home

Michigan Calls Out DNC For Its Hypocrisy On "The Rulz"

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:16:39 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Great letter from Michigan to the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee:

. . . .While Michigan Democrats were disappointed that our state was not selected for one of the pre-window contests, we appreciated the new rule for adding a bit of much-needed diversity to the early nominating process, and as a first step toward breaking the Iowa-New Hampshire lock on the process. We notified the DNC that we would abide by the new calendar and its sequence provided that other states did the same. To be clear – the key issue which the new rule resolved was the sequence of the pre-window states, not just the number of pre-window states.

More...

But at a press conference in Dover, New Hampshire last August 9, the New Hampshire Secretary of State indicated he was going to schedule his state’s primary before the date specified in the DNC rule, clearly defying the sequence and timing the Rules and Bylaws Committee had set. Michigan Democratic leaders wrote to Governor Dean asking if the DNC intended to enforce the rule against New Hampshire, but the DNC refused to act or even to answer our letters for months.

The Democratic National Committee then proceeded to selectively enforce its calendar rule. On December 3, the Rules and Bylaws Committee voted to give New Hampshire a waiver to move from third to second place in the sequence. Michigan requested a waiver and was denied. When the Rules and Bylaws Committee itself decided not to follow its own newly adopted, hard-fought for rules and granted a waiver to New Hampshire, it set the stage for the present situation.

(Emphasis supplied.) Exactly. Call em out Michigan!! Let Donna Brazile explain that. Rulz are Rulz!!! Except when they are not.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments closed

< Document The Atrocities | TX Supreme Court: Seizure of Polygamous Compound Kids Invalid >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Michigan Calls Out DNC For Its Hypocrisy On "The Rulz" | 205 comments (205 topical)
    Indeed (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:18:13 PM EST
    You think the rulez based blogs will report on this honestly? Me neither.

    oh snap, they didn't (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by DandyTIger on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:19:41 PM EST
    Good for them. They and FL need to fight all the way for all the votes. Isn't it nice that there's at least one candidate that cares about the voters and wants the votes to count. Gosh, if the other candidate were a leader, he'd do the same, no matter the consequence. With his silence we shall judge him.

    MI needs to make the BTD point, too (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:25:35 PM EST
    that there is no provision for any waivers, period.  The letter correctly calls out the DNC for the arbitrariness of the waiver for NH -- but as or more important is that there was no foundation for even arbitrary waivers.  I.e., the argument ought to be BTD's as well, as it is even stronger.  And together, the two points could be truly damning.

    Any Michiganders here who can reach Levin, Dingell, or others with a quick cut-and-paste of BTD's post yesterday on the lack of provision for any waivers?

    [ Parent ]

    Levin? (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Emma on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:30:35 PM EST
    Levin = Do. Not. Care.  He's the one who came up with the 69/59 "compromise".  I've been writing regularly for months.  I am beyond frustrated.  I'm not even voting down ticket Dem at this point.

    Arrrrgggghhhhh.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, I know -- another disappointment (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:34:53 PM EST
    is Levin.  But thus it is clear that he needs a better argument, and I've seen none better than BTD's.

    Btw, I may not be able to vote downticket for Congress, either, as my Dem member of the House is not even deserving to be in the same chamber as Levin.  I'm just working at state and local levels now -- governor, legislature, county, and city.

    [ Parent ]

    Honestly? (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:32:33 PM EST
    I am a better lawyer than the ones they have.

    [ Parent ]
    Dems are way better at governing (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:34:17 PM EST
    than politics.

    Sigh.

    [ Parent ]

    Would you accept a plane ticket to DC? (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Teresa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:34:42 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yes, of course you are. (5.00 / 8) (#40)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:37:02 PM EST
    I thought I made that clear in what I said.  

    Or is this asking me to say it again?  Okay -- but actually, it's not saying much to say that you're better than the lawyers they have.  Do you need me to say that you're also a lot hotter or what? :-)

    [ Parent ]

    Whew! (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:40:01 PM EST
    Now that's some quality backhanded butt-kissin'! :-)

    [ Parent ]
    I am gathering (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:15:54 PM EST
    as such.  

    [ Parent ]
    Stop Obama from tearing up votes (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Ellie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:14:01 PM EST
    The votes WERE counted but Team Obama and DNC kingmakers are looking for excuses to tear them up.

    There's no way they can get around this reality.

    [ Parent ]

    Right on. (5.00 / 2) (#207)
    by lansing quaker on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:21:30 PM EST
    They can't tear up my vote.  I even took a photo of it.  Photo Evidence!

