Florida And Michigan

On CNN, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson did a fantastic job pushing back on the 2025 Magic Number focusing on the importance of seating Florida and Michigan. Donna Brazile did her usual schtick. Some neutral Party figure.

But Howard Wolfson talks about voters. Donna Brazile talks about the rules. Who do you think wins that PR war. Wolfson's winning slogan for seating the delegates:

"It's the right thing to do and it is the smart thing to do." He's right.

The video. The FL/MI discussion is in the second half at the 4:50 mark.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Hillary Wins West Virginia | Hillary Clinton's Victory Speech >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    That's Exactly What I Thought (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by BDB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:18:35 PM EST
    that Wolfson was cleaning her clock.  At one point, the lawyer in me thought "but the Rules Committee can seat them, the rules allow that, too" and then realized that Wolfson was doing so much better focusing on the voters and not getting into a rules argument.

    And If (5.00 / 7) (#14)
    by The Maven on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:27:39 PM EST
    Brazile is going to be so insistent on the rules, why hasn't she ever been able to explain logically the reason that the penalties levied against Florida and Michigan weren't merely the 50% delegate reduction/dilution called for under those rules, or why Iowa and New Hampshire weren't penalized at all for moving their dates up ahead of the DNC proposed schedule?

    If the rules have been mutable in the past, there's no reason to claim that they are absolutely fixed now.  Unless, of course, they really are "fixed" (in a different sense).


    I don't have a link (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Iphie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:43:25 PM EST
    but I seem to distinctly recall reading that the rules also say that candidates would face sanctions if they competed in FL or MI. And Obama campaigned in FL -- where are the sanctions?

    She she gotten away with it because she (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by ruffian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:49:28 PM EST
    is always on CNN and they are either uninformed or they just don't want to challenge her. I suspect both reasons.

    And why (none / 0) (#72)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:06:23 PM EST
    Have only Mich & Fl been penalized when 5 states broke the same rule?  

    Fixed , yes (none / 0) (#86)
    by fctchekr on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:23:14 PM EST
    What's so disconcerting about the knowledge gap, the disclosure gap is that most people are unaware that the decision was arbitrary. Five states broke the rules and only two states were punished. It's hard to watch the pundits argue back and forth when they're leaving out the most important facts. Why are they deceiving the public, and why hasn't someone in the media divulged the cover up? It's been out there..
    It's clear by the actions of Dean, Brazile, Pelosi, Kennedy, that the party wants Obama, period. So fixed, yes. It's clear that the DNC committees are hand-picked by Dean and favor Obama. For those of us who know the facts, it will be impossible to support an Obama nomination..

    damage done to the party...to trust (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by moll on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:38:28 PM EST
    It's clear by the actions of Dean, Brazile, Pelosi, Kennedy, that the party wants Obama, period. So fixed, yes. It's clear that the DNC committees are hand-picked by Dean and favor Obama. For those of us who know the facts, it will be impossible to support an Obama nomination..

    my allegiance has changed from Democratic party loyalty to my (Democratic) values.

    I will vote for the best candidate - according to my own personal value code, and my own issues as ranked and rated by me.

    As opposed to this time last month, when I was prepared to vote straight Dem ticket no matter what.

    And the value of honest elections, free and fair and open democracy - that ranks pretty high with me. I didn't like Republicans stealing elections in 2000 and I don't like Democrats doing it now.


    Wolfson has been reading me ;-) (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:18:40 PM EST
    You don't punish the voters for things that their government did.

    But will the other members take on DB (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Salt on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:27:46 PM EST
    and shut her internal rulz Obama slant down, at least she was honest this time on what the candidates signed up for.

    I am so happy tonight (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by DJ on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:18:53 PM EST
    but what chance of seating Mich and FL in your opinion.   Where does Dean fall on this, he has a large vote right?

    Dean doesn't get to vote. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Step Beyond on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:35:00 PM EST
    Dean isn't on the RBC. Of course, that doesn't mean he has no influence with them, but he doesn't have an actual vote.

    I remember (none / 0) (#47)
    by DJ on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:52:59 PM EST
    reading something about him being able to elect 25 members or something.  What's up with that?

    That is (none / 0) (#51)
    by Step Beyond on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:57:16 PM EST
    one of the convention committees. I remember reading that as well, but I honestly can't remember if that was the credentials committee or another.

