The Famous DNC "Waivers" For the 4 Early States

The defense you will hear to my strict DNC rules argument is that the early states received "waivers." In fact, they did not until AFTER they had scheduled their primaries in violation of DNC Rule 11, which was never formally amended. According to the DNC Memo of today, this makes these "waivers" against the DNC Rules. But worse than that, there is nothing in the circumstances of those waivers that are in any way different from the Florida situation. In short, the rules are rules for the DNC, except when they are not. Wayne Barrett told the story well: [More...]

The national party had tried - before New Hampshire's case wound up on its docket - to leave the impression that zero tolerance was automatic once violations of the schedule occur. Back in June, a DNC spokeswoman, for example, told the Associated Press that neither Dean nor the Rules Committee "has the power to waive the rules for any state," explaining that "these rules can be changed only by the full DNC." Yet a few months later, on the same day that the Rules Committee stripped Michigan of its delegates, it waived the rules for New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina, each of which had also moved up their primaries.

(Emphasis supplied.) The DNC Memo issued today has no explanation for how this could possibly comply with the rules while it stands by its position that the RBC can not seat the full delegations for Florida and Michigan on May 31. Why can't a "waiver" be issued on May 31? This is an unanswerable question for the DNC.

Barrett further wrote:

Though Dawson and others on Rules [and Bylaws Committee] now say, as they did in recent interviews, that states whose contests were always scheduled before February 5 were free to shift dates without sanction, that's not what the delegate selection rules adopted in 2006 say. Those rules provided an automatic 50 percent loss of delegates for any state party that moved its contest to any day "prior to or after the dates" spelled out by the DNC.

And indeed, the DNC Memo now says that such waivers were not allowable. That is the problem with the DNC Memo. It puts Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina in violation of Rule 11. It is a position that simply is untenable.

And here from the horse's mouth, were the rules changing before our very eyes:

Rules powerhouse Donna Brazile said she would "grudgingly support the waiver," warning New Hampshire shortly before the December committee vote that "the days of 'privilege' may end soon."

Not only did "first-primary-or-die" New Hampshire switch from January 22 to January 8, it moved ahead of Nevada, whose January 19 caucus had been deliberately scheduled by the DNC to precede New Hampshire's. But New Hampshire's Democrats got a DNC waiver because their back was up against the wall, due to a decision by the South Carolina Republican Party to move its primary up to January 19.

But there was a good reason, SUPPOSEDLY, for allowing New Hampshire to move up, the Republicans in South Carolina had deliberately provoked a crisis. Sound familiar? Barrett writes:

The waiver was, in other words, a reasonable response to a Republican provocation. What's unclear is why one Republican provocation is more equal than another.

(Emphasis supplied.) Precisely! The stripping of Florida's delegates is simply unconscionable and unsupportable. The allowance of New Hampshire to move up inflamed Michigan who then also moved up their primary. To wit, this entire travesty was a result of Donna Brazile's incompetence and her inability to actually act consistently. There is no basis, none, for the DMC to hold to its position of not seating the Florida and Michigan delegations. Barrett again:

While the DNC implicitly challenged the "good faith" of the Democratic opposition to the Republican moves in Florida and Michigan, it seemed far less interested in gauging what New Hampshire Democrats were doing. The head of the South Carolina GOP actually traveled to Concord, New Hampshire, to announce the decision to move his state's primary up. He stood in the Executive Council chambers of the statehouse with Secretary of State William Gardner and Representative James Splaine, a Democrat who led the legislative efforts to protect the state's first-primary tradition.

Democratic governor John Lynch was at a funeral when the press conference occurred, but his spokesman said Lynch "has faith in Bill Gardner" and "supports whatever Bill decides." And Lynch, who had already derided the DNC decision to put Nevada ahead of New Hampshire, was clearly pleased that the acceleration of the South Carolina Republican primary date was giving Gardner all the justification he needed to squeeze back ahead of Nevada. New Hampshire officials even called the maneuver an "alliance" with South Carolina Republicans. Gardner promptly chose a new date 11 days before Nevada, defying the schedule that the DNC had issued.

But New Hampshire was granted the safe harbor waiver. There simply is no basis for what the DNC has done. It is outrageous, unfair and worst of all, political idiocy.

And, to borrow a phrase from Markos Moulitsas, a tale of intellectual dishonesty. Barrett writes:

The inconsistency on New Hampshire aside, DNC officials have come up with one other argument for why they were so tough on Michigan and Florida. Dean's spokesman Damien LaVera said in an email to Huffington Post that, despite the unmistakable references in the rules to testing the "good faith" of a state's "elected officials" and examining a state's "legislative" efforts, the DNC's rules "apply to a state party plan, not state legislatures or elected officials." LaVera insisted that the only standard their Rules Committee judges compliance by is what state parties do, and that the parties in Michigan and Florida had options other than the state-designated primaries.

But this makes no sense. The New Hampshire Democratic Party, the South Carolina Democratic Party and the Iowa Democratic Party all had the exact same options that Florida had but they were given waivers anyway.

In short, rules are rules, except when they are not. Donna Brazile has a lot to answer for. This disaster is entirely the fault of the DNC and the RBC in particular.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Situational Ethics | Ricky Martin and Others Call on Puerto Ricans to Vote for Hillary >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    My opinion (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:22:44 PM EST
    The right thing to do would have been to sanction NH per the rules. Perhaps even to go nuclear on THEM.

