home

The Credentials Committee Contest

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:38:34 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

I never thought it was possible, but according to this dkos diary (and credit to the Dkos community for bringing this information to the table. I criticize them a lot, but I think they are ahead of everyone on this story), Donna Brazile was wrong about the makeup of the Credentials Committee and Clinton can actually gain a majority on it, and thus seat the existing Florida and Michigan delegations:

As of right now (based on already resolved state primaries), from these states: New Hampshire, Nevada, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Ohio: Clinton will have 61.44 votes on the Credentials Committee.

From these states: Iowa, South Carolina, Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington, Maine, DC, Maryland, Virginia, Hawaii, Wisconsin, Vermont, Wyoming, Mississippi, Obama will have 70.22 votes on the credentials committee.

States I haven't counted in: Pennsylvania, Guam, Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Montana, South Dakota, Democrats Abroad, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, which make up 26.33 votes remaining.

Thus, there is a razor thin margin here, where indeed Clinton has more of a chance in a credentials fight than Donna Brazille's (incorrect) division of votes. With the 25 DNC members, and 26.33 members still to be elected in future primaries, a majority on the credentials committee can be had by either candidate.

This is funny as hell. The rules are the rules you know. Now, will everyone please NOW get behind revotes for Florida and Michigan? Pretty please?

< The Super Delegate Count | Obama's Other Nine Exaggerations >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Credentials Committee Contest | 146 comments (146 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    How can anyone say follow the rules (5.00 / 8) (#1)
    by Teresa on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:45:32 PM EST
    when no one seems to know the rules?

    John Adams (none / 0) (#67)
    by countme on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:48:37 PM EST
    Starts in 20 minutes EST. Remember when early democracy meant only rich white land owners voted. It looks like we have come full circle. IMO DNC Elites control the game since no one truly understands the rules.

    [ Parent ]
    I knew she was wrong (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by lepidus on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:45:53 PM EST
    I was watching this morning, and what she said sounded wrong to me. I suppose we should be generous and not assume that she misinterpreted the rules intentionally.

    Thanks for putting the correction out there.

    Perhaps Donna Brazile (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:58:50 PM EST
    was prematurely revealing the rules for her new party.

    More Background on the Committee (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by BDB on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:44:11 PM EST
    Is here  Interesting that three of the 25 are Clinton super delegates.  

    credentials committee Thats a laugh (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by countme on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:49:27 PM EST
    The exact meaning of the word credential is anything that constitutes a basis of trust; evidence of qualifications or authority. From whatI have seen from Howard Dean and HIS credential committee is anything but trustworthy or legitimate. How can you remove two purple states from the voting process and claim legitmacy of a candidate. Let's not ignore the obivious. MI & FL is the six hundred pound gorilla in the room.

    Hypothetical (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:07:49 PM EST
    Lets say Obama keeps it under/around a 10 point loss in PA, does well enough in the remaining contests to be able to claim both the popular vote (counting MI, FL, and caucuses) and pledged delegate counts, and picks up enough superdelegates to claim 50%+1 of all delegates in June.  Does anyone think that Hillary should push it to Denver, as she has suggested in the WaPo interview today, and fight on the floor of the convention?

    If MI and FL are counted (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:12:09 PM EST
    And there's still no path because Obama kept it close in PA and won the next two primaries, I'm ready to call it a day.

    I won't like it, and Obama still won't have earned my vote in the GE (which doesn't mean he can't), but that'll be that at that point.

    But MI and FL has to be seated and that would be presumably as is.

    I do know this.  Seating them AFTER it's over is going to BLOCK the path to reconciliation.


    [ Parent ]

    I think BTD has made it clear enough (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:48:40 PM EST
    and few of us would find fault with the theory...

    If at the close of voting on June 4, Obama has more pledged delegates and more popular vote than Hillary when including the FL and MI voting that occurred in January, then Obama wins...no contest.

    If he is inside those margins, then the only way he can conceivably win the nomination is to oppose the seating of MI and FL delegates at the convention and that will be a problem for him since it's appears obvious that the 'super' delegates will be split like the elections have been.

    That's why it will ultimately come down to the convention because the only alternative appears to be advanced by people such as Reid who think that the outcome can be gamed and controlled without the rules and by disenfranchised voters...that dog don't hunt.

    [ Parent ]

    Consider the media role (none / 0) (#75)
    by Lou Grinzo on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:28:47 PM EST
    If it comes down to the scenario in your third graf, where Obama "has" to block the MI/FL seating, imagine the media firestorm.  The darling of the "post partisanship" crowd is suddenly seen to be playing the meanest, basest form of power politics, and alienating two huge, critical states in the process.

    That could be far uglier and more destructive, come November, than anything Obama and Clinton say about each other now.
    What is The Cost of Energy?
    [ Parent ]

    I haven't seen any evidence that the media (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Teresa on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:33:05 PM EST
    would back the voters of MI and FL over Obama. They seem to totally buy the they broke the rules and should not count view.

    [ Parent ]
    Lou- are you joking? (none / 0) (#89)
    by kenosharick on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:39:44 PM EST
    The MSM is in the bag for Obama and he can do whatever the hell he wants with ZERO criticism. He will be their "darling" as you say until he is oficially the nominee and then things might change to the utter shock and bafflement of the "obamamaniacs."

    [ Parent ]
    I think that you give the media... (none / 0) (#100)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:54:54 PM EST
    too much credit. They love controversy and this would be just the thing that they would love.

