Clinton may appeal Michigan ruling
Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign is reserving her right to appeal a decision by the panel of Democratic National Committee that would allocate some Michigan delegates to rival Barack Obama even though he wasn’t on the ballot.
Harold Ickes, an adviser of the Clinton campaign, announced the threat as the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee neared the conclusion of a day of deliberations to revisit its earlier decision to strip the Michigan and Florida delegations of their votes.
Both campaigns agreed with a party decision to restore the Florida and Michigan delegations but cut in half their votes.
With Florida and Michigan partially restored, the magic number needed to win the party’s presidential nomination has risen to 2,118. It has been 2,026.
That means Obama needs about 60 more delegates to clinch to nomination.
Although the party rulings narrow Obama’s lead, Clinton remains a long shot.
The Obama campaign welcomes the rulings. “We’re extremely gratified that the commission agreed on a fair solution that will allow Michigan and Florida to participate in the convention,’’ Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said in a press statement.
Clinton campaign officials confirmed the threat to challenge the Michigan delegate apportionment does not guarantee it will be filed.
Clinton is expected to reassess her candidacy after the final primaries are held Tuesday in South Dakota and Montana, deciding whether to continue her long shot big through the party’s national convention in August.
Saturday’s vote makes a decision to continue harder to justify.
“I actually took some comfort in the language of reserving a challenge,’’ said Alexis Herman, co-chair of the rules and bylaws panel and a former Labor secretary in the Clinton administration.
Earlier this evening, the rules and bylaws panel voted unanimously to fully restore Florida’s delegation to the national convention on the condition that each delegate have only a half vote.
Ickes, also a member of the panel, objected to a similar proposal for Michigan because it allocated some of the delegates to Obama even though he was not on the ballot.
Ickes said the Michigan proposal would “hijack’’ the will of the voters. “You cannot take delegates from one candidate and give to another.’’
Some Michigan’s voters cast ballots for uncommitted delegates, which are recognized under the Democrats’ rules as a separate class of delegates.
The Michigan proposal passed 19 to 8.
Earlier the panel rejected by 15 to 12 a proposal to fully restore Florida’s delegates to the national party’s August convention.
Some audience members who were unhappy with that first vote began chanting, “Denver. Denver. Denver.’’
The action by the panel means Clinton will be awarded 52.5 delegates, Obama will receive 33.5 delegates and John Edwards will receive 6.5 delegates from Florida.
Clinton will received 34.5 delegates and Obama will receive 29.5 delegates from Michigan.
In addition, the rules and bylaws panel exercised its authority to award three add-on delegates to Florida and two to Michigan.
Both Michigan add-one delegates are Obama supporters—James Hoffa, president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and Dick Long of the United Auto Workers union.
Ickes said he thinks the three additional Florida delegates will be split between Clinton and Obama.
| 
Email This
Advertisements
Good. I am glad someone has the balls to challenge this circus of a committee. Every vote should count. The constitution trumps party loyalty any day.
OBAMA
Selected not Elected
By a bunch of Democrats In Name Only
Unelectable
Mondale all over again
My Party has forfeited the Right to call themselves Democratic
Count Every Vote
Let Every Vote Count
Suck on the water bottles.
its not like they did not vote on it. why challenge? what, reward states that broke the rules?
No issue with what occurred today, but the two ploitical parties should really change the system in order to have some sense of true democracy.
As I aksed before, what is the point of a primary in April, May or june if the parties insist that everone but the front-runner get out?
If the race is not close why have a primary in April or later? If the race is close, then the second place candidate is ordered out so why have a primary?
There are many solutions, one is three of four major “Super Tuesdays” but there really should be some other method.
nonaubiz…not a bad point…primary season is way too long
and regional primaries might make more sense…but here is
where the democrats srewed themselves…they decided that
the delegates from the primary states would be proportioned
between the candidates in such a way that even if a candidate won with more than 50% ..they still only got
some of the delegates..that is why the obama clinton race
is so close and why she is still making the argument that
she will be ahead in the popular vote and has won
more primaries in states needed for the dems to win
in november..the republicans don;t have that
problem…its winner take all…and that establishes
an earlier end to their season leaving more time
to raise money, less divisivness.and in a year when you
would think that the democrats have a lock on the
white house..McCain is beating Obama like a drum
Con-
Agreed and here’s the real problem for my (dem) party. We may nominate a very liberal person and will be opposed by a liberal republican.
That is a tough scenario and my biggest fear is that the majority of the party leaders not only do see it; if it’s put in their face they will deny it.
I see an opportunity for the democrats to win big in the House and Senate and lose the White House.
Worse if they win the White House I see the result is a confirmation of all that is wrong with democratic leadership; loony lefty judges, tax, tax, tax, tax and grow the government to help those who should help themselves but don’t.
This is a disaster for the next thirty years of democratic rule. That’s why I support Hillary. Like her or hate her, she will govern from the center. That may be because the Clintons only care about polls, it may be for any number of selfish self-centered reasons.
I could care less. IT IS HOW she would govern. That will result is a continuation of center government, which is in the best interest of this country.
believe it or not I fully agree with you nonaubiz…hillary
would govern from the center ..her cabinet would be guys
like bob rubin..and i wouldn’t have a problem with her frankly…Obama has a lot of issues….apart from his ultra
liberal approach to just about everything…there is is wife
funny i could see Obama as president ..but not michelle
as first lady..that doesn’t work for me
So Obama for Pres, Rubin takes the VP and we get Hillary to sit in as first lady again?
not quite..McCain for president…Romney for VP..and
Bob Rubin gets sec of treasury again
Great concept, and thanks for taking the time to publish it; really opened my eyes for some new perspectives that I hadn’t thought of before.
Pretty cool post – raises some interesting points for debate. I just stumbled upon your blog this morning and wanted to say that I have really liked browsing some of the posts. Anyways, I’ll be subscribing to your feed and I hope to read more very soon!