    And considering that SC (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:56:51 PM EST
    accelerated the attack on Hillary and Bill, wipe us off the electoral map--he can't win SC anyway,

    It should have also been SC because they... (4.20 / 5) (#45)
    by alexei on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:03:27 PM EST
    obviously worked in concert with NH and Iowa also, since they also moved their date.  All of these states were moved by Democrats, not true for FL.

    MI agreed to abide by the rules as long as NH or any other state did not move their dates up.  Once NH and SC moved, so did MI.  

    This is a travesty and I have been saying this for months.  Obama because of his complicity and blocking of re-votes and campaigning in states that he pledged not to, is illegitimate if the SDs give him the nomination.


    you (none / 0) (#8)
    by CanadianDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:28:28 PM EST
    mean obliterate them?

    heh, no (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:29:24 PM EST
    Strip all or half of their delegates and impose a no-campaigning requirement.

    OMG (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by ruffian on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:39:09 PM EST
    A no-campaigning pledge for New Hampshire would have been obliteration. It would have been heaven though to see a primary cycle go by without having to pretend that New Hampshire is the font of all political wisdom. nothing against NH, and I love them for keeping hillary afloat, but still.....it does get to be a bit much.

    Jeez, this is a tough crowd! (5.00 / 7) (#33)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:53:42 PM EST
    Some people want to "cut the delegates in half".  Andgarden wants to strip them and, presumably, parade them through downtown Denver naked.

    Doesn't incline me towards ever wanting to be a delegate, you know?


    LMAO! (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:57:25 PM EST
    could be interesting to be one... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:00:11 PM EST
    imagine Homer walking down the street naked... that'd be me, lol

    Homer (none / 0) (#119)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:46:55 PM EST
    or Socrates.  

    Given (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:40:23 PM EST
    what delegates usually look like

    "parade them through downtown Denver naked."

    I may have to bleach my brain to get that image out of my mind.


    Doesn't incline me to want (none / 0) (#126)
    by Cream City on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:01:08 PM EST
    to watch the convention on tv, either.  All those ribbons on the bottom of the screen that cut off half of the picture could be useful, though, for once.

    These facts (5.00 / 11) (#2)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:22:50 PM EST
    are awfully inconvenient.

    It's telling that the people who drop by every day with the same old talking points simply choose to ignore them.

    The idea that the DNC must protect the privileged position of NH at all costs was certainly never a standard blogosphere stance prior to this primary.  I wonder what changed?

    Hanging their rhetorical hats on ROOLZ (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by ruffian on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:33:19 PM EST
    with more loopholes in them than the federal tax code was bound to catch up with them someday.

    I am really looking forward to Saturday. This is going to be quite the spectacle.


    Heh (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:37:30 PM EST
    I'm sort of disappointed that the "Don't Count the Votes" protest is apparently not going to happen.

    But I suppose it's better for the party that we not all look like a bunch of idiots.


    It is kinda sad. (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:45:07 PM EST
    Would the "Don't Count The Votes!" protesters be wearing Brooks Brothers suits, I wonder?

    NO (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:48:52 PM EST
    Obama tee shirts

    Too late. (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:48:16 PM EST
    Way, way too late.

    Would give anything to attend rally (none / 0) (#17)
    by Eleanor A on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:36:25 PM EST
    but am on crutches.  Good deal we have a lot of liveblogging going on.

    You wonder what has changed? (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by feet on earth on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:25:33 PM EST
    Donna has become the evel Amazon of Brazil

    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:31:04 PM EST
    I know that was silly but it made me laugh.

    Glad to be of "light" service Madam (none / 0) (#144)
    by feet on earth on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:06:29 AM EST
    And in Fact (5.00 / 5) (#64)
    by The Maven on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:26:17 PM EST
    I distinctly recall several occasions when certain prominent bloggers repeatedly and unequivocally called for New Hampshire (and Iowa) to lose their super-privileged status specifically through the means of having other, larger and more diverse states muscle in on their territory.

    But that was then, of course.


    Since Iowa's tradition (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by RalphB on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:30:44 PM EST
    is picking Democratic losers in November, they should retain their priviledged position.  Should just slightly change the rules such that the winner of the Iowa Caucuses is immediately thrown out to clear a loser from the field.  :-)

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:53:27 PM EST
    I really like that.

    Musical states. Catchy. (none / 0) (#132)
    by oculus on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:14:55 PM EST
    Oh, and you want "hear" in sentence 1. (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:23:55 PM EST

    When we enter our 40's (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:27:03 PM EST
    our brain cells start doing that to us (I'm 44).  Champion spellers start writing, "their's know they're thar".  

    Just saying.  It's something for you to look forward to.


    Oh, I've done it myself (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:28:02 PM EST
    Though I'm sure there's more in the future.

    Imagine the 50's (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:36:19 PM EST
    I dont hav too (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:52:25 PM EST
    imagin the fiftees enymore.

    Just keep practicing! (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:54:32 PM EST
    (And always preview if you write more than one sentence.  Last hint: enlarge the font.  'Tis possible to keep up the rant till you are at least halfway thru the 70's)

    40s, 50s (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:55:16 PM EST
    won't seem all bad when you hit the 60s.

    That Wayne Barrett article (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:26:00 PM EST
    is a fantastic source of information on FL and MI.

    I really didn't have much of a clue about what was going on there until I read that article - which I believe was linked on TalkLeft. :-)

    FL option was a caucus (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by ruffian on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:26:09 PM EST
    The New Hampshire Democratic Party, the South Carolina Democratic Party and the Iowa Democratic Party all had the exact same options that Florida had but they were given waivers anyway.

