Donna Brazile Was Behind The Stripping of The FL/MI Delegations?

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

MYDD writes:

Dean seems to be moving; his earlier "they didn't follow the rules, tough luck" posture has been sliding off its pedestal a bit now that the word is out on the machinations by Donna Brazile to increase the penalty from half the delegates to all the delegates- that position seems to no longer be defensible. . . . FL Senator Bill Nelson is on record as supporting going with the original penalty from the DNC rules before Donna Brazile bumped it up to the death penalty - half the delegates. . .

(Emphasis supplied.) Was this whole fiasco all Donna Brazile's doing? Does anyone have more information on this? I always suspected she was behind it but since she shamelessly has continued to pontificate on the subject, I assumed she had some cover. Has someone come forward with information about Donna Brazile's role in this?

< Time to Invoke the "Thurmond Rule" on Bush Judicial Nominees | How Some Florida Delegates Could Be Seated >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    OMG. (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:33:05 AM EST
    I am shaking my head in disbelief. How is it possible for our party leaders to be so clueless and stupid?

    Oh, great. First she lost it for Gore (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:39:40 AM EST
    by so mismanaging his campaign, and now she'll lose this one for us.  Could Brazile please walk out now rather than wait to implement that threat of hers at the convention?

    Brazile is in the same catagory (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Virginian on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:11:26 PM EST
    as Bob Shrum for sure...but Brazile didn't lose 2000...

    Gore was not a loser...he had an election taken by FL shenanigans with Katherine Harris, and a court case halting recounts...

    Lets not blame Brazile for Katherine Harris...and Rehnquist/Scalia/Thomas


    I don't blame Donna for 2000... (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Marco21 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:22:12 PM EST
    but if she had just brought Bill on the campaign trail instead of insisting Al divorce himself from him, the Florida difference could have been so much wider. Donna knows this and she was roundly criticized for it. Maybe this is why she suffers from CDS now.

    Who knows? But she should know that FLA and MI voters don't fricking care who agreed to what rules. They didn't and want their votes counted. Hillary was for the harsh penalty? Big whoop. She was wrong.


    Yes, she did lose it for Gore (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:32:23 PM EST
    by arguing against bringing Bill Clinton at least to Tennessee.  Polls showed he could have made a difference, Gore would have won his home state, and we would have been spared the Florida debacle.  I gladly would have gone through life without ever having to hear of Katherine Harris -- much less Donna Brazile.

    I disagree with your blaming Brazile (none / 0) (#101)
    by Virginian on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:03:49 PM EST
    but couldn't agree more with your conclusion.

    I gladly would have gone through life without ever having to hear of Katherine Harris -- much less Donna Brazile.

    How is it possible (none / 0) (#45)
    by sancho on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:25:16 PM EST
    that things have evolved so that Donna Brazile can be considered a party leader? Wasn't she kicked off Dukakis's team back in '88 b/c of her poor judgement?

    When people ask why I dislike Donna Brazile (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:34:04 PM EST
    I show them this

    She is sick. (none / 0) (#92)
    by Arcadianwind on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:01:29 PM EST
    How could any sane person use those words for a man who is responsible for so much death and destruction?
    A man who should be facing charges for war crimes, treason, failure to uphold the constitution, reckless endangerment, and blatant contempt for humanity?

    How is it that Brazile can appear on CNN (none / 0) (#110)
    by litigatormom on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:39:45 PM EST
    as a political "analyst" when she was involved in this unfrakingbelievable fiasco for the clear purpose of favoring Obama?

    I thought that was known at the time. Wasn't (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by tigercourse on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:36:30 AM EST
    she put in charge of the committee that made the decision?

    Yes but (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:38:02 AM EST
    I did not know there was agreement for a 50% strip and that Brazile overruled it.

    You're right, I didn't know that they started (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by tigercourse on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:50:02 AM EST
    out with a more reasonable plan.

    Not a plan (none / 0) (#34)
    by Virginian on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:12:41 PM EST
    50% strip was the preexisting rules...they went beyond the existing penalty...

    Not sure why but I still thought that the rules (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by TalkRight on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:58:45 AM EST
    stated for only 50% penalty..

    This link was posted on Talkleft many weeks ago. (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by ghost2 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:02:48 PM EST
    Link on Florida primary date

    under Seating the Delegations, there is the following:

    The matter heated up at the August 25 meeting of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee,... [Representatives of the Florida Democratic Party] argued that holding a caucus with just 150 voting sites compared to 6,700 locations for the state-run primary would hurt efforts to build the party in this key state and could affect the outcome of property-tax referendum to be held on January 29.  The Rules and Bylaws Committee held firm, found the FDP plan in noncompliance, and voted to penalize Florida Democrats 100 percent of their delegates to the national convention if they did not come up with a plan within 30 days that complies with the timing requirement.  "We're going to follow the rules," said RBC member Donna Brazile.

    This kinda sounds like the 100% (none / 0) (#40)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:19:00 PM EST
    was a punishment for not agreeing to hold a caucus. No caucus-no delegates.

    At the time, I read that the Dems (none / 0) (#79)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:21:10 PM EST
    rules stated 100% and that the GOP rules only penalized 50%.

    But if you look at this DNC document it is stated as 50% on page 24 section C. 1. a.

    HOWEVER... there is also a section later which addresses the state party's role in coming into compliance which seems to give the DNC the option of doing more to punish on pages 25-26 in sections C. 7. - 9.