    Sure KO is in the bag and the media, well I am no fan of Howie Kurtz and I flip the channel when CNN brings on 'Reliable Sources' but today...

    ANNE KORNBLUT: What I think is so interesting about this dynamic is that the Clinton campaign has virtually no friends in the media at this point. They've managed to alienate most of the press corps, and yet the press corps has written about it as being a real race all the time. I think once that story ran, we saw a lot of people following it up with agreements. There wasn't a whole lot of counterintuitive thinking after the story ran, saying, "No, actually, it really is a close race."

    Pretty much says it all. L I N K

    [ Parent ]

    I mostly watch MSNBC and CNN (none / 0) (#144)
    by kenosharick on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:27:11 AM EST
    and all I have seen for weeks is the mantra "Hillary cannot win" headlining every show.

    [ Parent ]
    I fully agree that (none / 0) (#114)
    by mg7505 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:54:11 PM EST
    the media is in the bag for Obama. But they're a fickle crowd because it's profits they want -- why else would they slaver over the photogenic male candidate? McCain is also a media darling (not because he's photogenic...), and I can easily see them betraying the Dem nominee, even if it's Obama. Nothing is below these people -- heck they kept Bush alive against two strong Dem candidates.

    [ Parent ]
    Why doubt Reid? (none / 0) (#117)
    by Faust on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:08:47 PM EST
    I see no reason to think that they won't be able to utilize the system in the way you describe. The assumption that the remaining superdelegates will split is a big assumption in my opinion. Why make this assumption?

    My impression of the (remaining) supers is that they are mostly herd animals and want to be on the (percieved) winning side.

    Think of them like a timid jury. If they are instructed to consider the evidence in favor of and against the two candidates, but are instructed by the "judge" to ignore MI and FL, then it seems entirely plausible that they will move as a group to the candidate who appears ahead.

    If it remains Obama and they do move as a group then he will have sufficient a delegate lead (via the super d's) to shut Clinton out and will have sufficient margins to seat MI and FL at the convention.

    That's not to say a fight won't occur within the ranks of the supers but it seems at LEAST as likely that they will move as a group as not.

    Unless someone has evidence strongly pointing one way or the other?

    [ Parent ]

    Kennedy (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by kredwyn on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:56:02 PM EST
    During his 1980 run for the WHouse, he pushed all the way to the convention. He tried to coerce delegate out from under Carter.

    Perhaps it's time for a reminder as to the relevance of people in the vote process.

    [ Parent ]

    And .. (none / 0) (#85)
    by Rainsong on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:27:24 PM EST

    Kennedy was also losing by a lot more than Clinton is in this year's race, but there were several other factors in play back-then which presumably played a part in Kennedy's decision to challenge all the way to the Convention floor despite being so far behind Carter in the primary tallies.

    This year, I can't see the Party letting it go that far. No matter what or when its decided, there will be some losses for the Party in the GE and a need to minimise the bleeding as early as practicable.

    There will be reconciliation before the Convention, the Party will spin-doctor it for public consumption and will do well enough to minimise the losses.

    Obama wouldn't get my vote in November, but I'm atypical, a statistical outlier. Most will follow him.

    But I wouldn't be surprised on election night, after months of Obama enjoying the fluffy blanket of MSM love-ins, and riding double-digits above McCain in the opinion polls for months etc, that it just doesn't happen and all the pundits have puzzled frowns etc..

    Thats because I get the impression a lot of Hillary's supporters are quiet ones, they dont whine, scream, protest or argue. They just let their vote, (or lack thereof), speak for them.

    And besides, its common knowledge that "Girls Can't Do Math" <snark>

    [ Parent ]

    Yes. (none / 0) (#119)
    by miriam on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:25:06 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    My prediction (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by zzyzx on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:29:41 PM EST
    After Clinton wins PA, IN is close, and Obama wins NC by at least the margin that Clinton wins PA, Obama runs the numbers and proposes a compromise.  MI/FL get the same 50% reduction that the Republicans gave and Obama gets the uncommitted votes in MI.  

    By my calculations, that would get Clinton 38 net delegates.  She then either loses her last chance to catch up, has to argue that Obama should get 0 delegates from MI, or has to make the same exact punishment that the Republicans gave seem horribly unfair.  

    Especially since Clinton is the one who would advantage from that and the alternative is to not seat them at all, it would be difficult to turn the deal down but it wouldn't help her at all.

    This is just my prediction though.

    I think the Obama campaign (none / 0) (#60)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:35:49 PM EST
    would love that, but I imagine it will be savaged by Clinton supporters as somehow unfair.

    [ Parent ]
    frankly, at this point, (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by cpinva on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:58:04 PM EST
    seating MI & FL as is almost wouldn't matter, if sen. obama is the nominee. he will be trounced in the GE. he has way too many negatives that have yet to be fully exploited, unlike sen. clinton. oh yes, the "bosnia sniper" story; she, unlike sen. obama, actually did go into a war zone, period. whether there were really snipers there or not is irrelevant. and yes, it was a war zone, any US military posted there was receiving hazardous duty pay. you don't get that just because the place is uncomfortable, you must be at risk of life and limb due to potential enemy action.

    sen. obama has yet to be truly subject to the media lashing that sen. clinton has dealt with for nearly two decades. he will be ground to dust, before the GE is over. unfortunately, he may well end up irretrievably damaged goods in the process.

    the bottom line: it doesn't matter what he does in the dem. primaries/caucuses, he will lose in nov.

