No Do-Over Primary For Michigan Democrats

State Party Committee Officially Decides Against Revote; Fate Of Delegates Unresolved

(AP)  Michigan Democrats officially have declared they won't hold a do-over presidential primary.

Members of the state party's executive committee issued a statement Friday saying "we have concluded that it is not practical" to conduct a party-run primary or caucus as a way to get the state's Democratic National Convention delegates seated.

Michigan and Florida were stripped of their convention delegates for moving up their primaries in defiance of party rules. Florida Democrats already had decided against holding a second primary election.

Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton
won the Jan. 15 Michigan primary. Rival Barack Obama had pulled his name from the ballot.

State Democrats now hope the two campaigns can agree on a way to split Michigan's pledged delegates so they can be seated at the Aug. 25-28 convention.

A working group of four top Democrats - U.S. Sen. Carl Levin, U.S. Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger and Democratic National Committee member Debbie Dingell - has been working with the candidates' campaigns and the state and national parties to find a compromise.

"We will continue to work with the working group, the DNC and the candidates to resolve this matter in a manner which is respectful of the views of Democrats in Michigan, and which is fair to those who voted in the January 15th Democratic primary," the executive committee said in its statement.

The 79 members of the executive committee include Gov. Jennifer Granholm as well as other top elected officials, union leaders and party activists. Not all were in on Friday's conference call, but the motion passed without dissent.

Michigan Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer said earlier this week that he was concerned there was not enough time to set up voting sites for an election that could have drawn at least 2 million voters. Any alternative vote would have to be completed by June 10 to be counted under DNC rules.

He also cited concerns about the cost of a second election, which he said could have hit at least $10 million, decreasing party funds.

Friday's vote capped weeks of frenzied negotiations to find a way to hold a do-over Michigan election. There was talk last month of holding a June 3 primary run by the state and paid for by private Democratic donors. But Michigan lawmakers declined to take up a bill setting up that election.

Party officials also considered holding a party-run primary or mail-in election.

The Obama campaign has called for splitting Michigan 128 pledged delegates 50-50, regardless of Clinton's Jan. 15 win. The Clinton campaign so far has rejected that idea. Michigan also has 28 superdelegates, elected officials and other top Democrats who don't have to commit to any candidate before the convention.

[jesterbelle]

Hillary may have embellished, but she doesn''''t flip flop on her stances. She posted her stances months ago and stands by them, whereas Obama didn''''t post anything until December.


Posted by RowdyTexan2 at 09:27 PM : Apr 05, 2008

You''re right,Hillary doesn''t flip flop,she just lies and never comes through,LOL!

[jesterbelle]

Why...you like higher taxes? Just curious.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by katg21 at 12:20 PM : Apr 06, 2008

As if they''d gone down under Bush,or will go down under McCain.Idiot.

[jgunther7]

Obama wasn''t against a revote in Florida and Michigan, to say otherwise is a lie. He was only against Hillary taking pledged ballets without a revote, which is understandable. It is not physically or financially possible to go back in time and recreate another revote that is fair to all parties. This is just another example of the sickening rubbish that is pumped out by the Hillary campaign. We must be rid of her.

[katg21]

OR VOTE Dem & get out of the war...fix problems HERE before it''''s too late!

OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT!
Posted by OurOnlyHope

Your "view is narrow" if you believe Obama can fix anything.

[katg21]

What is fair about splitting the votes evenly between Obama and Clinton when he wasn''''t even on the ballot? New Hampshire didn''''t abide by the rules and their votes were counted. Why weren''''t they "punished" the same way as Michigan and Florida?
Posted by ninasevyn

Why don''t you ask Howard Dean that question?

[SevynNina]

What is fair about splitting the votes evenly between Obama and Clinton when he wasn''t even on the ballot? New Hampshire didn''t abide by the rules and their votes were counted. Why weren''t they "punished" the same way as Michigan and Florida?

[ouronlyhope]

Our biggest tax hike in history was instituted by Bush Sr. So don''t be so narrow in your view of who will or won''t increase taxes.

Our biggest problem is the War spending. As of today it''s at 519 BILLION (!). If we vote in McCain, that $ is going to have to come from SOMEWHERE. Our debts to foreign nations is up to 400 BILLION & our Mortgage problem is already rippling around the world. We will soon get to the end of our ability to Borrow...then the bills are going to either go UNPAID (WWIII?) (massive job/business losses?) (McCain''s Black Hole Depression?) and I don''t want to think of where that path may lead.

Or....YES! tax increases. YOU do the math.

OR VOTE Dem & get out of the war...fix problems HERE before it''s too late!

OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT!

[katg21]

Bravo Michigan...my home state! It''s only fair that the delegates be divided down the middle if they are going to be counted at all. The dumb, dumb dems made the decision, in the first place, to not count the delegates. This is all so laughable.

[katg21]

Of course, I''''ll take EITHER of these flawed candidates before I''''d vote for the NUCLEAR BOMB that is John McCain!
Posted by OurOnlyHope

Why...you like higher taxes? Just curious.

[ouronlyhope]

Puh-lease!... stop comparing Sen. Obama''s surfer-waves to Hillary''s Tsunamis!

LIES - Under sniper fire in Bosnia !?! the video-tape put an end to THAT lie once & for all.

FlipFlopping - After months of saying she was NEVER a supporter of NAFTA, the truth was revealed when we FINALLY got copies of what she said during her 1st Lady years.
- ALSO, she voted YES for the war...of course NOW she is against it
- ALSO, last year she stated FL votes ''Will count for Nothing'' and MI votes ''Won''t count''. Her tune changed on that one...now that she needs the votes.

Of course, I''ll take EITHER of these flawed candidates before I''d vote for the NUCLEAR BOMB that is John McCain!

[rowdytexan2]

Posted by markexpat at 08:32 PM : Apr 05, 2008

Obama hasn''t won the support yet. Why should Hillary Clinton get out of the race?

Actually, Hillary, as opposed to Obama has conducted herself completely by the DNC rules because she knew them. On the other hand, Mr. Obama did not

Hillary may have embellished, but she doesn''t flip flop on her stances. She posted her stances months ago and stands by them, whereas Obama didn''t post anything until December.

Obama lies about really dangerous issues, and lies about his abilities, and about his corrupt connections.

No Obama!

[markexpat]

Hillary is such a roller coaster ride that you never know what she is going to say or do the next day. I truly hope this is not the way the US government is run the next four days. Her stance on issues change daily, her decisions are based on her swing moods and depend upon what she thinks will work for the media. Up and down, yes and no, lie to make it right. This tells me four things:
1. She can not commit to policies. She could change her mind at a whim and will.
2. She is impulsive. Not a good trait for a 3am phone call.
3. She lies, for the good of her own self interests to get elected.
4. She is a rule changer. If it benefits her delegate count why live with the DNC''s authority and regulations. This last one will distroy the party and it might be the Rep. or/and DNC''s fault but this does not help unify the Democrats. Perplexing why she is still in the race and whay self interest she really has to back in the Whitehouse. Maybe it is all for Bill, this would not be so selfish and he can smoke his last cigar.

[popstom1]

why are main street media trying so hard this howdy
dodee look a like ON THE U.S. or us

[rowdytexan2]

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/substance_abuse.html

Obama lied about his legislative prowess. He was a total failure in the Illinois senate for 7 years. Never got one spit of legislation passed until it was handed to him in his 8th year.

[rowdytexan2]

Should PLEDGED delegates be under pressure from either candidate to change their vote? Does this represent a democracy?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Policrypt at 06:20 PM : Apr 05, 2008

I don''t know why not. Everybody is trying to pressure Hillary into conceding Obama votes in Michigan he didn''t even win!

[rowdytexan2]

And I say the reason Hillary did that was because North Dakota was one of the earliest states to vote, and had not heard a lot of things about Obama that came out until after they voted.

The media was manipulating the vote by holding back on Obama until after most of the states held their primaries.

Lots of people didn''t know what a quack he was.

[rowdytexan2]

And that''s why Obama supporters are pushing HIllary to come to an agreement rather than take it to convention.

The DNC rules committee has put off ruling on his breaking the rules, yet they know when push comes to shove they will have to.

[rowdytexan2]

Posted by rjudy3 at 06:01 PM : Apr 05, 2008

Mainly because Obama broke DNC rules in both Florida and Michigan. So if it came down to a shoot out, that will be fought within the DNC and he may not be able to be awarded any delegates from those states. That''s why he''s ambivalent about re-votes. And that''s why he wants HIllary to concede him 50% of the delegates from Michigan. He wants it to come to an agreement without a shoot out.

[rowdytexan2]

Posted by Policrypt at 05:54 PM : Apr 05, 2008

No problem at all, Sir, anytime.

[rjudy3]

If the party refuses to honor the voters wishes in Mich and Fla Obama loses. The perception will be ,amongst Clinton voters anyway is that Obama stole the election(ala Bush 2000) and will not support him ,ever.
WHY is Obama afraid to let Fl and Mich votes count? He preaches (although not lately) that he wants everybody to be included. Okay, were waiting for your answer.