home

Clinton Campaign Accepts FL/MI Broke Rules

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:03:33 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

In today's conference call, the Clinton campaign conceded any rules-based or fairness-based argument for the full seating of the Florida and Michigan delegations. The Clinton campaign declared that, unlike Iowa, NH and South Carolina, Florida and Michigan did indeed break the DNC rules and without justification. The Clinton campaign expressly disagreed with the Michigan Democratic Party's contention that the DNC had selectively enforced its rules by allowing New Hampshire and South Carolina to break the sanctioned primary schedule, that Florida was not entitled to a safe harbor or waiver, and that the DNC had acted properly and within the rules when it stripped Florida and Michigan of its delegates.

The Clinton campaign's only argument now seems to be that yes, rules were broken, but to help us in November, the RBC should seat the delegates anyway. It seems to me that the obvious response by the RBC is to rely on its staff memo which says it can only restore half of the delegates, and that to honor the voters of Florida and Michigan, it will magnaminously do so. [More...]

I am not sure that Barack Obama or the DNC objects to such a result and the Clinton campaign has no justifiable basis anymore to object to it. To me, the statements made in today's conference call make tomorrow's meeting a mere formality.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments closed.

< S.D. Argus Leader Endorses Hillary Clinton | Pew Report: Support for Obama Slides Among White Women >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Clinton Campaign Accepts FL/MI Broke Rules | 241 comments (241 topical)
    The Clinton campaign is taking (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:10:04 PM EST
    her fight for the nomination to the convention.  They seem very confident about getting there too.  Wonder what they have up their sleeve?  Everybody is going to fight them tooth and nail about going to the convention with this fight, either they have stamina extraordinaire (they have proven to have that thusfar) or they have something nasty up their sleeve on Obama.

    And they should fight with all they have got... (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:30:49 PM EST
    I am sure that you, like myself, is tired of the double standard applied to this campaign.  Hillary is one smart cookie and I look forward to seeing a big surprise thrown at obama.

    [ Parent ]
    BTD, I heard you on the call and (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by D Cupples on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:11:15 PM EST
    I missed my prompt -- so I didn't get to follow up on your question.  Frankly, I think you're right that RBC treated MI/FL differently from the other primary-moving states.

    I don't think Flournoy adequately answered your question.

    On the other hand, I didn't really hear them fully concede that there is no rules-based argument.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Andy08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:17:20 PM EST
    D. Cupples. I was hoping to hear you following up on this.

    [ Parent ]
    Well tell me what their rules based argument is (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:15:46 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    You're right, BTD, in that (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by D Cupples on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:03:20 PM EST
    They didn't tell you what the strategy is.  

    They clearly refrained from answering your question about the safe harbor,  but that's a tad different from saying that they disagree with you on that point.

    After you spoke (and I AGREE with you -- I've cited you in my posts at Buck Naked Politics), I was going bring up your question again, point out details (e.g., FL lege's numerical composition by party, etc), and try to get a real answer.

    I missed my prompt and they went on to someone else.

    I think they would have dodged my follow up on your question, incidentally.  I don't think they want to make our argument publicly -- though Karen Thurman and Bill Nelson (my senator) have.

    [ Parent ]

    I think is (none / 0) (#40)
    by Andy08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:18:59 PM EST
    it was that the RBC has the power to reinstate the delegates in full if it so chooses.

    [ Parent ]
    Indeed (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by andgarden on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:11:27 PM EST
    It cements the likely reality that this contest is over.

    To that end, Nancy Pelosi is right, after the last contests this week, the undeclared SDs should make their commitments and just get this over with.

    If the Clinton campaign isn't going to fight for the voters of FL and MI, then there's no use taking this much further. I would not support them going to the convention with nothing but an electability argument and a laughable popular vote claim that gives Obama no votes from Michigan.


    I would have to agree IF that is what (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by bjorn on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:13:03 PM EST
    happens tomorrow

    [ Parent ]
    How do you know (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by madamab on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:14:06 PM EST
    they're not fighting for the voters in Florida and Michigan?

    The delegates would seem to be a separate issue.

    [ Parent ]

    Because they're lowering the threshold (none / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:15:12 PM EST
    for Obama's nomination to such a degree that it is essentially guaranteed.

    [ Parent ]
    Lowering the threshold is true (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by vicndabx on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:35:31 PM EST
    but I think that's a calculated risk.  Again, if the meme is the rules and how they don't work for you, then that too plays in to the who's really for you theme -- we abided by the rules, which state a 50% reduction.  Shouldn't that have been applied from the get go?  How many of you wanted to caucus but couldn't get the time off from work?  Wouldn't a primary w/a mandated day or time off work better for you?  Do the current rules work for the American people?  Who does the DNC represent?  You.  Your votes should be counted as they are based on the rules.  Do the rules say anything about candidates who aren't on the ballot nonetheless getting your vote?  

