A Palatable Compromise Out of Michigan?

by Jonathan Singer [courtesy of MyDD]

CNN has the story:

Michigan's Democrats have released another new proposal yesterday in their quest to ensure their state will be represented at this summer's Democratic National Convention.

Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, Sen. Carl Levin, Democratic National Committee Member Debbie Dingell and United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger - the working group that has been meeting to try to end the impasse -- sent a letter to state party chair Mark Brewer Tuesday in which they urged the Democratic National Committee to seat the Michigan delegation under a formula that would give a 10-delegate edge to Hillary Clinton.

Clinton was the only major candidate to appear on the ballot in the state's January contest, which she won with 55 percent of the vote. No delegates were awarded because of national party penalties on Michigan Democrats for moving up their primary date. Forty percent of January's primary voters chose the "uncommitted" option on the ballot; a majority of those "uncommitted" delegates are backing Barack Obama.

Clinton's campaign has said that the results of the January vote - which would give her an 18-delegate edge, 73-55 - should count. Obama's campaign had said the delegates should be split evenly, 64-64.

This proposal, which splits the difference between what the Clinton campaign is calling for and what the Obama campaign is calling for (actually falling slightly closer to the Clinton position and, what's more, opening the door for Clinton to net even more delegates out of the state through superdelegate endorsements, which she leads in the state by a seven to one margin), seems like a fairly reasonable compromise. On one hand, the proposal would allow for voters' sentiments to have a say despite the fact that their political leaders made the unwise (in retrospect) decision of playing chicken with the Democratic National Committee, and on the other hand it would ensure that Barack Obama is not unduly hampered by having followed the rules and refusing to campaign in the state.

Now it's not clear that either campaign will accept this deal. For the Obama campaign, this would not be optimal because it would enable Clinton to gain delegates (perhaps netting as many as 16 or more) despite the fact that Obama himself did not wage a campaign in the state and, what's more, his name was not even on the ballot. For the Clinton campaign, this deal would lead to giving up eight pledged delegates and, perhaps more importantly, concede some of the uncertainty upon which the campaign is enduring. (With Michigan and Florida resolved, it becomes increasingly clear that the math is difficult, shall we say, for the former First Lady.) Moreover, it's not even clear that this would be the best possible compromise.

But it is a proposed compromise, one in which everyone would be giving up something they want -- but one in which a tricky situation for the party would be resolved. It might not be the best solution possible, but it may be one of the better ones at this point. And the question now must be asked, for all parties involved, as to whether they care more about scoring political points or about resolving this issue.