Donna Brazile Damaging The Dem Party Again

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

Via Jerome Armstrong, Donna Brazile is at it again, this time arguing against do-over primaries AND seating the Michigan delegation in a March 7 column:

With two-thirds of the primary contests already completed, the DNC cannot allow the Florida and Michigan delegates to decide the nomination. It would be wrong. And it would be dangerous.

. . . I suggest that these two states avoid any "do-over" contests. The voters have spoken. While Obama may not like the results in Michigan, where his name didn't appear on the ballot, I have a hard time ignoring the Florida results, where his name did. More important, a do-over would send a terrible message to states already thinking about moving their primary or caucus forward in 2012 or, heaven forbid, 2011. After all, the reason the party came down hard last year was to avoid a primary being held before the winter holidays.

(Emphasis supplied.) Let's forget for a moment that Brazile's argument makes no sense. If you are adamant about not seating them "because rules were broken," then you should not be for seating the Florida delegation and against seating the Michigan delegation. Let's instead focus on Brazile elevating HER STUPID actions in stripping the delegations instead of imposing the 50% penalty called for by the rules over improving the Dems' chance in November!!

A Republican intent on hurting the Democratic Party could not do more damage to it than Brazile has done this year. My gawd she is awful.

< Obama Rejects "Firehouse Primary" In Michigan | Bush Vetoes Water Boarding Bill >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    What does she mean by (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Teresa on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:22:06 AM EST
    "the voters have spoken". Leave MI the way it is and don't seat them but don't ignore Florida? I thought she was opposed to seating either of them. Her comment makes no sense to me.

    That's cuz (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:28:00 AM EST
    it makes no sense.

    Let me explain this to you on the QT - you remember the Mark Schmitt proposal for Obama - agree to seat the FL delegation but insist on an Iowa caucus for MI? This is part of drumbeating that plan.

    The problem is there is no logical reason to adopt it. If FL can be seated, why not MI? Obama was not on the ballot? Ok, then let's redo the primary? Cost too much money, we can't do that. Carville sez "I got the money right here!"

    Obama sez . . . . mmmble, CHANGE!!!


    Split (none / 0) (#23)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:36:20 AM EST
    You also forgot the part, where it has been proposed the Florida delegates be split 50-50.

    That's a nonstarter (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:38:44 AM EST
    I saw that (none / 0) (#27)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:40:05 AM EST
    But there was no rational put forth. It may just be negotiating position.

    50-50 split = zero sum but pushes Obaba closer to (none / 0) (#46)
    by ding7777 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:16:03 PM EST
    the magic number

    Well, I think there is a reason why (none / 0) (#53)
    by derridog on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:46:20 PM EST
    Florida should just be seated and Michigan should be a do-over. That's because all the names were on the ballot in Florida and the Floridians are not deaf, dumb and blind. 1.7 million of them came out to vote.  

    In Michigan, for whatever stupid reasons, Edwards and Obama took their names off the ballot. True, Obama asked his followers to vote for Uncommitted, but who knows how many of those people were actually for Obama and not for Edwards. So I think Michigan should have a do-over -- another primary.  Otherwise, all those Michigan voters are going to be so pissed they will all vote for McCain.

    The thing I can't understand about Brazille's statement is the same as you--why should Florida be seated and Michigan be denied if both broke the rules?

    That really makes absolutely NO sense, either logical or practical.  I used think Brazille was okay but now I think she should go the way of Ms. Powers and step aside.  At this rate, it won't matter which Democrat wins the nomination, we will lose the general if this stupidity reigns.


    The whole (none / 0) (#57)
    by tek on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:25:36 PM EST
    thing is just so completely stupid.  Disenfranchise millions of voters because some ignorant political party decided to make ridiculous rules to favor a couple of states over all the other states.  Oh, wait, that's democratic isn't it?  It so is not.

    Donna Brazile is an idiot (none / 0) (#104)
    by litigatormom on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:08:51 PM EST
    I can't believe she ran Al Gore's campaign.

    On second thought, I guess I can. The race should never have been close enough for the Supreme Court to steal.


    lol (none / 0) (#86)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:35:09 PM EST
    I don't care what people say, if they can't take you they should stay off the internet.

    What's up with Donna?  Jeez, no wonder Gore couldn't fight Florida.  He was getting "be a wimp" advice


    Maybe Obama only accepts EXACT change (none / 0) (#98)
    by Ellie on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:19:34 PM EST
    His way or, er, the highway.

    Sound familiar? (none / 0) (#105)
    by litigatormom on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:10:51 PM EST
    George W. Bush's idea of bi-partisanship is for Democrats to capitulate to his demands.

