home

Who's On the DNC Credentials Committee?

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:15:00 AM EST
Tags: DNC 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution provides some details about who will serve on the DNC Credentials Committee and decide what to do about Florida and Michigan.

There will be 186 members. Howard Dean gets to choose 35 and he has already done so. The AJC says they are people who have their primary allegiance to Dean, rather than Clinton or Obama.

The states choose the remaining members, with their allotments determined by population.

The three co-chairs have old ties to Bill Clinton.

In addition to those appointees, Dean has named three co-chairmen for the committee, all with ties to the Clintons. Alexis Herman was Bill Clinton's secretary of labor. James Roosevelt Jr. was an associate commissioner at the Social Security Administration when Hillary Clinton was first lady. Eliseo Roques-Arroyo was a consultant for Bill Clinton from 1998 to 2000.
As to the committee's options: [More...]

DNC rules provide the committee could:

  • Uphold the sanctions and bar all the delegates;
  • Allow all of them to be seated; or
  • Create some kind of hybrid where half the delegates get to attend.

The committee could also decide how many of each state's delegates get awarded to which candidate.

That's not the end of the story though.

On the first day of the convention, Aug. 25, the Credentials Committee presents its report to the seated convention delegates. The report, which will contain the decision on Florida and Michigan, must be approved by the delegates — including all the superdelegates.

< Obama Starts Ad Blitz in Pennsylvania | Obama Advisor Is CEO Of Passport Breach Contractor >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Who's On the DNC Credentials Committee? | 188 comments (188 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Imagine (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:01:22 AM EST
    if the committee, the delegates and superdelegates vote ONCE AGAIN not to seat Florida and Michigan.

    Will Democrats ever win Florida or Michigan again in a presidential election?

    Is winning worth the long term damage (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by magnetics on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:32:43 AM EST
    to the Democratic party?  I accept -- although many do not -- the narrative that Obama withdrew from MI as an act of sabotage, and has basically been the roadblock to re-voting MI or FL.  Not everyone will agree with me; but those who do must view him more and more as willing to sacrifice the welfare of the party on the altar of his ambition.

    Say what you like about Hillary -- at least she's for counting the voters in these two crucial states.  The offers of an equal delegate split do not pass the laugh test; in the words of physics Nobelist Wolfgang Pauli "That's not even wrong!"

    [ Parent ]

    The numbers nobody talks about: (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Arcadianwind on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:48:54 AM EST
    And the ones that will certainly make a difference, come November:

    Like it or not, a few battleground states will decide this thing then. Ohio, West Virginia, Florida, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and maybe Tennessee.

    Of the 88 counties of Ohio, the count was 83 for Hillary, and 4 for Obama. In Florida, Obama won only 8 counties, in NY, 1 county, in Missouri, 5 counties. In Tennessee he won 9 counties, and in Arizona he got only 2. In West Virginia he will win zero counties, and in PA, other than the Philly area, he will not do much better.

    These are all states Hillary can win in November. Obama could take perhaps one or two in a best case scenario, which won't get it done. As the primaries count thus far, and you take out the bogus republican votes for Obama in the open primaries, Hillary is ahead in the popular vote by close to 1 million already, with more to come, in PA, WV, and Indiana.

    Both candidates have their negatives, that is certain, but Obama's will not play well at all in the battleground states.

    The Super delegates have a clear choice to make, if they want to beat McCain....

    Please feel free to post this on other sites.

    [ Parent ]

    You dont have to win many OH counties (none / 0) (#118)
    by riddlerandy on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:56:39 AM EST
    to win the state, just win the right ones by enough.

    That is true nationally as well.

    Bill Clinton won 31 out of 88 OH counties in 1992.

    In 2000, Bush carried 2439 counties to 674 for Gore and yet Gore won the popular vote.

    Try again.

    [ Parent ]

    You make a good point (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by ChrisO on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:16:17 AM EST
    so I assume we can apply the same logic to the "Obama won more states" argument.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (none / 0) (#157)
    by riddlerandy on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:46:36 AM EST
    that is correct

    [ Parent ]
    rose colored glasses (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:17:27 AM EST
    ignoring Survey USA's recent report on Ohio (3/20) the above would make sense.

    But unfortunately, I cannot, and the Columbus Dispatch article titled - Signs of Big Trouble for Obama in Ohio makes this abundantly clear...he is toast in OH.

    and before you give me, that this is just one state, consider...

    Missouri where Obama is getting his clock cleaned by McCain where Hillary is winning,

    Massaschusets where all of a sudden, a take for granted blue state is in play with Obama as candidate

    Add FL where Obama simply cannot win, MI where he blocked the plan for revotes because it was 'complicated' and Obama is in the unenviable position of blocking the delegates from both FL and MI which is surely going to make him popular in those states...

    The implications are starting to become very clear, Obama as the Democratic candidate will get creamed.

    [ Parent ]

    Like I've said (none / 0) (#158)
    by riddlerandy on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:48:28 AM EST
    by the time PA is over, McCain will have it locked up

    I will vote for Clinton or Obama, whichever wins

    I would love to see Jeralyn or BTD do a poll how many other folks here are willing to make the same commitment

    Any takers?

    [ Parent ]

    addressed many time here (none / 0) (#170)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:18:14 AM EST
    BTD and I will vote for the nominee. If you'd like a reader poll, you can do one on your blog.