    Go Michigan!

    [ Parent ]

    It's glad to see folks fighting (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by Kathy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:20:31 PM EST
    and using facts to back them up.  The media can outright lie and ignore the rules that don't suit them, but I think that the rules committee will be hard pressed to explain away these inconsistencies.  

    At least, in the real world this would be the case.  In the Obama world, who the he!! knows.

    Woo Hoo! (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:22:08 PM EST
    Shout out to my home state!

    Yay (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by ruffian on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:22:23 PM EST
    I want the delegates counted and seated, but I want the truth stated loud and clear just as much.

    There will be a lot of media attention this Saturday. I hope the whole story gets told - maybe it will shame the DNC into doing the right thing.

    More weighing in on this matter... (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:53:02 PM EST
    link

    [ Parent ]
    This had to have had something (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by zfran on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:22:47 PM EST
    to do with the voting blocs the likes of Brazille and Obama and Dean wanted.  What else could it be. Give to 3, take from 2? I hope this blows so wide open that it shakes and exposes everyone involved (oh and they toss the koolaid)

    Well, let's wait and see (5.00 / 11) (#10)
    by Kathy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:26:43 PM EST
    the Obama talking point today seems to be that Clinton said X back during Y, and Ickes said Y back during X, so the rules don't matter.

    It'd be nice if one of these folks could offer up an explanation for these inconsistencies without mentioning Clinton.  I mean, shouldn't Obama's argument for or against stand alone?  This is not about the candidates so much as the voters and seating them in a fair and consistent way, no matter who said what when.

    And "punish the states!" is not fair by any measure.  Since when did we become the party that punishes voters?  Oh, yeah--now.

    (and am I the only one a tad insulted that the TL Obama trolls seem to be...well...bottom tier?  Don't we warrant some smarter ones?)

    [ Parent ]

    LOL at your last line -- let's have a petition (5.00 / 7) (#19)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:30:32 PM EST
    from TL to the Obama campaign for top-tier trolls.  We can decry the insult to TL and BTD with the low-caliber trolls assigned to their blog and demand, I say, demand more challenging trolls whose blatherings can't be dismissed in but a sentence.

    We can ask for trolls at least as intelligent as your cats, anyway.  

    [ Parent ]

    TL Obama supporters (none / 0) (#96)
    by CST on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:01:15 PM EST
    I think the only Obama fans on TL are the ones that enjoy punishment in some sadistic way.

    (this is snark... kinda)

    [ Parent ]

    Well, I'm an Obama fan and don't enjoy punishment (5.00 / 10) (#125)
    by barryluda on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:18:28 PM EST
    and I'm still holding out hope that Obama shows some uncommon leadership here and insists that FL and MI delegates get seated as voted (no 50% penalty and not even the BTD endorsed compromise) but FL just as voted, 100%, and MI with Clinton getting all "her" delegates and the uncommitted all going to the convention as (what a concept) uncommitted.  Whoever wins after that, should have all of our support.

    I think if Obama doesn't step up, he runs the risk of losing by having disgusted Super Delegates shift their votes to Clinton.  I'm probably wrong about this last point, but it seems like that's what should happen.  The punishment I'm getting is not from the Clinton supporter here, but from the DNC.

    [ Parent ]

    You've got that right. (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:22:02 PM EST
    The DNC is punishing all of us!

    [ Parent ]
    Not Seating The FL And MI As Per The Primary (5.00 / 3) (#185)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:10:20 PM EST
    only hurts Obama in the GE. It is also not good for the Democratic party to be the party that disenfranchises voters.

    Glad to see an Obama supporter taking the stand that you do.

    [ Parent ]

    or masochistic... (none / 0) (#123)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:16:30 PM EST
    depending on whether you're taking the punishment...or doling it out.

    [ Parent ]
    hey (none / 0) (#192)
    by lilburro on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:13:07 PM EST
    you and barryluda are two of the best.  

    [ Parent ]
    FYI Kathy: (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by oculus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:39:24 PM EST
    ABC NEWS ON CLINTON'S POST PRIMARY SCHEDULE

    [ Parent ]
    I saw this earlier today. (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by nycstray on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:46:11 PM EST
    I wonder if it means she's staying in or she's going to be campaigning for the Dems?

    [ Parent ]
    Suspending her campaign on Wednesday (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:56:29 PM EST
    She is suspending in order to get the financial side under control, and will continue on to convention....according to a Monica now appearing on Hannity & C on Fox.

