Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting. Open Thread
By John Amato Friday May 30, 2008 8:30amIf you're into this, the RBC committee will be meeting in the morning to render a decision on how they to treat both Michigan and Florida. We all know by now that they both were stripped of 100% of their delegates for moving up their primary to an earlier date. Here's some info on what's happening. Here's the DNC Statement on RBC Meeting from Yahoo.
"The analysis maintains that the RBC did have proper authority and jurisdiction in imposing the 100% sanction. The RBC had wide latitude in that decision.
"The document also examines the 50% automatic sanction and how to implement such a sanction: Under this scenario, one option would be to reduce the total number of delegates by half; the second option for consideration by the RBC would be to reduce the delegation's votes by half, so that each delegate gets a half vote.
I'm not a rules guy myself. The reason I received from the DNC for their decision of stripping away 100% from both states instead of the usual 50% was to send a message to any other state considering trying to circumvent the process. In my opinion, if they had left it at 5o%, there would have been primaries there and we wouldn't be having this discussion now or the big Saturday meeting. Anyway, they are both important states to the general election.
And I feel especially bad for Florida because it was the Republican legislature that forced the move instead of the Democratic party. I mean, it's Florida after all. There's a very popular Republican Governor running the show and we all know what can happen there after the 2000 debacle.
Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and Harry Reid have made it clear that they want the SD's to declare ASAP. Do you think they will flood in after the primaries have finally concluded? It's being covered by cable TV with all the talking heads out to play starting at 9 am EST. I hope I haven't confused anyone on this and I got it right. Please be kind in the comment section.
Update: Watching some of the meeting today, I forgot to mention how passionate MI is over this issue and how frustrated the voters have been. Are you tired of Iowa and NH setting the agenda and almost always picking the nominees?
Login or Register to post comments.
John, you are very much mistaken. Video of the legislative moment when the primary was set is available and it shows that the dems were willingly complicit, even eager, to make this stupid move in Florida. They simply never expected to be sanctioned for it. They should all lose their jobs and be replaced by smarter dems in the next state election cycle.
aimai
Not knowing as much about the situation as my American friends and relatives, am I correct in noting that Mich and Flor. went against the party rules and thumbed their noses at the party? And now they want to be recognized? Here's an idea. Fire the party leaders in both states, and let the delegates go where they want to.
Here's another idea - split the FI and ML - wait - MI and FL votes - right down the middle so that neither side gains a direct advantadge - especially Hillary.
My opinion is that she showed a manipulative disregard for the entire party by participating in an unsanctioned primary - they might have been licking their chops back then with the idea that this scenario might play out as it has.
I also have to agree with ConcernedCanuck that the whole lot of state officials should be sacked - their selfish intransigence could hand the White House to John McCain.
What really is the priority - Hillary as president or taking the country back from the Republicans - given recent events and statements I'm not convinced that the two are the same anymore.
I hope I'm wrong. I probably am.
why do i keep thinking that somehow the clintons are going to try and play some bullshit this weekend?
Frankly, I'm all about letting the chips fall where they may. I really think all sides need to just tone it down, realize the two democrats are very similar, and recognize that as much as we may not like the other Dem, the real enemy in all of this is the man in November.
Don't seat any of them. To say that this will tip Nov's outcome to McSame is delusional, dishonest, or both. Any moron from either of those states who stays home, or votes for 4 more years of Bush was never going to help us anyway.
Mich and Fla broke the rules in an effort to get a bigger say in the primaries' outcome. Now they are arguing that the only fair solution to their self-made problem is to allow them to select the Dem nominee.
The irony is that if they had kept their place on the schedule they would have had the influence they tried to get by crook.
One thing I actually am starting to think (wonder what you all say) is that because their votes aren't counting similarly as the votes from other states, voters in these states will be ENERGIZED to vote in November, given that they really want a say, and didn't get it the first stroll around. This I think will be especially the case because Obama will be campaigning in these two, as always, key swing states.
The option to count the votes as 1/2 reeks of the 3/5 of a vote given to African-Americans in an earlier era. The issue itself is reminiscent of the original earlier NH shakedown that the DNC did 25 years ago. Nancy Pelosi led that campaign as well. They threatened not to count NH's delegates, but were going to let them go to the convention. NH revolted, their votes got counted and NH was named "first in the Nation" state.
This scuffle may be more about Nancy Pelosi exerting her present power, and making up for the loss of face she suffered at NH's hands all those years ago.
(got the info from a 25 in 25 interview on NHPR. (25 top people in 25 years) when they interviewed the NH secretary of state.)
I think Aimai is right. There were Florida Dems pushing for this as well, and all but one Dem voted for it.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1459
If I am wrong about this, maybe a Floridian could set me straight; I realize things are always more complicated than they seem.
marko @ 4:
Knowing the Clintons, they will. Hard to imagine they've made their entire political careers all about them being the victims. And people actually swallow that line.
