home

Will May 31 Be The Biggest Day Of The Campaign?

There are no primary contests on May 31. But there will be a meeting of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee where the issue of the Florida and Michigan delegations will be taken up. This meeting will no doubt be the central political event of the day. It will garner a significant amount of coverage. And what will the Democratic Party say to Florida and Michigan on that day, on that stage? During today's Clinton Media Call, I asked about the May 31 RBC meeting:

I asked about the May 31 RBC process whereby the FL/MI question will be decided. I asked specifically who will be participating. I further asked that since the Clinton camp, the Obama camp and the DNC Chair Howard Dean have all said they want the delegations seated, is it possible that a faction of the DNC, led by Donna Brazile, could block the seating of these delegations over the wishes of the candidates and the DNC Chair.

Phil Singer responded that the Clinton campaign is confident that the DNC will act in the best interests of the Party, which is to act in a way that helps the Party win in November, which would mean seating the Florida and Michigan delegations. Phil made the point that if the purpose was to protect the early primary shcedule, that purpose has been served and thus it was time to look towards the best interest of the Party, which required seating the delegates.

In terms of the RBC process, Singer was unsure what would happen as the agenda had not yet been released, but that it would be an open and public process that will be seen by the entire country.

The nation will be watching. And Florida and Michigan will be closely watching. May 31 will be the biggest day left in the Democratic campaign, with serious consequences for the November general election.

By Big Tent Democrat.

< NARAL Endorses Obama | TX Appeals Court Overturns Vioxx Verdict Against Merck >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The video of that last meeting (5.00 / 11) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:48:09 PM EST
    suggests that the decision will be made before the session is gaveled in. I wonder whether the Clinton campaign is wise to sound so confident about this.

    I would consider threatening to take the nomination to the convention if the delegates aren't seated.

    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by bjorn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:55:14 PM EST
    If Donna Brazile has any clout, in real terms, there certainly will not be a resolution that is fair to all parties...it will most likely favor Obama.  Both Dean and Brazile have made it clear, imo, that they are not going to do anything that would change the election - meaning the election results that do not include FL MI.

    [ Parent ]
    p.s. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by bjorn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:56:51 PM EST
    I do think Clinton should have taken the MI deal a week or so ago, but under the condition that FL would be seated as is.  And all the votes count in the popular vote total.

    [ Parent ]
    What popular vote total? (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Knocienz on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:15:08 PM EST
    The popular vote doesn't really have any meaning save in the minds of the super delegates (and pundits and supporters of course).

    So each SD (and pundit and supporter) will decide for themselves how to weigh the popular votes in MI and FL. I expect those who want to support Clinton will come up with a weight that gives her the lead and Obama supporters will come up with a weight that gives Obama the lead.

    But it isn't a quest for fairness on either part as much as it is justification for a decision they've already made.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama won't agree (none / 0) (#13)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:59:21 PM EST
    to seating the Florida delegation as is, IIRC.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh - they'll be seated (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Josey on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:05:22 PM EST
    But it's always appeared they (and Obama) wanted to wait until he was the nominee before they officially assigned the votes and awarded the delegates.


    [ Parent ]
    Yes, this week TV talking heads (5.00 / 5) (#164)
    by litigatormom on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:22:12 PM EST
    have been guffawing over Terry McAuliffe's statement that Obama should have to get 2209 delegates before clinching the nomination. Ho ho ho, silly Clinton still thinks she can change the rules, ho ho ho.  They -- and the DNC, apparently -- still think that "seating" the FLA and MI delegates by giving them a convention pass only after Obama has reached the not-magic number of 2025 will solve all problems.

    The sad (to me) fact is that even seating MI and FLA as is will probably not get Clinton the nomination.  The supers may be a tad worried about the WVA results, but they don't have the guts to back Clinton now.  What no one seems to be focusing on over there in Donna-Howard-Obama Land is that this isn't about giving Clinton an edge -- the time when seating MI and FLA might have made a difference in the primary result is probably past -- it's about electoral legitimacy, and winning back the support of Democrats disenchanted with Obama.

    Donna Brazile can say that the party doesn't need working class whites to win the GE all she wants; she's wrong, and everyone but Donna ought to know it. People get pissed off when you tell them their support is superfluous to them.  People get pissed off when they called racist for not supporting someone whose surrogates say that their support is superfluous.  (Working class voters may be the Obama Movement's version of "Old Europe," but look what happened to the U.S. in Iraq without Old Europe's support.)  