    I'm not sure how the DNC RBC members are selected.


    Wolfson is the most impressive (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by MarkL on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:19:25 PM EST
    advocate I have seen in many years.

    He's gotten less annoying (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:20:30 PM EST
    I didn't like him very much when Hillary was inevitable.

    humility is a good thing (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:51:26 PM EST
    I liked Wolfson right away (none / 0) (#59)
    by bridget on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:04:24 PM EST
    and I ignored all the bashing and name-calling he received on the other blogs who then later came out for Obama - the Clintons just couldn't do anything right for the self-proclaimed "creative class?"  

    My favorite is still Terry McAuliffe, however, and alfter all that time he still looks as handsome as ever. Talking about charisma!!

    Wow, he certainly was trashed on certain blogs as well. Guess, some Dems are just too successful.

    Still remember how much I disliked his GOP counterpart Gillespie (sp.) ;-)


    Interesting, Clinton won (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:21:38 PM EST
    college-educated voters 55% to Obama 41%. That's a nice change.

    She even won (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:23:00 PM EST
    voters with post-grad degrees. (Though again by less).

    what? (none / 0) (#64)
    by DFLer on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:06:40 PM EST
    You mean they actually have voters with college degrees in WVA? You wouldn't know that from the "hillbilly-card" spin by the MSM

    Hillbilly card? You mean... (none / 0) (#80)
    by BoGardiner on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:27:21 PM EST
    like this?

    I truly hate this.

    West Virginia is profoundly beautiful.  It has long been very, very dear to my heart.  I've loved the many people I've known there.  So many are deeply progressive as they fight to climb their metaphorical mountains... and fight to protect their very real mountains from Bush and corporate mountain-rapers.  West Virginians are, of necessity, deeply grounded people with little patience for the fluff they see in Obama.


    depressing link (none / 0) (#82)
    by DFLer on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:42:19 PM EST
    as well as the other comments.....had to swear at them.

    back to the beauty:

    W VA...fond memories here as well. Used to drive from DC to go diving and swimming in a quarry in Harper's Ferry.


    i'm sorry, but why hasn't (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by The Realist on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:23:16 PM EST
    wolfson been front and center all along. I hope he is in the room when the rules committee meets. He will eat Brazile's lunch.

    There's rules and there's justice (5.00 / 11) (#11)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:27:29 PM EST
    -- I just read something along those lines regarding something else, but it struck me re this situation.

    Wolfson was good, and he was arguing justice for the voters.  Donna "Watch Me Walk Out" Brazile still is stuck in the rules -- the ones she amended from the original rule of losing only half the delegates.

    She acts like her amendment was brought down the mountain by Moses as the 11th Commandment.  Nope, these rules were made -- and then remade -- by humans, and there's this thing called human error.

    And as we well know, Brazile has made some of the biggest strategic errors in Dem history for a decade now.  And she is doing it to Dems again.  So what?  But she's doing it to the country.

    not to mention practicality (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by coigue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:42:05 PM EST
    we don't want to give MI and FLA to McCain.

    The split screen (5.00 / 8) (#12)
    by standingup on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:27:32 PM EST
    with Wolfson talking while Donna listened said it all, even with the volume down.  The look on Donna's face was not one of a neutral party.  If the Obama campaign and the DNC really want to unify the party, they need to start by keeping Donna off the cable networks.  

    Way too late for that (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by katiebird on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:30:26 PM EST
    Clinton needs to thank you BTD (5.00 / 8) (#19)
    by angie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:30:44 PM EST
    for brining up the 2209 number in that conference call -- remember at the time you didn't like how at first Goren seemed to agree with you, but then they kind of pulled back -- I thought at the time the reason for that was because they had not ever considered the question before (due to tunnel vision when you are in a campaign) and were hesitant to "commit" until the talked out it "in house" first. Well, it wasn't 2 days later that they started with the 2209 talk. SO, a big thank you for pointing it out to them, because you are dead right on this.

    Yeah, that was exactly my reaction (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by frankly0 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:41:56 PM EST
    when I heard that account of the campaign's phone call.

    Sometimes what people need is a sharp way of focusing the argument they want to make, and the new 2209 number creates the needed pivot point.

    It immediately sabotages the efforts of the Obama campaign and the pundits to declare the campaign over when Obama reaches the 2025 number. They are now required to be on the defensive, instead of doing victory laps.

