In regards to being educated on the concept of "fair reflection"

[dave29]

Ickes was just setting up for his Michigan stance

Rule 13.A. "Fair Reflection of Presidential Preference."
Delegates shall be allocated in a fashion that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the primary voters.

The problem with his argument is that those with an "uncommitted" status were probably also not "educated" in the concept of "Fair Reflection" when they showed up and cast their vote as uncommitted in the Michigan primary. Is it truly fair to penalize Michigan "uncommitted" voters for not knowing rule 13A, which Ickes would argue forces them to remain uncommitted (therefore awarding no delegates to Obama or Edwards or Biden, etc), when many were just voting for their candidate the only way they could?

How many voters do you think would have shown up knowing they would be penalizing their candidate?

What sane reading of this rule would assume it applies to a primary that has already been stripped of it's delegates, only to have them re-instated after the fact in a manner that completely favors one candidate?

Yes, Mr. Ickes, I think we all need to be educated on the "concept of fair reflection," which you and yours have tried to use to your advantage.

For those of you who don't understand why Mr. Wexler purposefully expressed his desire to be educated, and why this infuriated Ickes so much, it follows that Wexler understands no VOTER was educated in this concept when they went to the polls.

[high density]

1. I think Hillary should run in all further elections with her name on the ballot as "Uncommitted"

And see how well that works out for her, since they say it worked so well for Obama.

[dkf]

2. Why would Ickes address that to Wexler?

[mia]

3. Maybe Ickles believes that delegates should be bound

by their pledge.

See:"A History of 'Super-Delegates' in the Democratic Party"

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/18072/history_of_superdelegates_in_the_democratic_party.html

[Ravy]

4. I am guessing that he doesn't want the 13 Edwards delegates to go to Obama. nt

[dave29]

5. because he is an idiot

He wants to apply this rule to Michigan... why he would bring it up in the Florida portion, where they certainly do not care about this rule at all, is beyond me. I think he is just frustrated, honestly, because he knows he has a losing argument.

He is trying to apply rules to a Primary (Michigan) that was stripped of it's delegates, and in which people didn't understand their vote for uncommitted might, in absurd-universe be retroactively deemed irreversible.

[hisownpetard]

6. He made himself look like even more of an ignoramus by not answering Wexler at all,

and then getting up and either walking out or walking to the other side of the room for some undisclosed purpose.

Totally rude.