    Here is the link for your reading pleasure:
    Delegate Selection Rules


    yes (none / 0) (#84)
    by hookfan on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:34:22 PM EST
    option available, not required. The DNC in their infinite wisdom decided to go atomic when it wasn't necessary and is counterproductive.

    yes she was.. (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by fly on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:51:25 PM EST
    and it bis about time the American people were awakened to this information as we in Florida have known.

    The rules stated,  even by  republicans moving up the primary date, we would lose 1/2 our delegates, Donna Brazile was chair of the committee that decided to strip all of our delegates , above and beyond what was called for in the rules!

    and the one and only dem candidate that broke the rules of Donna's committee before the ink was barely dry was Obama..

    please read this, check out the date..and pass it on to everyone you know!!



    Who cares (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:38:35 AM EST
    This is Dean's responsibility.

    If it's proved that Donna had a hand in this it's only to prove Dean didn't do his job and deferred to who?  Donna Brazile?

    Sorry about the tone.

    I think I'm in a bad mood today.

    Moreso than usual.

    I agree. (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Marguerite Quantaine on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:50:15 AM EST
    I don't like Donna, but there's no justification for making her the scapecoat here.

    Dean is at the helm and if he enabled her, he's as guilty -- if not moreso.

    What a weasel.

    This does serve to validate my "why Clinton shouldn't be Obama's VP" verdict.

    She'd be credited with nothing, and blamed for everything.


    Brazile has been all over TV (none / 0) (#111)
    by litigatormom on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:44:54 PM EST
    insisting on the sanctity of the roolz, never acknowledging that the roolz did not require a 100% sanction.  She acts a political "analyst" for CNN while not acknowledging her role in creating the current crisis. Whether it's her "fault" or Dean's "fault" for not overruling her, doesn't really matter.  She was deeply involved in the fiasco, and she pretends to be a "pundit" for the MSM instead of an advocate covering her own *.

    I guess I'm not seeing this as blaming (5.00 / 7) (#22)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:57:17 AM EST
    Donna Brazile...I'm seeing this as an indictment of Dean and Brazile and the DNC.

    Dean should not have agreed to her suggestion, and she should not have made it, if true.

    The 50% solution would have been so much better than this disaster.


    well it does bring into question (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by TalkRight on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:01:34 PM EST
    if the rules where created by a neutral members.. and that is a valid point.

    I think in the end the consensus would be for that 50% penalty for the pledged delegates.


    The rules were created (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:04:43 PM EST
    By neutral members.

    Dean and Donna are referees in this.  Interpretting and applying the rules.

    And they are not neutral.


    I saw a hearing of the Committee either on (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by TomLincoln on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:25:08 PM EST
    YouTube or C-Span awhile back and my only recollection was that Donna Brazile came down really hard on a Florida Democratic Party representative when the person tried to explain that they had agreed to the primary date being advanced solely to get the paper trail voting through the legislature. Donna's response was sarcastic and nasty. I do not like her at all. There was no thought given to the idea of the harm she was doing to the party by imposing the 100% penalty rather than the 50% penalty.

    Plus, her whole attitude throughout the campaign of feigning to be a neutral party when everyone can tell she is in the tank for Obama makes me feel she is less than honest.


    Dean's Chair of the DNC, not dictator (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Romberry on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:35:12 PM EST
    You lay too much of this at Dean's feet. The DNC is ruled largely by committee. I know of no mechanism available to Dean as chair that he might have used to overrule the Rules and Bylaws Committee. Once they made their decision, as chair he was bound to enforce it.

    If you want to argue that Dean might have tried to influence the decision of the committee to go another way (read "interfere in the business of the committee's responsibilities"), you may have a valid point. But you can't lay Donna Brazille's incompetence at the feet of Howard Dean.


    Right! (none / 0) (#21)
    by jpete on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:54:13 AM EST
    And please excuse my unwillingness to see another evil woman in the picture until there's real evidence.

    Whatever (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:02:54 PM EST
    You're excused.

    Donna Brazile (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by nell on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:41:42 AM EST
    has been a fierce supporter of Obama from day one who has claimed herself to be neutral...

    Many Hillary supporters have tried to email her (politely and respectfully)to ask her to just declare herself because she goes on TV and tries to act neutral when it is totally clear that she is not...and her emails back are incredibly rude and she always says something to the effect of well her campaign sucks, or look how much money Obama raised this month, or Hillary supporters like you are the problem with the Dem party, totally oblivious to the point the emailers are trying to make!

    It would not surprise me in the slightest if she was behind these draconian measures...she needs to be outed if this is the case...she certainly has a lot of power as Dean was on tv the other day saying that because Donna opposed including LGBT reps as part of the DNC's delegate affirmative action program, they would not do it...

    Brazile does need to be called out (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Virginian on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:22:09 PM EST
    Brazile is a political lightweight that is often given positions and podiums that are meant for heavy weights...many of the people that came into notoriety on Clintons '92 coat-tails fall into the same group,  

    But Brazile specifically makes for good TV...she is a political cannibal - and networks include her because of this...she was part of Karl Rove's conference call to get the political pulse each week when he served in the white house - she often will trash our candidates by repeating RNC talking points - she loves the spotlight and will do anything to keep it on herself, the sooner this is accepted by the party the sooner we can cut the string and bring in real leadership committed to real party building...