    So, hat's off for bringing this point up with the Clinton campaign, BTD.


    The candidates signed a pledge not to (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by Teresa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:38:10 PM EST
    campaign there. Nothing about seating in the pledge.

    Fine (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:38:38 PM EST
    She also agreed to a revote.  Obama rejected the plan.

    Sorry - he doesn't get to remove his name from the ballot, then not agree to a revote, and then claim the moral high ground when the votes don't get counted.

    Blame MI (none / 0) (#36)
    by Rashomon66 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:48:19 PM EST
    Agreeing or not agreeing to a revote is moot.
    The MI legistlature nixed the revote. Blame them.

    Why do most Hillary supporters pretend like Obama made the rules? He abided by them. And so did Hillary until she realized she needed MI and FL. Then she made a big deal.
    Remember, she said nothing late last year when MI and FL were stripped of their status. You can't take the moral high ground when you had no complaints when the rules were set up.


    Sigh (5.00 / 6) (#45)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:51:56 PM EST
    The Michigan legislature was ready to vote and approve the revote plan that was agreed to by Clinton AND the DNC. They just waited for the all-clear from Obama, and at the last minute, he and his supporters balked.

    Obama gets the blame here.


    Obama nixed it (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:59:02 PM EST
    Stop the falsehoods.

    The voters (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by Coldblue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:40:31 PM EST
    didn't cast their ballots 50/50.

    Donna Brazile drives me to distraction. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:45:55 PM EST
    My frustrations with her started during the Gore campaign.

    Howard Wolfson was fabulous (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by bridget on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:46:44 PM EST
    he remained cool and collected - speaking for the voters while she talked rules

    Brazile? Maybe was seething just a little bit? In view of Hillary's great victory she just didn't look that happy as she did after NC last week when she appeared a bit condescending and had a couple back and forths with Begala and Lanny Davis as well.

    Really glad I caught that exchange betw. Wolfson and Brazile. W. couldn't have done a better job right then. Even Wolf Blitzer is now picking up the MI and Fl topic. After Indiana and NC the CNN panel didn't even want to discuss that. Gergen ridiculed it AFAIR.

    I think it was v. smart for Wolfson to mention over and over again how many millions of voters had come out on election day in MI and Fl. It's hard to talk about rules when considering real human beings are involved here.

    seething isn't strong (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:52:53 PM EST
    enough for the expression on Donna's face when the cut to it...she was royally pissed.  she knows this is on her!

    Because seating the delegates (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by Evie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:50:32 PM EST
    is the right, just, and democratic thing to do. This goes beyond politics. It's about the principle of democracy and enfranchising American voters.

    Please tell me how Obama gets away with arguing that two of the largest states in the country and more than 2 million voters don't matter.

    Obama took his name off the MI ballot for political reasons because he knew he would lose. He forfeits the right to MI votes.

    Self-Defeating Strategy (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:09:44 PM EST
    I believe the Obama campaign has an important strategic decision to make; if they oppose the seating the the MICH & FL delegations and/or a fair allotment of delegates, & Obama is the Democratic nominee for President, he will be at grave risk of losing in those states.



    The Rules -- 0 divided by 2 is still ZERO! (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by BostonIndependent on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:51:27 PM EST
    In MI -- Senator Obama got zero delegates, and the rules (which Donna Brazile keeps bringing up) would, by penalizing awarded delegates by 50% would net him  NO delegates. So I don't get her bringing that up.

    What equitable distribution are they talking about.. it seems like a way to unfairly awarding delegates to Obama if they are going by the rules, no?

    Howard was fabulous.

    2025 (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Oliver Willis on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:51:31 PM EST
    You mean the same Howard Wolfson who a few weeks ago said the number was 2025? What will the number be next week? The target always moves as it slips away.

    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:05:32 PM EST
    I ripped them for being slow on this. But at this point, they got it right, not just for them, but for OBAMA and the Democratic Party.

    No such agreement (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:58:16 PM EST
    Howard Wolfson said this clearly.

    But you have lied about this point day after day at this site.

    Yes, you are a liar. I said it.

    I have a question for you (none / 0) (#68)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:30:04 PM EST
    could you use your contacts to find out if:

    Obama's strategists really think they will win if they get creamed in what is now being called the "white wqorking  class" or if they just started saying they don't care because they are polling so poorly in that category?