    The FL Democratic Party people who spoke at the hearing in August gave very good explanations why they were not able to hold caucuses in lieu of the outlawed primary - mainly because FL is so big and has never had caucuses before.  It was just not a real option for FL. Their explanations were of course ignored by Donna & Co.

    Furthermore (5.00 / 9) (#11)
    by phat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:30:01 PM EST
    It's not hard to make a case that caucuses are unfair and disenfranchising.

    Which is not an unreasonable argument to make.


    That in fact was one of the points (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by ruffian on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:34:33 PM EST
    they made, I believe.  I'd watch the tape again if I wanted to cry another river of tears.

    My point is different (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:39:41 PM EST
    New Hampshire could have had a caucus.

    South Carolina could have had a caucus.

    Why could they not have had the same date instead of moving up, just as the DNC demanded Florida do?


    I see what you mean. (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by ruffian on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:45:56 PM EST
    I can't answer the question except to say that the DNC really wants them to go first for historical reasons in NH's case and demographic ones in SC's. Those states knew the DNC would let them move up to stay ahead of the pack.  

    It is all unfair and state-dependent.  One might say situationally ethical.


    No (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:56:47 PM EST
    I say the rules are rules except when they are not.

    I say (5.00 / 6) (#47)
    by Kathy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:06:28 PM EST
    Higher-ups in the FL and MI state dem parties are unfavored.

    Everything is personal, especially in politics.  I guarantee you someone was ticked off at someone else, and this is what we got.  You only teach a lesson to the ones you don't like.  Everyone else gets a pass.


    there aren't rules being followed here. (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by hellothere on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:12:57 PM EST
    the rules are being abused, misused, and we are being spit on by dean, pelosi, reid, and the dnc.

    Well then those lesson (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:36:08 PM EST
    givers are the ones who are TRULY f****d because when all this is said and done, they will find FL in McCain's column and MI a true battleground.

    And with the $$ running low over at the DNC, I see some trouble a-comin'!


    The DNC wanted FL to comply with the rules (5.00 / 8) (#62)
    by ruffian on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:22:23 PM EST
    by having a caucus instead of an early primary.  The Wayne Barrett article explained it better than I could remember from the video of the hearing:

    The Florida party, the DNC source added, was "offered $880,000" by the DNC to host their own caucus on a date in compliance with the DNC schedule and chose to participate, instead, in the state-financed primary, a "bad faith" decision.

        But Florida party officials said the $880,000 would've only covered the cost of 150 caucus sites, with the capacity to draw a maximum of 150,000 voters out of the state's 4 million Democrats. "It wasn't a real offer," a spokesman said.

    I'd say the "bad faith" was on the DNC's side.  Count the dang delegates.


    Why do they want caucus, so they (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by zfran on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:58:35 PM EST
    could control the outcome?

    Yes, and to add to the rolls. (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:01:28 PM EST
    Absolutely (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:05:14 PM EST
    all evidence points to selective application of the rules.

    Historical Context (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:54:59 PM EST
    I believe that Fl held the first primaries in the country in 1904, and then many states followed.  I just read this the other day. So why does DNC think NH has history being its primary date?    

    Here's a source that says (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Cream City on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:12:14 PM EST
    there were primaries as early as the 1860s in California.  Other sources credit Wisconsin with the first direct primary law in 1913.  Not sure of the distinction there -- first statewide law?

    And, of course, Wisconsin long had the first primary by tradition -- I recall that well, when we were the state that sent JFK on the way to the White House.  The second one then always was WV, as I recall?

    And the Iowa caucuses were nothing then -- a couple of hundred turning out in the whole state.  The Obama strategy has changed them forever . . . I fear.  Frankly, with such turnouts, they may no longer be as cheap an option for states.  (It's a given with me that they're not the best option.)


    I confess (none / 0) (#131)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:14:32 PM EST
    I can't remember exactly which state but the date sounds right.

    Before the McGovern Commission I believe there were never more than 15 or 16 Presidential primaries in a cycle.


    this unbelievable (5.00 / 11) (#9)
    by debbie f on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:29:15 PM EST
    i don't know what is making me angry....just finding this out, the media ignoring this, the screwed up dnc, or my blind faith in the dems all these years

    I agree. My brain is about to explode (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by Shainzona on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:07:08 PM EST
    at the stupidity that has gone on.

    I know BTD is not supporting Hillary (or, at least reminding us that BO "has" the nomination), but I appreciate his doggedly following up on all of this.  I am so absolutely disgusted by ALL of the rulz and Dean/Brazile's selective enforcement of them that I truly want to scream.

    So I will....(excuse me, I'm stepping out back into the desert...)

    OK, I'm back.

    Son.  Of.  A.  B*t*h!!!!


    Screaming (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:37:16 PM EST
    here as well.  Man, and these people are supposed to know what they're doing?

    Perhaps they knew exactly (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by oculus on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:21:38 PM EST
    what they were doing:  making sure Obama became the nominee.

    Put me in the exploding brain group (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by angie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:43:44 PM EST
    The only thing that runs through my head reading all of this is the old adage "Oh what a tangle web we weave when first we practice to deceive." I'm looking at you DNC, Obama, msm.

    What runs through my mind (4.80 / 5) (#92)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:56:49 PM EST
    is how such a muddle has been reduced to the sound bite of "rules are rules", when obviously, it's a complete lie.  And at this point, if you try to explain what the media and what the DNC should have cleaned up, it will look to the "other side" seating FL and MI is cheating and destroying the party.  (WMDs anyone?)

