The Credentials Committee Contest

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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.

    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 / 6) (#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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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."

    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


    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.

    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.

    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?


    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.


    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>


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

    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.


    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.


    If Obama "wins" (5.00 / 13) (#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.


    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.


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

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


    You are completely full of it.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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??


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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!


    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.

    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.


    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.  


    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. :-)


    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).

    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?


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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!

    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?


    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.


    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".

    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.


    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?

    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.


    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.

    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.  

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


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


    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.


    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.


    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?

    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?


    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.

    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?

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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!!

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.



    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?


    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.


    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.



    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."


    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

    "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.


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

    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.


    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).

    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  :)  


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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 been approved without -- like so much with the Dem leadership -- foreseeing this year's interesting situations.

    But they are not unique situations, and thus my recollections of committee recommendations and some floor battles before.  


    So the ruling of the Credentials committee (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:52:30 PM EST
    would SEAT thew MI and FL delegations and then they would vote on whether they should be seated?

    Say what? Who made up these crazy rules?

    who decides who is legitimately a delegate in the first place?

    What if say, Clinton challenged some of Obama's delegations - in Texas let's say?


    Chaos and MAD (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:55:40 PM EST
    it's like in the Senate or House of Representatives. Members elect can, by majority vote, decide to exclude other members elect on the first day.

    That's correct (none / 0) (#21)
    by muffie on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:13:28 PM EST
    It takes 20% for any of the committees to submit a minority report.  Such a minority vote is then voted upon by the state delegates.  In the case of Credentials Committee challenges, the contested delegates (in fact, all delegates from the same state) are explicitly excluded from the vote.

    Based on the premise that no one really wants to be left holding this stinker of an issue, I would guess that it's reasonably likely for the Credentials Committee to merely toss the issue along to the general state delegates in such a fashion.

    By the way, there are also some rules about distribution of delegates between the three committees, which may result in luck of the draw as to their exact composition (from DNC rules, VII.C.4)

    Standing committee positions allocated to a presidential candidate shall be proportionally allocated, to the extent practicable, to each of the three standing committees.  When such allocation results in an unequal distribution of standing commitee positions by candidate preference, a drawing shall be conducted to distribute the additional positions.

    I would be very happy if the superdelegates met before the convention to come to an agreement about the nominee, and avoid all this mess.


    Muffie is correct (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Trickster on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:44:50 PM EST
    Which means that either Brazile didn't know what she was talking about when she was blathering on about a majority, or else, more likely, she was being intentionally misleading so as to out another spin point for spinheads like TPM.

    Here's how it works:  Under the Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention (PDF document), the list of delegates currently being compiled through primary and caucus results is called the "Temporary Roll" of Delegates (Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention, VIII(B)(1), p. 14):

    The Secretary of the Democratic National Committee shall determine a Temporary Roll of delegates to the Convention which shall consist only of those persons selected and certified as delegates in accordance with the Rules and pursuant to this Call, unless a credentials contest shall have arisen with respect to any such person(s), in which case the Secretary shall include on the Temporary Roll the name of the credentials contestant recommended for inclusion by the Credentials Committee in its report.

    So the "Temporary Roll" (tee hee) of delegates that is considered by the Credentials Committee includes the delegates selected by the rules and also includes contestants recommended for inclusion by the Credentials Committee. If 20% or more of the Credentials Committee's delegates vote for other persons to be seated other than those on the Temporary Roll, then a Minority Report is sent to the floor for a simple majority vote by all the previously seated delegates; in this case a report including the delegates selected by Michigan and Florida. (Id. at VII(J)(2), p. 14.) Consideration of the Credential Committee's reports is the Convention's first order of business, and the delegates listed in whichever report is adopted by a majority of the previously-seated delegates will vote on all subsequent convention business. (Id. at VIII(C)(1), p. 15 and VIII(B)(2), p. 14.)

    Remember also that superdelegates are designated by the DNC Charter, which the Rules Committee doesn't have the power to amend, so superdelegates from Florida and Michigan should be automatically seated regardless of the outcome of the credentials fight.  You may safely start yout mathematical calculations on the credentials fight by assuming that each Florida and Michigan superdelegate who is subject to the will of the electorate will vote for the seating of the delegation of his or her own state.