    Like all her other contingencies, (none / 0) (#3)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:47:37 PM EST
    even this is a "razor thin" chance for Clinton. But feel free to continue walking the razor's edge, Senator. We'll see where things stand after June 3.
    Razor thin (5.00 / 14) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:50:38 PM EST
    is Obama's claim to legitimacy right now.

    Michigan and Florida are BIG issues and could be bigger. Best to put it to rest by agreeing to revotes.

    [ Parent ]

    If not for the Clinton campaign, the issue (1.00 / 2) (#13)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:02:02 PM EST
    would be put to bed already. Florida's own election official said a revote is illegal, and in MI an agreement could not be reached in dealing with disenfranchised GOP crossovers who thought the Dems were taking a pass on holding an accredited contest. Outside of Clinton's camp or the Clinton blogosphere, I have not noticed a lot of acrimony on the topic. The MSM certainly doesn't seem to be responding to the story any more, at least not in a "elections are still possible" manner.

    Obama should focus on doing as well as he can in PA, WV, and KY, and trying to win NC, IN, and blowing her out in the West. This will come down to who wins the popular vote - MI/FL. Both sides need to operate under that scenario, imo.


    [ Parent ]

    If Obama "wins" (5.00 / 14) (#15)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:04:01 PM EST
    with a popular vote and/or delegate margin less than what Hillary would have gotten out of FL and MI, he will be an illegitimate nominee.

    All of your hand-waving about how Hillary should settle the problem by giving up will not change this.

    [ Parent ]

    Perhaps you should at least accuse me of (none / 0) (#20)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:11:57 PM EST
    something I have done. What I said is Sen. Clinton should focus on getting as big a win out of PA as she can, winning the other contests, and trying to complete her Hail Mary of winning the popular vote sans MI & FL.

    All your hand waving about Obama not being legitimate without FL and MI likewise does not make it true.

    [ Parent ]

    What else could you possibly mean (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:14:28 PM EST
    by

    If not for the Clinton campaign, the issue would be put to bed already.

    ?????

    You are completely full of it.

    [ Parent ]

    That was a remark directed at FL and MI (none / 0) (#36)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:45:30 PM EST
    which last I checked was a different issue from the nomination.

    You really should read more closely, including following the direction of the conversation being held.

    What that meant was that aside from Clinton and her supporters continuing to bring up FL & MI, the issue of their seating seems to have been tabled for now.

    [ Parent ]

    Ridiculous (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:51:51 PM EST
    unless you don't know, as everyone else finally appears to, that HIllary Clinton almost certainly can't win the nomination without Michigan and Florida. The issue needs to be resolved now in order to avoid chaos later.

    [ Parent ]
    If she accepted that, I would imagine she may have (none / 0) (#51)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:14:57 PM EST
    quit already. She still believes she can win the popular vote in the primaries that count. If she does that, I think the SDs break her way and she seats FL and MI as the nominee.

    If she finishes the race having lost the popular vote in primaries counting to Obama, I think she bows out, endorses him, and he seats MI and FL as the nominee.

    So, no, I don't accept your premise that she needs those delegations to win. I also don't think she or Obama accept it. Further, I think when Reid, Pelosi, Dean et. al. talk about this being settled before July 1, they are thinking along the same lines I am rathe than following your logic. my opinion.

    [ Parent ]

    If you were right, there would be no reason (none / 0) (#52)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:17:53 PM EST
    for Hillary to talk about MI and FL.

    [ Parent ]
    Posturing is always useful. (none / 0) (#53)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:20:37 PM EST
    Plus, at this point, could they really still hold elections? Is there time? Is anyone still talking about ways to do it? Is there any chance at all of those states holding votes?

    Aren't we now down to looking at the credentials committee and dissecting how it will break down??

    [ Parent ]

    No reason it would get (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:33:18 PM EST
    so much emphasis and attention if it didn't matter.

    Why, for example, did Obama block the Michigan revote if he didn't think it would matter. None of the explanations his surrogates have given pass the laugh test.

    [ Parent ]

    No-no. See, now you tried to change the subject. (none / 0) (#126)
    by halstoon on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:00:20 AM EST
    We were talking about MI going forward, and then you tried to apply my argument to the past in order to ridicule me. Nice try, but ultimately unsuccessful.

     Further, where did I say Obama didn't think MI would matter?? And who are these surrogates?

     By the end of this week, I predict we won't be hearing about MI & FL until on down the road; they'll lose their juice for a few weeks.


    [ Parent ]

    Seating MI and FL After is Insulting (none / 0) (#86)
    by cal1942 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:30:14 PM EST
    "and he seats MI and FL as the nominee.

    and loses both states in the GE and probably the election.


    [ Parent ]

    Heh, maybe they've bought into (none / 0) (#104)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:08:29 PM EST
    the "low info voter" BS.


    [ Parent ]
    Counting how voters voted 'wrong' turned me away (none / 0) (#111)
    by Ellie on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:32:56 PM EST
    ... from TeamObama's "new" politics. For a campaign that's vowed to bring unity to the process, all they've managed to do is garble it, tie it up, pose obstacles and clutter and complain that voters are voting "wrong".

    All the while Obama stands by the wayside fulminating in a passive aggressive temper tantrump so he doesn't have to be on the record with any kind of affirmative leatership.

