home

FL Delegates Sue DNC Over Delegate Strip

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:59:35 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Remember Bob Bauer (PDF) on the Voting Rights Act pre-clearance problem for revotes in Michigan and Florida? Well, some Florida delegates seem to think he had a point. They are suing the DNC:

Three Florida delegates, including the state's Senate Democratic leader have filed a federal lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee claiming the DNC violated their constitutional rights by barring them from the party's national convention.

More...

. . . The lawsuit claims there are rules which the DNC is obliged to follow but did not, along with certain U.S. Constitutional rights the veteran state lawmaker and party super delegate contends are being violated. The litigation takes aim at three essential issues: 1. The DNC broke its own rules by not investigating the events that led to Florida's ealy vote before punishing the state. 2. Even though Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina also broke the same party rules by moving up their primaries, they were not sanctioned as Florida was, but were instead granted a waiver by the DNC from any such penalties. 3. As the controversy unfolded, the DNC maintained that Florida should have held a post-primary Caucus. Doing so, Geller argued, likely would have resulted in only about 100,000 votes being counted, a tiny fraction of the 1.75 million voters who turned out in January, while at the same time, completely disenfranchising Florida Democrats in our country’s military serving outside of Florida.

Points 1 and 2 are non-starters as legal issues imo. The courts have no jurisdiction over those issues. Point 3 is where the Voting Rights Act MIGHT come into play. But my first impression is this is a sideshow. No court is going to do anything in time to matter. I'll try and take a better look later.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only.

< More On the Malign Acceptance of Sexism | How to Thwart Hillary's "Evil" Plan On FL/MI >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    FL Delegates Sue DNC Over Delegate Strip | 140 comments (140 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I've been battling this all day (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:03:52 PM EST
    Everyone over at another unnamed blog, who we both used to post at, when they saw this were like "Clinton's at it again!" despite the fact that the person bringing it is uncommitted, and it includes an Obama delegate.

    I agree with you that this is largely a fools errand, though.

    Swords Crossed? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:07:54 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    na (none / 0) (#7)
    by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:11:28 PM EST
    the so-called Obama blog

    [ Parent ]
    Same attitude at Orange re Nevada suit (5.00 / 0) (#92)
    by Cream City on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:14:11 PM EST
    when I researched it carefully and came to the conclusion that the custodians and teachers had a darn good point about having to staff the caucus school buildings that kept them from getting to their own caucus sites.  And there were other good points made in that suit -- which was in the works long before the last-minute union endorsement in Nevada that the Orangeboyz said was the cause for the Clintons to support voters wanting to vote.

    More evidence of how poorly the Orangeboyz have acquitted themselves since early days in this campaign.  I knew then that any remnants of its claim to being progressive, to getting out the vote and counting the votes, were gone.  So, so was I.

    [ Parent ]

    americablog? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:13:34 PM EST
    A is outdoing himself today.  it worth a look just to see how low they can go.

    [ Parent ]
    no no no lol (none / 0) (#17)
    by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:16:04 PM EST
    Though I haven't been there for a while because he got obnoxious.  I mean I voted for Obama, but largely because that was my whim for that day.  I could have voted for either candidate on any given day through this entire process.

    i mean kos (i guess i should just say it instead of being cute and wasting more comment space, heh)

    [ Parent ]

    you really need to check out the other (none / 0) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:18:27 PM EST
    it is a case study today of everything BTD has been talking about.

    [ Parent ]
    Capt.- that used to be my fav blog, (none / 0) (#130)
    by kenosharick on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:18:39 PM EST
    until I was chased off. I check in occasionally and think they have serious mental issues. If you knew nothing of American politics and read thatblog only, you would think Hillary is worse than hitler,bin laden, and stalin all rolled into one. It would be funny if it was not so pathetic and sad. I fear what these people might do when Obama loses in Nov.

    [ Parent ]
    Cheetoh Central? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ellie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:22:50 PM EST
    Gawd I wish they had a different color scheme. Not much of a Cheetoh eater, but many of my faves come in that color and even mere seconds of the association is wrecking my fun.

    Thanks for the FL updates, BTD. I'm experiencing Toob silence today. I didn't think it was possible for voting Floridians to be MORE PO'd than '00 but this has achieved it.

    Were I invested in a Dem win, I'd urge nothing less than full seating of MI and FL or the GE blowback will be fierce should the coronation take place as pre-planned.

    (BO's GE-mode campaign shift is starting with kissing a LOT of injured @ss. It's not a flattering posture for him other than in the verbal sense but the upside is, he's taking a recognizable position on something.)

    [ Parent ]

    That was funny (none / 0) (#12)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:13:38 PM EST
    I agree with you. Points 1 and 2 are nonstarters. Point 3 is valid only if a court is willing to say that all caucuses are outlawed. But the point Geller makes there, interestingly enough, is precisely the same point I've been making all along here -- that counting the number of caucus participants as equal in standing to the number of voters in states that hold primaries is intellectually dishonest. That's why, among other reasons, the popular vote is so silly an argument.