    The problem is we have a lightweight for a party leader (I like Gov. Dean a lot, but he is a light weight), we have a light weight currently running a successful nomination campaign, and we have 100 lightweights pontificating about it online and in the media...when you put a down in the mud poke 'em in the eye person on TV like James Carville, all the lightweights scream that he is playing to rough (Judas comment)...I think we've lost our nerve for a fight, and have settled for folks like Gov. Dean, and accepted the spotlight lovers like Brazile...to our own detriment...we may win '08 but our majority status we're clinging too by a thread...we shouldn't forget that


    Maybe the reason the Dems are (none / 0) (#94)
    by hairspray on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:47:27 PM EST
    doing so badly as an opposition party is that they ARE inept. Looking back to when Bill Clinton won the presidency and two years later lost the congress reminds me of how awful those Dems were. Old, tired, entrenched, almost like many we have today, i.e, Dodd, Leahy, Reid, Pelosi, etc.

    No They...for me it is We (none / 0) (#102)
    by Virginian on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:05:28 PM EST
    We are inept...

    Whoa! (none / 0) (#42)
    by annabelly on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:21:40 PM EST
    Dean was on tv the other day saying that because Donna opposed including LGBT reps as part of the DNC's delegate affirmative action program, they would not do it...

    Are you SERIOUS? She is actually opposing GLBTs to be excluded from the delegate affirmative action programs? Oh my gawd...shades of McClurkin all over again. The more I hear about her and see her, the more I think she's the problem with the Democratic party. Losing for Gore wasn't enough for her.


    That said, yes, I knew she was behind this MI/FL fiasco at least in terms of upping the anti. When I learned that  couple of months ago, along with the fact that that no other states had been penalized, even though six of the first seven moved their primaries up to dates unauthorized by the DNC rules, I decided this plan was boneheaded in the extreme, and probably one of those little time bombs certain types of politicos--say, Rove, for instance--loves to plant months ahead of time. I was naive to think we didn't have an of those politicos in our party. That's the biggest lesson I've learned this year after 20 years of voting, every minute of it spent defending the Democratic party. That many of them are as traitorous as the other side and the party increasingly doesn't deserve my support.


    Please (none / 0) (#48)
    by hopeyfix on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:30:24 PM EST
    Can you provide a link to the LGBT comment source? If this is true, the democrats lost a family of voters just now.

    Here is the (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by americanincanada on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:05:57 PM EST
    This sickens me. (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by magisterludi on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:31:57 PM EST
    And if it walks like a duck... Brazille has allowed herself to be cast for months as "neutral" while it's evident to any objective observer that's untrue. She perfectly suspect in this matter.

    Anyway, I think it is pretty obvious that Brazille has her own agenda for a "new" democratic party (who the hell knows who's pulling and funding her strings) and apparently gay (and reproductive) rights are low on the totem of the Dem platform in her vision.

    This all could not be happening at a more inopportune time for the dem party, America, or the world.


    I am understanding this correctly? (none / 0) (#112)
    by litigatormom on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:54:59 PM EST
    LGBT liasion hired to improve Democratic support in LGBT community

    DNC terminates LGBT outreach program over liasion's objections.

    LGBT liasion fired for not getting LGBT community to accept reason for LGBT outreach program.



    Why is this (none / 0) (#120)
    by Fredster on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 04:02:01 AM EST
    "an affront to the civil rights movement"?

    Does the DNC have an affirmative action guideline for Hispanics?  I wonder how D.B. felt about that?

    And I guess her business, Brazile Associates (Bizarre associates?) only does training for A.A. issues and no others.  


    Brazile and Associates mission is to empower grassroots advocates and train citizens to participate in the political process.

    Brazile & Associates LLC assists corporate clients with diversity training, earned media strategies, crisis management and message development. Working with groups of all ages and orientations, Brazile & Associates seeks to provide its clients with the skills to develop a greater civic focus with a stronger advocate voice.

    The firm is dedicated to providing a full range of strategic communications, public affairs, issue advocacy and grassroots political training to non-profit organizations, trade unions, academic institutions and small businesses.

    Brazile and Associates has developed a broad network of contacts throughout the country to help clients implement their strategic objectives. Our network of consultants and grassroots organizers have worked both in and out of federal, state and local government in every major media market in the United States.

    She needs to disappear from national politics.


    I'd Sure Like (none / 0) (#68)
    by AmyinSC on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    To know that myself.

    Here ya go... (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by americanincanada on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:05:17 PM EST
    I have been trying to spread this far and wide and it would be great to let more people know Donna's opinion about GLBT people.



    Holy Freakin' CRAP! (none / 0) (#78)
    by AmyinSC on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:20:41 PM EST
    WHY are we just now hearing about this?!?  Brazile's position is REPREHENSIBLE!!!!!  Oh, as if I needed another reason to not give the DNC another DIME after the way they treated Hillary.   WOW!!!!!!!  

    The saddest part... (none / 0) (#98)
    by hopeyfix on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:57:00 PM EST
    Is that everyone knows Hillary is the most gay friendly candidate in the race. Obama even had gay slur in openings of speeches from pastors and such, so its really acceptable it seems.

