Bonior, Wexler to Represent Obama at FL/Mi Meeting

The Detroit Free Press reports that former Congressman and campaign manager for John Edwards, David Bonior and FL Rep. Robert Wexler will argue for Barack Obama at the Florida Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting Saturday.

Who is arguing for Hillary? The article doesn't say.

The hearing is televised and BTD and I will be live-blogging from our respective locations while TalkLeft commenter (and attorney) BackFromOhio will be TalkLeft's credentialed blogger at the meeting and live-blogging on scene.

Should be a big day, I hope you'll join us.

< DNC National Blogger Credentials Announced | Obama and Alice Palmer Back in the News >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Spelling Correction (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by hornplayer on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:47:17 PM EST
    David Bonior*

    First comment to Jeralyn's link to (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by oculus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:51:15 PM EST
    Detroit Free Press was distincly not complimentary to Mr. Bonior.

    Wexler....eh...doesn't impress (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:53:02 PM EST

    sometimes I wonder (none / 0) (#43)
    by Josey on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:31:50 PM EST
    if Wexler and Kucinich use "impeachment" to raise money for their campaigns.
    Both support Obama - the ONLY Dem to state Bush and Cheney HAVE NOT committed impeachable offenses. Their bills are going nowhere in the Senate, but they continue...
    Perhaps more Bush/Cheney corruption and more tell-all books will emerge after Jan. 09....

    Carl Levin (none / 0) (#47)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:40:58 PM EST
    will be representing Michigan, I understand.

    But who will represent Hillary....Bill perhaps? (none / 0) (#64)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:20:17 PM EST
    Thank you, Bob Wexler (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by janarchy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:53:03 PM EST
    I remember supporting him big time in 2000 in his fight to make the votes count. He was the great advocate of Floridians everywhere etc. Nice to know that the Republicans seem to be right -- that the votes only count when it's expedient to do so. I'm sure that's going to be used in the GE too.

    Sad when we can all write their ad copy for them, isn't it?

    Me, I'm just hearing the GOP ads already (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:00:46 PM EST
    as it's Obama who has been writing them for the GOP.

    It's ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by janarchy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:03:41 PM EST
    but I'm sitting here crying over this. I really believed Wexler to be one of the good guys -- I had a rude awakening when he was one of the people fighting for no revote etc. earlier. He couldn't even argue on CNN without looking like a schm*ck. I can't imagine he'll do better in front of the RBC.

    Again, I feel like I'm on Bizarro World.


    That's the reason I can't hate (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by blogtopus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:42:21 PM EST
    most of the people supporting this; I don't know who said it, but there are truly very few evil people out there. Only people doing the wrong thing but believing it with all their heart that it is the right thing to do.

    I'm sure that plenty if not most of the Obama supporters feel that we are all crazy / out of it / living in some whacko world they just don't understand. The problem is, we have the facts on our side, and that makes it tough for them. Hence, the anger and trollish sensibilities.

    Wexler is still the bulldog I remember, but he's caught the Obug and believes the law is on his side.


    Now, the "fix" isn't already in and (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by zfran on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:53:52 PM EST
    completed before they face the cameras? Or, is it really legit and both sides will be represented and the rules will be stated correctly and all options will be open?

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by phat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:55:42 PM EST
    In my experience, hearings like this don't usually change people's minds. I've seen it happen once.

    Most of the work happens beforehand.

    I'm not expecting a good outcome.


    This isn't over (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by hornplayer on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:58:36 PM EST
    I expect that the DNC will come out with a half-baked resolution, which still treats voters in MI and FL differently from voters in NH, SC, and IA.  I also expect that HRC will take this issue before the credentials committee at the convention, at the behest and with the blessing of Sens. Carl Levin and Bill Nelson.

    The DNC just doesn't get it on this issue.  If they want to make the wrong decision, then that's unfortunately their prerogative.  Until every avenue to correct this error has been exhausted, this fight will not end.