    Classic swiftboating... (4.75 / 4) (#96)
    by Shainzona on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:59:53 PM EST
    Take a "fact" and twist it so much and then repeat the twist time and time and time again so no one can explain it.

    This time the twist is Hillary is cheating.  And who can explain why that is simply not true?


    Hillary was preparing (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:22:11 PM EST
    for a right wing swift boating, and instead it was the Democratic Party that did the swiftboating.  

    Right out of Network (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:16:16 PM EST
    "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore.

    I for one... (none / 0) (#129)
    by IzikLA on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:08:43 PM EST
    Would REALLY like BTD at that meeting on Saturday.  An Obama supporter with a clear grasp of the situation.  Sadly, I have a feeling that will not be the case.

    All of the above (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:55:48 PM EST
    I think the 2000 election gravely (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by zfran on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:30:39 PM EST
    affected Donna B. She and the dnc seemed to want the votes in NH/SC/IA, but didn't want FL/MI. Maybe with Fl being the state Gore won, but was taken, really shook her up. Maybe she just wanted to punish and wield power.

    Donna has history with FL Dems (3.00 / 1) (#39)
    by ruffian on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:58:48 PM EST
    over Gore refusing to take a position against a new airport in Homestead, FL.  As VP, he did not feel it appropriate to voice an opinion while the federal agencies were still making their decision.  FL environmentalists were irate and protesting his campaign events in South Florida.

    Link to an earlier post I did on it.


    Wayne Barrett Link Broken (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by gmo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:36:43 PM EST
    I think this is the LINK we're looking for.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:42:42 PM EST
    And (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:40:40 PM EST
    what will they say in Nov. when he loses? In six months this will all be over and Obama will be going back to the senate. Too bad too sad.

    Oh think about it more positively. (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by derridog on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:10:50 PM EST
    Maybe he'll lose his Senate seat too.

    What a delicious thought... (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Shainzona on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:17:37 PM EST
    Of course all of the Obamacans believe HRC will lose her seat after this is all over.

    She'll only "lose" it if she becomes POTUS...and we'll be happy to support another Dem for that seat in that case.


    I tell you who needs to go: (5.00 / 6) (#73)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:38:43 PM EST
    Donna Brazile and Howard Dean...RIGHT freaking NOW!!!

    I second. (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:40:35 PM EST
    Do we need discussion?

    No (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:49:45 PM EST
    their departure and a complete re-working of the Democratic party needs to be happening now.

    Discussion closed. (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Shainzona on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:50:50 PM EST
    Motion passed.

    Now someone, let them know that they must go - NOW!


    You're right. (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:51:49 PM EST
    They both need to be gotten rid of immediately. But how?

    How do we oust them?? (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:00:01 PM EST
    I have no idea how we even got stuck with them.

    447 members of the DNC (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:18:47 PM EST
    elected Howard Dean back in 2005.  I am googling about Mz Brazile.

    Donna Brazile (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:21:45 PM EST
    was appointed, not elected and she represents no one.

    With the exception of Barack Obama.


    I find no tragedy in Obama. (5.00 / 5) (#76)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:43:06 PM EST
    He is entirely responsible for his own actions and the amazing hubris of running for President with a thinner resume than George W. Bush's.

    I agree that we could have had 16 years of Democratic dominance in the White House, however. In fact, I was saying that after Super Tuesday when I was advocating for "Clobama."

    Such innocent days those were.


    The tragedy for us all will be (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by Cream City on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:17:49 PM EST
    that the next AA potential presidential candidate will have to meet a much higher bar, because there now is a belief that an AA can't win the Appalachian states, everyone is a racist, blah blah.

    There also may be tragic outcomes for women in the pipeline as potential presidential candidates -- but that could be countered by the indelible image now of the fierce fighter that Clinton has been.  It would be hard to say (some will, but some never give up their shibboleths) that that women aren't tough enough to outlast a campaign, when with every day that passes, she seems to have more energy.


    And even that (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:21:56 PM EST
    " ... thinner resume than George W. Bush's"

    is padded.


    If Obama Lost The GE, I'm Not Sure He Would (4.80 / 5) (#89)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:55:14 PM EST
    run for the senate again. IIRC he has said that it bores him.

    Yes. He seems to be easily bored. (5.00 / 4) (#108)
    by derridog on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:14:09 PM EST
    He just wants to climb ladders continuously, but doesn't have any goal once he gets to the top.

    I really do blame the DNC (5.00 / 14) (#23)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:41:01 PM EST
    and the RBC for this disaster, as BTD says.

    At every turn, they have sacrificed fairness for perceived political gain. And now, they run the risk of losing FL and MI just so they can kick the Clintons to the curb.

    I am so, so angry and disappointed.

    good luck with that. (5.00 / 14) (#37)
    by ccpup on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:57:02 PM EST
    I mean the "kicking the Clintons to the curb" bit.  Ain't gonna happen.  

    In fact, with their blatantly desperate desire to do said kicking to metaphoric (or literal?) curb, they've only made Hillary (gasp!) more human and, therefore, more electable than she was in the beginning of this process.  They've made her into a perceived victim who is getting more and more votes as the primaries play out.  Not exactly what they were working so hard to achieve, I suspect.

    I don't think on is actually CAPABLE of kicking ANY Clinton to ANY curb.  They're here to stay, regardless of Miss Brazile's issues and Dr. Dean's stupidity.

    And Barack Obama?  Soon to be a political afterthought and future Trivia Question while Hillary and Bill continue working the levers of power in DC to help make this a better country for all of us.


