DNC Rules Committee Meeting: Live-Blog With BTD and TL

DNC Rules Committee Meeting: Live-Blog With BTD and TL

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:34:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This:

Big Tent Democrat and I will be live-blogging here.

This is thread one. Please comment below as usual if you want to live blog along with us or post comments. If you use the commenter screen in our live-blogging software, no one will see the messages but us.

We'll start new threads when comments reach about 200.

The live-blog is below the fold so that we could make it larger than the front page allows.

< FL/MI Rules Hearing: Reader's Open Thread | DNC Rules Meeting: Review of Morning Session >

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news
Menu

Home | About | RSS
E-Mail | Comment Policy

Premium Ads

Blog Ads

Search
Login

Make a new account

Existing Users

Username:
Password:
Creator and Principal Author
- Jeralyn E. Merritt
Contributors
- T. Christopher Kelly
- Armando Llorens
TL Alumni
- John Wesley Hall

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections
Site Credits
- Hosted by Scoophost
- TalkLeft Graphics by C.L., Our Man in Hollywood
- TalkLeft Header Graphic by Monk
- Template Design based on WordPress Relaxation Theme
- Powered by Scoop
Legal
- All Content Copyright ©2002-2008. Reprints only by permission from TalkLeft.com.
- Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.
- TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.
Stats
"The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles"
© 1965 Bob Dylan

DNC Rules Committee Meeting: Live-Blog With BTD and TL | 271 comments (271 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

unity? (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by debbie f on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:05:33 AM EST

its alitle late isn't?

I hope not (none / 0) (#4)
by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:06:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]

: Hopefully its not too late..... (none / 0) (#97)
by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:42:03 AM EST

...but if this is the approach they are going to take, its clearly not enough.

[ Parent ]

Really. (none / 0) (#239)
by ghost2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:46:42 AM EST

Dean attacks sexism now? Where the f has he been during this whole primary campaign, where he should have screamed at media shills, and everyday?

Too late, buddy.

[ Parent ]

respect the voters who did not turn out? (5.00 / 5) (#5)
by p lukasiak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:06:21 AM EST

WHAT the heck does that mean?

and sorry BTD, I understand why Dean is doing it, but its pure (and puerile) grandstanding...

not to mention the lies Dean just told. Those lies are a crucial part of this charade....

I was puzzled by that (none / 0) (#7)
by americanincanada on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:07:28 AM EST

sentence from Dean as well.

[ Parent ]

I answered you in the live blog (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:09:06 AM EST

Iowa and NH and SC broke the rules? Swept under the rug, thanks to Harold Ickes and the Clinton campaign.

This was my point yesterday.

Now you see how it plays out.

But Clinton's strategy was BRILLIANT, or so I was told.

[ Parent ]

BTD... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by p lukasiak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:13:11 AM EST

I agree with you about Ickes et al,...remember?

my complaint is that you are praising Dean for a speech which sets up for the people who don't read this blog the big fat lies that will be the foundation for today's atrocities...

[ Parent ]

My complaint is with the (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:14:13 AM EST

Clinton Campaign who threw FL and MI under the bus.

[ Parent ]

: Half FL and MI. (none / 0) (#269)
by oculus on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:05:35 AM EST

[ Parent ]

heh (none / 0) (#11)
by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:10:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]

I beg to differ (none / 0) (#48)
by PamFl on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:23:05 AM EST

FL. voters turned out in record numbers. We had an entire year to hear and see the candidates on TV. In normal election years, many states NEVER get to see the candidates. In fact, most voters don't get to see the candidates in person in any election year.
People in FL. did not stay home, they voted.

[ Parent ]

Dean attacked (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by PlayInPeoria on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:09:05 AM EST

sexism as a media thing and racism as a global thing.... I didn't like they way he put tht one.

: Plus, it's too late to make me feel better. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Teresa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:11:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]
: And so late in the game! Where was his calling out (none / 0) (#26)
by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:14:48 AM EST

of anyone, MCMer or politician, on the sexism...until now? Sheesh. Too little too late, imho. Well, angry opinion.

