What Rules? The Democratic Rules Committee Carve Up Florida and Michigan

Just a few thoughts on today's interminable meeting of the Democratic rules committee which met to decide whether/how to allocate delegates in Florida and Michigan. These are the states, of course, which held primaries earlier than permitted by the Democratic National Committee, and which the latter, in all its wisdom, initially decided to strip of all delegates for the transgression.

The outcome was predetermined. Despite the day-long and frequently inarticulate ramblings of the committee members on all matters under the sun, the outcome seemed pre-ordained. And, indeed, there was a lot of talk before today that the committee would do exactly what it did--seat all the pledged delegates in both states but reduce their vote from 1 to 1/2 and allocate these proportionately based on the vote in Florida, which HRC won 50 percent to 33 percent for Obama. HC thus received 19 more delegates than Obama for Florida (based on a 105 to 67 split in delegates with each divided by half) and an extra 5 pledged delegates (69-59 reduced by 1/2) in Michigan even though she won 55 percent of the vote in the state and Obama was not on the ballot. No matter that both of these solutions, especially the wholly arbitrary allotment of delegates in Michigan, should have everyone shaking his or her head whether a Clinton or Obama supporter. Superdelegates for both states were also restored but each is also to count as 1/2 vote.

Obama and Clinton both got something. Obama basically got the nomination because, barring a challenge by Clinton to the credentials committee, the next circle in Democratic hell, the issue of what to do with the Florida and Michigan voters has been resolved with Obama still firmly in the lead in pledged delegates. When the last of the primaries is over on Tuesday, and with the help of just a few superdelegates, Obama almost certainly will have locked up the nomination. And Clinton? By giving her victories in Florida and Michigan she can add these states to her list of "big" or "swing" states. After the primaries are over on Tuesday, she can probably legitimately say that she won the popular vote, the focus of her campaign for some time now. What it is, exactly, she plans to do with this is anyone's guess.

Howard Ickes, like Harold Wolfson, one of the top strategists and advisors in Hillary Clinton's campaign, is simply repugnant. Like many in the Clinton campaign both advisors ooze arrogance, elitism, and a win-at-all-costs mentality. Not the face, certainly, that you want representing you publically, anyway. Yet, Ickes, who is also a rules committee member, was making Hillary's case to count fully all delegates and, in Michigan, to award them proportionately, based on the 55 percent vote she received and the 40 percent that went to "uncommitted. " Nothing to Obama, in other words, as his name wasn't on the ballot. No big deal, right, that Clinton and company were in full agreement with the DNC's wood-headed decision to disenfranchise voters in Florida and Michigan from the outset and that she herself said that the votes in both states would not count? And to people like CNN's Wolf Blitzer who preface their discussion of Ickes as a "brilliant strategist," I say what's so brilliant about dismissing the caucus states, thinking that the Clinton machine would have it wrapped up after Super Tuesday, and ignoring for much of the campaign smaller campaign doners.

Obama's not putting his name on the ballot in Michigan wasn't an oversight. Pat Buchanan, among others, has said it was "politics 101" for a candidate to make sure that his/her name was on the ballot in Michigan, even though the candidates knew that the delegates would not be seated in the state. He thus gave Clinton an "A" for doing this, for thinking of all contingencies, and an "F" to Obama for being shortsighted. Based on the deadly accurate voting projections for each state the Obama campaign has produced throughout the campaign, Obama's decision to not include his name on the ballot seems like a very calculated one. He would not have won this state had his name been on the ballot and certainly not received nearly half of the delegates as the rules committee ended up awarding him today based on smoke and mirrors, sleight of hand, and channeling the spirit of Richard Daley the elder.

The Democratic party is anything but democratic. Despite the quasi-legal proceedings and the appearance of genuine give-and-take, today's proceedings were more akin to a kangeroo court, and, as mentioned, the outcome predetermined. It is simply the latest element in the Democrat's nominating process that throws into relief how inefficient, creaky, and, yes, un-democratic, the process is. If nothing else, let's hope that Howard Dean, the DNC's Chair, is run out of town, the caucuses and superdelegates scrapped, awarding of delegates by divination (Texas, etc.) done away with, and a winner-take all process, similar to the Republicans', at least seriously considered.