    She spoke with certainty, so it might be real. Personally, I've been hoping this is exactly what Hillary would do. Just go into suspension and let McCain and the Repubs relax enough to start vetting Obama the way only they can do :)

    [ Parent ]

    Did John Edwards suspend his (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by bjorn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:58:38 PM EST
    campaign too?  How is this different than conceding?

    [ Parent ]
    Suspending (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:04:34 PM EST
    means she's done for now, but she can pop back in whenever she wants.  John Edwards suspended his campaign, but when he endorsed Obama, he in effect conceded.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, he did. And thus, he still had delegates (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:09:09 PM EST
    when he endorsed Obama, freeing his delegates to switch.  (Interestingly, several have not done so yet and still are in Edwards' column -- but then, he has not conceded; his campaign still is suspended, so he may have some dream of being called upon to break the deadlock and be the nominee!)

    Suspending is saying it's not over.  Conceding is saying it's over.

    [ Parent ]

    Me too (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:59:26 PM EST
    This is a good move. Let the GOP go after Obama. She has a legitimate fight at the convention for the delegates from MI and FL to be fully seated.

    [ Parent ]
    Ah-hh... (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by magisterludi on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:33:19 PM EST
    a pretty new pinata!

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks for the info! (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by nycstray on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:21:56 PM EST
    I was hoping for a suspension also. Somebody's gonna have to be available to pick up the pieces if need be  ;)

    [ Parent ]
    duh! i had no idea this would happen. (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:16:55 PM EST
    if i saw it on yahoo i might have freaked. i am glad that the posters at talk left defined this move for me.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks, Oc (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by Kathy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:02:26 PM EST
    Interesting reading.  I still think our girl is in it to win it, though.

    [ Parent ]
    Looks that way to me too. (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by felizarte on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:13:31 PM EST
    The primaries will be over.  She did campaign hard and should probably spend a day or two to catch up on her sleep.  Then it will be the campaign going into the convention.  Although I suspect it will be low-key and away from public view.  I expect that she will start engaging McCain on issues.  If only to contrast/demonstrate her mastery of the issues compared to Obama.  She will probably repeatedly publicize her lead in the popular votes.

    [ Parent ]
    This is absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:20:00 PM EST
    what she should do.

    Notice that the word "concede" is not the same as the word "suspend."

    The door is wide open to the convention.

    [twirls mustache evilly, laughing maniacally]

    [ Parent ]

    will obama declare a victory? (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:18:07 PM EST
    i sorta think he will.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary is NOT dumb.....this is part of her (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:16:01 PM EST
    "strategery".  You are correct....she is in it to win it!  She will temporarily step aside and let the repubs "have their way" with obama.  Guessing he will rue the day this happened, because obama won't have Hillary to beat up on.  GO HILLARY...

    [ Parent ]
    She is pre-empting (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:29:15 PM EST
    Obama's declaration of victory, and the strong-arm tactics of party "leaders," via this tactic. Yet, she doesn't suspend until the last primary is over, and she didn't give in to WWTSBQ, so she is the one in control of when she turns the spotlight over to Obama.

    It's absolutely brilliant.

    She is so much better at this game than other Democrats are.

    [ Parent ]

    Yep, the spotlight on Obama lately (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:36:51 PM EST
    with so much less coverage of Clinton bothered me . . . until we saw that it meant, at last, more coverage of Obama's continual gaffes.  

    He will have to maintain his "death march" pace while under constant media scrutiny and McCain attacks, he'll be even more tired and sloppy.  She'll get some rest and then go out on tour around the country, so I gather from this link, anyway.  And that still will have to get some coverage, even if only locally -- but that matters more to a lot of folks than national media, especially in summer with less TV viewing.

    She'll be building her base, he'll be blowing it.  Reid and Pelosi can get more super-delegates to declare for Obama, sure, but he doesn't have enough pledged delegates to put it away even so.  So we'll see if the super-delegates all stick with him through more gaffes and media scrutiny -- and the 527 ads that the GOP must have ready to roll.

    If he can do so, he will win in August.  But not until then, if Clinton only suspends but does not conceded (not, I would note, that the link shows that her campaign is saying either).

    [ Parent ]

    Obama has already imploded (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Davidson on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:45:14 PM EST
    And yet the supers come out for him in droves.  I don't think there's anything that'll stop the Democratic establishment from committing political suicide.  They have a death wish.

    [ Parent ]
    Today (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:17:32 PM EST
    Kevin Rodriguez, a VI superdelegate, switched from Obama to Clinton.

    Beyond that Obama SDs are of the purchased variety.