    The burden is not going to be just on Clinton's supporters to rally to Obama's side.  Clinton herself will support Obama vigorously, as she's repeatedly made clear.  But Obama would be foolhardy to just assume that all Democrats will come home in the end.  He needs to woo them.  And tell Donna to stop appearing on TV.

    [ Parent ]

    andgarden, I find myself agreeing with you (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:06:12 PM EST
    so often. Pennsylvanians think alike?

    [ Parent ]
    I would go all in -- and threaten to run 3rd Party (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Exeter on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:16:11 PM EST
    And follow through with the threat if it doesn't happen.

    [ Parent ]
    Nah (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by BDB on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:30:06 PM EST
    The real threat is to fight seating delegates from caucus states.  If she has evidence that some of the caucuses violated the rules, and I'm betting she has at least a few affidavits from Texas, then the nuclear option is to fight seating them at the convention.

    Personally, I don't think she'd ever do this, but if you really want to go nuclear on the party that's how you could do it.  Expose the sham that is a democratic party caucus.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary's goal is founded entirely in (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:50:39 PM EST
    putting a president in office who will undo the damage done by the bush administration and work tirelessly for the people.

    She's not an activist for shaking up the democratic party.

    [ Parent ]

    yeah... (none / 0) (#84)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:43:24 PM EST
    I mean, if I'm a Clinton surrogate on the committee, I'm going to demand a vote that all rules of the party be strictly enforced without exception....

    ...and I'm also going to stand up for the VOTERS of Michigan, and demand to know why Michigan politicians are sacrificing the will of their own voters in order to guarantee seats for themselves....

    [ Parent ]

    Yep (none / 0) (#124)
    by BDB on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:05:56 PM EST
    I don't care what Brazile and other democrats say, the last thing they want is a strict enforcement of all party rules.  It's like when police contracts are up, they can't strike so they go to middle class and upper class neighborhoods and start enforcing all of the traffic and other laws.  

    [ Parent ]
    I can promise (none / 0) (#203)
    by Leisa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:48:14 PM EST
    that I witnessed illegal voting in my precinct convention/caucus in TX...

    [ Parent ]
    a compromise (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by Kathy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:35:29 PM EST
    means that neither candidate is happy, but both can live with it.  I have yet to see a compromise floated that does this.

    It should be very telling that Obama is so adamantly against a revote.  When the path you see to victory means that people are not allowed to have their voices heard, that is not a democracy.

    [ Parent ]

    Hilary doesn't need to compromise (none / 0) (#195)
    by Exeter on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:38:51 PM EST
    Michigan and Florida both had fair, officially sanctioned governmental elections. Michigans uncommitted delegates can vote for Obama if they want.

    [ Parent ]
    WAS. (none / 0) (#217)
    by ghost2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:56:51 PM EST
    It's too late for a revote now.  

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:58:12 PM EST
    The public meeting will be a showcase for whatever decision they have already made.

    [ Parent ]
    Showcase? (none / 0) (#166)
    by litigatormom on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:23:32 PM EST
    Or scary demonstration of how sausage is made?

    [ Parent ]
    Public to protect Obama (none / 0) (#232)
    by ineedalife on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:59:43 PM EST
    This will hamstring Clinton's group and prevent them  from making any strenuous argument that will hurt Obama. The media will be there to see that the Precious is properly coddled.

    [ Parent ]
    My bet (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by DCDemocrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:50:33 PM EST
    My bet is that they will come up with a compromise that will maximize Hillary's take of delegates while preventing Obama from suffering yet another humiliating defeat.  They will do the math in the way that seats lots of Hillary's delegates and guarantees Obama the nomination.

    I don't think that's going to fly with (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:58:56 PM EST
    the Hillary campaign at all.  I wish the Roolz committee lots of luck if that's their plan.  Did you notice Wolfson's face lately, nobody is railroading him and he says that Obama took his name off the ballot in Michigan because he knew he was going to lose. And Wolfson is ready to duke this out completely.  Donna looked like she wished he'd drop dead last night.

    [ Parent ]
    she looked like she wanted to kill him (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by bjorn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:00:02 PM EST
    herself

    [ Parent ]
    Is their a video of that somewhere... (none / 0) (#45)
    by cosbo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:13:29 PM EST
    haven't seen it, or the one from last week for that matter when she was called out by Campbell Brown.

    [ Parent ]
    Anderson Cooper (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Kathy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:37:08 PM EST
    actually used the word "disenfranchised" to describe FL and MI.  Donna corrected him, but my ears perked up when he said it.

    Coop can be a bulldog when he wants to.  It'll be interesting to see where he falls in this discussion going forward.

