and Sept. 1, 2008. Hound Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi on why she has sat on that bill, and did not allow for it to come to the floor for a vote.

    June 2, 2008 at 7:14 pm |
  11. Chuck, San Antonio

    It appears to me that the die hard Clinton supporters are looking at this with horse blinders and ignoring the unfairness of what Clinton was asking. And if you think voting for McCain is your answer for not getting what you want, you need to stop and think about how you're acting. Your behavior should get you stripped of your vote because you're acting like a 3 year old and we all know 3 year olds cant vote. now get up off the floor and stop pouting and start acting like an adult again and do whats right for your party.

    June 2, 2008 at 6:44 pm |
  12. Emma

    This sounds like the 2000 general election all over again. The candidate with the most votes doesn’t win. So much for “of the people, by the people, for the people.”

    The dumb democrats will be sorry that they bought into the Obama charade come November. They are too dull to see that ever since the media started treating Obama the same way they have treated Clinton for months, Obama’s favorability and appeal has dropped remarkably. And now he sure looks like every other politician, even though he claims he is different. Hmm, started wearing a flag pin & left his church, only after they became issues for him in the election. That sounds like the same old politics to me – what a sell out Obama.

    Good luck dems, you will need it. Here is hoping Hillary sticks around for a while, cuz they just might come crawling back to her before November, after the next Obama firestorm breaks….

    June 2, 2008 at 6:44 pm |
  13. Brian from Los Angeles, California

    The DNC is a disgrace for taking away delegates from Michigan and Florida in the first place. They are obviously cronies from the left that want the farthest from the left candidate in November.

    Be careful of what you wish for, you may find yourself on the losing end of an argument with the American people vote for a moderate like McCain, who many believe is at times more of a Democrat then a Republican. He will likely appeal to the disenchanted unfairly treated Hillary supporters like myself.

    McCain\Hillary 2008

    June 2, 2008 at 6:33 pm |
  14. Larry

    Neutral = uncomitted = Obama.

    June 2, 2008 at 6:13 pm |
  15. Mary Secrest

    The lady on fox from the sunday meeting spoke for more voters that you networks want to think. No I will not vote for Obama even if Clinton is on the ticket. I would like to get her on an independent ticket so that all of her voters could change their party to independent and support her as the one to win the white house. Let the republicans and demoncrats go their on way. Now that you republican networks have got what you wanted I want to sit back now and laugh at the way you will now attack Obama so that you can get your guy in the white house. You have took up for Obama over a woman, but now you have to turn on the one that you supported. Clinton would have won the white house and the networks new this and new that MaCain would beat Obama. That is the reason Obama is where he is now. A note to the superdelegates if you go Obama way you will put MaCain in the white house.

    A working older woman from Louisiana

    June 2, 2008 at 5:57 pm |

    To all the bitter Clinton supporters who think McCain would be a good choice if Hillary is not the candidate: Do any of you have any idea what Senator Clinton's proposals were in all of the issues? They were the opposite of Jonn McCain's. Senator Obama, Senator Clinton, and Senator Edwards all shared the same basic vision of the future of this country. John McCain stands for everything that they oppose. So if he is your next choice, were you supporting Senator Clinton only because she is a woman? Or white? Senator Clinton's future is not the issue. Our future is the issue. Yours, mine, all of us. We need to support ourselves, our interests. A vote for McCain does not fit the bill.

    June 2, 2008 at 5:24 pm |
  17. JudyAnn

    If Obama and DNC wants to unite the party then Obama needs to step down now. Otherwise McCain will win hands down. Nothing Hillary can say or do can change this and even if she had never run Obama will not get the votes he needs to win. Some Americans can bury thier heads in the sand and say he is a chance for change. The problem is I like the way our country is today and do not care to have our flag or anything else along those lines change. I want a first lady that is and always has been proud of our country. I expect our president to be a Christian not a pretend christian to get votes. So Go McCain you have a great chance of being the next president of this once great country.

    June 2, 2008 at 5:19 pm |

    It seems a little hypocritical and self-serving to invoke "core principles" into a conversation about counting votes in an election that never took place. You want to count all the votes, but what about all the people who sensibly abstained after learning that their votes would not count? Are we now saying "too bad, you should have voted. "? The primary results in those two states would not stand up to any standard of fairness. Without conducting a "real" primary in either state, their can be no principled argument about how to count the existing votes. It's a total sham. Even if your preferred candidate did not get everything she wanted, she still has no moral or ethical argument to ask for more.