    [ Parent ]
    Ok then, got the message (none / 0) (#182)
    by riddlerandy on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:12:01 PM EST
    the suggestion box is closed

    I am glad to learn (belatedly due to my occasional parsing of your blog) that you will be supporting the nominee.

    I hope that more and more  folks will come around to that view, regardless of who the nominee is

    Now I am really going on a bike ride on this beautiful day in Berkeley

    [ Parent ]

    I refuse to take any loyalty oath (none / 0) (#185)
    by echinopsia on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:35:17 PM EST
    I haven't decided yet what I'll do if Obama is the nom. He hasn't earned my vote or convinced me that he cares about my issues, and I seriously don't think he can win. A lot can happen between now and November. This situation is ripe for a third party candidate.

    I used to say I'd vote for the Dem no matter what, but Obama has changed my mind. I think he is a disaster waiting to happen and I just hope it happens before August. He's already damaged goods.

    [ Parent ]

    Then why is he Obama campaign/media (none / 0) (#142)
    by kenosharick on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:25:28 AM EST
    making such a HUGE deal out of states won? They are trying to equate a win in states like N.D.and Miss. (states unwinnable in Nov.) to Calif. or NY.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually, none of those four states matter (none / 0) (#155)
    by riddlerandy on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:43:40 AM EST
    if they do, the election is a landslide one way or the other anyway

    [ Parent ]
    you did not understand my point at all (none / 0) (#188)
    by kenosharick on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:33:10 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    In (none / 0) (#189)
    by sas on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:00:29 PM EST
    November here in PA -

    Hillary could pull it off, but Obama is toast.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama did not block MI and FL (none / 0) (#14)
    by annie1982 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:50:22 AM EST
    Why do you keep saying that its Obama who is blocking a re-vote in MI and FL?  The DNC, along with the state legislature, explained the rules months ago - candidates and state dem committees agreed.  You CANNOT re-run a race - not unless all things are equal Hillary clearly said, back in Oct., that the votes in MI and FL did not count and she didn't care if her name was on the ballot or not.  The time to fight for the delegate count was BEFORE the faux primary took place.
    Why should Obama agree to hold new votes in these states just to satisfy Hillary because she is not winning the delegate race?  How you cannot see this is beyond me!  If the voters in those states are so upset and feel disenfranchised, they should not elect the same state reps in the next election - or take the matter up with those who made the decision.  Candidates do NOT make the decisions in their own race, nor do they ever PAY for the race.

    [ Parent ]
    You're wrong on the rules and (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:52:38 AM EST
    so much else here in so many ways, sorry.  Do look back through past threads for the DNC rules, etc.

    [ Parent ]
    annie1982 (none / 0) (#160)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:52:25 AM EST
    is right on the point. The states decided to move their primaries up in violation of DNC after they were warned of the consequences. All the major candidates, including H. Clinton, signed a pledge not to "campaign or PARTICIPATE" in those primaries. Everyone knew that they didn't count.

    Demanding delegates from the non-counting primaries is PARTICIPATING. Sorry, that's just another example of Clinton's lying on the subject. Just because you support Clinton doesn't mean that you have to believe the lie.

    The final attempt at the primary in Michigan would have denied voting rights in the Democratic primary to the very people, Edwards and Obama supporters, who could not vote for their candidates in the January primary that did not count based on who voted where in the primary that didn't count. Why should Obama agree to that? Some people here are so devoted to Clinton that they cannot recognize what is unfair to other candidates and their supporters.

    Further, the Clinton campaign and their surrogates in Michigan and Florida continued to demand that the false primaries count from January on. All that time could have been used to negotiate a solution. They ran out the clock and now blame Obama personally for their own dishonesty and failures. This is not a recommendation for leadership.

    [ Parent ]

    ignoring of course (none / 0) (#166)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:08:24 AM EST
    the fact that Obama has not only failed to provide any leadership on this issue himself, he himself became the obstacle. He actually and quite unbelievably commented that the re-vote as planned in MI was 'complicated'  The clear takeaway was that Obama isn't capable of solving 'complicated' issues.

    Then consider their positions going into the convention...

    HRC - seat the delegates...2 million people voted.
    BHO - don't seat the delegates...ignore the votes.

    I fail to see where Obama has established a leadership benefit from this controversy but perhaps you can actually explain how this inures to Obama besides 'playing politics as usual'

    How does Obama now state that voters count with clean hands?

    [ Parent ]

    This was equivalent to 'present' or 'no vote' (none / 0) (#204)
    by andrys on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:00:28 PM EST
    It's an Obama strategy.  And then there was a third one, in which he'd say he pressed the wrong button and didn't mean to do that -- on controversial issues, of course.

    [ Parent ]
    Howard Johnson is RIGHT (none / 0) (#171)
    by blogtopus on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:19:50 AM EST
    Harumph! Harumph!

    I didn't get a harumph out of that guy!

    It works both ways, of course, but it always brings a smile to my face to see teams working together for the greater good.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama (none / 0) (#192)
    by cal1942 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:33:52 PM EST
    actively opposed a DNC backed bill in the Michigan legislature that would have set up a new primary.  His supporters in the legislature wouldn't move on the bill.  The legislature adjourned on Thursday.  In effect, Obama ran out the clock.

    The amendment to the statute that you've drunk the kool-aid on was a sensible provision to prevent massive Republican participation.