    "The voters have spoken... and we must (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by tigercourse on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:25:06 AM EST
    not listen to them!"

    Heh (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:25:34 AM EST
    Rules, Rules, Rules (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:25:42 AM EST
    I get very confused.  I thought that a rule was if the state voted was befor Feb 5, it would not count.  I thought that a rule was the state could appeal the loss of delegates to the credentialing committee.  I thought there was another rule that if the state came up with a process to seat their delegates, they could.  Isn't having a caucus or primary a legitimate way to seat delegates?  It has been for every other state.  If the state has a primary or caucus after Feb 5, isn't this adhering to the rule.  What rule states that the remedial rules no longer apply?    Are these not the rules?  Someone help me out here.  What are the #@%## rules?

    Donna Brazile Rules (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:28:43 AM EST
    What I say goes.

    She might as well be arguing (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by Anne on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:41:17 AM EST
    that we can't allow Pennsylvania to vote on April 22 because it's too dangerous to allow it to have a say in the outcome.

    She would if she could (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:43:56 AM EST
    I am so tired (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by litigatormom on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:15:17 PM EST
    of people saying that Clinton should drop out now because she can't win the numbers game.  What they really mean is that she should stop before she wins Pennsylvania.

    Clinton may lose even if she wins Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, a MI or FLA re-vote.  But Brazile doesn't want Obama's aura of inevitability to be chipped away.

    Well, suck it up, Donna. Inevitability isn't all its cracked up to be. Ask Hillary, she's learned that lesson already.


    The weird thing is that Obama can't (none / 0) (#113)
    by derridog on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:59:41 PM EST
    win the numbers game either.   Both of them are going to be dependent on the Superdelegates at this point.  Neither of them are going to come up with the number of delegates needed to win.

    So maybe they should both quit. Let's call Al Gore.


    Yeah, let's not let any state that might vote (none / 0) (#54)
    by derridog on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:49:47 PM EST
    for Clinton have a say.

    that is it in a nutshell (none / 0) (#93)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:51:43 PM EST
    all of my family and friends are for Obama "we want change, Hillary is evil".. and I have sent them the articles about this and waiting to see if they will brush this off like the did NAFTAGATE and the Rezko "buy my yard for me" deal.

    Donna Brazille is contradiciting her own words (none / 0) (#66)
    by debcoop on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:50:53 PM EST
    This is what Donna Brazille said on the night of jan 29th, 2008 about seating the Florida and Michigan delegates.  She urged them to come up with a party process that they are allowed to do under party rules.  Transcript to follow.

    "BLITZER: Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential candidate, joining us.
    Let's get some analysis on what we just heard from another Democrat, Donna Brazile, who is
    joining us in Washington, the campaign manager for Al Gore back in 2000, a friend of the
    Clinton, friend of Barack Obama.

    Does Senator Clinton have a point when she says she will try to get those Democrats seated,
    the delegates from Michigan and Florida seated, at the Democratic Convention in Denver?
    Does she have a point? Is she on solid ground? Because you're a leader in the DNC. You
    basically stripped those two states of the right to seat delegates.

    BRAZILE: Well, Wolf, the two states can come to the credentials committee once that
    committee is put together to appeal to have their delegates seated, once they come up with a
    process to select delegates.

    In previous election cycles, 2000, in Washington State, they had a beauty contest. And, a few
    weeks later, they held a caucus, so that they could come up with a delegate selection process.
    So, I think Senator Clinton and others should encourage the state of Florida to comply with the
    rules and to go ahead and come up with a process, so that we can seat those delegates come
    this summer.

    Look, the Democratic National Committee did not prohibit the candidates from campaigning
    in Florida. The candidates signed a pledge to the four early states that they would not
    campaign in Florida. But, going forward, I do believe that the party will encourage all of the
    states, not just Michigan and Florida, to comply with the rules, so that we can seat all of the
    state conventions and ensure that we will have a unified convention and a unified party going

    Pay careful attention here she is urging them to come up with a party process to seat those delelgates on the 29th of Jan....but now they shouldn't be seated until the candiate she supports wins by denying the will of the people of Florida and Michigan the right to participate in choosing the party nominee.  The people of Florida and Michigan are not voting to send those delegates to the "fabulous" parties at the convention.....they don't them to just to sit there to watch speeches   THEY WANT THEIR VOTES TO COUNT IN CHOOSING THE PARTY NOMINEE.


    In fact (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:33:18 AM EST
    Not only are you correct, but Howard Dean spelled this out very clearly in a written statement last week.

    If a state wants to present a new plan for a primary or a caucus to the DNC, the rules allow it.