    McCain
    [ Parent ]
    I think (none / 0) (#58)
    by Valhalla on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:44:44 PM EST
    Point 3 can be valid without invalidating other caucuses.  Florida has a primary system and people voted in it.  To sub in a caucus is to take away votes already cast.  Other states provide for caucuses (or both primary and) from the get-go.  The issue is whether a caucus in Florida vs a primary in Florida violates the law.

    [ Parent ]
    If the DNC forced FL (none / 0) (#101)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:24:19 PM EST
    to caucus, and prohibited another primary, that would be a different case. So far as I can tell, Florida wasn't prohibited from proposing and holding another primary.

    McCain
    [ Parent ]
    Voting Machines (none / 0) (#117)
    by solon on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:14:45 PM EST
    They could not hold another primary because some of the counties in Florida got rid of their voting machines. Those counties will be getting new machines for the fall election but not sooner.

    According to CNN,  the Florida bill to move up the primary to January also contained a provision to swap out voting machines in 15 counties, nullifying any chance of a revote with voting machines.

    [ Parent ]

    That doesn't equate with the DNC (none / 0) (#119)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:20:44 PM EST
    prohibiting a revote. In legal parlance that would be called bootstrapping yourself into a claim.

    McCain
    [ Parent ]
    The point was not to equate.... (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by solon on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:35:55 PM EST
    Just that certain revotes were not possible because of practical considerations.

    [ Parent ]
    But consider this: there is no (none / 0) (#67)
    by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:48:56 PM EST
    obvious bias towards Obama in the distribution of caucus states, and yet he fared far better in those than in the primary states. If Obama were actually the choice of the majority of Democratic voters, than ought to show up in the primary vote totals. It doesn't, which means Clinton's claim has some legitimacy.


    [ Parent ]
    I wouldn't be so sure (none / 0) (#94)
    by talex on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:17:37 PM EST
    about #1. If there are rules by contract that both parties must abide by the then plaintiffs could have a case. Obviously the DNC carried out it's rights according to the rules by contract and also must abide by what rules they must abide by.

    I saw Terry" McAuliffe on TV not so long ago also saying that the rules dictated that the DNC could only penalize each offending state 50% of it's delegates, not all. If that is true I wonder why that is not being included in the law suit. Unless the plantiffs don't want to open the door to that being the remedy.

    [ Parent ]

    they're (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:33:11 PM EST
    running everybody off with that stuff.

    [ Parent ]
    Since I didn't get to comment (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:06:13 PM EST
    on the previous thread...thanks for being one of the few male bloggers who talks about sexism in an honest way.

    As for this lawsuit, well...it may be of dubious legal merit, but maybe, just maybe, it will help the DNC get the point?

    I don't know if anything will, but I remain hopeful.

    Exactly. Whether parts are dismissed (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Cream City on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:20:32 PM EST
    is not the point.  Voters are having to sue their party to get their votes to count.  That is the appalling low to which Dean and Prima Donna Brazile and the rest of the fools have brought down, for the sake of a foolish agenda, the Democratic Party.  Good for those behind this suit in helping to exposed the inner machinations to push a protege of the Chicago machine and the Kerry/Kennedy machine -- together again ala 1960.

    Good for those behind this suit for standing up for our military overseas to be able to participate in the processes of democracy for which they fight and die -- and I hope that there are amicus curiae briefs to come from groups for the disabled, the elderly (hey, AARP, get on it), and many others whose votes are suppressed by caucuses.

    This is the way to truly push the powers-that-be in the Dem party to start even discussing really changing its processes that have proved that it does not live up to its principles in many ways.

    [ Parent ]

    at least they tried... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:06:33 PM EST
    Why even try to do anything if a kool blogger will just call it a sideshow?

    Rachel Maddow just lied on TV (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:07:32 PM EST
    She said that the Clinton campaign agreed to seat half the delegates in FL and MI.

    I say lie because I KNOW Rachel Maddow knows that is false. She is an embarrassment.

    Gawd... (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:14:24 PM EST
    there's another pundit type I thought was exceptional, who turned out to be just another careerist.

    [ Parent ]
    she h as set the bar (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:15:02 PM EST
    extremely low.  her and Aravosis.  a tossup.


    [ Parent ]
    ahh rachael, you so want to be a kool kid. snark! (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by hellothere on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:25:38 PM EST
    it won't happen. you see, your cross your legs dear and you don't do football, etc with the boys. to be blunt, you aren't one of the boys and therein lies your failure. but you bravely show up at obamacentral everynight with your caustic comments all ready to go. you want to play with the rest of the kids. i know how it is. hillary could fill you in if only you'd stop talking and listen.