    The 'I want cash for my campaign, screw everything else crowd' is an Obama base.

    The type of Democrat who sees a colleague assaulted by the GOP and the press and then decides to either pile on or run for cover.

    [ Parent ]

    They will not run (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:48:40 PM EST
    any 527s until after the convention.  There is no way they will bring out the big guns until then.  They will nibble away at him to lower him in the polls as much as possible and then take him out in the 2 to 3 weeks before the election.....

    [ Parent ]
    Right (4.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Davidson on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:55:48 PM EST
    The GOP will begin to bludgeon Obama bloody in September for two reasons: 1. they're not fools (they know Clinton will fight to to the bitter end); and 2. the fall, not summer, is the best time to get attention.

    [ Parent ]
    Don't get what that would accomplish (none / 0) (#193)
    by minordomo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:14:27 PM EST
    It's hard enough for her to get positive air-time as it is. Once she suspends, with Obama having a clear lead in both pledged delegates and superdelegates and engaging McCain directly, she'd have no real way to get back into the conversation.

    And that, in turn, would seriously undermine her support at the convention - once the country has gotten used to a general election campaign for close to 3 months, what chance would she have? And how much more would it look like "stealing" the nomination at that point?

    I know the commenters on this site are dying for Obama to make some enormous blunder, but what if, when the nation compares Obama and McCain directly, Obama starts doing better in the polls (I certainly think that a direct debate between Obama and McCain would be very much in Obama's favor), and his electoral map starts looking better, even marginally? Under those circumstances, Clinton wouldn't have a chance at a comeback a few months down the line.

    I have to say I can't see suspending her campaign as some kind of excellent news for Hillary.

    [ Parent ]

    Really! (3.50 / 2) (#186)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:11:16 PM EST
    You've actually found smarter ones?  I think we're getting the cream of the crop.  Supporting Obama is not a sign of intelligence.

    [ Parent ]
    Have you looked at the demographics at all? (none / 0) (#195)
    by minordomo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:16:29 PM EST
    Supporting Obama is not a sign of intelligence

    It's pretty well known that Obama has done much better among more educated folks and Clinton has done better among those with just a high-school diploma or less.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#206)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:21:27 PM EST
    An education is not a sign of intelligence, it's a sign of education.

    However, if you believe that education is a sign of intelligence, it's a sign that you're probably an Obama supporter, or at least that you sound like one.

    [ Parent ]

    Uh not really... (5.00 / 2) (#210)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:23:04 PM EST
    One of our excellent posters here, p_lukasiak, posted an analysis on this on Corrente

    If he wouldn't mind, his findings concluded that:

    When comparing the February primaries to those held in March, April, and May

          · Obama only gained supported among the lowest income (up to $15K) and least educated (not a High School graduate) demographic categories.
          · Clinton's gains came primarily from middle, upper-middle, and upper income voters, and the "Some College", College Graduate", and "Post Graduate" education cohorts. Obama lost considerable support within these same groups.
          · Increased support for Clinton from "working class" voters ($15K to $50K income demographic) made up less than 8% of Clinton's increased support.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes I've examined the demographics (5.00 / 3) (#221)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:40:21 PM EST
    I spent 30 years working with very bright people. Some of them brilliant.

    On the rare occasion when politics were discussed the brilliant were clueless, always impatient and confused by politics.

    Beyond the anecdotal.

    In most general election campaigns Republicans "win" that demographic. Republicans almost always receive the majority of degreed voters.

    What's missing is that probably the plurality of degrees are awarded in some form of business discipline like marketing, advertising, finance, etc.

    Whenever the subject of education and politics come up I'm reminded that Germany, matchless in science and technology as well as the arts, a nation of sophisticated, cultured, educated people  were so utterly confused and ignorant of politics that they were manipulated into supporting a regime that plunged the nation into a barbarity so stunning that even 60 plus years later we're repulsed by the memeory.

    [ Parent ]

    How do the clinton surrogates get out there? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by coolit on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:23:12 PM EST
    right now when I watch the "shows"  all I seem to hear is why Obama just needs to win already and why Clinton is trying to bend the rules to ruin the party.  Where are her people on these shows to get both sides of the story out there?  These games are won and lost with public opinion and if she can't get the straight truth out there, no one will even know or care when she is screwed on Saturday.

    Check this out... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:26:44 PM EST
    from the same story.

    This Clinton supporter on the DNC isn't buying the 69/59 delegate split.

    [ Parent ]

    69/59 split had no basis in reality (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by ruffian on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:30:09 PM EST
    It should be dead in the water. Glad someone is arguing that point.