    I'm mystified about why they are publically saying they can win WITHOUT a segment of the population.

    It's either a certainty, bragging or they are panicking and sending out Talking Points.

    Mydd is lousy with Obama fans saying it doesn't matter what the WWC does.


    What's the name of the sport (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by eleanora on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:03:33 PM EST
    where you can decide not to compete and then still insist on earning as many points as you might have gotten if you'd played on the field? In baseball, football, soccer... I can't think of a "fair play" situation where you'd still win  even if you don't show up.

    all this fuss - he will still lose the general... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by getagrip on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:04:26 PM EST
    HEck, he may not even win Mass.  Someone needs to do some polling, because I seriously think he will lose mass.  Remember we elected a string of republican governors, and what I'm hearing from yellow dog democrats is that obama isn't a yellow dog - they/we will not vote for him.

    I've never voted republican in 30 years of voting.  I won't vote obama.  And there are a lot of us here.

    Maybe someone should do a little polling in "safe" states.  All I see are national polls at this point.

    with Romney on the ticket (none / 0) (#85)
    by diplomatic on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:20:17 PM EST
    McCain/Romney would have a great chance to win Michigan and Mass.

    No candidates signed anything (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:35:30 PM EST
    that said they wouldn't seat delegates.  They vowed not to campaign in the states.  Obama bought a national ad that he ran in every state right before the Florida Primary...

    Obama took his name off of the ballot in Michigan which was to put it bluntly stupid - except if you take into account the possibility that it was gamesmanship that drove that decision with an eye towards making the results in MI too murky to give Clinton a clear win - either way it was not a great move to play politics with the voters in that state or any other.

    Obama doesn't deserve 50% of the vote in either state

    I HATE Donna Brazile (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:01:42 PM EST
    I really do. There is not a more destructive Democrat in the country.

    Donna misstatement of facts (none / 0) (#79)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:26:59 PM EST
    Donna Brazile is commenting on CNN as I type this; she just said only Fl & Mich broke the rules; but didn't So. Carolina & 2 additional states break the rules as well?  And no one has called her on it.  I can't tell whether the host newscasters are uninformed or what.

    No (4.66 / 6) (#26)
    by BDB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:38:32 PM EST
    There was no agreement signed by any candidate about not seating Florida and Michigan.

    What Clinton and the others signed were pledges to the early states (IA, SC, NH, NV) that they would not campaign in Florida and Michigan.  They all abided that pledge.  

    Two Possibe Exception (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by BDB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:39:32 PM EST
    Obama spoke to the press after a Florida fundraiser, which is considered technically campaigning, and he ran national ads including in Florida right before its primary.  

    It would have been nice (none / 0) (#7)
    by FrankinTexas on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:21:41 PM EST
    If the Clinton camp made that argument before it was clear she was going to lose.  Not trying to be a troll but nobody in her camp made any kind of protest about doing the right thing when the decison was made to take away the votes in Florida and Michigan.

    Actually, she did (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:31:01 PM EST
    She even sent out a press release on January 25 - before the Florida and Michigan primaries on January 29



    Florida Again (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Athena on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:50:08 PM EST
    Is it possible that Florida will have cost us both President Al Gore and President Hillary Clinton?

    Where was Howard Dean?  The party has been truly indifferent to its voters.  Expect the same back.


    Franklin Texas, did Obama (none / 0) (#13)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:27:35 PM EST
    make any kind of advance "protest about doing the right thing when the decison was made to take away the votes in Florida and Michigan". If he had, that would have been "nice" too, no?

    Doesn't matter to me (none / 0) (#30)
    by Step Beyond on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:41:23 PM EST
    Doesn't matter what Obama or Clinton thinks. Or whether it benefits either one of them.

    The right thing is the right thing regardless of who is on your side or not. Or whether their motives are pure or not. People, political parties and governments are transient. They will change as the wind blows. Which is why it is all the more important that self-evident truths and rights never be sold out for them.


    There Is No Way They Can Get Away Without (none / 0) (#10)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:26:42 PM EST
    correcting the FL and MI mess.  The sooner the better...

    Nothing against Wolfson but ... (none / 0) (#16)
    by lyzurgyk on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:29:14 PM EST

    ... spin is easy after a twenty point blow-out.

