May 31st, 2008
07:23 PM ET
14 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. Perla

    How exactly would it be "convenient" for Obama to not put his name on the ballot, Josh? And how can you seriously suggest that Clinton should be considered the take-all winner of a "contest" without contestants? I think the DNC struck a fair compromise in order to include voters who had been ill-served by their state officials.

    June 1, 2008 12:04 am at 12:04 am |
  2. smw

    Josh, kindly acquire either a knowledge of the history of this development (e.g., Clinton agreeing that the MI delegation wouldn't be seated, Clinton claiming it didn't matter if her name wasn't on the ballot "because those votes won't count anyway) or, should you be aware of this history, a shred of integrity.

    June 1, 2008 12:04 am at 12:04 am |
  3. Patricia in Las Vegas

    Harold Ickes and Hillary Clinton scare the bee-jjebies out of me. They are not democrats and they are not people with the American citizens interests at heart. They are friggin meglomaniacs and all they can focus on is winning. Not what is in the best interests of the American people.

    June 1, 2008 12:05 am at 12:05 am |
  4. Cindy, TN

    I am an Obama supporter. This was the only fair thing to do, and I applaud the DNC for this difficult task that they were forced to do. If the Clinton supporters aren't happy with the results, it could have been a whole lot worse!!.....the committe could have stuck to their original sanction of not allowing ANY votes to count, because Fl and MI BROKE the rules. The DNC should have stuck with their original decision, after hearing the rude Clinton supporters during the hearing. The Ickles guy???Talk about sore loser....he insulted the committe with his FOWL language!!! He doesn't deserve to be on anybody board or committe.

    June 1, 2008 12:05 am at 12:05 am |
  5. Kierthos

    Please. At least 22 of the delegates who fall under "uncommitted" have already said they are planning for voting for Obama. And no, she was not the only one with her name on the ballot. Yes, she was the only major candidate with her name on the ballot, but Dennis Kucinich was unable to remove his name from the ballot, and Christopher Dodd and Mike Gravel's names were on the ballot as well.

    It wouldn't kill you to get your facts straight.

    June 1, 2008 12:05 am at 12:05 am |
  6. Trina in New Mexico

    Josh, you're confused. You must be one of Hillary's loyal, uneducated voters Hillary boasts about! Obama wasn't on the ballot because Michigan broke the rules and there was no point. Your candidate has moved the goal post. Months ago, she agreed the delegates wouldn't count. Now that she thinks it'll help her cause, she wants them counted. Typical Clinton maneuver.

    June 1, 2008 12:05 am at 12:05 am |
  7. Greg,WI

    Yeah Josh... that was the will of the voters. Give Hillary all the delegates. Are you really that dense?

    June 1, 2008 12:05 am at 12:05 am |
  8. John

    Obama did have his name on the Michigan ballot, but he took it off after Michigan moved their primary up "illegally." In any case, I think that the RBC committee did the best job they could with a tough issue to tackle. If 44% of Michigan voters vote uncommitted, then they feel strongly enough to vote against Hillary, and at the moment a vote against Hillary is a vote for Obama.

    June 1, 2008 12:06 am at 12:06 am |
  9. Robert

    Would you like a little cheese with your whine..?

    It's easy to say Hillary should get all of the votes when she was the one who broke the rules and the SIGNED AGREEMENT to remove her name from the ballot. Is that the kind of person you really want in office? Somebody who breaks the rules and changes the rules of their political party in the middle of the game? How lame is that?

    June 1, 2008 12:06 am at 12:06 am |
  10. Mac

    It's a fair decision. Get over it Josh!

    June 1, 2008 12:06 am at 12:06 am |
  11. lanater Concerned world resident

    Why do ppl have such short term memories???? Clinton and all her high profile backers where in favour of the penalty on Florida and Michigan, Obama obeyed Primary rules, when the rules did not in favour the Clintons they decided to chart a different course.......acting like they all care about the voters in Florida and Michigan.

    why would anyone want to seat delegates in an election that was flawed like the Michigan democratic leader said???

    is it really possible that no one else sees this truth or is everyone blinded by the clintonmania.......what makes ppl even think another Clinton in the house will mean a better economy......they're just trying to redeem themselves and save themselves from all the lawsuits against them and use the highest position in the world as a tool to stop all their enemies like they did in the 90's.

    June 1, 2008 12:06 am at 12:06 am |
  12. Judy DiVietro

    Something's not right! I pray the twisted Obama spell is broken and the delegates see she is the better choice! This is wrong!

    June 1, 2008 12:06 am at 12:06 am |
  13. Gloria

    When will this ever end???!!!??? I am totally disgusted with the antics of the Clintons. Rules are rules, and the Clintons should be thanking their lucky stars that they got what they got today. I just hope and pray that the voters in the upcoming primaries really take note!!! This is ridiculous, and the Clintons are both harming Obama, the Democratic party, and more importantly, their own legacy. And this e-mail is coming from a retired, white, unaffiliated Roman Catholic female who tended to vote Republican in the past until I studied Obama and now see him as what the country really needs at this time in its history.

    June 1, 2008 12:06 am at 12:06 am |
  14. Emit R Detsaw

    wake up Josh

    Per the rules, neither candidate should have gotten any delegates. This "compromise" actually benefited Clinton.

    June 1, 2008 12:06 am at 12:06 am |
  15. Jason

    I'm an Obama supporter, and I'm of the opinion that FL and MI should receive NO votes at the convention, since that was the understanding of the voters and the candidates at the time of those primaries. However, I understand what the RBC is trying to do, and I will respect their decision. Let's hope that Hillary's supporters can do the same in the name of party unity.