    They wanted to play politics, let's do the same and call their bluff.

    [ Parent ]

    We'll see... (none / 0) (#41)
    by madamab on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:19:15 PM EST
    my non-attorney brain is a bit confused by all this maneuvering.

    Time to infuse it with a little food. Later all!

    [ Parent ]

    Sniff-sniff (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:12:56 PM EST
    Smells like a behind the scenes deal was made.

    Now, it's just kabuki, kabuki, kabuki!

    Regardless, if anyone thought the outcome would be anything but this, they must still believe in Santa too!  My read is that the outcome was apparently pre-ordained  and the Clinton camp refuses to fight it.

    This smells more like veiled threats than (none / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:15:42 PM EST
    deals to me.  Very very veiled threats

    [ Parent ]
    Please explain. (none / 0) (#39)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:18:48 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    what do you mean? (none / 0) (#42)
    by dotcommodity on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:19:25 PM EST
    you think someone intimidated Clinton? With what? How much more could they do to her than what they have done?

    [ Parent ]
    If the campaign isn't winding down (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:22:02 PM EST
    it is my opinion that they are taking this convention and intend to make the DNC and Obama responsible for the rage of Florida and Michigan.  Maybe a few other things too, who knows with campaigns what is said off the record.

    [ Parent ]
    Seems very unlikely (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:03:36 PM EST
    I simply do not believe that Hillary is willing to bring down the Democratic Party and allow the Republicans to keep the White House.  

    Some anti-Hillary people believe that because they believe she will do anything to win but I don't believe it whatsoever.  

    She will get something out of bowing out gracefully, perhaps the VP slot perhaps something else.

    But she isn't going to engage in a scorched earth attack on the Democratic Party.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm confused. My friend sent me (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by masslib on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:13:13 PM EST
    notes from the call, and says theys uppoert a full seating of the delegations.  Confused.

    Sure they do (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:14:26 PM EST
    But not based on any rules.

    Just because.

    [ Parent ]

    Response -- (none / 0) (#50)
    by mkb662 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:21:31 PM EST
    Right BTD -- because "it punishes the voters of MI and FL and treats them like second-class citizens, see Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution,"  see prediction below.  

    [ Parent ]
    Equal Protection is (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by mantis on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:29:27 PM EST
    a rather silly argument, as this is a party nomination process.  The party could select a nominee with absolutely no voter input, if they wanted to.  They could throw all the votes out the window and nominate Gore, if they wanted to.  They could pick a name out of a hat.

    There is a right to vote in this country; there is no right to select a nominee for the political party of your choice.  An equal protection argument is no argument at all.

    [ Parent ]

    Like it or not (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by JRoyale on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:33:05 PM EST
    the Constitution doesn't protect one's right to vote in a political party's primary.

    [ Parent ]
    you're right (none / 0) (#137)
    by mkb662 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:49:48 PM EST
    But maybe I can say that the "spirit" of the EP clause is violated here.  2.3 million people voted!  Even if not enforceable by law, impossible to discount politically and emotionally.

    [ Parent ]
    Ahhh but... (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Rictor Rockets on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:55:00 PM EST
    Right BTD -- because "it punishes the voters of MI and FL and treats them like second-class citizens, see Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution,"

    ...if only this were actually a CONSTITUTIONAL issue.

    Which it's not.

    It's an internal party issue. The DNC could just decree who the nominee is going to be from the very start. All this junk with primaries and caucuses and stuff is just a high-falutin' poll they put on to rally the base. You don't have any particular "rights" to vote in a Primary or a Caucus, at least not anywhere near the same strength as you do with an honest-to-goodness Federal Election.

    If party primaries were under Constitutional law, then you could never have closed primaries or superdelegates.

    [ Parent ]

    First Amendment (none / 0) (#136)
    by kaleidescope on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:49:32 PM EST
    Right of association means the Democratic Party gets to decide who (and which states' votes) it chooses to associate with.

    Maybe Michigan and Florida can form their own party and nominate Senator Clinton to be their standard bearer.  They certainly have the constitutional right to do that.

    [ Parent ]

    So, what now? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:13:27 PM EST
    I guess she cannot expose the idiocy and injustice of the party's system.  Is she doing this to keep the party from looking like the idiots they are?  Or did they make a mistake of not bringing these argument early on and now it's too late politically?

    That idiot ship has sailed.... (none / 0) (#88)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:34:28 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I think the idiocy... (none / 0) (#103)
    by Y Knot on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:38:31 PM EST
    of this system has been pretty fully exposed this year.  I think its up to Democrats across the country to speak out to change the primary system.