    My Google Says Yes (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by OxyCon on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:42:53 AM EST
    DNC Strips Florida Of 2008 Delegates
    No Convention Slots Unless Later Primary Is Set

    By Michael D. Shear
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Sunday, August 26, 2007; A01

    Donna Brazile, a member of the rules committee who argued for a swift and harsh punishment for Florida, said states' desire to be more relevant in the nominating process does not excuse violations of rules intended to make the system fair for everyone.


    Not my point (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:44:55 AM EST
    If there was an agreeemnt to do a 50% strip and Brazile overruled it for a full stripping, that is what I want to know.

    A 50% strip (none / 0) (#11)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:48:21 AM EST
    is what the Republicans did, isn't it?

    Makes sense to me. Still a penalty, and the votes still count, and the delegates are still seated, but in half the numbers, if I understand correctly.

    They need to stop all of this ridiculousness and do SOMETHING!


    A 50% strip is the DNC "rules" (none / 0) (#28)
    by angie on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:04:47 PM EST
    I've read before (can't remember where, but closer to the time of the FL & MI primaries) that the "punishment" outlined in the DNC rules is, in fact, for a 50% strip of delegates. Has anyone read the DNC rules on this who can confirm that?
    It's always been my impression that Donna Brazile, Dean & Co. (and I can believe the worst of all of them at this point) pumped it up to the death penalty for no good reason other then to show how tough they are.  

    I was going to post that link and (none / 0) (#39)
    by LatinoVoter on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:17:40 PM EST
    another one. There was an article I can't find now that talked about how they went from half to no delegats and in it Donna Brazile said something about making an "example" of Florida and Michigan so other states wouldn't try what they did in the future.

    I'll see if I can find it or if someone else remembers it and can post the link.


    Didn't Brazile calculate Hillary would win (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:45:35 AM EST
    both states? even if Obama had been on the ballot in MI.
    My gosh - 3 days before the FL primary, Obama had won the SC primary - garnering him much media coverage. He still lost big in FL.

    You know, when Donna was blamed in other (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by tigercourse on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:48:35 AM EST
    blogs for being a bad campaign manager for Gore, I sort of thought she was something of a scapegoat for people who didn't want to see Gore's flaws as a candidate. But boy, she is a champion at screwing over the Democratic party. She'll probably end up as the next DNC leader.

    I guess the bigger question is (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by Emma on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:48:47 AM EST
    was she thinking of (or consulting with) the Obama campaign while she did it?

    To be clear, I only say this b/c Brazile has been so obviously in the tank for Obama and anti-Clinton, all the while claiming neutrality.  This type of duplicitous behavior on the national stage makes me suspect everything she's had a hand in and makes me long for a real press investigation of this debacle.

    Sorry if this speculation is too inflammatory or trollish for this site and leads to my comment being taken down.  My being appalled is getting the better of me.

    Obama played it well (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by TalkRight on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:50:12 AM EST
    Most of his most potent supporters in media and in committees declared themselves to be neutral.. and under the disguise manipulated the media and rules.

    I always hated when ever Donna Brazile would come over at CNN as distinguished neutral observer to trash Clinton's and hype Obama... it worked well.

    Obama can always claim.. they played by the rules (no matter who made those rules).

    I fault Dean for this mishap. And will the CNN NOW stop bringing Donna as a neutral news analyst please....!!

    You are suspended (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:52:53 AM EST
    do not comment any further today.

    Wasn't she the head of the rules committee? (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by BigB on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:11:50 PM EST
    Didn't this committee decide to use the nuclear option of stripping FL and MI of all their delegates instead of only 1/2 th delegates as did the Republicans?

    They also decided not to penalize NH, Nevada, and SC who also moved their contests ahead of DNC deadlines.


    this refers to JGarza (none / 0) (#103)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:17:37 PM EST
    I deleted his comment.

    No agreement (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by standingup on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:06:52 PM EST
    but Brazile appears to be one of the committee members pushing for the maximum penalty.  From the Tampa Tribune August 23, 2007 (days before the rules committee vote):

    Top officials of the national Democratic Party are threatening tougher-than-expected sanctions against Florida over its too-early Jan. 29 presidential primary date.

    The national party's Rules and Bylaws Committee will decide on the primary Saturday in Washington.

    Some members of that committee, even while they took a hard line in interviews this week, also hinted that they would accept face-saving compromise measures from the Floridians.

    Others, including committee Co-Chairman James Roosevelt Jr., said that even if the committee enacts tough sanctions, it might not be able to enforce them when it matters: at the Democratic National Convention next August in Denver.

    Under the Democratic Party's tougher rules, the minimum penalty would be the loss of more than half its delegation...

    Roosevelt said the rules panel is prepared to enforce at least these penalties if Florida Democrats don't alter their plans.

    "Every member that I have talked to - and I've talked to a pretty fair number in the last 10 days - is basically saying that," Roosevelt said.

    This week, however, several rules panelists said they may go further - even banning the state's full delegation to the national convention.
    At least one rules committee member, Donna Brazile, took a hard line on Florida's primary date, but she hinted that she would consider whether the state party took such "positive" steps.

    Asked whether she would change her view even if those steps weren't successful, she wouldn't comment.

    "I'm a strong supporter of sticking with the rules. I'm not willing to bend over backward just because Florida has 27 electoral votes," said Brazile, who managed Al Gore's 2000 campaign.

    This may be the most stunning quote (none / 0) (#114)
    by litigatormom on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:01:18 PM EST
    "I'm a strong supporter of sticking with the rules. I'm not willing to bend over backward just because Florida has 27 electoral votes," said Brazile, who managed Al Gore's 2000 campaign.