    " ... denied voting rights in the Democratic primary to the very people, Edwards and Obama supporters, who could not vote for their candidates in the January primary"

    I'm an Edwards supporter and I voted Uncommitted in the Democratic primary as did roughly a quarter million others.  Uncommitted got 40% of the vote.

    As I recall something like 7% of the vote in the Republican primary was from crossover Democrats. If they chose to use their only vote in the Republican primary then that's the decision they made. There is no logic in the universe that can be stretched enough to claim disenfranchisement of people who've already exercised the franchise. The idea that Republican primary participants should get two votes sounds a little 'Chicago' to me.

    Michigan primaries have been warped before by crossovers.  In 1972 (Nixon was incumbent) Republicans voted in very large numbers insuring that Wallace carried the state. With no Republican primary there would be nothing to prevent massive Republican involvement.

    But what I'd really like to know is by what logic did you arrive at the conclusion that Clinton lied in any of this?

    Another thing about 'da rules.' Rules aren't sacred but principle is. If we're going to insist that primaries select our party's nominee (McGovern Commission 1970) then it should be incumbent on the party's national committee to insure that the residents of each state are afforded an opportunity to vote for delegates to the convention despite any quarrels with the legislature or leadership in any given state. We should carefully examine the rationale that determines a particular order for state primaries. What happened here was a power struggle between the DNC and the state parties. Ultimately the DNC acted in an irresponsible fashion to resolve the order of primary issue and deserves to get fried.

    [ Parent ]

    Dude: the primary date was set (none / 0) (#198)
    by magnetics on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:38:24 PM EST
    by the state legislature in FL, which is rethuglican.

    [ Parent ]
    Of course he did (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by felizarte on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:07:21 AM EST
    Did you ever hear him say 'yes' to a revote in Michigan or Florida?

    [ Parent ]
    It's not (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by tek on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:43:55 AM EST
    for Hillary, it's for the voters in those states.

    [ Parent ]
    yes it was Obama that blocked MI (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by fly on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:43:35 AM EST
    and he would not even discuss with FDp a re-vote.

    Obama blocked Mi by not accepting the re-vote as submitted by The MI Democratic party, it was accepted by Clinton and the DNC , the only one who didn't approve it was Obama, and the MI legislature could not move forward without approval by Obama's campaign..HE DID NOT APPOROVE,because the plan would notallow and the DNC rules would not allow republicans who voted in the republican primary to cross over and vote again in the dem primary re-vote.

    So it seems Obama is more concerned about republicans voting twice in a state than he is about Vets, and active Military, and all ethnic democratic registered Americans.

    That will surely not bode will for Dems or himself if he is the nominee in Nov.

    I can tell ypu in my state of Fla..he is toast!..he will not win in Fla and will prob lose in a landslide in Fla in Nov , if he gets that far.

    oh and i was a 2004 elected delegate in my state of Fla..i have a long internet list i work with daily since 2004..no dems i know will vote for him in Fla , after he and Dean and Donna Brazile tried and failed to manipulate our state with a caucus..we get it here in Fla..and there are many pisssed off Vets here..the state with the most Vets...they don't take kindly to anyone stealing their votes! and now it has happened one to many times!

     

    [ Parent ]

    Really, instead of just repeating (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by ChrisO on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:14:40 AM EST
    what you read on the Internet, it would help if you actually looked things up for your self. I don't mean this to be a personal attack, but on this topic, in particular, there is so much misinformation being floated by Obama supporters that it has really muddied the process.

    This is from a DNC press release on March 5, quoting Howard Dean: "The rules, which were agreed to by the full DNC including representatives from Florida and Michigan over 18 months ago, allow for two options. First, either state can choose to resubmit a plan and run a process to select delegates to the convention; second, they can wait until this summer and appeal to the Convention Credentials Committee..." (emphasis mine).

    [ Parent ]

    agreed (none / 0) (#167)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:16:16 AM EST
    and further misstatement of facts by Obama supporters here will be deleted.  He did object to the revote plan.

    [ Parent ]
    Pressure (1.00 / 0) (#127)
    by 1jane on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:11:14 AM EST
    Obama just flew out of my county of 200,000 folks late yesterday afternoon. One or both of the Clinton's are expected here in a few weeks. Estimates for the 5 Obama appearances across the state are approximately 38,000 folks attended the events across the state. The credentialing committee will be under intense pressure to follow their rules. The fear among the Democrats in my state is the utter distruction of the Party if the contest goes too long between the two candidates.

    I'll watch the fund raising numbers as one way to measure how the candidates are doing.

    By the way, General Tony McPeak, who looks and sounds like Clint Eastwood delivered one of the strongest rebuttals of a statement by former president Clinton we've heard. The crowd at the rally leapt to its feet.

    [ Parent ]

    McPeak? (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by lambert on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:22:13 AM EST
    Was the rebuttal that "[Obama] doesn't go on television and have crying fits?"

    That's the stuff to give the troops!

    [ Parent ]

    comparing Bill Clinton to McCarthy (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:24:31 AM EST
    was so over the top that even Richardson couldn't defend it on Fox this morning.