BobD, let's not try to make historical comparisons totally out of context. The 3/5 rule was instituted when there was overt state-sanctioned racism in our country in the late 1700s, the 1/2 thing is done in a time when the rules of our primaries are still f'd up and have not been changed despite their craziness. There's no way we could compare the two. I'm really getting tired of people coming up with lazy comparisons for things that not only have nothing to do with one another, but between something that will live on in textbooks as a reflection of the tragic history of our country with race, and another that will be forgotten until the next Democratic primaries in 2012--if nothing is done to emend the rules.
When it was decided that Michigan and Florida would not count because of skipping in line, all candidates except for Hillary pulled their names. All candidates except Hillary followed the DNC guidelines. Now Hillary says her numbers should count as well as the numbers of those who agreed to follow the rules?? One of two thing can happen in the name of fairness... the states simply don't count, because that's what the RULES say. Or there's a FAIR re-vote with Obama's name included.
Hillary's insistence that a vote with only her name on it should count is indicative of why many democrats wouldn't vote for her period.
And the total irony is that if Florida and Michigan waited their turns to hold primarys, just think of how massively important their voices would be now.
is wanting a woman candidate, because she is a woman sexist? clinton is exactly what we don't need, more of the washington as usual crap. pat buchanan, the evil prick that he is said it best, she lost the election when she voted for the war.
we CANNOT have a president that supported such a flawed policy
also no one is saying what i think is so important...her campaign is in deficit spending...how can she run a country if she can't manage a campaign?
huh?
answer that clintonistas!!!
aimai is very much on the right track. The biggest fallacy being propagated here is that the Democrats in Florida were simply swept up in a Republican effort to move the primary forward. The motion drew overwhelming support in Florida's legislature and was a bipartisan effort. Again, this is just propaganda spewing forth from the Clinton camp, trying to make it sound like they are just innocent victims of a Republican/Obama game.
The Florida Democrats approved of the Florida plan, and they should see some punishment for it. Michigan isn't even worth any argument about.
Marko, as a fellow Obama supporter, I think you're just hurting the cause for November and should just, uh, step aside.
marko @ 4:
That's obvious.
Forget Delegates, Forget Popular Vote, Obama Wins the Quintessential American Contest
Clinton on NH Public Radio, 10 OCT 2007: "It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything."
Democrat Four State Pledge Letter 2008, accepted by all Democrat candidates. Clinton's response: "We will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calender.
You either accept the party rules or you run as an independent. Lies and more lies, back-stabbing, endorsements of the opposition, and Thursday's claim of being the most fiscally responsible candidate while running a primary campaign which is over $20M in the hole. A Karl Rove endorsement isn't anything to brag about. Apparently she's forgotten the story of Brer Rabbit.
I think the whole thing is Bull****! Because they were not supposed to count Obama did not do any campaigning in Florida and took his name off the Michigan ballot. Because of Billary being well known of course she got votes in Florida. Many in Michigan who knew her and didn't have an alternate said they would rather have an alternate! At that time, early in the game people didn't even know who Obama was and naturally with him not campaigning in Florida and not being on the Michigan ballot it put her at the advantage. Now she said it is his own fault he was not on the Michigan ballot. [Deleted Site Monitor]! He was following the rules, she wasn't. Now she wants to change the rules.
Now the [Deleted Site Monitor] wants her votes. Well as far as I see it is a play out of Roves election guide. Steal them and get them any way you can even including cheating.
I have absolutely no respect for that woman. Note I did NOT say lady, for that she is not. My mother always said all females were women, but it takes special women to be ladies. Hillary is NOT.
I even doubt she is a Democrat. When I think of her and the Rovian type campaign she has run all I can think is Lieberman.
It is terribly annoying that we are at this point in the nominating process and because Billary has been having temper tantrums we are now trying to work out a deal. When will rules finally be rules for all of us? From what I can see no matter how this is played out it is not fair to Obama. Of course what else would anyone expect when you are dealing with a [Deleted Site Monitor] who jumps up and down and has a temper tantrum when the rules she agreed to aren't in her favor.
I can promise if she steals this from Obama I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HER. I will either write in or vote for an alternate party. I have already changed party affiliation to Independent. I don't like what I have seen in this race. That woman is not a nice person at all. At one time I could have tolerated her but after watching her over the past few months I am absolutely sure that if she was elected we would not be much better off then if McCain won, if we were better off at all. He is a senile old man, we have all seen what she is and I don't like the picture at all. I wouldn't trust her as far as I could throw her. She is a vindictive [Deleted Site Monitor]!
Perhaps that is why McCain is concentrating on Obama, anyone think she is a "sleeper" for the Republican party? She sure is not a Democrat! In the heat of this campaign which she thought she had in the bag she has shown that to be a FACT.
Lets hope the committee does what is right and does not do anything that undermines the will of the people of this country. The people have already spoken loud and clear, and it is NOT in Billary's favor.
I think we should all calm down and see what happens... *thud* OK who threw that? Come on... Who threw that... Right! Noone is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle!!! Even if they do say Obama! *thud* ahhh! *wack* ugh! ..........
ok i am a little hung this morning and i am at work, so here goes
fuck the games, the propaganda, the deals, the bullshit
obama is an historic candidate, no one can touch him
period
i've had it with the "the two democrats are very similar" meme (nothing personal alex)...
maybe their policies are "very similar" but that's where it ends...
john a. asks that we "Please be kind in the comment section.", so i'll end this now...