    Translation: "I'm not willing to maximize the Democratic nominee's chances to get Florida's 27 electoral votes just because those electoral votes were stolen from Al Gore in 2000."


    Looks like (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by waldenpond on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:17:09 PM EST
    the roolz were outweighing the rules even then, I just wasn't paying attention.  

    The fallacy of rules are rules (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by seattlegonz on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:20:33 PM EST
    It just kills me that a DNC party leader fight can be justification for denying 2 million voters -- Democrats. This new Democratic Party has to be the stupidest party I've ever seen and I don't think I want to be a part of it. They don't know how to win elections.

    BO bowls a 37, asks for goat cheese on his Philly Cheesteak, he asks a Hillary supporter if he can get her to switch by kissing her or getting on his knees, he vacations for 5 days in VI, and spends 20 years in a racist, anti-American and anti-Semitic church. This is the leader of the new Democratic party??? No thanks...I'll be an independent and hope that Hillary is forced to run as an independent because she recognizes that FL and MI are necessary to any candidates hopes for the presidency. I'm a Clinton Democrat all the way...call me a racist, low class, uneducated (despite my MA) fool...that's okay, my candidate will win.

    My sentiments precisely (none / 0) (#55)
    by felizarte on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:34:23 PM EST
    I think it is time for Sen. Nelson to disclose his whole experience in this matter.  Al Gore too.  I hope that this is the last straw for many of the SD's who have had their doubts all along.

    If I were an Obama supporter (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:34:20 PM EST
    I would be pretty depressed right now.

    Obviously the party leaders don't have any confidence that Obama can win fair and square. They're screaming every day that Hillary is hurting the Party and should drop out, although 62% of Democrats feel otherwise. They can't even agree to let their own rules govern, because that would be too fair to HRC. They are willing to sacrifice millions of voters in order to put their man in power.

    Do they really think a Hillary win would be so bad? Do they really think that they "know better" and we should all just shut up and get over it?

    Sounds like the Plutocratic, not the Democratic, Party. Sounds like THEY are the ones who are bad for the Party, not HRC.

    Uhhhh (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Emma on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:34:53 PM EST
    We will work it out as soon as the primary season is over and no one is screaming foul.

    WTH?  No re-votes, for sure.  Ow, the stupidity:  it burns.

    A poster (5.00 / 5) (#61)
    by Fredster on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:45:34 PM EST
    over on Taylor Marsh said she had emailed Brazile challenging her neutrality (this was last week).  The poster said she got an email reply from. D.B. saying the nomination was obvious (or words to that effect) and it was time for her to move "out of the neutral zone".  (Like she was ever in it!)

    I replied that that email should have been sent to CNN demanding they remove her from the network due to her partisanship or at least clearly identify her henceforth as Donna Brazile, DNC member and Obama supporter.

    That's what's been going on all along; too much backroom b.s. with people working against one candidate and supporting another without clearly identifying themselves as supporters.

    Oprah quit the (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by bjorn on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:46:20 PM EST
    church in 1985 after he said something "controversial!"

    I Emailed DNC . . . (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Doc Rock on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:48:36 PM EST
    . . . that I was sending my donations in the future to the ACLU rather than DNC if FL/MI are not voting members of the party nominee selection! And I MEAN IT!

    And I said it again to my state Dem party (none / 0) (#87)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:49:54 PM EST
    calling again last night, as it does about weekly these days for donations.  That means I now have more practice for my ranting response -- which specifically cites the stupid decisions about FL and MI by Dean and Brazile as well as the lack of Dem leaders standing up and speaking out about the sexism in this campaign, plus the charges of racism against some of our Dem leaders for civil rights.

    If your state party doesn't call you, call them to say so, too -- they really die on the vine without our support.  But they don't get mine anymore, as I said I will give directly to candidates but have nothing to do with a party that treats me, MI, FL, women, etc., this way.  


    Again (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by demfromphilly on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:17:00 PM EST
    So once again DB devises a plan to lose the Democratic Party the Presidency.  In 2000 she convinces Gore he doesn't need to campaign in Tennessee - result - 8 years of the worst presidency in the history of the United States.  Now she is plotting to hand the nomination to Obama, undeniably the weaker General Election candidate - unavoidable  result  - a 4 year extension of the worst Presidency in the history of the United States and the complete implosion of the Democratic base. It will take an untold number of elections to convince all who left to come back. She is incompetent,a phony and incredibly destructive. DB needs to follow Dean out the door!  

    She told Gore that he didn't need to campaign (none / 0) (#116)
    by litigatormom on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:08:37 PM EST
    in Tennessee?  Why, because he didn't need the votes?  He had another path to victory?  Like Obama has a path to victory that doesn't include MI and FLA?

    Well, maybe Gore didn't need Tennessee and maybe Obama doesn't need Michigan and Florida, but why DB want to throw those states away?


    And Isn't This (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by The Maven on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:19:21 PM EST
    the same Donna Brazile who said less than two months ago that she would quit her position with the DNC if the nominee was chosen by superdelegates?

    Since it's been clear for some time now that neither candidate could possibly achieve the magic number through "pledged delegates" alone, and that it will have to come down to superdelegates in one fashion or another (even if they all went with whoever's ahead by some measure or another), she should have stepped down by now.  I guess I shouldn't hold my breath, however.