    [ Parent ]
    A DNC Michigan superdelegate (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:31:05 PM EST
    for HRC.

    It was reported on The Page, so I guess that's something...:-)

    [ Parent ]

    The Clinton Superdelegate is advocating (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by KristenWinters on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:41:25 PM EST
    a 50% penalty for Michigan pledged delegates as a secondary position if I read that link correctly.

    Michigan shouldn't be penalized at all. The full delegation should be seated.

    [ Parent ]

    That's why (none / 0) (#69)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:48:57 PM EST
    it's his second choice, not his first.

    [ Parent ]
    The Michigan letter that is being applauded (none / 0) (#37)
    by KristenWinters on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:36:31 PM EST
    in this thread seems to clearly advocate the 69-59 delegate split, right?

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, I believe BTD (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:41:03 PM EST
    approves of the compromise.

    Despite BTD's apparent hawtness and excellent lawyering skills, many of us do not agree.

    [ Parent ]

    Compromise? (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:59:36 PM EST
    Obama takes all of his, Edwards', Dodd's, Biden's, Kucinich's, and some of Hillary's. That sounds like theft.

    Did his sister ever get to go live with the rich grandparents, or has he always been the spoiled brat?


    [ Parent ]

    And we'll never know the truth (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by zfran on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:06:38 PM EST
    because he changes all of his stories with each telling.

    [ Parent ]
    It does, and while I applaud (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by ruffian on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:57:10 PM EST
    the very clear statement of the reasons the penalty should be removed, I don't like that contrived number. I'd rather allocate the delegates as per the instructions of the voters - Clinton's and others on the ballot according to the votes they got, including 'uncommitted'.  I have no problem if the uncommitted ones express their preference for a candidate before the convention to make it easier to count delegates now.

    I stick to that apportionment by vote even if the total delegates are cut in half as the penalty.

    [ Parent ]

    And for purposes of the popular vote - (none / 0) (#208)
    by minordomo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:21:52 PM EST
    - apportion the popular vote in the same proportions as the delegates' intentions?

    I have no problem if the uncommitted ones express their preference for a candidate before the convention to make it easier to count delegates now.

    Not that the popular vote matters in this contest other than as an argument that some hope will sway the superdelegates, but it doesn't make sense to pretend that there were only Hillary voters in MI. It's such a blatantly self-serving argument that it completely undermines the "will of the voters" argument that the Clinton campaign is pushing in these desperate days.

    [ Parent ]

    i love how (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by isaac on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:25:29 PM EST
    it's, 'obama wasnt on the ballot.'  OBAMA TOOK HIS NAME OFF THE BALLOT! nobody told him to

    [ Parent ]
    He took his name off the ballot - (none / 0) (#214)
    by minordomo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:28:16 PM EST
    - in the context of an election that would not count and in which every candidate agreed not to participate.

    Some people here are acting as if this was a completely normal election and Obama, Edwards etc. took their names off the ballot for completely inane reasons, which was absolutely not the case. Under the circumstances, the question at the time was not why they took their names off, but rather why Clinton kept hers on.

    And with that in mind, the nefarious motives being ascribed to Obama, Edwards etc. in this context can just as easily be ascribed to Clinton.

    Incidentally, what do people here think Clinton would be doing if she were in the lead in delegates right now?

    [ Parent ]

    at least 10,000 women are (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:33:32 PM EST
    marching tomorrow outside the meeting.

    These are people who are not just marching for the MI and FL voters right to have their voices heard, but women who will not go quietly and politely from the Clinton campaign to the Obama, as the great uniter is so confident they will do.

    I guess because he still believes that everywhere he goes becomes Obamaland.


    [ Parent ]

    Fox was just (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:22:31 PM EST
    some talking head was just on dissing the protest.  Reflects badly on Clinton apparently.  They were showing Pelosi and her statement that it would be over a week after the last primary.  An interview with a superdee was shown.  He stated that Pelosi has loyal superdeez in her pocket and will use them and he expects more to come out and others to flip.  The Manhattan fundraiser is for the day after MT and SD.

    Why she isn't being given space to suspend, I don't know.  But twisting the knife they already stuck in her back is not going to go over well with her supporters I would imagine.

    [ Parent ]

    In other words . . . (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by nycstray on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:29:13 PM EST
    they are forcing her out.

    The protests reflecting bad on Clinton is more than likely the talking point the Obama camp has been pushing. Looks like McCain will start with 2 states in his win column.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't worry too much... (none / 0) (#153)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:34:35 PM EST
    it's going to be a long summer for Obama.

