DNC Rules Committee To Meet May 31 on MI and FL

The DNC Rulea and Bylaws Committee will meet May 31 to decide whether the DNC exceeded its authority in stripping FL and MI delegates because the states held early primaries.

The plan under consideration: Allowing all the superdelegates to vote and giving the pledged delegates 1/2 vote (or only seating 1/2 the pledged delegates.

Michigan lost 128 pledged delegates and 28 superdelegates, for a total of 156. Florida lost 185 pledged and 25 superdelegates, or a total of 210.

If it were valid, Florida's election would have given Clinton 105 delegates to Obama's 67. Michigan's would have given Clinton 73 delegates, while 55 were uncommitted. That means awarding half-delegates would give Clinton 89 more delegates and Obama 33.5, with 27.5 uncommitted.delegates.)


Obama would get 1/2 of all the uncommitted delegates in Michigan, even though they included delegates for John Edwards. There may also have been delegates who were truly uncommitted and just not ready to make a choice.

Allowing the superdelegates to vote is the easy part.

....it's only fair that the superdelegates be fully restored since they aren't bound by election results any way. The challenges argue that the party doesn't have the authority to strip superdelegates of their votes.

As to the pledged delegates, I think all them, not half of them, should be counted. Hillary should get her's, and Obama should get his. Those who voted uncommitted should be seated and their votes should remain as uncommitted votes until the Convention when they can choose.

If the Rules Committee doesn't come up with an agreed solution, the Credentials Committee will decide in late summer.

This plan is better than the 50/50 plan Obama suggests whereby he would be awarded delegates who didn't either vote for him or vote uncommitted.

It may also make the superdelegates feel more comfortable about counting the popular vote in those states.

< Unity Ticket Verboten? | Bill Clinton Increasing His Campaign Role >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It is (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Mrwirez on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:28:11 AM EST

    Way too late (none / 0) (#15)
    by ineedalife on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:59:07 AM EST
    If they do not want the appearance that MI and FL are deciding the election they should act immediately. This meeting is only three days before the final primaries. If a half vote solution pulls Hillary even, the Obamabots will ratchet up their threats to riot in Denver.

    The chairs have had the staff report for three weeks. If this was resolved with several primaries left it would not be seen as determinative. More incompetence at the DNC.


    True enough (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:07:55 PM EST
    You are right.  But the fact that Clinton won Florida and Michigan is not a secret (even if it's not recognized).

    And it's also been a refreshing development in this campaign that states, more and more, are beginning to retain their identity, it doesn't matter as much how a state voted before them.

    But you are right, and here's how.  Every day the media can point to Obama's lead and bleat on about math is a day that works in Obama's favor.  Dean knows that.  Obama knows that.

    If they care about FL and MI they resolve the situation sooner rather than later.

    But I think it's already been established they couldn't give a rat's posterior about any state that doesn't line up behind the precious.


    "rat's posterior'! (none / 0) (#46)
    by mexboy on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:20:43 PM EST
    Ha ha ha...
    that is funny!
    Thank you I needed a good laugh.

    Very true (none / 0) (#49)
    by IzikLA on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:55:49 PM EST
    I've been arguing this point for a long time now.  This whole narrative has hurt Clinton's chances immensely and has allowed all sorts of attacks on her character that are really unfounded.  It has allowed the Obama campaign, his supporters and surrogates as well as the media from every direction to paint Hillary as a 'do anything to win', 'willing to destroy the dem party' candidate.  

    Unfortunately this has infiltrated every aspect of the campaign season and has poisoned the party in general.  Nobody would have the rational to say what they are saying about Clinton (including Clyburn yesterday) if MI & FL were included in the narrative.  If they were being included this race would be so statistically close that none of these stories could reasonably see the light of day.


    We don't know that (none / 0) (#50)
    by independent voter on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:36:44 PM EST
    because real elections did not occur in FL and MI, we cannot say what the difference in votes and delegates would be.

    Shocking (none / 0) (#51)
    by Step Beyond on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:56:43 PM EST
    But they were real elections.

    Real taxpayer money funded the Florida election.
    Real voting machines were used in the election.
    Real people voted. In fact, a record amount and above the average for closed primary states this year.
    I know when I voted, they really checked my i.d. and signed me in with the same real book they always use.

    It was a real election.