    So much for the politics of hope.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama can keep McSpeak since (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:10:52 PM EST
    Hillary has:

    Flag Officers who have endorsed Hillary Clinton
        General Wesley Clark
        General John M. Shalikashvili
        General Henry Hugh Shelton
        General Johnnie E. Wilson
        Admiral William Owens
        Lt. Gen. Joe Ballard
        Lt. Gen. Robert Gard
        Lt. Gen. Claudia J. Kennedy
        Lt. Gen. Donald L. Kerrick
        Lt. Gen. Frederick E. Vollrath
        Vice Admiral Joseph A. Sestak
        Major General Roger R. Blunt
        Major General George A. Buskirk, Jr.
        Major General Edward L. Correa, Jr.
        Major General Paul D. Eaton
        Major General Paul D. Monroe, Jr.
        Major General Antonio M. Taguba
        Rear Admiral Connie Mariano
        Rear Admiral Alan M. Steinman
        Rear Admiral David Stone
        Brigadier General Michael Dunn
        Brigadier General Belisario Flores
        Brigadier General Evelyn "Pat" Foote
        Brigadier General Keith H. Kerr
        Brigadier General Virgil A. Richard
        Brigadier General Preston Taylor
        Brigadier General John M. Watkins, Jr.
        Brigadier General Jack Yeager


    [ Parent ]

    flag officers? (none / 0) (#193)
    by diogenes on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:03:52 PM EST
    If that's what it takes then cancel the election because John McCain will get the large majority of flag officer endorsements.
    If flag endorsements won't count in the general election then why now?

    [ Parent ]
    The crowd "leapt to their feet?" (none / 0) (#136)
    by kenosharick on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:21:31 AM EST
    Oh really? At an Obama rally after an attack on a Clinton?  How shocking!

    [ Parent ]
    Nice try! (none / 0) (#148)
    by ghost2 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:30:13 AM EST
    You CANNOT re-run a race

    NO, my dear.  All this time, DNC was ASKING Florida and Michigan to schedule alternative primaries.  That option has always been open.  That's why Obama campaign has resorted to crappy 'concerns'.  

    [ Parent ]

    The Obama Echo Chamber Will Ping Itself Silly But (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Mark Woods on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:53:23 AM EST
    The rest of the world won't necessarily be listening.  Most folks will be having picnics in August, not reading blogs - and there's nothing on TV in August but reruns, so they won't even stumble onto arcane delegate vote committees by accident.

    And we have to wait and see if Free Tibet protests, anti-war/Bush protests or terrorism overtake the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games that run Aug. 08-24 2008 -- either way this news will eclipse the dreary 'he said/she said' babble of the current Barrack/Hillary spats.

    I think threatened August floor hissy fits by the Obama worker drones will get a lot of coverage for one day or less, swapping the incestuous blogosphere but never getting as much as a peep at crowded summer family gatherings at my midwestern relatives' backyard soirees.

    It will be Tropical Hurricane Season in late August but any parties at my liberal circles' neighbourhood in South Florida are another story, where we're all waiting to see if we burn Howard Dean in effigy or let him live another year . . .

    [ Parent ]

    Holy Crow (none / 0) (#174)
    by blogtopus on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:26:55 AM EST
    You know Mark, I never thought about the timing of the Olympics vs the Convention.

    This is going to be a very tumultuous year. My guess is that the usual merry pranxters will be choosing whether to expend their energy on the Olympics or the Convention.

    'We have to get out into the streets to protest the Hillary Coronation!'

    'But my A.N.S.W.E.R. Alert says we also have to protest the Olympics!'

    'Oh man! I can only carry 1 case of redbull in my haversack! What are we gonna do?'



    [ Parent ]
    I am convinced that at this point (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by riddlerandy on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:01:07 AM EST
    it may just be rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

    By the time PA is over, Obama and Clinton -- and more importantly their supporters -- will have so thoroughly trashed each other that the winner will be lucky to keep 70% of the loser's supporters in the General.  That will not be enough.

    Hopefully it will not cost us the House.

    [ Parent ]

    Simple answer? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:33:32 AM EST
    No.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm really starting to think ... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:49:08 AM EST
    we're going to a second ballot (at least) in Denver.

    I don't think the Supers will all break one way.  And the first ballot will not result in a either candidate having enough delegates for the nomination.

    Hello, brokered convention!

    At last, an exciting convention to watch (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:02:02 AM EST
    again.  How I remember those riveting hours, so many decades ago, watching when I was only a kid . . . and being turned into a political junkie today.

    Amazing to realize, too, that some of the most exciting ones were watched in shades of gray on gray in the old black-and-white tv days, and only tv's so tiny compared to what we have today.  But so many greats I saw then were plenty colorful and larger than life, even so.  

    Of course, I also recall great convention coverage, great journalists then who just reported the stories when that was appropriate -- most of the time, just getting out of the way for us to see events for ourselves -- and clearly labeling analysis when they did so.  Those were the days.

    For those who haven't seen a brokered convention, or the manufacture of sausage, the old saw about sausage and politics is not so.  Brokered conventions pulling political machinations out of the proverbial back rooms and instead being played out before us are much more fun to watch, believe me!

    [ Parent ]

    Hooboy... (none / 0) (#18)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:53:56 AM EST
    there's a recipe for trouble...and big TV ratings...

    [ Parent ]
    The idea of a brokered convention... (none / 0) (#22)
    by reynwrap582 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:00:48 AM EST
    Seems sort of exciting to me, I'm afraid to admit.  Probably because I'm still young and my only "experience" with a brokered convention was from the final season of The West Wing.

    I have a feeling the real thing would be way uglier, though.