    [ Parent ]

    How did Donna "correct" him? (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by litigatormom on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:29:23 PM EST
    Did she say that MI and FLA voters violated the rules? Well, she couldn't say that.  Did she drag out the old saw about how if MI and FLA voters are pissed off, they should punish their party leaders the next time any of them are up for re-election?  Because that's really not a good remedy for being locked out of a primary fight that is almost over. Did she say that FLA and MI voters are somehow guilty by principles of respondeat superior for the alleged "violations" of their party leaders?** That would be novel.  Did she acknowledge that The ROOLz didn't require or even authorize the DNC to penalize MI and FLA by taking away all their delegates?

    So how exactly did she "correct" him?

    **Respondeat superior is the principle by which employers can be held liable for torts committed by their employees while acting within the scope of their employment.  

    [ Parent ]

    I think this is the video (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Josmt on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:29:54 PM EST
    Try noquarter (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:32:14 PM EST
    Here's Wolfson and Brazile.  Watch her face.  It was interesting that CNN kept going back to her.

    [ Parent ]
    check (none / 0) (#221)
    by ghost2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:05:57 PM EST
    Taylor Marsh.  She had it on a front page post yesterday.

    [ Parent ]
    Keep hammering that point home (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:51:19 PM EST
    We expect that
    the DNC will act in the best interests of the Party, which is to act in a way that helps the Party win in November

    Count the votes.

    And get some lost donations back (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by BarnBabe on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:27:08 PM EST
    Everytime I refuse them or send their envelopes back empty, I tell them why I will not donate any more to them. If others have done this, I suspect their fund raising is hurting. And people are probably donating directly to Obama as I do to Hillary. But no DNC. Yep, we shall see if the wallet approach hurt. Maybe not enough yet.

    [ Parent ]
    I (5.00 / 4) (#177)
    by sas on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:28:09 PM EST
    have sent back two DNC requests for money this week (disguised as a survey) .  No donations in either.

    They asked what I thought of Dean's 50 state strategy.  I crossed out the 50 and changed it to 48, since Michigan and Florida have been left out.

    They asked if the press and media were biased for the left or the right.  I crossed that out and put "Biased in favor of Obama".

    They asked whether I thought vote suppression by the Republicans would be an issue in the fall.  I wrote that vote suppression by Democrats against their own is a problem NOW.

    I also told them because of the comments and actions of supposed party leaders against Hillary that I was changing to Independent (which I am).

    I never thought I'd feel this way, but the party leadership is awful.

    [ Parent ]

    I (none / 0) (#178)
    by sas on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:28:09 PM EST
    have sent back two DNC requests for money this week (disguised as a survey) .  No donations in either.

    They asked what I thought of Dean's 50 state strategy.  I crossed out the 50 and changed it to 48, since Michigan and Florida have been left out.

    They asked if the press and media were biased for the left or the right.  I crossed that out and put "Biased in favor of Obama".

    They asked whether I thought vote suppression by the Republicans would be an issue in the fall.  I wrote that vote suppression by Democrats against their own is a problem NOW.

    I also told them because of the comments and actions of supposed party leaders against Hillary that I was changing to Independent (which I am).

    I never thought I'd feel this way, but the party leadership is awful.

    [ Parent ]

    I want to go (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by joanneleon on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:54:35 PM EST
    and stand outside the meeting chanting:
    "The whole world is watching"

    This thing had better be fair to Hillary.

    Solution (5.00 / 8) (#22)
    by Athena on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:02:41 PM EST
    1. Seat Florida as is.  All names were on the ballot.

    2. Redo the Michigan vote on August 5, 2008, when the state has its next scheduled primary.  Still in time for the convention.


    [ Parent ]
    Barack: Time to Face Michigan (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Athena on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:09:37 PM EST
    And here's what Hillary says about a Michigan revote: "Barack has not had a chance to compete for voters in Michigan.  I want to give him that chance."

    How is Obama going to say he doesn't want Michigan to be part of the nominatin process and is afraid of their voters?

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe that is why he is campaigning there (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by BarnBabe on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:28:02 PM EST
    I saw a blip that said he was campaigning hard in Michigan. Hmmm.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:38:18 PM EST
    I've been following that closely.  He has a lot of ground to make up in MI after the Sista Souljah routine he's repeatedly done on Detroit in his stump speech.  I wonder how they're reacting to his latest appearances.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama in Michigan (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:06:29 PM EST
    What a load of Cr*p this guy spews!

    LINK

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:10:08 PM EST
    I just saw this link.  Holy crap.

    I predict the TL commentariat is not going to be happy.