    And it doesn't take Clinton to do it (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:11:57 PM EST
    as with or without her in the running, the states still could -- and I entirely expect that they would -- appeal to the credentials committee, and then to the convention.  What the Orangeites and others don't get is that the danger of a messy credentials challenge at the convention, a la earlier Dem party messes, was not created by Clinton.  It was created by the DNC itself, and especially Obama superdelegates Dawson and Brazile (which is not to let off the hook, in the least, those who could and should have stepped in to stop them or fix it sooner, i.e., Dean, Reid, Pelosi, etc.).  

    The need to blame Clinton is this is such a rerun of the episode at the Orange Place that really showed me how crazed it had become there (an infamous TINS diary and others) -- the teachers' suit over the Nevada caucuses.  I looked into it and could see their concerns were correct; I could see the chronology of the suit that went back well before the last-minute backing of the Clintons, etc.  But because the Obamans saw it as not about ensuring participatory democracy but instead  as benefitting Clinton, the Obamans came down on the wrong side then.  As they are doing now.

    And then as now, Obama stays above the fray and won't get into voters having their voice.  That just appalls me as much as anything so far.


    Perhaps some pointed questions (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:50:16 PM EST
    I don't know if any of you saw Joan Walsh the other night being interviewed by Chris Matthews. Joan, who usually has a strong appearance of constitutional equanimity looked visibly stressed, and did not let Chris or the Obama-supporter guest get away with slamming Hillary for the RFK comments; Joan stated very clearly the role that the Obama campaign had in hyping the story to all the media, the media's eagerness to fall in line, and she actually got Matthews to state he did not believe Hillary meant anything untoward toward Obama or anyone else by her comments, and ended her soliloquy by pointing out that if Hillary continues to be treated so shamefully by the media, there will be many Dem voters who will abandon the Dem Party come Nov.  &, because Joan wouldn't back down, Matthews let her rip.  So, this may seem off topic, but my point is, what happens Sat to some extent depends on whether the FL & Mich people stick to their guns.  Taylor Marsh has video of the Joan Walsh interview.  

    Under the cover of darkness lots of ugly (none / 0) (#65)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:23:28 PM EST
    things transpire.  But with this hearing being on television and with such interest, maybe they will have to do the right thing so as not to look like complete a$$e$ using underhanded tactics.

    Bonior is another (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by DaytonDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:55:39 PM EST
    anti choice Dem. NARAL should be proud.

    Then he's yet another reason (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:57:28 PM EST
    I'm not a Dem, anymore.  I've had it with donating to a party that keeps putting up candidates who expect my support but don't support the party platform.

    Tomorrow (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by janarchy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:04:49 PM EST
    letters get written to Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid (for a start) and then I download the NY State Voter papers to switch my party affiliation to 'no affiliation'. This is it. This is not my party anymore.

    Obama's First Election (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Athena on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:08:32 PM EST
    Anderson Cooper tonight ran a report on Obama's first election in Chicago and his successful efforts to get rid of 2 primary challengers by challenging petitions and getting the candidates thrown off the ballot.  The CNN reporter said that the Obama campaign refused to comment on the story, calling it a "hit job."

    Mere reporting of Obama's tactics is an attack. Great.  I guess anyone merely wanting to know what Obama has done should be blamed.

    One more thing - I have another thought on all of this - shouldn't the Dem party nominee in 2008 be the person who fought to have all of the party's voters heard?  That is Clinton.  Hasn't Clinton ALREADY been the representative of all of the Democrats during this season?  By that logic, she is the only qualified candidate.


    I was watching "Lost" (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by janarchy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:13:45 PM EST
    so I didn't watch AC 360 -- glad to hear they actually gave it some serious consideration rather than candy coating it somehow.

    I guess the worm is starting to turn. What happens when the glamour is off the "Media Darling"?


    That's why Hillary is sticking around (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by blogtopus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:44:33 PM EST
    Don't you think? The bloom is off; she's suffering through all this turmoil to spare us buyer's remorse when the next big scandal comes out.

    Although (none / 0) (#54)
    by blogtopus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:49:23 PM EST
    The media is probably waiting for her to leave before they unload. I'm seriously beginning to believe that there is an unspoken agreement among the CEO's to lure Obama in and then blast him.