    However, there will still have to be a decision by the DNC - and Brazile may even have a voice in that decision - so there is still room to argue and spin.


    yes a confusing soup (none / 0) (#20)
    by neilario on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:34:37 AM EST
    the line about the rules shifts also. only mi and fl were punished even though several states moved their primaries/caucuses up [ SC for example]. so, right off the bat the rules were applied inconsistently. as i believe there was always an intention to ultimately seat the delegates but the dlc didnt anticipate the tight contest. so they had not thought out the long term strategy. yes, they were just going to have to apply to the credentials committee to seat them and the plan would have been to seat them.
    so, now that cannot happen because BO pulled his name in MI and i think he did that so he could prevent this as both states are not BO favorable. hence the messy soup.
    does that help at all?

    What the heck (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by spit on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:27:12 AM EST
    is she saying? She seems to contradict herself like three different times.

    Looks like FL being seated is a done deal to me.

    She's fighting a losing battle on MI. It will either be seated as-is or have a revote at this point. Her spin is a few days late to prevent it, IMO.

    Here's the thing (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:31:02 AM EST
    The battle now for Obama is to make sure there is not redo in Florida and an Iowa caucus in MI.

    The problem is there is no coherent argument to get that result.

    If there have to be do overs, why not have them in both states? If you can seat FL, what justifiable reason can you have not to seat MI? And if there is money, why not redo a primary in MI?

    Because of the illogic of the Obama position, Obama supporters like Brazile will produce illogical crap like this column.


    yup i agree btd (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by neilario on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:39:38 AM EST
    a revote in florida will be a huge negative for bo because they are pissed at him now. and he will lose by a greater margin and the news cycle. so he has to prevent that but at the same time if they are seated as they are it is still a loss but a lesser one. In MI he may win more of the vote than a percentage of uncommitteds from previous results [ even though he campaigned hard that uncommitted was him... ]
    so, the only short term win is to block the seating. which will NEVER happen because the dems KNOW that those states are critical in november.

    i think BO believes that if he just thinks short term and gets the nom he will win all dems and some indy votes in nov and will get the nod in nov but that is false and arrogant thinking.

    he will get killed in fl in the GE with mccain the repub and all he has done to disenfrancise them...


    And risk (none / 0) (#114)
    by Daryl24 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:03:56 PM EST
    pissing off a couple of million voters in 2 powerful swing states. If Dean wants to set the dem party back a decade or two just keep following The Donna.  

    all of this could have been avoided (5.00 / 7) (#12)
    by desmoinesdem on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:29:04 AM EST
    if the DNC had just stripped FL and MI of half their delegates and allowed the candidates to campaign there.

    Such a simple solution.

    Why does Donna Brazile still have a position of influence in our party?

    Good question (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:31:17 AM EST
    And there is the downticket effect (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:27:57 PM EST
    in Michigan, especially, for us if a lot of Dem voters in these two states stay home.  It is not enough to win the White House; we need seats in Congress -- and even more downticket races -- to really "hope" for "change" in this country.

    But for Brazile, it's all about Obama, and screw any other Dems -- not just Dem voters, but other Dem candidates.


    I heard that at (none / 0) (#115)
    by Daryl24 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:07:18 PM EST
    couple of dem townhall meetings in MI, people were not happy with the DNC's boneheadedness. If Bazille and Dean don't think McCain and company will exploit that anger then they are truly delusional.

    I wrote our State Party (none / 0) (#30)
    by Salt on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:41:23 AM EST
    and requested they send the National Committee help before they cause permanent damage for our State candidates who are Dems with this undemocratic behavior we also have a very large Jewish community that is engaged in hits Cause its not just an issue for minority demographics.  Both States have large Jewish Dem support.

    Where are you? (none / 0) (#55)
    by derridog on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:52:50 PM EST
    No (none / 0) (#48)
    by Foxx on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:16:23 PM EST
    I don't think we should be mentioning that option at all. I want Hillary to have all her delegates.

    Seriously (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by NJDem on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:31:03 AM EST
    seating the delegates AFTER the nominee is chosen defeats the purpose.  They voted for who they wanted to be the nominee--that is the only way their votes will count.  

    Seating them afterwards doesn't make sense.  Come on, she has to be smarter than this!

    Seating delegates AFTER (none / 0) (#108)
    by litigatormom on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:18:20 PM EST
    the nominee is chosen?

    Sounds like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland: "Verdict first, trial later."


    She's a problem as she is speaking as a Party (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Salt on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:33:00 AM EST
    Leader at the DNC, if she is not Dean better take her out before she dose more damage if thats possible maybe Gore could help.  She was the first to call Bill Clinton a racist, she was the first to claim the SD process was undemocratic, and she was involved in the original plan to disenfranchise the base of Fla and Mich which elevated SC.  Any later break of off of swing demographics who belived the DNC fixed this election can be traced right back to her Leadership actions at the DNC.

