DNC To Ignore Florida's Safe Harbor In Delegate Meeting

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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.


    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."  

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.  


    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.

    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.


    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%?

    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.


    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?


    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.


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



    " 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."


    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.

    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.


    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?


    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.  


    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.


    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.


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

    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?  


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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)


    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.


    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?


    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?


    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?


    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.


    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.


    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?  

    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.

    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.

    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).


    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.

    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.


    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.


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

    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.


    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.


    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

    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?

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    ::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?

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.  

    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.


    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.

    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."


    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.


    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.

    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.  

    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.

    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.

    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?

    you want to talk about (5.00 / 5) (#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."

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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?


    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.

    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?)


    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.


    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?


    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.)


    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.

    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...


    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.

    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!


    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! :)


    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!!

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

    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. ;-)


    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.

    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.

    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 EST
    This really makes it look like (5.00 / 11) (#27)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:26:22 AM EST
    they are trying to stop Hillary from winning the primary.  That's what it looks like.  Otherwise just seat the delegations.

    And that's what will delegitimize Obama (5.00 / 6) (#170)
    by Cream City on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:49:11 AM EST
    and his nomination with this maneuver, too.  Not that he or his minions seem to care whit about moral victories.

    Bystander? (5.00 / 14) (#28)
    by rooge04 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:26:37 AM EST
    I don't think so. I think Obama has been quite involved in making absolutely sure Florida and MI don't get seated fully.

    Isn't the hint that the DNC (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:18:54 AM EST
    is trotting out the lawyers?  Who is well known for that little trick?  Illinois anyone?  how about Michigan?

    Exactly. (5.00 / 6) (#134)
    by AmyinSC on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:29:16 AM EST
    Obama has certainly NOT been an idle bystander in this whole fiasco.  He is the ONLY one to be benefitting from it, and he has made it QUITE clear for some time that he was actively working AGAINST the full seating of FL and MI (MI revotes anyone??  NO, says Obama - like he should EVER have been given that decision to make in the FIRST place!  It SHOULD have been between the DNC and the state.  Period.).  So, yeah - HARDLY an innocent bystander is Obama.

    This does it for me.  I am 50, and a LIFELONG Democrat.  Until today.  I am going RIGHT NOW to change my registration.  I will not allow a Party that has consistently acted in such a disparate manner toward certain states and candidates to count me on their rolls.  I will not allow a Party that has shown such callous disrgard for the will of its very members to count me on their rolls.  I will not allow a Party that has acted with such callous disregard for WOMEN to count me on its rolls.  As well as all of the other things people have already mentioned about its complete and utter failures of leadership.

    I do not say this lightly.  It breaks my heart.  But I cannot be a member any longer of this Party.  Because truthfully, I did not leave it.  It left me.  No need for it to be able to pad its rolls with my name...


    My theory: Clinton still has the votes (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Exeter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:28:37 AM EST
    on the committee and this is a way of overriding the rules committee by the executive committee, when that time comes.

    the draconian penalty in, all of them. You are all owed an explanation from them as to why they voted for this penalty, then, and why they might vote against what they voted for, now, if they do.

    At the time, though, it (5.00 / 5) (#152)
    by Exeter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:40:40 AM EST
    was was widely stated said that the penalty was temporary to prevent campaigning (the biggest penalty) and that the delegates would be seated. Go back and read press coverage at the time and the quotes from the committee members.

    No (5.00 / 8) (#159)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:44:41 AM EST
    You are all owed an explanation from them as to why they voted for this penalty, then, and why they might vote against what they voted for, now, if they do.

    We don't care - don't you get it?  We know Hillary's reasoning for arguing this all along - we KNOW it's political. But.We.Don't.Care.

    Know why?

    It's because, while her argument is political and helps her, it's also the morally and ethically right choice. Obama and Brazile have "the rulz".

    Maybe it isn't your thing, but I go for the choice that is "right".


    Exactly right. (5.00 / 1) (#232)
    by Radix on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:43:52 AM EST
    It doesn't matter one wit why Hilary chose to do the right thing, only that counting MI/FL votes is the right thing.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah


    Yeah, (5.00 / 1) (#234)
    by ricky on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:46:54 AM EST
    this is the biggest problem here. The "count the votes!" cry is not morally and ethically pure, as you suggest. I have friends in Florida and Michigan that did not vote because they thought it wouldn't count. Because of the issues on the ballot in Florida, the vote was skewed towards homeowners, a segment of the population with more resources. Not being known to voters, a real Obama campaign - rallies, town halls, extensive ads in key time slots (not just the few that spilled over from CNN/MSNBC), hundreds of thousands of phonecalls from eager supporters, and GOTV canvassing efforts - would be needed to make the results more than a popularity contest. There are many reasons why the vote was illegitimate.

    As an Obama supporter, I am willing to state that having a revote would have been most appropriate, and would have addressed some of the issues above. The inability of Clinton supporters here to offer a balanced argument, that takes into consideration the problems with the Florida and Michigan votes, comes across as irrational. Flame away!  


    Lets not get into ethics or morals. (5.00 / 2) (#239)
    by The Realist on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:09:36 PM EST
    Obama took his name off the ballot in MI to bolster his standing in IA. He encouraged MI voters to vote uncommitted .He knew this was going to be an issue.

    To be consistent, why did he not take his name off the FL ballot? Perhaps,he did not have time which might be why he told them not to vote because their vote would not count. Which brings us to our current  state.

    Ethics and morals, indeed.


    I guess the counter would be, what, (none / 0) (#237)
    by Radix on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:03:58 PM EST
    that the only fair solution would not to count any of the votes?

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah


    Some democrates are still fighting (5.00 / 6) (#35)
    by mogal on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:29:08 AM EST
    The analysis also said there is an option to restore 100 percent of the delegates -- by a recommendation of the Credentials Committee that meets later this summer. However, that would mean a final decision would not be made until the first day of the convention in Denver since Credentials Committee decisions have to be approved by the full convention as it convenes -- risking a floor fight.