    Never underestimate Lib Guilt: TeamO's acing that (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Ellie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:05:23 AM EST
    I wonder if PT Barnum's formula for the sucker birth rate applies to guilty libruls too.

    Team Obama doesn't even HAVE to play the race card for long and short pants media to pull their punches on stuff Obama's actually said and done on the record. Just questioning that is always a "personal attack".

    Whereas the outright inventions and fantasies about HRC are routinely accepted as "reporting", usually within passive aggressive d0uchebaggery like passing along secondhand unfactual BS as a story.


    good for CNN (none / 0) (#34)
    by bjorn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:10:16 PM EST
    I'll be here on Saturday (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Coldblue on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:57:52 PM EST
    There isn't another site I'd rather be viewing for a fair and honest perspective

    I probably won't comment much but I'll be reading with interest.

    Well, if Bonior is anti choice, then at least (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by zfran on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:59:28 PM EST
    he's honest about how he feels. Will Barack be on both sides of the MI/FL debacle?(Maybe Bonior will take one side, Wexler the other!)

    that would be (none / 0) (#22)
    by bjorn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:00:50 PM EST

    What time are they meeting? (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by Radiowalla on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:02:32 PM EST
    I want to set my alarm clock so I don't miss a single word.
    Out here on the LeftCoast we have to plan ahead...

    Meeting Officially Starts (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:52:41 PM EST
    at 9:30 am Eastern Time.

    A link I've been wanting to post for awhile now (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:04:21 PM EST
    And finally took the time to recover it.


    You can't blame them for the Stoudemire-Diaw suspensions because they correctly interpreted a stupid, idiotic, foolish, moronic, brainless, unintelligent, foolhardy, imprudent, thoughtless, obtuse and thickheaded rule. Can you blame them for having that rule in the first place? Yes. But you can't blame them for the actual interpretation -- after all, Stoudemire and Diaw did leave their bench during an altercation, just like Tom Brady's right arm was still coming down as Charles Woodson popped him in the Tuck Rule Game.

    Read on and tell me Obama isn't the Bruce Bowen of Politics.

    If I have to post this in an Open Thread I will, but I figured it was very relavent here.

    Highly relevant: (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by oculus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:11:00 PM EST
    Sadly, regretfully, unfortunately, the Stoudemire-Diaw suspensions tainted a successful playoffs and inspired a record-setting number of fans to exhale in disgust, "That's it, I'm finally done with the NBA."

    Dean (none / 0) (#37)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:12:31 PM EST
    Is David Stern.

    It's not a compliment.


    Heh (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:33:37 PM EST
    The Bruce bowen of Politics. Try that one on Yglesias.

    Obama's advocate will (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:47:50 PM EST
    say what, exactly?  Don't look at me?

    Obama is not in the way (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:48:46 PM EST
    I told you already.

    Don't you read this blog?


    It's awfully gracious of him (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by hornplayer on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:49:31 PM EST
    to finally stop standing in the way of democracy, especially now that it's politically expedient for him to do so.

    Don't you mean (none / 0) (#42)
    by Mavs4527 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:27:12 PM EST
    "It's awfully gracious of him to finally stop standing in the way of Hillary's way on this issue, especially now that it's politically expedient for him to do so?

    There's going to be a fair settlement of the Florida and Michigan issue that seats the delegates, while respecting the rules. Puerto Rico follows on Sunday. South Dakota and Montana follow on Tuesday. After that, Obama should be either over the necessary number of delegates required for the nomination or within a hair's breath of it.

    Once that happens, I hope many of the posters here will acknowledge that it was a very close race, but Obama has edged it out and is our party's nominee. What makes anyone think, who knows our party's track record, that Hillary can prolong this fight to the convention, win or lose, and have our nominee be able to unite the party and run for election against John McCain in just about two months?

    Does anyone honestly think that's a recipe for success?

    We will officially have our nominee next week and we should all get behind him and get ready for the general election.