    I think it would also be incumbent on the loser of the process this year to spearhead such a charge.  Either one has enough support and political clout to do it.  (The winner shouldn't.  They should focus on winning the G.E., and then running the country.)

    As for bringing the argument early on, in order to affect THIS contest?  That was never a realistic option.  Once the campaigns agreed to abide by the rules of the election, that argument became moot.   Note I said "rules," not "roolz."

    Rules are binding, and should be, for a reason, without them, you have chaos.  "Roolz" are what the Bush administration uses.  Nice sounding words that you toss aside as soon as they become inconvenient, or lead to an outcome you don't like.  (They do this with "Lhawz" and "Rhites" too.)  I don't like it when they do it.  I don't like it when anyone does.

    We've all seen how horrible this process is.  It needs to change before 2012.  

    [ Parent ]

    Would calling out IA, NH & SC be considered (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by katiebird on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:14:12 PM EST
    a "nuclear option"?

    It seems like it might be for the states to call out other states.  But rather extreme to imagine that a Presidential candidate would argue for the un-seating or punishment of states.

    THIS (I think) is a time to be drawing the states together.  

    While I think I understand the legal argument that you're making, I think it would be a self-defeating political argument.

    katebird (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Andy08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:23:28 PM EST
    you might have a point. I think the HRC campaign has to be extremely careful in not alienating IO, NH, SC and NV.
    It would be political suicide -- which trumps any legal argument--

    [ Parent ]
    who cares.... (2.00 / 1) (#86)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:33:52 PM EST
    How many potential Democratic electoral college votes to FL an MI have?  We know the dems are going to lose SC, so who cares what they think...and the combined EC votes for NV, IA, and NH isn't as big as that of MI and FL.

    As long as the Clinton Camp argued that equal treatment under the rules was what they wanted -- and that the problem was the Rulz committee, not those states --the damage in IA, NV, and NH would be minimal

    [ Parent ]

    Well...minimal unless you want to (none / 0) (#102)
    by ruffian on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:38:19 PM EST
    run again in 2012.

    [ Parent ]
    That's not the point (none / 0) (#167)
    by Andy08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:03:14 PM EST
    imo.  Here they dealing with the DNC here and the DNC is all about the  "50 States Strategy"   -- .   This isn't about the EC votes for November yet-- That's a different argument.

    [ Parent ]
    As a South Carolinian, (1.00 / 0) (#73)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:29:20 PM EST
    I could not care less if the state lost all its votes/delegates.  That was a disgraceful episode.

    [ Parent ]
    Right on katiebird (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by angie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:38:12 PM EST
    I just posted a comment with these exact thoughts before reading yours -- this is the only argument that a person hoping to be the nominee of party can make to the party. FL & MI need to be the ones calling out SC, NH & Iowa. To think otherwise is unrealistic politically.

    [ Parent ]
    You're good, katiebird. (none / 0) (#29)
    by madamab on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:17:24 PM EST
    A ghost of that thought flitted through my brain too...but I wasn't articulate enough to put it into words.

    They may have decided that this particular argument would have more pitfalls than positives.

    I guess we'll see...

    [ Parent ]

    Really? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:18:37 PM EST
    And what result do you think Clinton will get now?

    she has no reason to even show up tomorrow frankly.

    [ Parent ]

    Why court a perseption of going nuclear (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by katiebird on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:40:11 PM EST
    against IA, NH & SC if the meeting is stacked and the results predetermined.

    Clinton can count votes.  She very likely doesn't have the votes to get full seating.

    But, you don't go to Credentials in August without going through this step first.

    I always thought this would have to go to Credentials.  I've heard it discussed for months.

    [ Parent ]

    And what will she argue to them? (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:46:40 PM EST
    She conceded her best arguments today.

    [ Parent ]
    It's The Math, right? (none / 0) (#153)
    by katiebird on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:55:18 PM EST
    I thought I read somewhere that The Math of the full Credentials Committee is better for Hillary than at this Rules & Bylaws committee.

    My experience at previous conventions (and Young Democrat Conventions) that the arguments are for show.  It's only the votes that matter.

    [ Parent ]

    So the actual fairness of seating FL and MI (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:11:37 PM EST
    mean nothing to you?

    See, I was not in this fight for Hillary Clinton. I was in it for fairness and for the Democratic Party being fair.

    [ Parent ]

    I've obsessed on the unfairness of FL & MI (none / 0) (#221)
    by katiebird on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:29:03 PM EST
    since it developed.

    The reason I come to Talk Left is because I've been so impressed with you making it a priority for these last months.

    "So the actual fairness of seating FL and MI mean nothing to you?"

