From NBC's Mark Murray
Clinton supporters Harold Ickes and Tina Flournoy released this statement; "Today's results are a victory for the people of Florida who will have a voice in selecting our party's nominee, and will see its delegates seated at our party's convention. The decision by the Rules and Bylaws Committee honors the votes that were cast the people of Florida, and allocates the delegates accordingly.

"We strongly object to the committee's decision to undercut its own rules in seating Michigan's delegates without reflecting the votes of the people of Michigan. The committee awarded to Senator Obama not only the delegates won by uncommitted, but four of the delegates won by Senator Clinton. This decision violates the bedrock principles of our democracy and our party.

"We reserve the right to challenge this decision before the credentials committee and appeal for a fair allocation of Michigan's delegates as they were cast."

Wahbooz: The fair allocation they are referring to, and which was the same one Joel Ferguson, Clinton supporter in Michigan sees. All the delegates to Clinton, and none to Obama.

You're going to be in big trouble for daring to post facts. There's going to be more foot stomping and temper tantrums. Whatever they choose to throw (and there will be plenty) the fact is that Obama was a far better candidate and ran a far more efficient campaign.

Thank goodness, we've got gorgeous weather here so I intend to get out and enjoy it tomorrow.

they can stomp their feet all they want, and they can even spit if they choose, I really don't care. Facts are facts, no matter how they like to twist things to their liking.

I hope you did, shirley. After the clouds cleared away here it was a beautiful day, and I enjoyed it.

Wahbooz:

From NBC's Mark Murray
Clinton supporters Harold Ickes and Tina Flournoy released this statement; "Today's results are a victory for the people of Florida who will have a voice in selecting our party's nominee, and will see its delegates seated at our party's convention. The decision by the Rules and Bylaws Committee honors the votes that were cast the people of Florida, and allocates the delegates accordingly.

"We strongly object to the committee's decision to undercut its own rules in seating Michigan's delegates without reflecting the votes of the people of Michigan. The committee awarded to Senator Obama not only the delegates won by uncommitted, but four of the delegates won by Senator Clinton. This decision violates the bedrock principles of our democracy and our party.

"We reserve the right to challenge this decision before the credentials committee and appeal for a fair allocation of Michigan's delegates as they were cast."

Wahbooz: The fair allocation they are referring to, and which was the same one Joel Ferguson, Clinton supporter in Michigan sees. All the delegates to Clinton, and none to Obama.

Hey Wah : Give me a call, Loree has the number!

Cherokee

What a load of horse puckey you are both putting out.You both should be ashamed to lie like that!

Obama was awarded delegates that were uncommitted and according to DNC rules they should ahve been left that way!

He was also given 4 delegates that Hillary won! I am really surprised that you would come on the board and lie this way.

Another thing I noticed is when the Lake County votes were so late. Shirley began to say that is where the problems would be.She thought Hillary would win so was trying to make it look as if she cheated.

When Obama won that Country not a peep about crooked was ever mentioned again. Obama is a protoge of thst same Crooked machine and his backing is coming from somewhere .With Rezko and all the rest he is being shoved into being the candidate.

MA now you'll be accused of...more foot stomping and temper tantrums. I believe they must have themselves in mind when they make that comment.

Don't you like that lie they tell...we see them saying that at least 2 or 3 times a week. My how we must disappoint them.

Now let's see how well they deal with some facts...hum, MA?

SG

A fair allocation would be for each candidate to get percentages based on what the best evidence suggests he or she would get if the primary had been held without the cloud of the party's scheme of disenfranchisement. We can never know for certain what that would have been, but we do have pre-election polling and exit-polling, each of which asked people how they'd vote if all candidates had been on the ballot:

<link>

"If the other major contenders were on the ballot, Clinton would still win with 46% of the vote. Obama would receive 23% and Edwards would get 13%, the poll indicated"

<link>

"The first column of the table shows that according to the exit poll, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards and Richardson would have received 46%, 35%, 12% and 1%, respectively with such an expanded ballot."

Now, of course, ideally we would account for the tendency of Obama to do better in polling than he does with actual votes. There are a lot of theories that white poll respondents are more likely to say they voted for a black candidate than to actually vote for one. But, since it would seem unfair to knock Obama down based on that, even if failing to do so lets him rely on unrealistically strong humbers, we can just average out the polls and use that as a best guess.

Thus, it's reasonable to estimate Clinton would have gotten 46% of the vote, to Obama's 29%, absent the scheme of disenfranchisement. The lion's share of the remaining delegates would go to Edwards. Thus, Clinton should have gotten about 59% more delegates than Obama in the distribution. Instead, she was given about 17% more. I think you and I should be able to be honest enough to admit that the committee split the delegates in a way that was unreasonably generous to Obama, in light of the likely outcome if he'd actually been on the ballot. They basically took delegates from Clinton and handed them to Obama. Then they half disenfranchised Michigan, to diminish the overall voting power of one of the largest pro-Clinton states (doing the same with Florida).

It only makes sense if their goal was to leave little risk of Clinton becoming the nominee. It doesn't even begin to make sense from a party-unity perspective, since it's so clearly a slap in the face to Michigan and Florida and to Clinton supporters.