    I don't know (none / 0) (#52)
    by IzikLA on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:24:57 PM EST
    how you can possibly argue that they were not "real" elections.  Just because they did not campaign in the state does not make them real.  Your argument does not hold water.  Maybe you should personally break that news to the 1.7 million people that voted.

    In addition (none / 0) (#53)
    by IzikLA on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:29:36 PM EST
    How exactly does your claim that they were faulty non-elections change my argument?  What I've said is that all these daily attacks on Clinton are based on a faulty premise that is being perpetuated by the media and Obama, his campaign and his supporters.  On second thought, you actually seem to have stumbled into an agreement with me.

    Candidates don't go to Puerto Rico (none / 0) (#55)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:32:13 PM EST
    or Guam or American Samoa, and yet they have been holding "real elections" -- certified as legally conducted and all -- for quite some time now.

    If you mean an election isn't "real" unless your candidate is on the ballot, Obama was.  In both states.  Then he took his name off the ballot in one state.  But not the other.  All very odd behavior, but there it is.


    Not able to be removed in FL n/t (none / 0) (#56)
    by 1jpb on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:45:59 PM EST
    Of course. My comment is to be read (none / 0) (#57)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:49:19 PM EST
    in the context of replying to the parent comment.

    I'm sure you don't mean to suggest, too, that Florida's election was not a "real election."


    Talk Left? (none / 0) (#58)
    by puellagina on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:18:39 AM EST
    I am absolutely stunned by how conservative this whole page sounds!
    Are you folks unaware of the fact that Fl and MI broke the rules, that they were warned repeatedly of the consequences?  That the minimum punishment was to lose half of the delegates, but because they were repeatedly advised far in advance of going forward with their disregard for the process, the DNC said they would get the maximum penalty, no delegates?
    Do you know that this decision was made by the DNC and understood by all the Dem candidates BEFORE there was a frontrunner?  
    This was not a conspiracy on the part of any candidate...this has become inconvenient for Hillary, but update for ya:
    Count her votes-and even if you don't give Obama the undecided in MI, he's still the front runner.  
    Wake up and smell the coffee!  And perhaps find "Talk Right" somewhere on the net. All of you DemoBrats and Republicrats, OUT of the Party! Go! Take Hillary with you!

    The May 31 (none / 0) (#24)
    by AnninCA on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:09:37 PM EST
    date is significant.  The loss on Hillary's side is that she will not get the boost from counting them.  She has to go through the next round of voting.

    By then, it really will be a way to symbolically toast the nominee, whichever way it goes.

    I don't like that part, but this was always going to come down to SOME form of give and take.

    The DNC is crafting a way to legitimize the winner beyond even the superdelegates.

    Or am I misreading here?


    Let 'em riot (none / 0) (#42)
    by Eleanor A on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:18:41 PM EST
    Let 'em riot.  Just goes to show how determined they are to win for their guy at all costs - including undermining public safety, etc.

    Just more Bush-style politics coming from the Obama camp - if you can't win fair and square, try to win by force.


    Blackmail. It's a threat (none / 0) (#54)
    by oldpro on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:18:14 PM EST
    to trigger the superdelegates into stampeding away from Hillary and her supporters who are unlikely to riot, or even strike...cause trouble in any way that gives them pause.

    Obama...the safe move.

    Yeah.  Fighting Dems looking for another safe campaign.

    When the H_ll did Dems become 'fraidy cats?


    A lot of us called when we heard... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Shainzona on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:32:25 AM EST
    about the need to tell Dean et al what we think on the

    I'd like to think that it helped to at least start the discussion.

    And I agree - seat the delegates as voted.  Obama had his chance in MI and he made "his bed...now he has to lie in it!"

    I sent the DNC my donation request back with (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by hairspray on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:05:26 PM EST
    two cents taped to the insert and a note "Count MI and FL."  I also sent Dean an e-mail saying "I expect the DNC to treat Hillary fairly. That means not insisting the SD's vote before all of the votes have been counted and that includes MI and FL."

    Then do the popular votes count? (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by myiq2xu on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:45:37 AM EST
    That would be a bigger boost to Hillary than the delegates.

    If she is behind in pledged delegates AND popular votes it will be hard for the superdelegates to justify making her the nominee.

    I'll count'em--and I bet SD's will count them. (3.00 / 2) (#21)
    by jawbone on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:05:09 PM EST
    Dean's recent comments indicate (none / 0) (#27)
    by waldenpond on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:14:30 PM EST
    he doesn't care about popular vote. Per BTD's post..

