Edwards weighs in on Michigan

Mark, Northern MI — Sat, 31 May 2008 18:26:07 GMT

And now former Gov. Blanchard of MI says "I don't think anyone heard that their "votes won't count"" because he says that the NH Public radio statement by Clinton that "everyone knows that the Michigan votes don't count" was not heard in Michigan.

This process is becoming very, very scary. The obvious partisanship on the rules committee is completely disgusting.

Edwards weighs in on Michigan

campdog — Sat, 31 May 2008 18:27:03 GMT

John Edwards is a very nice man that has a knack for always stating what everyone else finds to be obvious.

Yes, give Obama all the uncommitted and Clinton the votes that she earned.

Edwards weighs in on Michigan

Bonnie, Ut — Sat, 31 May 2008 18:29:40 GMT

Thanks John Edwards. I have really felt you needed to have some in-put in this mess. Please don't go away, we need you, Obama needs you.

Edwards weighs in on Michigan

Geoff in Brooklyn — Sat, 31 May 2008 18:30:11 GMT

It is worth noting that whether the committee adopts the Levin proposal or whether they seat in accordance with the primary (but with 50% power) makes very little difference. Hilary nets either 10 (Levin proposal) or 9 (seat all at 50%) delegates.

So, 19 in FL, 9 or 10 in MI = max of 29 for Clinton, plus 6 more from supers, minus at least 4.5 from Edwards delegates in MI = about a 30 delegate gain for Clinton.

Edwards weighs in on Michigan

Dr B, Phoenix, AZ — Sat, 31 May 2008 18:31:34 GMT

The Hillary supporters who are trying to cite precedence re: uncommitted votes staying as uncommitteds need to cede the fact that (I'd wager) there was NO OTHER circumstance in which a full range of voting options was not reflected. If everyone is on the ballot, then, yes, uncommitteds can be apportioned according to the fair reflection concept. There is no way to do that when only Hillary is on the ballot. If you want to do some extrapolation of the fair reflection concept, you'd have to note that 40% of the voting populace went out of their way, when told their votes wouldn't count, to vote AGAINST Hillary and by that understanding are not likely to want her to gain everything from MI and Obama (or even Edwards and Obama) gains nothing. It's not realistic, it's not democratic and it's disingenuous to suggest that those 40% of voters really wanted to choose uncommitted as opposed to a non-Clinton name which did not appear.

Edwards weighs in on Michigan

voters — Sat, 31 May 2008 18:32:01 GMT

I don't understand how Hillary and her supporters in the bylaw meeting state that the MI primary is fair. How is this a representation of the vote when most people did not vote? Second, it is important to note that voters rights are different than breaking the rules. FL and MI had an opportunity to change the date of their primaries and chose not to. This is different from 2000 when votes were not counted for Al Gore. Polls were not open or closed early which diesnfranchised voters. It is wrong to hold an election the legislators in MI and FL. These states violated voters rights by desiring to go early while not thinking about the voters. If the uncommitted MI votes are not counted than this is disenfranchising voters by the mere assumption that Hillary votes count, but not the votes against her. This is a lawsuit aganist Clinton.

Edwards weighs in on Michigan

Eric, Salinas, CA — Sat, 31 May 2008 18:35:12 GMT

I agree with John Edwards that there is no correct way to ascertain how much of the uncommitted goes to which of the early candidates that are longer running, and many whom have endorsed Barack Obama, and thus should all go to Obama as he is the only candidate that wasn't "Desperate" Hillary and who matters. It sure looks like the desperate ones are trying to pull a fast one but having the uncommitted vote all go uncommitted and thus poachable by their desperate candidate.

That better not happen or there'll be some real problems happening. Hopefully compromise will win out as both sides give an inch to gain an equitable decision today for both candidates.

Go Discovery!
Go Obama 08/12!

Edwards weighs in on Michigan

Roofin Reality, Houston, Tx. — Sat, 31 May 2008 18:36:24 GMT

Since Edwards and Richardson have both endorsed Obama, it stands to reason that Obama gets all of those votes. To say otherwise, is a bit disingenious.
Biden, who hasn't yet endorsed, was trailing bad, so I'd be willing to split one percent to show true compromise. But really, to argue that Obama should get 0%, or anything less than 40% is just not something I would argue if I were on either side of this equation. I like (no scratch that, LOVE) winning, but fairly.

Edwards weighs in on Michigan

Leander, Albany NY — Sat, 31 May 2008 18:38:52 GMT

I appreciate Senator Edward's support of Barack Obama, but it seems to me he's always a little late in making his position known. We needed your opinion months ago, today it's just a drop in the bucket. He needs to be a more effective and vociferous advocate.

Michigan should be 50/50 and no Superdelegates from either state should have a vote. It wasn't a real contest any argument to the contrary has some serious logical fallacies to overome. The state representatives got them into this mess they don't deserve more of a voice than their people. Lets get this over with.

