DNC Compromise?

I watched the Rules Committee meeting for as much as I could all day. I saw the drama, the heartaches, the passions, and the pleas and at the end of the day, I am still dumbfounded. I know Michigan and Florida violated the rules regarding primary elections to which Obama and Clinton honored the DNC by not campaigning in either state. Yet this "compromise" seems very bizarre. The delegates from Florida and Michigan will only count as 1/2 vote. I suddenly cringed at that thought because it harkened back to the days of the early republic when blacks only counted as 3/5ths of a vote. Now Florida's and Michigan's votes regardless of race only counts as 1/2 vote? That's the compromise? How is 1/2 different from 3/5ths? This compromise had the overall effect that weakened Clinton's possibility for a huge gain and increased Obama's chances to secure the nomination. But here's the kicker, some "reasonable" proportion of Michigan's "uncommitted" votes will go to Obama that is included in the compromise (???). That I do not understand. One person, one vote. How can votes be reappropriated to mean something else? I guess that's what the Rules Committee did, but I'm having a fairly difficult time accepting the rationale for it.

This discourse about "family" and "unity" is quite intriguing. The comments made by Mona Pasquil is an excellent example. If "family" is going to be used then I suggest a multicultural, immigrant, working class family with lots of extended family members. Watching the meeting televised on C-SPAN reminded me of the complicated and heavily politicized big family dinners back in my youth (I think 30-50 core members). There was a lot of posturing and politicking. There were people talking to, by, and past each other; there were some talking in words that no one knew. There was the patriarch of the family demanding order; there were numerous kids making a ruckus over everything (myself included). There were arguments, fights, and bickering and yet despite all the mess we still, for the most part, stuck together. There were the appeals to reason and compassionate pleas for unity. But I wonder about the extent of the fallout to the DNC and in particularly voters? How have they been alienated, ostracized, or left to fend for themselves without any help? I also wonder how mad will people be at the family and what are they capable of if they are angry enough especially when some feel as though the process was "hijacked" by less than transparent intentions? Despite these questions, the most basic and quintessential question remains and that is what is keeping this "family" together in the first place and is "it" -- whatever "it" may be -- strong enough to hold us together?

As vibrant and powerful as my extended family was, there were some wounds that were too deep to heal, some grudges too painful to let go, and an endless fountain of deep seated resentment. The last time the family got together en masse was over sixteen years ago at the funeral of my great grandmother. She was one of the main and last reasons that kept everyone together. Despite this loss, we generally still keep in contact with each other, albeit at a comfortable distance, but never totally out of touch. Like any family, the gossip was a good enough reason for any get together. But I can't call this extended family of mine as a perfect example of a strong union. Instead, our antagonisms continue to imperfectly and awkwardly form the reason on why we stick together. It's too easy for me to say "we're family" and that's why we stay together. But if "family" is about the day-to-day struggle of making it through then I can find the simplicity of it an apt fit.