tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post4330041554997473616..comments2020-04-11T03:30:02.282-05:00Gary R. Welshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15185079937305083438noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-21202945488625228612008-06-26T03:05:00.000-05:002008-06-26T03:05:00.000-05:00hey Michael,that sorta thing happens all the time.Its amazing how many people out there wont change their minds when its already made up!Its like a big drunk society!<BR/>.....................................<BR/>jane doe<BR/><A HREF="http://www.floridadrugrehab.com" REL="nofollow">Florida Drug Rehab</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-11499743561385153892008-06-01T10:09:00.000-05:002008-06-01T10:09:00.000-05:00Actually every major candidate took his name off the ballot except for Hillary. Even Hillary admitted that it was a primary that did NOT count until she realized that she needed them to come closer to winning. Then her sense of entitlement kicked in and the votes should count. Over 40% of those voting voted uncommitted. Not many people go to the polls to vote uncommitted. Most of those votes were ANYBODY BUT HILLARY votes. Actuall I think the DNC should have stuck to their rules and awarded no votes to anyone in Michigan.artfugginshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05364503656694166926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-36762350905119592072008-06-01T09:05:00.000-05:002008-06-01T09:05:00.000-05:00But Obama took his name off the Michigan ballot. He decided not to contest it. It was his choice. Shouldn't Hillary get more delegates from say Idaho, since she decided not to contest the caucuses and surely would have received more support there had she done so?<BR/><BR/>Candidates don't enter certain primaries all the time. <BR/><BR/>I don't get how a candidate who chose not to be on the ballot can get any delegates awarded to him as if he received any votes.<BR/><BR/>Until I realize that it is the Dems we are talking about, who have made an art form out of awarding votes to candidates who did not actually receive them.<BR/><BR/>And I don't think this was Hillary's "choice" either, as she has reserved the right to appeal this to the Credentials Committee.Covenant60https://www.blogger.com/profile/00778037319510838719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-76075739000536213352008-05-31T23:41:00.000-05:002008-05-31T23:41:00.000-05:00Hillary did not have much of a choice in order to be fair it was either exclude Michigan completely like was originally ruled, or come up with a solution that allows for some delegates for Obama. Right or not, it is impossible to argue that Obama would not have received one single vote in Michigan had he been on the ballot. Hillary's options were net some delegates, or have none of them count. I thought it was a reasonable fair decision by the DNC's RBC.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-40497994079249966262008-05-31T21:48:00.000-05:002008-05-31T21:48:00.000-05:00How on earth could Obama get ANY Michigan delegates????<BR/><BR/>He took his name off the ballot there and received ZERO votes.<BR/><BR/>Gotta love them Dems. lolCovenant60https://www.blogger.com/profile/00778037319510838719noreply@blogger.com