    Some of us think that Obama (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by RalphB on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:40:42 PM EST
    is NOT a recipe for success.  You get behind him if you want though, it's OK with me.

    Obama has divided the party!! (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Josey on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:41:27 PM EST
    it was the only way the "unity" candidate knew how to win the nomination.

    Huh? (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:55:02 PM EST
    Are you one of Chairman Mao's biographers or something?

    How could you possibly know there will be a fair settlement of the MI/FL issue, before it occurs?  Because you intend to call it fair no matter what?


    A fair settlement being fair to Obama, right? (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:08:07 PM EST
    That is the only criterion which matters.

    How odd you say that (none / 0) (#67)
    by Mavs4527 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:54:50 PM EST
    Considering that only "fair" settlement most here would accept is the one that most benefits Hillary.

    When I speak of a fair settlement to this issue, as I said before, is one that seats the delegations, but also respects the rules that those two states violated. Considering party lawyers have told the rules committee that, at most, they can only seat half of each state's delegations, the committee's ruling on Saturday will accomplish both objectives. Hopefully, those in Hillary's camp will respect the Rules Committee's determination and let that be the final word on the matter. After that and the final primaries on June 3rd, there's no sense in prolonging this fight. We'll have our nominee.


    Hey, I'm all for excluding the (none / 0) (#68)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:58:17 PM EST
    delegates from IA, NV and SC, if you want to follow the rules. I'm also for giving Obama no delegates from FL, since he campaigned and advertised there.
    You were saying?

    I'm sorry, but you're not making any sense (none / 0) (#71)
    by Mavs4527 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:18:26 AM EST
    The contests IA, NH, NV, and SC were all sanctioned by the DNC, so their contests should count completely. FL and MI were warned about not moving up their primaries, did so anyway, and the DNC Rules Committee, including one prominent Hillary supporter Harold Ickes, voted to strip both states of their delegates for breaking the party rules.

    As for the other claim, Obama did a national tv ad buy which was seen in Florida. I don't know how you could do a national ad buy with Super Tuesday, February 5 just a couple weeks away, and be able to find a way to prevent those national networks from broadcasting in the state of Florida.  It's a petty argument and one could throw back Hillary's so called "private fundraisers" she had in Florida before the primary that seemed to most like campaign events.

    I think most want a fair resolution to this issue, which this rules committee is likely to do on Saturday. The only question after that and the last three primaries is, will you help put an end to the bickering and get behind the Democratic nominee for President, Barack Obama?


    unity... (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:34:33 PM EST
    two words.



    I hope you're right (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:50:37 PM EST
    If only to embitter the roolz people. (Winning in November would be nice too.)

    And if anyone is interested (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:54:02 PM EST
    I decided not to write my"brief" for the RBC because I had to write a real brief on preemption, VARA and state law author's rights claims today and I was having a hard time writing it so it took me complletely out of brief writing mode.

    I will write a mini-memo for tomorrow though.  


    Imagine (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:55:42 PM EST
    a blogger having to pay the bills with a real job!

    I have my one and only (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:19:34 PM EST
    crack cocaine sentencing reduction hearing tomorrow. The reductions have so many qualifiers that only one of all my crack clients since the 1980's is even eligible (the others are still maxed out for a variety of reasons)- and the government is fighting my client's eligibility for the reduction tomorrow. I filed two briefs and two supplements and will be in a very bad mood tomorrow if she doesn't get it.

    I'm surprised you are getting a hearing (none / 0) (#72)
    by TomLincoln on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:37:14 AM EST
    I US District Court - PR they set forth a mechanism whereby probation provides all counsel and the court with judgment, plea agreement (if any), presentence report, and sentencing transcript (if one is available). After that, defense counsel (FPD is default counsel for the pro se filers) and a designated AUSA meet to see if there is an agreement to grant the 2 level reduction. If there's an agreement, we submit a joint motion with a signed stipulation. Are you getting a full resentencing? I have not seen any here. I was able to get one for a client whose case I handled on appeal. Good luck!

    Thought I'd missed it. (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:55:59 PM EST
    Off to google "VARA."