    I really thought we had two equally good candidates but the more this has gone on, the more I've become sickened by this fake "new" unifying politics.

    The only "new" thing about it is that it smacks of how Bush got in in 2000: by bean counting, litigation, premature triumphalism and finding new and disgusting ways to avoid transparency and openly, simply count the votes.

    If HRC's bid is so dead in the water, why is there this hysterical rush to force her to leave before PA?

    If not, why THE HELL is there this hysterical rush to force her to leave before PA?

    Bill Press:

    What happened to the Democratic Party?

    I'm a lifelong Democrat. I've volunteered in countless Democratic campaigns. I've managed campaigns for Democrats. I was a Democratic candidate for statewide office in California. For three years, I was Chair of the California Democratic Party. But I don't recognize the Democratic Party today. [...]

    What's going on? The party is blessed with two of the best candidates ever to run for president. The party's making history with the first African-American and the first woman having a serious shot at the presidency. In every state, the Democratic primary is attracting record numbers of new voters and building a huge, new pool of Democrats that will benefit all Democratic candidates in November. And how do party leaders respond? By trying to shut down the primary. This is insane!

    Bill Richardson ... calls on Hillary Clinton to get out of the race. Patrick Leahy and Chris Dodd  [...both ...] feel somehow compelled to add that Clinton should quit. Why? There is no more rationale for Clinton to drop out of the race than there is for Obama to drop out of the race. [...]

    Clinton hasn't locked up the nomination yet. But neither has Obama [...]

    Apparently I'm not going crazy here.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, you're certainly free to think so. (none / 0) (#127)
    by halstoon on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:02:25 AM EST
    Of course, Hillary Clinton would like for you to think that unless she gets her results in MI and FL and unless she is the nominee, Obama will blow the whole thing and McCain will be president.

    Can I guess that you support Sen. Clinton? If so, you're in generous company here at TL. Welcome!

    [ Parent ]

    I am with andgarden (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:17:13 PM EST
    on this. Your comment was BS.

    [ Parent ]
    That is false (5.00 / 9) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:04:04 PM EST
    Simply false.

    In every respect.

    We will not relive this. The FL and MI revote plans were legal. That is a fact.

    They would have been approved if Obama had gotten behind them.

    No more on this. I will not spend the rest of this thread debunking your falsehoods. This has been discussed to the most infinite detail before at this site.

    [ Parent ]

    If Obama was a bit smarter (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by rafaelh on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:35:14 PM EST
    he could do a lot to get in the good graces of Hillary's supporters by just sitting Florida as is and agreeing to a vote on Michigan. It would be a lot easier if we only did one revote and it's not like Florida gives Hillary so many delegates anyway.

    On the alternative, I hope he wins by enough in the popular votes that MI/FL doesn't give people a reason to think he "cheated".

    PS. I don't think he did, the process was the same for everyone and Hillary would be fighting just as hard NOT to count this votes if the situation was reversed. But the issue here should be to try as hard as possible to create some goodwill towards Hillary's supporters. I don't think his campaign is being wise in the long term with this.  

    [ Parent ]

    here's a good place for a new blog feature (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:57:07 PM EST
    This is a classic problem of blogs being very linear in time. There are issues that come up and are argued about and resolved. But that doesn't stop a new person from bringing up the issue and either re-arguing it over or seeing some new issues or new angles and has more to add.

    Perhaps what is needed is some sort of sidebar mechanism that connects to a previous topic and then if warranted (small percentage of time) can allow for a sidebar to be opened.

    Jeralyn, more features please. :-)

    [ Parent ]

    BTD, could you remind me (1.00 / 2) (#27)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:28:10 PM EST
    how Obama's campaign stopped the FL revote?  From what I understand, the FL delegation pretty much decided not to do it due to logistical issues.  A FL revote would probably result in Clinton gaining delegates, but Obama would probably do a lot better than he did in the first unsanctioned contest (which drew out homeowners that voted on some sort of a tax measure).

    [ Parent ]
    Obama Lawyered Up (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by BDB on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:48:01 PM EST
    He insisted that any Florida re-vote go through the Bush DOJ.   Yeah, that's right.  Suddenly, the Bush DOJ is the great protector of voting rights.  

    And the problem in Florida appeared to be that the party could not reach consensus.   If both candidates and the DNC were behind it, I think consensus would've been reached, don't you?

    [ Parent ]

    In FL (none / 0) (#45)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:01:00 PM EST
    they couldn't do a mail-in vote because they're illegal for primaries in FL.  They couldn't use the voting machines because they were switching out the electronic ones for mechanical ones in a lot of areas for the GE.  Clinton's camp didn't want to hold a caucus and the FL Dem Party chair said:

    Last week, the Florida Democratic Party laid out the only existing way that we can comply with DNC Rules - a statewide revote run by the Party - and asked for input.
    Thousands of people responded. We spent the weekend reviewing your messages, and while your reasons vary widely, the consensus is clear: Florida doesn't want to vote again.

    So we won't.

    I don't see how Obama "lawyering up" had anything to do with the decision.

    [ Parent ]

    Warren Terrer (1.00 / 1) (#35)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:44:15 PM EST
    could you explain why you Troll Rated my comment?  Nothing was inflammatory or factually incorrect.  If you want to refute my assertions, you can do so in a responsible manner, like a big boy.