    Couldn't be more wrong as a description of my beliefs.  I've always believed that Florida and Michigan should be seated at the convention at full strength -- because it's the smart thing to do.  (Also, I happen to believe that any candidate that can't afford to seat the delegates is a weak candidate.  But, it's not - for me - about the candidates...)

    HOWEVER - I've been involved in credentials challenges.  And while I'm not deeply involved in this one, I can see the possibility that this meeting isn't what I thought it was.

    That decisions have actually been made. I guess I was clumsy in what I said.  

    All I meant was -- why argue with a done deal.  Especially if there's a friendlier crowd waiting at the end of summer.

    I'm not a lawyer, so I don't think like one.  I apologize for that.

    [ Parent ]

    No (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:17:53 PM EST
    it would be calling out the DNC for unfair treatment of FL/MI as compared to treatment given FL/MI.

    If a lawyer can not make that argument, then he should retire.

    [ Parent ]

    The arguement could, of course, be made. (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Radix on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:51:15 PM EST
    But to what end? Clinton would be tarred and feathered if she supported such an argument. Let's remember, she is a politician after all. No, as Katie suggested, better to let FL and MI go forward with that portion of the program.

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

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    [ Parent ]

    clinton tarred and feathered? (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:08:01 PM EST
    And that would be different how?

    What a joke.

    [ Parent ]

    Your point is well taken. (none / 0) (#208)
    by Radix on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:21:28 PM EST
    To my mind the difference would be the substance of the abuse she would get. All of what she's been subject to, so far, is fairly transparent gotcha non-sense. The argument which would be made against her, in this case, would be much more damaging long term. Even though she would be factually correct if she argued along your lines, it wouldn't help her politically, she would in fact be arguing for the stripping of votes from other states. That argument may be factually correct, based on the DNC's own rules, it would also most certainly be political suicide. IMHO

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

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah  

    [ Parent ]

    exactly.... (3.50 / 2) (#77)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:29:56 PM EST
    In order for rules to have legitimacy, they must be applied equally to all.   NH and IA have no real case regarding their violation of the rules, and MI, IA, and NH should all be subjected to the same sanctions.  (NH had no rationale for moving its primary at all, once MI was stripped of all of its delegates).

    SC and FL both have reasonable 'safe harbor' arguments, and both should be treated the same.

    And that is really the positions that the Clinton camp should have taken -- make it clear that the Rulz screwed up by treating states differently under the same rules, and demand that all delegations be seated as elected without penalty, rather than disenfranchise voters in states that violated the provisions and were given waivers anyway.

    [ Parent ]

    Of course you're correct. (none / 0) (#189)
    by Radix on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:12:07 PM EST
    We would then be treated to headlines of, "Hilary calls for the death of every man, women, and child, in the states of MI, IA, and NH", let's not kid ourselves about this likely out come. No, the folks that need to make this argument are the folks from MI and FL.

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

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah  

    [ Parent ]

    Problem is (none / 0) (#49)
    by Andy08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:21:11 PM EST
    those rules are not "laws" are rules of a political party.
    They can't be 100% read as a legal document or a theorem.
    Politics is intrinsic to them by definition.

    [ Parent ]
    True. (none / 0) (#175)
    by Radix on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:06:31 PM EST
    It's just disheartening to learn the party you once thought was fair, turns out not to be.

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

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    [ Parent ]

    I think the DNC rules say that Hillary has to (none / 0) (#78)
    by katiebird on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:30:15 PM EST
    get 2210 delegates and Obama only has to get 2025 delegates.

    And everything else is just for show.

    Thus, this meeting tomorrow is not a Court -- it's a bunch of allies & "very dear friends" (snort) trying to out-maneuver each other.

    A lawyer could make your argument against the DNC -- but (I'm guessing) that under "Hillary Rules" it would be interpreted as calling out those uther states.  

    And I'm sympathetic to Hillary not wanting to stir that up.  

    [ Parent ]

    My guess (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by blogtopus on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:14:13 PM EST
    I think they're trying to take this to the people (ie: Convention) and leave the lawsuits, etc, out of it. That way she doesn't seem like she's trying to litigate her way to the nomination (no matter how right she is, she's got a whole legion of people ready to pull out their 'sore loserwoman' signs if she continues. We all know that Gore was right to want to count, but the soundbyte media just destroyed any chance at a reasonable discussion on the matter)

    This may be one of her smarter moves. We'll see if it pans out.

    Your analysis sounds about right (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by scribe on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:14:26 PM EST
    and now the issue is how to wrap this up without producing any further division, damage, or disunity.

    As I see it, HRC will continue the campaign through the coming week's primaries.  This will give (I think) every state, territory and constituency  their chance to both see/hear the candidates and cast votes which are meaningful to them, even if not capable of changing the ultimate result of the nomination fight.  This is a useful party-building, energy-building and unifying exercise.  And, it gives the locals a chance to exercise their local GOTV apparatus.  Better in a primary than trying to do it on the fly in the general.