Edwards weighs in on Michigan

kelley, portland, oregon — Sat, 31 May 2008 18:40:01 GMT

it's a shame that by the time most of us got to our primaries, the likes of Edwards, Biden, etc., were no longer an option.

Edwards weighs in on Michigan

donna — Sat, 31 May 2008 18:40:29 GMT

The RBC meeting today is not about Hillary, Obama, or Edwards. It is about Hillary's base of support, that the DNC, and Barack, understandablly hope not to alienate, or offend, irrevocably.

With the disccusion of 'appeasement' so much in our news cycle of late, it would seem that Obama gets it. He is a master politican, and that is a good thing when that skill is tempered by a deep sense of decency.

We need only look at the positive movement in the nationwide Gallop polls toward Obama, to appreciate his team's proficient strategy.

Edwards weighs in on Michigan

Dee Dee Walters, Albany NY — Sat, 31 May 2008 18:42:40 GMT

This is certainly special. We've got 30-40 people that sit around a table and they decide who their nominee will be. Why not just get this crew together ever four years to do the deed, and then just save all that time and money of campaigning and voting?

Edwards weighs in on Michigan

Feedup Michigan Voter — Sat, 31 May 2008 18:44:45 GMT

I think the Uncommitted vote should go to Mother Teresa. Why is what I think any better or worse then what Edwards thinks?

Edwards weighs in on Michigan

USA - A Model Democracy — Sat, 31 May 2008 18:46:06 GMT

This meeting shows that USA political leaders make their own rules and break them themselves when it suits them. What a model for rest of the world!!!

Edwards weighs in on Michigan

Steve, California — Sat, 31 May 2008 18:46:42 GMT

John Edwards? Wasn't he the guy who ran as John Kerry's running mate in 2004?

If we knew what Edwards thought about the uncommitted votes in Michigan we could have avoided this mess. Why didn't he speak up sooner?

This is just another example of an ex-politician who thinks he can wave his magic wand and get his own way. The only problem is John Edwards lost the magic a long time ago.

Edwards weighs in on Michigan

New Obama Supporter — Sat, 31 May 2008 18:48:58 GMT

Just so this is clear, Obama got zero votes in Michigan, and now he gets 40% of the delegates? He truely is the messiah! Can Barack also make water into wine?

Edwards weighs in on Michigan

REality Check — Sat, 31 May 2008 18:49:06 GMT

Chuck, GET REAL. Can you PLEASE put an end to the insanity about popular vote? Chris Matthews is now pitching the Clinton line about popular vote. IT"S NOT A LEGITIMATE CLAIM. You know that 4 states don't count popular votes. Further, potentially a million voters in Florida and Michigan didn't vote in those primaries. So, how can that be a legitimate reflection of the "popular vote"? This ridiculous claim is maddening.

Edwards weighs in on Michigan

JakeZ, Seattle — Sat, 31 May 2008 18:49:07 GMT

I assume uncommitted has to commit to *someone* eventually and if they didn't vote for Clinton (who's name was on the ballot), it seems natural they would go to Obama. Right?

Edwards weighs in on Michigan

sick of ultra liberal dems running this party — Sat, 31 May 2008 18:50:10 GMT

Duh. Of course he does. If Hillary were to win, he would look stupid. Which he kind of does already since he waited until it was pretty useless to back Obama. He's a loser and a chicken liver. And a turncoat, just like Richardson, since his "constituency" overwhelmingly supports Senator Clinton.
Democrats are yellow and disloyal. They're greedy and just want to cram their most liberal candidate down the throat of the American people. I expect the American people will give them the heave ho come November. I have voted Democrat in almost every election until now, but I seriously doubt I will ever vote democrat again. I'm sick of them trying to cram their liberal San Francisco values down the throat of us "dumb old working stiffs". They are no different from the "religious right". Just on the other end of the perspective.

Edwards weighs in on Michigan

BJ, CA — Sat, 31 May 2008 18:53:29 GMT

The jackocrats...really showing that your votes are really up to and include the time you can vote...

Unpresidented that the rules of their own party can be bent on any issue....

Sad...These kinds of things make Independents grow stronger....

Democrats the party of change your vote..YEAH WAY!!!

This Pandering is making me sick....thinking like their is something to gain by all the RBC crap..PHUUUIIEEE!!!

Edwards weighs in on Michigan

Mighty Blogger, Seattle, Wash — Sat, 31 May 2008 19:01:45 GMT

Donna Brazile,

is my hero for bringing up her momma and what she felt she would say. That was the first comment all day that showed common sense and reality.

MSNBC should sway her over and give her a show of her own.

Edwards weighs in on Michigan

Will H, Pittsburgh, PA — Sat, 31 May 2008 19:05:44 GMT

So I guess its not the voters who vote for candidates, its other candidates who vote for candidates huh? Just like how pledge delegates to clinton and edwards were somehow magically able to switch and support Obama in Iowa and Nevada.

