DNC Rules Meeting: On Scene Live-Blog

Bump and Update: Back From Ohio will continue live-blogging the afternoon session here.


A huge thanks to BackFromOhio, TalkLeft's credentialed blogger on site at the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting today.

BackFromOhio is an attorney well-versed in these kinds of hearings.

Please comment below as usual if you want to live blog along with BFO or post comments that all can see. If you use the commenter screen in the live-blogging software, only BFO will see the messages.

We'll start new threads when comments reach about 200. The live-blog is below the fold so that we can make it larger than the front page allows.

< Recess and Morning Review: Reader Thread | MI/Fl DRC Hearing: Afternoon Session Live Blog I >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I am unhappy that the point that turnout (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:29:56 AM EST
    was depressed was stipulated by the FL representative. In fact, the evidence does NOT support such a contention.

    Does anybody know statistics theory? (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by blogtopus on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:59:54 AM EST
    Doesn't the same logic that supports polling in general - that a smaller proportion of the population can represent the population in general to some degree - wouldn't that logic support the assumption that a proportional amount of Hillary supporters, Edwards supporters and Obama supporters stayed home as went to vote?

    What evidence does Obama have that more of his supporters stayed home?

    In fact, haven't we seen that the more people vote, the better Hillary does?


    Self-selection issues... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:26:10 PM EST
    the decision to participate makes this unrandom, that would be the issue I would mention here...

    More Clinton voters? (none / 0) (#28)
    by samanthasmom on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:10:42 PM EST
    I would speculate that more of Clinton's supporters might have come out to vote because there were other things to cast a vote for or against other than the presidential candidates. I believe there may have been a property tax issue on the Florida ballot? If you are still living in your parents' home, you are not likely to have much interest in how much property taxes are.

    self-selection is difficult to determine... (none / 0) (#48)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:44:34 PM EST
    I would be unwilling to venture even a guess!

    Elections (none / 0) (#51)
    by cal1942 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:48:33 PM EST
    should be decided by the people who actually care enough to show up.

    I never thought I'd see the day when people would seriously think about altering the vote by attempting to divine the preferences of non-participants.

    Un f***ing believeable.


    Additionally (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by cal1942 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:01:44 PM EST
    There was an active campaign in Michigan to vote uncommitted.  John Conyers led an effort complete with radio ads urging peopole who wanted to vote for Obama to vote uncommittted. The Richardson and Edwards campaigns used handouts to urge voting uncommitted.

    Hillary Clinton did no campaigning whatsoever.

    IMO like life itself, voting is about showing up. There is no legitimate argument for people who didn't vote.

    We're lucky if half the eligible voters turn out for the general election. Are we to invalidate general elections for that reason? Are we to somehow divine which candidates would have received the votes of those who didn't bother to vote?  I can't believe that anyone would make such a ridiculous argument.  Then again I never anticipated Obama, his campaign and his followers.


    Don't (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:59:53 PM EST
    you know? The unity pony didn't come and sprinkle fairy dust on the voters so they didn't show up. That's pretty much the basis of their argument. After all they've been arguing for imaginary voters all day.

    Chuck Todd (turned to MSNBC for a sec) (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by kenosharick on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:07:22 PM EST
    said the day is already a "big win" for Sen. Clinton!!!

    Oh, I like hearing that! (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by cmugirl on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:12:43 PM EST
    And coming from Todd who works for the Obama News Network, that's got to be good news!

    Win for Clinton (none / 0) (#40)
    by PennProgressive on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:42:10 PM EST
    I have not been able to watch all of the hearing. So please can you tell me why it si so? i like the sound of it.

    great job (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by ding7777 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:10:36 PM EST

    Right On (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by cdalygo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:10:50 PM EST
    About time, someone brought up the unfairness of New Hampshire/Iowa. It's all about money and power (esp. when primaries used to end so soon).

    How have the (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by ding7777 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:19:11 PM EST
    committee members responded to using exit poll data?

    Ohio posted (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:58:36 PM EST
    that the reaction was not positive.  He said some of them had their arms crossed.  You can use the side bar on the live blog to scroll back up.  Just hold on to it or a new entry will bump it to the bottom.