The only way the Clintons can win the nomination is to change (break) the rules they agreed to when they thought they were the anointed candidate and change the method that is used to select our presidential nominee. Without a massive defection, from the delegates that support Barack Obama, the Clintons can’t win a majority of delegates (both elected and super) which is the way we select our nominee – not popular vote.
The obvious analogy is this: It’s the bottom of the ninth, the home team is ahead and has just come up to bat when the players (and fans) from the other team stream on to the field and demand that they should win – not because they have the most runs scored, but because there are more of their fans at the game and they cheered louder.
Rules are rules – do we really want another president that is willing to break the rules (the law) so that they get their way, regardless of how it affects the country. I don’t think the country can take another president with Bush like logic whose only concern is whatever it is that’s in their best interest, regardless of the consequences.
I didn’t want King George and I don’t want a Queen Hillary.
Cherokee Fats @ 3:
you're correct. pointing out the facts does not make you a hillary hater, either.
EliteLemming @ 19:
ROTFLMBBAO
:<[)
marko @ 4:
and this weekend is any different than the others !
BobD @ 8:
Yes, but splitting delegates is not the same as disenfranchising voters or individual votes. The argument from the Clinton camp that this is a voter disenfranchisement issue is ridiculous on its face. This is all about the complex Democratic party primary rules and what to do when a state intentionally breaks them.
This is going to be a train wreck, because Hillary is not going to get what she wants. Hillary's people already know this and that is why she will take this all the way to Denver. This is going to sink the democratic party come Nov. If she can't win she will take everyone down with her.
Down with New Hampshire and Iowa and their tyrranical stranglehold on the primary process!
katy @ 21:
clinton really lost me when she used an oxymoron to describe her foreign policy ideas...
"i like the idea of coercive diplomacy"
coercive diplomacy
jumbo shrimp
really incredible
military intelligence
honest politician
sensitive man
completely unfinished
A Fine Mess
A just war
A little big
a little pregnant
A new classic
absolutely unsure
abundant poverty
academic fraternity
Academic sorority
Accidentally on Purpose
accurate estimate
accurate horoscope
accurate rumors
accurate stereotype
acrophobic mountain climber
Act Naturally
active retirement
actual reenactment
acute apathy
acute dullness
adult children
Adult male
advanced BASIC
advanced beginner
Affirmative action
affordable housing
aging yuppie
marco, she lost me waaay before that... going rovian clinched it for sure.
Let it end today. It's over, Hillary, get over it. You lost months ago.
BobD @ 8:
I would like NP to exercise her 'power' regarding tables and the criminal regime of Bushco, NP admitted Weds (in SFGate of the SF Chronicle) that Iraq was a lie from start to finish,
so isnt an administration lying to start a war grounds for impeachment !
The Republicans have worn out any sympathy vote they ever could get from the voters regarding impeachments and trials,
everybody would applaud them going on trial.
diamondmc @ 27:
HRC's Berlin bunker 45 strategy.
Katy, when I say I don't want four more years of George W. Bush, I mean I don't want four more years of George W. Bush. If we let our own squabbles get in the way, we may finally hand George W. Bush his first convincing electoral victory. I am as much an Obama supporter as you are (he was my favorite candidate since early 2007 and that has never changed), but we must realize that we're electing a party, not a candidate, into office. Yes, Barack is a lot better than Hillary personality-wise and isn't win-at-all-cost ass, but they are both good Democrats who have done a lot for the party, and she'll be able to get things done. Let's remember, we're shooting for good policy, above and beyond good process. I mean, do we really want endless war and a lousy economy to get worse just to suit a former reformer's endless quench to be president?
EJG @ 18:
I can't tell the difference between a freeper and an obama supporter anymore.
Interesting stuff but I wish the Committee Chair would institute a rule to limit applause or any other demonstration from the audience. After all this is a business meeting, not theater, and it would certainly speed things up.
Alex, @ 10.
Thanks for shutting me down on the 3/5ths thing! It was a knee-jerk reaction to me as I keep hearing the RW Radiomouths yammering about racism, sexism, elitism and I was, probably reading their pointy little minds! But you're right it was a lazy thought and out of context. Hmm,, maybe they will be using it.... :)
We need to get this behind us as a party, get the rule fixed, and then point out that the repubs have the same structure set up in their election rules. They just call the SDs something different, but they are still there and still hold the same role.
L.A. Confidential @ 36:
oooh... easy on the generalizations...
John says: "Howard Dean and Harry Reid have made it clear that they want the SD’s to declare ASAP."
My understanding of the process is that the Superdelegates only function is to break a deadlocked convention, which is precisely where Clinton and Obama are headed.
Once all the primaries are over neither candidate will have the necessary magic number for nomination which means that at the convention a second ballot will have to go around with all the delegates. I do believe, at that point, ALL delegates are free to vote for either candidate (or even Kucinich or Gravel!). At that point the Superdelegates are called in to break the deadlock.
Perhaps they are brought in after the first vote, not the second.
My point is this: The big poo-bahs of the party don't want a brawl in Denver. They want a well CONTROLLED party. Which is why they are trying their best to get the Supers to publicly declare NOW so the convention will be all wrapped up before the "party" begins.