    What is her position? (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Foxx on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:17:56 PM EST
    What is her authority? Whatever it is, she has to go! Her bias is palpable.

    Ahh appears none other than as a SD (none / 0) (#69)
    by Salt on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:07:05 PM EST
    Donna Brazile is a political commentator on CNN, ABC and NPR, contributing columnist to Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill, and former campaign manager for Al Gore. from the op ed says nothing and I can find nothing at the DNC.

    walden, (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by cpinva on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:35:03 AM EST
    let's not forget SC, which also broke the "no early primary" rule, but seems to have been completely ignored in this whole kerfuffle. i'm sure that it went solidly for sen. obama, due to it's significant AA population, has no bearing on this. really, i am.

    i realize that the stress of a political campaign causes ordinarily intelligent people to say and do extraordinarily stupid things. why does it seem to me that this affliction is afflictin' supporters of sen. obama more so than those of sen. clinton? i try, really, really i do, to be objective. it just seems that every time i turn around, someone in his official campaign party, or an open supporter is saying something ridiculous.

    he needs to get control of these people, before the titantic is sunk again.

    Titanic (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:40:17 AM EST
    I see the cracks in the hull growing larger every day.  Glug, glug, glug...

    Oops (none / 0) (#24)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:38:34 AM EST
    Didn't two other states also oops and break the same exact rule?  I thought the total was 5.

    New Hampshire (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:42:36 AM EST
    was the worst offender, in that they not only went way ahead of their earliest permissible date, but leapfrogged another state (NV) in the sequence.  Not a peep from the DNC.

    I am shocked (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:43:08 AM EST

    NH (none / 0) (#40)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:07:20 PM EST
    was exempt, I believe, because they have it written in their state constitution.  Or is that IA?  One of them has it and is therefore within the guidelines for exemption.

    And I am predicting that Clinton will take WY today, so you heard it here first!


    Not so (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:12:11 PM EST
    They agreed to the deal in the first place.  It's not as though they had no idea what was in their state constitution when they did so.

    I don't think so re Iowa (none / 0) (#84)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:32:35 PM EST
    as I read a piece recently in the Des Moines Register about Iowa possibly losing its first-place status in the Dem race, in part because of the many problems (voter intimidation, etc.) in its vaunted caucus and many complaints about it to the party, etc.

    And the DMR piece didn't say anything about Iowa's first-place status, its caucus date, being in its state constitution.  It positioned this as a PR problem for Iowa to fix, not a legal problem.


    C'mon (none / 0) (#35)
    by Claw on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:48:54 AM EST
    Donna has been saying stupid things for years.  Way before BO was on the scene.  It isn't his fault one of his supporters is a moron...it is too bad she has a national, pretend-objective post from which to pontificate.  And the reason that you see more Obama supporters afflicted with the saying-stupid-things disease is because you support Clinton.  This problem (my campaign's perfect but the other guys are awful) afflicts both sides.

    Moronic supporters (none / 0) (#85)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:33:32 PM EST
    are not provided microphones; they've given grunt jobs to do in backrooms about the size of broom closets.  

    dude, i harbor no illusions (none / 0) (#89)
    by cpinva on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:39:38 PM EST
    about the sterility of the clinton campaign, or the inanity of some her more outspoken supporters. that said, i challenge you to prove "parity" between them.

    good luck on that.


    way to be afflicted (none / 0) (#99)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:34:42 PM EST
    Obama is right on board with this idea of saying no to do-overs.

    The DNC chose not to punish (none / 0) (#109)
    by litigatormom on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:21:17 PM EST
    SC and Nevada because they were trying to "compensate" for the lily-whiteness of Iowa and NH. A lot of the criticism of entrenching Iowa and NH as the first in the nation has been based on the fact that there were very few minorities in those states.

    So the DNC decided it was okay to move up SC because of its African American population, and Nevada because of its Latino population.

    Of course, Florida and Michigan have no African Americans or Latinos, right?


    Sounds like Obama supporters (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:47:21 AM EST
    are going to walk back their insistence on not Recognizing the FL primary. Funny.

    Better than that (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:57:04 AM EST
    K/O and TINS will argue that not seating the Florida vote will be disenfranchising.

    No snark. Watch them.


    I've got the popcorn ready (none / 0) (#39)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:04:49 PM EST
    Never Again (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by pluege on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:37:47 PM EST
    if Democrats have any sense the whole system will be revamped before another travesty occurs.

    puhlease (none / 0) (#1)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:17:59 AM EST
    Personally, I agree with Donna...way too many votes in Florida to just toss aside.

    Michigan of course is a different story since Obama's name wasn't on the ballot.

