“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.

I have been a “support the nominee” voter ever since my preferred candidates dropped out. I personally don’t see a ton of difference between Clinton and Obama.

What I can not fathom is the attitude that you want McCain to win if your preferred candidate can not be the nominee. That seems just sick and wrong to me.

I said I was a moderate conservative, that is the truth. I voted for Bush twice b/c of economic concerns and foreign policy. For example, I think a homeowners bailout is ridiculous, I think global warming legislation is absurd and against our economic and political interests, and I think leaving in Iraq as soon as a President is elected is a mistake. However, I consider myself moderate because I am extremely liberal on social issues. For example, I am pro-choice, pro gay marriage, against the death penalty, etc.

Anyway, just thought I would clarify my political background and add that I am white, 24, and an American history and civics teacher.

Barack Obama appeals to my moderate side b/c I found him to be inspirational, symbolic, intelligent, and willing to talk to the American public like real people, and not ‘low information’ voters. (ie: gas tax pandering)I find his speeches to be inspirational, and while I understand that we need more than ’speeches’ in a President, I still don’t understand why people are still claiming that obama’s and Hillary’s policies aren’t similar. I just went on both their websites to confirm their stances, and yes, they are strikingly similar.

On one hand, we have two candidates who generally want universal healthcare (you can argue the details) but this drastically differs than McCain’s policy. Both want an exit from Iraq.

Please inform me about the major differences! The only one I can think of that is substative is the negotiating with foreign leaders of hostile nations, which I think needs a closer look at it anyway.

I actually didn’t realize that this blog only welcomed proHillary comments, I just stumbled upon this blog.

the poke in the eye is almost a Rove autograph.

Give ‘em hell!