    As far as I've been concerned, the main objective is - and always has been - winning the general election.  

    Let's all get our focus on that - and keep it on that.

    Speculation:  Ickes got the message that keeping a contest going to the convention for a third time, will not be the charm for him.

    The GE (4.00 / 2) (#34)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:18:20 PM EST
    Obama will have to win without me.  And more than likely the states of MI and FL.

    That's my guestimation.  

    [ Parent ]

    So you will join one among many.. (none / 0) (#128)
    by slw0606 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:47:18 PM EST

    thousands of disaffected people, not just in this election, but every Presidential election since Party politics began in 1796 who refuse to support an alternate candidate from your own party because your preferred candidate lost.

    It's a venerable American tradition, to vote or not vote however the hell you want for whatever reason you want.

    [ Parent ]

    We're not robots, we're people (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by nycstray on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:17:13 PM EST
    we have the right to disagree with a party and who they choose to nominate. I, like many others, have valid reasons for not playing along with this farce. The most glaring one is his utter lack of qualifications. Several others follow close behind, I'm sure you've heard them.

    If you want to write it off in the manner that you do, be my guest. You would be missing the point.

    [ Parent ]

    It's a venerable tradition (2.00 / 0) (#184)
    by scribe on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:10:54 PM EST
    but, in this year, it's also none-too-bright.

    Imagine, if you will, Vice President Giuliani ascending to the Presidency as the doddering old coot McCain's worn-out carcass finally craps out.  He'd be the Stalin to Bushie's Lenin.

    And you know I'm right about that.

    But, you would be secure in the knowledge that, rather than vote Democratic, you pouted and stayed home.  Not that it would do you any good when all the commenters at TalkLeft got picked up for anti-Republican activities, but you could still be smug.

    [ Parent ]

    You got that right! (1.00 / 7) (#117)
    by 1jane on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:43:34 PM EST
    Time to concede. The spectacle of unhappy women of a certain age protesting tomorrow at the RBC will be burned into every voters brain.

    [ Parent ]
    what is this crap (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by lilburro on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    knock if off with the ageist, sexist comments already.

    [ Parent ]
    It's been the spectacle of comments like this (5.00 / 0) (#201)
    by BoGardiner on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:15:18 PM EST
    that is already guaranteed to be burned into our national soul forever.

    There will indeed be many papers written about America's traditional contempt for our older women, as compared to many societies' reverence for them, and how this has played out as a major factor in this campaign.

    It's really more complicated than pure sexism; thus the feminists' divide.  It's about our national "little old lady" phobia.

    Young feminists better realize they will one day become old feminists.

    Sorry, got knocked off topic by this crap.  So sick of it.

    [ Parent ]

    Is the Clinton campaign's legal team (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by HenryFTP on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:18:10 PM EST
    comprised entirely of the sort of "brains trust" that gave Al Gore such excellent advice in Florida in 2000?

    As much as I would like to blame as many of this campaign's disappointments on Hillary's self-important and self-aggrandizing staff, on an issue as fundamental as this one it would be difficult not to conclude that Hillary had not endorsed this position herself.

    Many thanks to you, BTD, for so clearly and concisely explaining why it didn't have to be this way.

    I still suspect, however, that Florida certainly, and Michigan quite possibly, have credentials fights in mind for the Convention, regardless of Hillary's position.

    Sadly, I think that Hillary's position is not only incorrect, but that the Obama team and the corporate media will be merciless in pillorying her for making these concessions, both generally and in light of her rhetoric about how hard Americans have fought for the right to vote.

    A cruel fate for a great champion of Democratic values.

    Losing a battle to win the war (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by felizarte on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:33:17 PM EST
    is what I think it is.  It is recognizing that the deck has been stacked against them.  It is political jujitsu in the making.

    [ Parent ]
    Um (none / 0) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:34:23 PM EST
    what war is that?

    [ Parent ]
    I agree with you (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by dk on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:37:24 PM EST
    on the rules, and agree that Clinton could have argued that too, but really, what does it matter?

    Obama has the delegate lead.  It makes no practical difference what happens tomorrow on that score.  All that matters is the popular vote at this point, in my opinion.  The rules committee can come up with whatever percentage of delegate number they want tomorrow, but as soon as they recognize that those elections were real elections, then Clinton wins on her popular vote argument (if she decides to make it).

    [ Parent ]

    Assuming she actually has the.. (1.00 / 1) (#145)
    by slw0606 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:53:28 PM EST

    popular vote when including MI and FL and keeping in mind 4 caucus states never relased their popular vote totals where Obama won,

    in a few days Clinton supporters will bitterly realize it's all moot when super delegates push Obama over the top of whatever the sanctioned number is to claim the nomination (because the majority of super delegates know what the Clinton campaign said back in January - it's about the delegates).