    [ Parent ]

    How about a synopsis. Link is blocked. (none / 0) (#134)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:11:30 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Can't link to the video (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:14:45 PM EST
    "An unusual video clip from Sen. Barack Obama's tour of the Chrysler Stamping Plant in Sterling Heights, MI today.

    A reporter tries to question Obama about helping automakers.

    "Hold on one second there, sweetie," he says.

    The reporter's tag line: "This sweetie never did get an answer to that question."

    [ Parent ]

    Sweetie...just hold on (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:17:28 PM EST
    wow, the Bush factor on steroids.  The guy thinks he is president.  

    [ Parent ]
    Well (none / 0) (#156)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:19:01 PM EST
    I don't know that Bush is sexist.  He's disrespectful to everyone.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree. (none / 0) (#172)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:25:18 PM EST
    Bush is an equal opportunity hater. The only color he cares about is GREEN.

    [ Parent ]
    FOX is talking about it right now (none / 0) (#223)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:12:18 PM EST
    with Adam Smith, WA State. He says it is nothing in the greater scheme of things. Then, I'm pretty sure he's never been degraded.

    He's someone who shows up on my ballot. I hope he changes his alliance soon.

    [ Parent ]

    Rendall, right? (none / 0) (#137)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:11:52 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Oh No He Didn't! (none / 0) (#168)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:24:17 PM EST
    He called her "sweetie!" I heard it and so did she!

    That female reporter was LIVID and deservedly so.

    Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (none / 0) (#201)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:47:11 PM EST
    I can't wait to see what happens when the blogs start to pick this up.  I suppose anyone who gets offended is probably just PMS'ing, right?

    [ Parent ]
    Or periodically down! (none / 0) (#214)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:56:26 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    He's just (none / 0) (#219)
    by Leisa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:00:57 PM EST
    used to giggling female reporters on the plane with him.  Every loves me!  Me, Me, Me...

    [ Parent ]
    Obama says: (none / 0) (#159)
    by chancellor on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:19:41 PM EST
    "What we do is, tell us what the rules are and then we play by the rules," Obama said. "If I am fortunate enough to be the Democratic nominee, I'll have some say on what the rules are and I can guarantee we'll make sure that the Michigan delegates are seated."

    Sounds to me as though he's planning to announce that he is indeed the nominee before the Rules Committee meets.

    [ Parent ]

    what routine? n/t (none / 0) (#224)
    by Lil on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:13:38 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Awesome! (none / 0) (#92)
    by magnetics on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:49:34 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Why?? (none / 0) (#218)
    by dskinner3 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:58:13 PM EST
    Edwards, Obama, etc. supporters were urged to vote "Uncommitted" on the MI ballot. It was a big push to try to embarrass Clinton by having her lose to "Uncommitted," that failed. Those who took their names off the ballot do not deserve a revote for making a stupid tactical decision.

     If a revote were to take place, any voter who crossed over and voted (R) must not be allowed to vote in the (D) primary. 1 person, 1 vote. Simple.

    [ Parent ]

    That's funny (none / 0) (#138)
    by independent voter on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:12:19 PM EST
    Funny that it is your sentiment, and funny that it was high rated by so many. I thought the whole point was being fair to the VOTERS of FL and MI. AT least that is what so many here contend...everyone is just concerned about the voters having their say.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama prevented any fairness (none / 0) (#227)
    by joanneleon on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:22:02 PM EST
    to the voters.  He blocked any chance of a revote.

    So now, they'll all try to come up with some fair way of dividing the delegates.  Do you think there will be any fairness to the voters in that process?  

    We've also got Obama saying that he'll be the nominee, so he'll have some say in the decisions about MI and FL -- after he's the nominee -- in a process they had no say in!  I'm sure they'll be saying "oh yay!"  

    Oh, yes, that sounds fair to the voters to me!  How about you?!  I'm sure it's just fine with Obama supporters.

    [ Parent ]

    I guess you couldn't tell who I was (none / 0) (#228)
    by independent voter on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:37:29 PM EST
    responding to. To state "it better be fair to Hillary" certainly makes me question what the true motive here is, and it diminishes the argument that this process has been unfair to the voters. Do you understand now?

    [ Parent ]
    Will It Matter? (5.00 / 7) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:55:19 PM EST
    Obama intends to declare victory on May 20 after Oregon. If the uncommitted superdelegates agree and endorse him at that point, he will be declared the nominee. On May 31, he can say sure, seat MI and FL full strength.

    The important thing in my view is to seat FL and MI before the nomination is decided. Otherwise, it's a useless gesture.

    meaning (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:56:22 PM EST
    he will be declared the nominee by the media and party leaders...not officially.