Edwards weighs in on Michigan

WW, NJ — Sat, 31 May 2008 19:23:41 GMT

Hillary Campaign:

Edwards is obviously delirious.. what he meant to say was that hillary should get 100% of the votes from the michigan "Democratic" Primary and 95% of the votes from the Michigan "Republican" Primary...

Edwards weighs in on Michigan

J. Pena, Cleveland, OH — Sat, 31 May 2008 19:26:32 GMT

I believe that this is a waste of time, first of all as a lot of people have pointed out, Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan. Hillary people are hillarious, if it was twisted around and Obama was asking for these delegates to be seated, the Clinton people would have a heart-attack. Let's call this what it is, SORE LOOSING techniques by the Hillary Mob. Obama has run a great campaign and has done everything being asked of him by the DNC, let him run against McCain and make history. I respect the Clinton's but there time is over......

Edwards weighs in on Michigan

ROCCO L.A. CALIFORNIA — Sat, 31 May 2008 19:27:20 GMT

NO!! STAY OUT OF IT EDWARDS.. YOU WEENIE!!! YOUR ENDORSEMENT WAS PURE POLITICAL DRIVEN. YOU SAID YOU WOULDN'T ENDORSE ANYONE UNTIL THE NOMINATION WAS WON. YOU CAME OUT ONE WEEK LATER. I WONDER WHAT JOB YOUR AFTER. LAWYERS DON'T CARE ABOUT THE POOR. STAY OUT OF IT AND HOPE HILLARY DOESN'T WIN, PAYBACK IS A B-TCH

Edwards weighs in on Michigan

l, bouder, CO — Sat, 31 May 2008 19:31:02 GMT

I was really outraged listening to the argument from the Clinton camp on Michigan... and from some of the comments from the rules committee that ignored the fact the the intial DNC ruling that these primaries would not count caused voter supression in both primaries and a supression of voter choice. The primaries in Fl and MI were in no way fair or representative of the voters. You can't 'count' every vote when their is voter supression.

Edwards weighs in on Michigan

Dawn, Justice, Il — Sat, 31 May 2008 19:36:30 GMT

When you say Edwards believes 40% of Michigan's uncommitted vote should go to Obama are you saying that he believes that all the uncommitted vote should go to Obama (roughly 40% of the total vote) or that only 40% of the votes cast for uncommitted should be given to Obama with the remaining 60% left out there in limbo?

Edwards weighs in on Michigan

cecile San Diego — Sat, 31 May 2008 19:36:35 GMT

I don't know what Hillary wants but I know that she does not want a resolution now because all she wants is every thing for herself and nothing for the opponent.

Alas, she thinks she is the most democratic in the world

Edwards weighs in on Michigan

FAYE, NV, NV — Sat, 31 May 2008 19:36:58 GMT

Someone please tell me why does Hillary thinks she should get all the votes of MI. Others removed their name and she did not, it seems that 50/50 should be awarded or maybe file charges on her for not removing her name.

She has flip-flop first stating it did not matter, until she got behind and now the FL/MI votes are important to her.

Edwards weighs in on Michigan

Bobbie Frederick, Arlington, Virginia — Sat, 31 May 2008 19:41:13 GMT

Votes should not be decided on anothers opinion - aka Edwards.

Edwards weighs in on Michigan

Sheila Kolodny New York, NY — Sat, 31 May 2008 19:41:32 GMT

This whole issue is terrible. How dare the Clinton camp consider the Michigan primary to have been legitimate. Since when in a democracy do you count votes for a single candidate on the ballot when that candidate had from the beginning acknowledged that the Michigan primary votes wouldn't count. Moreover, I find Norah O'Donnell to be naive and of minimal analytical capacity. How in the world can a dream ticket exist between a candidate who is winning by established criteria and a clean campaign and another who has indicated that she's staying in the race in case Obama is killed. Would you ask her to be your VP? I certainly wouldn't. Moreover, I don't believe any longer that she's the best for the party or for the country. I find her two faced and a truly negative, manipulative, nasty piece of work. From the lofty efforts made by the Obama camp to the down and dirty efforts of the Clinton campaign, in a year when hope was such an important factor, we are being dragged once again into the mud and risk losing the election to McCain. Clinton should, in truth, be ashamed of herself. Her sense of entitlement could well destroy this country beyond what the Bush Administration has already bequeated to us. It's quite devastating. Sheila K.

Edwards weighs in on Michigan

Ken S, Los Angeles, CA — Sat, 31 May 2008 19:49:01 GMT

I am an ardent Obama supporter and I say if they decided to allow the Michigan votes to count, they should allocate the delegates evenly to the candidates taht removed their names from the ballots. And, if the rest of the candidates endorsed Obama like Richardson and Edwards have, those delegates should be given to Obama.