Michigan Presidential Delegates

It is hard to imagine a bigger mess that we have with two states not having delegates for the Democratic Presidential Convention. With the delegate count so even between Clinton and Obama there is growing disucssion about how we dig ourselves out of this mess.

Yes, the Republicans had the same issue and were way smarter than Democrats in how they handled this. Republicans used a measured response and have easily worked through this. Democrats used the nuclear option on Michigan and Florida and now they have that fallout to deal with. No, it doesn't help to resolve the problem by pointing out that Republicans were smarter than we were.

There seems to be three options being considered.

Use the January Primary results - Hillary broke the rules and stayed on the ballot. With only one viable candidate on the ballot and the word from DNC that NO delegates would be seated the Michigan voters stayed home in droves. It wasn't a real election. Now Hillary supporters want to break the rules again and seat these delegates. That will give her delegates she desperately needs to win the nomination. Gov. Granholm appears to be supporting this option.

Stick with the DNC Rules - According to the DNC we were electing zero delegates in January. January was not a valid or representative election. Michigan sends no delegates to the convention. This option leaves Michiganders voiceless in a hotly contested race.

The "Do Over" Option - Local leaders and activists seem to want a chance to have a real vote. Many are calling for a traditional Michigan caucus which would select delegates for the convention. This is the same process that has been used in Michigan for many years. This will let Michiganders have a say in choosing our next president. It also opens the doors to the idea that if you don't like some election results you just keep redoing the election until it turns out the way you want.

Three Choices. They are all losers.

The first option rewards a rule breaker, asks the DNC to do a flip flop on its own rules, and allocates delegates based on an election that wasn't a real election.

The last option is the fairest in my mind, but will also damage the party the most. Some people predict Obama would win in a do-over. Clinton supporters may argue that to change the rules would cause the election to be stolen from them. This is sometimes know as the "Splitting the Party" option. Our do-over election will also face criticism from all over the country. If you don't like the results of one election just keeping elections until you get the results you want. This sounds more like a third world country than Michigan. Florida had hanging chads in 2000. Michigan can have the "Do-Over" in 2008. It make take a terrible situation and make it worse.

The second option is probably the best. I hate it. It leaves Michiganders voiceless. However, in the name of party unity it may be the best. Everyone plays by the same rules all the way along from the January primary until the July convention. The rules don't get changed in the middle of the game resulting in an advantage to one candidate or the other. This option sucks. It is also the best option as far as I can tell.

2008 is the year of the Democrats. Our nation is ready to put the Republicans behind us. January 2009 should reveal a Democrat being sworn in as President of the United States. The only thing that can stop our success is our ability as Democrats to shoot ourselves in the foot.

Ready... Aim...