    [ Parent ]
    Try Reading the Other Threads on the Same Topic (1.00 / 0) (#136)
    by Jon on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:14:20 AM EST
    I rated your comment a "1"  because you asked for an explanation that has been the subject of whole threads. Read the previous threads and answer your own question.

    This blog isn't here for you alone. Some people who have read the previous threads on the issue do not want this thread to be yet another rehash of old threads which you attempted to do.

    [ Parent ]

    Still wrong (none / 0) (#98)
    by Publicus on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:54:06 PM EST
    Obama did nothing to stop revotes in Florida and Michigan.  The states and the parties were simply unable agree on procedures and costs.  

    The Democrats in MI and FL understand this, and it's pure nonsense to claim that they will not vote in the GE if they don't get a mulligan.

    [ Parent ]

    Do you reside in (none / 0) (#148)
    by dskinner3 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:45:44 AM EST
    either FL or MI? If not, I fail to see how you have the pulse of those states. Here in MI, I don't see how Obama beats McCain. Yes, people here are pissed.

    He kept his partisans in the state legislature from moving on a revote. The voters know it.

    [ Parent ]

    It's not the 'Clinton Campaign'; (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by magnetics on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:43:25 PM EST
    it's the fact that Obamans want to claim victory with 48 instead of 50 states, and that one of the two omitted -- Florida -- is the most important swing state in the general election.

    Oh, I know, rules is rules -- except nobody seems to know them -- not even Donna Brazile.

    Someone has to explain to me why Clinton would accept a 50/50 split in FL or MI, given her totals in those states.  Seat them as is, or revote -- there is no other way.

    [ Parent ]

    For Florida and Michigan (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by joyce1 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:55:13 PM EST
    Obama says 'rules are rules'. But he wants to change the rules for the super delegates, saying they must vote for him if he has more pledged delegates. The supers are supposed to vote based on who would be better to win the GE. He can't have it both ways!


    [ Parent ]
    Florida is decidedly NOT... (none / 0) (#73)
    by sar75 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:06:10 PM EST
    ...the most important swing state in the GE.  In fact, I think there's a strong case to say it's a waste of time.  Given this year's fiasco (caused by neither candidate), Florida is already beyond hope. I wouldn't waste a dime or any time on it.  Concede it now and focus on Ohio, New Mexico, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada while keeping everything that was blue in 2004.  

    Florida?  A waste of Democratic time and money. And wouldn't it be nice (I've said this before) to have a president whose foreign policy toward Cuba wasn't beholden to 500,000 Cuban American voters in Miami?

    [ Parent ]

    Nonsense (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:30:07 PM EST
    There was a poll not three weeks ago showing Hillary with a 9 point lead over McCain in FL.

    Not competing for FL is a very bad idea.

    [ Parent ]

    I love how obama supporters write off millions (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by hookfan on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:21:32 PM EST
    of voters as "unimportant".

    [ Parent ]
    I know, it's almost as funny as Clinton (none / 0) (#128)
    by halstoon on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:07:32 AM EST
    supporters naming all those "little" states that don't matter. It's just hiliarious.

    Florida does matter, but Sen. Obama is not responsible for their plight. If you don't think the good people of Florida can see that or will hold Sen. Obama responsible, then I respectfully disagree.

    [ Parent ]

    You mean the ones that (none / 0) (#146)
    by hookfan on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:39:25 AM EST
    will almost certainly vote for McCain? You mean those that Obama has used to swing the nomination for the Democratic nomination? Those all important states? Or maybe his important Dems for a day loyalists--those important voters?

    [ Parent ]
    I mean all the Democrats across the USA (none / 0) (#150)
    by halstoon on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:39:27 PM EST
    who have voted for Obama, making him the prohibitive favorite at this point to be our nominee.

    I live in GA, so the whole "those Democrats don't matter" argument really frustrates me. If you all don't care what us Democrats in GA think, why did you have a primary here?

    I would hope that the 50-state strategy might have been more embraced among the base, but it appears to not have been. The prospect of increasing Democratic representation in Congress or in state houses is apprently not important to a large swath of Democrats who support Clinton. So long as the party writes off states like mine (and GA has had 1 GOP Governor since Reconstruction) the party will only continue to lose or win by ungovernable majorities, just my opinion.

    [ Parent ]

    I thought the 50 state strategy (none / 0) (#153)
    by hookfan on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:30:25 PM EST
    would be embraced too. But a funny thing happens along the way. The unimportant states to Hillary-- their votes still get counted. The unimportant states to Obama-- do not get counted. Funny that.

    [ Parent ]
    As a Cuban American and Floridian I am (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by countme on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:15:54 PM EST
    personally offended by your comment.  Good to know that the Democratic Party should care nothing about me nor my vote.  This is a good attitude to take with you into a GE.  

    [ Parent ]
    After the mess (2.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Skex on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:48:01 PM EST
    Florida made of the last two elections I agree that we should write them off. at a minimum any strategy built around a requirement of winning Florida is a loosing strategy.

    The whole state is friggin nuts and yeah I would like to have a foreign policy on Cuba that isn't based on a bunch of Batista apologists.

    [ Parent ]

    No (none / 0) (#154)
    by hookfan on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:34:56 PM EST
    The voters are not responsible. We need to find a way to make them count. Punish Dean, Punish Hillary. Punish Obama. Punish the state legislators. But don't punish the voters.

