May 31st, 2008
07:23 PM ET
15 years ago

Full Michigan delegation with half-vote to be seated by Dems

WASHINGTON (CNN) - The Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws
Committee on Saturday voted to seat all Michigan delegates to its convention, giving each a half-vote and dividing them to give Hillary Clinton a slight edge over Barack Obama.

The 19-8 vote gives 69 pledged delegates to Clinton and 59 to frontrunner Obama - each with half a vote because Michigan was penalized, like Florida, for moving its primary ahead in the campaign season.

Clinton adviser and RBC member Harold Ickes said, "Mrs. Clinton has instructed me to reserve her rights to take this to the Credentials Committee."

Filed under: DNC • Michigan
soundoff (760 Responses)
  1. Young People for Obama

    I can't believe how Harold Ickes acted at that meeting!! He showed his trueself, How can the HIlliary Campaingn expect to seat all delegates with her? I wish they would have given her full delegation just to prove she still can't win!! That still would have been a 10 delegate split they basically did the same thing by giving half votes If math serves me correct 69\2 is 34.5 and 59\2 is 29.5 delegates and if you just add the 59 to 69 difference it's only a 5 delgate difference the woman should be happy

    A Proud Democrats who supports President

    May 31, 2008 11:58 pm at 11:58 pm |
  2. Alida

    The Democratic party OBVIOUSLY is full of a bunch of HYPOCRITES. How do you say one thing and then change your mind later? Not too mention, Hillary agreed to not count these votes and then RENEGS later when she is losing? I highly doubt she would even care about Michigan or Florida if she was winning. If the voters of those states are angry, they need to be angry with their state committees. DUMB DUMB DUMB. If the Democratic Party cannot even figure out their internal issues, how can I expect them to run our government? No thank you.

    May 31, 2008 11:58 pm at 11:58 pm |
  3. Ken

    Given that Hillary said she wouldn't participate, I don't think it'd be right to reward her for breaking her pledge and participating anyways... That said, the question boils down to whether or not you think you can ascertain the will of the people from a one-name ballot. I know many people support the same kind of :"democracy" you see in tin-pot dictatorships where this kind of thing flies... but we really should have a better way of allocating delegates here in the states.

    May 31, 2008 11:58 pm at 11:58 pm |
  4. Richard

    The result was backed by the Michigan Democratic party. Chances are that Obama would have won Michigan. Clinton is in this solely for self interest, and wants to give herself a shake, before her legacy is remembered for nasty politics and Monica only.

    May 31, 2008 11:59 pm at 11:59 pm |
  5. Leah DiMarco, Texas

    Josh – Since Hillary was the only one with her name on the ballot it was NOT a fair election. Therefore she should NOT have gotten all of the delegates. Hillary said before the election in Michigan that she KNEW THE VOTES WOULD NOT COUNT. Come on now and play fair.

    June 1, 2008 12:00 am at 12:00 am |
  6. MD in CT

    Josh, you forget that it was the Michigan State Democratic Committee that suggested the compromise that the DNC adopted. Pelosi, in particular, had nothing to do with it.

    I ask the Clinton leadership to focus on the comments of Josh as expressing the terrible negative effect of the kind of animosity that is being generated. It is Obama's obligation to stop the destructive hostility and negative comments by his supporters. You must do the same.

    This is a test of the core of each candidate and their real goal. Is it simply for personal glory or is it for the good of the country? Someone has to lose but that does not mean that another important job is not waiting either of you. What you really are will show on how you act in the next few days.

    June 1, 2008 12:00 am at 12:00 am |
  7. Chris

    to josh in comment #1:

    are you serious? obama conveniently took his name off of the ballot?

    no sir, i'm sorry, you've got your facts wrong. he was following the policies of his party as set forth by the DNC in a measure signed by BOTH clinton and obama. it was only after she secured more votes in both michigan and florida than obama that she started to fight for both of those state's rights to have their delegates seated. you didn't see her fighting for them when the measure was signed, did you? on top of that, the only reason she secured more votes than obama is simply because he followed the party mandate and she didn't. seems rather convenient for her rather than him, don't you think?