    [ Parent ]

    Nah, not ugly -- it's great reality tv (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:09:26 AM EST
    as we saw before we ever heard of such a term.

    Brokered conventions need not be ugly at all -- not unless someone wants to create a scene.  Of course, some will do so even if a convention isn't brokered.  Even walkouts just look like, well, a bunch of middle-age people walking.  I mean, if Donna does her walkout shtick, what are we going to see?  A middle-aged woman walking . . . straight to the cameras.:-)

    The worst scenes have been, sadly, outside conventions, anyway.  And Denver doesn't have a Mayor Daley -- the one who wanted to create a acene with his cops far more than any protesters did.

    [ Parent ]

    All I can say is, thank Dog they aren't (none / 0) (#67)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:25:54 AM EST
    in NYC this year! lol!~

    I kept a low profile during the Repub one. But during the Dem one, we had some 'visitors' which required action. Seems they had a prob with our womens clinics. OY! It was a very strange clash of principles. But an interesting, and at times uplifting, day. Great study in people/group interaction.

    Don't think a brokered convention would have helped. Is this still an issue (dem platform vs repub) that may need to be considered in Denver? Or is McCain too liberal to draw those troops?

    [ Parent ]

    I'm hoping for a massive (none / 0) (#94)
    by Dancing Bear on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:28:01 AM EST
    shoe fight like we see in other countries. Or some slugging.

    [ Parent ]
    Abrahan Lincoln (none / 0) (#154)
    by tek on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:37:19 AM EST
    was nominated at a very heated brokered convention.

    [ Parent ]
    Apparently (none / 0) (#29)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:19:02 AM EST
    the younger candidate in the West Wing is based, in some part, on BO.

    [ Parent ]
    A brokered convention (none / 0) (#112)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:39:42 AM EST
    is very exciting to watch, but I'd rather see it in the GOP.  I fervently hope ours gets resolved before that happens.

    [ Parent ]
    The Super Delegates (none / 0) (#31)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:26:36 AM EST
    will declare right after the last Primary on June 1--or earlier.....

    If Hillary does not win North Carolina, that could precipitate a superdelegate stampede....

    If Obama has the votes and the nomination locked up, the Florida and Michigan delegations will be seated consistent with his nomination.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't know about that (none / 0) (#175)
    by blogtopus on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:29:44 AM EST
    You may be right, they may want to make their declarations. But that isn't set in stone, and they may want to see which way the wind is blowing by the convention in August.

    If Obama is still being buffeted around by Wright or god forbid something else, and his national polls are still tanking, they might have to reconsider for the benefit of the party and the nation.

    [ Parent ]

    20% Is All That's Needed in Committee (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Dan the Man on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:49:29 AM EST
    I think Marc Ambinder has already talked this.

    Link

    "20% of the committee is all it takes to file a minority report that will be presented to the full convention, which will duly vote."

    Now you've got me thinking about ... (none / 0) (#25)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:02:33 AM EST
    that Spielberg/Tom Cruise movie.

    Why did you do that?

    [ Parent ]

    "if" not a word in a front runner's ...? (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:04:54 AM EST
    Okay ... it's Kipling time!

    "IF..."

    by

    Rudyard Kipling

    IF you can keep your head when all about you
    Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
    If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
    But make allowance for their doubting too;
    If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
    Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
    Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
    And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

    If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
    If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
    If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
    And treat those two impostors just the same;
    If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
    Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
    Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
    And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:

    If you can make one heap of all your winnings
    And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
    And lose, and start again at your beginnings
    And never breathe a word about your loss;
    If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
    To serve your turn long after they are gone,
    And so hold on when there is nothing in you
    Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'

    If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
    ' Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch,
    if neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
    If all men count with you, but none too much;
    If you can fill the unforgiving minute
    With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
    Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
    And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!

    Why does Obama refuse (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by ding7777 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:12:49 AM EST
    to embrace the popular vote in FL and MI when the DNC "banned" only the delegates?

    I don't know how (none / 0) (#83)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:11:21 AM EST
    the UN sanctions fair elections, but I imagine that two main requirements are that the candidates (1) are both on the ballat and (2) are allowed to actively campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    Then why did BHO (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by magisterludi on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:03:11 AM EST
    so obviously resist a re-vote?

    Roolz? Oh, puh-leeze.

    [ Parent ]

    Requirements vs voluntary removal (none / 0) (#108)
    by ding7777 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:09:19 AM EST
    (1) Obama voluntarily removed his name from the MI ballot - there was no rule or law requiring him to do so - not even a suggestion or hint anywhere that he do so, except in Obama's political playbook to spin the outcome.

    (2) all candidates voluntarily declined to campaign in FL and MI - there was law requiring them to do so - and all names were on the FL ballot.

    [ Parent ]

    If the Obama campaign is so sure (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by felizarte on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:05:32 AM EST
    of their "rithmetic' why do they act so nervous?  In the end it will be the entire American electorate that will decide.  I'm sure that Super D's will know who is really electable and whose not.

    The republicans are certainly not going to let Rezko and Wright go away.  And the Michigan and Florida voters will not forget either.

    the real worry (none / 0) (#85)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:14:59 AM EST
    is that the Clinton campaign will bloody the Obama campaign on the way to the GE and help make him unelectable.  If Obama wins the GE, Hillary won't be able to campaign for president until 2016.  If he loses the GE in 2008, she would be young enough to campaign in 2012 and would be able to claim even more "experience" while saying "I told you so" to all the Obama supporters.