    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:00:18 PM EST
    Even if Obama wins the General Election, his administration will only serve to remind us of better times.

    I don't think he can win. (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:50:45 PM EST
    I don't think the white working class is going to come around.  It's the lack of resume.

    I think all of this information should be (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by zfran on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:55:26 PM EST
    made very public and let everyone see how we are being railroaded. A good game of democracy is talked about but not practiced. Politics has always been down and dirty, but this year should be made as an example of how not to run an election. Count the votes..don't cheat, punish rule-breakers one and all..play fair..the outcome is too important

    It is a coup (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:02:44 PM EST
    plain and simple, like in a third world country.

    People don't CARE (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:04:14 PM EST
    Forgive me but I was only 5 during the Watergate scandal. Leading up to all the inquiries one of   Nixon's operatives said that the American public wouldn't care.  The people only get "pissed when you take away their Cheetos, beer and pu**y!"

    The gas prices and the food prices aren't enough to drive people to learn more about what really affects them.  More Americans vote for Idol than they do in an election.  Start a draft on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, cancel the WWE and BOY OH BOY you will see a lot of people become policy wonks from sea to shining sea!


    People Do Care (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:34:53 AM EST
    They just don't care like political junkies like us care. They don't live and breathe politics.   The problem is that without an honest media they do not get the information they need to make honest decisions.

    I've lived for nearly twenty years with a man that insists that it doesn't really matter who you vote for because all politicians are dishonest, greedy and full of crap. (He did vote for Bill Clinton twice saying he was a little less greedy and full of crap than most.)

    I always argued vehemently that voting was a duty and that it did make a difference. Now I wonder how I can continue the argument. Although I continue with my argument that if you don't vote then don't complain.

    And seeing the dishonesty of the DNC over FL and MI gives all those people that always thought voting wasn't worth while a very good reason to continue in that belief. After all this, who can blame them?


    there are too many (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by ccpup on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:52:58 PM EST
    disaffected groups for him to win back or convince for him to win the GE.

    Despite Miss Brazile's delusional assertions, the Dems need more than AAs and Young Voters.  And Barack has shown a shocking inability to win these other necessary groups over.


    Righteous! (5.00 / 7) (#49)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:07:23 PM EST
    Indeed, many of the folks who have tried to jettison the Clintons have only made themselves look horrible by contrast.

    Yes, Dr. Dean, Donna Brazile, Barack Obama, David Axelrod and the Obama blogomaniacs...I am looking at you.


    Agree - BUT... (5.00 / 8) (#56)
    by Shainzona on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:13:49 PM EST
    Hillary is not playing an victim here.  I am truly amazed at how strong, clear, confident and committed she is on OUR behalf - and she has gotten stronger, clearer, more confident committed as time has gone on.  The mark of a GREAT POTUS.

    I would have told everyone to go take a hike two months ago, but she continues on.  

    And so will my support for her.

    Rise.  Hillary.  Rise.

    Conversely...Go Away.  BO.  Go Away.


    no, she's not playing the victim (5.00 / 8) (#60)
    by ccpup on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:17:10 PM EST
    but voters are beginning to realize how unfairly she's being treated and, due to that, are taking second and third looks at her ... and really liking what they see!

    But Hillary would never play the victim.  She's too smart for that.  Just let her enemies bury themselves and do all the work for her.



    this was not about 'political gain' (5.00 / 6) (#55)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:13:06 PM EST
    back when Florida was completely disenfranchised, it wasn't about trying to benefit/hurt a particular candidate's chances.   It was simply about power --- they had it, and they wanted to inflict the maximum punish anyone who dared to defy them.   It was pure "bully" behavior, none of their arguments or statements addressed the real issues raised by Karen Thurmond and the other Dems from Florida, it was pure, self-serving rationalization directed at imposing their will on people.

    I see it as political power... (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by madamab on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:16:10 PM EST
    you see it as personal power.

    I don't think we disagree too much.


    Get real. From the start, Donna B saw (5.00 / 7) (#32)
    by WillBFair on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:52:54 PM EST
    a convenient way to exclude FL and MI, Hillary strongholds. And she's done it. Now with media propaganda at full throttle, there's probably no way to undo it.

    How about this poster slogan for the convention:

    Rule Waivers for New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina.
    None for Florida and Michigan.

    Or this:

    Keeping Up With The Joneses:
    Republicans Steal FL In 2000.
    Donna B Steals FL and MI In 2008.


    Thanks for the great educational posts about (5.00 / 6) (#43)
    by indy woman on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:01:57 PM EST
    the Rules and ROOLZ BTD.  I think this is the only site that is doing some independent analysis regarding the DNC rules in terms of Michigan and Florida.  Please keep up the great work.  I predict the intensity of this debate is going to rachet up significantly by Saturday.

    Egos.... (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:05:08 PM EST
    I watched the video in its entirety --- it was a roomful of people who were not exercising their judgement, but their egos.

    The sheer stupidity of these people was appalling -- it really was all about "these are OUR rulez, and WE MUST NOT BE DEFIED".

    The one good thing about the tape is that I finally figured out what the "Americans Abroad" delegation is all about... one idiot took umbrage at the description of how caucuses dienfrachise our troops abroad by saying that steps had been take to deal with that -- which must mean the "Americans Abroad" delegation.  

    Of course, no one addressed the question of people with disabilities, people with transportation/work issues (and I was surprised that the woman from Florida didn't talk about the state's senior population).  