    Brazile.. (none / 0) (#17)
    by JustJennifer on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:29:29 PM EST
    Is it true that she is no longer on the rules committee?  If so when did that change, and why?  

    she said she was and that so were 29 other (none / 0) (#49)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:53:49 PM EST

    Yeah, but (none / 0) (#21)
    by Rashomon66 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:31:46 PM EST
    Even with FL and MI Hillary would still be behind.
    Many Hillary supporters are pretending like no one but they know about Fl and MI.
    You must know that the Super Delegates know all of this. They are not dumb. They know the math scenario with these two states. They still see that he is ahead. The exception is that maybe with a good argument she would win the general election.
    But consider this:
    Would you make an argument that the 1,199,295 votes for Hillary in MI and FL should trump the close to 10,000,000 votes cast for Obama in all the states he won?
    Because, I can tell you, if you think the disenfranchisement of MI and FL is serious can you imagine what would happen if there was disenfranchisement of the Obama voters?

    Uh (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:33:29 PM EST
    Aren't you forgetting to add in all the other votes she won as well?  Apples to oranges....

    Yeah but (none / 0) (#32)
    by Rashomon66 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:44:32 PM EST
    ...you are asking for MI and FL to be the deciding factor. I'm saying even if they are included nothing changes.
    No one is actually disenfranchised here. We have two good candidates. One will win, one will lose.

    No (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:48:55 PM EST
    The DNC made MI/FL the deciding factor. Had they been punished like they should have been according to the rules (50% loss), and had the rules been fairly applied to the other states that broke the rules, and had Obama been punished, again according to the rules, for campaigning in Florida (loss of delegates), then everything would be different - including the media narrative and momentum all these months.

    And had Obama agreed to a revote that everyone else was on board with, this also would be a moot point.


    So INCLUDE them (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:00:04 PM EST
    Tell Hillary (none / 0) (#90)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:27:50 PM EST
    She rejected the deal that would have seated MI.

    Noooo.... (4.66 / 3) (#38)
    by Dr Molly on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:49:07 PM EST
    "...you are asking for MI and FL to be the deciding factor."

    Just asking that they be included and counted and deterministic to the overall outcome. Like they should be.


    So count them and shut us up (5.00 / 5) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:59:38 PM EST
    The newest political bumpersticker! (none / 0) (#57)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:03:11 PM EST
    I'd buy that one!

    me too! (none / 0) (#62)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:04:51 PM EST
    They don't frighten me as much as losing to McCain (none / 0) (#33)
    by hitchhiker on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:44:57 PM EST
    can you imagine what would happen if there was disenfranchisement of the Obama voters?

    but of course you're right . . . they will scream bloody murder and never, ever get over it.

    This is because so many Obama voters have done some kind of weird transference with the guy.  It reminds me more and more of the way Bush voters were just in love with their president in 2004 ~ I knew people who just could not stop trashing Kerry even after their candidate had beaten him.  Still full of hatred and rage.  This is what I hear whenever I peek at DK or Americablog.  Hatred and rage.

    If Obama is not the nominee, I fully expect their heads to explode, and that's not just a metaphor.


    Simple solution to the MI/FL problem ... (none / 0) (#50)
    by dwmorris on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:55:34 PM EST
    The Party leadership is apoplectic about the prospect of Hillary actively campaigning until August.

    To resolve the MI/FL problem, Hillary needs to simply make a clear, concise statement that she will actively campaign until
    -    one candidate reaches 2209 delegates
    -    all of her delegates from the MI (73) and FL (105) primaries are seated
    End of discussion.

    This shifts the negotiation to the disposition of the 55 unpledged delegates from MI as the only unresolved issue. If they all go to Obama, she can live with that.

    2025 (none / 0) (#56)
    by joel dan walls on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:01:59 PM EST
    Howard Wolfson, January 26:

    [WOLFSON MEMO] This remains a delegate fight, with 1,681 delegates at stake on February 5th, and 2,025 needed to secure the nomination -- and we are ahead in that fight.

    Howard Wolfson, February 12:

    "We don't think either candidate will be able to get 2,025 delegates without the superdelegates," Wolfson said during Monday's briefing, a prediction that may come down to whether Clinton can stem Obama's February momentum by taking the majority of Texas's and Ohio's 389 delegates on March 4 (Vermont and Rhode Island also hold contests that day).