    [ Parent ]
    How can Hillary Clinton (none / 0) (#107)
    by TN Dem on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:45:14 AM EST
    make Obama unelectable? He either is or he isn't!
    At least what is out now is out and the Republican's  won't be able to bring it out on their terms right? If anything, the 'vetting' should help.

    Do you honestly believe that the Republican's won't bring out more than this? Do you think the authors of the swiftboat campaign have nothing up their sleeve?

    Kerry, may argue diferently...you know the amazing candidate who used Bill Clinton to draw thousands to his rallies and campaign events to try and quiet the  Republican machine....oh the evils the Clinton's have perpetuated...sure...

    [ Parent ]

    You do realize... (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by magisterludi on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:27:58 AM EST
    every time BHO "believers" diss BC, they lose a dem vote for their anointed "One", don't you?

    Not with Florida and Michigan (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Dancing Bear on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:44:07 AM EST
    not to mention our friend Barack has been having a few public problems.  Delegates and Super Delegates can change their votes. Once she leaves PA with a full belly many of them are going to start looking at what their own futures will be.
    Many like McCaskill are already on the hot seat.

    Oh, and all you people that think the Super Delegates should vote the way their states did should ask Bill Richardson exactly WTF he did?  She won his state.  She won the hispanic vote all over the country.  What will he ever win again?
    Maybe Survivor or some dancing show.

    Sorry I misread your post initially (none / 0) (#180)
    by riddlerandy on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:08:00 PM EST
    always drink two cups of coffee before posting, my new rule

    [ Parent ]
    Jeralyn and BTD (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Dancing Bear on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:02:57 AM EST
    Perhaps we could do a thread on what might take place in PA.  A precursor of what to expect.  How can this state be turned upside down given the clear lead.

    Can we take our name off the ballot?  Can we get court orders to extend voting hours? What tactics will be used to further disenfranchise the voters in a clearly Clinton State? Maybe if we get the things out in the open they will be less likeley to try them.

     Maybe this state will have votes that count and people willing to stay for the GE.

    Commenters (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:35:26 AM EST
    Cy Street is a chatterer who is trying to dominate the conversation with his/her opposing views. He/she is limited to four comments a day. Several posts of his/her's with false information has been deleted.

    Bob in Pacifica is also limited to four comments a day and warned to stop posting his opinions as facts  because they spread misinformation.

    See the comment rules. We are well aware of other blogs urging Obama supporters to come here and take over the conversation. Obama supporters are welcome to join the conversation but they cannot present their opinions as facts and they cannot chatter by repetitively making the same point or trying to hijack or dominate the discussion. These have been the rules here since 2002 and they are not changing.

    friends of bill on the cred committee (1.00 / 3) (#3)
    by joe in oklahoma on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:06:40 AM EST
    so, it comes down to this.
    behind in delegate count,
    behind in states won,
    behind in popular vote,
    Hillary controls the chair at the cred committee...

    the Clintons cannot believe anyone would have the chutzpah to challenge their power or their "right" to the Oval Office.  Just imagine if the current situation were reversed:
    imagine Clinton winning over a dozen primaries in a row, being ahead in the delegate count, ahead in the popular vote, and way ahead in the number of states won.
    I suspect there would be tremendous pressure on Obama to pull out.
    i further suspect Clinton would regard a decision by Obama to stay in the race as underhanded chicanery.

    and yet what do we see in this situation in which we find ourselves?
    Clinton carries on, with a minimal chance of victory, and actually had the ovaries to offer Obama a veep slot.
    everything she does now is intended to destroy his standing vs McCain.
    she and Bill even speak more favorably of the Republican candidate than they do of their Dem opponent.
    the democratic party "leadership", which would be telling Obama to drop out if the situation was reversed, is cowed into silence, and when one superdelegate speaks out (Richardson) is he labeled a Judas.
    but a Judas requires a Savior, and Hillary ain't no Savior.

    It comes down to this: (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by magnetics on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:34:32 AM EST
    won in every important swing state, and in every major blue state except Illinois, which is her opponent's home state.

    What am I missing here?

    [ Parent ]

    Wisconsin (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ben Masel on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:53:03 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Spin gone wrong (none / 0) (#19)
    by Jgarza on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:55:27 AM EST
    Obama won different swing states.  MO, Virginia, Wisconsin, CO, Minnesota.
    This Hillary won the states that are more equal then others line is not good spin.

    [ Parent ]
    Take a look at those same states polls (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by Dancing Bear on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:57:42 AM EST
    after Uncle Reverand made his lovely comments.
    Claire McCaskill has sure gotten quiet.

    She may be working at the Mall when this is all over.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm with you Jgarza... (none / 0) (#21)
    by mbuchel on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:00:27 AM EST
    ... if the Hillary folks echo idiot Mark Penn's words about "important states", you come across as strictly a hack rather than someone interested in honest debate.
    Can we once and for all debunk the myths about how primary results are predictive for general election results?

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe a journey through the maps of (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:33:05 AM EST
    past Dem elections would help? Blue states do turn red . . .

    Obama hasn't shown he can capture the blue base. That is what i want to see.

    I also want a Dem in the WH. Assumptions don't do much for my confidence in that area.

    [ Parent ]

    Florida is more important (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:23:23 AM EST
    Than Utah!

    Sorry Utah.  Love ya'.  I do..

