home

DNC To Ignore Florida's Safe Harbor In Delegate Meeting

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:08:17 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Remember the DNC Rule that actually called for a 50% stripping of delegates? Now the DNC has employed its lawyers to invoke that rule - to put a cap on the number of delegates Florida and Michigan can be awarded:

A Democratic Party rules committee has the authority to restore delegates from Michigan and Florida but not fully seat the two states at the convention as Hillary Rodham Clinton wants, according to a party analysis. Party rules require that the two states lose at least half of their convention delegates for holding elections too early, Democratic National Committee lawyers wrote in a 38-page memo.

This is sad, rich and hilarious. After trampling their own rules, including the 50% Rule, in fully stripping Florida and Michigan of their delegates (all the while ignoring other violations of the schedule by Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina), now the DNC has its lawyers write a memo giving it an excuse for why it will (as now seems obvious) only restore 50% of the delegates in Florida and Michigan. And of course this ignores the fact that Florida was entitled to the safe harbor provision in the DNC rules (See DNC Rules 20c.7, 21a and 21b), and should not have suffered any penalty. Heck, maybe the DNC owes Florida EXTRA delegates now.[More...]

So with this leak we know what the DNC is planning for Saturday, seating the Florida and Michigan elected delegations with half votes each and probably seating all the super delegates. I think this nets Hillary Clinton around 35 delegates and maybe even salves the DNC's own public relations problem.

But I personally am less concerned about the DNC's PR problem. I am more concerned with Barack Obama's problem in Florida and Michigan. He is going to be a bystander in all of this. He should have been active fighter for Florida and Michigan.

The next issue is what will Hillary Clinton do in response to this? My advice, FWIW, is to accept this and or seek some type of caucus to seat the remaining delegate strength in Florida and Michigan. sort of say OK, I take the half of the delegates you have given Florida and Michigan, now let's give them a chance to get the other half. Of course, she could also ask for a revote in Michigan on August 5.

Indeed, that is an option for the DNC, grant Florida the safe harbor it deserved according to the DNC, fully seat the Florida delegation, seat the Michigan delegation with half votes and let the other half be chosen in the August 5 Michigan primary already scheduled, which would likely be a formality anyway.

This likely, indeed almost certainly, is not going to change the outcome of the race. But it will help the Democrats in November. Which should be the DNC's most important consideration now.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Wednesday Morning Open Thread | Gallup on Hillary's Swing State Advantage >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    DNC To Ignore Florida's Safe Harbor In Delegate Meeting | 243 comments (243 topical)
    The Keystone Kops (5.00 / 8) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:10:37 AM EST
    with the public face of Donna Brazile.

    I think we need to scrap the DNC and start over.

    Good mental image (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by ruffian on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:28:51 AM EST
    Too bad they did not use their lawyers last August to set a floor below which delegates could not be stripped.

    Yesterday's floor is today's cap.  Priceless.  My DNC contributions have funded this comedy.

    Can I at least see this as a rebuke to Donna Brazile?  Maybe then I will feel like I got my money's worth.

    [ Parent ]

    Problem with this comment: HC supporters voted FOR (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Christy1947 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:06:33 AM EST
    the 100% penalty, all of them. When asked about it and why he was taking a position now contrary to his vote which brought the situation into exitence, Harold Ickes, also the architect of the rule, reportedly said something like "Because we're behind."  

    [ Parent ]
    How many (5.00 / 4) (#118)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:19:54 AM EST
    times in how many ways does it need to be said it isn't about Senator Clinton, it isn't about Obama, it isn't about Harold Ickes. It is about the voters in two of the United States. The voters. Not the candidates, not the supporters, not all the loudmouths in the media. The voters.

    [ Parent ]
    So you support... (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Y Knot on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:33:50 AM EST
    ... A revote in both states, where both candidates in would be on the ballot, organize and campaign like in every other state in the union?

    Because to my mind, anything else is tantamount to a significant number of voters being disenfranchised.

    And I'm not being snarky.  In the pure world of ideas, allowing all the voters their say absolutely correct.  The problem is, the only solution that allows the voters to be heard would be virtually impossible to do, now.  

    This thing has become a terrible mess, and all to protect the "special" nature of Iowa and New Hampshire.  I mean, is it just me?  I've never been to either state;  what is it about them that makes them more important than every other state, that they HAVE to go first?  Blind, unreasoning adherence to that stupid tradition is what has gotten us here.  I say next time, let everyone hold their primary -- PRIMARY not caucus -- on the same day and be done with it.

    [ Parent ]

    and Obama demonstrated his character (5.00 / 6) (#197)
    by Josey on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:04:55 AM EST
    by orchestrating and conspiring with other candidates to remove their names from the MI ballot in an effort to hurt Hillary in Iowa.
    It also says a lot about those candidates who went along with Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Ooooo, a problem with a comment. (5.00 / 10) (#133)
    by Cream City on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:29:10 AM EST
    Yeh, that's gonna be a problem for Clinton -- a problem with a comment on TL.