    Clinton's popular vote argument is getting media attention so Deam comes out with:

    [Superdelegates] have every right to overturn the popular vote and choose the candidate they believe would be best equipped to defeat John McCain in a general election. . . If it's very very close, they will do what they want anyway. . . I think the race is going to come down to the perception in the last six or eight races of who the best opponent for McCain will be. I do not think in the long run it will come down to the popular vote or anything else.]


    This is good news (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by bjorn on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:45:40 AM EST
    because it does seem obvious at a minimum they have to let the superdelegates from FL and MI vote.  And hopefully they will overule Donna Brazile's draconian decision to eliminate all pledged delegats and at least go to half.   That should be the worst possible case scenario. The best would be to seat all of FL delegates. I am not sure about MI because even though it was Obama's choice to take his name off the ballot it does seem unfair to count it completely, I would be for half the MI delegation with Obama getting all the uncommitted.  If Clinton wins, it can't be because Obama thinks he got screwed in MI.

    Obama took name off MI ballot? WHY? (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by jawbone on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:59:34 AM EST
    We can't really know--he said it was to support IA and NH--some have said it was bcz he wasn't doing well in MI and it was a strategic move to keep MI from counting (way too many bank shots for me to swallow).  For whatever reasons he took a decision.

    Now he wants to undo that decision and get delegates from MI eve tho' he told the voters to go jump in Lake Michigan. Right?

    Decisions do have consequences.  Hillary stayed on the ballot, along with Dodd and Kucinich (altho' K says he just decided too late to take his name off).  Obama, Edwards, Richardson, others took their names off.  

    He's lucky to be "alotted" any MI delegates, other than those he won through votes at the recent votes taken at party meetings.


    It's about judgement once again (none / 0) (#47)
    by mexboy on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:33:47 PM EST
    Obama took a unilateral decision to remove his name from the ballot, in essence saying I chose to not compete here.

    Now he wants to punish Hilary and the people who voted for her in MI by saying he wasn't on the ballot, therefore her win doesn't count, and not only that but he will block any further revote there?


    I guess his win in IL when he got rid of everyone on the ballot so only he was running didn't count either!

    And he expects me to vote for him if he were elected the D nominee?

    Go, Hillary!


    A decision favorable to Hillary... (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by CK MacLeod on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:46:16 AM EST
    ...such as the one Jeralyn says she supports - in effect entirely validating the MI and FL primaries - would in the present context rightly be seen as a sign that the party is preparing to drop Obama after all:  It would tighten the pledged delegate differences, and put Hillary into the popular votes-won position.

    The only other way that MI and FL could be completely counted would be if Obama re-gained his commanding position, and his people could accept the delegations in an intrinsically meaningless gesture of magnanimity.

    If Hillary cleans his clock in Indiana and at worst loses small in North Carolina, she will advance the epic comeback/collapse narrative, and the pressure will intensify even further on Obama.  So far, he's reacted to heightened pressure with errors, and he still hasn't stopped the bleeding from his now multiple wounds.  

    That anyone can claim it's still even a game is an index of how poorly Obama has been faring.  Can anyone even remember the last time he had a "good week"?

    No... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Addison on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:59:39 AM EST
    ...assuming Barack's blessing to the plan (probably behind closed doors) it would actually indicate, to me, a sign that the party was preparing to drop Hillary and wanted to tie up the loose ends before doing so. If the party was going to drop Barack, why cut the number of delegates in half? Why award him any of the undeclared delegates (as opposed to making them, somehow, de facto superdelegates who could decide for themselves).

    Well... to say the least it's complex! (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by CK MacLeod on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:26:02 PM EST
    Or anyway complicated - that is, trying to read the tea leaves on a decision that hasn't yet been made, under an unknown context.  In my view, Barack agreeing to validation of MI and FL (whether fully or even by halves) in the context of Hillary-defenestration would fall in the "meaningless magnanimity" category - though you can also call it "tying up loose ends."  If wins or expectations-based relative wins in Indiana, NC, and so on preserve the Obama-collapsing scenario, then validating MI and/or FL (again whether or not fully in terms of delegates) would both validate the popular vote totals AND underline Hillary's building strength within the party.  See what I'm saying?

    All Delegates Should Be Apportioned Properly (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:46:28 AM EST
    ....and dividing the delegates 50/50 is not right.  Obama's reasoning on getting 50% of the delegates, which he doesn't deserve, is typical of his "free pass" thinking.  When he is held accountable and something does not go his way, he ain't pretty.