    Reading her email replies... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Marco21 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:23:14 PM EST
    and her adherence to rules reminds me of something Bill Maher says occasionally. Some rules are just f-ing stupid.

    It's like saying an unfair court ruling should never be overturned.

    "Donna made up her mind. End of story."

    No, Donna. It's not over. I am sorry you don't care about the votes, but Florida and Michigan Democrats do.

    A fiasco generally starts with a bad decision, (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:34:12 PM EST
    even if the person or persons behind that decision may not intend to be creating one.

    The chance that a bad decision willgrow into fiasco proportions also depends on how people begin to respond once it starts to be clear that the original decision was hasty, or had served its purpose.

    For example, let's give an initial benefit of the doubt to the DNC, and say that they believed a 50% penalty would not be enough to stop the movement of primary dates earlier and earlier, so someone - Donna Brazile, perhaps - proposed a 100% penalty.  Let's assume that the penalty worked to deter other states from crowding into the "forbidden zone."  With the primary/caucus calendar set, and after the Iowa, NH, Nevada and SC contests, why not lift at least 50% of the penalty on Florida and Michigan, and allow those states to proceed with a legitimate election?

    Instead of something reasonable, the DNC jerked the states six ways from Sunday, dangling the carrot of legitimacy if they would just "make a reasonable effort" to undo what the legislatures had done, but nothing satisfied those who had the power to lift the penalty.

    It may have been a decision that began with a reasonable goal and a reasonable penalty, but the failure of the DNC to recognize when enough was enough, and allowing bad decisions to continue to cascade has brought us to this point.  It is now at the stage where no one is willing to make a decision that will resolve this, lest it be perceived to benefit or disadvantage someone, or force someone to accept the responsibility for it.

    Not only has there been a massive failure of leadership, but an astonishing inability to focus on the real issue.  That issue is not figuring out how to make a decision that will have no impact on a candidate, but according legitimacy to the votes that were cast.  And the only way to do that is to take the candidates out of the decision-making process, and tell them to suck it up, act like adults and let the chips fall where they may.

    No spine, no vision, no leadership.  This is your DNC.  Oh, happy day.

    Wow, Seattlegonz, you've said it all for me . . . (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by zoeinnc on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:00:51 PM EST
    I'm a 43-year old married soccer mom of three living in NC.  I've been a Democrat my entire life but what I've seen in this primary is sending me over the edge.  I came of age when the Clintons were rising; I'm a moderate centrist who always thought there was a place for me in the Democratic party; I'm beginning to question that assumption now.  I initially supported John Edwards but always thought Hillary would be good, too.  She's been a great U.S. senator with results.   I thought that if Obama was the nominee, I'd go ahead and vote for him although his lack of experience and arrogance/overconfidence in spite of inexperience concerned me.  Then the Wright thing was exposed and it totally turned me off.  He's a phony just like I suspected.  Smart and eloquent but a phony all the same.  Noone would stay active in a church for 20 years, exposing his children to offensive rhetoric, unless he  (A) agreed with the comments or (B) was insincere and just didn't care what was being said.  I can't vote for this man.  He's not ready to lead the country and he isn't what he seems.  I will have to vote for John McCain if they are the two candidates on the ballot.  And guess what, I'm not blue-collar, racist, or uneducated.   In fact, I have my Masters' degree and a child attending an Ivy League university.  I wonder how many of us there are - how many people the Democratic party is alienating with this giant train wreck.  I'd like to see some polling numbers on this.

    I don't know the answer to your question (none / 0) (#4)
    by katiebird on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:38:30 AM EST
    But I wonder if she went too far for Dean when she said last weekend?  She said that because Dean and Obama controlled more Committee positions than Hillary, a challenge on the FL & MI delegations wouldn't be successful.

    Which made it sound like Dean actively opposed seating (with voting rights) the delegations.

    But, what if he DOESN'T oppose it at all?

    Half the delegates... (none / 0) (#19)
    by mike in dc on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:51:56 AM EST
    ...plus a formula for apportioning most of the MI uncommitteds to Obama would be fine by me.  That's 159 total delegates, of which Clinton would get about 89, and Obama most of the remaining 70.  Superdelegates from MI and FL, in that instance, should have their votes halved as well.

    Googling (none / 0) (#31)
    by spit on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:07:37 PM EST
    I can't find any solid evidence. She has some solid quotes in support of "swift and harsh" punishment, and she was the chair of the rules committee, but I can't find anything showing that she came up specifically with the penalty change from 50% to 100% of the delegates.

    I've had a lot of problems with Brazile for a lot longer than this contest, but I certainly don't want to pin something on her that wasn't hers.

    This is HUGE if confirmed (none / 0) (#36)
    by felizarte on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:13:18 PM EST
    that an Obama supporter has manipulated the DNC system to enhance Obama odds. This is so demoralizing.

    Certainly sounds like it (none / 0) (#37)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:14:41 PM EST

    Are we talking about (none / 0) (#46)
    by reality based on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:26:15 PM EST
    Go forth and sin no more? (none / 0) (#47)
    by herb the verb on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:30:20 PM EST
    The solution I would most like to see is revotes, but that apparently won't happen. The second solution I would like to see is both states delegates seated as is (even if reduced by half or some proportion) and in return both states agree to change their primaries to whatever date is desired by the DNC or their next primary delegates really WON'T count.