    And she's only going to "suspend" her campaign, remember?

    They haven't won anything yet.

    [ Parent ]

    I'll go into Baseball mode (none / 0) (#161)
    by nycstray on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:40:58 PM EST
    better for my blood pressure than the Dem party :)

    [ Parent ]
    Not if you're a (none / 0) (#178)
    by oldpro on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:58:03 PM EST
    do-or-die fan!

    [ Parent ]
    Yankees are off tonight ;) (none / 0) (#213)
    by nycstray on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:27:40 PM EST
    Mets game is easy too watch!

    [ Parent ]
    Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we ... ? (none / 0) (#196)
    by Ellie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:16:52 PM EST
    It's not quite as catchy as "Yes We Can!" is it?

    I'm going to gear my Obama paper doll with a summer wardrobe and coordinate the outfits with Mission Accomplished signs of the week!

    [ Parent ]

    How is she deprived - (none / 0) (#215)
    by minordomo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:30:46 PM EST
    - of the "space to suspend"? She can suspend (and could have suspended) at any time.

    Why she isn't being given space to suspend, I don't know.


    [ Parent ]
    not to be a downer, but (none / 0) (#127)
    by hlr on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:19:42 PM EST
    bring umbrellas.

    [ Parent ]
    Ponchos are better :) (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by nycstray on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:24:21 PM EST
    Here in NYC, you can't bring umbrellas to certain large gatherings. May be the same in DC?

    [ Parent ]
    protests (none / 0) (#139)
    by hlr on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:25:41 PM EST
    are so common here that I've never paid enough attention.

    Let me see if I can find the ROOLZ ;-)

    [ Parent ]

    lol!~ I usually avoid the large (none / 0) (#150)
    by nycstray on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:33:09 PM EST
    street gatherings here. But I know stadiums and other outdoor events are 'no umbrella' zones. I have a few pocket ponchos handy just in case.

    [ Parent ]
    The MSM have locked them out (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by PamFl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:47:40 PM EST
    just like they did to John Edwards. The purpose is to create the perception that BO is the nominee and suppress voter turnout for Sen. Clinton. She needs high turnout to advance popular vote totals.

    [ Parent ]
    John Edwards was frozen out by the media - (none / 0) (#218)
    by minordomo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:34:44 PM EST
    I see no shortage of Clinton's arguments being presented to the public on a daily basis. Isn't it possible that her arguments have been heard... and are found wanting?

    That Obama won the contest by the rules everyone agreed to at the outset?

    [ Parent ]

    Interestingly (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:23:16 PM EST
    Neither MI's nor FL's appeal actually argues that they were entitled to a waiver under the rules.  I guess they figure that ship has sailed.

    FL certainly has a good case on that score, but they seem to be holding the argument in reserve for some reason.

    This appears to be the reason that it has been widely misreported that the DNC's lawyers are taking the position that the 50% penalty is mandatory - something obviously false in light of the fact that NH and the other early states received no penalty.  The RBC has the authority to grant a waiver, but neither state has requested one at this juncture, preferring instead to focus on other arguments.

    Florida should argue safe harbor (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:29:11 PM EST
    Michigan is arguing for a waiver NOW, as is Florida.

    But Michigan does not have florida's safe harbor argument., Indeed, the Florida democratic Party stinks really bad as THEY should be using the New Hampshire "waiver" as the precedent for their own, ESPECIALLY since Obama was on the ballot.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (none / 0) (#42)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:38:55 PM EST
    When I say "waiver" I mean the same thing that you mean by "safe harbor," I guess.  I'm not sure that it's really a "safe harbor" because there's no way to know that you've actually satisfied it other than by applying and hoping.

    FL is not arguing for anything less than a 50% penalty on this particular appeal.  Why, I have no idea.  They've certainly been bringing up the history of the FL legislation in any number of public documents, I like their argument.  Perhaps they don't really care if they get halved as long as they can end up with half-votes rather than a halving of their delegation.

    MI is arguing for no penalty, but it's a completely equity-based argument that goes like (1) NH did it too and (2) you don't want McCain to win MI, do you?  While these are valid points, I feel like they could have made a stronger case.

    [ Parent ]

    You are incorrect (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:45:34 PM EST
    Florida has requested a full seating.

    It has an alternative position asking for reduction to the 50% penalty.

    That is why the DNc Memo came out trying to shoot down the idea that thr RBC could fullt reinstate the FL and MI delegations.