    June 2, 2008 at 5:08 pm |
  19. Phyllis Szekely

    I'm with Harriet Christian, I'll vote as a Republican for the first time in my life. Also, alot of my family and friends are doing likewise. Since the super delegates want to elect their choice, so be it. Maybe my vote will count as a Republican from now on.

    June 2, 2008 at 4:58 pm |
  20. Jay, Denver CO

    Question is why are you fighting over 4 delegates??

    Do you ever worry about your reputation Lanny? And how your behavior is going to affect it? 51% of the democratic base doesn't like what you are trying to do and if I were you I would be concerned.

    June 2, 2008 at 4:55 pm |
  21. Kim

    What about having the primaries on 5-10 set dates and determining the order of the states every four years according to a rotational system or simply by drawing lots? If there is enought time between the set primary dates the candidates get enough time to campaign and no state has to be disgruntled.

    I would also suggest making Michigan and Florida go last in 2012 and 2016 for causing all of thiese problems 😉

    June 2, 2008 at 4:44 pm |
  22. Kim

    the suggestion for the compromise came from the Michigan delegation, as far as I know, not from the Obama campaign.

    The members of the DNC Rules Committee who agreed to this compromise by 19-8 votes include a majority of Clinton supporters (12 Clinton supporters vs. 8 Obama supporters with the rest neutral).

    So how could the Obama campaign possibly be held responsible for the result?

    June 2, 2008 at 4:39 pm |
  23. Anita from Hawaii

    The argument over four delegates for either side is about as important as two dung beetles fighting over a load. If it were not four delegates, it would be something else to stumble the nomination. Democrates need to support the nominee that arises from our current set of rules and not from adjustments that can be implemented in future elections. There are going to be sore feelings regardless of the outcome. Sen. Obama will need time to coach Hillary supporters back on the democratic path with or without Sen Clinton's help.

    June 2, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  24. LaVon K Hummel

    Mr Ickes, name suits him well.

    June 2, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  25. Cathy

    Lanny, you are the last person who should be talking about party unity!! This is not Barack Obama's fault!!! The committee was composed of 13 Clinton supporters and 8 Obama supporters, with the remaining members uncommitted. This matter was really between Michigan party representatives and the DNC and it appears that a compromise was reached that satisfied BOTH parties. I would also point out that 5 of the Clinton supporters on this committee voted in favor of this compromise in the name of party unity. My understanding is that the other option on the table would have been a 50/50 split, which would have been of less benefit to Sen. Clinton.

    Although I do not support your candidate, if I were Barack Obama and if it were possible under the system, I would just give her those 4 delegates to help calm the waters. Frankly, they aren't going to change the game; they will not propel her to a win and in all likelihood Sen. Obama is so close to the finish line he will likely reach the magic number regardless of where those four delegates find a home.

    As for the popular vote count, it depends on who is doing the calculation. There are those who disagree with Sen. Clinton's calculations. Beyond that, this is not about the popular vote, it is about the delegate count.

    Lanny, hopefully you will tone it down and stop blaming Barack Obama for a situation that was always between the DNC and the state parties!! Your candidate and people like you need to find some sense of grace for the sake of party unity.

    June 2, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  26. Frank Malone

    Dear Al,
    At this time, it is the Democratic party leaders that should be making the much too often discssed 3 A..M. telephone call to senator Hillary Clinton every morning, a call thanking her and her rival for deciding to take a run for the rop job at the oval office,
    Each of the Democratic presidential contenders brings multipe features to the presidential race, but more importanly, Hillary Clinton also has the benefit of all her previous experience that she can draw on when dhe was the first lady, married to Bill, one of the most underestimated presidents in the history pf the United States. In all the debates that CNN has broadcast, Mr. Obama has been telegenic and even more cohesive than his rival. If he can actually win the nomination by beating senator Clinton, that shoud surely show that he deserves the top position at the White House.

    June 2, 2008 at 3:51 pm |
  27. Larry

    As Jeffrey Toobin said on saturday, following the dnc votes on Florida & Michigan, the big winner was Obama.