[ Parent ]
: I got the sense he was trying to scold (none / 0) (#102)
by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:44:11 AM EST

both sides equally:
Clinton for racism
Obama for sexism
Noting that the media and bloggers and people were more responsible, but not detached.
The fact is Obama's campaign, media, bloggers and supporters have been responsible for both.

[ Parent ]

If roosevelt think that the protesters (5.00 / 3) (#13)
by p lukasiak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:10:42 AM EST

are going to be knocking on doors if Obama is the nominee, he's crazy

: DNC (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by melro on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:13:45 AM EST

You got that right!

[ Parent ]
: I laughed at that too (none / 0) (#25)
by tnjen on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:14:44 AM EST

...there out there because of the way the DNC and media have behaved. IOW, they want just and they support Clinton.

[ Parent ]

Herman is sweeping under the rug (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:12:02 AM EST

the fact that states other than MI and FL violated the rules.

indeed and that GOP legislatures (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by nulee on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:13:58 AM EST

changed the timing.... frankly I find her nauseating. I also hate the clapping - why did they allow this hoopla? is this american idol?

[ Parent ]

Hillary clinton swept it under the rug (none / 0) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:13:10 AM EST

Clinton supporters have no complaint to day about this. YOUR CANDIDATE swept it under the rug.

[ Parent ]

Well, I disagree with them (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:15:53 AM EST

and my concern remains with the voters.

Meanwhile, I think Herman just made a misstatement: that because of the 100% penalty, candidates COULD campaign in MI and FL. I think that's wrong.

[ Parent ]

I think it was reality (none / 0) (#42)
by Step Beyond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:21:13 AM EST

I've been saying that all along that only the voluntary pledge kept them from campaigning. It is why I don't accept the argument that not campaigning altered the outcome of the election. They chose not to campaign. Heck even Obama admitted the DNC didn't say he couldn't campaign when he was in Florida earlier this month.

[ Parent ]

Clarification (none / 0) (#47)
by Step Beyond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:22:52 AM EST

I should say, that if they go with the rules are the rules and can not be bypassed then the no campaigning rule was NOT able to be bypassed and anyone who violated it would lose their delegates. So if they MUST remove 50% delegates then the MUST remove ALL delegates from anyone who campaigned.

[ Parent ]

Well, DNC gave Obama a pass early on, (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:26:01 AM EST

before the primary and as he had made his "press availability" comments and had the "national" ad buy.

[ Parent ]

Pledge writers (none / 0) (#77)
by Step Beyond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:33:40 AM EST

But when those happened, people turned to the pledge writers not the DNC to see if he would be punished. Obama also asked permission for the national ad buy not from the DNC but from one of the pledge writers.

[ Parent ]

Sorry. Stupid question. What's a (none / 0) (#220)
by derridog on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:39:46 AM EST

pledge writer?

[ Parent ]

: Never a stupid question (none / 0) (#226)
by Step Beyond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:42:10 AM EST

The people who wrote the 4 state pledge. They are the Dem party leaders of the 4 early states.

[ Parent ]

the rules... (none / 0) (#76)
by p lukasiak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:33:36 AM EST

not the DNC, said he couldn't campaign

[ Parent ]

: Those silly rules (none / 0) (#84)
by Step Beyond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:36:21 AM EST

Ah but the rules say they'll lose delegates. Without any delegates to lose it became moot. And at no time have I ever heard the DNC position stated as disallowing campaigning.
The rules also said 50% delegates. They didn't go with the rules. Which is why saying they can't do less than the rules state should be a problem in regards to campaigning.

[ Parent ]

I retain the right to disagree with my candidate! (5.00 / 2) (#49)
by Burned on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:23:20 AM EST

And that's all I have to say about it! :)

[ Parent ]

Claims that (none / 0) (#23)
by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:14:13 AM EST

the "maximum penalty" was 100%.

Show me, Ms. Herman, where that appears in the rules????