    [ Parent ]
    If you're selling out doing it for MSNBC is sad (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by Ellie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:41:41 PM EST
    Gawd, is MSNBC really what Maddow would trash her own talent and integrity for?

    OTOH, since no one watches it maybe the method behind the madness is the same as big stars doing a stupid commercial in Japan that will be contained to Asia.

    Rachel Maddow for Super Fun Wow Lie-News Pocky Yes!

    [ Parent ]

    i can't and won't watch her. (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by hellothere on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:51:16 PM EST
    whatever cred she had is gone. that is what so many of the marvelous exponents of cool fail to see. cool doesn't work well except in the movies. karma comes knocking and if being rude to hillary is all you've got, that won't pay the mortgage for long.

    [ Parent ]
    When Maddow's interchangeable with Gloria Borger (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Ellie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:59:07 PM EST
    ... you know these are strange days indeed.

    Well her little gig (and I do mean ...) will stink through her CV before long.

    My toobs (which have been down all day) just powered up long enough to catch Glo(ria)Bo(rger) in action on the Sitch with Wolfe.

    She was on a panel and clearly on the periphery of the conversaton; had to keep jumping to try to get in on it.

    One on one Maddow gets to put in her few cents but eventually it'll be her being "tolerated" by the panel of guys.

    [ Parent ]

    Toss in Randi Rhodes (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by talex on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:20:52 PM EST
    for good measure. Another kool kid ego maniac who is not above spreading falsehoods.

    [ Parent ]
    Just FYI re Maddow: (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by chancellor on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:05:50 PM EST
    budhydharma is running around the blogosphere trying to get bloggers to sign a petition for Maddow to have her own show on MSNBC. Calls her a great progressive voice. Seems many are being suckered in; a few are not.

    [ Parent ]
    rachel will never get a show. (none / 0) (#129)
    by hellothere on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:12:43 PM EST
    she couldn't bring in the numbers desired.

    [ Parent ]
    Hmm (none / 0) (#8)
    by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:12:28 PM EST
    I won't be surprised if the Clinton campaign ultimately agreed on this, but I would be surprised if they said so publicly before the meeting on the 31st.

    [ Parent ]
    I know they did not (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:29:40 PM EST
    I criticized them for it.

    [ Parent ]
    What was their logic? (none / 0) (#44)
    by CST on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:34:51 PM EST
    For not accepting 50%?

    I don't really get that since it's pretty clear that in order to get the DNC to go along with it there will have to be some kind of penalty attatched.

    If you posted about it before, I'm sorry, I guess I missed it.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, personally my theory is (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:36:00 PM EST
    Even if they're willing to accept 50% you don't necessarily start compromising before even getting to the negotiating table.

    [ Parent ]
    Ok (none / 0) (#51)
    by CST on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:39:03 PM EST
    But I was under the impression by BTD's post that they rejected it flat out.  Maybe I am mistaken there.  It doesn't seem to me like you should flat-out reject something you may later compromise on.

    [ Parent ]
    Sure you do (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by talex on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:24:55 PM EST
    Rejecting an offer is rule 'A' of Negotiating 101. One can always change their mind.

    [ Parent ]
    The y flat out rejectedd the MI deal (none / 0) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:50:36 PM EST
    The FLorida deal is only now being offered by Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Rumor had it (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by ghost2 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:52:37 PM EST
    split Michigan 50-50, and give 1/2 delegates to Florida. That would have been crazy.  

    Look, the DNC kept ignoring this problem hoping that it would go away.  That someone will clinch the nomination and the issue would be moot.

    Meanwhile, the Obama campaign kept stalling.  They kept FL and MI off the table, and in doing so, them and their friends in media kept telling Hillary to get out.  

    If Michigan solution was fair (as opposed to stupid political and bankrupt idea of 50-50), I think Hillary would have taken a half delegate solution in January/February, even in early March.  Most of the uncommitted are for Obama anyhow.  

    If Dean had a clue, he would have used his megaphone to push a solution, and gotten the two campaigns to accept it. But perhaps, there was too much manauvering behind the scence.  I don't think there any objective person left at DNC.

    After all the obstructions, now it's only fair to seat all the delegates.  Obama camp is now floating the half-solution (with their logic, it would reduce Hillary's margin to about single digits), so that it doesn't threaten their position.  

     

    [ Parent ]

    It was actually 69-59 (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:50:01 PM EST
    Not 50-50. so Rachel's lie was not even correct in the basis  of what was turned down.

    [ Parent ]
    It's possible she might have heard (none / 0) (#19)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:17:28 PM EST
    something that you haven't, isn't it?

    McCain
    [ Parent ]
    It was a possibility (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:25:52 PM EST
    That was considered for the last time when they were pulling stuff out of their tush about how Clinton might be responsible for the Obama passport breach.

    Well.  They have no credibility now.  Who knows what's true?

    [ Parent ]

    "out of their tush" (none / 0) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:28:52 PM EST
    ha!
    great minds edgar.
    see below

    [ Parent ]
    Nope (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:28:41 PM EST
    Not on this issue.