    Alice Huffman, a member of the Rules and Bylaws Committee from California who is supporting Clinton, said she has been barraged with e-mails in the past few weeks. She said the senders include Floridians who are upset that they are being disenfranchised, and she has started printing out the messages so she'll have a record to explain her decision.

    "This is a really, really significant issue to women. Obviously it's a significant item to people of color too. So I'm just preparing myself as best I can," said Huffman, president of the California NAACP.

    The shoe shipments are being organized by WalkAMileInOurShoes.org and1 the orange idea was promoted by a group called Florida Demands Representation, which plans to bus Floridians to Saturday's rally outside the meeting. Blaine Whitford, a volunteer helping organize the effort, said they are unaligned with any candidate.

    Susie Buell, one of Clinton's top fundraisers, has formed a political action committee encouraging women to support full seating of the delegates. The WomenCountPAC has taken out ads in USA Today and The New York Times promoting attendance at the rally.


    Associated Press writer Juliet Williams in Sacramento, Calif., contributed to this report.


    Sad (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:50:15 AM EST
    "This is a really, really significant issue to women. Obviously it's a significant item to people of color too."

    While I hope that Ms. Huffman would back seating both delegations in full, I'm not at all happy with the way this is phrased.

    This isn't significant JUST for women and people of color.

    The issue of disenfranchisement is an American issue, significant for ALL Americans. Not just Michiganders or Floridians or women or people of color. It's an issue for every American.


    Lawyer Opposition Memo? (none / 0) (#111)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:18:12 AM EST
    Is there no way that lawyers who oppose the "opinion" of the DNC lawyers can't put together an opposition paper?  Is this already underway?

    Yes and they were punished (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Exeter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:30:50 AM EST
    By having no one campaign in their state, dump millions of ad dollars, make campaign promises, ect.

    Obama ran ads in Florida. (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by vicsan on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:51:37 AM EST
    It's not nice to lie.

    I am not a Florida or Michigan (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by standingup on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:33:35 AM EST
    voter and have no idea if this will be a palatable enough solution to keep them from bolting in November. It is a step in the right direction but disappointing since they are doing now or or close to doing what should have been done in the first place according to their own rules.

    Why worry about the 2012 state primary schedule... (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by outsider on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:34:50 AM EST
    ... if you're convinced that, in 2012, you'll have a President Obama looking forward to a second term?  Surely Obama supporters must think that there will be no serious challenge for the nom in 2012.  So who'd care if the dateline got a little mucked up?  I wish Obama supporters could explain why the 2012 schedule matters to them so much...  I mean, honestly, I am trying to see that this is a matter of principle for them!

    It is too little too late. (5.00 / 10) (#49)
    by MMW on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:36:55 AM EST
    We're months late on this. Whether this is accepted or not the DNC and hence the democratic party has lost. The only way this can be salvaged is if Clinton is the nominee. Any resolution after the fact is of no use. It's wishful thinking that this or anything else will help at this point.

    The Dem party is a laughing stock. All the so called leaders do not together have the collective brain power or courage needed to lead us out of a paperbag.

    Have we ever been shown to be this inept? Can you say not fit to lead?

    Damage done, 527 written, filmed and ready to go.

    Sorry, but all this hand wringing, or the they need to, people aren't that dumb. It's lost unless Clinton is the nominee

    Dem Party the laughing stock (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by ruffian on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:43:15 AM EST
    is the key.  It is just one more example of Dems shooting themselves in the foot and looking ridiculous. No Independent voter wants to associate themselves with that.

    Too late to fix it without a grand gesture of seating all the delegates and telling all the lawyers and ROOLZ people to stay out of it. That is what Obama could have done, but he did not. He is not a leader.

    As masslib says, Hillary is a leader.  Let's nominate her.


    The Party (5.00 / 3) (#189)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:57:23 AM EST
    also looks like a laughing stock for pushing the nomination of the weaker of the two general election candidates.

    And it's not just the head to head polls and national polls, it's also the momentum.


    DNC Not a Court; Party Rules Not Law (5.00 / 11) (#66)
    by HenryFTP on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:46:45 AM EST
    All the self-righteous handwringing about "following the Rules" misses the blindingly obvious point that the Party Rules are not law, and neither is the Democratic National Committee a court. The Party Rules, and the DNC's interpretation of them, should not impair the Party's ability to win the 2008 election. That starts from the proposition that you don't punish the voters, who have absolutely nothing to do with setting the date of the primary.

    I guess there are some people who would feign surprise at learning that politics, not "law", should be the determining factor here. In balancing the competing interests, ticking off the voters of Florida and Michigan seems to be an absurdly high price to pay to mollify state officials in Iowa and New Hampshire with their cozy little presidential primary monopoly arrangements. It is preposterous to suggest that the voters of Iowa or NH would care about whether the Florida and Michigan delegations are sufficiently "penalized".

    Sadly, this dispute has never been about the "rules", and always about the fact that the Obama team has either feared or even calculated for some time that they were going to fall short of a majority of delegates in the contested primaries and caucuses, and decided that backroom infighting on Florida and Michigan was the less risky course. You would have thought that the Obama team would have revised its thinking after the win in North Carolina, and certainly after the win in Oregon, but I guess that's not the Chicago way of doing things.

    Of course, in my political education I was always told that the one thing machine pols knew how to do really well was count votes. Either things have changed in Chicago, or Obama needs to spend more time with Bill Daley and less with David Axelrod and Donna Brazile (the latter of whom has a proven disastrous track record of cluelessness in counting votes).

    As someone wrote on this blogg... (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by mogal on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:50:24 AM EST
    Rules can be broken...priniples can't FDR

    That was me. (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by befuddled on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:50:25 AM EST
    "Rules are not necessarily sacred,
    principles are." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

    On last night's open thread I proposed it as the answer to Troll Talking Point #1, "The ROOLZ."


    Obama's goal (5.00 / 7) (#128)
    by Josey on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:24:42 AM EST
    has always been about winning the most delegates not votes. Sure, that's how the primary works. But Hillary emphasized fighting for both votes and delegates before MI & FL voted while Obama discouraged voting in those states claiming their votes wouldn't count because they wouldn't have delegates at the convention.