[ Parent ]

: She said CHOSE to make it 100%--Broke the Rules! (none / 0) (#30)
by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:15:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]
: Clinton gave them a pass yesterday (none / 0) (#34)
by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:18:01 AM EST

on bringing up all the rules! I am still frustrated about that.

[ Parent ]

The pre-window concept is her crutch (none / 0) (#67)
by ruffian on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:30:41 AM EST

I thought there was no mention of these windows in the rules? She's essentially saying that the states already allowed into the pre-window were allowed to move around. I guess that is what Clinton agrees with.

[ Parent ]

Dean decrying sexism now (5.00 / 5) (#32)
by RalphB on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:16:45 AM EST

is utter BS. Where were any of these gutless windbags when it counted? If you're not there when it counts, you should just STFU.

: Just words, indeed (none / 0) (#169)
by Practically Lactating on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:19:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Is it too early (5.00 / 4) (#35)
by stillife on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:18:57 AM EST

for a drinking game? Take a shot every time they mention "the roolz" and be flat on your a$$ by 11 a.m. EST.

Frankly BTD (5.00 / 2) (#36)
by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:19:03 AM EST

But he is stating the CLINTON posiition on this so you Clinton supporters have no complaint.

I think that's not fair. If what he's saying is false and unfair, the Clinton campaign's position on this is irrelevant.

Excuse (none / 0) (#41)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:20:02 AM EST

He IS stating the Clinton positon. Harold Ickes told me so yesterday.

[ Parent ]

So? (5.00 / 3) (#43)
by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:21:15 AM EST

I said yesterday that the Clinton campaign was absolutely wrong. I'm not bound by what they say.

[ Parent ]

So? (none / 0) (#50)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:23:21 AM EST

So once the Clinton campaign DISAGREED with the truth, the fight was over.

[ Parent ]

Assuming that only the Clinton campaign (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:25:09 AM EST

can fight for the Florida voters. Perhaps that's true. . .

[ Parent ]

But no one expects anything (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by RalphB on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:27:09 AM EST

from Obama. That would not be fair :-)

[ Parent ]

Clinton has no standing here (5.00 / 2) (#81)
by Cream City on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:35:36 AM EST

for pity's sake, and that's the crux of it. We have seen for months that the states are divided within about what to do; remember the revote debates?

Of course, both candidates are in the wings on this -- but neither candidate has any standing in this hearing. Only state parties do. So I find the attacks on Clinton here -- "why isn't she here?" "why didn't she do this or that?" -- not only tiresome, if darned revealing of some here, but pointless and as clueless as the RBC, although at least it gets this point.

[ Parent ]

I think it's insulting to the voters (5.00 / 1) (#85)
by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:37:02 AM EST

that her campaign has accepted that Florida has no safe harbor.

It's also stupid for her politically.

[ Parent ]

BS (none / 0) (#87)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:37:29 AM EST

Clinton has intervened in this matter and YESTERDAY Clinton agreed that Florida and Michigan violated the rules and the RBC has done nothing but wonderful things.

I can not believe that you are going to give Clinton a pass for that.

I am disappointed in ALL of you Clinton supporters on this.

[ Parent ]

Oh please.... (5.00 / 1) (#92)
by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:40:22 AM EST

She has been fighting for the voters for months. Obviously, the FL people want to accept a deal. Jesus, you can't blame Hillary for that.

[ Parent ]

I damn sure can (none / 0) (#94)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:40:53 AM EST

and do.

[ Parent ]

That's ridiculous. (5.00 / 1) (#100)
by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:43:25 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Agreed (none / 0) (#105)
by americanincanada on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:45:34 AM EST

[ Parent ]

I think your view (none / 0) (#117)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:56:05 AM EST

is ridiculous. You criticize Obama, rightly, for it, but you give Clinton a pass. Look in the mirror at how you accept everything Clinton does but scream bloody murder at what Obama does.

Hypocrite.

[ Parent ]

I am not giving anyone a pass. (none / 0) (#121)
by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:58:01 AM EST

It's in Hillary's interest to seat all the delegates. Obviously, the rules committee has already told them that won't happen.