    The problem for Obama and the Dems is the far more significant point; do you even see that?  Clinton herself (voters don't know from Ickes) has come down on the correct side of this issue, the side of the people.  Obama is on the side of the DNC power structure.  Sure, that means he may win the nomination . . . but he just might need to win at least one of these states to win the White House.

    So the problem with your comment is that once again, it's all about the horse race to the nomination and not about the real race to the White House.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, I am sure the voters in FL & MI (5.00 / 4) (#161)
    by Practically Lactating on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:44:54 AM EST
    will be convinced by this in November.

    "But Harold Ickes said so!" For all the talk of Obama running a good campaign, this has to be one of the most politically dense arguments I have ever heard.

    [ Parent ]

    And (5.00 / 9) (#184)
    by NJDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:56:07 AM EST
    the fact that HRC pushed for revotes--even though she may not have won again.  

    She did it because she knew that was in the best interest of the Party.  I can still remember her interview on Greta/Fox daring the DNC not to seat FL and MI three months before the GE.  

    She's on the right side of this issue.  Period.  

    [ Parent ]

    Doesn't matter who did or said what. (5.00 / 1) (#230)
    by alsace on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:42:13 AM EST
    Rights trump rules.
    Deeds trump words.
    Wrong is wrong.

    [ Parent ]
    That isn't a problem. (5.00 / 1) (#238)
    by lorelynn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:04:57 PM EST
    There are two problems that arise from not seating the states in full. The first problem is this - by not pressing for revotes or seating the states in full, Obama's ability to win those two states, should he be the nominee, is greatly jeopardized. That's gonna hurt his EV total. Floridians are already really angry. That isn't going to magically heal itself once the primary is over. That's the problem. And if you base the winner on a vote tally that doesn't count all the votes, then you greatly handicap his ability to win Clinton voters in other states to his camp because we're going to feel like he won by ignoring primaries.

    This is about winning in November - not what somebody said or did who eventually wound up supporting the right thing for even questionable reasons. Not finding a way to count the delegates in full has a negative impact on Obama's already mediocre chances of winning.

    [ Parent ]

    RNC (1.00 / 0) (#240)
    by NewOaklandDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:16:41 PM EST
    Wait - by your logic, McCain would have problems in those states as well, given the RNC penatly.  So you think that they're on equal footing in each place is the DNC goes 50%?

    [ Parent ]
    I don't take something (4.25 / 4) (#96)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:09:11 AM EST
    "reportedly said" as fact.

    The fact of the matter is that Ickes knows how the delegates were stripped and you can bet he knows what it will take to restore them, as does Terry. They know the rules inside and out.

    I have a very strong feeling this is going to Denver.

    [ Parent ]

    I've never seen (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:16:38 AM EST
    any link to back up this meme.

    I wonder why?

    [ Parent ]

    A Simple Google Search (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by daring grace on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:36:13 AM EST
    produces many links to reporting on a campaign conference call back on Feb. 16 where Ickes is quoted not as saying "Because we're behind."

    But he did acknowledge that his change of position was, in fact, due to his change of position: he voted as a DNC operative and he was now being quoted as a Clinton campaign operative.

    [ Parent ]

    Then provide a link (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:39:53 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Links (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by daring grace on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:35:10 AM EST
    I have trouble sometimes getting links to work which is why I posted the date above. Hopefully, these will, but there are many others out there. It was a daily campaign conference call and all the mainstream media and blogs covered it with essentially the same data and quotes.

    This was also the day Ickes floated the idea that super delegates should be called automatic delegates.

    And this quote (from Breitbart, but also in some of the other sources) is interesting in view of the arguments today...

     "On Saturday, Ickes reiterated the campaign's view that new "redo" votes in Florida and Michigan aren't necessary. He said many superdelegates are elected lawmakers or governors who are supposed to exercise their independent judgment to vote contrary to public opinion if they believe another candidate has a better chance of winning."

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/16/671358.aspx

    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8URO9HG0&show_article=1

    " Ickes explained that his different position essentially is due to the different hats he wears as both a DNC member and a Clinton adviser in charge of delegate counting. Clinton won the primary vote in Michigan and Florida, and now she wants those votes to count."

    [ Parent ]

    please try harder (none / 0) (#236)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:58:47 AM EST
    long urls skew the site. If you can't master it, and it's easy, try tinyurl.com instead. But don't post long urls here or your ocmment has to be deleted.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm Sorry (none / 0) (#242)
    by daring grace on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:26:30 PM EST
    I'll try harder.

    I'm not usually so techno-incompetent.

    [ Parent ]

    a simple google search (4.20 / 5) (#164)
    by Kathy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:46:33 AM EST
    reveals a video of Obama saying that he would not run for president, because he lacked experience and would have to, like, start running the first year of his US senate term, which would be wrong on many levels, not least of which because he was, like, not qualified.

    So, if we're going to go back in time, let's go back to then, okay?

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly! (4.33 / 6) (#188)
    by rnibs on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:57:19 AM EST
    But I guess actually doing his job in the Senate was too boring, so he decided to run because no Dem could lose this year.  But he was only partly right.  No Dem but him could lose this year.

