I find it amusing to see some people both here and on the news say that Hillary should take it to the convention. And yes, I know Hillary said she 'reserves the right" to take it to the credentials committee.

But lets be realistic here. The MI plan was approved by 2/3rds of the RBC committee. Not only did all the Obama supporters, but the undeclared, and even a few (between 3-5) Hillary supporters voted for this 29-34 MI delegation.

Thats 67% of that committee. Not 50%+1, but 67%. A supermajority, basically. I think most understand that the full convention wouldn't overturn the RBC decision, as most Democrats want to focus on the November election.

Also, I agree with a prior poster about supporters and 'supporters'. You always have cranks on every side, who are more about hating the opponent than supporting the issues. Thats just a given.

But anyway, we still have PR, MT, and SD to vote in the next few days. After that, I suspect Hillary will wrap this up, take a few days off, endorse Obama, and we all can get back to winning in November.

As far as the 'supporters', well, it is a waste of time to participate in meaningful dialogue with them.

Most Hillary supporters I know (example..my grandparents, several co-workers, and a few friends), intend to vote for Obama in the GE. I only know of 1 person who preferred Hillary but might vote for McCain..and that was because she wanted to see a female become president, and honestly didn't care about the issues.

But..um..yes. This 'reserve the right to take it to the convention', I suspect is only a bone to throw to her hard-core supporters for the time being, until things settle down. She won't actually do it.

So I've read a diary that comes up with a "solution" (and I put solution in quotes because what it is is greediness) on the Michigan primary.

First, I think nearly 90% of the Democratic party agree Michigan should be seated but not as is where Hillary gets her delegates (and popular votes) and Obama gets 0.

Of course you have a few who prefer the unfairness of that, but its not going to happen.

Now I've read from...Ickes I think..or Wolfson ..and a diary here..that not only should Hillary get her 73 delegates from January...but a part of the 55 'uncommitted' as well.

Thats not going to happen either. Hillary doesn't deserve them those were by people who wanted someone other than Hillary. Mostly Obama..but some Edwards and other as well.

So my belief is the fairest seating of Michigan is as follows:

Michigan gets a 50% delegate cut for moving its primary.

Thus Hillary gets 50% of the 73 she got in January..so 37.

Obama should get the lions share of half of the 55 delegates..so say 25.

The remaining would go to Edwards who then could endorse whomever they wish.

Regarding the popular vote:

Hillary can have her 328k votes. Approx 80% of the uncommitted vote can be added into Obamas total so approx 200k votes.

Now that is the fairest way to seat  Michigans delegates, apportion the popular vote , and enforce some punishment for violating the DNC rules.

I did a little research for fun on the 1932 Democratic Primary...it was Franklin Roosevelt against Al Smith. Apparently Roosevelt won most of the primaries, and had a majority of pledged delegates as well. (see Obama).

Whats interesting is there was a number of people opposed to Roosevelt as he was 'too liberal'.
http://www.multied.com/elections/Convent ions/1932DEM.html

Now, while the economy isn't as bad as 1932, it certainly isn't good either, with millions of foreclosures, oil up as high as it is, food prices increasing, and jobs being lost.

Anyway, I simply can't imagine Al Smiths supporters threatening to vote for Hoover if Roosevelt got the nomination. Perhaps they were the type of Democrats who felt winning the presidency was more important that getting their preferred nominee.

But anyway, I still believe after 8 years of Bush..planning to stay home or voting McCain is pretty much silent or active assent of the past 8 years.

Now I'm not saying that Obama is going to be the next Roosevelt. But thats not really the point, is ?

I share the desire of millions of other  women who wish to see a woman elected President in my lifetime. Admittedly, to an extent I do think it is still somewhat of 'an old boys' system..ALTHOUGH...compared to even 30 years ago, its an improvement.

I admire Hillary for running and putting herself through the nastiness of the campaign...but thats basically where my admiration of her ends. I will let it be known that while I do want to see a woman elected, and while I'd of course vote for her if she is the nominee, I did not support her this primary. That is my right as a woman and as an American, to choose who I felt was the better candidate.