    [ Parent ]

    that and 4 dollars . . . (none / 0) (#121)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:44:54 PM EST
    I thought she was fighting for FL and MI. It seems not.

    [ Parent ]
    I thought you were all about (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by dk on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:48:54 PM EST
    defining the will of the people, ultimately, as the popular vote.

    That's her best argument, the most effective political argument, and, it seems to me, still an honoroable argument in terms of doing right by the voters.

    [ Parent ]

    Uh huh (none / 0) (#174)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:05:55 PM EST
    Well, the vote are the votes. this is about the delegates.

    [ Parent ]
    The nomination at the Convention. (5.00 / 0) (#129)
    by felizarte on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:47:19 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    By agreeing to the rules for now (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by felizarte on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:52:48 PM EST
    they can demand strict conformity to other rules that can only be taken up at the convention.  Counting half the delegates increases the threshold required; Pelosi and Reid may be able to strongarm some SD's but perhaps not enough.  By conceding the rules now, it keeps the Clinton from being perceived as a loser tomorrow and a big victory for Obama, perception wise.  Who knows what June 1 and 2 would bring?

    Clinton did not fight this hard only to fold.  I am sure there is method to this seeming madness.

    [ Parent ]

    I understand your fervent hope... (1.00 / 1) (#155)
    by slw0606 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:55:34 PM EST

    but it will be over by Wednesday.

    Obama will get enough super delegates to give him the nomination at whatever the new higher number will be.

    [ Parent ]

    The SDs endorsements (5.00 / 0) (#228)
    by PamFl on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:32:17 PM EST
    are not official votes until the convention. After the first round of pledged delegate voting, if neither candidate achieves the requsite number, there can be additional rounds of voting. During subsequent rounds, pledged delegates are free to change their votes. At some point, the SDs will be required to vote "on the record" to allow one candidate to achieve the majic number and the nominee will be selected.
    The BO campaign and the media are adding SD endorsements to the actual pedged delegate count. BO will not be the presumptve nominee unless Sen. Clinton drops out. Otherwise, it will go to the convention.


    [ Parent ]
    How does this help win that war? (none / 0) (#190)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:12:30 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    when did ju-jitsu involve... (none / 0) (#119)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:43:56 PM EST
    ...rolling over and playing dead?

    losing gracefully does not involve accepting lies as truth.  It means fighting (fairly) to the end, and when you are beating, admiring your opponents superior skills (while s/he admires your skill and determination and integrity.)

    [ Parent ]

    Invoking the same adherence to the rules (5.00 / 0) (#148)
    by felizarte on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:54:23 PM EST
    in the August convention.  

    [ Parent ]
    Here is an Obama supporter... (3.00 / 6) (#59)
    by FedUpLib on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:23:43 PM EST
    Who is impressed with the Clinton Camp for the first time in a long time.

    Assuming she sticks to this...

    [ Parent ]

    Same here (3.40 / 5) (#61)
    by SpinDoctor on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:25:39 PM EST
    Was a very classy move on her part.

    [ Parent ]
    yeah you lurking obama trolls could take a (3.00 / 4) (#106)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:39:04 PM EST
    lesson....you are all so transparent...you think obama won something so you have to come to gloat.
    Your hollow compliments are just that....HOLLOW.

    [ Parent ]
    A bit soar are we? (n/t) (2.33 / 3) (#134)
    by slw0606 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:49:18 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    10 comments per 24 hours (5.00 / 0) (#219)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:27:18 PM EST
    Your (you're) knew (new)  Please remember the rules (not to be confused with the Obama ruulz)  you are limited to 10 comments in a 24 hr period.  You sound a little angry people have the right to vote for who they want.  Ha! Get over it.

    BTW you are over your 10 comments in a 24 hour period.

    [ Parent ]

    It's sore....tell obama to buy you a dictionary... (2.33 / 3) (#179)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:07:55 PM EST
    Not sore, just disgusted at the lowly tactics of Hillary's opponents and the trolls who swarm this site like cockroaches just to gloat over a perceived win.  Go read the Houston Chronicle today and see what your boy and his camp are up to.

    [ Parent ]
    Wearing my "1" ratings proudly from the (1.00 / 1) (#199)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:14:34 PM EST
    obmatrolls....means I irked them one more time.  They appear as thin-skinned as their thuggish leader.

    [ Parent ]
    Just so you know (1.00 / 0) (#207)
    by CST on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:20:43 PM EST
    I really don't have a problem with your general sentiment (in the previous post not this one).  It's the language that offends.  Names are just childish, and frankly, calling Obama "thuggish" strikes me as a bit of race baiting.  So calm down with the language and tone, you can disagree without being ugly about it.

