Liveblog: Delegate Debate, continued

By GottaLaff

Once again, please forgive the typos and shorthand:

MSNBC:

Wexler: The superdelegate question for me was one of fairness. We have to abide by the rules of this bylaws committee. We will accept this decision and move forward. ... The Clinton campaign looks to be acting in a very responsible way toward unity.

Todd: What about Jewish voters?

Wexler: Clinton has their support, but so does Obama v. McCain in the general. We'll beat him badly on Social Security, and Obama has an A+ record on Israel, he's a staunch advocate for their security.

Rachel Maddow: Fla and Michigan had rogue contests. Michigan was an uncontested election and against the committee rules, but also the names of the 2 candidates weren't available to be voted upon. It's a reach to count it...

Senator Carl Levin, of Michigan, up.

Levin: Michigan has achieved unity, we're asking you to preserve it. (applause) Seat all the delegates with full voting rights... there's an overwhelming agreement for this. I believe both candidates support this. That's been missing, unity between our candidates... The Michigan Democratic party supports that position. Disagreement: The Party has reached a compromise on allocation. It's imperfect... no scientific way to reach that conclusion, but a fair way, a reasonable way, per Mark Brewer. Obama wants to divide the votes 64-64 because the primary was flawed. Clinton's rep will say 73-55, representing the vote because her name was on the ballot and assuming that the uncommitted should go to Obama, even though some would have gone to Edwards. We know it was a flawed primary. We couldn't get a re-vote. If you don't seat them in full, you'll interject an element of disunity where we have unity. If you can come up with a better allocation than 69-59, so be it. If there's a 4th way to do this, that'll be in your hands. We've given you the best we can do, united the Michigan Democratic Party with this formula (69-59).

No state has the right to go first before Michigan. So we fought to open up the process. We'll take our case to the convention, we said in 2004. Terry McAuliffe said don't do that. We'll appoint a commission. They had hearings for a year. I was a member of that commission. We came up with a recommendation for a minor change, to open up the system so other states besides Iowa and New Hampshire, could go early. That there be an additional first tier, one or 2, first tier caucuses between Iowa and New Hampshire. N.H. hated it, and voted No. We don't believe we're a party of privilege, no state should have that. So insert 1 or 2 caucuses. Michigan accepted that. We praised it. ... We accepted that we weren't one of the 4 pre-window states provided N.H. accepted. They didn't. We couldn't get an answer from the commission to whether or not a state could go early. The commission's findings were that serious concerns that Iowa and N.H. weren't reflective of the electorate. So, N.H. would go third. N.H. said no, he'd jump forward to #2, before Nevada. So, back at square one. After this committee said, "go third"?? We ask YOU, where's the integrity of that? Enforce the new rule. If you won't, then give Michigan a waiver, too. You gave them a waiver, but denied us a waiver. So, we had to take that privilege on again.

It's complicated. We said we'd accept the rule if everyone else did, but the committee let that one state off the hook. We wouldn't take that any more... The sequence was the key... the fight wasn't the 4 states in the window, it was the sequence within the pre-window. Don't punish us for that. We only differ on the proportionment.