    Obama was so focused on delegates and not votes that he gamed the system in rich-delegate red states that will still be red in November.
    Very Rovian.

    Was Obama's "expand the map" code for rich-delegate red states?


    Rich Delegate Red States??? (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by daring grace on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:57:09 AM EST
    I'm missing your point, I guess.

    Usually when Clinton supporters talk about Obama gaming the system in red states they're referring to their perception of his "easy wins" in caucuses in true-red states like Idaho and Wyoming. But those places also awarded dinky delegate counts.

    Are you referring to the richer pickings in his primary wins in the deep south, including Virginia which really is looking more and more purple every day?


    Missing What Point (5.00 / 3) (#245)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:47:20 PM EST
    Although the delegate counts in Wyoming for example are small they are still way out of proportion. Wyoming (18)gets 1 delegate per 29,046 people. California (441) gets 1 delegate per 82,887 people. To be fair California should get 1,258 delegates.

    Virginia; purple? Seen the latest head-to-head polls? Prefer to ignore 'em ay.

    Obama's won 17 primaries.  Nine of those wins are in  states with far above average percentage AA populations.  Of the nine, two are blue states, the other seven are red states that no Democrat can win. The other eight primaries are his home state, a red state, Utah, that no Democrat can win, two smallish blue states, Connecticut and Oregon, one tiny blue state, Vermont, two medium swing states Missouri and Wisconsin.  His last primary win before Oregon came on 02/19. The other primary win is Democrats Abroad.

    Hardly a juggernaut.

    His caucus wins have come in four blue states, two swing states, DC, three very small territories and six red states that no Democrat can win.

    The total population of all states that Obama's won is 114,497,967.  Hillary Clinton's wins are in states with a population of 185,369,115.

    It's still more lopsided when only primary states are considered.  Hillary Clinton 180,833,818, Obama 83,897,481.

    If this were winner take all it would have been over long ago.

    By the way.  A little geography lesson. Virginia is not in what's considered the deep south. Virginia was the northernmost state in the old Confederacy.


    Honey, if you think Obama has a chance (4.50 / 4) (#194)
    by Kathy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:01:03 AM EST
    in the South, you need to check your rose-tinted glasses.

    Honey, Who Said That? (none / 0) (#229)
    by daring grace on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:42:00 AM EST
    All I said was Virginia is looking more hopeful for the Dems with him as the nominee. Yeah, okay. More hopeful=has a chance.

    Even a Yankee like me knows there's more to the south than just Virginia.


    No "Duty to Enforce" (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:53:02 AM EST
    Rules integrity - "we must enforce the Rules because they are the Rules" - no longer provides a valid argument for maintaining the sanctions in this instance. Reasons at length in DNC "Duty to Enforce" Burden Relieved (Thanks, Hillary) at The Confluence.

    Interesting... (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by cosbo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:56:05 AM EST
    I was listening to Rachel Maddows the other day and it's her contention that it's not Hillary's goal to get this thing settled on May 31st. She contends that Hillary's ultimate goal is to get this primary to the convention, whatever it takes. And the only way to this to the convention is to actually not have the MI/FL settled at all on May 31st. So if this is what the DNC is offering, then I guess Hillary's next move is to reject and fight for the delegates at the convention. We shall see.

    And the easiest way to end this (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:58:03 AM EST
    and put the issue behind us is to just give Hillary what she's asking for. Obama could agree to this, and it would not have a substantial impact on the final outcome.

    So I guess we are going to convention... (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by cosbo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:01:30 AM EST
    because I don't see Hillary accepting this. And frankly, I think Hillary is going to stay in because she believes that Obama is going to lose the GE, and she has nothing to lose by continuing on. But that's just my take. I do believe that Rachel might be right. Hillary's ultimate goal is to take this to the convention. I'm starting to wonder if that's not the DNC ultimate goal also.

    Hey (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:09:14 AM EST
    maybe the DNC is on Hillary's side after all! ;-).

    (or not.)


    As it turns out, (5.00 / 7) (#83)
    by pie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:56:39 AM EST
    the will of the people is just a suggestion?

    Hillary has sent out an email today which says that the race is up to the voters, and she will continue to fight for every vote.

    I will continue to support her as she fights for all of us.

    I've had it (5.00 / 9) (#91)
    by hornplayer on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:05:12 AM EST
    I don't think I can be a Democrat anymore.  The way the national party has treated my state of Florida (and Michigan, where I lived for 17 years) is nothing short of shameful.

    There's really no reason for Florida to be a red state.  If the Democratic Party cared about Florida, it would be a deep, deep blue.  There are so many liberals in Central Florida who don't bother to vote because they feel that the DNC doesn't give a whit about them, and they only continue to prove that they don't.

    I don't want to be a Democrat anymore.  I really don't.  This party needs to be burned to the ground.  I've had it.

    Please Hillary, you have to see the wrong that has been done here.  Take our fight to Denver.  You're the only person, it seems, in the entire party, that cares about doing right by voters...for the others, it's a messy technicality of being in power.

    Politico has this quote from Levin (5.00 / 6) (#92)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:06:25 AM EST
    Michigan Sen. Carl Levin will speak on behalf of the Michigan state party at the Rules and Bylaws Committee this Saturday.


    Last week, Levin told the Detroit News he wanted Michigan to sit at full strength. "If we're punished in any way by the rules committee, I would be in favor of going to the floor" of the convention, even if it kept the nomination process alive.

    See the rest of the article HERE

    Levin said that? (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by pie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:11:08 AM EST

    Yeah, but (none / 0) (#135)
    by sander60tx on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:30:02 AM EST
    Levin also supports a solution in which:
    all of Michigan's delegates get seated with a 69-59 Clinton-Obama split -- halfway between the vote results and a fifty-fifty split.

    (from the same Politico article)


    Good! (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:13:16 AM EST
    This should go to the convention.