    June 2, 2008 at 3:50 pm |
  28. Grant

    Are we supposed to be idiots? This wasn't about "four delegates". Clinton was asking for Obama not to get ANY in an absurd display of disrespect for the basic intelligence of everyone involved in this process and you want to come out and ask why oh why Obama didn't let Hillary get 4 more delegates than she ended up with like that's somehow the great tragedy in this? Geez, you people can be incredibly insulting sometimes.

    Here's the real question and we all know it. Why would Hillary even consider challenging over 4 delegates SHE knows won't make one single little bit of difference in the outcome and which she knows perfectly well she didn't earn in an honest straight up valid election? There's only one thing she could accomplish by doing it. Just one. Undermining Obama's chances in the general election against McCain by causing a fight in Denver and provoking as much negative press about his candidacy as possible. So if she decides to go ahead and do it, we all know what her objective is. Mrs. "It will all be over February 5th" doesn't care one little bit about waiting for every vote to be counted before a nominee is crowned and never has. Stop treating us like we're a bunch of clueless morons.

    June 2, 2008 at 3:48 pm |
  29. Kim C.in Nebraska

    I have listened to you blather on & on Mr. Davis on many different CNN shows, many different times. Your endless championing of Sen Clinton, NO MATTER WHAT the situation may be, borders not on blind loyalty but outright psychosis! I am an AMERICAN first and foremost and a democrat second. And according to Sen Clinton I also DO NOT COUNT since I live in a CAUCUS state. Not important, not counted, not needed...only the rights of MI & FL voters count, are important & needed. Well let me tell you something MR. Davis...I am 41, white, the mother of 2 beautiful daughters, married & blue collar. I have been a democrat all my adult life and until YOUR candidate never felt insulted, unwanted or demeaned by a fellow democrat! Sen clinton not only lost my complete respect MR. Davis...she permantly lost my vote. So go and preach your blather to another choir MR Davis, your candidate is nothing but a hypocrite and a panderer...btw, when is HER BILL for that GAS TAX RELIEF being voted on??? As you were told on Saturday MR. Davis by a rather nice gentlemen from FL...may I suggest you just be silent???

    June 2, 2008 at 3:33 pm |
  30. njtony

    Anderson, there is a way in 2012 to solve the primary and casus debates.

    Just have 2 primaries one West of the Mississippi and one East of the Mississippi. That way no state can move their primary date because there only 2 dates.


    June 2, 2008 at 3:33 pm |
  31. ida

    "Beats Me" That's what Hillary has to start saying when she thinks of Obama from now on. Lanny, denial is one of the steps into oblivion

    June 2, 2008 at 3:28 pm |
  32. Ryan Field from New Hope, PA

    I've always voted, down the line, as a Democrat, but since the Democratic party has railroaded Sen. Clinton in such a blatant way, I won't be voting as a Democrat this fall. I have a college degree and I'm considered white collar. But this time I'm not buying into the "unity" and "coming together" rhetoric. I think it's in poor taste to watch Sen. Obama portray himself as the candidate when nothing has been decided, and it's disrepectful to Sen. Clinton. And I will, like everyone else I know, cast my vote for John McCain this fall. I thought about staying home and not voting, but I'd rather help defeat Obama with a vote for John McCain. And, frankly, compared to Sen. Obama, Sen. McCain isn't a bad choice as President.

    My decision is based on the trust issue. I don't trust Sen. Obama; you can't trust a man who has flipped and flooped and lied about his personal life, regarding his church and those affiliated with his racist church, since the beginning of this campaign. And there's nothing I hate more than racism. There's just no excuse for it.

    June 2, 2008 at 3:26 pm |
  33. Claudia, Houston, Tx

    The state of Michigan representatives haven't owned any responsibility for the problems they started for their voters instead they cast the blame on Obama's campaign. Until they are totally honest and open with all their voters and inform them correctly they don't deserve any more than received.

    June 2, 2008 at 3:26 pm |
  34. carmen

    First of all there were not "thousands" in the streets, I don't know what street you were on ( unless it's the one that leaves town); secondly, if 4 delegates is not the end of the world why is your campaign making such a big deal of it; thirdly, some people and lots of them have to start telling you and your campaign "enough" because you obviously will not stop until the winner is either figuratively or literally dead. Get out of his way, you psycopaths.

    June 2, 2008 at 3:25 pm |
  35. Diana Beckman


    We know how you feel about the Clintons but let's be fair and objective. The rules were clear and agreed upon before the primary started. Senator Clinton did not protest the rule prior to trailing in the primary. No Candidate express the effect or concern on the Florida or Michigan voters. The RBC was as fair as it could be under the circumstances and lacking that , the rules should stand.

