Comments on: Michigan Democrats Pitch Splitting Delegates Between Obama, Clinton

By: Who cares!

Who cares! — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:40:10 +0000

Really, I mean like Really Really, who cares? Why don’t all the aggrieved Voters in Michigan and Florida address the People responsible for this sorry mess? It lies [make that a Capital L] with two of them, yea Folks, just two of them, the same two you see bickering everyday on and on about who should be the looser against McCain comes November. Come on Folks, vent your anger on them, they caused it. Vote them both out November, right out of all Public Office!

By: Fla born

Fla born — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:56:26 +0000

If Obama goes by the DNC rules and removes his name from the ballot in Michigan and by the rules doesn’t campaign in either state, it seems to penalize him and give Clinton the win for breaking the rules.
Also, being born and raised in Florida, truth is, the big turnout here was for an admendment to lower property taxes that brought out any and everybody to vote. Since there was no campaigning here in Florida for democratic presidential candidates, and the name Clinton being already very well known was an unfair advantage to Obama. Rules are rules and should be followed by the DNC. Florida and Michigan knew they would not be seated when they broke the rules. If the DNC now allows them to be seated then the rules don’t mean very much.

By: Hunter Hill

Hunter Hill — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:07:17 +0000

To order that the delegates from both states be split equally destroys democracy and tryannizes the voters. The peoples of Michigan and Florida have decided that they would prefer Clinton as a president over Obama. He shouldn’t gain delegates that he legitmately lost, and he would crush democracy by doing so. If he has any faith in the democracy of the United States, he would not only accept the outcomes of Michigan and Florida, he would advocate that the true results be used.

By: Brenda in Michigan

Brenda in Michigan — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:43:27 +0000

I totally agree to the split. In Michigan we were told to vote undecided because Obama and Edwards were not on the ballot. If the others were on the ballot I am sure that Obama would have won. I have a problem when they all agreed not to be on the ballot and then one changed their mind so that they could win. I was always a Hillary person but that changed my mind for voting for her If you cheat to win what’s not to say you would cheat in other things. So, lets be fair and divide it equally.

By: wave06

wave06 — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:31:53 +0000

Does anybodv believe in fairness and playing by the rules? and I am so tired of Florida and it’s everlasting voting problems, The rest of the states followed the rules MI and Fla did not. The ruse to include MI and Fla is only the means to steal an election by increasing Hillary’s delegate count. Besides the voters are not being disenfranchised, individual votes = delegates, delegates = select each parties nominee, Dem vs Rep in General election.

The Fla and MI voters can vote in the General election.

Why not splitt the Fla and MI delegates 50-50?

Answer: no advantage for Sen Clinton

By: Dave Ohio

Dave Ohio — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:12:58 +0000

Why is Florida and Michigan Democrats still crying about not being included in the Primary Elections. The State Democrats in each State were well aware of the rules prior to holding an illegal Primary Election. I assume they wanted to tell the remaining States that they are special and they don’t need to follow the rules, they will make their own rules and the rest of the Nation will have to be happy with their errogance.
I truly feel sorry for the voters in both States for not being counted in this elections. I suggest every day they thank their State Democratic Parties for missing their opportunities. Both elections were outside the rules. Our Country was founded on rules and regulations. These rules and regulations are to be followed by ALL in the USA, they are not their as guidelines.

By: rick becker

rick becker — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:07:21 +0000

You cant simply split the delegates. The only fair thing to do is reduce the number of required delegates to recieve the nomiation, by the total number of delegates up for grabs, divided by the number of people on the ballet. No one know how the vote would happen, thats why we have elections in the first place. No one thought Jessie V. would be govenor of Minnesota, but he won. If a canadate pulled thier name which was not required by the DNC to bad, that was simply thier choice.

By: Ruth Sawyer

Ruth Sawyer — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:57:03 +0000

If all this news concerning Obama had come out before all these elections, I do not believe he would have won as much as he did. So, why should he gain votes he did not earn. Let the people have their vote count. That is what Democracy is supposed to be.

By: Brenda in SC

Brenda in SC — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:40:13 +0000

DNC - it is one thing to split Michigan but another to think about splitting Flordia - all names were on the ballot, Al Sharpton was there on Obama’s behalf and he had commericials running, if you split Florida, you have lost alot of democratic voters.

By: Los LOCOS

Los LOCOS — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:24:56 +0000

The main issue is, that if you count the delegates now, you would be doing all the other democratic candidates who ran prior to dropping out an injustice and would be unfair!!!! Rule bending & braking, If Edwards was to have be able to “run” or have his name on the ballots in Tuesday January 15, 2008 I believe He would have had a very good chance to win Michigan and Florida, above Hillary. But instead On January 30, 2008, Edwards announced that he was suspending his campaign for the Presidency. If you are going to count them now it would be unfair to everyone who supported the other candidates!!!

Hillary play by the RULES, that everyone agreed on!!!!