    It is better than 50-50 and importance of Indiana (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by PennProgressive on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:50:12 AM EST
    But I also think that in both FL and  MI delagates should be  seated as they voted. As for  the uncommitted in MI,  I recall that one reason why voters were urged by Obama supporters to vote uncommitted was that Obama would then be able to fight in Denver for the share of those votes. Let both candidates fight  for these  uncommitted delegates.
    Now that  this type of  decision by DNC seems likely, the importance of Indina is slightly diminnished. Naturally, HRC would love to win IN and should  make every effort to do so, but even a narrow defeat there does not take  her out of the picture if she  gets proper share from FL and MI. And a win in IN mmakes her position really strong.

    I don't see how... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by CK MacLeod on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:57:23 AM EST
    ...Hillary can afford to lose Indiana and keep her comeback narrative alive.  Right now, the argument that's working for her is that Obama can't win unless the odds are stacked in his favor (unusually high AA population, loaded caucuses, home state, etc.)  He has some slight advantages in Indiana, but they're not big enough to explain away a victory, especially at this late point.  Suddenly, he wouldn't be a wounded duck in a tailspin.  He'd be the guy who righted his ship.  In that case, regardless of MI and FL, Hillary would be reduced to hoping for an anti-Obama bolt from the blue or total auto-destruction, and the pressure on her to yield would become extreme.  

    I agree (none / 0) (#26)
    by AnninCA on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:11:14 PM EST
    because her loss in NC will dampen momentum, even if it's expected.

    So, she needs to cut into his base in NC so that there is SOME good news.  Bill is working NC hard.  He's pretty darn good, too.

    And she needs to win Indiana.


    As a Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by AnninCA on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:52:43 AM EST
    supporter, I agree with your proposed solution.  It does favor her.  However, she did aggressively push revotes and even found the money.  Obama refused to compromise in a reasonable way.  

    Even though Obama ran ads in FL and set up phone banks to get out the vote for uncommitted in MI, I'm willing to let that slide.  :)  When both of them signed the pledge, neither had any idea that it would be such a tight race.  Obama promised his FL supporters that he would work to seat them, per an interview with the Tampa press.  

    50/50 is a just a way of saying that he's not going to back his promise to his FL supporters.  

    It seems to me he wanted to hold off as long as possible so she couldn't get traction that she has won the popular vote.  She's already getting that traction now.  There's virtually nothing to be gained by Obama by letting this go forward.

    In fact, he could save face by saying:  The rules are the rules!  :)

    The Florida Stripping (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:54:51 AM EST
    Anyone who watched the Rules Committee hearing on the Florida stripping of delegates, cannot go away believing that they are out of their mind.  After the compelling case Florida made, their should be no discussion.  They went in having decided against Florida, when they should have decided for.  

    The Rules people are daft, I don't trust their wisdom to make the right decision for a Democratic  win.  

    Obama's flawed logic (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by vin rose on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:02:25 PM EST
    The fact that Senator Obama's so called agreement that FL and MI delegates should be seated should be outed for what it is: pure semantics. Why? Because intrinsic to the very concept of seating primary delegates is the notion that the actual seating will reflect the vote of their respective states. To seat the delegates without reflecting such a vote is a misnomer, it is not seating them at all.  It's impossible to "seat delegates" without those delegates reflecting the vote. Please God, somebody take this guy to the mat on this. My third grade son could easily do it if nobody else will.

    Couple of related items (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by Step Beyond on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:10:57 PM EST
    The Buzz

    Rules committee member Allan Katz, a top Barack Obama fundraiser, says he may call on a couple prominent committee members, Harold Ickes and Tina Flournoy, to recuse themselves from the May 31 vote because they are working for the Hillary Clinton campaign.

    "If your'e being paid that would normally be considered a conflict of interest,'' said Katz, who said he may also be precluded from voting because he is a super-delegate directly effected by the decision. That would also eliminate Michigan Democratic party chairman Mark Brewer.

    Related to that from Miami Herald:

    About nine of the rules committee's 30 members have not endorsed a candidate. Of the rest, about 15 are backing Hillary Clinton and six have endorsed Barack Obama. One member, Harold Ickes, serves as a top Clinton advisor on the campaign's payroll.