    This could get really ugly (none / 0) (#141)
    by ineedalife on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:42:18 AM EST
    I could see both sides raising bogus objections to the other side's big states so that the "previously seated delegates" are in their favor when the question of the FL and MI delegates gets to the floor.

    But.. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Rainsong on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:22:21 PM EST

    Wouldn't the vote on the MI/FL issue be a separate vote to the candidate nomination?

    If so, wouldn't that mean it was a free independent vote for the delegates like they would have on any other Party-wide matter?

    I noticed in the caucus and other state Party conventions that are running now, (eg Pelosi was at the Californian state convention this weekend) they were voting on several generic Party resolutions, besides just determining who the candidate pledged delegates will be.

    With Saturday's Texas county conventions, I read that the MI/FL resolution (amongst a dozen or more resolutions) was causing a lot of argument and grief at some of the County conventions.

    I'm just guessing here - but as it rises through the county up to state level, don't these various "other" miscellaneous Party resolutions get tabled at the national as well? Is it then possible that some state delegations might be voting as a bloc on some resolutions, as passed/agreed at their own state conventions?


    OK, Maybe BTD (none / 0) (#8)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:54:39 PM EST
    So how many more would Michigan and Florida add to the total you mentioned? Significant? Am I to understand and I don't understand actually, that those 2 state's delegates would be added to the regular delegates and that ups the credential votes?

    The biggest hurdle (none / 0) (#42)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:49:39 PM EST
    is would be the net gain of ~90 delegates that Hillary would pick up from the MI race where she was the only one on the ballot and said that it didn't count.  If MI were a Super Tuesday contest or later, I could see Obama doing decently there (as he has in MN and WI).

    FL could probably be seated as-is without much problem as I think the Clinton pickup was something like 25 delegates.


    It's all in the timing (none / 0) (#48)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:08:23 PM EST
    One of the things I noticed is revotes started becoming a lot more unlikely after a certain story broke, but even then I understand that story hasn't hurt Obama with the voters, so whatever.

    I always figured revotes favored Obama cause he could focus on those states individually as opposed to having them grouped with a bunch of other states.


    Wait a second (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:59:36 PM EST
    So all the other states have been essentially voting and will continue to be voting on whether or not FL or MI will count.  I didn't know it was up to a vote.

    Let me guess, neither FL or MI will get to send their representatives to the credentials committee???!!!

    It does appear (none / 0) (#19)
    by Lahdee on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:09:51 PM EST
    that way. Credential committees traditionally make these kinds of calls.

    SD's Abstaining? (none / 0) (#26)
    by CoralGables on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:27:41 PM EST
    I think there is far more to the possibility of Florida and Michigan being seated than just which candidate has more people on the credentials committee. The DNC knows that Florida and Michigan are important in November. If they aren't seated, it's tantamount to spitting on both these states regardless of which candidate benefits.

    Also, if these states aren't seated, I suspect there will be a whole host of Super Delegates that don't vote at all on the first ballot thereby preventing either candidate from the nomination.

    Keep in mind that the SD's can vote for anyone they want... or no one at all.

    Fl & MI (none / 0) (#33)
    by BDB on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:43:21 PM EST
    There's a decent chance the Florida and Michigan SDs will be seated.  So how do even the Obama SDs among them vote not to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations if that issue comes to a floor vote?  

    Precisely why they won't (none / 0) (#55)
    by Faust on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:23:20 PM EST
    let it come to that. All these scenarios sound like nightmares right? That's why you'll keep hearing the big wigs saying it's going to be over before the convention.

    have read that those 25 from the DNC were (none / 0) (#29)
    by athyrio on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:30:24 PM EST
    handpicked by Dean and are dead loyal to him.... Hope not...I hope they are loyal to democracy instead...

    you mean... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:36:22 PM EST
    just like SCOTUS?

    The only hope for the Democrats is that votes count and they count all votes.

    Any other abiding philosophy is poison. This dude doesn't abide.