    Drat that need to make a living (none / 0) (#15)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:56:03 PM EST
    yours and mine.  It's really cutting into my free law school classes here.

    Does televised mean it will (none / 0) (#19)
    by bjorn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:59:09 PM EST
    be on the cable news channels?

    Yes (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by janarchy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:01:47 PM EST
    I believe it'll be on CSpan and Anderson Cooper's been pushing that CNN will be carrying it from 9 am EST on Saturday. How much CNN will be interjecting or cutting away is unknown (that's my assumption).

    C-SPAN should have it (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:07:01 PM EST
    MSNBC is giving it the full (none / 0) (#70)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:00:09 AM EST
    treatment, according to Matthews this evening.  But since he appears to have not the slightest grasp of what the actual issues are, we're probably better off with CNN and/or CSpan.

    Is it correct that stalwart political (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:01:07 PM EST
    junkies will need to be up and at 'em at 6:00 a.m. PDT?  

    Ouch. And I dread getting up Eastern time. (none / 0) (#29)
    by Teresa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:04:05 PM EST
    Really? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:22:20 PM EST
    Maybe I'll live blog the replay. (joke)

    Clinton Campaign (none / 0) (#26)
    by Step Beyond on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:02:34 PM EST
    Rep. Arthenia Joyner is speaking for the Clinton campaign.

    As I commented earlier, also speaking are:

    Jon Ausman, DNC member, uncommitted currently but former Kucinich supporter and the one who brought the appeal

    Raul Martinez, Clinton supporter and former Hialeah mayor who is currently running against Republican Lincoln Diaz-Balart for a House seat

    Janee Murphy, Obama supporter and DNC member

    Senator Bob Graham, uncommitted currently as he doesn't want to declare prior to the RBC meeting and former Governor and former Senator

    Senator Bill Nelson, Clinton supporter and current Senator, will be representing the state party

    Clarify (none / 0) (#28)
    by Step Beyond on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:03:47 PM EST
    I should clarify that those are the Florida speakers (in case that isn't obvious). I do not know the Michigan speakers.

    Carl Levin (none / 0) (#57)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:53:05 PM EST
    for Michigan, for one.

    Ausman isn't supporting Hillary's position (none / 0) (#41)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:24:07 PM EST
    though, is he? I thought he has the challenge suggesting the pledged delgates get seated at 1/2 and the superdelegates get their full vote because the rules don't mention stripping superdelegates?

    Ausman I thought is representing himself and his challenge.


    Correct (none / 0) (#45)
    by Step Beyond on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:38:58 PM EST
    He isn't representing Clinton or supporting her position. The only one representing the Clinton campaign is Rep. Arthenia Joyner.

    As I've read it through the last few weeks:

    Ausman, Martinez and Murphy are all speaking on behalf of the appeal. Nelson is speaking on behalf of the state party. And I have no idea exactly what Graham is representing or if its just as an interested party.


    This really could be interesting. (none / 0) (#49)
    by phat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:42:11 PM EST
    As I said above. I suspect it to be a done deal before the hearing.

    But who knows.

    It's actually kind of exciting.

    I love this kind of political drama. It's sick, I know.


    The meet the night before (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Step Beyond on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:49:23 PM EST
    The RBC members are having an informal dinner the night before. I would love to be a fly on the wall for that.

    I hope Hillary speaks for herself. (none / 0) (#52)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:45:29 PM EST

    Hillary in PR? (none / 0) (#58)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:53:37 PM EST
    Won't Hillary be in Puerto Rico this weekend?

    Oh, ok then. It would have been (none / 0) (#60)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:04:00 PM EST

    I don't know (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by Regency on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:10:35 PM EST
    Surprises happen. I'd personally prefer Bid Dawg to speak. He was after all a Civil Rights attorney. He probably has a thing or two to say on behalf of Democrats everywhere.

    I've never seen either Clinton in action in a court room and would love to. I'd implode.


    Wow, I hadn't even thought of that. (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:18:47 PM EST
    That would be fantastic.

    I think it would be appropriate, (none / 0) (#69)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:59:11 PM EST