I don't believe that Clinton should agree to any proposal that gives her fewer votes or delegates than she earned the day Michiganders went to the polls. I also don't think it's fair to give the remainder entirely to Obama -- there were other candidates in the race at the time, and we have no way of knowing their intentions or preferences. I think he should be given a percentage of the remaining delegates, perhaps based on the percentage that he received in the last polling done before the election and the rest should be uncommitted -- they can then decide between the two.

But -- IMHO anything which punctures the carefully inflated Obama victory narrative is called unfair by his supporters.  I think that's overly sensitive, and, dare I say, presumptuous.  This solution does not hand victory to Clinton.  All it does, I think, it put things back in Yogi Berra territory: "A ballgame ain't over 'til it's over.'

I am getting mighty weary of hearing about the presumptive nominee.  As others have said, the balloons fall in Denver.  I'm getting mighty weary of being told my team should quit before we've had our 27 outs.

"Let's compromise.  Give me half of what you have, and then you can keep the other half."

Everybody realizes that this would give the person who won 55% of the vote, around 78% of the total delegates there, right?

Clinton was on the ballot. Anyone who wanted to vote for Clinton could vote for Clinton.  The exit polling suggested around 70% of uncommitted voters would have voted for Obama had his name been on the ballot.

I'm pretty sure this proposal would be laughed out of both the RBC and the Credentials Committee if it were to be brought up at either one.  It's a naked and wholly unjustifiable delegate grab.  

They must be really desperate if they're trying stuff like this.  

Here's a counter-proposal.  Give Obama 31 of the 55 uncommitteds, give Clinton 2, and leave the other 22 formally uncommitted.  

I argued for months that should be the solution, Hillary gets hers and the rest go uncommitted to the convention.

But with everyone calling for an end to the race in early June, Lanny's proposal is fair. Obama didn't have to take himself off the ballot and he did so, in my view and that of many others, because he was behind in the polls there and wanted to minimize the effect of her likely win.

It is the responsibility of the people of Michigan to conduct their elections. Is it fair to hold Obama responsible for the failure of the  revote to occur? It seems that there were many more factors than Obama's understandable reluctance.

It's hard to say that the Michigan vote can be used to judge the comparative support for Clinton and Obama, simply because there was no opportunity to choose Obama instead of Clinton or the other choices. This distorts any ensuing data that can be gleaned from the exercise. Basically, the election is fundamentally flawed as a data set for a popular vote count.

Finally, it doesn't seem in the spirit of democracy to punish Obama for removing his name from an election that was at the time universally agreed to be meaningless, while other decisions made months and even years ago are being revisited.

It has been effectively argued that, given the closeness of the race, a consideration of the popular vote in addition to the delegate count is warranted. Also, the rights of FL and MI have had to be reevaluated, due to the high stakes in the fall for not seating their delegates.

Here we have seen that prior decisions about the nature of the political contest have been revisited and are on the brink of wholesale revision.

Yet, some say, the voters of Michigan who would vote for Obama deserve to be, I'll say it, disenfranchised, because Obama didn't have enought foresight to keep his name on the ballot. Obama's taking his name of the ballot, and the uninteded effect on the ability of his voters to show support, now that's one decision that can't be revisited in the interest of full expression of America's democratic ideals.

Because Hillary decided that a populat vote argument was her last remaining arrow, and so she ran with it, and all her supporters fell into line.

ITs all about supporting the team - has nothing to do with making sense, or having actual principles.

Of course she will not win the PV. Becuase, of course, we Michiganders really do exist, and most of us who voted for uncommitted were voting for OBama.

The way she exploded at Lenny Devis on CNN, called him Baby, etc. is giving no hope that they will come up with anything remotely fair.

Obama is not about considering to move a finger for FL and MI given how the Prima Donna Bulling Brazile has concocted her imbroglio to give Obama the nomination in a platter.

Stupidity is Supreme, so the convention is where it will all be decided.  

Hillary will be left with no other choice that to bring there. I hope she will

1.  Obama took his name off the Michigan ballot  as strategic move to win Iowa.  His choice with an ulterior motive, which did pay off for him.

2. Obama spent $1.3 Million campaigning in Florida, breaking the rule, and leaving Hillary with a handicap, since she didn't campaign.

Hillary should receive favor for not campaigning in Florida.

Outrageous audio (Windows Media Player)

In essence, what needs to be done is argue for seating the delegations submitted by the states themselves.

yes - half the people who voted uncommitted, while Hillary was on the ballot, were actually voting for Hillary.

The FL solution is to simply seat them as they voted.  I assumer there is no dispute there.  The MI solution recognizes that not all of the uncommitted wanted to vote Obama.  Edwards was the candidate of many, thus it would be unfair to give this all to Obama.  That is what Lanny Davis is arguing for, that we breakdown the delegates as proportionally and as realistically chosen in each state's vote.

Since when do we spend an entire 3 months trashing one another to prove the other wrong. I'm not saying we shouldn't challenge each other But TRASHING Hillary or Obama more than McCain?

Obama was not forced by party rules to remove his name -- he chose to do so.