    I'm just po'd that he's throwing the entire country under the bus for his ego.  He can't win in Nov., but he wants to run and the country will suffer for it.  

    [ Parent ]

    We Can Go Back in Time On Both Sides (none / 0) (#235)
    by daring grace on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:51:51 AM EST
    As much as you like.

    Someone asked for a link to an Ickes statement. I was curious if there was one. I couldn't find one for that quote but found others for things he said which were similar.

    That's what I was responding to.

    Not sure how the Obama thing relates to this point or the Michigan/Florida topic, but...whatever.

    [ Parent ]

    Well no scrapping (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:16:27 AM EST
    will occur if they win.

    And this doesn't matter to me in terms of the Democratic Party itself.  They can implode for all I care. It only matters to me in terms of what it means for voters and for constituent representation...and for furthering the success of the country.

    The Republicans aren't right for this country and Democrats are quickly becoming 'not right' either.

    [ Parent ]

    So What Comes After the Democratic Party? (5.00 / 5) (#113)
    by BDB on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:18:29 AM EST
    Seriously.  

    I've had it with the entire lot of them.  Between still trying to cave on telecom immunity (and other disasters of the last eight years) and this campaign, it's pretty clear the democratic party no longer shares many of my values or cares about beating Republicans (who are worse).  If they don't offer these two things, what's the point?  

    [ Parent ]

    Yup. (5.00 / 5) (#129)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:25:44 AM EST
    If the DNC nominates Obama, I refuse to vote for him or continue to be a Democrat. In my opinion, a vote for Obama is endorsing his disgusting and shameful campaigning, his unDemocratic values, and a Party which has done everything possible to force this inexperienced, deeply-flawed candidate down our throats.

    I'm done with Democrats who don't care about democracy.

    I'm just going to find a third party and concentrate my activism on that one. There's a Working Families Party in New York that is quite liberal, for example.

    [ Parent ]

    I have been thinking about this-- (5.00 / 10) (#150)
    by Kathy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:39:46 AM EST
    how those of us refusing to vote Obama, should he win the nomination, are being vilified for not supporting the party.  And, it makes me wonder: if the press were being racist toward Obama, and the DNC was just sitting on its hands, and Clinton was silent about the racism, how would folks feel about being democrats?  Would they be telling us to ignore the racism, that we don't want to lose our reproductive rights, so we should just ignore the racism and vote against McCain?

    Because, to me, sexism and racism are equally as bad.  It's denigrating someone because of how they were born, and using stereotypes to belittle and defeat them.  

    I don't think anyone would be shouting about disloyalty if dems were leaving the party because of racism.  Just something to think about.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama's sexism is (5.00 / 9) (#168)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:47:51 AM EST
    only one of the reasons I refuse to vote for him, but it is a big one.

    In addition, I don't want to reward the Democratic Party for choosing the nominee who tells the working class "we don't need your votes."

    The entire point of the Democratic Party is to stand for the working class. If we don't do that, we're Republicans.

    If the Democratic Party leadership is too obdurate to acknowledge that simple fact, then THEY are the traitors to the Party, not me.

    [ Parent ]

    the DNC cannot be changed, (5.00 / 7) (#190)
    by sancho on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:57:24 AM EST
    or their decisions put to scrutiny, if we agree to vote for whoever they tell us to vote for. the only check we have is our vote and not voting for obama is the only way to express our disappointment in their anti-democratic practices. vote dem down-ticket.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm an American first, a Democrat second (5.00 / 2) (#249)
    by Romberry on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:27:44 PM EST
    I won't vote for Obama and it isn't because I am a staunch supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton. In fact, I've never done anything (vote for or contribute to) that might even label me a supporter. I am however an opponent of Barack Obama.

    The effect that Obama has had on a wide swath of the Democratic Party reminds me of nothing so much as the effect that W had on Republicans. Obama supporters (or at least a good many of them) have treated me the way that Freepers treated me when I raised questions about Dubya. It's like the same unthinking cult of personality all over again -- except this time from the left -- and I find it potentially dangerous and refuse to have anything to do with it.

    My best hope for this fall is to see strong Democratic gains in both houses of congress and, if HRC is not the nominee and elected to the presidency, to see that strong Dem congressional majority use its power to force McCain to govern as a moderate in all aspects of his (no doubt) one term administration.

    The ugliness of the right is no more attractive when it is worn by the true believers of the left.

    [ Parent ]

    Please (1.30 / 10) (#175)
    by Punchy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:50:54 AM EST
    By all means, if you hate the Dems so much b/c they've nominated someone different than your candidate, please vote Republican.

    The Democratic party has enough weak-kneed, hand-wringing turncoats as it can handle.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, Punchy (5.00 / 7) (#179)
    by Kathy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:53:17 AM EST
    you are right.  I am so sorry.  Please accept me back into your party and I will be a good little girl.  I just lost my head there for a minute, but you have persuaded me back with your smooth talking.