    I know the Clinton position and statements better than she ever could.

    [ Parent ]

    You know what you heard on the conference (none / 0) (#74)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:51:28 PM EST
    call this morning. But didn't Wolfson refuse to discuss Clinton's submission to the DNC? Aren't these conference calls really just a means to get talking points out primarily?

    How do you know that nobody inside the Clinton campaign leaked information to Rachel? I mean, I've seen where a campaign insider admitted that the campaign was over in February. You certainly aren't going to hear Wolfson or Ickes say that during a conference call!

    McCain
    [ Parent ]

    Would someone please post the settlement (none / 0) (#26)
    by Christy1947 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:25:29 PM EST
    history on MI and FLA. Some of us who have not followed this are getting confused. Who offered what in which order? And who was prepared to accept which one.  Please.

    [ Parent ]
    I little history (none / 0) (#43)
    by nellre on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:34:34 PM EST
    Clinton Makes a Play for Florida's Democrats
    Jan 28 2008

    "Florida will once again be a battleground state, and I want the voters in Florida to know that I hear them. Hundreds of thousands of Floridians have already voted, so clearly they are taking this seriously, and they believe their voices are going to be heard and should be counted, and I agree with them," Clinton said.

    but the "journalist" opines as her conclusion

    Right now, Clinton is fighting hard for every advantage she can get -- even in a state that awards no delegates at all. She is hoping that she can spin her showing in Florida as a victory -- something that will take the sting out of her big loss in South Carolina and give her, at least, the perception of momentum going into the big Feb. 5 contests -- where nearly 1,700 real delegates will be elected.

    emphasis mine.

    Here is the pledge they all signed
    Responses to the Four State Pledge Letter 2008
    Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Carolina
    August 31, 2007

    The following is a statement by Clinton Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle.

    "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process.

    And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.

    Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."



    [ Parent ]
    It started before that late January article (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:42:38 PM EST
    with Hillary Clinton having ALWAYS believed the votes should count in FL and MI.

    Earlier thread today had a good link to the information. Maybe search for it.

    [ Parent ]

    It was in (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by pie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:45:22 PM EST
    a Salon article on Jan. 15, 2008. I believe.  (War Room?)

    [ Parent ]
    Are you sure (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:34:59 PM EST
    you are in the right party? I'm beginning to wonder if I've made some huge mistakes in the past.

    [ Parent ]
    The ROOLZ do state that an investigation (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:13:33 PM EST
    is to be conducted and they just refused to do it. I have wondered why they were allowed to get away with that. And wasn't their refusal to re-vote via caucus what sent DB into a rage at that meeting where they stripped all delegates? The way FL has been dealt with is a travesty.

    The rules also said the penalty was to be 50% of (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by jawbone on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:30:13 PM EST
    delegate votes instead of 100%, but the DNC chose to make up new ad hoc Roolz.

    What was up with that?

    [ Parent ]

    Roolz also said if investigation showed that (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:35:15 PM EST
    the FL Dems acted in good faith to comply, there would be ZERO penalty. Guess that's why they wouldn't investigate! Maddening!!!!!

    [ Parent ]
    Roolz also state no TV ads but IOKIYBO (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by Josey on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:12:46 PM EST
    Can you imagine the outcry if Hillary had aired TV ads??


    [ Parent ]
    Careful, this is confusing (none / 0) (#104)
    by Cream City on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:25:51 PM EST
    DNC rules with the four state parties' pledge.  The pledge discusses advertising -- yes, Obama ought to be penalized, plus for the press conference also delineated in the pledge -- but the DNC rules do not.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:43:41 PM EST
    the DNC rules most certainly do discuss advertising.

    I quoted them to Kid Oakland the other day who was blatantly lying that Obama had not campaigned in Florida according to the rules.

    [ Parent ]

    Relevant to this poster's point above? (none / 0) (#115)
    by Cream City on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:03:12 PM EST
    I realized belatedly that, yes, DNC rules discuss advertising -- but not in the terms that the pledge does, correct?  (If not, do correct me -- as I looked at them a while back and didn't see advertising discussed in this pledge's terms.)

    [ Parent ]
    I will quote the rules (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:12:50 PM EST
    A presidential candidate who campaigns in a state where the state party is in violation of the timing provisions of these rules, or where a primary or caucus is set by a state's government on a date that violates the timing provisions of these rules, may not receive pledged delegates or delegate votes from that state. Candidates may, however, campaign in such a state after the primary or caucus that violates these rules. "Campaigning" for purposes of this section includes, but is not limited to, purchasing print, internet, or electronic advertising that reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state; hiring campaign workers; opening an office; making public appearances; holding news conferences; coordinating volunteer activities; sending mail, other than fundraising requests that are also sent to potential donors in other states; using paid or volunteer phoners or automated calls to contact voters; sending emails or establishing a website specific to that state; holding events to which Democratic voters are invited; attending events sponsored by state or local Democratic organizations; or paying for campaign materials to be used in such a state.