[ Parent ]

What!!!! (none / 0) (#124)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:59:23 AM EST

You are totally giving Clinton a pass.

[ Parent ]

Oh, this is unbelievable. (5.00 / 1) (#131)
by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:02:08 AM EST

Please tell me why Hillary wouldn't want all the delegates seated in full?

[ Parent ]

What is unbeleivableis your (5.00 / 1) (#135)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:04:27 AM EST

ability to be disingenuous.

Clinton cut her best deal and threw Florida and Michigan under the bus.

I can not stand the hypocrisy.

[ Parent ]

Cut her best deal? (5.00 / 1) (#139)
by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:05:31 AM EST

Absurd. Her best deal is for all the delegates to be seated.

[ Parent ]

: You can only have a deal when (none / 0) (#191)
by Molly Bloom on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:27:55 AM EST

opposing sides agree. That was her best case scenario, not the best deal she could make.
"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
[ Parent ]

I agree with you about that (none / 0) (#138)
by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:05:29 AM EST

I wish you would put away your broad brush, though.

[ Parent ]

Well, I'm disappointed, too (none / 0) (#103)
by Cream City on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:44:21 AM EST

as this is a blog by lawyers, after all, and I would think that the issue of standing would be addressed as commenter after commenter called for Clinton to speak for Florida or Michigan or, heck, why not for American Samoa? If New York was involved in this, she couldn't even speak for it, unless asked to do so by the state party -- as it is an issue between state parties and the national Dem organization.

There are plenty of cases in which I would like to speak before the judge and jury, but I don't have standing. Heck, TL and BTD would like to speak before the RBC, I bet, but you don't have standing. Nor can you, or Clinton, make these very divided state parties take your stance.

Actually, she and her campaign and super-delegates have less ability to do so -- as the DNC can do nothing to you, but it can strike fear into them.

[ Parent ]

: Excuse me (none / 0) (#126)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:00:26 AM EST

Layers like me know that the right to intervene allows you to make all the arugments you wish to make.
Please do not lecture me about the law. You look foolish.

[ Parent ]
: An intervenor (none / 0) (#134)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:03:24 AM EST

is a PARTY to the action. But suppose it was just the right to file an amicus brief, then file the best damn amicus brief you can put together.
I am dismayed at the way Clinton supporters are giving Clinton a pass on this.

[ Parent ]

Are oyu hearing Aussmann? (none / 0) (#58)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:26:54 AM EST

On his knees begging.

[ Parent ]

Jeralyn is right, all they care about (none / 0) (#63)
by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:28:35 AM EST

at this point is getting the Florida vote count included, officially. I guess that is okay, but I would still like all the truth told.

[ Parent ]

Yes, and it's disgusting. (none / 0) (#64)
by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:28:36 AM EST

This is wrong.

[ Parent ]

: They have decided not to (none / 0) (#69)
by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:30:52 AM EST

have a fight, just make nice, kissy kissy! Bleck!

[ Parent ]

This is not a surprise (none / 0) (#66)
by Step Beyond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:30:24 AM EST

Ausman has been talking about only asking for 50% all along. Plus he has always supported the opinion that Florida violated the rules. I've never expected much from him.

I really hope Graham is going to speak. My hope lies with him.

[ Parent ]

what a joke (5.00 / 2) (#37)
by debbie f on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:19:04 AM EST

the dnc states it was the fla state goverments fault and they are going to punish the voters -- unbelievable!!!!!!

Alexis herman is lying... (5.00 / 2) (#39)
by p lukasiak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:19:23 AM EST

the rules forbid candidates from campaigning in states that have violated the sanctions...

A presidential candidate who campaigns in a state where the state party is in violation of the timing provisions of these rules, or where a primary or caucus is set by a state's government on a date that violates the timing provisions of these rules, may not receive pledged delegates or delegate votes from that state. Candidates may, however, campaign in such a state after the primary or caucus that violates these rules.

You don't allow something with a "however" unless its forbidden under other circumstances

Rule 20 C 1 b

Have RBC members just made up their own rules (none / 0) (#51)
by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:24:28 AM EST

all along?