    June 1, 2008 12:00 am at 12:00 am |
  8. mary cleveland, ohio

    It doesn't matter whose names were on the ballot ,because Michigan broke the rules, the candidates knew they broke the rules, and Hillary Clinton should get down on her knees and thank God that she got what she got. She didn't deserve anything out of Michigan and Florida, and Obama shouldn't have either. See, Mi. and Fla. broke the rules, and the penalty was that those states lost their right to have any delegates at all. So, today was a present to both Hillary and Obama. Take it and go away quietly. Today was an unnecessary waste of time and resources. The rules were broken and these states are still saying they were not wrong in what they did.

    Please ask Hillary to stop, because she is just giving McCain things to use against the Democratic Party. Hillary should accept her defeat like a woman with some self-respect. She is just making people hate her and our party.

    June 1, 2008 12:00 am at 12:00 am |
  9. Real patriot

    Wow josh, your ignorance is amazing.
    You do know HillRod agreed that that state be stripped of its delegates before it voted right? Its funny how her position shifts when she needs the delegates.
    How about the fact that a significant portion of michigan went out and voted agains hillary even though she was the ionly one on the ballot?

    You probably want to throe out all the votes that werent for Hillary in michigan right?

    so much for the champion of the voters, this is just greed

    June 1, 2008 12:00 am at 12:00 am |
  10. Raindog

    Say goodnight Gracie. Obama will not win the general election and he has caused this party to split in a way that will take years to repair. To all those obama folks who just wanted Hillary and all of us who support her to just shut up...fine. We will. We will shut up and vote for the rest of the Democratic line up but forget about getting our votes for your "Annointed one" go ahead and let this New Age huckster lead you to defeat. This party has just told the people of Fl. and Mich. that they are only half a person...sound familiar? Next they can promise them 40 acreas and a mule. Anyone remember that New Hamp. got a special treatment so they could break the rules too? Course not. To hell with party loyalty. We will show the party the same loyalty all of those two faced switching delegates showed Hillary. Either write in Hillary, vote for Nadar , the Greens...anybody but Obama and his unpatriotic wife. Little late to be resignning from the church goofball. Actually, had he stayed he might have at least showed a little integrity now he just looks like every other politician...oh yeah that's right . He is.

    June 1, 2008 12:01 am at 12:01 am |
  11. NJ Democrat

    So because Obama took his name off the ballot IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES BOTH HE AND HILLARY AGREED UPON, he should get ZERO delegates? Are you implying that had he kept his name on the ballot, he would have received 0% of the vote? This logic is totally delusional. In fact, the fact that Obama's name was not on the ballot HURT HIS DELEGATE TOTAL. He would have finished much closer to Hillary. If Hillary and her supporters care so much about the will of the electorate, where is their concern for the Michigan Obama supporter?

    June 1, 2008 12:01 am at 12:01 am |
  12. Trina in New Mexico

    Obama wasn't even on the ballot. Those delegates should NOT have been seated! Hillary ... shame on you! You can't even "steal" the election, sweetie. The lady in the pantsuit needs to sing!

    Naaaah naaaah ... naah naah naaaah naaa ... hey hey hey ... goooood byeeeee.

    June 1, 2008 12:01 am at 12:01 am |
  13. Lee in Fort Worth


    If there is only one horse in a race, it is a race?, In Michigan there was only one horse in the race, and Obama did not put his name on the ballot because the DNC had stated that the votes would not count.
    This was a fair way to get the votes to count Michigan. The word hate is a strong word that should never be used. I am sorry that you are not happy, if you are Michigan you need to be unhappy with your state party officers, not the DNC, The DNC made the rules and Michigan and Florida did not follow the rules.

    June 1, 2008 12:01 am at 12:01 am |
  14. harris

    Clinton had more supporters on the panel. Why should Obama get penalized for following the rules?

    June 1, 2008 12:01 am at 12:01 am |
  15. Helen, GA

    It is the last nail in DNC coffin. I am moving to John McCain now.