The whole thing stinks if you ask me. Democracy isn't always pretty. I'd rather see NO superdelegates and let them all go there and duke it out until the delegates themselves decide on a candidate. Heck, maybe then we'd see some serious policy discussions going on between the delegates and the candidates...the old "job interview" kind of thing for a few days, instead of the bullshit balloons and meaningless speeches.
After all, they are mostly just crooks and liars anyway, right?
Howard Dean talks and everyone is saying how great the all are. The people in that Committee who caused the Democratic Party its biggest headaches of this campaign season.
Inside Hillary's bunker, bad news...
Christopher Turkel @ 32:
Clintons don't lose. They move goalposts.
Abbybwood @ 40:
I have a question for you Abbywood, I know this sounds crazy, or stupid. But are you saying that HRC could still win (I use that word loosely) this thing?
Abbybwood @ 40:
You might not remember the Republican's 1976 convention when then President Ford was challenged by Reagan. The most fun part was watching all the pissed-off Reagan supporters blow those large plastic ball-park horns every time Ford supporters were speaking. Sure, it was loud and fun watching the Republican train wreck, and it served to sink Ford in the general election. I'm hoping this year won't be our own 1976.
anybody else watching this having flashbacks to 2000?
CoIntelPro for Democratic Party Victory @ 24:
OUCH?
Are you all watching this? this idiot is talking about constitutional right to vote for president...this idiot doesn't realize that the Constitution doesn't talk about separate political parties...which means that what he is saying has nothing to do with a political parties primaries...it is referring to the general election.
But that's the Hillary group twisting everything they can until they are declared the winner...NO MATTER WHAT! and that's a lot like Bush-think and there is nothing more dangerous!
BobD @ 8:
Sorry, but this isn't even a valid comparison AT ALL. The 3/5 Compromise came out of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 to let southern states count three-fifths of their slave population in the census to determine how many representatives each would get in the new House of Representatives. African-American slaves had NO vote at all...they were slaves (property). After the Civil War in the 1860s the 15th amendment gave them voting rights that were immediately removed by Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. Not until the civil rights legislation of the 1960s did things begin to change.
To compare a squabble over rules within the Democratic Party to something like the 3/5 Compromise isn't just apples & oranges, it's apples & dogs (or anything else not in the fruit family). There simply is no comparison.
EliteLemming @ 46:
I'm right there with you! scary huh?
"Healing process". . (which means "give up and shut up")
EliteLemming @ 46:
yeah.
EliteLemming @ 46:
What do you mean? This is "Change We Can Believe In"
[Look L.A., Don't start something here today OK. We want this to go smoothly. OK. Thank You. Site Monitor]
bill DOH @ 47:
Its a paraphrased movie quote with some democratic licence... the real ouch is listening to the lawyer speak on MSNBC right now...
Hillary -I'm sitting in my Bunker
EliteLemming @ 46:
Not to 2000, but to 1976 and Reagan v. Ford and the floor fight over credentials and rules.
I had felt badly for Florida too, until I saw the opening remarks and learned that the DNC had told Florida last fall when this happened that there was a precedent (several actually) for states to hold their own party elections separately.
Huffpo says deal is made...halway
EliteLemming @ 46:
Well I guess, no matter what, we win this time... I think... maybe...
Ausman loves the airquotes.
Someone should tape his hands together!
ConcernedCanuck @ 43:
she lost in novemeber 2002 when she handed a loaded gun to a six year old
[Deleted, Off Topic.I'll say the same thing to you ferro. We want this to go smoothly OK. Site Monitor]
The Florida DNC leader Jon Ausman just finished his presentation. He said that the rules committee can cut the pledged delegate count of Florida by 50%, but that the superdelegates are by their nature not in violation of the timing rules, so they can not be left unseated or have their vote reduced.
Such a resolution would be fine for Barack Obama, and disappoint the Clinton camp.
To be clear, even the Florida Democratic party leaders are not with the Clinton camp in their COUNT ALL THE VOTES idiocy.
Donald Fowler, former DNC chair and Hillary Clinton supporter, is strongly disagreeing.
bowseat93 @ 57:
I appreciated hearing that reminder too from Roosevelt. We all forget that the Florida Democratic party had ample opportunity to fix this mess months ago, and didn't.
I don't understand how any votes in either FL or MI could count.
People were told their votes wouldn't count. Most stayed home.
Obama wasn't even on the ballot in MI. Most stayed home. Those that voted had no option other than Hillary and a write-in option.
At best you could take all delegates and Supers and split them down the middle but then it means nothing. So really... why bother. Why take us to this point. It makes absolutely no sense.
The only reason is that Hillary is trying to parse the victory of Obama and that's BS.
We already have a President who thumbs his nose at the rule of law when it suits him, now Clinton and her supporters are doing the same. And, at least Bush has been consistent; Clinton supported the sanction but only decided to ignore the rule of law when it suited her personal ambitions. She should be ashamed of herself. Then again, she also voted to support a war crime when she knew the "let's invade Iraq" arguments were BS, but she supported a war crime nonetheless, again to further her own ambitions. At leasts 100s of thousands of people didn't have to die because of her latest disengenous position.