    [ Parent ]
    If people listened to her response (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:05:19 PM EST
    to FOX's Major Garret interview this morning, they will understand the way this process was designed to work and why Hillary remains committed.

    If there truly is a declaration of victory by Obama, it seems that will provide the "last straw" for those who have said they will not vote for him in Nov. His case for victory is nowhere near as logical or within the rules as Hillary's case for continuing on is.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama's gestures are not new (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by thereyougo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:50:02 PM EST
    its same old hype he's been trying to minimize Hillary's winnings and latest thumping Tuesday. After NH, after all the little states he won. He wants  the perception so bad that he's the winner. Meanwhile Hillary keeps chipping away, evidence he doesn't believe in his own hype or we wouldn't see him in Michigan trying to get those illusive working class votes.

    He wants to win the image wars, he believes in the commercial for Nikon: image is everything

    somebody give this guy a reality check.

    He comes across like a slacker.

    Rise Hillary Rise !!

    [ Parent ]

    meaning that may 20 is florida 2000 (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by sancho on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:28:05 PM EST
    all over again, except this time it is the dems doing it to themselves. i dont seen how dems can vote for the winner of such a process. doing so strikes me as self-disenfranchising.

    [ Parent ]
    IMO that will blowback bigtime over the summer (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by Ellie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:28:28 PM EST
    I mentioned in a near full thread, while watching the late-night rerun of the race in WV, the contrast of TeamObama's media and HRC's media.

    HRC's seeding areas that she -- and surrogates -- could revisit in the GE and have bloom in a timely way. (Lots of face time with voters, good footage at nat'l and local level, good pics.)

    Obama won't walk as easily down HRC's blazed trail without blowback. His footage either have scrums chasing him around like he's Mr. Supahstah, or his SPEECH footage shows him using the Inspirational Voice to near snoozy audiences.

    It widens the credibility gap and widens the opportunities for people (even supporters) to start filling it or bridging it with What Went Wrong.

    Whether in WV or MI down the road, he'll come off looking like a politician there for a General Election booty call.

    [ Parent ]

    Shocked, shocked... (none / 0) (#146)
    by lambert on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:14:48 PM EST
    ... that the press would pick our candidate for us; or that a candidate would try to make that happen.

    [ Parent ]
    Interestingly (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:57:41 PM EST
    Unless he gets to 2209, such declarations will look bad and Clinton will not stop.

    I wonder if there will be such a declaration on May 20.

    [ Parent ]

    Howard Dean has now said (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:00:39 PM EST
    he will not accept any "math" that leaves out the Michigan and Florida delegates.

    [ Parent ]
    Various factions of the Party (none / 0) (#35)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:08:42 PM EST
    are drawing lines in the sand.

    On the one hand, it's absolutely exciting; on the other, it seems like a political game of chicken (with the potential for unfortunate outcomes).

    [ Parent ]

    As the Democrats Turn! (none / 0) (#91)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:49:16 PM EST
    If the stakes weren't so darn high, I'd be having the time of my life.

    [ Parent ]
    And only when his words are backed with action (none / 0) (#222)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:09:23 PM EST
    will the DNC donations start up again.


    [ Parent ]
    Should I be encouraged? (none / 0) (#226)
    by Lil on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:21:53 PM EST
    I can't tell anymore. When Hillary wins she loses. Whe Barack loses it all the rage that he will declare victory. I'm stumped.

    [ Parent ]
    After the WV and likely KY thumping (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:01:33 PM EST
    I think it would be unwise indeed.

    [ Parent ]
    It sure would be... (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:03:38 PM EST
    like dissing 17 million voters as racist, uneducated hillbillies with old, scary vaginas, then expecting them to vote for you.

    Obama would never do anything so stupid.

    Oh....wait.....

    [ Parent ]

    I couldn't have ever made such a perfect mess (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:06:35 PM EST
    out of anything in my life to the degree that the leadership has managed to do here.  Not even as a two year old and turned loose in a paint factory.

    [ Parent ]
    Wolfson (I think) has already begun conflating ... (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by dwmorris on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:10:54 PM EST
    a unilateral May 20th victory proclamation from Obama with Bush's "Mission Accomplished" stunt.

    Hopefully, they'll back down.

    [ Parent ]

    Wolfson (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:22:13 PM EST
    has been fantastic at staying on message with this.

    Her campaign has finally become worthy of her. Demoting/tossing Mark Penn and Patty Solis-Doyle were clearly the right moves.

    [ Parent ]

    Why would they back down? (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by lambert on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:13:19 PM EST
    Address our concerns, if you want us to back down.