    Now, more than ever, your WORD is BOND when it comes to politics!
    We want NO MORE LIES, NO MORE CHEATING. If we wanted that, we would vote REPUBLICAN. We have had 8 years of that, and this display of hypocrisy, disingenuous, and outright lying to the America people has to stop.

    The world is looking at America. Changing the rules to accommodate self interests. Florida broke the rules, Michigan broke the rules, Senator Clinton broke the rules.

    Yet, they all want to be rewarded for it. It's shameful the behavior of this American politician and the American people who support this kind of hypocrisy.

    The Democractic Party is a brave party, and they have a vision of the future. It's the Party of the People, for the People, in particular the poor and disenfranchised people. But it's not a perfect party. It takes the American People, all of them – white uneducated ones, women, black, latinos, native, european, asians. And what has happened here has polarized the people to the detriment of us all. We are all expected to play by the rules aren't we? Does that include you and Senator Clinton Lanny?

    June 2, 2008 at 3:24 pm |
  36. TMarie

    I agree. I personally wish the DNC had the strength to stick by its own rules... in the alternative... they should have given Clinton all of her delegates. In theend... it doesn't matter...Obama would still have the most pledged delegates and be the party's nominee.

    June 2, 2008 at 3:19 pm |
  37. Kent Fitzsimmons,Illinois

    Obama should just give her 4 delegates back..........give em back. Do not give Hillary a reason to continue her circus to nowhere. Sure, it is a matter of principle...........but who cares..what diffreence can it make? Obama will be the nominee after tomorrow.

    Obama should reject the 4 delegates.......

    June 2, 2008 at 3:14 pm |
  38. Marlon

    I think the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee came up with the best compromise they could under the circumstances. They could have ended up being penalized more severely. Where do people get off thinking they can just break the rules without there been consequences?

    The main thing is the Clinton wanted to have the Michigan and Florida votes to be seated. They will be.

    It really irritates me when the Clinton camp claim to be "for the voters" but the reality is their only concern is winning, no matter how it may impact the party. She is on a mission to get back in the White House not to serve the citizens of this country.

    June 2, 2008 at 3:12 pm |
  39. Ricky Atlanta Ga,

    Ive never seen any story or news about the national polls of polls were obama is leading clinton by 13% ( on CNN home page ) can some one do a story on this? There all these story of old numbers but I think if some one show that obama is winning nationaly by 13% her last argument is done and over with.

    June 2, 2008 at 3:10 pm |
  40. Gary Chandler in Canada

    Yes, why fight over 1/2 a candidate?
    Does it matter to you at all that 55% of 128 is 70, not 73!? 73 of 128 is 57%, and Clinton got 55% in MI, not 57%. So the fight is over one delegate, divided by 2.
    Beats me how you can overlook all the support Obama won in 4 states and dismiss any support in MI to 'give' Hillary a PV lead.
    Mr Davis you won't publish this, but you are a pathetic loser. Mr Obama had nothing to do with the Committee's determination, and he could not 'arbitrarily' over turn the decision.
    He should take the missing 17% in Fla to credentials committee!
    (in FLa 49.8% Clinton, 33% Obama, ??? 17% – fair reflection would add numbers to Obama!)

    June 2, 2008 at 2:56 pm |
  41. Carol

    So give her the four – who cares? She's done.

    June 2, 2008 at 2:52 pm |
  42. Kristen

    Because Obama has good sense. The Michigan primary really was dumb seeing that Clinton competed against herself. So why does Senator Clinton think she should get all of those delegates knowing goodness well that primary was not fair. She can not win anyway so in the spirit of party unity why doesn’t she just step aside gracefully?
    That committee meeting showed how some of Clinton’s supporters are just like her including that Harold Ikes guy. Nothing but loud folks that can not conduct them selves in a professional manner. And Harold whatever his name is cursing like that should be ashamed of himself. Why should Obama give back those delegates, he didn’t give them to himself the rules committee did. This is being petty, Clinton is not loosing by 4 delegates she is loosing by hundreds of them. Stop whining and act like an adult already. We don’t want a cursing president who shoots back beers every time she gets anyways.