    Instead, you had idiots from states controlled by Democrats talking about how their state (California) had talked about moving up their primary, but hadn't done so -- and then some woman from DC explains how DC's city council decision to try and move up their primary resulted in them having to hold caucuses (as if DC has tons of rural voters, and congressional districts that are hundreds of miles wide, like Florida....)

    It was just a really pathetic display of people who were having a hissy fit.  (Only one person -- Fowler -- distinguised himself.)

    What gets me the most (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by IzikLA on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:17:06 PM EST
    Is that the constant discussion of the rules almost always leads to a quote along the lines of "Hillary always agreed that the votes wouldn't count."  I think this has to be the worst misquote -- perpetuated indefinitely by the media, the Obama campaign and it's supporters -- of the entire primary season.  

    The full quote was one of the most nuanced, thoughtful things she has said and they twisted it so far around on itself it wasn't even recognizable anymore.  Honestly, it showed that it was Hillary Clinton who was the one that cared about the party, and cared about the big picture of winning the GE in November.

    How dare them all for portraying that falsely.


    Yes. MI and FL were clearly conspiring. (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by derridog on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:09:54 PM EST
    They voted for Hillary when hey should've been voting for Obama.  What were they thinking? If they had just followed the "rulz" on that, this whole problem would be easy to resolve and both states's delegates would have been seated long ago.

    The DNC can tolerate only so much.

    The current DNC leadership (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by Coldblue on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:10:04 PM EST
    has demonstrated for all to see why we are a party that flirts with its own demise time and again.

    I don't see any unity coming out of the final resolve on this issue, whatever that might be.

    What's the DNC's reply (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by Chimster on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:34:10 PM EST
    to the waiver the other states got?

    Does Donna have an answer as to why FL and MI got the full brunt while the others states escaped punishment. Perhaps she decided "We have to put a stop to this primary date changing, baby, or else all states will move their dates up as well". Did she make an example out of FL and MI? If so, she sure picked the wrong states to do that.

    I don't remember hearing a response to any of these questions from the DNC.

    The real reason, of course (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Cream City on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:26:12 PM EST
    but not the one you will hear is that the Obamans (Brazile, et al.) expected that SC and NV with all their delegate votes would go for Obama.  (Recall the ferocious fight in NV -- and recall that Obama refused to concede, just left the state, and never did so?)  NH was less important, with far fewer delegates -- although you also may recall the shock in the Obama ranks when Clinton won that one.

    And, of course, within hours -- and as the race was heading to SC, where the Obamans could not risk another surprise -- voila, Gene Robinson on TV blamed the NH loss on racism (aka the Bradley effect, which he misstated) . . . and Prima Donna on TV said that "fairy tale" somehow was racist, and within days, voila, the Clintons were racists.  


    from Barrett's article (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by Josey on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:41:21 PM EST
    Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean came out of hiding last week to announce that there is no reason to rush to resolve the fate of Florida and Michigan. He said he was confident that these delegations, disqualified in 2007 by Dean's own Rules Committee, would be seated at the August convention - but, apparently, only after a nominee is chosen, which he predicted would occur by July 1. This modern-day Metternich, whose two-fisted handling of this two-state controversy has already had more impact on the 2008 race than his candidacy did on the race in 2004, is promising to mediate the dispute once it's already settled.

    So (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:50:40 PM EST
    the party has moved out having a nominee to July 1st? It seem to keep getting pushed farther and farther out. Why keep moving the dates out and instead just say the nominee is going to be decided at the convention.

    So Basically Dean Is Saying That Their Fate (5.00 / 5) (#95)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:59:24 PM EST
    won't be decided while their votes no longer count in determining the nominee. They will seating the delegation but not actually counting the votes.

    Yeah, that is (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by Andy08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:11:39 PM EST
    what Dean and Pelosi have been saying for a while.

    The reason is obvious.  The consequences atrocious.


    He's gong to mediate huh! (4.00 / 1) (#80)
    by zfran on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:49:17 PM EST
    He's really sooooo good at this sorta stuff.

    Well, the test of integrity is (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Valhalla on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:44:04 PM EST
    what you do when you think no one's looking.

    If the nomination had been wrapped up after Super Tuesday (or any time prior to now, I guess), no one would be paying 2 minutes of attention to their violations.  They would have mollified FL and MI by seating the whole delegations (despite Donna Brazile's punishment posturing early on) and any fuss would have been minor.  They never thought they'd get caught, or that it would matter to anyone.

    Maybe they don't want to win (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by dianem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:44:12 PM EST
    That's the only possible way I can see this. Maybe the DNC has decided that it's better to have a Democratic Congress and a Republican President. I can see a rationale behind this. The next few years are liable to be ugly, as Iraq collapses and the economy wavers. Maybe they don't want a Dem President in charge.

    Okay, that's a stretch... but I can't make any sense of this otherwise. Seating MI and FL after the decision is made is not going to symbolize anything except that the DNC leaders are idiots, or that they think that FL and MI voters are. This is like telling the unjustly suspended star quarterback that he can play in the big game - but he won't be allowed on the field until after the last play. What could they possibly be thinking?

    These 2 posts (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Andy08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:59:59 PM EST
    on the DNC infamous "Rules" by BTD are an excellent.
    They provide a pointed and devastating analysis of the absurd
    arguments the not too smart people running the DNC (Brazile, Dean and Pelosi and their crews) are trying to make.

    I appreciate BTD is a lawyer; but anyone really with a a bit of
    critical thinking can see through their fraudulent posturing.

    The problem is the press has not (and it is not interested in)
    reading the rules at all.  Why bother when their agenda is clear?