    June 1, 2008 12:07 am at 12:07 am |
  16. Rico

    Um...Josh....have you followed this at all? Obama's name was not on the ballot because he and all the other major Dem candidates were honoring the wishes of the DNC for Michigan breaking the rules when setting their primary date. How is it convenient for him to not be on the ballot? If anything, it was quite convenient for Clinton to leave her name on the ballot thereby getting all the votes. Heck, Clinton didn't give a poop about Michigan when she expected to win the nomination in a landslide. Then when she falls behind and needs those vote, all of a sudden "voters are getting disenfranchised". I'd say that's pretty convenient.

    June 1, 2008 12:07 am at 12:07 am |
  17. Chi-town gurl

    I'm very happy with the very "fair" decision that the DNC rules and bylaws committee came up with today. I felt especially positive that this committee did not "change" the rules that they invoked months ago for the purpose of satisfying Clinton and her campaign. If she didn't believe in the committee rules, she shouldn't have signed a document a agreeing with the committee's rules to not recognize Florida and Michigan after they defiantly broke committee rules. I have a real problem with Clinton "agreeing" with the committee rules and then going on TV saying "we don't need Florida and Michigan" when she was winning early in the primary season and then recanting her position and wanting to move the goal post late in the primary season as she is losing. I agree with the committee's ruling to allow both states to be seated at 1/2 vote each. That's fair. Perhaps next time (if there is a next time) Ms. Clinton will rethink her position when millions of votes are in question.

    June 1, 2008 12:07 am at 12:07 am |
  18. Moment of Truth

    It is time to get together and make sure that the republicans don't continue to control our lives and the lives of our soliders fighting illegal wars that should never have started! Use our money for our schools, hospitals, and housing! PLEASE don't let the emotions of the primaries take us away from what really matters!

    God bliss you all!

    June 1, 2008 12:07 am at 12:07 am |
  19. Erin

    And Josh.. exactly WHO do you think the 40% who voted "Undeclared" were voting for? 40% of Michigan came out and specifically voted AGAINST Hillary Clinton, yet she should be awarded all of the delegates for the state? The goal of this is to represent what Michigan voted, not to get your candidate extra votes that she didn't earn so she can steal this election. She knew when this primary happend that it wasn't going to count. She's lucky she got the 1/2 that she did get.

    June 1, 2008 12:07 am at 12:07 am |
  20. toli

    he didnt put his name on the ballot because he knew he was going to loose. he knew exactly what he was doing.

    dnc this is a travesty. you better put HIllary on top of the ticket or im voting independent or republican!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    i was sick in 2000 and 2004..................... here we go again in 2008.

    June 1, 2008 12:07 am at 12:07 am |
  21. Jason S Nichols

    Don't blame Obama or the DNC for the actions of the Republican controlled state gov't of FL. They have a history of disenfranchising FL democrats and they succeeded again. In an effort to be fair to FL and MI voters the DNC had to make sure they didn't disenfranchise the other 48 states and territories that voted within the rules. To say that you will vote for a Republican, when it is Republicans that disenfranchised you in the first place is downright stupid. If you don't want to vote for Obama that is your right, but at least vote for an independant.

    June 1, 2008 12:08 am at 12:08 am |
  22. sam

    who cares, she has lost.

    June 1, 2008 12:08 am at 12:08 am |
  23. Carmen-Palmdale, CA

    The American People, This Country all want the same things. It is time to get over the silly bickering and get on with the Bigger Picture. It's time for the American People to unite and vote for a better tomorrow for us and all our grandchildren. This election is just too important to get stuck in the mud with people who keep wanting to look back and rehash everything. We have serious problems to solve. Let's ALL UNITE. . .onward to the General Election with Unity!

    June 1, 2008 12:08 am at 12:08 am |
  24. allen Sutton

    Its called a compromise josh...something you do in politics, considering that the states broke the rules and the Obama campaign who had the votes to inflict their will still conceded delegates in Hillary's favor, should tell you something about yourself. You don't like senator Obama and were not gonna vote for him anyway. Your outrage is targeted at the wrong person, considering HRC and most of her senior staff signed off on the agreement that they would get no votes. I think the DNC was more than fair.
    A rational person would think so...but clearly you are not rational, you only care about your candidate, not your party.

    June 1, 2008 12:08 am at 12:08 am |
  25. Michael

    It is done, now can we come together as a party, rally behind the nominee and win the White House. I hope and pray Hillary Clinton will see that fighting this all the way to the convention will do nothing but further divide the party and hand John McCain the White House. We as Democrats must learn from this, try to make it better so we don't go thru this in four years, unite and put a democrat in the White House. Let us stop with the personal attacks on the candidates, focus on the issues between the Democrats and Republicans and put a Democrat in the White House.

    I will agree this was not a perfect solution but we live in an imperfect world so it is unrealistic to expect a perfect solution. I am not for Clinton or Obama, I am for a Democrat, this is about us as a party not Clinton or Obama. Voting for McCain simply out of anger does not solve any problems, it only proves to the Republicans right in that we cannot come together for a common cause as a party. I ask all posters to this blog to stand with me when I say, let us now unite behind whoever the nominee will be and win the White House. Let us not descend into feelings of anger, division and retaliation, let us rise up, say with pride that we are Democrats and win the White House in November.

    I pray for unity, I pray for cooler heads to prevail and I pray we can win the White House in November and put either Clinton or Obama in the White House. Anything less and we prove the Republicans right about our party and that is we are divisive and cannot rally behind a common cause. NOTE: I posted this once but CNN saw fit to take it off, if they take it off again I will know all they want is negative comments.

    June 1, 2008 12:08 am at 12:08 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