WOO HOO charts and graphs!
BobD, thank you. We just gotta be careful. #49, I think he gets it.
DNC Rules Committee Creates Nostalgia for Hanging Chads!
Brian @ 67:
guess that makes him a prop comic.
I would like to remind everybody that this is supposed to be a healing process. *smack* Damnit!!!
So much for Hillary Clinton's word:
Hillary Clinton, 10-11-07:
[Deleted, Please don't post in all caps or in all bold lettering. Site Monitor]
Bret @ 66:
And don't forget the strange formula for counting popular votes. Millions of voters who happen to live in caucus states don't count as voters. I can't keep up with it.
Dahgrostab'ph-r-i @ 50:
rove is for the hill. airy
2000 yes.
EliteLemming @ 71:
Oh yeah . . "see me, feel me, touch me, HEAL ME" (tom tom fill 2 bars)
justabill @ 72:
good job!!!!
Robert Crush @ 65:
It's a real case of Disenfranchisement is in the Eye of the Politician. If you don't seat the delegates then your taking away the votes of the people who came out to vote. But if you do count the FL & MI delegates then they took away (retroactively) the opportunity to participate in this election for the people who believed the DNC and did not bother to vote in a primary that wasn't going to count for anything.
WHAT A JERK THIS FLORIDA GUY IS! Who cares about a Republican screwing with Florida in the 1870s! Was Lincoln so bad for you too, sir?
If the Democratic leadership used a democratic process instead of trying to control the selection process through timing of elections, shunning of "non-mainstream" candidates during the debate process, and superdelegates (undemocratic), it wouldn't be in such a mess. Of course, the Democratic leadership may not be happy with the results of the public will.
L.A. Confidential @ 36
I agree completely on that point. There is not a dime's worth of difference in tone of the Obama supporter and the freepers on the right.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the "rules committee" take an entertainment break and play the video of the priest mocking Hillary in front of Obama's congregation. Where's the story on that and of Obama's less than tepid response. Everyone could have a big laugh at her expense like the congregation did and then go back and vote their "conscience".
Just for the record, everyone's name was on the ballot in Fla. and because Obama bought national ads they ran in Fla. during the time there was no campaigning.
Obama chose to take his name off the ballot in MI, he wasn't required to do that and Hillary's was not the only name on the ballot. I understand that the Obama team on the ground encouraged his supporters to vote uncommitted on that ballot.
I don't really have an opinion how MI should be handled other than hold another primary but Fla. should be counted and seated as voted.
Wexler coming up !
"John and his excellent presentation"-Bill Nelson. Talk about self-aggrandizement...
marko @ 77:
good job!!!!
Tanx.
Here's a YouTube'd recording of Hillary saying it ....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULxxBz-PAjg
Excellent lesson for children:
Hey kids, life not so fair? Not winning? Need a do-over to beat the competition? Is your entitlement not holding water so much?
Cheat to WIN!
That's what you do!
This is making me literally sick to my stomach. This is abject, shameless, changing the rules in the middle of game, and a big f@ck you to all the people who stayed at home and didn't vote after being told that their votes would not count. The elections in Michigan and Florida were a total farce, and the idea that we're being told now to IGNORE this disenfranchisement is sickening. Florida and Michigan were WARNED, and they went ahead and did it anyway. If we seat their delegates now, what does that bode for 2012? Where does the madness stop?
The DNC needs to dig into its war chest, and fund a do-over election in both states 6 weeks from now (or however long it takes to set-up a primary election). That's the only pure solution. Otherwise, give all the delegates to Hillary. She'll still lose and have no argument after that.
so, "bluesage" is neither...
and after that very stoopid insult ("freepers?!?!?!!!),
another useless and uneducated post to scroll past...
No no no Dhalgren. This is too much. The arguments being made are purely primordial and anecodtal and lacking in empirics. It's actually sickening how weak the Clinton/Florida arguments are, yet they are even being considered.
Sen. Bill Nelson is obviously in this for his own political gain... Be back when he's done pandering.
Nelson can kiss my ass with this victom crap!
It's you fuck ups in Florida that keep dragging the rest of us through this shit.
Well it is no longer up for debate:
Bill Nelson is a cunt:
It's the Republicans who moved up the date
Not without the local Democrats supporting!
The people have spoken
What about the people who stayed home because they were told it was just a "beauty contest" outside the official rules?
A mother of five from Tampa- are you going to take away her vote?
She voted in an illegal election. If she was led to believe her vote was in a real primary in accordance with the rules, she was mislead.
Something is happening in Florida, don't get in the way of it
Yeah, something happened alright. Bill Nelson is bloviating and pontificating.
Gives me a hankerin' for some Key Lime pie... Think I'll fire up the old Hoveround and hunt some down...
It's no wonder we've had Bush for 8 years with the DNC-Dems failing to live up to it's own principles.
Brian @ 91:
victim
We have to hear the voices of the 1.7 million who voted and count their votes?
Oh man no way they have to be "punished".
one word...
traveshamockery!
