>First, I find it interesting that your candidate agreed to the FL and MI decision, but you do not. It is in his favor, afterall, it awarded him delegates for votes he did NOT receive. I find the decision regarding MI to be against the principals of a democratic electoral process and find it as bad or worse as what happened to Al Gore in 2000.

FWIW, the division of the Michigan delegates was proposed by the Michigan Democratic Committee. It was _their_ compromise.

Frankly, I don't see any good answers there. Obama followed the rules and pulled his name off the ballot. Clinton didn't and as a result, she's getting more delegates.

When the rules regarding the penalties for going early were set, Clinton's representatives all agreed to them. (Of course, that was back when she expected to wrap the nomination up by Super Tuesday, and the party could then magnanimously seat the Florida and Michigan delegates.) Now that it benefits her, she wants to change the rules.

In my view, seating them with half-votes (the minimum penalty allowed by the rules) is the right choice.


>
>Second, she is not lying (although she was certainly stretching the truth previously) when she claims to have received more of the popular vote than Obama today. Given the numbers allowed in from FL and MI (and NOT all were allowed in), she has indeed received the popular vote according to CNN.

Actually, I don't think you can tell based on the numbers available. AIUI, some states don't release the raw numbers from caucuses.

>Anyway, it's all moot. Obama will win the party ticket.

As he should by getting the majority of delegates. Everyone knew going in that that was how you win the nomination.

You can argue about whether that's appropriate, but it is the rules they were playing under.


Tamar