    June 2, 2008 at 2:38 pm |
  43. Maritza


    I saw the look on these supporters faces , they not only showed up to support Hillary but also to send a louder message of fairness and a legitimate complaint, had this been Obama's circumstance racism would be screemed very loudly by his supporters, it appears that when an issue fairness and race come up, Obama is very outspoken and the Media is all ears and one sided, and for all puposes Hillary is always held to a much higher and different standard of having to plead and explain her case, clearly media bias has Obama in a much different and favorable light , he just has to speak a few words, repetative rhetotic, what we've heard over and over when it comes to defending the mere thought of any criticism , In the larger political picture , she's shot down , ridiculed, attacked by the clergy of his church and he replies with a simple apology , not just once several times now, the attack on Hillary is well thought out , who cares if he left his chruch, his ties extend far beyond a political move , the damage has already been done.


    June 2, 2008 at 2:37 pm |
  44. Jeff Goldenthal

    The 69-59 split was proposed by Michigan Democrats as a compromise not by the Obama campaign. I believe the Obama campaign actually suggeated a 50-50 split. So the Obama side received 5 less than they wanted. The Clinton side received 4 less than they wanted. Seems fair to me.

    When will the spinning stop. Obama's lead in delegates is by a sliver? As a percentage Obama's lead in delegates far exceeds Clinton's "lead" in popular vote even using Clinton's voodoo math. In fact Clinton is behind in the popular vote.

    BTW Lanny whatever happened to the gas tax holiday? I am looking forward to the introduction of this bill by Senator Clinton. Summer is just around the corner you know.

    June 2, 2008 at 2:31 pm |
  45. Cindy

    I don't see how they could take away any of Hillary's delegates that she earned in the first place. I mean by the rules and laws that is not right. And by doing so they have caused more anger and a greater divide in the Dem party as I see it. I guess they think that they can do as they please since they are the DNC leaders and to heck with the rules. I also think that them giving Obama the undecided votes was wrong.

    Personally I hope Hillary takes her fight to the convention!!


    June 2, 2008 at 2:30 pm |
  46. Matt Deters

    Seeing that the alternative was either a 50/50 split or no votes for Michigan at all, I do not see where the Clinton supporters get off complaining about 4 delegates with 1/2 a vote each. Since the contest held in Michigan was not legal, and did not have Obama's name on the ticket, the resulting delegate allocation has no relation to the illegal primary held in Michigan. Those 59 delegates that Clinton claims were hers were never hers to begin with – the delegates were not assigned with the contested vote in mind, but rather by a compromise put together by Michigan Democrats to reflect the estimated will of Michigan voters, the governor herself being a Clinton supporter. The fact that Clinton emerged at all with an advantage from Michigan is scandalous because a valid legal vote was never held. Shut up about the 4 delegates.

    June 2, 2008 at 2:28 pm |
  47. Fernando (Atlanta)

    I hope Democrats in Florida and Michigan realize how valuable they are for their party and show the party leaders their power by not voting, or voting for McCain. If it was the state parties that violated the rules by switching the primary dates, the DNC should have found a way to penalize the parties and not the voters. Voters, the power is yours!

    June 2, 2008 at 2:22 pm |
  48. Debbie, NJ

    Memo to Lanny. Stop acting like a 2 year old. Will 4 delegates help Hillary to win. Lets see Obama needs 48 Hillary needs 200+. We're not fighting Lanny. Everybody just want to show the Clintons that they don't run the Dem. party. Get it.

    June 2, 2008 at 2:21 pm |
  49. Kim

    The suggestion for the compromise came from the Michigan delegation, as far as I know, not from the Obama campaign.

    The members of the DNC Rules Committee who agreed to this compromise by 19-8 votes include a majority of Clinton supporters (12 Clinton supporters vs. 8 Obama supporters with the rest neutral).

    So how could the Obama campaign possibly be held responsible for the result?

    June 2, 2008 at 2:20 pm |
  50. L Daniel, Loganville, Ga.

    Donna Brazile, who was taken aback at the lack of effort made by the Clinton campaign to "cut a deal" or otherwise "come to the uncommitted superdelegates" in the room, said: "He also could have won on a crucial vote on this Michigan proposal to split the delegation 50-50. And rather than cause a ruckus they gave in. He had the votes. and the Clinton campaign never took the olive branch."

    June 2, 2008 at 2:17 pm |
1 2