“Those delegates are uncommitted until the convention at which point they either remain uncommitted or they endorse somebody.”

And this is why they are given “individual voter” status — inviolate status. There are many reasons a person might vote that way… as yet undecided, preferring the other party’s candidate or platform, planning to vote in the convention for Obama, or for Edwards, Richardson or some yet unknown person, for that matter. Even, eventually for Hillary Clinton.

I’m furious about the RBC robbing Clinton of her votes, but would be just as mad if some blustering entity decided IT KNEW BETTER how my vote should be cast without my permission to take it from me!!! How could the RBC truly KNOW how I intended my uncommitted vote to eventually be cast???

“… it really is about state’s rights. States run their own elections, they make their rules. A higher court might be able to over rule them, but I don’t think the DNC has any authority or legal standing to assign uncommitted delegates to a particular candidate.”

Exactly. And, not only did they feel they had the ‘authority’ to strip the uncommitted voters of their constitutional rights, but that they could also determine, regardless and totally ignorant of, perhaps even AGAINST, those voters’ desires for whom their votes should be cast!

I might have even preferred they never allowed Michigan their votes, if it were only done, as is apparent, to award unearned votes to a candidate who purposely removed his name from the ballot. I mean… Hey! Why not give ME those votes? I did not choose to be on the ballot either!!

Two other points in my craw… It was not ONLY FOUR (4) votes taken from Hillary. It was EIGHT (8) !!! Obama getting 4 more (on top of the 55 others he also never earned) meant her lead was reduced from 18 to TEN (10)!!! And, if the uncommitted voters’ rights were observed, it might have been as high as *55* by convention time, if none of the uncommitted wanted to vote for Obama anymore by then. And THAT should have been their CHOICE!!

Lastly, something I’ve not seen mentioned yet, and that is about campaigning in the penalized States. As regards Michigan, Obama did in fact campaign there, along with a concerted, maybe even ‘joint’ effort with Edwards (and Richardson, too, I gather) to make up for their belated realization of bad judgment in taking their names off the ballot. A very large, wide-ranging campaign, by phone, print and the Internet, was waged to get their supporters to vote ‘uncommitted’ in hopes of just such a remedy as was afforded by the RBC’s biased and unscrupulous actions on May 31st. Weren’t all the candidates, on or off the ballot, told to NOT campaign in MI or FL under the DNC sanctions imposed on them for violating the DNC’s rules??? Maybe Hillary should have waged an ‘anti-uncommitted’ campaign; although, they’d have probably found some reason to drop the boom on her for that, too.

Shameful mess the DNC and RBC have created for our party. Shame, shame shame…

Comment by Susan Nunes Subscribed to comments via email | 2008-06-03 07:51:16

I wasn’t a big supporter of Lieberman, but I will tell you these nutroots as I call them shot themselves in the ass by forcing him out of the Democratic Party.

I really have come to the conclusion these people who are hijacking the Democratic Party aren’t Democrats at all.

You know, I’m a republican watching these shenanigans, and I could not agree more with you. You know, Lieberman isn’t exactly all buddy-buddy with the GOP (actually not at all) but those guys just can’t help but make those teams strange bedfellows.

People like Bill Ayers are not Democrats.

The GOP will never overturn Roe v. Wade. Why not? Because the GOP raises lots of funds from the anti-abortion nuts. The day the GOP actually cancels Roe v. Wade is the day that cash cow runs dry.

You DON’T kill a goose that’s laying golden eggs for you.

You’re efforts are admired and much appreciated.