    Just read that Dean has called a hispanic meeting (none / 0) (#37)
    by athyrio on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:47:27 PM EST
    calling for Unity to the Democratic party....How weird and obvious a move...

    Unity? (none / 0) (#63)
    by countme on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:41:01 PM EST
    The hispanic vote may already have sailed for the dems this year.  DNC should have jumped on the hispanic bandwagon a long time ago.  

    This is why Obama's campaign messed up (none / 0) (#56)
    by rafaelh on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:27:44 PM EST
    when they failed to strongly support at least the Michigan revote. He can survive if Florida is seated, but if Clinton gets all the delegates and votes of Michigan then she has a chance of skipping ahead in the popular vote.

    I don't think it would make sense to count Michigan since his name was not on the ballot but I think the Obama campaign should be doing everything in their power to satisfy Hillary supporters that their victory is legitimate.

    A Question (none / 0) (#61)
    by kaleidescope on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:37:14 PM EST
    What does "everybody getting behind re-votes" actually do to help get, you know, re-votes?  That's up to the hapless morons in Michigan and Florida and they haven't covered themselves in glory on this front.

    I'm behind a re-vote or a re-caucus or whatever they can come up with to comply with DNC rules and get a delegation seated.  But given that they have lived in denial for more than a year and their inability to do anything lately (after it became clear that doing something could have a serious impact on the nomination), I don't have a lot of hope that the Michigan and Florida Democratic dinkuses will come up in time with anything that will be fair enough to pass muster and allow their delegations to vote on the nomination.

    So if the fools in Michigan and Florida continue to suck their thumbs and get nothing done, far be it for me to feel guilty about it not happening.

    As less-desirable as caucuses are, they may be preferable to not seating the Michigan or Florida delegations at all.  It will be interesting to see if those who are so desperate for Michigan and Florida to have delegates at the convention will still have such ardor if the states decide to hold caucuses.

    It will be very hard to have sympathy for Michigan and Florida would-be convention-goers if their state Democratic Parties are too incompetent to hold re-votes and too pig-headed (or in the bag for HRC) to hold caucuses and thus get no seats.

    Howard Dean has already appointed 25 people to the Credentials Committee.  So it's probably relevant (though Dean would be the last to actually say so) that Barack Obama first gained fund raising prowess (and national noteriety) by being sponsored as a Senate candidate by DFA, which at the time was called Dean for America.  And let us not forget all the nasty things Clinton family surrogates (Paul Begala? Terry McAuliffe?) have had to say about Howard Dean in recent years. And let us not forget that in the run-up to the 2004 Iowa caucuses, when Kerry and Geb Dickheart were running ads comparing HoHo to Osama bin Laden, HoHo asked McAuliffe to intervene .  And let us not forget that McAuliffe told HoHo to pound sand.  And let us not forget (HoHo certainly hasn't) that Clinton family surrogates have not been exactly subtle in their disparagement of Dean's 50 state strategy.  People in Mississippi picking their noses and all.  I certainly won't forget the shot of HRC in her luxury skybox listening to HoHo give his speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention.  The scorn and disdain on her face was palpable.

    There is little love lost between Chairman Dean and the Clinton family.

    So don't be surprised if HoHo subtly throws a drowning HRC a cinder block at the Credentials Committee.  HoHo did, after all, go out of his way to make sure he had his people (as opposed to those from a particular campaign) on the Credentials Committee.

    It will be interesting to see what a subtle and hard nosed operator Dean can be.  That can't be making Mr. Mary Matalin, Terry McAuliffe, Mickey Kantor, and the rest of the the Clinton family feel real sanguine about a Credentials Committee fight right now.

    Say hello (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by zyx on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:43:13 PM EST
    to President McCain.



    Insofar as (none / 0) (#69)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:53:19 PM EST
    Dean's 50 state may have spread the same amount of money to Utah as Florida or Pennsylvania, then yeah, his 50 state strategy needs some perspective.

    If Dean said "Lets send 100k into Utah to open a field office in a college town" and was told "no", none of that has been proved, although I'm sure that's the caricature one likes to paint of this feud on the internet.