If Hillary becomes the nominee at this point, I probably won't vote. A week ago, although I support Obama, I would have voted for either. Hillary needs to gather whatever grownup behavior she has left and bow out. She reminds of an spoiled child who feels a sense of entitlement for being the next POTUS. She still can't believe that this upstart who came out of nowhere is winning.
Harsh words? Yes.
L.A. Confidential @ 95:
Josh Marshall:
katy @ 88
You misspelled stupid in your rant against my intelligence.
Bret @ 66:
Not yet anyway, if she manages to steal the nomination it wouldn't surprise me at all. She is not an honorable person. Her handling of this campaign has given us all a glimpse of her true personality and it isn't pretty. REPUBLICAN running as a Democrat? Using Rovian tactics, attacking another Democrat while favoring a Republican challenger, agreeing to rules when she thought they favored her then having a hissy fit when she realized they didn't, take a closer look. She is NOT what this country needs. If she steals this nomination don't vote for her. Surprise everyone and put a Libertarian in office! I want Obama but if Clinton pulls this crap successfully I would rather see anyone in office but her or McSame. We would just continue on the same path with either one of them, neither has any honor or scruples.
Let's remember that the superior Candidate, HRC, had an opportunity to object to disenfranchising the FL and MI voters and did not! In fact she and her campaign signed on to the agreement to, indeed, disenfranchise the FL and MI voters. Now, the critical thinking, highly superior candidate, management guru extraordinaire and "ready on the first day commander in chief " wants a re-do. Let us also consider that HRC had the most powerful of Democratic brands at the beginning of the primary season. Is there a political advantage she did not have? Hell, her hubby is a former POTUS! And yet she ran and put together a campaign that managed to loose 11 straight primaries and bury herself relative to the only nominating number that counts ... delegates, to a guy who has been in the Senate for 3-years! Does any of this speak positively about HRC's decision-making skills and judgment? Just what kind of POTUS would she be, given the decisions she has made that have lead to her current dilemma? Incidentally, do we really want someone with this track record making decisions about sending someone else's sons and daughters into battle?
jeanne @ 97:
Electoral votes:
Obama is narrowly ahead of McCain 266 to 248.
Hillary is CLOBBERING McCain 327 to 194.
Let's get real the numbers never lie.
jeanne @ 97:
I'm an Obama fan too, but let's not forget that the next POTUS will select at least two supreme court justices... Do you really want McCain to pick them. I think not!
Were Dems complicit or not? It sounds like Nelson is prevaricating.
I heard a bobblehead on TV say last weekend that nobody had even heard of the "Rules and Bylaws Committee" prior to this fiasco. Does anybody know otherwise? Thanks.
This wasn't just something foisted on Florida Democrats by the Republicans, nearly all of the Dems in the Florida legislature voted in favor of moving the contest up as well. They claim they had no choice because the same bill contained provisions they had long sought reforming the election process there, but this to me is not much of an excuse. They all just thought this would make FL richer and more important. Turns out of they had just stayed put, they would have had the opportunity for both.
The RBC, which as we all know by now, is populated by more Clinton than Obama supporters, and where one of Hillary's chief advisers Harold Ickes works, voted nearly unanimously to agree to the sanctions, the lone dissenting vote coming from an Obama supporter. The idea that sanctions against a contest translates to 'votes not being counted' is just plain silly on its face. The votes cast were certainly counted, they were just not allowed to influence the outcome, but we all know that Clinton used those results over and over and over to feebly try to prop up her campaign. And the simple fact that she wants to count MI as is, with Obama receiving no votes, should be enough proof for anyone looking that the case she is trying to make here is entirely, 100% bogus.
Instead of whining about getting picked on by Republicans ,Fla. Dems. should get off their lazy asses and win some seats.
L.A. Confidential @ 102:
Why not project McCain versus George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, JFK, or any other person for that matter? Hypothetical general election races are meaningless at this point, as you need to win the nomination in order to be entered into the general election. Clinton and her campaign seriously miscalculated the importance of caucuses, put all of their eggs in the Super Tuesday basket, and apparently had a fundamental inability to appreciate the concept of how the delegates were allocated.
Polls cannot and should not trump actual and tangible past results. If polls dictated our electoral process, we could have skipped all of these primaries and went straight to Clinton vs. Giuliani.
L.A. Confidential @ 102:
You got a source on that? As Mark Twain said, there are three kinds of lies.
L.A. Confidential @ 102:
L.A. Confidential @ 102:
Real numbers? It's a bunch of disorganized polls. If you think Hillary can win Kentucky and North Carolina, then you're insane. Electoral-vote.com shouldn't be taken seriously.
Brian @ 107:
Kind of hard to do when repugnantcants have been stealing elections for years and it's finally getting some attention.
Ron @ 111:
hey careful... we got a history with that too.
targitted @ 101:
You left out one quality...the ability to manage finances.
Campaign Debt Obama: $2.0 million
Campaign Debt Clinton: $19.4 million
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php
Alex @ 5:
They are very similar in terms of policy, with some notable differences regarding foreign policy and healthcare, but to say that Hillary has showed the same level of professionalism throughout this campaign as Obama has, is quite ludicrous. He's the mature and level headed adult, she's the whiny little child who throws tantrums whenever things don't go her way.