Weird.

So, rules state SD's cannot be penalized? Hhhmmmm.

MSNBC seems to taking narrative line that this is somehow "unfair."

[ Parent ]

: yeah.,... (none / 0) (#70)
by p lukasiak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:31:12 AM EST

there is no "pre-window" in the rules, for instance. Yet, it is the existence of some kind of defined "pre-window" that Alexis Herman talks about.
There are two ways to read rule 11. Either it requires all states to abide by the timing in the rule, OR it permits states who are not allowed to go prior to February 5th to do so IF one of the early states goes before its designated date.
Either Michigan was permitted to move its date after NH announced it was moving its date, or NH, SC, and IA were in violation of the rules, and required to MORE proof than Florida (because Florida's was inadequate) of "positive, provable" actions of their efforts to stay within the timelines

[ Parent ]

No commercials on C-SPAN (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:22:28 AM EST

: C Span (none / 0) (#54)
by melro on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:25:27 AM EST

Thanks. No Wolf Blitzer either.

[ Parent ]

Oh noh (5.00 / 4) (#60)
by Stellaaa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:27:17 AM EST

he said Healing process, which means "give up and shut up"

Ausman accepts that the penalty is appropriate (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:27:48 AM EST

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!

: Yeah - that is totally weird (none / 0) (#72)
by nulee on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:31:48 AM EST

any background on this guy? What's his angle?

[ Parent ]

If CNN (5.00 / 2) (#65)
by Emma on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:29:52 AM EST

and MSNBC are problematic, I'm watching on C-Span. no commentary no commercials.

Seriously (5.00 / 1) (#82)
by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:35:48 AM EST

Whoopdeedoo, he is fighting like hell for the Super Delegates!!

He's throwing Florida voters under the bus.

: Yep (5.00 / 1) (#88)
by Step Beyond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:38:22 AM EST

I've been under the bus so long I'm no longer three dimensional. :D

[ Parent ]
: but if they accept SDs they have to accept (none / 0) (#89)
by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:38:40 AM EST

popular vote...the DNC will have to accept the votes.

[ Parent ]

grrrr.... (5.00 / 7) (#90)
by p lukasiak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:38:44 AM EST

But he is stating the CLINTON posiition on this so you Clinton supporters have no complaint.

I find the idea that my support of Clinton for the Democratic nomination means that I have to agree with whatever the Clinton team does really offensive, BTD.

We don't insist that you 'have no complaint' when Obama does something stupid. Please show us the same respect...

: Absolutely..... (5.00 / 5) (#95)
by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:40:56 AM EST

I have the utmost respect for Hillary Clinton. The strategical decisions made by her campaign....not so much.

[ Parent ]

oh my gawd... (5.00 / 1) (#106)
by p lukasiak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:46:21 AM EST

we have an idiot saying thzt there is no language in the charter saying "delegates = votes"

a delegate is someone to whom authority is delegated to act on the behalf of others -- if they can't vote, they don't have the authority delegated to them.

: Except in the U.S. Congress (none / 0) (#107)
by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:47:55 AM EST

where "delegates" don't have votes. . .

[ Parent ]

Literal interpretations of the 'rules' (5.00 / 1) (#111)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:50:16 AM EST

are what drive me crazy about religious fundamentalism.

Literal interpretations are not always a good thing.

Obama's propaganda campaign (5.00 / 3) (#122)
by Josey on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:58:07 AM EST

was on full display this morning on Wash Journal.
Obamamite callers stating Hillary "broke the rules" by leaving her name on the MI ballot.
There was no rule stating candidates couldn't be on any state ballots!
Oh - and she "broke the rules" by holding fundraisers in FL.
All candidates were allowed to hold private fundraisers!

Obamamites don't question why - since both FL & MI broke the 4 state rule, Obama's name was on the FL ballot and never asked for it to be removed.

8 years of Bush propaganda promoted by Repubs and the media - and now we're nominating a candidate with the same tactics. And it's no more acceptable from a Dem than a Repub.
Scary!