    Accordingly, if you take the rules literally - and I'm not pretending that they would necessarily be enforced as written in all cases - even without a pledge, Obama would be automatically barred from getting any FL delegates because of his ads that were carried on TV in Florida.  The fact that it was a national ad buy, and not targeted at Florida, is rendered meaningless by the language of the rule itself.

    [ Parent ]

    Aha, great find -- (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Cream City on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:31:09 AM EST
    that looks like a DNC rule that provided the wording adapted to the several states' pledge.

    I do think, therefore, that the DNC ought to penalize the candidate who not only advertised in Florida (national buy is no excuse; then do regional or local buys) but also held a press conference in Florida, only a day after he signed the pledge.  I kept waiting for the stock excuse that his staff must have signed the pledge for him.

    I would like to see the Florida appeal amended to include this penalty.  Good bargaining point.

    [ Parent ]

    will this do? (none / 0) (#118)
    by Josey on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:20:34 PM EST
    1/21/2008
    Statement By The Clinton Campaign On Senator Obama's Violation Of The Early State Pledge

    excerpt -
    The early state pledge was crystal clear in its prohibition against any kind of campaign activity (outside of fundraising) in states that do not adhere to the DNC calendar. There is no ambiguity. Among the list of prohibited activities are "electronic advertising that reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state." (According to Nielsen, there are 6,6 million TV households in Florida that receive CNN through either local cable systems or satellite dishes. This represents 92% of all Florida TV households.) The Obama campaign knows this, but has chosen to violate the pledge regardless.
    http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=5374

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly -- state pledge, not DNC rule (nt) (none / 0) (#134)
    by Cream City on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:27:44 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    sue them and then sue them again. (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by hellothere on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:27:42 PM EST
    the more the other side yelps the better. get on camera and tell your side over and over and over. that's what the media does to us. hand meet arm.

    Is it too late to get that investigation (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:29:29 PM EST
    completed? Why would they not do one unless they were part of the plan to convert those two states to caucus votes for Obama?

    [ Parent ]
    whatever they have done or planned, the (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by hellothere on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:39:55 PM EST
    sure don't want the court of public opinion to weigh in.

    [ Parent ]
    If they won't be honest about this (none / 0) (#57)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:44:29 PM EST
    they end up not only with "the court of public opinion" weighing in, but weighing in on whatever scenario they can imagine as logical.


    [ Parent ]
    exactly! let the people get a real good look (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by hellothere on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:46:47 PM EST
    at what we policial junkies see and discuss everyday. won't their eyebrows go up?

    [ Parent ]
    I think new effort is mostly to get MCM attention (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by jawbone on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:32:19 PM EST
    It's made the ABC online site; whether it will get air time is quite another thing.

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:38:25 PM EST
    that's probably the point and in that case it's working. MI and FL have made the Dean led DNC to look like a bunch of pikers.

    [ Parent ]
    I just saw Stephen Geller, (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Practically Lactating on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:26:10 PM EST
    the uncommitted SD, on CNN and I thought he did an excellent job of succinctly and cogently making the case to seat these delegates.

    Jeffery Toobin said he disagreed with Geller on the legal merits but agreed on the political merits, that the DNC is going to have a major problem in November if they don't fix this. Dobbs agreed. Dobbs criticized Dean, but Toobin said at this point, it is really up to Barack Obama to show some leadership since he is the frontrunner.

    I don't care about the legal merits. This lawsuit is a means to give voice to those that believe these delegates need to be seated. On this front, I was very happy with the coverage on CNN.

    VRA not raised in the complaint (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:33:18 PM EST
    Here is a link to the actual complaint.  The violations are based on equal protection (as in favoring one state over the other, when both are similarly situated) and due process, not VRA so not limited to race and ethnicity/language at all.  VRA is rather irrelevant to the suit.

    http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/broward/blog/gellersuit.pdf

    Further, I see great potential in objecting to any caucuses in FL becuase of the substantial elderly population.  Caucuses are inherently discriminatory against older voters.  As we have seen nationwide, they heavily favor the much younger segment of the population.  Also, they are discriminatory against disabled people.

    This is my first post but have been reading here for some time.  I am a definite Hillary supporter and am just beside myself.  I also lived in FL and practiced law there. I cannot believe that the DNC actually did this, full well knowing how the early date was driven by the FL Republican legislature.  That is well documented.  

    Actually (none / 0) (#111)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:48:22 PM EST
    Paragraphs 109-140 discuss the VRA.

    [ Parent ]
    iirc (none / 0) (#120)
    by Josey on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:35:00 PM EST
    wasn't there some hoopla maybe in 2004(?) about some elderly Floridians voting twice in FL & NY.
    Of course nothing is mentioned about the potential for students voting/caucusing in college precincts and again in their home states.