    I *heart* Carl Levin (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by cmugirl on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:21:53 PM EST
    for bringing in the fact that NH broke the "rules"

    BackFromOhio, (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by akaEloise on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:56:16 PM EST
    I wish we could have a pizza delivered to you there!  Thanks for hanging in there for us.

    Thank you Back from Ohio (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:05:36 PM EST
    You are great for doing this for us. I keep linking to you in our other threads.

    I really liked Flournoy comment (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by kenosharick on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:29:58 PM EST
    that if they arbitrarilly(?) give Obama votes, they might as well cancel 2012 primary.

    Blanchard (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:31:37 PM EST
    Sounds like Blanchard is doing a good job.  I hope we end up getting transcripts or video clips to discuss.

    Brazile (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:57:24 PM EST
    did she say Clinton was cheating?   She humiliated herself and the DNC.  What was she thinking?

    Actually that is really the last straw for me. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:08:57 PM EST
    If Obama is the nominee now, I will donate to McCain in protest.

    I'm seriously considering voting Uncommitted (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ellie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:11:03 PM EST
    In protest.

    Um, that might get counted for Obama (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:12:24 PM EST
    in a pinch.

    Need to check your state "rules" (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by nycstray on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:36:30 PM EST
    In some cases it goes to the party, others it doesn't count. Some the candidate needs to have paperwork in place etc.

    I think the only safe nonvote is leave (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Valhalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:22:02 PM EST
    the presidential part blank.  My state allows write-ins but I heard somewhere they go to the party too.  Then vote downticket.

    That's if you don't stay home.


    What Prima Donna is thinking throughout (4.75 / 4) (#22)
    by Cream City on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:12:09 PM EST
    all this is that she wants to keep her DNC (and thus CNN) position, and that if Clinton wins, Donna loses.

    That's it, that's all you need to keep in mind about Prima Donna's pronunciamentos.


    Brazile on CNN is okay? Why? (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by bridget on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:23:33 PM EST
    Isn't it odd that the Obamabloggers like kos et al have gone wild over Clinton supporter James Carville's role on CNN for ever so long now - but having Brazile sitting there for hours esp. after every election giving her biased opinion, that is okay?

    What is wrong with that picture?

    btw. Is she the only DNC member who also works for a TV channel $$$ influencing audiences in the progress?


    heh, those are former Republicans who haven't (none / 0) (#42)
    by thereyougo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:06:05 PM EST
    their spots,YET! So obvious.

    Prima Donna, good name for her.

    my momma Prima Donna! cute :-)


    Excuse me, waldenpond, what don't you like (none / 0) (#44)
    by bridget on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:19:02 PM EST
    about my comment?

    I am still a newbie and trying to find out what the rating here means. So why a 4?


    4 is good (none / 0) (#45)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:34:28 PM EST
    1 is the worst, usually means someone factually incorrect or violating the site rules in some way.  2 disapproval, 3 neutral (sometimes I use a 3 just to let someone know I read their response but I don't comment and use up bandwidth, 4 I approve/support the comment on some level and 5 I agree or I don't necessarily agree but I appreciate their comments as I think someone has been particulary forceful or funny.

    I'm sure other have variations but typically 1=bad, 5=good.  In other words Clinton is a 1 and Obama is a 5 according to the roolz.  :)


    What don't you like, let's hear it (none / 0) (#47)
    by bridget on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:41:28 PM EST
    lets not play ringaroundthe roses
    I know 1=bad, 5= good come on ....rolling eyes

    LOL (none / 0) (#50)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:48:29 PM EST
    Oh for gaaaawwwwds sake.... I'll give you a 5. The comparison to Carville was good.... the question was good..... but let's be honest.... you should go full bore on the snark it you want a 5.  I expect better next time, much much better.

    You expect better? ROTFLOLOLOL...... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by bridget on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:19:42 PM EST
    you know, you are a riot. How old are you btw.?
    I should go full bore on the snark? lolol

    FYI I never snark. It's just not what I do. Sorry.

    But While we are at it, what else in your opinion must I avoid so not to be downrated by other bloggers?

    But this is too funny - after 1o yrs on the net
    this a first - thanks for explaining yourself, however, it was interesting. I gotcha lol



    Problem is (none / 0) (#60)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:12:35 PM EST
    the public has not complained.  I understand CNN got lots of complaints about Carville being on when he's a Clinton supporter.  We need to complain to CNN about Obama supporters as "neutral" commentators.