    From Naked Politics who will be representing Florida:

    Democrats have picked Democratic congressional hopeful and former Hialeah mayor Raul Martinez to help them make their case for relevancy next month in DC.

    Democratic National Committee member Jon Ausman, who filed the appeal asking the national party to recognize Florida's Jan. 29 presidential primary, said he's asked Martinez, a Hillary Clinton supporter and Janee Murphy, a Barack Obama supporter from Tampa to help him make his case May 31 before the national party's rules and bylaws committee. Ausman, a onetime Dennis Kucinich supporter, is uncommitted.

    Vote stealing (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Foxx on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:15:00 PM EST
    This is vote stealing, a way to take away half of Hillary's delegates and give Obama delegates he didn't in fact win. I believe this was Brazile and Dean's plan from the beginning. It is an outrage.

    The Rules (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:16:51 PM EST
    Committee is conveniently meeting with only three primaries left and 103 delegates at stake, allowing them to see which way the wind is blowing.

    It could be over by that time.

    It appears the Party believes it's found an escape hatch, a way out of the hole it dug.

    I do have a feeling that if it's still close when the committee meets we'll be able to see how the internal battle is going.  If there's still resistance to seating the delegates it will mean the internal war takes precedence over all else.

    I see no reason to gift Obama half the Uncommitted delegates in Michigan. Uncommitted after all means uncommitted.  In Michigan the Congressional district conventions have already been held and delegates to the national convention selected.  Other than threats, how can uncommitted delegates be forced to vote for any given candidate?  During the district conventions it was well known who was who.

    In a just world the delegations should be restored in full or if cut in half then the delegations from Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina should suffer the same fate.

    After this is all over the party has to set about serious reform of the selection method.  The public caucuses must be eliminated and all primaries must be closed to Democrats only. In states like Michigan that have no partisan registration, a requirement to register by party for participation in the primaries (before the first primary)is IMO sensible and can in the long run yield better candidates.

    Rules governing the primary schedule should be scrapped.  The DNC should not be allowed to pick the order. It simply allows for playing games.  This time around it seems at least fairly obvious that the DNC set up a battle field for an internal war rather than an efficacious method of selecting a candidate and then used ham handed methods to win the first battle.

    I hope C-Span broadcasts this meeting, too (none / 0) (#35)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:40:27 PM EST
    as it did the original one last year, which so many of us saw only weeks ago (trying to find that url, but for those who missed that video, it's in earlier threads here).  So revealing, it finally explained so much about what -- and who -- was behind this mess.  

    And on a Saturday, it could get a good audience.  We can live-blog it this time and resurrect that chant of the excessive '60s, "the whole world is watching" -- watching you, Dems.  


    The part that troubles me is the late date (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Anne on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:19:42 PM EST
    for the hearing - only four days before the end of the primary season on June 3rd.  Now, is this because they hope there won't be any significant decision to be made by then - that enough superdelegates will have come out for one candidate or the other such that this hearing will be nothing more than lip service to the Florida and Michigan voters?  I don't know, but what is the reason for not taking care of this now?

    I mean, to me, it just screams more of the same lack of leadership and courage to put it off until the end of primary season, and if this decision flows from the same short-sighted place as the original decision, I predict they will have really made a mess of things by waiting until the end of May.

    It still irks me that Obama may be awarded delegates he didn't earn, and a share of the popular votes that were not cast for him; I totally agree that the delegates allocable to the uncommitted vote in Michigan should go into the convention as uncommitted delegates, free to align with the candidate of their choosing.  It just seems wrong to hand over votes and delegates to someone who made a bad decision to begin with, and then acted as a roadblock to the democratic process of a re-vote.

    I just have a bad feeling about the whole thing.

    Two thoughts (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by joanneleon on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:52:21 PM EST
    1. I hope they can figure out a way to resolve this fairly, because otherwise, I'm afraid we will lose these two states in November.  If we do lose these states, the blame lies with both the state parties and the DNC, IMHO.

    2. I really wish there was a way to show that if the tables were turned, and these states would favor Obama, party leadership and the very loud Obama supporters would flip flop their positions on what to do with FL and MI in a NY minute.  Because they would do that, and everyone knows it.  And that's wrong.

    Edit: ..what we think on the problem... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Shainzona on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:33:19 AM EST

    Jeralyn or BTD I think this deserves a post (none / 0) (#9)
    by athyrio on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:51:59 AM EST
    We're going to (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by frankly0 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:02:28 PM EST
    be hearing a lot, lot more about this story, I'm sure, if FL and MI become, as likely they will be, key issues at the end of the primary season.