    June 1, 2008 12:01 am at 12:01 am |
  16. Darren in Canada

    Looking from outside your great country I'm puzzled by comments like those made by Josh. Hillary Clinton got 55% of the vote and her name was the only one one the ballot. How can you suggest that she should get 100% of the delegates with 55% of the vote?

    The people chanting "Denver! Denver!" should have been more truthful and changed "McCain! McCain!"

    June 1, 2008 12:01 am at 12:01 am |
  17. Missy, TX

    Josh, You sound ridiculous!!

    June 1, 2008 12:02 am at 12:02 am |
  18. And So

    Josh, you obviously have Problems
    Thats the problem with hillary's people, We Want All and none for the opponent.
    So because he followed the rules and pulled his name of the ballot like other candidates did, he should be penalized by not being awarded any delegates? including any of the uncommited who someone hillary people were arguing should be Split. I mean for goodness sakes, The Uncommited are those who voted AGAINST hillary, how can hillary people argue that they should split the uncommited?

    June 1, 2008 12:02 am at 12:02 am |
  19. Franki

    How can someone honestly think that this was not fair. I think that if Michigan did what they were suppose to do then Obama would have carried this state in the election and Clinton would not have a leg to stand on. Funny how it was only when she was losing she was concern about MI and Fl.

    June 1, 2008 12:02 am at 12:02 am |
  20. Double speak

    There has to be some penalty for FL and MI otherwise what is the point of having rules? So HRC, AKA the champion of justice, does not want 40% of the uncommitted votes and 30,000 write-in votes to count in MI? She knows the majority of those voters wanted to vote for Obama but this is not about anybody's right to vote it is about Clinton's hunger for power. And don't give me that he took his name off the ballot crab. He took it off because he was told it would not count. You can not punish him for playing by the rules. HRC knows she can't win. She is a Yale graduate people. I think she can add.

    HRC with her talk of sexism and cover-ups is deliberately polarizing the party so she can force herself on the VP spot. She is sending Obama a message that he can not win without her. She has the right to continue on in the race but Obama does not have the right to choose his own VP. For God's sake how can people be so blind?

    June 1, 2008 12:02 am at 12:02 am |
  21. ANGIE

    let me tell you josh if you watched the whole thing you would have heard all the canidates were instructed to take their names off the ballot but hillary wanted to leave her name because she likes to play dirty politics dont you know the CLINTON NAME IS WELL KNOWN and she knows that and thats why she lost because she was cocky about this from the beginning she said to herself there is no way obama can beat me im a CLINTON and everybody will vote for me thats why she did not care about fl and mi in the begining let me tell you when this started out i was proud of her me being a woman but hillary has shown some true colors throughout this process and i have to say i dont like the colors i have seen but if she ends winning i will vote for her im not gonna be happy about it but there is no way im voting for mccain had enough of the 7 republican years

    June 1, 2008 12:02 am at 12:02 am |
  22. Roll Bama Roll!!!

    Michigan broke the rules. Clinton agreed to the sanctions against Michigan. Your point is moot.

    June 1, 2008 12:03 am at 12:03 am |
  23. Dennis

    The suggestion that the DNC is biased in favor of Senator Obama because they gave him delegates is absurd. If they had given Senator Clinton all of the delegates, that would have been bias. This is a compromise. Senator Clinton had been championing a compromise or a solution to seating Michigan's delegates, and yet, when one is finally presented, and by Michigan's Democratic party no less, her campaign says they will never agree to Senator Obama getting any delegates from the state. Where is the compromise in that?

    June 1, 2008 12:04 am at 12:04 am |
  24. MP-pennsylvania

    If Hillary didn't like it she should not have agreed to penalize MI and FL, and not have former DNC chairman who voted for it in her campaign.

    Even she get as she wishes she is still behind.

    Stop taking down OUR PARTY, it is not CLINTON's property.

    June 1, 2008 12:04 am at 12:04 am |
  25. CJM


    I hope your happiness in life is not based on this election. Hatred for others destroy you as a person. Choose to be happy with who you are regardless of the outcome.

    June 1, 2008 12:04 am at 12:04 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31