    (you know, I was at the gym this morning and I was thinking, "what's going to be the new talking point?"  And I figured it out pretty quickly: "we don't want you in our party anyway."  Dang, I'm good)

    [ Parent ]

    Hyperbole (3.00 / 2) (#183)
    by Punchy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:55:47 AM EST
    I'm utilizing hyperbole to prove a point -- are you actually going to abandon the party simply because a differnt Democrat than the one you supported may get the nod?

    Yes or no?

    If yes....then...wow.

    [ Parent ]

    You mean the dem party (5.00 / 10) (#192)
    by Kathy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:59:16 AM EST
    that I have supported since I was a kid?  I stuffed envelopes for Jimmy Carter on my daddy's knee.  I am not leaving the party because of Obama or Clinton. I am leaving the party because of the party.

    Shouldn't you be more worried that folks like me--and many others here--who have voted yellow dog dem for DECADES, are leaving the party, and asking why that has come to pass, instead of just assuming we're a bunch of sore losers?

    Or are you too busy trying to stop the nosebleeds from being on your high horse?

    [ Parent ]

    too bad (3.00 / 2) (#209)
    by Ovah on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:19:03 AM EST
    We only have two parties in reality, you will have a choice this November:

    a candidate whose ideology reflects the right and will likely make replacement(s) to the Supreme Court, is a pro life advocate, and continue the war(s).

    or a candidate that has vowed to end the war in Iraq, has the opportunity to preserve balance in the highest court, and believes in a woman's right to choose.

    but you won't vote because things haven't gone the way you want. Isn't there a bigger picture that you are dismissing?

    [ Parent ]

    high horse? (2.33 / 3) (#200)
    by Punchy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:09:17 AM EST
    What does this mean?

    What has the party done wrong?  Is this whole thing about Michigan and Florida?  So one misstep in the way they resolve this, and suddenly a bunch of those on the "wrong" side of the decision respond by.....quitting?

    No offense, but isn't this akin to how kids react to not getting their way?

    [ Parent ]

    No Punchy. Its not all about Hillary OR Obama. (5.00 / 3) (#218)
    by The Realist on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:27:46 AM EST
    It is about the fact that the DNC is systematically dismantling a party that once represented diversity and inclusion. Sean Wilentz has been writing on this for a while and Dr. Dean and Donna Brazile have made no secret of their intent to exclude Blue Collar, LGBT, and women from the "New" DNC. The above links are from my blog, but i provide links to the stories that document the progression.

    So, no. It is not about Hillary or Obama. it is about no tsupporting a party that is set on not supporting me and my interests.

    [ Parent ]

    Got one part right (5.00 / 4) (#205)
    by BarnBabe on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:14:36 AM EST
    The Democratic party has enough weak-kneed, hand-wringing turncoats as it can handle.
    And those are the people who are in charge right now and trying to get rid of the Clintons. The part of hating the Democratic Party is not exactly right. We might be disgusted with their actions and the DNC, but it is not because 'our' candidate is not the front runner right now. We are the ones who have been thrown away from the party, not the other way around.

    We had solid candidates from the start. Obama was as Biden said, Clean, referring to his no baggage dragging behind him. Hillary was the leader to beat. The Dem Powers that Be decided to throw in Obama to defeat the Clintons. Guess what, Obama had plenty of baggage but thought it was lost in flight. That is the problem. We are not amused that we now have seen the real Obama and we don't like what we see. And if he came around today and said, 'Opps, that was a silly mistake my staff said', it would be too late because we can not believe him now.

    [ Parent ]

    wha? (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by Punchy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:20:25 AM EST
    You're blaming the DNC for the fact that Obama has more superdelegates than Clinton?  How can you say this?  

    [ Parent ]
    Cute (5.00 / 1) (#244)
    by BarnBabe on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:40:33 PM EST
    The DNC. Yes. It took money from us all but failed to stand up for the candidates except for the one they decided upon. It is so nice to be able to say No to them.

    [ Parent ]
    Josephine Hearn might be able to shed (none / 0) (#222)
    by The Realist on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:33:30 AM EST
    some light on that little morsel.

    [ Parent ]
    It's not like it's going (5.00 / 1) (#251)
    by Eleanor A on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:33:04 PM EST
    to make much difference anyway, who we vote for.  Obama will lose many, many states.

    In my own (TN), I'll bet any comer $100 he'll lose by at least 12 points.  So it's not even a question at this point whether I'll write in Hillary (I do plan to).

    [ Parent ]

    Indeed! I've said my goodbye (3.66 / 3) (#210)
    by felizarte on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:19:39 AM EST
    if Clinton is not the nominee. Nothing that anyone can say to me that would change my mind on this.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually (none / 0) (#247)
    by janarchy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:16:15 PM EST
    I can tell you, they'd be telling you to ignore the racism and vote for the party. They always have.