    If we ever get to a point where there's 12 million folks in Utah and half of them are actually Democrats, then that's Awesome!

    Mark Penn was right.

    [ Parent ]

    can we debunk the myth (none / 0) (#125)
    by sancho on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:06:25 AM EST
    that primary states are predictive of ge results?

    Most democratic nominees for president since 1964 have debunked that myth pretty effectively.

    obama will as well since he can't likley win either.

    [ Parent ]

    What's that old phrase? (none / 0) (#176)
    by blogtopus on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:33:32 AM EST
    If you try to please all the people, you end up pleasing none.

    The Unity pony is trying to have it all ways, but in the end, everyone will end up with pony poop in their living room.

    [ Parent ]

    This is Obama Camp propaganda (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Josey on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:20:58 AM EST
    that Hillary believes she has a "right" to the Oval Office. This lie has been effective for Obama supporters racheting up Hillary-hate.
    The media began the "inevitability" meme - not Hillary.


    [ Parent ]
    The "annointed front runner" (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by lambert on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:26:57 AM EST
    Yes, Hillary was the annointed front runner.

    Our famously free press always annoints one, and then they try to destroy them. They like the narrative. Was it MoDo who likened the process the pulling the wings off flies?

    Given that narrative and dynamic, it's amazing that she's still in the race at all. Must be a lot of people who utterly discount the press and the conventional wisdom? Like about 50% of Dem voters, and more than that in the base?

    [ Parent ]

    Her tenacity (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by magisterludi on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:53:46 AM EST
    is one of her most remarkable qualities. She.Is.Tough.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama could unite the Dem Party (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by Josey on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:34:08 AM EST
    by agreeing to be Hillary's VP running mate.
    But Obama isn't into "unity" - proven by his continuing to "find" racist or offensive motives in every Clinton comment.
    It's obvious Obama wants the primary to continue - and he can continue dividing the party.

    Hillary's VP comment was an effort to bridge the divide while Obama has shown much contempt toward Hillary supporters.

    [ Parent ]

    If the situation were reversed? (none / 0) (#8)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:33:50 AM EST
    No one would dare to suggest that another Democratic candidate quit -- one who was in an 'all but statistical tie' for the nomination -- quit before there is a clear winner and everyone who is eligible has voted...and been counted.  

    No one would dare suggest that the first black candidate with a chance...even a slim chance...to be nominated, should drop out in favor of the other (white) finalist.

    So it comes down to this:  we are Democrats and we don't quit just because somebody wants us to.  We don't advocate voter suppression...we advocate everybody voting and everyone's vote being counted.

    And oh yes...Hillary didn't "offer Barama a veep slot."

    Let's not make things up.

    [ Parent ]

    Right (none / 0) (#24)
    by mbuchel on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:02:24 AM EST
    Like no one would be calling for Obama to drop out if the rolls were reversed - losing 11 straight contests, behind in delegates, behind in votes, pushing to count votes in primaries when Hillary wasn't even on the ballot, lagging in fundraising.

    [ Parent ]
    if the situation was reversed (none / 0) (#28)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:17:47 AM EST
    people would be calling for him to back out.

    I think if there were confidence in BHO's electability, HRC would have probably dropped out.

    The fact is, there is no confidence that BHO would win the GE.

    Therefore, HRC stays in.

    This comes down to the convention floor fight.

    BHO is in the unenviable position of disenfranchising MI and FL voters.

    Not a pretty picture...

    [ Parent ]

    if the situation were reversed, (none / 0) (#60)
    by cy street on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:09:21 AM EST
    obama would have stepped off after wisconsin.  there is no path to the nomination for the house of clinton.  there is no way the supers are going to go against the will of the pledged delegates.

    if you believe otherwise, please site for us one example of when this has happened before.

    the house of clinton plays the game of delay better than any, but, time does not equal delegates.

    [ Parent ]

    House of Clinton? (none / 0) (#101)
    by Dancing Bear on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:55:12 AM EST
    Perhaps the "Hut" of Obama will fall.  It's only made of sticks and strings and promises never to be kept.  It will go up in flames because of the lack of integrity of his backers.

    Watch the pledged delegates evacuate the building when they see his huge loss in PA. Not to mention the others.  You see, this is the Democratic Party.  Not the Cross Over Party or Independant Party.

    Remember when the Precincts had to stay open with a Court order in Ohio?  That was the clear end of Barack Obama.  The disenfranchisement of the voters reared it's selfish, self serving, ugly head.

    [ Parent ]

    Ummm, Cy.... (none / 0) (#126)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:10:26 AM EST
    ...thing that 'have never happened before, happen all the time.' See 9-11 for instance...

    That is not the issue.  The question is, what do the convention rules allow and how does the convention function...ever been to one?  Eye-opening and educational!

    [ Parent ]

    ever heard of joe biden? (none / 0) (#58)
    by cy street on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:04:03 AM EST
    chris dodd?
    bill richardson?
    john edwards?

    all good men, all stepped aside when their math went south.

    it is easy,
    concede.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama cannot win... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Alvord on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:47:27 AM EST
    ... the general election. His "Dems for a day" will desert him when the matchup is against John McCain rather than Hillary Clinton and a good part of the Democratic base that supports Hillary because of her superior qualifications will not vote for the inexperienced Obama. For the good of the party and the progressive movement Obama should take to heart the lessons from his losses in the big states and join the other good men who have left the race and drop out as well. If he doesn't the Democratic party is headed for a debacle the likes of which haven't been seen since Walter Mondale lost big to Ronald Reagan in 1984.