    Both states have suffered enough in their ability to affect the outcome. If the goal is to make sure no state makes the same error, then the message has been clearly understood. In fact, this campaign season shows that late states can have every bit as much importance as early ones. The real disparity now is between states with clear delegate rules and those with weak ones. Also between overly influencial small states and effectively neutered large states. If we had winner take all, this game would likely be all over now with Clinton the nominee.

    Brazile is incompetent (none / 0) (#52)
    by Korha on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:33:59 PM EST
    Lost Al Gore's campaign in 2000 too.

    Bottom line, Donna B. is a Republican tool (none / 0) (#57)
    by Jim J on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:36:46 PM EST
    This situation reminds me of how effectively Republicans here in my state of Georgia have co-opted African American Democrats into serving Republican strategic goals.

    Republicans and black Democrats engineered the whole "majority-minority district" fiasco down here so that more AA Dems would get safe seats. Of course that also means more Republicans get safe seats, which was the actual goal of the redistricting.

    This is why our congressional delegation flipped almost overnight from mostly Dem to mostly Rep. Georgia's so-called 'realignment' happened so fast largely because of these majority-minority districts.

    In the meantime, Republicans never openly contest black Democrats here, they only organize against white liberals. And they get black support in this effort for the most part, for different reasons of course.

    Brazile's too-clever-by-half, narrow partisanship is a similar kind of strategic myopia.

    She's not a Republican tool (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by annabelly on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:59:28 PM EST
    Though she has become far too cozy with the likes of Grover Norquist and Karl Rove since lose for Gore in 2000. What I think her problem is is that her methodology is shaped by her identity as an African American activist. And that's just too small a view. She's complained for years that Democrats cater to white males (37% turn out for Ds) while ignoring AA women  (95% turn out for Ds), and that Dems take those A women for granted. What she's only articulated a corner of is that is the case for women and men, period. About 60% of the Dem vote generally comes from women. Because her focus is too small, she makes stupid mistakes like MI & FL, which anyone with half-vision could have sen would be a nightmare in any scenario, but especially in a close race.

    Anyway, if it turns out like I suspect it might, and the Dems lose a bunch of voters come November, it'll be nice to see incompetents like her and Dean have their influence stemmed, if not nullified. It's a reason to stay home, anyway.


    You over-simplify max black redistricting (none / 0) (#60)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:43:17 PM EST
    which is actually a very interesting subject. You are both right and wrong about the realignment.

    I think Brazile is a terrible Democrat, but not because of some racial issue.


    It's not a racial issue, it's a stupid issue (none / 0) (#85)
    by Jim J on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:41:17 PM EST
    Bottom line, her shenanigans are helping Republicans, unwitting or not.

    Exchange with Donna (none / 0) (#58)
    by americanincanada on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:38:32 PM EST
    posted for a friend.

    1st response:
    I believe everyone is working hard - starting with officials in Florida who made the bold and stupid move to disenfranchise their own citizens. They knew the rules and the consequences. This is not about Obama and Clinton. So do not stoke flames. They both signed pledges and I will not bend for one and not the other.

    **2nd response

    RE: PLEASE COUNT MY VOTE IN FLDonna Brazile ViewTo:Cc:

    Honestly, I don't care about the money or the votes. Just adhering to the rules. Please don't forget what we were all up against in 2007: starting the contest during the XMAS season. Let's not use Florida 's 27 electoral votes as blackmail. Next time it might be Texas or California . Tell your officials not to vote for rules when it's convenient and oppose them later.

    I am getting sick and darn tired of explaining what all can read on the internet.

    Well, that was special (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by waldenpond on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:05:19 PM EST
    she's sick and tired of doing the function of her position that includes listening to the little people.  That came across as a little elitist.  

    Are both parties purposely trying to implode?  The parties fight each other and are fighting within.  I think voters are just a nuisance to them.  It would be harder for voters to organize and politics would be in a state of chaos but I think politicians would benefit if the parties imploded as voters would be fragmented units.


    These are Donna Brazile's replies to voters? (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by angie on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:09:03 PM EST
    Voters who are actually concerned enough to email her?

    O.M.G. (none / 0) (#118)
    by litigatormom on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:17:02 PM EST
    I don't care about the money or the votes. Just adhering to the rules.

    There are no words.


    Donna Brazile is catholic from New Orleans. nt (none / 0) (#62)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:46:13 PM EST

    The Wash Post (none / 0) (#64)
    by kredwyn on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:46:25 PM EST
    reported part of this back in August:
    Donna Brazile, a member of the rules committee who argued for a swift and harsh punishment for Florida, said states' desire to be more relevant in the nominating process does not excuse violations of rules intended to make the system fair for everyone.

    I was particularly taken with the "swift and harsh" part back then.

    Thanks! (none / 0) (#67)
    by angie on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:02:17 PM EST
    I knew I remembered reading that.  
    I think that given the 50% rule as cited above, and given that Donna Brazile is on the committee that "overruled" that 50% rule in favor of the death penalty, I don't think it is a leap to conclude that the FL & MI people moved up the primaries ready to accept the 50% punishment -- which I think was what BTD's post was asking.  