    DNC has really screwed up (5.00 / 4) (#105)
    by Coral on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:15:17 AM EST
    with this mess. I wish there were a liberal/good government/voting rights/ third party that was viable. I'd go there in a heartbeat.

    Boy, I'll vote Democratic as always, but my money stays in my pocket this election season--except maybe to throw a few more bucks to Hillary to say thank you for fighting the good fight.

    Their Hands were Tied (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:30:33 AM EST
    Republican legislatures set the primary dates. By penalizing Democrats in those states, we are playing right into the hands of Republican tactics.  Will the Dems ever get it?

    Lawyers and Judges are going to decide (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:32:29 AM EST
    who the next President of the United States is again.  Jesus, I'm so ticked off anymore.

    You'll be much happier (5.00 / 4) (#153)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:41:32 AM EST
    when you go from disgusted to amused, like I've become.

    Just remember, it's all satire, and you'll be fine ;-).


    TeresaInSnow2 (5.00 / 2) (#241)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:22:16 PM EST
    What exactly is the progression?

    flat out pi$$ed off

    I'm having a hard time because I seem to be stuck on flat out pi$$ed off. I suppose because I honestly believed that Democrats would never advocate not counting votes. I doubt I will get to amused unless I can get over feeling duped.


    A tragicomedy of errors, a farce (none / 0) (#221)
    by Cream City on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:30:36 AM EST
    and grist for more great flicks like Wag the Dog.

    So much for Obama's "noble aspirations."


    Oh baloney. (5.00 / 4) (#139)
    by pie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:34:32 AM EST
    The democratic party is already at risk!  And it's not because of anything Hillary did in this primary.

    The dem leadership has been getting lambasted since little georgie started getting away with murder.  Other dems have been a huge disappointment.

    There are few heroes here.  

    Haha--surely you jest. (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by Kathy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:35:08 AM EST
    Talk about revisionist history.  There is a reason why McCain has a problem with the base.

    After losing a bitter battle for the Republican nomination in 2000, McCain became an ardent Bush surrogate during the 2004 campaign -- rehabbing his image among party insiders in expectation of a return run in 2008.

    I'm not sure it matters (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by dianem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:39:20 AM EST
    Clinton is not going to have a majority of delegates. If she has a majority of votes and is not too far apart on delegates, then she has a case for overturning the delegate count, but I doubt that they will do so. Obama's minions on the net and in the press have pre-ordained him the winner and it has become widely accepted by the public. If Clinton somehow pulled it off, there would be widespread accusations of her cheating and a lot of people, not just Obama supporter's, would refuse to vote for her.

    As I've said before, the only way she is going to get in is if Obama has a major scandal, something so serious that everybody, including a majority of his supporter's, realizes that he cannot be elected. At that point, Clinton becomes a saviour instead of a spoiler. If anything, Clinton is helping to cover Obama's backside by staying in until the convention. The right will be limited in their attacks, because they have to worry about doing too much damage too soon. Of course, they won't really bring out the nasty stuff until at least September, but this will at least prevent Obama being destroyed until after he gets a chance to make his case at the convention.

    And, This Is Why... (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by bmc on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:41:53 AM EST
    I will not vote for Barack Obama in November. He is being installed by the DNC, in defiance of Democratic voters' wishes, and selected by the DNC in spite of the clearly arbitrary punishment levied against Florida and Michigan.

    I'm not colluding in this electoral fraud. It's despicable, and disgusting.

    Either give Florida and Michigan their full slate of delegates, or halve the delegate slates for the other 3 states which violated the rules.

    They can - and they should (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by dianem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:44:52 AM EST
    Any state should be able to vote when they want. If a state wants to hold it's primary election in January of the year before the election, why should they not? It would be ridiculous, because people won't know who the candidates are, but that isn't the national parties problem. People will quickly realize that they are being made irrelevant and change their leadership.

    There should be basic rules for fairness and then let the states vote. I think we'll find that there is still a temporal spread, because states won't want to all vote on the same day - they won't get as much attention, and they all like attention. If any limits are placed, then they should be to limit the earliest days of the election, not tell states that they can't vote before some other state. That system has not worked and it isn't fair to tell some states that they will never have a say in the selection process.

    The "DNC" didn't ask for this opinion (5.00 / 3) (#162)
    by ineedalife on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:45:36 AM EST
    A person or persons at the DNC did this. What are their names? This, "There is a legal opinion so what we are doing is right", is akin to the torture opinions and all the other malarky we have seen from the Bush administration. Some anonymous lawyer issues an opinion so all the criminals are now "acting in good faith".

    So why are we to vote Democratic? We really expect them to govern differently?

    Reminds me more (5.00 / 5) (#172)
    by Kathy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:49:52 AM EST
    of Recount, where Baker had a republican in FL issue a legal opinion as a guidelines for the recount.  So, then the dems had a dem in FL issue an opinion that was contrary to the repub's guidelines.

    See how that works?

    This is tantamount to one of Bush's "signing statements."  Well, except Bush gets away with it because the dems in congress right now are basically spineless slugs leaving a sebaceous trail across the United States Constitution, but I digress.


    I haven't read it yet (none / 0) (#198)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:06:31 AM EST
    But this could be the staff recommendation. When the appeal was filed, the DNC has staff examine the appeal for merit and make recommendations to the chairs. Its just part of the process.

    Talking point #2 (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by befuddled on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:45:43 AM EST
    "They deserve to be punished." No, they were gamed by the Republicans and if they AREN'T given recognition, then the Republicans will do the same in the future primaries. After all, they are the ones who are big on ROOLZ. All they have to do is screw up a few state primaries and let the Dems insist that their party members be punished. Or is this the Masochism Party you're speaking of?

    Why are Obama's celebrated supporters (5.00 / 5) (#171)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:49:44 AM EST
    not donating to the DNC?!

    because they don't care about the DNC (5.00 / 6) (#176)
    by Kathy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:51:25 AM EST
    DING, DING, DING (5.00 / 5) (#180)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:54:14 AM EST
    They only care about Obama. Too bad the DNC didn't see this until it was too late.

    but the truth is.... (5.00 / 4) (#178)
    by Josey on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:52:56 AM EST
    >>>>"If she reveals that she's rooting against the Democrats in any way in the general, she would become a pariah."