    [ Parent ]
    Huh? (none / 0) (#173)
    by dwmorris on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:25:48 PM EST
    Hopefully the Obama campaign will back down and not unilaterally declare victory on 5/20.

    [ Parent ]
    I think lambert (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:38:54 PM EST
    thought you were talking about Wolfson backing down. :-)

    [ Parent ]
    I'm afraid he's going to... (none / 0) (#198)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:44:04 PM EST
    Here's today's spin from the Obama camp.
    Great piece of fiction

    TO: Interested Parties
    FR: The Obama Campaign
    RE: West Virginia and Obama's Strong Position in the Race Ahead
    DA: 5/13/08

    West Virginia

    There is no question that Senator Clinton is going to win by huge margins in the upcoming primaries in West Virginia today and Kentucky next weeks. She has poured resources into both states and she, former President Clinton, and Chelsea Clinton have all campaigned extraordinarily hard there.

    The Clinton campaign has already been touting their margins in these states - In fact, Bill Clinton said that Hillary can win West Virginia with 80 percent--and the West Virginia Senate Majority Leader said Clinton needs to win by "80-20 or 90-10." And in keeping large margins in perspective, it is worth noting that, while Senator Clinton will win big in West Virginia, Barack Obama won neighboring Virginia by 29 points.

    But with 49 contests behind us and only six to go -- including several states where we expect to do well -- Barack Obama leads in pledged delegates, contests won, and superdelegates. And for perspective, while 28 pledged delegates are up for grabs this evening, Obama has won the support of 27 superdelegates in the course of just the last week putting him less than 150 total delegates away from clinching the Democratic nomination.

    Obama's Strong Position in the Race Ahead

    Nationally, Obama is running stronger among Independent voters than any winning Presidential candidate since 1988 and is significantly outperforming Sen. Clinton among these voters as well in general election polling.

    To understand a potential general election match-up between Obama and McCain, the only analysis and data that should be considered valid are the current head-to-head National polls rather than extrapolating irrelevant assumptions from exit poll data in Democratic primaries.

    And, on the issue of Democratic unity in the Fall, analysts need only consider that in April of 1992, on a night when Bill Clinton won four primaries and was the presumptive nominee, 6 in 10 Democratic primary voters said they wanted another candidate in the race. Despite this, five months later, Democratic voters were unified behind Clinton and he won his first of two terms in office.

    Debunking Five Myths About Obama's Support

    MYTH 1: The Primary has left Democrats divided.

    FACT: Democrats are united behind Barack Obama, even more so than Republicans are united behind McCain

    • May 12 Washington Post poll shows that Obama wins 81% of Democrats in a matchup against John McCain.

    • Indeed, more Republicans crossover to vote for Obama (15%) than do Democrats for McCain (13%).

    · NOTE: In 1996, Bill Clinton won 84% of Democrats.

    MYTH 2: The Primary campaign has hurt Obama with swing voters and Republicans:

    FACT: Obama is winning the swing voters against McCain by a wide margin.

    * Obama holds a 51-42 lead among Independents in the Washington Post poll.

    · NOTE: Clinton loses 46-49 to McCain among Independents.

    * Not since 1988, when George Bush beat Michael Dukakis 57-43 among Independents, has a candidate won such a large margin among swing voters.

    · In his two victories, Clinton only managed a 6-point margin over the Republican among independents in 1992 and an 8-point margin in 1996.

    · Indeed, no Democrat has won a majority of Independent voters since exit polls were first conducted in 1976.

    MYTH 3: Obama cannot perform strongly enough among white voters:

    FACT: Obama's is running as well or better than past Democratic Candidates among white voters.

    * LA Times (May 8) Obama: 41

    McCain: 45

    * Wash Post (May 13): Obama: 42

    McCain: 51

    * 2004 Exit polls: Kerry: 41

    Bush: 58

    * 2000 Exit Polls: Gore: 43

    Bush: 54

    * 1996 Exit polls: Clinton: 43

    Dole: 46

    * 1992 Exit polls: Clinton: 39

    Bush: 41

    Perot: 20

    MYTH 4: The race against Clinton has compromised Obama's position among women:

    FACT: Obama has begun attracting the support of a broad coalition of women and is poised to win historic margins.

    * Wash Post (May 13): Obama: 54

    McCain: 40

    * New York Times (May 3) Obama: 47

    McCain: 39

    * NOTE: No Democratic candidate has won women by so large a margin since exit polling was first conducted in 1976. The closest any candidate has come was in 2000, when Al Gore won women 54-43 over George Bush

    MYTH 5: Obama cannot win working class voters:

    FACT: Obama is already winning working class voters

    * In the recent LA Times poll, Obama wins every income group under $100,000.