    [ Parent ]
    And Lose (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by cal1942 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:37:04 PM EST
    Michigan?  To get everything blue from 2004 Michigan is necessary and that may not happen especially if there is neither a re-vote nor the original vote taken as is.

    You should also know that some people in Michigan were insulted that he took his name off the ballot and they haven't forgotten.  The subject still comes up.

    [ Parent ]

    The people of Michigan (none / 0) (#99)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:54:32 PM EST
    are probably a little more pissed off at McCain who told them they're never getting their jobs back.

    [ Parent ]
    On the contrary, (none / 0) (#147)
    by dskinner3 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:41:54 AM EST
    we here in MI can appreciate what McCain said. It's a fact. The manufacturing jobs are long gone and will not be coming back. I am no McCain sympathizer, but he spoke the truth there, and he's at least campaigned here. MI going red is by no means out of the question. Obama removing his name and nixing a revote is very much on the minds of the Michiganders.

    [ Parent ]
    There is another way. (none / 0) (#129)
    by halstoon on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:09:49 AM EST
    It is the one I described. The delegations are seated by the nominee, after the nominee is chosen.

    I think that is how it will go down.

    [ Parent ]

    A recipe for electoral disaster, IMHO. (none / 0) (#139)
    by magnetics on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:56:46 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Florida revote. (none / 0) (#142)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:51:50 AM EST
    A revote is not illegal in Florida.  It just could not be adminstered by the state.  Even that could easily be changed as the Florida legislature is currently in session.

    Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is that the major players within the state Democratic party are largely opposed to a revote.  It simply is not going to happen no matter what the campaigns have to say about the matter.  The preference is to play chicken with the DNC because it is widely believed here that the Florida delegation will be seated as is.

    And under what appear to be the rules on the credentials committee, it appears they may be right.

    [ Parent ]

    I say just seat them... (none / 0) (#28)
    by sar75 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:28:10 PM EST
    ...I'm fairly confident that Obama will not lose Pennsylvania by more than 10 points and then go on to score big victories in most of the remaining primaries.  I think by that point - especially after supers start coming out for him in droves - he'll agree to seat the Florida delegates according to the vote and split Michigan's, maybe even 55-45%. Why?  Because he'll still have a lead in pledged delegates and probably the popular vote (even with Michigan, if he can claim the uncommitted).

    In other words, Clinton will not be able to make this last ditch argument.  Florida and Michigan get seated and she still loses on delegates and popular vote.

    [ Parent ]

    Agreed... (1.00 / 1) (#62)
    by ROK on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:40:10 PM EST
    If you look at the numbers (INCLUDING FL and MI) he still leads in every measure and she simply won't be able to close that gap.

    Seat them and then we can listen to all the Clinton supporters come up with a whole new set of complaints as to why Obama isn't legit.

    [ Parent ]

    more beautiful demonstration (none / 0) (#91)
    by sarahfdavis on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:46:02 PM EST
    of how obama inspires his believers with the unity schtick.
    honestly, i haven't had a single reasonable experience with an
    obama supporter. all full of condsencion, double standards,logic twisting, hypocrisy and outright hate at times. your comments are typical. seriously, where does the "unity" part come in?

    [ Parent ]
    Oh give it rest... (none / 0) (#109)
    by ROK on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:25:48 PM EST
    Don't discredit his message because his supporters are sick and tired of hearing Clinton change the argument.

    Ourright hate? Where? What is hateful by highlighting the fact that everytime Obama makes an advance, Clinton changes the parameters.

    It's Iowa, wait no it's New Hampshire. Just wait until Super Tuesday! Well, I meant to say Ohio and Texas. Actually, just Ohio. Don't forget Pennsylvania! And then we have to take it to convention!

    I can admit that Obama and his supporters have not been great and I can admit that I wish you and I weren't discussing this. I can admit that.

    Can you?

    [ Parent ]

    give yourself a rest (none / 0) (#116)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:57:46 PM EST
    there's no percentage in not calling an a*hole an a*hole.  lots of us have had those kind of experiences with the hyper-sensitive obama supporters.

    [ Parent ]
    One-way... (none / 0) (#118)
    by ROK on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:09:46 PM EST
    And what am I being sensitive about?

    [ Parent ]
    Once it is clear he will not be damaged, (none / 0) (#32)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:42:42 PM EST
    Obama will wholeheartedly embrace the FL and MI delegations. Absolutely.

    So long as there is a chance their presence threatens his nomination, I don't see how anyone could honestly fault him. I mean, I know Clinton supporters will, but I would do the same thing if there roles were reversed. I still would see the political wisdom in it, but I would be frustrated, no doubt.

    I'm not upset by the level of Clinton frustration we're seeing. It's totally natural.

    [ Parent ]

    good thinking... (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:48:14 PM EST
    the kind of thinking that will ensure another Democratic loss in another Presidential election but why would you worry about that?

    It is silly season when people who accuse Clinton of doing/saying anything to win the nomination can excuse their candidate from doing the same, YET, still expect that they get Clinton supporters come November.

    I think Jeremiah Wright has an admonition for that thinking (that he obviously cribbed from Malcolm X)...the chickens come home to roost.

    [ Parent ]

    Are you not doing the same thing? (none / 0) (#49)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:09:06 PM EST
    Are you now denying that Clinton will do/say anything while at the same time accusing Obama of playing dirty tricks? And you expect to get his supporters in November?? Perhaps Sen. Clinton owns some chickens of her own??