    Way to elect a President: just insult people's intelligence over and over and over and make sure you profoundly disrespect the millions of people that took time out of their daily busy lives to participate in a primary! Way to go DNC.

    Now could someone remind me what did the Democratic Party was supposed to stand for? I completely forgot.

    when not too smart people (such as Brazile, Dean, Pelosi and their crews) insist on using "rules" to justify their desired

    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Andy08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:03:51 PM EST
    the last part should have continued the above.

    That paragraph should read:

    They provide a pointed and devastating analysis of the absurd
    arguments the not too smart people running the DNC (Brazile, Dean and Pelosi and their crews) are trying to make and insist
    on using the "rules" to justify their desired argument.


    I seriously need a flash animation (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by hitchhiker on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:01:32 PM EST
    just to follow the bouncing rationales all around the USA . . . it would need to include little Donna Brazile heads popping up to make quacking noises at the appropriate moments.

    How did our party ever allow this to happen?  Never mind, I know the answer.  I just don't like it.

    But now we do know some of what (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by zfran on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:10:53 PM EST
    had gone on, thanks to Jeralyn and BTD. What do we do with it? Hillary I hope is armed with all of this stuff. I have never written so many e-mails to politicians, columists, tv stations and the like.

    Astute (4.00 / 2) (#109)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:14:26 PM EST
    politicians as the Clintons are they have a firm grasp of what's going on.  I do believe they know 'something'...not exactly sure but there's has to be a good reason/hidden information (besides the obvious) why they are fighting tooth and nail.

    Only time will tell.


    howard dean just recently (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by cpinva on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:58:57 AM EST
    admitted that the waiver for SC was specifically because of its large AA population. he felt they should have an early opportunity to vote in a historic primary.

    considering the high likelyhood that SC will go republican, regardless of who the dem. nominee is, this actually makes sense; give the SC AA community one opportunity to elect one of their own to high office, or at least the nomination to it. who knows, maybe it will result in a huge swelling of the dem ranks there in nov?

    this in no way excuses the mendacity of the DNC, or their blatant violation of their own "rules", whatever they may be on any given day.

    frankly, the whole "first primary/caucus" deal is highly overrated; how many subsequent voters/caucusers changed their minds, as a consequence of the IA caucus results? i would submit, with no empirical data whatever to support it, not too damn many.

    Who was running the show with the Rules Committee? (3.00 / 2) (#40)
    by jimotto on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:59:38 PM EST
    I've read more get tough quotes back from 2007 from Ickes than I have from Brazile.  Is she just your Bogeywoman of choice due to her on air appearances, or was she dictating the actions of the committee? What was the power structure on the rules committee?  Who was in charge, and was which campaign had the strongest support from the committee.  

    Just Curious.

    I have a video of the meetiong (5.00 / 6) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:02:06 PM EST
    where the delegates were stripped and Donna Brazile ran the show.

    you are misinformed.


    Why didn't they stop her? (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by jimotto on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:15:51 PM EST
    Clinton had 12 people on the committee, why didn't they team up with the one Obama supporter to talk some reason into Brazille?  

    Is there a transcript of the meeting?


    I did not blame Obama for Brazile (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:27:05 PM EST

    I have no idea what you are talkiing about. I blame Brazile for Brazile.V


    because.... (4.00 / 4) (#65)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:26:43 PM EST
    because they weren't acting on behalf of Hillary Clinton on the committee.

    While they were pretneding to be acting on behalf of the good of the party, the real agenda was to throw a joint hissy-fit aimed at innocent Floridians simply because they could.

    This was all going on back last November -- and no one imagined that there wouldn't be a consensus candidate by this time, and that seating Florida and Michigan would have the implications it now does for campaigns.

    Simply because a decision made in the past turns out to be benefitting one candidate over another does not mean it was intended to do so -- and too many people are acting like this whole thing was planned months in advance solely to hurt Clinton/help Obama.  


    So you're saying it got out of hand... (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Shainzona on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:54:36 PM EST
    (or was poorly played and now is out of hand) but no one on the rules committee expected it to end this way?

    Then what of Brazile's obvious hatred/maneuvering against HRC?  Is that just a more recent issue because it backfired on the entire Rules committee?


    No, that dates back to at least 2000 (3.66 / 3) (#141)
    by Cream City on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:29:49 PM EST
    when she ran, and lost, the Gore campaign.  But it might have begun earlier, because she was a significant voice in 2000 for keeping Bill Clinton off the campaign trail for Gore.  

    She really is that stoopid.  That's when Bill had the highest approval ratings ever.


    Would you consider (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Andy08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:09:55 PM EST
    posting that video?  Or providing a link?

    From Donna to Florida (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:11:22 PM EST
    "I'm going to send a message to everybody in Florida that we're going to follow the rules," committee member Donna Brazile said.

    good luck with that donna. update your resume. (5.00 / 5) (#59)
    by hellothere on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:16:36 PM EST
    Guess what (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:11:41 PM EST
    message SHE will be getting on election day, rather, her guy is going to be getting.

    Bret Hume of Fox News:  "And with 15% of the precincts voting, we are going to call Florida for John McCain."

    Sean Hannity of Fox News:  "UNBELIEVABLE! Looks like we are calling MICHIGAN for John McCain!"  

    Hey Donna, they got your message "sweetie"!