    But if he does let this feud cloud his judgment on what's happening right now, Obama loses, swear in President McCain, Dean steps down, and then what happens to his precious 50 state strategy?


    Well (none / 0) (#80)
    by sas on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:10:01 PM EST
    Dean is really only doing a 48 state strategy this time around.

    What? (none / 0) (#122)
    by kaleidescope on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:49:10 PM EST
    Obviously, I disagree with you that the Democrats either nominate Senator Clinton or they lose to McCain.

    But do you think a president McCain will get to appoint the new head of the DNC?

    If HRC is elected president, she actually will get to appoint the next head of the DNC.  In which case, Howard Dean knows exactly what will happen to his "precious" 50 state strategy.

    You can argue that HRC would probably make a better president than Barack Obama (though Obama has the potential to be a truly great president).  But if elected, it is frightening what a president Clinton would be able to do to the Democratic Party.  

    Though nominally an Edwards supporter, I supported HRC for a long time, arguing with friends and family that she would be a good president.  But I just got to many quick hits of Bill Clinton and Terry McAuliffe one weekend.  And the memory of how they operated, and how they weakened, hobbled and corrupted the Democratic Party just finally got me to thinking of what they would do to what Howard Dean has started to build.

    And that's what really swung me against Hillary Clinton -- the realization that as good as she was personally, what would come with her was the whole Clinton family retinue of McAuliffe, Kantor, Rubin, Vernon Jordan, Madeline Halfbright, Eileen Clausen, Katy McGinty, Rahm Emmanuel, Mark Penn and Ron Brown (at least in spirit).

    I imagine Howard Dean feels pretty much the same way, since he cut his eye teeth in national politics by speaking out against what had become of the Party after the Clintons (along with toe sucking Dick Morris) had had their way with it.


    Hmmm.... (none / 0) (#72)
    by ajain on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:04:44 PM EST
    Does anyone else feel the Clinton chances dying? I feel like Obama has, in a terrible way, grabbed the inevitability thing. I hope I am wrong.

    NO (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by sas on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:08:24 PM EST
    she's got a chance, as long as the fix isn't in.

    I've got this feeling, that no matter what, Dean, Pelosi, Brazile et al, have got thie whole thing worked out.

    BUT, if this gets any closer after the primaries, and Clinton would be ahead with Florida in the mix - and the Super D's award to Obama - look out.

    Hillary backers will not stand for it.  The party won't have to worry about offending the black vote......


    You know what (none / 0) (#83)
    by ajain on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:22:39 PM EST
    Between the time that I wrote that post and now I have had a complete change of heart.
    I think she is going to win this thing. Let people just see her campaign and win.

    Also there is a rumor going around that Edwards is going to endorse her soon (maybe tomorrow). Its a rumor but it feels good.

    I think she will win.


    Keep your faith (none / 0) (#87)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:35:34 PM EST
    If you want her to win and are behind her, stay there. She's a fighter ;) Remember, she was counted out after Iowa, lol!~

    Dying? (1.00 / 5) (#92)
    by Publicus on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:46:22 PM EST
    <<Does anyone else feel the Clinton chances dying?>>

    Dying?  Geez, they need to get her corpse to the mortuary before it stinks up the whole party.


    And you want me to vote Obama? (none / 0) (#108)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:21:44 PM EST
    Try changing your tone, perhaps . . . and having your guy act like a DEM.

    The only problem is.... (none / 0) (#90)
    by Publicus on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:44:13 PM EST
    Clinton would have to sweep the table, and by large margins.  That's not going to happen unless she has an abundant supply of kitchen sinks.  But hey, don't stop believing.  

    Overwhelmed and teary (none / 0) (#94)
    by sarahfdavis on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:48:19 PM EST
    at the love and empathy of your demonstration of Unity.
    That's his big brand and I haven't seen a single bit of it
    from him or his followers. So what else you got?

    Me too... (none / 0) (#112)
    by Rainsong on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:49:42 PM EST

    sarahfdavis, "Unity" doesn't include half of the Democrat voters, as they have plenty of Republican cross-over and Indie voters in the tank, and lots of red states in the tank, along with the Party leadership, the MSM, and all the math - why would they bother with foolish Democrats?