    It is you who represents the wing of the party that will lead to a loss in November, not me.

    [ Parent ]

    You couldn't be more wrong (none / 0) (#54)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:22:22 PM EST
    if you literally tried.  It's pathetic.

    [ Parent ]
    Thank you for the belittling comment. (none / 0) (#123)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:50:04 PM EST
    It is always my surest sign that I have won a victory. Thanks!!

    [ Parent ]
    It's rather obtuse to claim victory... (none / 0) (#130)
    by white n az on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:12:33 AM EST
    when I never assented to the notion of a contest at all.

    Are you now denying that Clinton will do/say anything while at the same time accusing Obama of playing dirty tricks?

    I am neither asserting nor denying that Clinton will do/say anything while at the same time accusing Obama of playing dirty tricks. I would have sworn that I was accusing you and other Obama surrogates of doing exactly that...must not have made it clear enough for you earlier but I think it's clear now.

    And you expect to get his supporters in November?? Perhaps Sen. Clinton owns some chickens of her own??

    Thanks for proving my point

    It is you who represents the wing of the party that will lead to a loss in November, not me.

    I was of the singular thought too many Obama surrogates are entirely tone deaf thinking that their derisive commentary runs entirely counter to the notion that they will need Clinton supporters come November...nothing more. I'm already convinced that Obama will get trounced by McCain in November. Hey, I've been wrong before so being wrong again won't shatter my world.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm sorry if you were under the impression that (none / 0) (#132)
    by halstoon on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:20:43 AM EST
    in order to convince you to vote for Sen. Obama in the fall I would some how prostrate myself in front of you and beg of you your support. I really could care less whether you vote for Obama in November. I'm glad you're so passionate about your conviction that he'll lose. Your current candidate would certainly appear at times to be doing her best to facilitate such a defeat.

     So now we have established that I accused you of doing what you accused me of doing and you retorted with a petty squibble which I mocked and elicited the above response from you? I'm pretty sure that's how it went down.

    Have a good night.

    [ Parent ]

    I'll vote for a Democrat... (none / 0) (#71)
    by sar75 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:01:35 PM EST
    ...no matter what.  I'll support Obama and hope he does what it takes to win.  I have no problem with Clinton doing the same.  It's politics, after all. We'll fight and bicker now, shill and spin for our candidates, but when it comes time to pull the lever in November, we all vote "D".

    I'd like to hear everyone on this site commit to that. If you can't, then it really means you're not a progressive, not a Democrat, and don't give a damn about actual policy.

    [ Parent ]

    Ah, but I don't have to vote for him (none / 0) (#78)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:59:34 PM EST
    He/His campaign is assuming they have my state, no matter what. I do not have to automatically vote for him like he assumes I will because they've already counted my state as a win for him in the GE.

    I doubt my thinking is original.

    [ Parent ]

    I'd love to say that you're right, but the reality (none / 0) (#124)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:56:17 PM EST
    is you're not. There are a lot of people who simply don't trust the other side at this point. Quite frankly, my main issue is not Iraq, and I really don't think there's a terrible difference among the 3 in how they'll govern. McCain will use the hard right to get elected if he can, but his own agenda will take over once in office. He's a conservative Democrat; Hillary is a moderate, and Obama is a true centrist with a solidly left social agenda. Just my opinion.

     I live in GA, one of the states that don't count for Barack. There is not a chance of Hillary winning my state, but I will vote for the Democrats in hopes of winning the down-ticket stuff like state rep or senator.

    But, no, there is no guarantee the Democrats will coalesce, and regardless of whether they like to admit it or not, there are a whole bunch of TL contributors adding to and demonstrating the animosity.

    [ Parent ]

    What? (none / 0) (#135)
    by phat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 01:06:08 AM EST
    McCain a conservative Democrat?

    Obama a true centrist with a solidly left social agenda?

    Hillary a moderate?

    These terms have lost all their meaning, apparently, or one of us is completely out of our mind.

    I'm hoping for the former.

    Amazing.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, you won't get much argument that I'm (none / 0) (#149)
    by halstoon on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:32:51 PM EST
    out of my mind here. I'm also talking more about how I view these people overall, not about how they are trying to appear to voters at this moment.

    McCain I see as very much a conservative Democrat. Thus he has Lieberman endorsing him. He's on board with the environment, actually opposed top-down tax cuts, disdains pork barrel spending, believes in limiting the influence of lobbysists, and even said at one point that gays should be allowed to be married. He's also said before that overturning Roe is not a priority for him. He's personally pro-life, but so are a lot of Democrats. Actually, I think outside his current pandering to his base, conservative Republicans would agree with me on McCain.

    Clinton is a New Democrat like her husband. He reformed welfare, signed DOMA, signed NAFTA, etc. The Clintons are far from liberal.

    Obama likes to stand in the middle and bring people around him. That is his game, and he's pretty good at it. He's backed off his more liberal social stances, like decriminalization, but his leanings are known. It's amazing how people pretend to believe the campaign posturing when we can look and see clearly who these people have been before they asked to be president.

    Where am I just way off base?

    [ Parent ]

    Actually he cribbed it (none / 0) (#121)
    by Faust on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:42:33 PM EST
    From an ambassador who cribbed who was speaking on Fox news.

    The ambassador of course cribbed it from Malcom X.