    Then the whole issue of finagling the rules so that you can win, even at the expense of legitimate democracy (what voter could possibly have been better served by eliminating Alice Palmer from the ballot?), is going to get a very careful examination. Who's going to look then as if he will do and say anything to win?


    Wow, I am surprised -- gutsy (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:21:48 PM EST
    and good for her.  Another grandma thrown under the Obama bus when it still was on training wheels, so  this one can get back up and get back at him -- and this may, if the media do their job (big "if") get more voters informed of just how Obama graduated from training wheels to being a big wheel in Chicago.  And maybe some of his current hangers-on will consider how he treats those who get him where he wants to go, no matter who gets run over on the way.

    No surprise (none / 0) (#11)
    by AnninCA on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:54:51 AM EST
    on her endorsement.  I read her story, and it was really, really sad!

    I understood that she asked him to step aside when she lost, and I got that he said "No."  He'd moved forward for fundraising.  But the business about getting her off over signatures?

    Man, that WAS the worst kind of hardball.


    I'm surprised! Even if he did thrown her under (none / 0) (#19)
    by jawbone on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:02:25 PM EST
    the IL state senate primary bus.

    I thought she would either sit it out or come out for him.

    This is a big time WOW!

    She brought him into IL electoral politics, iirc.


    Btw, someday, I'll get to New Albany, too (none / 0) (#33)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:30:35 PM EST
    as I've wanted to do since reading about the recent research restoring the story of its remarkable place in the Underground Railroad -- right on the Mason-Dixon line, as it was.  For a side trip into history, and a fascinating story of how important is the work of dedicated local historians, see this account I came across a while ago, which corrects too many accounts that don't give due and deserved credit to the AAs who really ran that railroad.

    And as it says, a lot of the descendants of those courageous fugitives still are in the New Albany area, and some undoubtedly will be at the Clinton rally.  And having Alice Palmer there, coming out for Clinton over Obama, is a historic turn of events, too.


    The GOP did something right. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Addison on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:55:51 AM EST
    As far as this goes:
    As to the pledged delegates, I think all them, not half of them, should be counted. Hillary should get her's, and Obama should get his.
    There will never be an adequate justification for including the results "as is" if they're actually going to make a difference, because the rules matter, and (far more importantly) campaigning matters.

    Putting all the unfairness, the rules (and the future effect on Iowa and NH's dethronement of FL and MI getting away with breaking them), and bickering about being on the ballot and not; there wasn't a campaign in MI or FL, on either side. And campaigns matter.

    That said, from your math it seems like they'd almost split the SDs (much of MI to Obama, much of FL to Clinton, slight advantage to Clinton) and Obama would lose a net of around 30 delegates total (right?). Well, he's got 30 undeclared SDs in his back pocket now, and they'll be even more in his pocket once MI and FL is finally off the table. So:


    This should've always been the solution, the GOP had it right. If a state breaks the rules they count for 1/2 as much. It allows representation AND punishment, it's a very good solution.

    Campaigning matters? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Step Beyond on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:14:45 PM EST
    Then they should have campaigned. Lost in that argument is that they both chose not to campaign. No one forced them to skip Florida. Heck they both were here anyway for fundraisers. If you chose not to campaign, you give up the right to complain that not campaigning made things unfair.

    Guarantees this will go on till June 3 (none / 0) (#34)
    by herb the verb on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:40:04 PM EST
    Especially if Clinton wins Indiana. If you are an SD, why in the world would you announce before you see what happens May 31? Even if the decision goes against Clinton, that isn't enough time to stop them campaigning hard for June 3.

    I strongly wonder if this means they intend to DENY to overturn the punishments. Remove without any doubt any hope on the part of Clinton and her supporters that they intend to seat FL or MI. In their eyes that would then precipitate a wave toward Obama at the end by SDs horrified by the possiblity of a floor fight in Denver and not wanting Clinton bad enough to go to the mat on it.

    This would allow Dean and Pelosi the Obama coronation ending they are looking for, when they are looking for it. In other words, I think this might show the fix is in for Obama.

    Yep, I'm thinking that, too -- (none / 0) (#36)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:41:33 PM EST
    but it will be obvious and blatant to more than us, at last.  That's worth something.