    The problem is that no matter what the DNC does at this point, they are wrong in someone's view. There is no win-win strategy here.

    But (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:20:07 AM EST
    She is not saying we should keep the results.

    She is saying "the voters have spoken," therefore we should... disregard what the voters said by not seating the delegates, and then not ask them again!

    We can be very confident Brazile is not arguing for seating delegates according to the existing results.


    Obama - and only Obama - (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by ding7777 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:24:18 AM EST
    is responsible for his name not being on the ballot.  

    Another Obama bone-headed decision!


    Haaa!!! (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:22:19 AM EST
    And what does she say about Michigan?

    Man did you ever miss the point.


    No the DNC was wrong to begin with and now (none / 0) (#36)
    by Salt on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:55:49 AM EST
    can not defend their actions and create a remedy that is honorable. Defending the stupidly that would ever disenfranchise a voter by your Party is beyond arrogant and tears and the very core value the Party stands for, and Fla. and Mich. for gods sake, the Republicans didn't even take this step. Its a blunder a big one that marginalizes dueling base demographics, continuing to play these Party games and suppress the voices in these States is just one more loss of people to vote for whoever the nominee is in Nov..  Seriously, how many more Peoples can continue to be offended by this Party chaos and you still believe you have an opportunity to win the GE or have a legitimate candidate the Party can get around.  

    So tell us where you see her say (none / 0) (#87)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:35:16 PM EST
    that -- one argument about Michigan and another one about Florida.  

    She gives one argument, so it ought to apply to both states, huh?  That is the point of this thread.


    I read the whole article ... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:31:00 AM EST
    and I cannot follow what she's saying.

    She doesn't want do-overs, I get that.  She thinks the credentials committee might be able to sort it out, okay.

    But then she says:

    The bottom line is that we need to think this through and talk with officials from those two states who are willing to come up with a workable alternative that does not ask the DNC or the nominee to act as if nothing happened.

    What would that "workable solution" be?  

    And how is this, by even the most charitable interpretation, a "bottom line?"

    But she was arguing for pretending nothing (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:34:58 AM EST
    happened and then reversed herself in her closing.

    I am going to repeat my comment here - the Mark Schmitt plan is now the Obama goal - seat Florida with NO do over as Obama will get spanked and the publicity will be devastating.

    To get that result, you have to address Michigan, the argument there is Obama was not on the ballot. You see Brazile already making that argument.

    Then what to do about Michigan? A firehouse primary has been proposed and rejected by the Obama campaign - the excuse is money I guess.

    But Carville swoops in - "I got the money right here!" Now what is Obama's excuse for insisting on an IA caucus instead of a primary?


    Do you think HRC campaign (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:34:18 PM EST
    authorized him to put $15 mil. on the table?

    Of course they did. (none / 0) (#64)
    by derridog on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:47:28 PM EST
    He couldn't promise that kind of money on national TV without having consulted them first. Besides, this is a perfect public relations tactic, because the Clinton campaign is evidently willing to put its money where its mouth is, and the whole things speaks to fairness in a way that is easily grasped by any reasonable person.  Thus, Obama is put in the position of waffling on something he SAYS he is supporting.  He's damned if he does (if Hilllary wins Florida again and Michigan has a primary not a caucus) and damned if he doesn't (as he'll be punished by Florida and Michigan voters in the general if they are stiffed on this by his campaign).

    I think it was very smart of the Clinton campaign.  It shows the hypocrisy of the Obama people on this issue.


    Plus Carville loves FL. Who knew? (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:51:39 PM EST
    i love that ragin cajun. (none / 0) (#102)
    by kangeroo on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:00:53 PM EST
    To be clear (none / 0) (#79)
    by ChrisO on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:10:54 PM EST
    he didn't say the campaign would put up $15 million. He said "we'll" put up $15 million, and said the Obama "people" should put up $15 million. This will enable some of Hillary's backers who are maxed out to contribute more money, if it's not going to her campaign.

    So who is "we," then? (none / 0) (#92)
    by derridog on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:49:04 PM EST
    How does a credential fight help? (none / 0) (#110)
    by litigatormom on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:45:53 PM EST
    What will the credentials committee say? Will they say, "You broke the rules, tough nuggies"? How will that help?

    And if the credentials committee says okay, we'll seat you, don't the Obama delegates go nuts?

    And who controls the credentials committee, anyway?


    I'm confused (none / 0) (#16)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:31:10 AM EST
    On the one hand, the voters have spoken. On the other hand the delegates elected by those voters in FL and MI still cannot be seated? Is that what she's saying?

    As KO calls it, Brazile has (none / 0) (#88)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:38:12 PM EST
    multiple personality disorder, clearly, by making contradictory arguments in the same article.