    [ Parent ]
    VRA is not dispostive (5.00 / 0) (#116)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:06:55 PM EST
    I reviewed the complaint filed and the allegations are constitutionally based on equal protection and due process, NOT really VRA so not so limited.  VRA is mentioned more as a procedural hurdle to sudden change to caucus procedure recommended by the DNC.

    I see a real problem with caucuses in FL in that they are inherently discriminatory against the elderly.  FL has a substantial elderly population and a grueling day at a caucus is not something most elderly can or will do.  As we have seen nationally, caucuses are heavily attended by young people precisely because of this.  Also, elderly often access absentee ballots.  No absentee ballots are available for causuces.  I see no mention of this in the complaint. Caucuses also are discriminatory toward disabled individuals for the same reasons.  All this supports an equal protection violation beside the precise one asserted in the complaint for the substantive allegation.    

    I really don't see how the (none / 0) (#131)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:29:13 PM EST
    caucus can be an issue as to Florida since none was ever held.  

    In the absence of a VRA claim, I don't see any meritorious claim here.  I don't do Constitutional work but an Equal Protection claim would at a minimum require evidence of a disproportionate impact on a suspect class.  Here, the impact was universal.

    Of course that didn't stop SCOTUS in Bush v. Gore.

    [ Parent ]

    I really don't see how (none / 0) (#132)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:42:41 PM EST
    The caucus would be relevant since it appears that the DNC gave that as FL's only option to remedy being stripped of all votes.  If that option is not fair and really disenfranchises the substantial elderly population of Florida, then FL's refusal to use the caucus is reasonable and the DNC's recommendation is not.

    [ Parent ]
    And doesn't federal law protect (none / 0) (#136)
    by Cream City on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:36:13 AM EST
    the right of military to vote?

    And the ADA re the disabled?  (Many caucus sites were not accessible, I read in accounts in several states.)

    As for what you have here re the elderly, I really appreciate your reading of it.  I think it shows where the thinking of those behind the suit may go -- and good for them.  Caucuses discriminate, and they are part of the presidential selection process. I really hope that some court recognizes that, over the rulings that say that the government can't tell parties what to do.  I can think of many parallels in processes in which the courts have inserted themselves.  Some judge has to get the gumption.  

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah.. Sue the DNC... (1.00 / 1) (#6)
    by EddieInCA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:11:11 PM EST
    1. Court has no jurisdiction.

    2. Court has no jurisdiction.

    3. Can't show a how anyone was actually harmed. Everyone will get to vote in November.  Party rules are just that - PARTY rules.  You don't like the rules? Work to change them form the inside, or quit the party.  

    Getting the courts involved is NOT a good idea.

    Whether it's true or not, Clinton will be perceived to be behind this.  

    Not a good move.

    Wether it's true or not (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:13:25 PM EST
    Dean and Brazille are perceived to be behind Obama getting all the benefits of this situation.


    [ Parent ]
    What benefits would those be? (1.00 / 1) (#16)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:15:41 PM EST
    The benefits that come from following the rules and not trying to change them in the middle of a contest? How dare he!

    McCain
    [ Parent ]
    changing the rulz (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:17:22 PM EST
    you mean like trying to say the supers have to vote for the person with the most elected delegates?

    [ Parent ]
    Are you attributing that to me? (1.00 / 1) (#22)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:19:38 PM EST
    Do you have a citation?

    McCain
    [ Parent ]
    I am telling you (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:27:36 PM EST
    that "changing the rules" is a statement that depends on whos ox is being gored.
    do you admit that the Obama campaign and the MSM has done everything they could possibly do the "change the rules" so that the supers feel threatened and intimidated into voting for him for fear of some kind of undefined backlash.  and if Hillary is allowed to "take the nomination" away from him (btw that means she wins) it would go "against the will of the people" when they totally pulled that stuff out of their butts?

    [ Parent ]
    No, I don't admit that (none / 0) (#47)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:35:26 PM EST
    I think the Obama campaign and some parts of the media make and accept the argument that there is some moral weight to be attached to the results of caucuses and primaries. Although Heath Schuler found that factor alone dispositive when in NC he decided to endorse Hillary despite the state's overwhelming vote for Obama, most people I have seen raise the point do not speak of it as dispositive in and of itself. I certainly never have.

    What I do believe, however, is that the wider the pledged delegate margin becomes, the more compelling the argument for PLEOs to vote against the pledged delegates must be. But my point, and the point of the Obama campaign and the media, isn't some set of institutional rules, such as those of the DNC governing when elections may take place. Rather, they are mere arguments that may persuade some number of PLEOs.

    McCain
    [ Parent ]

    glad to know that the media (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by english teacher on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:05:32 PM EST
    and the obama campaign are on the same page.  not that anyone needed you to tell them that, but the admission is welcome.  