    Obama McCain

    · <$40K: 43 35

    · $40K-$59K 43 40

    · $60K-$100K 51 42

    · $101K+ 46 47

    * According to the Washington Post/ABC poll released today, despite Sen. Clinton's insistence that she is stronger among white, working-class voters the data shows that Sen. Obama performs nearly as well as she does in the general election. Among white, non-college voters in this poll:

    · Obama vs. McCain is 40-52

    · Clinton vs. McCain is 44- 52

    [ Parent ]

    What a bunch of crap. (none / 0) (#207)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:51:47 PM EST
    I expect no less from Obama now, unfortunately.

    • No, Bill did not say she could win WV by 80%.
    • Obama compares himself to everyone but Hillary Clinton, against whom he is, much to his regret, actually running instead of Bill Clinton, Michael Dukakis, John Kerry, etc. etc. etc.

    Meanwhile, Obama's team continues to pretend he can win HRC's Clinton Dem coalition by saying he's already winning it. No, he isn't...and no, he can't.

    Very, very sad.

    [ Parent ]

    Sam Stein analyzes whether (none / 0) (#209)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:53:22 PM EST
    Obama really needs the votes of Jews.  I didn't read it, but was astounded by the headline.

    [ Parent ]
    Whaaaaa? (none / 0) (#212)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:55:19 PM EST
    Yet another group of voters that are not good enough for the New Plutocratic Party?

    I'm flummoxed.

    [ Parent ]

    just finished a dnc conference call (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Klio on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:13:13 PM EST
    where the 'mathematically impossible' question was raised by someone in South Dakota.  What came out of the organizational explanation is that MI and FL will be seated in some fashion, but not at 100% so the number is neither 2025 nor 2209.  

    But I think it helpful, and also quite interesting, that seating all the states' delegations is being talked about openly now.  

    I had to correct the DNC lady who went on to say that Hillary  needed 90% of all remaining pledged delegates, pointing out that if they're agreeing to seat MI & FL in some fashion, though the percentages to be gained remain daunting it won't be 90%.  She agreed to the correction ....

    I'm sure someone knows this, but what is Obama's rosiest delegate scenario on May 20th?

    [ Parent ]

    Yep (none / 0) (#95)
    by Lou Grinzo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:50:34 PM EST
    I think what you heard tells us exactly how it will go (as did Jeralyn above): The DNC will cook the books in a way that they can seat MI and FL without changing the outcome.  

    Obama will be anointed the nominee.

    The talking points from his supporters will instantly shift to: If Obama wins less than 48 states in November it's all the fault of Clinton's supporters, and they should be lashed with a wet noodle, or some such.

    Personally, I've made peace with this a while ago.  I voted for Clinton in the NY primary, simply because I thought she would make the best president among those still in the race.  If Obama becomes our nominee, no matter how much I think the process stinks on ice, I will still vote for him, as I refuse to give any support whatsoever to McCain and the SC nominees he will pick.

    I don't like how this is shaking out, but I see no way even the Clintons and all of their supporters can overcome the DNC's intent.
    What is The Cost of Energy?
    [ Parent ]

    Popular vote totals (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:55:03 PM EST
    could be a very convincing argument. Let's wait to see how it shakes out.

    I understand EXACTLY what you're saying here, but I really think HRC could pull it off.

    And if Obama really does declare victory on May 20th, all bets are off.

    [ Parent ]

    I think they'll stay on the path (none / 0) (#19)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:01:17 PM EST
    to electoral suicide and uselessly coronate himself on May 20th.

    I will be very happy, and more likely to vote for him, if Obama cancels that plan.

    [ Parent ]

    That sounds like a circus sideshow (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:10:18 PM EST
    Yes, allow the votes but only after we select a nominee, and they don't matter.

    If they don't affect the outcome of the election then why even bother with this obvious pandering.

    [ Parent ]

    Am I mistaken (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:09:55 PM EST
    Or don't the rules provide that the person with the 50% +1 of delegate votes cast at the Convention is the nominee?  And aren't super-delegates free to change their minds as many times as they want up until the official vote?


    [ Parent ]
    You Are Not Mistaken (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by BDB on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:13:13 PM EST
    In fact, not only can SDs change their mind, so can pledged delegates.  Until the convention votes, there is no nominee.  There is only a presumptive nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    Yup - I plan to ignore any (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:26:09 PM EST
    proclamations of victory until then.  

    [ Parent ]
    so he would say seat them and let them (none / 0) (#11)
    by bjorn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:57:56 PM EST
    count, but the number is still 2025?  That would be the same as not seating them, right?

