Hey, rules are for other people

I guess that’s what Michigan Democrats think. They want to split the Democratic delegates between Clinton and Obama even though Obama didn’t bother to be placed on the ballot. And they want to be seated at the Democratic national convention. The Thoughtful Conservative says it’s a good idea. (And to him my hat is tipped!) I disagree.

It was Clinton’s strategy to stay on the ballot in a state that had upset the Democratic National Committee. Her campaign took the risk. Obama shouldn’t be allowed to slide into that now that the race is close. The bigger question is earlier in the argument: should the Michigan delegates be seated at all since they knew it wouldn’t count?

Read more from My Way News.

Clinton has argued that she should get 73 delegates based on the results of the Jan. 15 primary, which she won – 18 more than Obama.

Obama, who removed his name from the ballot, wants the 128 pledged delegates split evenly, 64-64.


  1. No Florida or Michigan delegates should be seated since they were duly warned that if they voted early they would not count. Now they should pay the price. This is meaningless other than a good chance to see if the Democrats will even stand up for themselves. Not likely in my opinion. You can see that both of the candidates are waffling. The mark of true leaders!

  2. What??? She should take the majority of the delegates because she bet that the party wouldn’t follow the rules? This is precisely what drives me nuts about her. He followed the rules–at least the spirit of them, I don’t know the particulars–and for this he is accused of sliding in? Michigan shouldn’t be seated at all, but if it is, the even split would have the effect of maintaining the status quo.

  3. Kathryn, I challenge you to set aside your candidate preference for a minute. What if it’s your your son that had made the effort to put his name on the ballot for class president, and then an heir apparent waltzed in and declared a tie?

  4. What if the democratic party holds their breath and follows the rules? You can’t change the rules in the middle and claim that it’s fair just because the cheater worked hard for the advantage.

  5. That’s fine with me! Especially since Michigan and Florida are swing states.

  6. I’m not necessarily saying its a good idea, although I admit it would look like that. What I mean is that the Democratic party and the candidates would be wise to accept that as a good compromise that will get the whole mess out of the way.

    I wouldn’t mind seeing the Democrats fight about it till 2012 myself. 🙂

  7. Michigan is not a swing state. It won’t be either.

    And Cindy, Obama followed the rules. Hillary didn’t.

  8. Shawn, explain how Obama followed the rules and Hillary didn’t.

  9. Dave Frank says:

    “even though Obama didn’t bother to be placed on the ballot”

    Cindy, come on you know that isn’t true. He took his name off the ballot. You make it sound like he didn’t go through the effort in the first place. From what I understand he couldn’t remove his name from the Florida race without dropping out entirely. I agree with Kathryn, the rules were clear. Clinton, not surprisingly, is trying to ignore them.


  10. Dave, Obama CHOSE not to have his name on the ballot. Why does he get 50% of the delegates now?

    Clinton’s not trying to ignore them. MICHIGAN is trying to ignore them. If Michigan is successful in swaying the DNC, then Clinton should get the delegates she won from the election in that state.

    How hard can this be?

  11. Kathryn says:

    We really need Shawn, but as I understand it…

    The DNC decided that states setting their primaries before a certain date would not be seated at the convention. When Michigan and Florida set their primaries ahead anyway, the DNC directed candidates not to participate in those primaries. This is as wrong as it can be, but the party gets to set it’s own rules. Most candidates tried to comply with the rules by removing their names from the ballot. Clinton didn’t.

    As for “how hard can this be,” it appears it can be ridiculously, exquisitely, painfully hard. You gotta wonder how this party expects to govern when they can’t even manage a primary. Makes me glad we don’t have a parliamentary system. Messed up as it is, I think they put their stake in the ground and they shouldn’t try to move it now.

  12. Al Goreleone says:

    Our Democratic Party super-delegate system will take full effect during the convention. It is really just a way to make regular delegates feel like they are involved but we will twist the arms of the super-delegates to appoint the candidate that we, the insiders, really want at that time

  13. Dave Frank says:


    I wholeheartedly agree with you. The Michigan delegates shouldn’t be seated at all, but if they are they should be given no effect by splitting them in half. Clinton is the one arguing they should count as they stand. That ain’t following the rules in my book.

  14. Obama was under the advice from the DNC that Michigan would not be seated (along with every single other Democratic candidate). He followed the rules. By saying he didn’t, you are kind of lying.

    If anything OTHER than not seating the delegates whatsoever happens, the rules will not have been followed. Whether they seat 1 or 100%

  15. Kathryn says:

    No one said Obama didn’t follow the rules. I think Cindy is making an argument about fairness, from a campaign perspective. So am I, really. Problem is, there is no fair way to seat delegates that aren’t supposed to be there at all, and it really isn’t fair to exclude those delegations either. Given a choice between not fair and not fair, I’d stick to the rules; at least there is a common point of reference.

  16. Dave Frank says:

    Of course splitting them 50/50 gives them essentially no effect right? So I can see that as a compromise. A bad compromise, but a compromise nonetheless.

  17. Kathryn says:

    Right, Dave. If there is going to be a compromise, that is the best one.

  18. El gato says:

    “Problem is, there is no fair way to seat delegates that aren’t supposed to be there at all, and it really isn’t fair to exclude those delegations either.”

    Just why isn’t it fair to exclude them? This is not actually an election. It’s just a party procedure for selecting a candidate. As such they set the rules for the procedure and if you don’t follow the rules, and have been warned about what will happen if you break the rules, then you aren’t part of the procedure. It’s quite simple and we’ll see if the Democrats, and the loudmouth Dean, actually have any principles.

  19. Kathryn says:

    I agree with you, Gato. I think I said that twice already. The party gets to set the rules.

    What I mean about excluding delegations has more to do with the generic sense of the word “fair” than with correct procedure. If I were voting in Michigan, I would feel disenfranchised and jerked around by the party, the state legislature, and so forth. If I were a party member in Michigan, I would feel I had a right to representation at the convention, as in “Hey! That’s not fair!”