    Obvious and blatant (none / 0) (#40)
    by herb the verb on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:53:05 PM EST
    is not anything that has concerned the MSM, Obama campaign, Dean, Pelosi, Brazille, or the Obama network to this point. I don't think they will be worried about it then either.

    The "numbers", the "roolz", WWTSBQ, "some SD should take here into a room, close the door and only "he" comes out". Maybe they think they have been too subtle up till now, and obvious and blatant is EXACTLY what they WANT.


    They'd (none / 0) (#43)
    by Eleanor A on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:25:55 PM EST
    They'd like to avoid the spectacle of massive picket lines on FL/MI being shown on television, I suspect....and there WILL be some if they don't fix this, the MI/FL elected delegates are coming to the Convention.

    I'm already making my own sandwich board now ;)


    50-50 Michigan Split? (none / 0) (#37)
    by BDB on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:47:55 PM EST
    Just because Obama chose to take his name off the ballot?

    Hey, maybe Hillary should try the same ploy - like this.

    Remember, meeting does not mean (none / 0) (#39)
    by ChrisO on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:52:50 PM EST
    making a decision. I haven't seen anything that says the committee will issue a ruling that day, only that they will hold a hearing. That said, the makeup of the committee does seem to favor Clinton.

    Sending uncommitted delegates to the convention is no solution. How do you select uncommitted delegates? At this point, Rep. Clyburn and Donna Brazile would both be considerd uncommitted, which is of course a joke.

    I do think some compromise has to be reached regarding Michigan (Florida should stand as is. We can harp all we want about what's right, but the fact is that no agreement will ever be reached if the Clinton campaign insists on total victory. It's like Donna Brazile's declaration that the two states deserve the maximum punishment: it may be satisfying from some moralistic point of view, but it's just bad politics. Obama has to come away from a Michigan agreement with some substantial portion of delegates, although certainly not half. I think the upside for Hillary getting an agreement is much greater than the downside to Obama for not agreeing. Among other things, it toally legitimizes the popular vote argument.

    As for Obama having 20 supers in his back pocket, I'm skeptical. Rememebr, he owes them, not vice versa. These supers are getting tremendous pressure. Why would they agree to remain undercover if they've already committed to Obama, simply for campaign strategy?

    Ruling (none / 0) (#41)
    by Step Beyond on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:11:31 PM EST
    They will be leaving Sunday so I've assumed they will vote that day. They are meeting for an informal dinner the night before (Friday). Plus they already have the DNC lawyer opinions. So my guess would be they would rule that day, just like they did the first time around. But you're right, no decision is guaranteed that day.

    Another story on it (none / 0) (#45)
    by Step Beyond on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:53:33 PM EST
    Despite the fact this is suppossed to be a meeting on the merits of the appeal and whether the rules were applied correctly, here's a member from the RBC basically saying that no matter what only the candidates can change things. I so hope someone asks him to point to the rule which states that.

    But another Tallahassee DNC member who sits on that rules and bylaws committee, Allan Katz, predicted no delegates would be reinstated unless Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton agree on a compromise.

    "Nothing's changed, except there's a meeting scheduled,'' said Katz, a member of Obama's national finance team. "And nothing will change until the campaigns work something out."

    Decent solution (none / 0) (#48)
    by ricosuave on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:34:28 PM EST
    This sounds fairly decent.  The only thing that actually seems to differ from the DNC rules (which should have been followed in the first place) is that Obama will get delegates he didn't win.  His supporters would whine so much about letting him avoid the consequences of his pulling off the ballot that it is unlikely the uncommitteds would be truly uncommitted anyway--the chances are that the state party or the DNC would try to ensure that they were unofficially committed to Obama, so if this lets the Obama camp accept the decision then so be it.

    Whatever happens, it would be great to stop hearing Obama supporters say that Florida and Michigan should be written off...

    Fairness (none / 0) (#59)
    by ThinkFirstThenVote on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:43:49 AM EST
    An election that's held when no one can campaign is like an Iranian election.

    Hillary double-crossed all of the Democratic candidates in Michigan.  Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Barack Obama all were knee-capped out the gate in two major primaries because they could not campaign in the state.   She signed the same agreement as the other candidates, but then turned around and kept her name on the ballot - knowing that name recognition and the obvious lack of other candidates would give her the easiest - and cheapest victory - with a ton of delegates.

    Actually, I'd like to see a one week campaign in Michigan and Florida and vote.