    My mom (a lifelong Democrat, aged 73) used to be involved in New York City politics. She dropped out when there was a big deal about a Bundist nominee put in and people in Washington Heights (the top part of Manhattan), who were mostly Holocaust survivors or escapees (meaning they got out in time) were told to support because that person was a Democrat.

    Politics as usual.

    [ Parent ]

    Not So Much About My Vote (5.00 / 1) (#243)
    by BDB on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:38:29 PM EST
    I may end up pulling the (D), I'm certainly not voting for McCain, but I do think this primary has clarified some longstanding concerns I have about the party.  There are still good individual democrats to support, but the party overall seems more interested in sucking up to the media narrative than changing it, anxious to ditch working class and poor Americans, and with a leadership more interested in attaining individual perqs and power than in building and sustaining any kind of liberal political movement or, god forbid, winning.  Again, nothing new, this has been the trend for at least 15 years, but the primary campaign brings it into stark relief.  

    It's too bad you only get to see how things fit historically in the future.  I have the feeling that the primary fight and the election in November are incredibly important ones in terms of the political history of this country, but whether that's true or how it's true can't be seen because we're in it.  I'm hopeful that it leads to some sort of political renewal, this country desperately needs it, even if it's by bringing about the destruction of the old so something new can be born.  But at the same time, part of me fears that the hopefulness is an illusion and it's only another step in what is actually a long decline.  I have a hard time seeing any renewal coming with the current media in place.  People cannot be trusted to make good decisions based on false information and lies.  And I'm not just talking about the primary.

    [ Parent ]

    Best comment of the year! (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Radiowalla on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:28:54 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Well Not Only Donna Brazile (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by talex on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:34:32 AM EST
    Unfortunately Howard Dean has his hand in this. That is very disappointing to me as someone who once trusted Howard to the Max. One wonders if the infighting between the Clinton people and Howard when the nomination process was going on to pick the  DNC Chair has come into play here. If it has then shame on Howard as I always viewed him as someone who could rise above intra-party politics.

    [ Parent ]
    I trusted Dean (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by joanneleon on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:26:47 AM EST
    to reform the party but I didn't want him to completely wreck it, and fall victim to past grudges, etc.

    As a former strong supporter of Dean, I really wonder now what's motivating him and where he's going with all this.

    [ Parent ]

    The problem is (5.00 / 3) (#203)
    by Jane in CA on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:12:29 AM EST
    that isn't going to happen unless the democratic voters send a very strong message to the party.

    Sending a very strong message involves withholding your vote for the democratic nominee in protest.  That's the only way the DNC and party leadership will listen. Many of you are ethically unable to do that, and I respect that.

    However, this egregious organziational dysfucntion is not going to fix itself, particularly if it is rewarded on election night. Again, JMO.

    [ Parent ]

    one t hing is sure (none / 0) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:16:18 AM EST
    they dont deserve to win

    [ Parent ]
    The Keystone Kops (none / 0) (#167)
    by melro on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:47:27 AM EST
    Donna Brazile really sends nasty little messages back to her e-mails. Excuuuuuuse me for being a public voice she obviously doesn't want to hear from. Isn't anyone listening to the public these days?

    [ Parent ]
    This is too complicated (5.00 / 10) (#5)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:17:40 AM EST
    for the average voter in FL and MI.

    All they will understand is that the DNC is hemming and hawing and selectively applying rules so that they are penalized but other states are not.

    The DNC is cutting its own throat on this issue. Of course, they seem determined to nominate Obama no matter what the voters want, so I'm not surprised at their utter tone-deaf stupidity here.

    Exactly correct. But even for those of us (5.00 / 12) (#25)
    by Mark Woods on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:26:12 AM EST
    Who follows politics the whole affair is outrageous and we are literally seething with anger in Miami. I fully intend to either quick the Democratic Party and vote for an opposition candidate if my vote is halved or not counted.

    Furthermore, all the energy I threw into supporting the Democratic Party (not to mention time & money) I promise to dedicate to anyone opposing the DNC. I will not have my vote taken for granted.

    And I don't care about any limp arguments about how 'important it is to defeat McCain' -- if you disenfranchise my vote I will hate you and work for your demise -- and the overwhelming majority of my FL neighbors and family feel the same.

    And we don't much care if folks despise us, either.

    [ Parent ]

    if I was you (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:47:00 AM EST
    I am sure I would feel exactly the same way.  in fact I DO feel exactly the same way and my vote was counted.
    I am hanging around hoping some of BTDs optimism rubs off on me today.
    I need it.


    [ Parent ]
    Yes, (5.00 / 5) (#130)
    by rnibs on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:26:30 AM EST
    the DNC now grudgingly saying we'll give you half votes isn't going to cut it.  

    Hillary will probably have to accept it, but the voters won't and it will probably show in Nov.  

    Why the DNC keeps insisting on shooting itself in the foot, I don't know.  Between this and throwing all their support behind the less electable of the two candidates, they're a losing team, unfortunately.  

    I'm going to throw everything I can down ticket (even though I'm po'd at them for endorsing Obama) because we're gonna need a Dem congress to offset McCain.