Mike @ 108:
Actually the sliver lining in all this may be an ultimate revolt against the MSM. The MSM obviously wants a Hood Ornament for President after 8 years of Bush.
JeffS @ 110:
Also, for accuracy - today Obama vs Mcain: 276 to 238
EJG @ 100:
then why not put HIM in office... write him in, whatever... but why any so-called "libertatian"?
after these last few weeks, i've found it easier to think about NOT voting should she steal this...
but then i remind myself: S U P R E M E C O U R T
... sometimes it's hard to know who the true dems and progs are around these blogs...
and sometimes there are really good hints... like, "put a Libertarian in office!"...
i mean, c'mon...
Ron @ 111:
Bullshit! You don't even make an attempt in N.Fla. Spend some time ,and money in red counties; you might surprise yourselves.
who the fuck is she yelling at!?!
Brian @ 117:
And you contributed how much to the democratic party?
its called a microphone... you can use your inside voice...
jeanne @ 115:
Whatever you want fine.
The problem is now the DNC can't just dump half the party under the bus in order to advance their agenda and expect to win in Nov. But thats exactly what they are doing. Are these people going to get their heads out of the clouds?
Ron @ 119:
I canvass for local Dems. in Ct. all the time and not even a member of the party.
Brian @ 122:
So you got Lieberman in and you are an expert on Florida elections.
It's my understanding that the Repubs decided to seat half their delegates. There was no fight about it, as their nominee was clear.
One of Hillary's people (Wolfson? can't remember), actually had the nerve to say that some of the uncommitted in MI should be awarded to Hillary as well, although her name was the only one on the ballot. He thinks that people who saw Hillary's name, rather than vote for her, voted for "uncommitted" instead. Why I don't know. ;)
Hillary objects to Obama receiving the "uncommitted" votes, even though many Obama supporters stayed home. The ones that voted had no choice but to vote "uncommitted." Apparently Hillary believes all those blacks in Detroit voted for her 100%. LOL!
Reminds me of the good old days with Saddam Husein - even he only received 98-99% of the vote. I guess Saddam didn't have as much nerve as Hillary.
Site monitor you are fucking kidding me right?
It was NOT in all bold.
We have the CRAPPY PRIMARIES because we are still working in a CRAPPY ELECTORAL COLLEGE construct. Can WE MOVE AWAY FROM THIS CONTRUCT ALREADY?
Oh let me guess, now you will delele this becuase I had the unmittigated gall to call you out, TWICE NOW.
Ron @ 123:
I canvassed for Lamont ,so i'll take that hit. As far as Lieberdouche is concerned his days are numbered
Major, MAJOR flashbacks dude. I am seeing the year 2000 all over again! LMAO
JJ
[Deleted-Sitemonitor]
As a Michigan resident who voted I do not think my vote should count now. Not even half.
The rules were set. Our state DNC chair knew this. Our democratic governor knew this. The primary was moved to make us, in our governor's words, "more relevant in the process" and "to give us a greater voice". She and the others threw out a huge fuck you to the DNC and now we think the votes should count? No way. Allowing MI to get away with this removes credibility from the party as a whole IMHO.
I knew I would be "disenfranchised" yet I voted anyway. I had wanted to cast a vote for Edwards but found only Hillary and 'uncommitted' on the ballot. I chose the latter. Many dems I know voted the republican side and did the 'anyone but Mitt' thing.
This whole cluster is yet one more reason why we should go to a single day, nationwide primary and select our candidates by popular vote. Everyone votes the same day and everyone has the full slate of candidates to choose from. What is so hard about that?
I have no doubts that we will have huge wins in the House and Senate in Nov. so all this hysteria over the Supreme Court nominations is not really valid if the Democrats in Congress actually start acting like Democrats. They don't have to approve anyone for the Supreme Court. This country has operated many times in the past without nine justices and can do it again. It is not required that nine be seated at all times.
If Hillary does get the nomination and at this time I don't really see that happening but if it does, it will not be because she stole it but because she worked for it. The Hillary bashing here is getting as bad as Huff Post.
Obama has been given a free ride by this ridiculous media (please don't throw out Rev. Wright here) and he has not had to work as hard because he's had no real scrutiny and when asked questions such as the Rev. his answers are accepted and everyone moves on. The same standards have not applied to Hillary or to Bill. The race-baiting came directly from the Obama camp but the media turned the Clintons into racist. Obama has had CNN and MSNBC covering him for a very long time while every day we hear Cafferty, Tweety, Olbeman (now known as Keith O'Liely, what a disappointment he's been) and many others actually mocking Hillary. And Obama supporters have bought exactly what the media has been selling and you know nothing more about Obama than the rosy picture you've been sold.
Wexler is making sense at this point
Dot @ 124:
They're really reaching here... that bit about voting "uncommitted" when her name was on the ballot doesn't even make the least bit of sense. I voted uncommitted, but I had wanted to vote for Edwards. As I stated in comments above, many dems in this area voted the republican side in the primary. They were concerned about Romney and his pull in MI.
I still think the DNC should hold firm and seat none of them from either state.