    Howard Wolfson, February 13:

    "Superdelegates are supposed to vote their conscience. ... That's essentially what my friend David Axelrod said on the Today show. ... No one is going to win the nomination without them. Our goal is to get to 2025 delegates. " - Howard Wolfson

    He saw the light (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:04:41 PM EST
    this is Donna Brazile thinking from Obama supporters.

    IT is a grave political mistake.


    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by RalphB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:15:40 PM EST
    'but but but Clinton' is not a winning argument for disenfranchising voters.

    So what? (none / 0) (#65)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:08:21 PM EST
    Seriously -so what?

    Is this political by the Clinton camp?  You bet.  Problem is - while her argument may benefit her, it's also the morally and ethically right one that upholds democratic principles. What's Obama's argument?  The roolz (that weren't applied fairly)?  Who do you think wins that argument with the public?


    Do you think it is OK for 19 states not to pick (none / 0) (#77)
    by Exeter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:14:35 PM EST
    the nominee? Who cares what Clinton or Obama say, its wrong, period, for the equivelant of 19 smaller states not to be heard.

    If you think Michigan should not count (none / 0) (#66)
    by Evie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:15:24 PM EST
    you don't believe in democracy.

    Wow, Donna Bazile just said (none / 0) (#70)
    by annabelly on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:57:45 PM EST
    "Look, what we're trying to do is avoid a train wreck." She said this in regards to MI & FL. I'm glad she finally gets at least that much.

    Kind of laughable (none / 0) (#73)
    by janarchy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:06:31 PM EST
    when we've been waving flags and screaming about it for ages and now the trains are about an inch apart and ready to collide.

    I believe the adage is "too little, too late"?


    Donna Brazille's facial expressions (none / 0) (#75)
    by Exeter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:12:18 PM EST
    while Wolfson was talking about Florida and Michigan were pretty telling. She is in the tank for Obama and Dean is more than willing to oblige b/c he has a grudge against the "Clinton DNC" that he still has delusions about sabotaging his presidential campaign in 2004.

    Obama had single-handedly disenfranchised (none / 0) (#76)
    by kenosharick on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:13:28 PM EST
    the voters of Mich/Fla. in this primary and now he actually has the gumption (or whatever) to campaign in those states the next couple days? He should be asking their forgivness. What a giant ego!!! I hope the protesters are out in large numbers.

    Obama is about... (none / 0) (#78)
    by mike in dc on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:20:33 PM EST
    ...60 to 80 superdelegates away from closing the door on any chance for Clinton to secure the nomination in June.
    If he gets about 140 more superdelegates, he closes the door on any plausible scenario for her to win at the convention, by clinching the "revised" magic number of 2209.  Even with full credit for FL and MI, Clinton still needs about 320 more delegates, out of the 464 still on the table, to reach 2209 by mid-June.  Obama's going to  win at least 80 pledged delegates out of the remaining 5 contests. That reduces the size of the "pool" to about 380+.  If he gains another 60 to 80 superdelegates, that reduces the size of the "pool" to a point where she can't get to 2209 without either getting a significant number of committed superdelegates to switch, and/or trying to win over Edwards and uncommitted pledged delegates.   If Obama gains another 140 superdelegate endorsements, even that option is foreclosed.

    All of the above assumes that Clinton somehow wins the endorsements of almost all of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates.

    So let's include them then (none / 0) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:03:33 PM EST
    In due time... (none / 0) (#84)
    by mike in dc on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:06:54 PM EST
    ...nothing can actually happen until May 31st, and the RBC is entirely within its rights to retain some  sanction on the two states, such as reducing the penalty from 100% to 50%(which it probably should have been to begin with).  Since we don't know exactly what the RBC will do, we have to consider both scenarios, and everything in between.  

    In due time Hillary will dropout then (none / 0) (#88)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:07:44 PM EST
    At this point it doesn't really matter (none / 0) (#92)
    by onemanrules on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:34:28 AM EST
    what happens to Fl and MI, It appears to be obvious that the sd's are going by the rules that were agreed to and not where the clintons try to move the goal posts. You can make all the arguments you want, but until the sd's swing the other way its just fantasy.

    Until the DNC tells me different it's 2025, but don't worry he will have more than 2209 when all is said and done.