    [ Parent ]
    The concept of Dems for a day is such a (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Dancing Bear on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:49:45 AM EST
    bastardization of the process. To be part of that is to be part of a deceptive, dishonest ploy to sway the out come of the election.

    [ Parent ]
    This is happening in Pa (none / 0) (#169)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:17:14 AM EST
    Obama is running ads asking voters to switch parties and many have.  The new registrations for Democrats are above 111,000 and Republican registrations have decreased.  I don't know if they are new voters for Hillary but the numbers are suspect.

    Bastardization of the process is mild to what I am thinking if it should turn out that Obama is actually stealing an election.  I know, it's like the old Tammany Hall style and people laugh and says "that's just politics" but it's morally wrong; it is stealing an election.

    I don't know if Hillary can win, but she needs to stay in to the finish. After it's done, I have to step back and decide if I am still a Democrat.

    [ Parent ]

    It is a strange year indeed (none / 0) (#178)
    by riddlerandy on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:03:25 PM EST
    when Dems seemed concerned about swelling Dem voter rolls and dwindling GOP registrations.

    [ Parent ]
    Nonsense (none / 0) (#111)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:36:46 AM EST
    "a good part of the Democratic base that supports Hillary because of her superior qualifications will not vote for the inexperienced Obama."

    This is nonsense.  Hillary's base are primarily lifelong Democrats, not Johnny-come-latelys to the party or the process.  They are supporting HRC because of their intense focus on bread-and-butter issues.  These are not people who stay home and sulk because their candidate didn't win.

    Whether the mobs of young people and weak-identifiers with the Dem. Party would do the same is an open question.  Personality cults don't easily change their allegiance.


    [ Parent ]

    So what would you have us do? (none / 0) (#119)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:59:30 AM EST
    Just give up and hitch our wagon to the "weak identifiers?" Because we need them to win? Isn't that winning at any cost? Oh I'm voting for Obama if the choice is McCain or Obama but I'm at the point where if a viable third party candidate came along (no, not Nader) I'd seriously consider it.

    [ Parent ]
    Recent national and state polls... (none / 0) (#151)
    by Alvord on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:33:16 AM EST
    ... don't support your thesis.

    Hillary's base are primarily lifelong Democrats, not Johnny-come-latelys to the party or the process.  They are supporting HRC because of their intense focus on bread-and-butter issues.  These are not people who stay home and sulk because their candidate didn't win.

    A good fraction of the lifelong Democrats who support Hillary Clinton say that if Obama is the nominee they will either support John McCain or they will not cast a vote for president in the GE. The progressive blogs may decry that decision by these voters but the voters by and large don't read the progressive blogs.

    [ Parent ]

    Yellow dog democrat here, but, dig, (none / 0) (#197)
    by magnetics on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:30:28 PM EST
    "...I will vote for the Democratic candidate, be he even a yellow dog; but lower than that ye shall not drag me!"

    Have voted for the Dem in every presidential since McGovern -- my demographic is: biracial household, 2 Ph. D.s.

    [ Parent ]

    if you want a winner... (none / 0) (#195)
    by diogenes on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:11:11 PM EST
    If you want a winner, rather than the Clinton ambition machine, then the dream ticket is Gore-Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    They ran out of money (none / 0) (#128)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:12:22 AM EST
    and some went into debt before they read the handwriting on the wall.  That is why they 'stepped aside.'

    [ Parent ]
    it is not Hillary's fault (none / 0) (#117)
    by sancho on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:55:39 AM EST
    that Obama is un-electable. I'd want any viable candidate to stay in the race as long as possible. The fault, really, is the absurd system the DNC has devised. No doubt Obama is willing to sacrifice the party for personal ambition but I don't see that as too surprising--this gesture is typical of the highly ambitious. (Richardson, for instnace, did not endorse the candidate he liked better or thought would make the better (or worse)prez--he went with the one who seemed to offer him a  better deal. That's politics, folks. No roolz there.) Anyway, Hillary's continued viability exposes how weak Obama is. If he were a strong candidate, he would have already ended it against an opponent with so many identified "negatives."  

    What if the states' delegates were winner take all, as the Republican primaries mostly are? How different would the numbers be? Asking this question shows how arbitrary the process is.

    [ Parent ]

    This is at least as interesting as (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:36:39 AM EST
    Spitzer wearing black socks.

    Hope the Credentials Comm. report is made public before the delegates and Super-Ds vote on it.

    C-SPAN.... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:22:08 AM EST
    it will not only be public, it will be televised.

    [ Parent ]
    I love C-Span ... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:35:57 AM EST
    can't say it often enough.

    [ Parent ]
    Hmm. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Iphie on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:13:44 AM EST
    I wonder what happens if the seated delegates don't approve the Credentials Committee's decision. And what is the percentage by which the the approval must pass?

    bottom line.. its super delegates that will decide (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by TalkRight on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:45:44 AM EST
    I hope they don't add a veto right to candidates.. that is so silly (obviously the candidate not benefiting will veto) .. the bigger standard should be : Is it fair.. (and not if it helps one or the other.. because it will help one and not the other).

    [ Parent ]
    If (none / 0) (#20)
    by Jgarza on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:58:09 AM EST