    That was the basis of my argument that then the "waivers" for SC, NH and IA are invalid and they too must be stripped of 50% of their delegates.

    [ Parent ]

    Hmm (none / 0) (#81)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:54:58 PM EST
    Florida has 2 arguments: (1) the DNC has no authority to strip superdelegates and (2) the DNC had no authority to impose more than a 50% penalty.

    They appear to be asking that, instead of losing half their delegates, they be permitted to take the whole delegation and give everyone only a half-vote.  But that amounts to the same thing from our perspective.

    I'm not seeing where they request a full seating, and the DNC lawyers don't appear to have analyzed such an argument.

    [ Parent ]

    You confuse the DNC Memo (none / 0) (#158)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:37:16 PM EST
    with a fair statement of Florida's position.

    you are incorrect here.

    [ Parent ]

    But (none / 0) (#169)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:45:42 PM EST
    I read Florida's two appeals as well!

    I am not saying FL isn't interested in a full 100% delegation.  I'm saying that they appear not to be requesting that relief from the RBC.

    [ Parent ]

    New Hampshire.... (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:04:45 PM EST
    ...did not apply under the "safe harbor" provision.  They did not show that that NH Democratic Party officials took the necessary "positive provable" steps to prevent the primary from being moved.  

    The DNC should have either stripped florida and michigan of half their delegates and granted waivers to NH, NV, SC, and IA, or stripped Fl and MI of all their delegates (thus rendering the primary moot) and told the other four states to stick with the schedule.  But the moment they strippped MI and FL of all their delegates, any rationale for a waiver was lost.

    [ Parent ]

    Paul (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:11:07 PM EST
    OT:  Love your analysis on Corrente about how Obama's only gains were among the lowest socio-economic group since February.  Don't understand all the statistics (I had to take that class twice!), but I think all the analyses you have done to date needs to be sent to the SD's!

    [ Parent ]
    This meeting is to rule on (none / 0) (#12)
    by ruffian on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:27:16 PM EST
    specific challenges that were brought against the the penalties imposed.  The FL waiver arguments were last summer, and were rejected. They could bring them up again, but maybe they don't want to rehash arguments they already lsot.

    [ Parent ]
    then they are stupid (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:31:20 PM EST
    the arguments they forwarded were later ACCEPTED in the case of New Hampshire and South Carolina.

    Florida's strip came before the DNC changed the RULZ.

    [ Parent ]

    A definite possiblility (none / 0) (#64)
    by ruffian on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:47:56 PM EST
    Or else my speculation is off base, always possible as well.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't recall NH claiming.... (none / 0) (#107)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:06:54 PM EST
    that their elected and party officials took "positive, provable" steps to maintain the integrity of the original schedule...

    [ Parent ]
    Does it have the authority for waivers (none / 0) (#13)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:27:40 PM EST
    at all?  I must have misread BTD's post yesterday, then -- which I read as saying there is no provision in DNC rules for the RBC to have granted any waivers (aside from the argument in this MI letter that waivers were granted arbitrarily).

    [ Parent ]
    My argument is that if the DNC Memo (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:30:07 PM EST
    is the new RULZ, the "waivers" given NH, Iowa and SC are inoperative and they must be stripped of 50% of their delegates.

    [ Parent ]
    Okay, to be sure that I understand (none / 0) (#102)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:03:47 PM EST
    the legalese:  That they are inoperative is based on incorrect implementation of provisions -- or on the lack of any such provision to implement at all?  The latter is what I understood you to say yesterday.

    (I'm not trying to be difficult -- I'm trying to understand.  I want to be sure that I know the full legal basis for my outrage.  The moral outrage, that I've got down but good.:-)

    [ Parent ]

    Push them out (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by blogtopus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:32:48 PM EST
    I think the rest of the states (and commonwealths) should push Florida and Michigan out of the union. For too long have Florida and Michigan tried to cheat for a greater share of their statehood, by insisting that their people have a voice in the direction of their country. How pathetic that we have to listen to their puling about 'selective enforcement', etc, when we know that the nation cares more about NH, SC, and other states than FL and MI.

    It's time they conceded their non-existence and supported the other states and THEIR voices. It's time to get behind the states that MATTER.*

    *to Obama.

    You know, you're right (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:36:23 PM EST
    Those peninsular states really have some nerve.  Just because they stick out in the water and can be identified from space, they think they're cooler than everybody else.

    [ Parent ]
    This is America (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by blogtopus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:39:04 PM EST
    and Florida has been 'America's D*ng' for far too long.

    I vote for NH as the new current D*ng of the DNC. It fits their profile.