    [ Parent ]

    Look at this.......... (none / 0) (#113)
    by chopper on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:53:05 PM EST
    Look at this petition that has over 10,000 signatures and almost as many comments.

    www.seatourdelegates.com

    [ Parent ]

    Do you say (none / 0) (#40)
    by 1jpb on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:49:11 PM EST
    seat them with no penalty (unlike the Rs specified going into their vote), and what should happen to the votes in MI or FL that weren't for BO or HRC?  Should the powers that be just decide who gets these delegates, never mind the voters?  This is democratic?

    And, does it matter that everyone who participated, or didn't participate in that election was promised by everyone (including HRC/Ickes) that those elections wouldn't count?  Does it seem at all banana republic to come in after the fact and say, "surprise we were fibbing, that last vote does count."

    [ Parent ]

    Still, the DNC 25 are probably mostly (none / 0) (#4)
    by tigercourse on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:48:32 PM EST
    Obama supporters. She would need to take a very large number of the ones from the remaining states.

    DNC chair (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Lahdee on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:07:21 PM EST
    names 35.  And the 3 Co-Chairs have ties to the Clintons.
    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.
    Thanks BigTentD

    [ Parent ]
    "Ties to the Clintons" (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:00:14 PM EST
    are obviously not something to take to the bank.

    See Secretary Richardson, Al Gore, Lieberman, and a long list of others we could all name.

    [ Parent ]

    Rationale? (none / 0) (#14)
    by ahazydelirium on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:02:51 PM EST
    I thought Hillary was the establishment candidate?

    [ Parent ]
    Why? (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by badger on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:18:56 PM EST
    Obsama has the support of Daley machine (his top advisor is their PR guy), Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy, Dodd, Pelosi, Brazile, Richardson, Durbin, Blagojevich, Rezko, Kos ...

    That sounds like the establishment candidate to me.

    [ Parent ]

    I was being sarcastic (none / 0) (#74)
    by ahazydelirium on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:16:27 PM EST
    in reference to the previous comment. The poster said that the 25 DNC members would likely support Obama, and my retort was meant to be a snarky attack on the "Clinton is the awful establishment candidate" meme (used by Obama himself).

    [ Parent ]
    snark and sarcasm clarification help (none / 0) (#84)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:26:21 PM EST
    especially when they are awfully close to some folks thinkin'  ;)

    usually, just a backslash works: /sarcasm  :)  

    [ Parent ]

    When we say establishment (none / 0) (#96)
    by Skex on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:51:12 PM EST
    We're referring to the Corporate Establishment. You know the one that actually runs things.


    [ Parent ]
    Richie Daley will be disappointed (none / 0) (#152)
    by badger on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 03:26:08 PM EST
    to hear that he doesn't actually run things, as will Pelosi, Richardson, kos, and many of the others.

    Obama's donors at the $1000/plate fundraiser at Credit Suisse last Thursday will also be miffed that you (but apparently not Obama) dislike them.

    [ Parent ]

    The remaining contests in which she is likely (none / 0) (#17)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:06:48 PM EST
    to fare best get 12 of those remaining seats, according to this table.

    I think his strong suits (including IN) account for 10. It would largely come down to how much they blow each other out in their strongholds and who wins the nail-biters.

    If you assume the 25 are already in the tank, she's got almost no shot.

    She is now Flutie going for the Hail Mary. Flutie completed his pass, so you never know.

    [ Parent ]

    I grew up in Indiana and have (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Boston Boomer on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:04:51 PM EST
    a lot of family still there.  I don't think Obama is going to win Indiana.  People there are unhappy with the Rev. Wright stuff and are worried about the economy and jobs.  Indiana is partly like Ohio and partly like Kentucky (southern Indiana).  Obama may carry Gary and some areas near Chicago.  The AA population in the state is small--around 8-10 percent, and there are no really large cities.  There have been no recent polls of the state, but Hillary has been spending a lot of time there and has drawn enthusiastic crowds.


    [ Parent ]
    It would not surprise me if you were right. (none / 0) (#133)
    by halstoon on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:38:20 AM EST
    Obama will have to work hard for the state; there is no doubt.

    Indianapolis and the Chicago suburbs will have to carry him, I suppose. Maybe he can do okay in Bloomington and West Lafayette. I don't know the state like you do, so I'll take your word.

    [ Parent ]

    The credentials committee is only the first step (none / 0) (#5)
    by Faust on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:49:41 PM EST
    My understanding was that after the Cred Com votes that it then goes to the floor for a full delegate vote. So even if it gets through the credentials committee it still comes down to who has the most delegates.

    I'll see if I can find a link, it's a while ago that I read this.

    I think that the committee has to okay (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:59:45 PM EST
    every state delegation, as I recall -- i.e., credentialing each one as properly chosen.  Of course, it's most often simply pro forma for most states.

    And then, yes, the credentials committee (and under parliamentary procedure, every committee) takes its report to the floor for acceptance by the convention at large.  Again, most often pro forma.  But this is when committee members can come forward with minority reports and throw it open for the convention to not accept committee decisions and take them into debate by the convention at large.

    That's the sop for such bodies (I used to serve as rules chair and then president of one that used good ol' Robert's Rules, which I came to admire greatly:-).  And I recall the conventions at least used to use and rely on such standard rules.  

    Of course, like all good rules, they include provision for changing the rules to suit bodies' needs -- so the Dems may have done so.  That would be the work of the rules committee, bringing changes to the floor before, and such changes may have be