    [ Parent ]

    Okay...time to go to the mats (5.00 / 10) (#7)
    by vicsan on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:17:52 AM EST
    on this. If anyone will, it's Hillary. I hope she fights this with everything she has. Take it to the courts. Take it to the convention. FIGHT THESE THUGS. All they're doing is trying to hand this election to BO. I am so disgusted.

    There have been (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by standingup on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:27:30 AM EST
    numerous suits filed in Florida that brought no resolution. Bottom line, this is a party matter where the courts don't want to intervene and it is up to the party to clean up their own mess.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, obviously (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by vicsan on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:42:22 AM EST
    the party has no intentions of cleaning up their own mess until they appoint the person THEY want to be the nominee, so Hillary needs to fight this however she can. The courts were more than willing to get involved in the 2000 debacle. Why change now?

    [ Parent ]
    Here is a (none / 0) (#76)
    by standingup on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:52:01 AM EST
    link with some general information on the suits that were dismissed so you can look each up for more information. I have read through them before but do not recall the particulars for each one and don't want to expend the time again since it won't change the outcome. The latest suit, still pending, might have different results since they are alleging a violation of the civil rights act.

    [ Parent ]
    The Most Basic Difference (none / 0) (#107)
    by The Maven on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:16:07 AM EST
    between the courts' heavy involvement in 2000 and their general lack thereof in 2008 is that the former related to the actual election of a candidate for office (or more technically, the electoral college delegates), whereas this is simply a feature of the party nomination process.  As non-public entities, political parties have always been given fairly wide -- though not complete -- discretion by the courts in permitting them select candidates however they so choose, based on associational rights.

    [ Parent ]
    Frustrating (none / 0) (#114)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:18:29 AM EST
    as it is, political parties are prvate organizations.

    [ Parent ]
    But according to the current FL (none / 0) (#61)
    by zfran on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:42:40 AM EST
    lawsuit, didn't the DNC break the rules on the stripping of delegates? BTD can you shed some light perhaps?

    [ Parent ]
    ::snore:: (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:18:19 AM EST


    Makes ya wonder (5.00 / 7) (#17)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:21:48 AM EST
    which side has the low-information voters, doesn't it?

    [ Parent ]
    Ditto (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by rnibs on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:43:18 AM EST
    What a snore these guys are.

    Maybe they missed the words "safe harbor" in the title of this thread.

    [ Parent ]

    At the sacred DNC primary schedule (5.00 / 9) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:19:37 AM EST
    If it was so sacred, why weren't Iowa, NH and South Carolina punished?

    Just stop the BS.

    BS indeed (3.00 / 4) (#51)
    by flyerhawk on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:38:13 AM EST
    You know why, BTD.  The rules were in place to ensure those 4 states were the first 4 states to vote.  Those states moving up their primaries in response to Florida and Michigan in no way violates the purpose of the rules.

    I really don't get the attempt to exonerate Florida and Michigan for their actions.

    The DNC probably went overboard with their Draconian punishments and should have stuck with half delegate punishments.  

    But let's not pretend that there was no valid reason to punish Florida and Michigan.

    [ Parent ]

    There was no valid reason to punish Florida (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:39:25 AM EST
    Michigan is a different story, but the nuclear option still wasn't reasonable.

    [ Parent ]
    They're punishing VOTERS, who have a legitimate (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Ellie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:16:15 AM EST
    ... case for action here.

    IANAL but it strikes me that there's more than enough for a class action here, since the Dems could be accused of fraudulently taking their support, and blocking their right to participate in the democratic process.

    And speaking of roolz, isn't this Dem song and dance a violation of the Voting Rights Act?

    Random Thought: Surely I can't be the only one who finds it grating when people talk about punishing Michigan and Florida as if they're blob entities without people in them. We're talking about millions being stripped of franchise.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes there was (3.00 / 4) (#60)
    by flyerhawk on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:42:29 AM EST
    You can argue that the Florida Democratic Party made a reasonable effort to avoid the rule change, a dubious argument given the actual events prior to the vote, but they most certainly broke the rules and were then required to prove that they made a full faith effort to correct the problem.

    But the state certainly broke the rules.

    [ Parent ]

    congratulations (5.00 / 9) (#65)
    by bjorn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:46:42 AM EST
    the roolz have divided this party.  Now the party is yours and Obamas, and you get to keep Donna Brazile too.  Go for it dude, and just do me a favor and don't ask for any help or money from those of us that feel screwed by the roolz.

    [ Parent ]
    BTD's point about the safe harbor is right (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:48:53 AM EST
    And in any case, the DNC probably violated its own rules by stripping all delegates.

    [ Parent ]
    On the first point (2.33 / 3) (#86)
    by flyerhawk on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:59:59 AM EST
    it would appear that the DNC disagrees with you on the safe harbor argument.   They heard the appeal and felt the FDC did not make a good faith effort to prevent changing the date.  

    On your second point, the DNC was well within their rights to strip them of all of their delegates.  The MINIMUM punishment was half the delegates.  The rules also stipulated that they could enforce harsher penalties if they chose to.