    If Hillary spent 29 days a month campaigning for Obama and he lost the general, she'd be blamed for not campaigning more.

    And I detest the media's narrative that Hillary "would become a pariah" if she's seen "rooting against Dems in the general" because nothing will satisfy Obamedia.
    When she campaigns for him - she'll be accused of focusing Dems on her. If he loses the general, she'll be blamed for not campaigning enough for him.

    Don't they already say (5.00 / 7) (#182)
    by Kathy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:55:30 AM EST
    that she is a pariah?  I mean, seriously.

    As my granny used to say:  "You can't fall off the floor."

    Screw 'em.


    And, if she campaigns every single day (5.00 / 3) (#207)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:15:19 AM EST
    and he still loses (which he will), they will twist her words and claim she was using her code words and really campaigning for McCain.

    I'm sure they will (5.00 / 2) (#248)
    by janarchy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:24:23 PM EST
    apparently Joe Madison was on MSNBC claiming that the RFK comments were "secret code" for....something last night. We all know Bill was wearing special ties as secret codes for Monica Lewinski (courtesy the New York Times) so why wouldn't there be even MORE secret codes. Hillary Clinton: the Next Alan Turing!

    If this were a court (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:54:50 AM EST
    MI and FL would have a very strong argument, FL in particular.

    Arguing about whether politics or the rules should be the primary consideration misses the point.  The point is that this is a body which is not actually interested in enforcing the rules seriously.  If they looked at the facts and the evidence the way a real judge would, there wouldn't be a tension between the rules and the political considerations any longer.

    I cannot believe that on a legal blog, there are comments that respond to the argument "NH was allowed to break the rules with no penalty" by saying "That's okay, because NH got a waiver."  What do people think the word waiver MEANS?  It means they got to break the rules with no penalty!

    by americanincanada on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:56:23 AM EST
    Via The Page:

    The New Yorker sends a letter and memo to every superdelegate, arguing she's the party's strongest contender against McCain.

    "Ultimately, the point of our primary process is to pick our strongest nominee... I hope you will consider the results of the recent primaries and what they tell us about the mindset of voters in the key battleground states."

    Hey, but the local NM rag actually allowed 2 vets (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by SunnyLC on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:58:26 AM EST
    say what they REALLY feel about the Las Cruces event!

    ALERT! Local Paper Actually Allows Vets to Say Something Not Fawning about Obama Visit!


    sorry, link doesn't work :) (none / 0) (#199)
    by NJDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:07:49 AM EST
    McCain totally humiliated himself. (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by Joan in VA on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:59:49 AM EST
    I wouldn't want to see her do that at all. She is not at all responsible for the state the Party is in. The Party is supposed to be about it's members-not some top-down dictatorship. They are to blame if they lose the GE and they should be smart enough to figure out why. They're continuing victimhood at the hands of the Repubs is unconscionable. It is no wonder that people think they are weak. If they blame her for their problems, I hope she walks away and never looks back.

    Your concern? (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:01:06 AM EST
    You joined to say that Clinton is putting the party at risk?  Really?  Running for President is putting the 'party' at risk.  and you are concerned for Clinton? uhhhh I'm sure she appreciates your concern.   pfffft

    I see you are new.  Please check out the rules.  Only include a couple of paragraphs and then link to the article.  Thanks.

    Via The Hill: (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by NJDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:10:41 AM EST
    Obama Asking Supporters not to Protest on Saturday.

    Sen. Barack Obama's (D-Ill.) campaign is urging its supporters not to demonstrate at Saturday's highly anticipated Democratic National Committee (DNC) meeting on how to handle the delegates of Florida and Michigan.
    In an internal campaign e-mail obtained by The Hill, the Obama campaign states, "We look forward to the meeting proceeding smoothly -- and we're asking our supporters not to show up to demonstrate, passionately as they feel about this campaign."

    I guess he realized his DON'T Count the Votes rally was a bad idea...

    Obama lost control of his supporters (5.00 / 3) (#223)
    by Cream City on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:33:35 AM EST
    a long time ago -- or didn't even try to stop them from booing and other bad manners, to put it mildly.  It will be interesting to see if this has any effect on the mob mentality.  If a mob mentality it is, it no longer can be controlled.

    otoh, if they do obey the order (5.00 / 1) (#250)
    by pukemoana on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:50:10 PM EST
    it shows he could have reined in  the booing etc and chose not to

    Compensation (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by zebedee on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:24:23 AM EST
    If they do invoke the 50% rule (and presumably don't just use it as a cap but give them both 50% of the delegates as per the vote) it would be an admission that they misapplied the penalty rules. How will they compensate Hillary for everything she lost as a result? Momentum, perception, everything that Mccain got when he won Florida and other early states.

    Given this, I don't think she should accept a 50% ruling. And she is a strong position to do so, this gives her the moral right and the DNC know they have no chance in November if she and her supporters feel aggrieved.

    Also I think the HRC campaign should nip in the bud now any thought that a 50% delegate ruling means you only count the popular vote 50%. The pop vote is nothing to do the delegate situation, these people (all 100% of them) voted and should be counted for SD purposes.

    Argh (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:29:45 AM EST
    This DNC analysis is a joke.

    Emphasis added

    On the other hand, it can be argued that the primary as a whole could not possibly have served as a "fair reflection" of presidential preference because most of the candidates then running for the nomination were not on the ballot. Under the law establishing the January 15, 2008 presidential
    preference primary, any presidential candidate that did not wish his or her name to appear on the
    ballot could cause his or her name not to appear on the ballot by filing an affidavit with the
    Secretary of State.9 Pursuant to this provision, all candidates seeking the nomination at that time withdrew their names from the presidential primary ballot with the exception of Senator Clinton, Senator Christopher Dodd, U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich and former Senator Mike Gravel.