    Not that KO would say that about Brazile, since they're both for Obama.  But somehow, he sees Clinton as Sybil, although Clinton never has had such complete failures in internal logic as Brazile does.


    Do not post old headlines (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:14:17 PM EST
    on this story and do not post off topic.

    This is a serious issue and we take this story seriously.

    Go play those games at your favorite haunts.

    Have you noticed that (none / 0) (#52)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:45:18 PM EST
    the stupidity level of the DNC goes up when the Obama campaign hits troubled waters..... and before you want proof... look back to the reaction after Super Tues, the Kerry and Durbin calls for her to with draw......

    Hey just look at the past blogs on this sight... Dean is not going to stop Donna from positioning Sen Obama to win the nomination. Dean is looking at the number of new DEms this is bringing to the party. His goal is different than getting the nomination settled.

    It should influence his dicision on the revote for FL and MI.... even if Donna does not like it... I want to hear from Dean on this.

    I haven't really thought about it in those terms (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:25:26 PM EST
    that Dean is only interested in the party, and that he sees how many new folks Obama is bringing in and thinks that makes him more valuable to the party.  I think that's a valid point, but I also think that Dean should look at how many core dems Clinton has "reawakened" to the party--the core dems that Gore could not excite and Kerry alienated with his windsurfing and NE Elitism.

    Short term gains are nice, but I think that Dean should not devalue the importance of bringing once-reliable dems back into the fold.  As exciting as the youth vote is, it's the old faithfuls who make it a point to vote.  You know, those NASCAR folks, those blue collar workers, those folks who can't afford insurance or $5 a gallon gas or are losing their houses.  In short, the people who are most affected by who is in the White House.


    The Dems Are Scared To Death That (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:49:48 PM EST
    AA's will leave the party, march on the DNC in DC and disrupt the national convention if Obama does not get the nomination. And where did they get those ideas? From statements of Donna Brazile and Al Sharpton  to name a few.

    But it doesn't matter if they lose (none / 0) (#70)
    by derridog on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:15:45 PM EST
    older women and hispanics, right?

    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:08:39 PM EST
    Clinton's demographics of women, hispanics, asians, seniors and working class non AA's will just have to take a back seat this time to keep the peace and they think we will just lump it.

    Clinton supporters are not on TV threatening to leave the party, march on DC or disrupt the convention so I guess they think that there will be no fall out to their actions. They may be right but we will have to see.


    Well, this is the very thing I dislike about (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by derridog on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:28:38 PM EST
    Obama and his followers.  There's this underlying threat of  overt retaliation any time he loses anything or is even mildly criticized,no matter what the damage to the party.  This just proves to me that his campaign is about him, not the good of the country. Clinton's campaign tactics have been mild in comparison to any other previous race I've seen (look at 2004, for God's sake!), yet she and Bill have been accused of the most vile things, called racists and monsters.  Those supporting them are trashed and attacked and ridiculed.

    I just feel so depressed about this whole thing. We had such a good chance to win the general and the Congress and restore habeas corpus and overturn all the other horrendous Bush policies and put some progressive ideas into action.

    My prediction is -- if Obama wins, we lose the black vote, which would have been solidly for the Clintons if Obama hadn't decided to use absurd race accusations as a means to siphon them off for himself.  If Obama loses, we will lose many of Clinton's supporters.   McCain will reap the benefit and we will be on our way to a 100 year war in Iraq and the stacking of the Supreme Court with ultra conservatives, which will affect us far longer than the outcome of this election.


    I was following you until your last paragraph (none / 0) (#97)
    by sumac on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:13:19 PM EST
    "...if Obama wins, we lose the black vote...  If Obama loses, we will lose many of Clinton's supporters."

    Isn't the opposite the fear here?


    i think derridog swapped "wins" with (none / 0) (#103)
    by kangeroo on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:06:12 PM EST
    "loses"; otherwise i agree completely with him/her.

    Yes. I goofed on that one. Sorry - I (none / 0) (#106)
    by derridog on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:13:46 PM EST
    meant the opposite of what I said.

    The only AA's who are going to leave (none / 0) (#116)
    by Daryl24 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:18:57 PM EST
    the dem party are Bazille and MAYBE Sharpton, Jackson Jr, Wilder and Michelle Obama.

    On second thought cancel Jackson Jr and Wilder.  


    And building the Hispanic voter base =) (none / 0) (#60)
    by hookfan on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:34:57 PM EST
    hook (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:51:19 PM EST
    you are right.  I feel silly for leaving that out.  D'oh!

    the Hispanic population is proving to be a very strong voice in this election.