    A little one-sided (3.00 / 3) (#94)
    by mattt on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:59:17 PM EST
    But worse than that, there is nothing in the circumstances of those waivers that are in any way different from the Florida situation.
    Without getting into fine print, at the very least an understanding existed, as stated in the rules and agreed to by all candidates (including Clinton) that IA, NH, SC, NV should be first.  The Fl and MI move-ips violated this basic principle; the NH/IA/SC moveups did not.
    What's unclear is why one Republican provocation is more equal than another.
    The roles of FL Dems in instigating and supporting their moveup has been pretty well documented.
    There is no basis, none, for the DMC to hold to its position of not seating the Florida and Michigan delegations.
    Except for the fact that, once all the candidate (including Clinton) had agreed to the penalty, and made clear that the votes would not count, the elections were compromised and might not fairly represent the intentions of the registered Democrats in those states....especially MI.
    This disaster is entirely the fault of the DNC and the RBC in particular.
    Agreed they handled the situation poorly, but I think were trying to make the best of a difficult situation created by FL and MI.  Thanks, at least, for having the integrity not to try and blame it on Obama!

    One has to ask (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Andy08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:17:06 PM EST
    however where is Obama's leadership here in making absolutely sure that the votes and voices of 2.5 million people are taken into account?

    That is a basic principle of democracy and one that any
    candidate to the highest office in the land should staunchly and
    proactively defend.  

    Where is Obama? "The DNC will resolve it out is not good enough".

    He is aspiring to lead. Then he should lead when it counts. And at present, now, this is the issue that counts the most.


    I am disappointed (3.50 / 2) (#114)
    by mattt on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:34:32 PM EST
    in Obama on this.  I'm not happy in the slightest about the FL/MI situations, either the penalization of voters for misdeeds of state Dems and/or the DNC, or the possible damage to Dem chances in November.  I would have liked to see him work harder to find a resolution; I think it would have been good for the voters, for the party, and for Obama.

    In his defense, the situation is in no way his fault, and he's been consistent in his position.  He is playing to win.  Hillary is too, but her credibility as champion of FL/MI voters is severly undercut by her failure to speak up until very late in the game.


    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Andy08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:42:30 AM EST
    there is such a thing as "very late in the game". The voters went to the polls in January and for the past months many people have been trying to find a solution.  And by and large it has been
    Obama --consistently-- the one to refuse to come forward and
    agree to that something fairly reflected the
    voice of the people.
    So I disagree with BTD that "it is not Obama's fault". The problem wasn't but the failure to resolve it is.

    Votes should be counted and people's voices should be heard: always. That is the number one principle of Democracy.

    It is never ever too late.


    It is not his fault (none / 0) (#117)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:39:39 PM EST
    but he will pay the price in November.

    Excuse me (5.00 / 6) (#116)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:38:00 PM EST
    South Carolina and New Hampshire violated the understanding that they would be 3rd and 4th on the process.

    South Carolina moved up, NH used that excuse to jump Nevada and so on.

    To be fair, you must understand that New Hampshire and South Carolina violated the letter and spirit of the rules FIRST, before Michigan and Florida even made a move.

    you comment is ridiculous and uninformed.


    Could you explain this? (4.00 / 1) (#146)
    by HGillette on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:26:48 AM EST
    To be fair, you must understand that New Hampshire and South Carolina violated the letter and spirit of the rules FIRST, before Michigan and Florida even made a move.

    I don't understand your point, and I do want to be fair.

    Michigan officially moved its primary to January 15, 2008 on September 4, 2007.

    New Hampshire didn't move its primary up to January 8, 2008 (the first Tuesday prior to 1/15/08 until November 21, 2007. How then did New Hampshire violate the rules first?


    False, false, false (5.00 / 4) (#124)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:55:18 PM EST
    I no longer have the patience to rebut these lies that we hear OVER AND OVER AND OVER.  At this point it's clear you people are just not interested in the truth, just in catapulting the propaganda.

    You can say these things until you're blue in the face but it won't make them true.  Not a single claim in your post is factual.


    I can't wait to read what John Aravosis (none / 0) (#125)
    by MarkL on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:58:28 PM EST
    has to see about your excellent posts today, BTD.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:07:12 PM EST
    I do not think they will understand the words.

    they are blinded with rage at this time.


    Oh he's just threatening violence. (5.00 / 3) (#139)
    by MarkL on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:25:12 PM EST
    No big deal.

    First off, I don't recall them ever admitting (until now) that they had any intention of taking this to the convention. Secondly, they're still saying that, even now when most commentators in the media are convinced Hillary will drop out in the next week or two. That they won't drop out, that they're planning internally on taking this all the way to the convention, is what we hear the Clintons just told their major donors on a conference call in the past few days. If this is her graceful exit, why does it sound an awful lot like a detailed plan for a civil war? I'll say it again - Dean, Reid and Pelosi had better have a plan to end this thing next week, or there will be civil war in the party, and Hillary won't be the only one leading it.

    Here's a thought...

    In order to prevent future primary fiascos such as this from occurring, how about this novel solution:  All states and U.S. territories should hold their primary ON THE SAME DAY.  Let the candidates campaign their little hearts out until about the first of May in any given election year, and then on say, the second Tuesday of May, ALL PRIMARIES are held.  It would be like a giant Primary Superbowl.  Then the convention can be held in June, as usual.  That solution would create suspense, which should motivate and create voter participation, and it would also hopefully force the candidates to take every state seriously.  I think it would be a wonderful solution, and prevent future primary problems.  The DNC should think seriously about this.  Each state would be so busy tending to its own business that they wouldn't have time to interfere in anyone elses.  I think there would be much less chance of chicanery, e.g., voter suppression and disenfranchisement, because it would have to be organized on such a grand scale.  I believe we'd see much cleaner elections in that respect.  Just a thought.