    4 withdrew and 4 remained. How is that most? How does that deserve a sentence stating "all...except" withdrawing?

    And there's this:

    and were not permitted
    under applicable state law to withdraw their names unless they declared themselves no longer a
    candidate for the nomination.

    They sourced the statute but didn't read it. They had time to remove their names PRIOR to the need to declare themselves no longer a candidate.

    If they didn't get the facts right, how can their conclusions be trusted?

    Excellent points -- BTD, another diary? (nt) (none / 0) (#224)
    by Cream City on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:34:45 AM EST
    Tina Flournoy, member of the RBC (5.00 / 2) (#225)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:34:50 AM EST
    on the Clinton conference call said that the notion that the RBC could not seat the delegation at 100% was an incorrect reading of the DNC memo and she does believe that the DNC will be issuing a clarification.

    Taylor March has a podcast up of the call.

    Sen. Bill Nelson quoted today (5.00 / 2) (#227)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:35:21 AM EST
    and he says:PERRY, Florida -- U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson today predicted that the Democratic National Committee will stall its decision on seating Florida and Michigan delegates -- hoping that the early June primaries will resolve the presidential nomination and avoid a divisive rules fight just two months before the election.

    Nelson also told Taylor County residents that Florida's 27 electoral votes will "decide the election" next November. He said the Democrats are hurting their chances of carrying the state by punishing Florida for moving its presidential primary from early March to Jan. 29 this year.

    Nelson, who unsuccessfully sued his party in federal court to force recognition of Florida's 211 convention delegates, said he will make a presentation in Washington on Saturday to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, which is considering Florida's appeal for seating of all or part of the delegation.

    "What I'm going to tell them on Saturday is that in Florida, we're pretty sensitive about our right to vote and have that vote counted," said Nelson, citing the 36-day saga of court fights and street demonstrations following the 2000 presidential election. "Eight years later, we've got Democrats trying to take away the Democrats' right to vote."

    Nelson said he expects the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee to postpone a ruling on Florida and Michigan, which held its primary on Jan. 15, until Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama finish their primary struggle next week.


    YAY!!! GO NELSON!!! n/t (5.00 / 1) (#252)
    by Eleanor A on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:55:36 PM EST
    This is all pointless (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:13:01 AM EST
    If you believe it is over.

    No (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:14:31 AM EST
    the point is to make FL and MI feel like they had a legitimate say.

    What is pointless, given that this is likely over, is to continue to make strained arguments about the roolz.


    But they didn't have a legitimate (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:20:34 AM EST
    Say.  And now it's over.

    If you want them to really feel like they have a legitimate say, you don't say it's over.


    No, this is pretty straightforward (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:22:57 AM EST
    if you count their existing contests, you can tell them honestly that while their votes might not have been decisive, they did count in the end.

    If the votes aren't decisive (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:26:02 AM EST
    Then there's no urgency.  It'd be like fretting over 100 butterfly ballots in California.

    They didn't have a say in the process.

    That is obvious.

    They have only been allowed to have a say AFTER the process ended.


    Unfortunately (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:39:48 AM EST
    I think these wounds are too deep to be fixed now. You just don't tell Floridians that their votes don't count.

    It's clear what all the delaying and obfuscation is about.

    The fix is in.


    You're being obtuse (none / 0) (#31)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:28:26 AM EST
    by your reasoning, any state that did not decide the contest did not have a say. Hell, because the Super Delegates will decide, you must believe that no state had a say.

    If FL and MI (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:32:24 AM EST
    Counted in Feb. then they would have had a say, not a decisive say, it means SDs would have based their decision on a different set of results that counted.  It's a process that relies on narrative and momentum, and FL and MI were removed from that process.  ANd you call me obtuse.  Booo!

    I will leave now.

    It is clear to me now that even though they did not have a say in the process, the best you and BTD can do, because Obama has given you no other choice in this matter, is to at least try to make people feel like they had a say, even though they never did.


    Exactly. The damage was done (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:35:13 AM EST
    long ago.  Frankly, if the media had only reported the popular votes, which Howard Dean admits(now) has zero to do with seating the delegations, it would have changed the narative.

    I find intriguing the role of certain sites (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by Cream City on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:14:53 AM EST
    notably realclearpolitics.com, a major source for blogs and other media.  In its running tally of delegates, it opted to asterisk and not include the numbers from Michigan and Florida.  It could have included those delegate numbers paranthetically; it could have offered alternative delegate totals that included those states, as it does for popular vote.

    So the lazy bloggers and media were easily exempted from reporting both running delegate tallies, which has allowed Obama to keep making his claims of being so far ahead, when he may not be.  And it has not helped Clinton make her claim, correctly -- although it needed to be said sooner, another campaign failure until Doyle and Penn were out -- that she is ahead in all votes cast.

    Reliance on sources is key to reportage -- and to media/blog bias.  When sources are biased, it becomes so much easier for media to be biased, because the general public has no easy resort for finding alternative information.  In the books to come on this campaign, I suspect that there will be revelations about who is behind some sites and their biases (see also rcp's selection of stories run, or not run, in its daily pickup list).


    There is a difference between (none / 0) (#44)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:34:27 AM EST
    not having a major impact and not having a say.

    I will not speculate on what makes you unable to see the difference.


    the staggering of primaries (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:41:00 AM EST
    makes it so that your say, sways, the next elections.  By denying their say at the time, they took away the "alleged" theory of staggering primaries.  

    Actually I agree with Edgar (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:39:24 AM EST
    the Florida and Michigan punishment was achieved.  The staggered primaries allow for a certain boost, or momentum.  So, for Hillary's substantial Florida win, the real impacts was how she won and by how much and at that time.  She lost the advantage of the win, since it was never counted in her totals for delegates, so she was always not given the count.  So, the damage was done.  So, now the only thing the Florida and Michigan voters get is just being part of the count.  
    (don't even know if this is what you are arguing)

    However, they have not acknowledged (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by zfran on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:48:24 AM EST
    that voters, as in 2000, were disenfranchised. I think Hillary should not let this go. What does she have to lose..Ya know, for all the mysogony going on, one thing those doing it forget: Women do not forget, sometimes we forgive, but we don't forget...ask most men!!!