    They been telling us since before Iowa to Go Away and STFU, so maybe we should do exactly that, especially in November.


    What else? (none / 0) (#137)
    by Publicus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:22:13 AM EST
    More votes, more states, more delegates, more money, and ten points up on Gallup.

    Besides this fight for Mi & Fla. the most (none / 0) (#95)
    by kenosharick on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:50:33 PM EST
    important thing they must do is impress STRONGLY upon the supers how Barack will get evicerated in the general over rev. wright (among other issues)and the only chance at the WH is Hillary. This wright issue will be HUGE in the Fall and everyone, esp. the MSM seem to think it is over.

    I think (none / 0) (#103)
    by ajain on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:02:30 PM EST
    If she wins PA, IN and NC she will be the nominee for sure. If not - I don't know. But I think there is a decent possibility for that. Not the most likely but I think it can happen.

    I wouldn't say for sure (none / 0) (#115)
    by Faust on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:57:23 PM EST
    But it would DRAMATICALLY increase the likelyhood of her being the nominee. If we can't say that Obama is for sure the nominee now, we can't say anyone is for sure the nominee till the supers do their thing.

    From the polls I've seen NC looks just as hard for her as PA will be for him though so...we shall see how it all pans out.

    Optimum scenario would be she does so well in PA that the momentum carries her through NC. There has been precious little momentum in this race but a huge win in PA might do it.


    Not quite (none / 0) (#138)
    by Publicus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 02:24:52 AM EST
    <<If she wins PA, IN and NC she will be the nominee for sure.>>

    Not unless she wins them all by large margins, which she won't.  


    The petition for Florida/Michigan Votes (none / 0) (#105)
    by talkingpoint on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:13:08 PM EST
    Please sign the petition at least for fairness (none / 0) (#106)
    by talkingpoint on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:14:45 PM EST

    Real math! (none / 0) (#107)
    by mel on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:20:54 PM EST
    Obaa leads Clinto by  votes on the Cedential Commitee, with possible to go in the 10 States still to vote is there a chance for Clinton? NO!

    Why, Dean already appointed 25 votes DNC'ers on the Commitee, and it won't be like Obama's commitee on NATO and Europe, all the seats will be filled and not empty!

    Brazlle slipped out the 25 Dean choices today!

    So the gap has closed an the Elite has that covered!

    " . . . the Elite has that covered! " (none / 0) (#110)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:27:16 PM EST
    Crap!! I thought he was the grassroots dude . . .?!

    How disappointing . . . . 'Hope' this doesn't get brought up in the fall . . . . along with other issues.


    "other issues" (none / 0) (#120)
    by mel on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:27:10 PM EST
    Think aou it, sure NBC has already got their plans in order from their mothership General Electric, one of the companies Obama's bagman tried swindling and forfeited on loans with and is a main complaintant in the exortion case against Rezko!

    Kill 2 birds with one stone by being the main force in raising Obama up from no where then tear him down along with Democrats to secure their base Republicans into power again and keep their huge tax cuts!

    They will do it so fast that the GOP convention will be an early Nov 20th victory party, with all the dirt not vetted on Obama yet!


    Do they need a simple majority? (none / 0) (#140)
    by ineedalife on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:33:23 AM EST
    Or a super majority? Can't the minority side force the issue to the floor? Or is that just in the other committees?

    Second Ballot Bules (none / 0) (#151)
    by DestinyBender on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:51:57 PM EST
    Can someone answer a question?  If this race goes to the convention and neither candidate reaches the needed amount of votes on the first ballot, are the regular delegates then released to vote as they wish  on subsequent ballots?  Or do the state delegations  
    continue to vote as a block, but can change their candidate based on majority votes within each state caucus?  Either way, it would appear that the importance of the Super Delegates diminishes after the first ballot.

    SPAM (none / 0) (#156)
    by Edger on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 06:05:06 PM EST
    You think these cretins could come up with something more creative than the gibberish names they use.