By: renee

renee — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:13:37 +0000

What you are not realizing is they all agreed to take their names of so that the laws of the primaries would be respected and Hillary did not respect the general agreement and most likely saw an opportunity to create a situation that would later maybe play in her favor. The respect no rules but her own. I am a woman and have so often in the corporate world seen women play like that and this is definitly not the kind of leader one wants. The truth changes too often and excusing a lie should not prevent people from seeing a lyer.

By: Bill Huber

Bill Huber — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:37:31 +0000

The party agreed to the policy set up. Now that Hillary is losing and Obama took his name off the ballot, she is now thinking of the voters. No, she is thinking of Hillary. If she was in the lead you would not hear a word out of her. IT IS ALL ABOUT HILLARY!!! People wake up, she has always been this way. Ask her security staff what her SMILE was about in the white house AND HOW SHE TREATED THEM.

Also, what about her pastor being in jail for illeagal sex with a minor and her husbands sexual activity in the whitehouse. What does that make Hillary? That is what she uses has a guide line for Obama.

By: Robert Girshovich

Robert Girshovich — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:34:37 +0000

Hillary should get what she won 73 delegates Obama was telling demos to vote undecided as a vote for him. What a sneaky politician I guess business as usual in DC.

GOP Bob for Hillary

By: tidho

tidho — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:29:14 +0000

If you want them seated I think 50/50 is fair even though if an election was held I think Hillary would win.

Any election without the candidates name on the ballot should be competely disregarded (shouldn’t upset Hillary being that she’s on tape saying the MI election wouldn’t count). The reason is that you can’t underestimate the ignorance of voters (remember the thousands confused by the - not so confusing - Florida ballots a few years ago?). If Obama were the only name on the ballot he would have gotten overstated results too.

Make it 50/50 then let MI voters take their rath out on their state DNC officials on election day.

By: steve from Oklahoma

steve from Oklahoma — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:27:31 +0000

Here is the undisputed fact….All the Presidential nominees AGREED to NOT count MI or FL…That includes Hillary Clinton. Now she wants to back out of the previous agreement (sorta like her stance on NAFTA) and say she got more of the vote, so she should garner more delegates…..I do not agree! ….Fl and Mi, if the delegates are to be counted should be split evenly 50/50. That is the MOST FAIR and IMPARTIAL treatment. I would further add that if the roles were reversed, I sincerely doubt if Obama would be complaining. But we will never know because he is the front runner. A split of 50/50 is the ONLY FAIR way to seat ANY delegates from either MI or FL!

Oh yea, I neither support Hillary nor Obama. I am a republican who is unhappy with McCain but will vote for him because of my party affiliation.

By: Molly

Molly — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:22:52 +0000

Sounds like a “fixed” plan. Voting is an American Right - not to be tampered with or negotiated. Give Clinton all votes for her - give Obama all votes for “undecided”.
DNC - you must go with the will of the people - not what you think is “best”.

By: Mike-PA

Mike-PA — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:22:20 +0000

A vote, is a vote, is a vote. The people of Fla. and Mi. had a primary and voted. The people did not change the date, the Party made that decision and now the Party wants to penalize the people and take away their vote. The votes should either count as they were cast or the democratic party should suffer the consequences by disenfranchised voters casting their ballots in Nov. for McCain. As far as splitting the delegates evenly 50/50, Obama voluntarily took his name off the ballot. He was not forced to remove his name he chose not to run in Mi.. He deserves no delegates from that state and only removed his name because he knew he would lose the state to Clinton and with his name not on the ballot figured if a challenge occured he could lay claim to all the undecided votes. His name was on the ballot in Fla. and the delegates should be distributed in conjunction with the votes cast. A lot of people paint Clinton as a dirty politician, Obama is covered in dirt also and has the backing of the DNC who is trying to squeak Obama by the voters into the nomination..Do you really believe Obama would have won all those early states if the voters knew then what we now know.

By: Debbie, NJ

Debbie, NJ — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:19:41 +0000

My question to people who feel Hillary should get the actual votes that were counted for her is this. If her name was the only one on the ballot and the other category was “uncommited” and the Michigan voters didn’t all vote because their candidates name wasn’t on the ballot, how do you feel Hillary deserves to get the individual votes. This vote in MI only shows that people who wanted to vote for her came out and a lot of others stayed home. But Hillary and her supporters are desparate for getting points any kind of way.

By: Mel

Mel — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:59:46 +0000

I don’t understand why Obama wants the dellegrates equal shared with Clinton. He toke his name off the Michigan pallet. He doesn’t deserve the delegrates from Michigan or Flordia. Clinton won both states easily, he needs to suck it up and deal with the fact that she won both states and he didn’t. He’s supporters will definity get upset about the whole thing, but most of his supporters are crazy.

By: rl

rl — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:57:37 +0000

Clinton doesn’t have an argument that she should get more delegates BECAUSE THEIR VOTES DIDN’T COUNT!!! DUH!!! The only way to solve this crisis is the EVENLY split the votes 64-64. PLEASE BE FAIR! The rest doesn’t count. Michigan has to pay a penalty for what they did.

64-64 is the only way!