    [ Parent ]
    I am not here to please you....sorry....the (none / 0) (#224)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:31:04 PM EST
    language I use is acceptable here.  If I wrote what I really thought, I would not be here for long...Sorry your sensibilities are so offended, but if you are waiting for me to change...wellllllll.....

    [ Parent ]
    one more thing....go check out today's (none / 0) (#231)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:32:57 PM EST
    Houston Chronicle and see if "thuggish" is not the perfect word for the obama camp....think
    Alice Palmer

    [ Parent ]
    How's this for "classy"? (2.00 / 4) (#113)
    by angie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:41:20 PM EST
    Kiss my a_______.

    [ Parent ]
    That's very classy :) (none / 0) (#181)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:08:40 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:19:34 PM EST
    But the clinton campaign undercut such a fight today.

    [ Parent ]
    Either they're quitting or they are taking (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:23:36 PM EST
    their fight elsewhere.

    [ Parent ]
    It's Kung Fu: DNC has to explain itself to voters (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by Ellie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:48:13 PM EST
    They can't use Sen Clinton or her campaign as shields, nor can the superdeez. She has no reason to stop campaigning until they officially declare a winner.

    They can't hide from voters behind abstracts like The Roolz and -- although I'm far outside any privileged knowledge on this -- Dems (incl superdeez) might be getting wobbly about being left with no political cover or place to deflect blame for their selective reinforcement.

    They need MI-FL in the general election and Dems there are going to start catching flak for this

    [ Parent ]

    BTD (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Andy08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:28:45 PM EST
    they were very strong on teh call about seating in FULL the delegations. I didn't hearthem wavering on this at all. You are correct that "legally" they might have a weaker case relative to
    fairness and equal treatment of all 50 states. But politically
    alienating IO , NV, NH nd SC is sth. MI & FL are welcome to do but HRC campaign has to go out of their way not to.

    Their position is that of inclusiveness of all voters they cannot make the argument to include FL & MI and say that if not they need to strip IO, NH, IO & NV. It is a contradiction.

    Their argument is not just legal but political and they have to be very careful not to sound divisive.

    That was the subtext in that call.

    [ Parent ]

    Great (none / 0) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:31:24 PM EST
    but where was the argument for actually doing so?

    Saying I WANT THIS is not an argument.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree they were not (none / 0) (#132)
    by Andy08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:48:53 PM EST
    clear at all as to which rule they were relying their argument on.
    But Ickes said repeatedly that the RBC has full authority  to seat the full delegations with full votes.
    He said:  "The Rules give the RBC full power to seat the delegations in full and with full votes".

    [ Parent ]
    Sure (none / 0) (#176)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:06:45 PM EST
    But WHY? O what authority and why should they?

    Because I want it is not a good argument.

    [ Parent ]

    They didn't (none / 0) (#218)
    by Andy08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:27:15 PM EST
    say I want. They said  "The rules allows them to"
    I agree with you it is not clear to me at present under what provision they can do so or how
    apolitical the argument that convinces the RBC to enforce their
    power to seat the full delegation should be.
    But they are clearly basing their arguments tomorrow  "on the Rules".

    Imo that is probably a more effective argument than one that "appears" to be disputing the rules.... We will see I guess.

    I agree they did not answer your question properly.
     

    [ Parent ]

    The Legal Team Was Probably Hired By (none / 0) (#158)
    by kaleidescope on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:56:51 PM EST
    Mark Penn.

    [ Parent ]
    Graceful (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by clbrune on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:23:38 PM EST
    As much as I think all the voters (esp. in Florida) should be represented, I think it shows grace and dignity for Clinton to accept the rules-based argument.

    No need to squabble about the letter of the law.  That might look petty.  It's like objecting once, being over-ruled, and moving on.

    I think it remains a fair issue to keep alive, that the DNC is choosing of its own free will how to resolve this issue.

    The point (none / 0) (#62)
    by andgarden on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:25:47 PM EST
    is that she was supposedly fighting for the Fl and MI voters. It turns out that they may have had a false champion.

    [ Parent ]
    Despite the persuasiveness of (none / 0) (#111)
    by oculus on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:40:28 PM EST
    BTD's "rules-based" argument, it was never clear to me that Clinton had a dog in this hunt, so to speak.  FL and MI are the aggrieved parties.  If anything, Clinton was an amicus.  And as an amicus she is saddled with Ickes, who doesn't seem to want to offend the group deciding this tomorrow.  Not to mention, he voted for stripping FL and MI of all their delegates.  

    [ Parent ]
    She rejected the rules based arguments (none / 0) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:36:52 PM EST
    for Florida and Michigan. Whom she was supposedly fighting for.