    [ Parent ]
    Bingo! (none / 0) (#123)
    by Josey on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:43:19 PM EST
    >>>>What I do believe, however, is that the wider the pledged delegate margin becomes, the more compelling the argument for PLEOs to vote against the pledged delegates must be

    Most likely the decision reached on May 31 won't be any different than it would have been if they'd met 3 months ago or last week.
    The Committee and Obama's position on FL & MI has been to run out the clock until Obama could declare himself the nominee.
    imho


    [ Parent ]

    The benefits (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:17:28 PM EST
    Of not having to campaign in states where he was at a disadvantage.

    D'uh!!!!

    [ Parent ]

    And, trying to turn a primary vote into a caucus (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:25:56 PM EST
    where he can get his army of bullies to help him achieve a winning outcome.


    [ Parent ]
    LOL (1.00 / 1) (#30)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:26:18 PM EST
    Obama was behind in the polls of nearly every state before the actual campaigning started. Clinton was the presumptive nominee, remember? Why do you have any reason to believe that Obama would not have relished the opportunity to campaign in MI and FL? He's ahead of Clinton in the MI polls now, or he was anyway, last time I looked.

    In every contest where Obama started out with a large disadvantage, when he campaigned in the state diligently, he did no worse than halving the disadvantage. I think the evidence of his performances in every other state provide sufficient support for the argument that he'd have done the same, at least, in MI and FL. If the MI race were held without Edwards, I would not be surprised to see Obama win it.

    But we'll never know, will we, since MI and FL couldn't be persuaded to follow the DNC rules. Note that I spell "rules" correctly.

    McCain
    [ Parent ]

    You know (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:40:48 PM EST
    Wasn't there a time when Revotes were a possibility, Obama had a whole bunch of events scheduled in MI and FL and then something happened and then suddenly revotes weren't a good idea?

    What is it that you think happened?

    [ Parent ]

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by delacarpa on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:48:45 PM EST
    For your very reasons that you said he should have gone, why didn't he do his magic in WV & Kentucky. Look, I watched everyday the very first one of Obama's national ads, a very good one to that beamed into my living room everyday for 2 weeks. Flordia got the very same national ad. Lets be fair he campained in FL and no one has harped about that now have they.

    [ Parent ]
    so - you're saying (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Josey on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:20:10 PM EST
    Obama would have done worse in FL if he hadn't violated DNC rules and aired TV ads.
    Obama has received the media's red carpet treatment especially by concealing damaging info about him. Similar to media treatment of Bush in 2000.

    [ Parent ]
    Why is anyone polling MI (none / 0) (#33)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:28:17 PM EST
    in an Obama - Clinton matchup now? There's no vote coming between the two of them.

    [ Parent ]
    He certainly seems to have acted (none / 0) (#38)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:29:29 PM EST
    In such a way that FL and MI voting would be a bad thing for his campaign.

    I'm sure if the states were caucus states with huge AA populations, he would have been such a rule follower, eh?

    If you think he would have won those states, great.

    We can disagree with that.

    Obama's behavior leads to two different conclusion.

    He's a truly amazing politician willing to follow rules to the point of self-flagellation, or someone who agrees with me on this point and not you.


    [ Parent ]

    I'll take door number three, Monty (none / 0) (#62)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:46:47 PM EST
    He probably thought he could close the gap and be competitive in both states, and perhaps even won Michigan after Edwards dropped out, but since the two states were essentially neutralized in the delegate selection process, why run the risk of giving any advantage to the Clinton campaign, especially since she would probably defeat him soundly in Florida?

    Some people seem incapable of thinking in any way other than bimodal.

    McCain
    [ Parent ]

    Shhh (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:48:28 PM EST
    Don't tell Josh Marshall that Obama acted politically. He'll be crushed.

    [ Parent ]
    That's an example of what I was talking about (1.00 / 0) (#80)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:56:19 PM EST
    before. When Josh criticized Clinton for taking diametrically opposite positions on FL and MI, he wasn't merely talking about her acting as a politician. He was talking about how blatant and self-serving her proclamations about the good of democracy, the civil rights movement, slavery and Zimbabwe and cloaking herself therein was. That is a fair point, I think.

    If there's a post where Josh denies that Obama is a politician, please point me to it.

    McCain
    [ Parent ]

    So (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:10:29 PM EST
    your contention is that Obaa ISN'T being blatant and self serving when he suggests seating the delegates at half or when their campaign suggests they get not only all the uncommitted but some of Clinton Delegates by splitting?

    Okey dokey.

    [ Parent ]

    Thank you for conceding that Hillary (1.00 / 0) (#95)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:17:52 PM EST
    is being blatantly self-serving. Her official position, at least as reported by BTD after the campaign talking-point call today, is that the Clinton campaign will not compromise in any respect regarding the seating of delegates.

    Obama, on the other hand, has suggested that the original penalty of 50% be settled upon. Is that blatantly self-serving Obama in the primary? No.