    At the end of the day (none / 0) (#58)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:41:09 AM EST
    no state is entitled to being anything more than "part of the count."

    The momentum that would have been gained was exactly what the punishments were designed to prevent, and they served their purpose.


    exactly, so (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:42:43 AM EST
    why prevent the full count?  But no one is talking about that nuance in the wider universe.  

    We are here (none / 0) (#71)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:49:25 AM EST
    I guess I did not (none / 0) (#79)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:54:14 AM EST
    get what you, BTD and Edgar were so hot about, you seem to agree...oh, well.  

    Edgar is saying (none / 0) (#82)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:56:06 AM EST
    that there is now no way to make MI and FL count, if I read him correcting.

    I'm saying that there is an easy way: seat the delegates.


    Dean needs (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:04:00 AM EST
    to quit after the Convention.  Take responsibility for the whole thing and how it was handled.  It's the only way.  De-Denification and De-Brazilication of the party.  If Hillary is not nominated, and they do not set up some kind of committee to fix the process and do a "Truth Commission" the Democratic Party will go the way of the RNC.  

    Brazile Wants To Replace Dean As Head Of (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:52:19 AM EST
    the DNC.  Also I read that Obama is in the process of organizing the DNC under his umbrella. I'm sure that will fix the entire process. No?

    I like this idea (none / 0) (#94)
    by bjorn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:08:11 AM EST
    I would feel a lot better about staying with the party if Dean and Brazile resign as a result of this fiasco. It seems fair since they are the accountable parties here.

    but I assure you they will not (none / 0) (#121)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:20:39 AM EST
    they will get entrenched.  

    exactly (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by kempis on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:32:32 AM EST
    Sadly, I expect my former party elders to screw it up yet again.

    One thing is guaranteed: no outcome that threatens Obama's nomination will be permitted. Obama is the DNC's preferred candidate. (See any number of remarks by Pelosi, Dean, Leahy, Richardson, Edwards, and on and on and on it goes. Oh, and that awful Donna Brazile. )And certainly Hillary-supporters on the committee have to know that the deck is stacked against them.

    I have no faith that this can be resolved equitably, but I'll give BTD props for coming up with equitable solutions. Too bad the party leadership is either seriously deluded about Obama's chances after alienating half the party and key swingstates, OR they don't care because they have their eye on some other prize than winning in November.

    All I know is that this nomination process has been the most FUBARed thing I've seen in a loooong time.


    Hint, (none / 0) (#47)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:36:29 AM EST
    There is no longer any reasonable outcome that could threaten Obama's nomination. The Lanny Davis outcome could conceivably do so, but it is is quite unreasonable in my opinion.

    LOL. (4.60 / 5) (#9)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:19:13 AM EST
    I wish the DNC all good luck in convincing MI and FL voters that Democrats care about their votes.

    Without full seating AND full vote-counting, that is nagahapin.


    QED (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:20:22 AM EST
    then I will be happy to see (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:20:41 AM EST
    you no longer participate in these threads. I have not much liked your attitude towards me of late.

    At least these threads will be a safe harbor for me.


    The time is coming (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:21:55 AM EST

    Seating them all (none / 0) (#39)
    by cannondaddy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:31:21 AM EST
    and giving her 20 bonus delegates for being such a good sport wouldn't change the outcome.

    Cool, then do it. (5.00 / 6) (#40)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:31:42 AM EST
    This is the democratic party (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:36:29 AM EST
    and we believe in counting everyone's votes.

    until we don't.

    I thought we were better than this.

    Is this personal, or just business? Is Brazile getting revenge?


    No, grasshopper (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:10:56 AM EST
    This is the new Democratic party. We believe in the roolz as we choose to arbitrarily apply them.

    Or, to paraphrase an old ad, this ain't your father's Democratic Party.


    This is the NEW Democratic party (5.00 / 6) (#102)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:14:04 AM EST
    where we choose your candidate while PRETENDING you have a say in the matter.

    Yeah, because voters are busy people (5.00 / 5) (#112)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:18:20 AM EST
    It's nice of the DNC to take care of all this messiness for us. Maybe they would also like to send someone over to clean my house and do the laundry.

    Just a thought, but... (none / 0) (#50)
    by outsider on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:37:43 AM EST
    Can anyone who is good at math tell me what the delegate totals would look like right now if Iowa, NH and SC also had their delegates docked by 50%?

    Obama's lead would drop by 17 delegates. (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by jimotto on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:52:07 AM EST
    Iowa O25 C14
    NH O12 C9
    SC O32 C12

    Currently nets 34 delegates from those three states, it would drop to 17 if the delegates were halved.


    Thanks v much for this... (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by outsider on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:36:36 AM EST
    I was wondering how unbalancing it has been for the DNC to apply the rules only selectively.  The answer appears to be, at least in terms of the delegate count, not as much as I had expected.

    delegate count (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by manish on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:56:44 AM EST
    Here are the results so far.
                        O    C
    South Carolina    01/26    45         32    12
    New Hampshire    01/08    22         12    9
    Iowa        01/03    45         25    14

    For a total of Obama 69 and Clinton 35.  Half would be Obama 34.5 and Clinton 17.5.  The total delegates would drop by 56 meaning that the threshold to win drops by 28.  So Obama loses 34.5 delegates and Clinton loses 17.5 delegates, but the margin needed to win drops by 28.  So this puts Obama 6.5 delegates further from the nomination and Clinton 10.5 delegates closer to the nomination.


    Thanks for posting this... (none / 0) (#148)
    by outsider on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:37:54 AM EST
    Much appreciated.  :-)  For my reason for asking, see above...

    Supreme Court? (none / 0) (#56)
    by mogal on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:40:40 AM EST

    Via The Page

    DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee Member Tina Flournoy, senior adviser Ickes and communications director Wolfson hold 11:30 am ET media call with reporters.