    [ Parent ]
    I guess I just see this differently (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by dk on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:26:29 PM EST
    Even if MI and FL delegates were counted 100%, Hillary would still be behind in the delegate count.  So, I can see why it is a bit of a waste of energy to fight too much on that front.

    At this point, the reason Hillary should get the nomination is because the Superdelegates should vote for her because 1) She will likely be ahead in the popular vote and 2) She is more electable.  Thus, achieving the 50% solution tomorrow is victory enough for her, because it legitimizes Florida and Michigan enough that it justifies counting them in the popular vote tally.  Sure, the states will be punished in the delegate count, but they are recognized as having been real elections.

    But (none / 0) (#125)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:46:22 PM EST
    while she would still be behind in the delegate count, she would be closer to Obama....and Obama would need a lot more SD support than he does now to get the nomination.

    Its about the margins...

    [ Parent ]

    Fair point, (none / 0) (#142)
    by dk on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:52:42 PM EST
    but it could be she calculated that the PR and political damage of being overly litigious on the delegate issue might have be a net loss in terms of good will among the SDs.  I know BTD feels strongly about this as a lawyer, but I also think that even good lawyers can choose their battles if they think it will help achieve the ultimate goal.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary realizes (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Kensdad on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:37:46 PM EST
    that the only path to the nomination will be some kind of organic movement away from obama between now and august as things like fr. pfleger continue to go "splat" on obama...

    maybe she will suspend her campaign, bow out gracefully without going to the mat over FL and MI or alienating IA, NH, SC, then hoping that obama just wilts in the polls as his past catches up with him?

    as has already been suggested, any "wrangling" that she does to secure the nomination will "taint" her and alienate the obama side of the dem party...

    let's see how she exits...  i expect that there will be no concession...  and she won't be campaigning for obama until after the convention should he manage to win the nomination despite his obvious weaknesses.

    The Deals in TDP and DNC (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by bmc on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:38:48 PM EST
    They're agreeing to a deal, not the "rules."

    But, I am prepared for the deals to come. It won't alter my complete rejection of Barack Obama in November. Sorry. I've seen too much.

    There are lots of "deals" being done behind the scenes apparently. Like the one the Obama campaign cooked up involving a female black candidate for head of the TDP. The candidate of "hope" and "change" indeed...just another corrupt Chicago pol.

    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/casey/5808894.html

    BTD, you've been written up in WSJ by Taranto:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121207853534129667.html?mod=Best+of+the+Web+Today

    Maybe Clinton campaign decided it (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by oculus on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:44:34 PM EST
    was better to let the news cycle continue to focus on the Rev. Pfleger?

    ouch (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by clbrune on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:53:18 PM EST
    part of me smiles at this, but I hope Clinton's decision is based on the issues at hand.

    She may not win, but I have confidence that her skill and intelligence are behind her decisions.

    I can't be an armchair quarterback.  She has my support because I trust her to do the best with what she has to work with.

    [ Parent ]

    Clinton will always be a loyal Democrat (5.00 / 0) (#123)
    by DandyTIger on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:45:55 PM EST
    in the end. I don't think she will do anything to hurt or undermine the party, even when they're wrong. It is of course sad for FL and MI, and I think sad for the party in the long run. I think the party will loose any semblance of standing for voters and democracy (ala 2000). Perhaps they can save themselves if they do the right thing tomorrow, also "just because." I'm OK with them doing the right thing and saying they didn't have too.

    I guess they're all nasty politicians in the end. Neither party really cares about "the people" or about democracy or about the poor, or about women, etc. I guess it was silly for anyone to think otherwise. They're just politicians. We should never expect more from them.

    It's an eye opener to be sure. Sad as it is. I think if that's the way things go, I'll switch to be an independent. I'll still tend to vote for the lesser of two evils, but it will rarely be more than that. And I won't donate. If they have no real passion about my issues, I won't have any real passion for them.

    Ever since N. Carolina/Indiana (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Trickster on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:46:36 PM EST
    Both sides have been acting very much as if a private deal has been cut.

    Really? (none / 0) (#194)
    by minordomo on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:13:07 PM EST
    - until Clinton started talking about taking this all the way to the convention all of a sudden. At that point it seemed that if there had been a private deal of some kind, they somehow failed to close the deal.

    [ Parent ]
    No (none / 0) (#213)
    by DaveOinSF on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:25:02 PM EST
    No way would the the Obama team have talked up the RFK thing had a deal already been cut at the time.  I think something happened this week.

    [ Parent ]
    that anyone who knows a thing about this (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:52:05 PM EST
    knows that most of the uncommitted MI delegates have already gone to Obama so it is a phony issue.

    hey (none / 0) (#161)
    by mkb662 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:58:27 PM EST