    [ Parent ]

    It's the voters who are being (5.00 / 5) (#95)
    by pie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:08:14 AM EST
    punished.  I don't understand why the DNC, if it really wants a victory in November, wants to anger voters in two of the largest states by playing this game.

    And it is a game.  

    If this stands, it will be a Pyhrric victory.

    [ Parent ]

    That is a different argument (3.00 / 2) (#103)
    by flyerhawk on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:14:30 AM EST
    You are making a political argument, not a legal argument.  

    [ Parent ]
    Legal smegal. (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by pie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:24:06 AM EST
    Legal arguments will be moot if we lose in November.

    And after seeing eight years of Bush, I have a low opinion of legal arguments, because they can say whatever people want them to and still be unjust and unfair.

    [ Parent ]

    you're arguing against counting votes! (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Josey on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:35:17 AM EST
    After 2000, never thought I'd see Dems do that!
    btw - you can always check the rationale for your arguments by pretending you support Hillary, not Obama.
    We already know what the GOP ads in FL & MI will say about Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    This is not a legal issue, (5.00 / 6) (#146)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:36:51 AM EST
    it's a political issue.

    These are not laws, they are political party rules.

    The Republicans in FL and MI decided to mess with our primaries. Instead of recognizing this fact, the DNC decided to punish the Democratic voters and delegates of those states for the actions of the Republican legislatures.

    My beloved soon-to-be-ex Party seems he**-bent on electoral and political implosion. Excuse the f&ck out of me if that bothers me more than all this uninformed BS about "teh Roolz."

    [ Parent ]

    First off all (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by flyerhawk on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:26:20 AM EST
    Democrats in Michigan were leading the charge to change the date.

    Clearly it is not your beloved party.  If it were you wouldn't leave it simply out of a pique.

    [ Parent ]

    Half delegates at the time would have worked (5.00 / 1) (#231)
    by ineedalife on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:42:55 AM EST
    But now, by letting this fester this long, more needs to be done.

    [ Parent ]
    schedule (none / 0) (#36)
    by Punchy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:29:42 AM EST
    I dont remember Iowa and NH jumping ahead of other states.  FL and MI did.  That's why they were punished.  I don't know what transgression SC suffered.  

    [ Parent ]
    They did jump ahead; see the DNC (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by Cream City on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:34:55 AM EST
    rules re deadlines.  That you don't remember them really is not relevant.  But thanks for sharing.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:57:00 AM EST
    If you don't even know that the DNC rules provided for NH to go third and not second, you probably shouldn't go around acting like you have all the answers.

    [ Parent ]
    No one has answered this questions (none / 0) (#72)
    by zfran on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:50:07 AM EST
    as yet. Why weren't they?

    [ Parent ]
    you want to talk about (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:21:14 AM EST
    "ridiculous precedents"
    if we all hop on the unity pony and give the idiots a win in November every vile stupid illegal dishonest thing Brazil and company has done will be validated and set down as precedent.  THAT would be ridiculous.

    Yes, yes! (none / 0) (#233)
    by befuddled on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:44:38 AM EST
    It's called "enabling."

    [ Parent ]
    I guess you missed BTD's (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by vicsan on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:21:14 AM EST
    info in his post: (all the while ignoring other violations of the schedule by Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina)

    Just MI and FL suffer for changing their dates? I think not.

    Repeating myself. IA, and SC applied for waivers (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Christy1947 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:18:42 AM EST
     to the DNC and got them. Well before punishment day.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh well, that solves it (5.00 / 4) (#125)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:22:28 AM EST
    as long as SC asked in advance that the roolz not apply to them, I guess FL and MI have nothing to complain about. I feel so much bettter now.

    And in case you're not sure? /snark.

    [ Parent ]

    FL asked for a waiver, too (5.00 / 4) (#147)
    by Cream City on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:37:04 AM EST
    as can be seen in the C-Span video of the meeting.

    But FL didn't get one, and the other states did.  That does seem to suggest that your reply does not really respond to the question, and that also does seem to return us to that question still unanswered.

    [ Parent ]

    No they didn't. (5.00 / 3) (#201)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:10:33 AM EST
    They did not get waivers in advance of their moving their primaries. They received waivers after the fact and at the same meeting where Michigan was stripped of its delegates.

    [ Parent ]
    Sure starts to look like the DNC (5.00 / 2) (#213)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:20:44 AM EST
    has been planning to use MI & FL since the beginning. They continue to act like they don't really know how to resolve because they aren't convinced Obama is secure enough in the nomination.


    [ Parent ]
    Not surprising the DNC is having (5.00 / 13) (#16)
    by bjorn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:21:47 AM EST
    trouble raising money, who would want to give any to such a dysfunctional and unethical organization - one that ignores its own rules. And perhaps worst of all, who wants to give money to an organization whose face is Donna Brazile.

    I stopped giving money (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:23:31 AM EST
    a long time ago.

    I'm sure they miss my donations...and they won't take me off their mailing list either.

    Desperate much, guys?