    Comes after DNC lawyers release memo ahead of Saturday's meeting saying the two states must lose at least half of their delegates for moving up their contests.

    Who has a copy of the DNC lawyers' memo? (none / 0) (#88)
    by Christy1947 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:02:52 AM EST
    It would be very useful at this point for somebody on some site to post the actual 38 page memo to see what they really said. We're now all working on commentary on another commentary, not the document itself. So far everybody's talking about it but nobody has actually produced this item. Anywhere I can find, anyway.

    It will be resolved... (none / 0) (#120)
    by mike in dc on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:20:31 AM EST
    ...by the Credentials Committee in late June, when Obama, in a "unifying" and "magnanimous" gesture, having already guaranteed he will be the nominee no matter what, urges the Committee to seat the delegations at full strength.

    The proportion of FL and MI voters ticked over "disenfranchisement" will shrink a little after the first RBC ruling, then will shrink further still after Obama and the Credentials Committee recommend seating them at full strength.

    Of those who might remain ticked, well, my guess is that some of them would be ticked even if Obama parroted Clinton's position this week.  

    My guess is that Obama picks up at least 40 of the MI uncommitted delegates(since he has 31 out of 36 who have already been selected, with 19 more to go), plus the 69 pledged from Florida, plus at least half the remaining 18 Edwards delegates, plus at least 32 from the last 3 contests(even if there's a blowout in PR), plus at least 10 superdelegates from FL/MI, plus the 5 dozen he's lined up next week...

    ....that brings him to 2199.  About 34 more add-on delegates have yet to be selected, and he'll pick up at least half of those from what I hear, putting him over the "magic number" of 2209.  

    After all that, there's still around 130 superdelegates left over.  

    My guess is that he'll be over the delegate majority mark by 100 or more, counting Florida and Michigan fully, by the time the convention rolls around.  

    Too late. (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:43:08 AM EST
    You're saying that Obama is going to continue to dither and waffle around about this. Might as well go to the convention.

    Anything the credentials comm does (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:43:28 AM EST
    must be voted by the floor at the convention.

    60 su;er-dels to Obama next week? (none / 0) (#215)
    by Cream City on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:24:28 AM EST
    Oh goodie, another goalpost that will be moved . . . or just disappear into the ether?  We have heard too many times of a massive mutual declaration of 50 super-delegates in a single day for Obama.

    I don't doubt that this could happen, of course.  But best to wait until it does -- as all this constant puffery about such an en masse commitment coming, over and over, has diluted its predictive and persuasive power.   Pffft until it happens.


    magic number (none / 0) (#123)
    by DandyTIger on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:20:55 AM EST
    So what will be the new magic number if both states get half? And I guess assuming Obama steals votes in Michigan. And with that new magic number, will Obama get that just from the upcoming remaining primaries. Probably moot as I bet he has enough SD's in his pocket to release right after the primaries. Just wondering.

    I agree with some of above, I think this is a big enough issue, and the injustice is clear enough, that I'd go to the convention and not concede if I were Hillary. I'd in fact say (assuming it's still try by then) that no one got to 2210, so we're off to the convention. Or even stronger, when the votes are actually counted and they add up to 2210 in Denver, then we'll know who the nominee is. We'll see what happens.

    Bottom line, the DLC is screwing everything up and will loose FL and possibly MI as a result. And worse, it will make it appear to many that an Obama win is not legitimate. Wow, smart move since they could have easily done it better. Of course Hillary can still count the popular votes, no matter what Donna says.

    Askterisked for posterity like Bonds? (3.66 / 3) (#219)
    by Cream City on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:28:36 AM EST
    Is that how Obama and his supporters, especially AAs, really want this to read in the history books?  (See, e.g., the 1876 election.)  Well, his history suggests that it doesn't matter to him, that he'll do anything to win, that it's just more of the Chicago Way.  (See, e.g., the 1960 election -- although more often a footnote to history, owing to the redemption of JFK's reputation post-1963.)

    But what a sad footnote to history it will be if the election of the first president of color, and every election in this new millennium, has to be asterisked.  It could mean not a breakthrough for others to come but, instead, a higher bar to be met.


    What about (none / 0) (#126)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:23:51 AM EST
    Violation of proportional representation: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan
    of a state party provides or permits the pledged delegates or alternates to be
    allocated to a presidential preference (including uncommitted status) other than as
    provided under Rule 13 of these rules, or in the event a state party, in fact,
    allocates its pledged delegates or alternates to a presidential preference (including
    uncommitted status) other than as provided under Rule 13 of these rules, the
    delegation of the state shall be reduced by the same amount and as provided in
    section C.(1) of this rule.

    This is C 2. of the Delegate Selection Rules.

    Florida Dem paty Memo to the DNC (none / 0) (#196)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:03:09 AM EST
    Regarding the diversity of their delegate selections.


    Memo is Irrelevant (none / 0) (#228)
    by santarita on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:37:20 AM EST
    At best it is an opinion that identifies what the existing rules are and how they apply to the given facts.   The Rules Committee can decide that the existing rules as applied are fine or they could suggest change.  So the memo is more of an advisory opinion.  

    The only reason I'd be interested in reading the memo is to see if their interpretation of the rules was guided by the wishes of a particular faction.  As in:  Give me an opinion that says we can do this...

    This is all so tedious (none / 0) (#246)
    by thea2b on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:53:35 PM EST
    If you gave HRC EVERY DELEGATE from MI and FL (Which seems to be the only fair thing to do according to most posting here)she would still not catch him. What is wrong with 50% of the delegates as a punishment for breaking the rules? I know this is never an argument that will be won or even worth fighting here, but if you break the rules there is supposed to be a penalty. As far as refusing to vote for Obama because your candidate did not win, thats cool, it is your right as an American to vote for whomever. The green party just nominated a woman, (if that is your reason for voting)Cynthia McKinney as their candidate, or you have ole friend (fiend?) Bob Barr from the Libertarian party. There are other choices that john McInsane and another four years of Bush and the poisoning for a generation of the supreme court