    [ Parent ]

    you're a poet (none / 0) (#164)
    by isaac on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:43:17 PM EST
    and didnt know it!

    [ Parent ]
    that's right - (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by ruffian on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:40:47 PM EST
    and we all know that no one has done more for land-locked states than Barack Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Then (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:48:46 PM EST
    "we're going to go to Kansas, then we're gonna go to  Nebraska, then to Utah, then to North Dakota,then to Wyoning, then to South Dakota, AAGGGHHHHH!" (Howard Dean)

    [ Parent ]
    Literal LOL!!! (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:50:00 PM EST
    That was awesome. :-)

    [ Parent ]
    Ha! (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by ruffian on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:59:59 PM EST
    That is the new Dem electoral map after all. Better get used to it.

    [ Parent ]
    ROFL (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:02:54 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    hilarious! (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:23:21 PM EST
    simply hilarious!

    [ Parent ]
    Good idea (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:39:46 PM EST
    We'd still have 55 left, after all.

    [ Parent ]
    Hey, before we give Michigan (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:00:39 PM EST
    back to Canada (or heck, go farther back and give it back to France), ahem:  We in Wisconsin would kindly  request that we be given back the Yoopers, the Upper Peninsula that belonged to us before it was traded off by Jackson to resolve the Toledo War.  

    Yes, there really was a war -- shots fired between Ohio and Michigan militia and all -- for Toledo.  

    So weirder things have happened in our nation's history than even this election.  That is what keeps me hopeful.  If we can fight over Toledo, we can get up the gumption to fight over anything.

    And me, I'll fight to keep the Yoopers, anytime.  You haven't had fun until you've stood under a giant fish to sing "Shirley, the Girly from Hurley."

    [ Parent ]

    So, Mich. won, as Ohio got Toledo? (none / 0) (#108)
    by oculus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:07:23 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    So Ohio thought (none / 0) (#120)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:16:05 PM EST
    until the rich lumber resources and mineral reserves of the Upper Peninsula were "discovered," as the sources say -- although, of course, Native Americans had been building villages and mining there for centuries.

    [ Parent ]
    but, they have to keep paying taxes. (none / 0) (#211)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:25:38 PM EST
    that'll work!

    [ Parent ]
    Daniel Schorr, one of my prior journalist heroes, (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by jawbone on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:33:30 PM EST
    just gave out several completely incorrect "facts" about the MI/FL situation.

    He began by saying that the Democratic Party would try to work our a solution in a hotel "not far from the National Zoo."  Okaaaay, what does that do the story? Other than heap ridicule on the Dems -- and, of course, Hillary.

    Then, without mentioning anything about the original, in place Party rules about moving the primary date forward (the lose 50% of the rule, which is so conveniently forgotten by any Obama supporter), Schorr said that MI and FL had broken the rules.

    Then, he said that Obama had removed his name from the ballot in MI as required by the rules, but Hillary had left hers on.  OMG! The conniving woman!

    I could hardly believe he had everything so wrong -- have they no editors at NPR?

    Upshot was that anything which gives Hillary delegates is a gift to her.

    Drinking much Kool-Aid, Mr. Schorr?

    Let me be honest (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:35:25 PM EST
    Daniel Schorr has always been an fool. Even when you liked what he said. The most overrated dope in the history of journalism has always been Daniel Schorr.

    [ Parent ]
    Please, Mr. Big Tent, not only Mr. Schorr . . . (none / 0) (#129)
    by wurman on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:21:13 PM EST
    can I nominate Andrea Mitchell (Greenspan) for that award?

    No, wait, how 'bout (remember when?) Jack Anderson?

    Or, best of all, James "Scotty" Reston with his, what do you think, 40 or 50 years on the CIA payroll--cf. William Casey about 1972.

    [ Parent ]

    but he sounds (none / 0) (#172)
    by isaac on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:48:42 PM EST
    so authoritative, 'we're raping democracy, will that be alright?'  uh, sure anything you say

    [ Parent ]
    Amazingly (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:41:38 PM EST
    the 38-page memo from the DNC's own lawyers says, in black and white, that Obama voluntarily removed his name from the MI ballot.

    All these phony talking points you've heard from the Obama trolls for all these months about how it was required by the pledge or the rules or whatever, about how Hillary broke a nonexistent promise to remove her name, about how the DNC asked the candidates to take their names off, all that is refuted by the DNC's own lawyers.

    But not only will none of these people ever admit they were wrong, they won't stop repeating those same talking points, either!  I can guarantee this.

    [ Parent ]