    That is the faulty (none / 0) (#71)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:19:30 PM EST
    thinking on Deans part... you can alienate the base and win the GE.

    Let's not forget (none / 0) (#74)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:40:41 PM EST
    about all the latino/latina voters that Clinton is bringing into the party. These have voted republican in the past. Getting them into the democratic party instead would be a huge coups for us, and would mean a great deal in the years to come. Latinos are becoming a higher and higher percentage of the population. If there is any voting block we should want to woo for the future, it would be them.

    Offically renounce and reject Donna Brazille (none / 0) (#62)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:42:07 PM EST
    should be the Democratic party position.

    Can this be true? (none / 0) (#72)
    by NJDem on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:21:52 PM EST
    got this from a good source on another blog, but haven't verified it myself:

    FL's Gov. Charlie Christ was quoted today on a local newscast saying that if the DNC does not count Jan. 29th primary results, then the DNC will then no longer qualify as a political party.  He has found a law that will enable the GOP State legislature to vote to keep DNC candidates from appearing on the GE ballots next November.  Florida may have one choice on their GE ballots....McCain.

    Whoa! (none / 0) (#75)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:42:26 PM EST
    Talk about playing hardball. This could really open a can of worms if true.

    Here is is (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:02:26 PM EST

    Finally, and most interestingly, Florida State Sen. Nan Rich told the Sun-Sentinel that one idea kicking around the Capitol is to force the national parties' hands by passing legislation requiring each to recognize Florida's delegates or see their presidential candidate kept off the November ballot. Such a move would be devastating to Democrats.

    Article talks about Repub politics against Dems.


    One Choice for FL (none / 0) (#81)
    by joeysky on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:22:33 PM EST
    It's getting better and better isn't it?

    Yes, I saw it discussed on CNN (none / 0) (#90)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:44:46 PM EST
    a couple of days ago -- and by a Dem legislator in Frlorida who is all for it and says others are, too.  Actually, I gathered that legislators came up with it, and Gov. Crist is just coming on board for it.

    Witness the incredible level of anger in Florida about this, by Dem legislators -- and how it plays straight into the hands of the GOP and its governor.

    Great work, Dean and Donna "Watch Me Walk Out" Brazile.  Even the Supreme Court couldn't disenfranchise Florida Dems as much as you may do -- it didn't knock the party entirely off the ballot.


    It is not popular, but (none / 0) (#76)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:56:49 PM EST
    Brazile's suggestion seems to be "that credentials committee members who seat the delegates should take up the issue of seating delegates from Florida and Michigan -- after voters in states that complied with the rules settle on the nominee."

    In other words, they could still be seated and attend the convention, but as they were told last year, they will not play a part in choosing the nominee.

    Neither campaign seems to agree with that, especially not Clinton's, and Obama cannot and will not <hopefully> be heard advocating such a position.

    Personally, I do agree with Brazile that taking any other action will only lead to more chaos in 2012 or 2016, whenever the nomination is contested again. If going against party rules only gets a state more power, then the floodgates will have been flung open.

    Regardless of whether she's technically correct is unimportant, because her recommendation seems to be the only one that has been rejected out of hand by everyone else of consequence.

    Does it intrigue you that (none / 0) (#91)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:46:16 PM EST
    only you and Brazile think this is a good idea, and everyone else of consequence disagrees?

    What I agree with is that not standing by (none / 0) (#95)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:59:26 PM EST
    the original decision will only encourage more rebellion down the road. Unlike Brazile, I do understannd the political reality that something has to be done. When they made that decision, Sen. Clinton was going to be the nominee post-Feb. 5, so it really wasn't a very risky smackdown. Now that has changed, and so must the decision.

    What pisses me off about this (none / 0) (#80)
    by ChrisO on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:13:37 PM EST
    is that the only reason there's a difference between FLanmd MI is because Obama and Edwards took their names off the ballot in MI. Otherwise the two states could be dealt with in the same manner. It's Obama and Edwards who screwed this up.

    obama & edwards (none / 0) (#94)
    by cpinva on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:52:20 PM EST
    made a conscious decision to remove their names from the MI ballot. oh well! no one forced them to, as they hadn't been forced to in FL. the difference between acting like a spoiled child and a responsible adult is accepting accountability for your actions. the obama campaign steadfastly refuses to do this.

    sorry, but sen. obama shouldn't benefit as the consequence of making a poor decision. own it sen. obama!

    tell you what, when they agree to a "do over" in SC, that's when they can start talking do over in FL and MI.

    i'll not hold my breath.

    That is hilarious. (none / 0) (#96)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:01:53 PM EST
    The spoiled child is the one who says that rules were put in place, followed, and should be respected.