Gretchen @ 128:
HEAR! HEAR!
i've been wondering that myself... what IS so hard about that?
Bluesage @ 129:
Why is Obama not a good candidate for president?
Clinton's campaign seems to have just said that they will accept the decision of this committee. This is a chance to end the conflict this week.
For the record, Hillary's name was NOT the only name on the MI ballot. And, all names were on the FL ballot.
jeanne @ 133:
I didn't say that he wasn't a good candidate. I said because this has been a media driven campaign and it has not been fairly covered that there has not been the same scrutiny of Obama. He is still an unknown and he is a novice in national politics. If he is the candidate I will vote for him despite the media and his OT supporters. I think she has a better plan for health care and I think she would be the stronger president. Obama's willingness to be all things to all people leaves me to think he will be more pliable and less strong in his positions.
katy @ 132:
Money. There is so much more money involved in the system we have. A lot of campaign money is spent early on in the primaries. Lots of people are making money on this - venues, media, hotels.... Think about how much profit is to be made by the locals when a candidate comes to town. Not only that, look at all of the ass-kissing, alliances formed, and posturing that goes on during our long primary run. Many little guys suddenly become important during the primaries. They don't want to give that up. Its all about the money and power trip.
We should have a 6 month primary campaign season for all candidates before primary day. No delegates or conventions, just a popular vote. Same thing for the general election - no electoral college, just popular vote. And a 6 month limit on the campaign. Caps on campaign spending and strict guidelines on contributions by special interest groups. Contributions from any religious organization or religion-based groups strictly banned.
Now wouldn't that be nice? I'm going to think about that and chase some butterflies under the pink sky in my little universe.
The RBC needs to throw the mop water on the Wicked Witch!!! Where the Hell is Dorothy when you need her?
Bluesage @ 135:
What other dem had their name on the ballot in MI? Mr. G and I only recall seeing Hillary and "uncommitted" when we voted. The rest were on the republican side.
Gretchen @ 139:
I believe Edward and Kucinich were on it.
Ickes wants to take this to the convention.
hey wait!
i wanna know what the "concept of fair reflection" is !!!
holy crap...
Ron @ 140:
That would be a big no for Edwards - we both would have voted for him and were disappointed that his name wasn't there. I don't recall seeing Kucinich either.
Bluesage @ 136:
wouldn't reagan, carter, b clinton and bush also have been novices in national politics when they were elected? i appreciate that you believe that she would be a stronger candidate and that you prefer her health care position to that of Obama. Hillary has 8 years of First Lady/unofficial advisor experience that counts for something, but she doesn't really have that much more experience in public office (national office) then Obama does, and he has more overall years of public office experience (local and national).
Mag7 @ 11:
Who's been feeding you this pile of inaccurate nonsense? Obama's name WAS on the Florida ballot. Hillary was NOT the only candidate who didn't take her name off the ballot in Michigan. No DNC guidelines required any candidate to take his/her name off the ballot. Obama did so for political reasons in order to be seen by Iowa and New Hampshire as "going the extra mile" for them to punish those evil folks in Michigan and, mostly, to dodge the evidence that he was trounced in Michigan by Hillary Clinton while his name WAS ON the ballot instead of benefitting from the ill-informed like you who rush to his aid with, poor Obama, "he wasn't even on the ballot".
I'm sure Obama wishes he could have pulled the same political stunt by finding an excuse to take his name off the Pennsylvania ballot, the Kentucky ballot and the West Virginia ballot and benefitted from doing so from the ill-informed in the same way he did with Michigan.
Moreover, Barack Obama is the ONLY candidate who contradicted the pledge not to campaign in Florida when he ran television campaign ads two weeks before their primary...without any evidence of HIM being sanctioned, penalized or his opponents being compensated or accommodated for it, by the way.
ALSO: #17 ReallyEvilCanine Says: Clinton on NH Public Radio, 10 OCT 2007: “It’s clear, this election they’re having is not going to count for anything.”
That would have been two weeks before the Florida primary and it was during that time that Barack Obama became the ONLY candidate to contradict the pledge not to campaign in either Florida or Michigan by running television ads in Florida before their primary. It is UNDERSTANDABLE that Hillary Clinton would have looked upon the results in BOTH states differently after that. Her statement above was made on Jan. 15th, when she was under the assumption that NONE of the candidates were going to contradict the pledge regarding Michigan and Florida as Obama did in the following weeks. By the time Florida had its primary on Jan. 29th, two weeks later, Barack Obama had been running his television campaign ads in Florida.
That sure would have changed MY attitude about whether or not Michigan or Florida would count.
Moreover, Hillary Clinton DID NOT wait until after the results of the primary in Florida to express her interest in seating those delegates. Before their primary she announced her intention to visit Florida after their polls closed to thank them for voting and to assure them she was going to fight to have their votes count. And that's exactly what she did.
Gretchen @ 143:
My mistake. I was a supporter of Edwards also.
Here we go with the Dems. are not at fault crap!
Florida Dems. need to wrap their heads around this ;YOU ARE AT FAULT for not working hard enough to put Dem. asses in the legislature. When you get slapped around by the Repulicans it is your fault.
Login or Register to post comments.