    [ Parent ]

    I've been (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:20:12 AM EST
    systematically ditching all DNC appeals.

    [ Parent ]
    And you thought Brazile's sour expression was bad (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Ellie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:04:51 AM EST
    ... when she was forced to feign neutrality and dial back her buttons-popping pride in Obama for the sake of all that was pure and decent in this world.

    Wait till she gets a load of the now legendary database of new Dumpling Dem ATMs being dangled by TeamObama for DNC support.

    If whatever's left after culling it of addresses like Gluteus.Maximus@bigbuttz.com (fwd Hugh.Jass@waybiggerbuttz.com) makes up for the loyal contributors they've insulted out of the party, kindly let me know at one of my own egregiously worded spam-buster locations.

    Mia.DuYuLongTimeMistah@nonotreally.com is no longer in effect, just for the record.

    (I mean, OH COME ON, a database of email addies?)

    [ Parent ]

    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:15:43 AM EST
    You should see the idiot who keeps signing my petition with a bunch of racist nonsense.

    I keep deleting the signatures but the person keeps playing their stupid game.

    [ Parent ]

    Indeed... (none / 0) (#122)
    by sander60tx on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:20:50 AM EST
    So far, the Denver host committee is about $15 million short of the $40.6 million it must raise by June 16. With only $25 million raised so far, the committee is scrambling to offer a new round of special deals for corporate underwriters, as well as to devise a backup plan should the fund-raising fall short and plans for the convention need to be scaled down.

    The full NY Times article is here

    I won't give them a dime, but I haven't quit the party yet.  I want to change it.  How are we gonna force them to fix this stupid primary system so it works better next time?


    [ Parent ]

    I hade the joy of doing another DNC (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Cream City on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:47:09 AM EST
    rejection yesterday, for another appeal for funds -- and then another from my state Dems, too.  Both really are ramping up the appeals, and both ignore my requests to unsubscribe.  But I find it easy to sear their cyberears with fuller replies now; I just cut, paste, and edit from my comments here . . . adding in a couple more comments on whatever is the outrage du jour from either the DNC or state Dems.

    (My state Dems are adding to the outrage lately with the gov's mismanagement of the budget, requiring more slash-and-burn -- slashing and even freezing faculty but not administrative salaries in the once-great state university system but not cutting back on the massive outlays for more prisons, road-building, and other budget items that line pockets of those recipients of patronage, no matter which party is in power here.)

    [ Parent ]

    the only precedent that has been set (5.00 / 12) (#21)
    by ruffian on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:24:08 AM EST
    by the FL case is that Republican state legislatures can screw with the Dem nomination system at will.

    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:25:24 AM EST
    and if the shoe were on the other foot, I would relish the opportunity.

    [ Parent ]
    Can anyone confirm if the (none / 0) (#29)
    by NJDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:27:04 AM EST
    FL GOP really named the bill to change the primary date # "527" -- the amount of votes Gore "lost" FL by?

    Boy, Recount has really haunted me the last few days.  I guess people get wiser with age, but not political parties...

    [ Parent ]

    and the name (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:29:46 AM EST
    of political organizations formed to influence the election.


    [ Parent ]
    It was CS/HB 537 (none / 0) (#53)
    by ruffian on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:39:24 AM EST
    Was that the number of the Bush margin?  The bill numbers before and after it are in that number range too, so it is hard to tell if it was intentional.

    Well, maybe not that hard to tell.

    I had a bad dream about recounting votes the other night. Never should have wartched that movie!

    [ Parent ]

    thanks! (none / 0) (#64)
    by NJDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:45:55 AM EST
    I had read a comment from someone in FL who went to a meeting re: counting the votes and an elected official there said that the bill was named after the vote loss number.  I know it's hearsay, but I wouldn't put it past the GOP and it really riled me up.

    I had nightmares too!  I think I may have played the  role of Kathrine Harris--woke up in a sweat! :)

    [ Parent ]

    Don't wake up in a sweat (none / 0) (#70)
    by ruffian on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:49:16 AM EST
    your mascara will run!!

    [ Parent ]
    have you been (none / 0) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:51:42 AM EST
    in the Ambien again?

    [ Parent ]
    I knew (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by tek on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:25:05 AM EST
    SC had violated the rules.  Can you say: BANANA REPUBLIC?

    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:26:18 AM EST
    America is currently being ruled by a brain-damaged Chimp.

    I hear they like bananas. ;-)

    [ Parent ]

    they say (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:28:36 AM EST
    you can tell a lot about how someone would govern by how they run the campaign.  I dont much like how they have run this campaign.
    I dont much like it at all.


    [ Parent ]
    SC applied for a waiver last fall and got it. And (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Christy1947 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:09:56 AM EST
    the violation waived was not running before 2/5, it was running before the 'not before' date in January that the Rules allowed them. The application for the waiver before time and getting the waiver before time for the second adjustment is the point, though.

    [ Parent ]
    AGain, FL also asked ahead of time. (nt) (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by Cream City on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:48:04 AM