The Democratic Rules and Bylaws Committee agreed to seat both Michigan and Florida delegates with half-votes, based on Party rules.
Under the deal, Florida will seat its delegates based on the outcome of the January primary, with 105 pledged delegates going to Clinton, and 67 going for Obama. Each delegate will get a half vote as a penalty. The committee was unanimous on that decision.
The big sticking point apparently was Michagan. The Clinton camp was insisting that Obama shouldn’t get any pledged delegates in Michigan since he “chose not to put his name on the ballot”. The Clintons felt that she should get 73 pledged delegates with 55 delegate remaining “uncommitted”. Obama’s camp insisted that the only fair solution was to split the pledged delegates in half with 64 delegates going to each side.
The Michigan Democratic Party offered a compromise that would split the difference between the two camps. Clinton would get 69 delegates, and Obama would get 59. Like Florida, each will get a half vote as a penalty.
That deal passed 19-8. It is interesting to note that out of the 27 committee members, 13 of those members support Hillary Clinton. Instead of the vote breaking down supporter lines, it shows that some of the Hillary supporters were able to see the big picture.
None of this went over well with the Clinton supporters who came to pressure the committee into full seating for Clinton. There were many flareups as Clinton supporters interupted committee members as they tried to explain their support of the compromise.
Harriet Christian, a Clinton supporter was thrown out of the committee meeting because she started yelling at committee members. Here you see her just after being ejected:
Note to Harriet:
What more did you want? Florida got the full boat of delegates that Hillary “won”. She got the majority of delegates out of Michigan. Are you mad that they only count for a half-vote? Look at the party rules. You know what RULES are, doncha? They are the guidelines we use to keep things organized, up front, and transparent. Would you have rather we went back to where the party bosses picked our candidates in smoke-filled rooms? Do you think Hillary OR Obama would have had a chance under that old system?
I couldn’t believe your accusation that Obama was only in the race because a woman was running. Why does this have to be boiled down to a misogyny issue? If you vote for Hillary you are a racist, or if you vote for Obama you are a misogynist? Have you bumped your head?
I was listening to John Elliot on rerun a little while ago. I heard it the other night, but hearing it again made me want to reach through my dashboard and bitch-slap the woman who had called. She told John — and I will paraphrase — that the black man was able to vote fifty years before women got a chance to vote and that was proof that this is a misogynist society. She feels it is a ‘woman’s turn’.
This is what I am not getting: Are we supposed to not judge a person based on their gender or race — unless they are running for president?
Right here in Washington, our woman governor (she is our second woman governor — we have never had a black governor), being a super delegate, decided to back Barack Obama. Because she didn’t vote with her vagina, she is now under fire by the state’s feminists who support Hillary.
Another thing, Harriet, if Obama were behind, and we had this same battle, would you be flying off the handle like this? Would you be arguing that all of these votes must count?
Probably not, huh? You probably would have stayed in Manhattan, where none of this effects you anyways. You voted, and your vote counted, didn’t it?
Obama played by the rules. He has been winning by the rules. He will win the general election, provided Hillary hangs it up after Tuesday. There is no logical reason for her to be staying in any more.