    [ Parent ]
    how do you know he intends to do so? (none / 0) (#14)
    by coigue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:59:25 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Washington Post said so (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:02:22 PM EST
    here:

    The Obama campaign calculates that a victory May 20 in Oregon will give the Illinois senator a majority of pledged delegates to go with his lead in the popular vote, permitting him to declare victory despite losing West Virginia tonight and an expected loss in Kentucky on May 20.

    Have read it elsewhere too.

    [ Parent ]

    His 48 States (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Athena on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:04:42 PM EST
    Let him declare a 48-state victory.  The rest of us - and Hillary - are waiting for 50.

    [ Parent ]
    He's missing 9 (none / 0) (#33)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:06:40 PM EST
    according his math. ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    than most of you have been alive.  Last I heard, it was not the custom for a candidate to declare victory at all.  The victor waited off stage until after the last roll call vote--in fact, after the roll call vote to formally make the nomination unanimous.

    [ Parent ]
    It's that new kind of politics! (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by lambert on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:16:58 PM EST
    Get close enough to make a plausible case, make the claim, lie back, and let our famously free press start fluffing!

    Fine word, "legitimate"....

    [ Parent ]

    Look at McCain. (none / 0) (#160)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:20:41 PM EST
    With a lead of more than 1200 over Mike Huckabee, he is still the "presumptive nominee." That's the way it's done.

    [ Parent ]
    that says nothing of his intentions (none / 0) (#29)
    by coigue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:05:36 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Try this link below. (none / 0) (#36)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:08:46 PM EST
    thanks (none / 0) (#46)
    by coigue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:13:37 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Majority of pledged delegates is different (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:06:20 PM EST
    that is not 2025 and if FL and MI are not counted he can not even claim that.

    [ Parent ]
    He Can Claim Anything He Wants (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by BDB on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:21:40 PM EST
    And as I understand it, his plan is to declare victory on May 20th because he believes he will have won the majority of pledged delegates (not counting MI & FL) and believes he will have enough SDs to get to 2025.

    Is that right?  No.  Has he really won?  No.  

    That's why I keep calling it his Mission Accomplished plan.  He's simply going to declare victory and hope the party goes along.  Now, any self-respecting party would not only NOT go along, it would lessen his chances of being the nominee.  Thankfully for Obama he's a democrat so self-respect won't enter into it.

    [ Parent ]

    I think Hillary's victory and (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:29:36 PM EST
    especially her speech last night will effectively keep the SDs int he freezer until June.  
    The subtext of her tone and speech was 'don't you dare do this before it is over.  I will bury you.'

    [ Parent ]
    And frankly, if he can get it, he should go ahead and agree on FL and MI cuz he will then get 2210.

    [ Parent ]
    Looks Like He Isn't Going to Make It (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by BDB on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:11:04 PM EST
    Childers is a Super D. How ironic. (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:17:10 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Sheesh! (none / 0) (#99)
    by magnetics on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:53:40 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I could be wrong (none / 0) (#24)
    by standingup on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:04:28 PM EST
    but I thought Obama had been backing off the May 20 declaration recently.  I'll have to do some checking but I could swear there were statements that suggested he had recognized the potential for that creating more of a problem than it would solve.  

    [ Parent ]
    On NPR this a.m., they played a recording (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:16:28 PM EST
    pf a man in Missouri asking if Obama would select "Mrs. Clinton" as his VP.  Obama sd. it would be presumptious of him to talk about that before he gets the nomination.  

    [ Parent ]
    I believe it might (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by standingup on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:50:54 PM EST
    have been some of the comments made on May 9 that are covered in this from the Chicago Tribune.  

    Still, Obama brushed aside a new Time magazine cover with the words "And The Winner Is..." on a grinning picture of the senator.

    "I don't want to be jinxed. We've still got some work to do," Obama responded.

    But the campaign plans to drum in the idea that he is, in fact, the victor by marking a series of milestones in the coming weeks.

     

    Possibly a little more wishful thinking on my part than anything else.  I was on vacation in NYC an just catching bits and pieces of the news.  I was hoping Obama was smart enough to allow all the states to finish the primary voting since we are so close to the end.  I believe any sort of premature announcement will only work to further alienate and divide the party for the general election.  

    [ Parent ]

    Seems to have turned off WV voters (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:58:08 PM EST
    big time.

    [ Parent ]
    That would be the equivalent of the (none / 0) (#194)
    by felizarte on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:37:53 PM EST
    MISSION ACCOMPLISHED sign of W. Bush.

    [ Parent ]