Without giving out my age, I belong to the infamous Generation X, who along with the Millenials (born after 1982) are pretty much responsible for giving the Democratic Party, and hopefully America..Barack Obama. My generation and the one behind me have the most to gain..or lose.. by our decisions, and we take it seriously contrary to the complaints of some older people.

And without calling out a specific diarist, I will call to attention her diary on women sufferages. Women my age and younger do recognize the achievements of the women who fought for the right to vote and labor rights. However, many of us are less likely to vote for a woman because some feel 'its time'.

I believe we'll have a woman president. I believe she'll come from my age group (born in the late 1960s or 1970s) probably in the next 20-30 years... is strong (like Hillary), very intelligent (like Hillary), right on the issues, experienced, but not as controversial as Hillary and won't need to constantly remind America that 'it's time for a woman President"..which was kind of a turn-off to some of us younger women.

Anyway, at least 40% of us voted for Obama..on average. Politicians like Hillary and Obama come and go. But the issues will be there to be fought over for the rest of our lives.

I guess my point is, those women (and men) who wish to sit out this election or vote for McCain because Hillary isn't the nominee particularily because of claims of 'sexism' or you wanted a woman President NOW (or whatever reason), well, Hillary (Obama) will only be in office for 4 or 8 years. How a President Obama or President McCain will affect issues for generations is more important..especially for my age group and younger.

One poster said "women are their own worst enemies". Personally, I agree with that. Any woman who calls herself a progressive, or centrist, or moderate who chooses to sit out this election and let McCain get elected, is an enemy to the women who have to live with the decisions McCain makes on labor, on choice, on equal rights, if he is elected...for years. If you can live with sticking it to younger women, by all means, thats your choice. It is a very selfish one though.

As I've said, I look forward to having a woman president in my lifetime. But it will not be Hillary.

That is all.

First time diary,,

First, a little backround. I've been voting Democrat since I was eligible in 1992 and voted for Bill Clinton. Personally, I thought he was a good President. Not great, but after 12 years of Reagan/Bush..we needed him. I thought he was too quick to side with the GOP on some issues, but we did have a good economy.

Honestly, we would have been better off had Gore won in 2000. Stupid SC decision (anyone who is still thinking of voting for McCain because Hillary lost the primary should factor that decision along with Roe.V.Wade)

In any case, to the present..I really did want to support Hillary. Having the first female president was part of it, and nostalgia for the 1990s was another part. But take those two away, and I was left with someone who voted for the Iraq war, voted for the bankruptcy bill of 2002, and someone who felt she was entitled to the DNC nomination. So I was turned off a bit by all that.

Fortunately, Obama was another option. A fresh start..similiar to what we had in 1992, good speaker, and someone who can see a positive future after 8 years of Bush. And his policies are fairly similiar to hers. Pro-choice, incentives for college, ending the war in Iraq.

But here we are today, the economy is a mess, we're stuck in Iraq after 5 years, the housing market is depressed, health care is getting more expensive, and the Democrats have an opportunity to elect someone in a landslide..

...except...only the Democratic party..has among some of its members...the mentality that its better to LOSE an election because of (give whatever excuse you want) than to swallow some pride and vote for the nominee even if he or she is not your favorite.

Sorry, but that is baloney.

If McCain wins...the Mexico City Policy will remain the same which blocks federal funding for non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which provide or promote services related to abortion.

If McCain wins..and Stevens retires...he'll be replaced by another conservative judge.

If McCain wins...labor will still suffer..especially working women (of which I am one).

And et-cetera.

Now I realize some are hurt that Hillary lost the nomination. I understand that. People put all their effort into a campaign, only the result wasn't what you wanted. I understand.

My issue..is those of you who want to have something in common with Nader supporters. That you would rather sit home..or vote McCain...than vote Obama because Hillary lost. I'd like to throw one of my high heels at those people for being so ignorant.

Women should especially support Obama over McCain...ESPECIALLY when it comes to reproductive freedom and labor rights.

So thats my diary, and I challenge anyone to give a reason why women ..or anyone..should bail out on the DNC because Hillary isn't our nominee.