    McCain
    [ Parent ]

    Hello? (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:25:16 PM EST
    They're politicians competing for a position. They BOTH are trying to get terms that are advantageuous to their cause. Which is why he suggested spliting MI even though Clinton won well over 50% of the vote.

    What I find astounding is how only ONE candidate is being called out for it and being portrayed as somehow acting in such a manner. The pogressive blogosphere USED TO be thew reality based community. Now? Not so much.

    You ca try to pretend you won th argument by denying reality all you like if it makes you feel better. No skin off my teeth.

    [ Parent ]

    What surprises me (1.00 / 0) (#108)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:40:59 PM EST
    is that some people cannot find any way to distinguish between Obama's behavior and Clinton's.    Virtually nobody in the MSM or outside the cloistered world of the Clinton blogs believes that it is fair to seat Florida and MI as is. The reasons for this are simply too obvious to belabor.

    McCain
    [ Parent ]
    I don't distnguish (5.00 / 0) (#110)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:47:39 PM EST
    because there is NO DIFFERENCE. They ae both trying to win a competition.

    How sad is it that you are going to use the same MSM that hs failed us time and time again to prop up your position? Real sad.

    Obama chose to take himself off the ballot in MI to score political points in IA(which he succeeded in doing. Congrats to him). Hillary chose to keep her name on(to her detriment in IA). Why is it that Hillary is the only one who should have to pay for her political calculation is Hillary?

    The only thing that is obvious is how some of you wish to gift wrap the primary and hand it to Obama by giving him votes he hasn't earned(including votes that Hillary earned).

    [ Parent ]

    Oh it was the fact it was blatant that bothered (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:13:10 PM EST
    If the pandering hasd been a bit more subtle that would have been ok.

    Nice principle there.

    You need to stop digging.

    [ Parent ]

    I think Josh called it (1.00 / 0) (#97)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:19:40 PM EST
    "breathtaking cynicism." That seems appropriate, given the history.

    McCain
    [ Parent ]
    So he benefits (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:50:27 PM EST
    Then from being in a position not to give any advantages to the Clinton campaign.

    Who put him in that position?  Dean and Brazille.


    [ Parent ]

    So did all 12 members of the Rules Committee (1.00 / 0) (#76)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:53:01 PM EST
    who support Clinton and who voted for the stripping of all delegates. It's not just Dean and Brazile, Edgar. It's everybody on the committee, except for one lone Obama supporter, who voted against it.

    McCain
    [ Parent ]
    I think we've already established (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:56:04 PM EST
    It's not whether it's true or not, it's what it will look like.


    [ Parent ]
    There's little evidence suggesting that (1.00 / 0) (#81)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:58:10 PM EST
    what it looks like to you, or to me, is guaranteed to be a fair reflection of the perceptions of the masses.

    McCain
    [ Parent ]
    No one knows (none / 0) (#83)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:00:35 PM EST
    How it will look a week from now, or even a year from now.

    All we know is the first African American to win a primary battle for a presidential nomination won in an abbreviated process corrupted by mitigating circumstances.

    We can set aside my conspiracy theories for the time being.


    [ Parent ]

    august 2007 (none / 0) (#122)
    by vrusimov on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:37:02 PM EST
    it seems to me that the concern for disenfranchisement, corruption and an abbreviated process went unnoticed, particularly by Howard Ickes and the eleven other Clinton supporters who voted [at their discretion according to DNC rules] to strip Florida at 100%, above and beyond the nominal 50% penalty...it was decided in the interest of fairness that Michigan would also be stripped at 100% for moving up it's primary...

    These states played poker but the DNC called their bluff after repeated warnings that they faced a delegate penalty of 50% or more...Florida was given 30 days to comply but did nothing.

    Clinton stating on New Hampshire Public Radio that Michigan "would'nt count for anything" is'nt an arguable fact...she said this...and after pledging on Sept 1. 2007 to not "campaign or PARTICIPATE in the Michigan primary", she contradicts herself on Mar. 13, 2008 stating that all candidates had a CHOICE to participate in the Michigan primary...this is both dishonest and morally bankrupt if you have more than a cursory knowledge of the situation...

    Nothing Obama did legitimizes the Florida election...everyone knew the score on Florida at the end of August 2007...Ickes and her other supporters voted for the stripping of the Florida delegates...it is disingenious of her to feign ignorance of the situation at that time...this just does'nt come clean no matter how many times you wash it...

    Once these two states were recognized as illegitimate by RBC vote, nothing that follows can legitimize them...it does'nt matter who campaigned where or who turned down what proposal...this is mitigation designed to distract...it is argumentative AFTER the fact and is irrelevant, considering the important question of why Clinton did'nt voice her opinions when it mattered and when she had the leverage to influence the decision...this is the reason Biden denounced her for leaving her name on the ballot in Michigan and throwing the process into disarra