    The "responsible adult" is the one who is no longer satisfied with the original decision based on the current outcome, and so now things must be changed.

    You're funny. Thanks for the giggle.



    Actually (none / 0) (#100)
    by ChrisO on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:58:15 PM EST
    the rules say that FL anbd MI can apply to the credentials committee to be seated. Hillary has said she encourages her delegates to vote for reinstatement. How is that not following the rules?

    And if you read any of the coverage from when the sanctions were put in place,it was widely accepted that the DNC would find a way to seat the delegations.

    It's strange how Obama supporters are so concerned about Hillary "ruining" the party, yet they are willing to sit by and watch the voters in two key states be dismissed.


    I support a re-vote, just so we're clear. (none / 0) (#111)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:58:20 PM EST
    And here's a story from Florida last summer when the original move by Florida was made.

    At that point, Sen. Clinton claimed she would campaign in Florida regardless of the consequences. I notice she changed that position, flip-flopper. ;o)

    You are right that it is pointed out in the article that the delegations would end up being seated, at the convention, by the nominee.

    Why not stay with that plan? Could it be b/c without seating them prior to the convention Sen. Clinton won't be that nominee, as she was widely assumed to be last year?

    As for the rules committee, that hearing would take place at the end of primary season. At that point, it would be clear who had won the popular vote, delegate count, etc. I'm also fine with the DNC making a determination at that point, but not before.

    Yes, Obama supporters are funny, indeed. We think Sen. Clinton should not manipulate the system to reverse her losing the nomination. We are some gallful people.


    you don't seem to have a clue (none / 0) (#101)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:58:20 PM EST
    what the original rules were. Part of the original rules were that the state party could have a do-over.  Obama is blocking that.

    Get a grip. (none / 0) (#112)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:01:42 PM EST
    Michigan announced it would hold a caucus, their preferred do-over. It was Clinton who "would not accept" a caucus.

    Try being completely honest, would ya?


    Honesty (none / 0) (#117)
    by tree on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:04:59 PM EST
    Neither of your cites say that "Michigan announced...". The first one says that a DNC Rules and ByLaws Committee member told the reporter that Michigan was planning to announce one. Michigan has made no such announcement yet. The second mentioned that Clinton rejected the idea of a MI caucus, WHICH WAS BROUGHT UP BY PARTY OFFICIALS--not Michigan.

    If you are going to be a stickler for "honesty", your post ought to be at least as "honest" as the one its criticizing.  


    Sorry. It was leaked MI would caucus. (none / 0) (#118)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:46:17 PM EST
    Which is how they normally nominate their presidential candidates, until this year when the Clinton-backing governor talked them into breaking the rules and holding an early primary, according to the link from TNR.

    Interestingly, that story and the interview in which Clinton rejected a caucus broke on the same day.

    But, it was leaked, not announced. Sorry to "lie."


    Brazile punished FL Dems for FL GOP action (none / 0) (#120)
    by 1950democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:20:39 AM EST
    The FL GOP legislature and Gov Crist prettyh much set the timing of the FL Dem primary, over the protests of the FL Dems. Brazile's judgement was that they hadn't tried hard enough! -- and she set  a harsh, unrealistic, and unenforceable punishment.

    Now Crist is kindly offering to allow them to have a do-over -- on his terms? Beware....

    Brazile's action will encourage other GOP state legislators to muck with other Dem primaty dates....


    So true. (none / 0) (#121)
    by halstoon on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:09:20 AM EST
    But didn't Harold Ickes vote for it, too?

    Brazile is not officially connected to a campaign. Ickes is Hillary's SD surrogate.


    and you're an immature idiot. (none / 0) (#123)
    by cpinva on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:52:43 PM EST
    thanks so much for the constant stream of chuckle material. :)

    Obama took his own name off the ballot (none / 0) (#119)
    by 1950democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:16:54 AM EST
    "While Obama may not like the results in Michigan, where his name didn't appear on the ballot, I have a hard time ignoring the Florida results, where his name did."

    I get very tired of seeing 'name didn't appear on the ballot'  when the real story would take about the same wordage:

    "While Obama may not like the results in Michigan, where HE TOOK HIS OWN NAME OFF THE BALLOT, I have a hard time ignoring the Florida results, where HE LEFT HIS NAME ON."

    Difference between FL & MI (none / 0) (#122)
    by democratnanny on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:36:55 AM EST
    Just my understanding.  But this is how it was explained to me.

    From what I've heard, the argument that FL and MI are different is that the Democratic Party in MI moved the primary date forward themselves knowing the repercussions while in FL it was done by the GOP Governor and GOP controlled legislature.  So, the thinking is that, in MI, the Dems "did it to themselves" while in FL, they were at the mercy of the GOP.