    I email Donna the other day to (none / 0) (#75)
    by Saul on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:17:09 PM EST
    bring attention to her Sunday ABC This Week Statement where she said that each state would have 3 members to the credential committee and told her that the DNC rules showed it would be proportional to the delegates from each state.  She replied to my email  to  and thanked me for the correction.  Maybe the best way to settle this is to ask her directly. I do not want to put her email here but I got it by contacting her business site and they gave me her email address. Here is her  site.

    Aha, anti-Hillary stuff on her site, too (nt) (none / 0) (#88)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:51:07 PM EST
    An earlier comment of mine was deleted, (none / 0) (#76)
    by tigercourse on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:18:09 PM EST
    I assume because it was thought to be rumor mongering. But here's the support for my claim,


    If the above is true, I don't understand why Brazile would oppose the move on GLBT's.

    The videos of these committee (none / 0) (#86)
    by americanincanada on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:42:32 PM EST
    meetings are online in the C-Span video library. You can watch them on flash video right there. August 25, 30 days later...not sure where they all are.

    it is interesting watching Donna Brazile tryo to get Florida to agree to a caucus even back then. After being told by the Florida delegation that they would be forced to disenfranchise all absentee voters, which FLorida has more than most other states, and that they would have to have 150 caucus locations as opposted to 6500 primary voting locations.

    Link? (none / 0) (#99)
    by BDB on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:35:42 PM EST
    Here's a link I found at c-span.org (none / 0) (#107)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:46:34 PM EST
    also searchable at that site as Florida 2008 Democratic National Convention Riveting stuff (oh, I am a political junkie) -- it's an hour and a half long, but especially pick up at about an hour and 15 minutes in for comments by former DNC chair Don Fowler, who looks to be the only member of the committee to express concern and then to vote against the amendment to the motion. That amendment -- by Obama super-delegate Ralph Dawson of NY -- was for exceeding the requirements for punishment and stripping FL of all delegates. As best I could see in a fairly good skim of this, it is after Fowler that Brazile speaks strongly in favor of the harshest punishment. She is not alone in doing so. Nor is she chairing the meeting. But there are many references to the "staff recommendation" -- and I know from my time on too many committees like this that staff have immense input and actual direction of such stuff. Oh, but Donna promised to come on down to Florida and do everything she could to make sure that this harsh punishment wouldn't happen. Uh hum. If you have time, do listen to the earlier part, the pleas of the Floridians. They -- and former DNC chair Don Fowler -- outline exactly the mess today.

    Donna Brazile is cited in an NYT (none / 0) (#90)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:53:41 PM EST
    article as an example of diversity in the media this election cycle:


    I really hope this is not possible (none / 0) (#95)
    by Salt on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:00:12 PM EST
    if it is and it stands this is a mortal wound that a Donna Brazile could have that much power over Dean et al.

    I really hope this is not possible (none / 0) (#96)
    by Salt on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:03:40 PM EST
    if it is and it stands this is a mortal Party wound that a Donna Brazile could have that much power over Dean et al.

    Stupid pills (none / 0) (#100)
    by bettym47 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:28:08 PM EST
    It seems the DNC has taken stupid pills either way. I'm sure this whole thing will come back to haunt them.

    this has been posted before and (none / 0) (#104)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:18:49 PM EST
    is very long. Too long for a comment. Please find the link to your earlier comment and use that. (in html format.) Thanks.

    URL's must be in html format (none / 0) (#105)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:20:41 PM EST
    or they skew the site and I have to delete the entire comment. There were some good ones that I just had to delete, linking to the FL rules.

    Use the link button at the top of the comment box and the preview button.

    Ok.. I see a lot of hand-wringing (none / 0) (#108)
    by BostonIndependent on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:13:52 PM EST
    But is there anything we can do?

    Why does (none / 0) (#109)
    by Andy08 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:33:21 PM EST
    Donna Brazile has so much power? What did she do that was so successful in politics to have such a
    decisive voice in these decisions? After FL 2000 especially...

    I am asking seriously, all I know she did was managed Gore's run... And?

    she is entrenced (none / 0) (#121)
    by isaac on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:17:05 AM EST
    when i was an intern at the DNC in ,99 (oppo, bush team) she was one of the lecturers they brought in to give us a speech.  we also got rep.s' john lewis and loretta sanchez so it wasnt a total wash.  anyway, she's been there longer than is normal in politics and probably, it would take a front end loader to dig her out

    links to c-span hearing (none / 0) (#113)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:58:45 PM EST
    Here is the c-span video of Karen Thurman, the Florida Dem party chairwoman arguing in front of the DNC to lift the ban on the tossing of Florida's election.  (minute 26:04)
    It is followed by Donna Brazile's response.  (minute 37:34 - 41:10)

    "This will all be worked out (none / 0) (#115)
    by litigatormom on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:04:27 PM EST
    as soon as it is too late to mean anything."

    And she sits (none / 0) (#117)
    by IKE on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:17:01 PM EST
    on CNN and pretends to be neutral. I for one didn't believe that she was neutral since the day following Iowa. Her neutrality is as believable as that of Chris Matthews and Nancy Pelosi.

    And let's not forget (none / 0) (#119)
    by ChrisO on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:55:58 PM EST
    that her comment that she was offended "as an African American" by Hillary's MLK/LBJ remark effectively got the ball rolling on the "Hillary's playing the race card" meme. It was shameful, IMO.

    DID SHE (none / 0) (#122)
    by skmf12 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:15:15 PM EST
    did donna brazille commit a crime?