    That's what a sis said too but how could that be (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ellie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:15:15 PM EST
    ... when I can't turn on the toob and NOT see Brazile embarrassing her way through another appearance.

    Ahhh, but were Obama to win she'd be the gate-keeper to all the yummy access.


    Seems to me (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:50:47 PM EST
    that there have been more than a few Democrats posturing in front of the cameras today embarrassing themselves and their party.

    What is being televised does not inspire confidence.  

    Yep, Obama blocking revotes and (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Cream City on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:54:21 PM EST
    causing this hearing to have to happen, with airing of the dirty laundry of Dems not knowing what they're doing -- or knowing exactly what they're doing to disenfranchise some Dems and not others --  may just have elected President McCain.

    And it will not be Clinton's fault, no matter what Obama says.  His supporters changed the rules to strip all of the delegates from these states, and he blocked the revotes to rectify it.  Period.


    We can only hope (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by miriam on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:13:23 PM EST
    that after today CNN will no longer use that egregiously false identification tag "Undeclared" for Donna Brazile.  She has broadcast her bias from coast to coast and CNN should apologize to viewers for misleading them as to Brazile's status.  We can also hope that she has disqualified herself absolutely from becoming the next DNC chair.    

    We also can only hope to see (none / 0) (#37)
    by Cream City on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:29:38 PM EST
    Prima Donna ridden out of town on a unity pony, but seated backward -- that was the colonial-era way to do it.  

    (That was for you as another historian here, Miriam.:-)


    Donna B. is dirt stupid. (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:03:40 PM EST
    Accusing Clinton of cheating??
    How many dollars are going to McCain's coffers because of Brazile? Millions by November is my guess.

    Can (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:15:36 PM EST
    you imagine if Obama gets the nomination how many people feel just like you and are going to start stuffing McCain's coffers?

    Brazile will get a sub-cabinet post (none / 0) (#38)
    by Cream City on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:30:57 PM EST
    at the assistant to the secretary level of some federal agency or other, I bet, if Obama wins.

    Just keep that in mind, those who would vote for Obama.


    Does anyone know (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by miriam on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:15:50 PM EST
    what is happening outside the hotel?  Are pro-Clinton demonstrators there?

    they must be deciding in private and then (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Teresa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:56:36 PM EST
    they will make a show of their unified decision.

    Whoa! (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Fabian on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:46:12 PM EST
    Audience getting cranky.

    Not surprised.  I'd be a heckler, er, outspoken spectator as well.

    lipstick on a pig (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:49:47 PM EST
    that's great!

    McDonald is an idiot (none / 0) (#1)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:18:40 AM EST

    i had to leave for an hour-- (none / 0) (#4)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:58:50 AM EST
    right at point McDonald asked his question. Decided I would not turn on TV again--bad for my karma.

    Back from Ohio, I haven't had tv (none / 0) (#2)
    by chancellor on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:34:01 AM EST
    for years. Am counting on you for everything from who's giving who dirty looks to what the speakers are actually saying. Thanks for all you're doing.

    Many thanks. (none / 0) (#3)
    by Fabian on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:42:52 AM EST
    Both transcription  and color commentary are welcome.

    I thought DK was putting a major call out for people to register and attend.  It seems from this POV that the majority attending are in favor of seating versus penalizing.  Who are the netroots really?

    BackFromOhio...I finally found your live blog. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Teresa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:11:06 PM EST
    I read it during the lunch break. Thank you so much. It's interesting to read from someone inside the room.

    The Obama supporters are much louder on my TV. Is that not true in the room?

    Vigorous process? What a lame excuse to hold ... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ellie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:35:56 PM EST
    ... make that the foundation uner all future actions of the committee.

    whats going on? (none / 0) (#43)
    by thereyougo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:08:24 PM EST
    Lets get the show on the road! where are they?

    obama resigning from church (none / 0) (#49)
    by Amiss on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:47:08 PM EST
    Roland Martin just reported on CNN.

    A decision (none / 0) (#52)
    by cal1942 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:55:43 PM EST
    20 years in the making.

    Is resigning from Trinity church (none / 0) (#53)
    by zfran on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:16:05 PM EST
    supposed to make us feel better about him?! Where was he 20 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago, last year, last week, this week!!!!