I hope and believe that Bill Nelson (5.00 / 1) (#128)
by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:00:49 AM EST

will talk about the voters.

And he is (5.00 / 2) (#129)
by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:01:22 AM EST

Thank god.

[ Parent ]

I wish I could be there to clap! (5.00 / 2) (#132)
by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:02:14 AM EST

[ Parent ]

I clapped and hollered in my living room (5.00 / 2) (#166)
by lobary on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:18:38 AM EST

My cat is giving my funny looks.

Nelson has been fantastic.

[ Parent ]

: Neson just got re-elected -- for life. (none / 0) (#180)
by Cream City on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:22:49 AM EST

[ Parent ]

The subject of the voters (5.00 / 1) (#133)
by talex on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:03:11 AM EST

will come up with another presenter. They each have their role.

Bill Nelson (5.00 / 1) (#137)
by Radiowalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:05:08 AM EST

is making a powerful argument.
Tip of the hat to Senator Nelson!

: I'm a little surprised (none / 0) (#145)
by Step Beyond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:06:56 AM EST

His comments lately have been more in support of the 50% reduction. So I had expected he would be less about the voters. I'm very pleasantly surprised.

[ Parent ]
: Nelson (none / 0) (#146)
by melro on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:07:03 AM EST

What he is saying...Ditto for Michigan. We had the 3rd largest turnout ever.

[ Parent ]

"One person, one vote" (5.00 / 1) (#144)
by joanneleon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:06:49 AM EST

Bill Nelson:

They committed no crime. They did not move the election forward. And yet they would be the ones who are punished. They do not deserve to be punished. They deserve to be heard.

We're pretty sensitive to our votes being taken away. We were disenfranchised in 2000... divisive and disruptive acts by the Republican party..

the 24 hr news cycle repeatedly kept telling floridians that their votes would not count.. yet when the polls closed, democrats had voted in record numbers... and that vote was certified by the SoS.. vast majority of dems said that they went to the polls in FL despite what they had been told that their votes didn't count... they wanted to cast their vote for a pres nominee.. there was a democratic silence in our state, a state that is accustomed to high profile campaigning.. fl voters took it to the streets

: Nelson, wow! I had not expected to be so impressed (none / 0) (#183)
by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:23:40 AM EST

He made a very political argument.
Who is this MacDonald?

[ Parent ]

Bill Nelson!! (5.00 / 1) (#147)
by americanincanada on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:07:34 AM EST

My senator is doing me proud today.

BTD was right yesterday (5.00 / 2) (#148)
by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:07:47 AM EST

when he said that Bill Nelson would be the best speaker. So far, he has been.

You say to those voter..... (5.00 / 1) (#152)
by zfran on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:12:08 AM EST

Hillary wanted to have a re-vote, Obama refused!!!

Ms Griffin (Obama supporter) (5.00 / 1) (#153)
by joanneleon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:12:41 AM EST

"Not all voters are created equal?"

What the heck is she saying?

: She was ridiculous. (none / 0) (#157)
by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:15:52 AM EST

Who the hell was clapping for her?

[ Parent ]
: Well, at last, somebody says (none / 0) (#163)
by Cream City on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:17:30 AM EST

what has been clear from the start in the DNC machinations. Amend that: Prima Donna let it slip, too, but on CNN. Now an Obama supporter has said it on the record of the DNC, for posterity -- and for the historical record of this atrocity of a Dem campaign.

[ Parent ]

Fu*&ing A! GO Bill Nelson!!! (5.00 / 1) (#156)
by nulee on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:15:32 AM EST

Tell them the RULZ!!

What's with all the "uncommitted" (5.00 / 1) (#160)
by joanneleon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:16:28 AM EST

committee members? Mr. McDonald's name is followed by "uncommitted" but he doesn't seem too neutral to me.

How many of these committee members are supposed to be uncommitted or undeclared when they really aren't?

: nasty piece of work this McDonald (none / 0) (#164)
by Stellaaa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:17:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Do not attack a southerner (5.00 / 2) (#170)
by Step Beyond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:19:53 AM EST

What a mistake for the RBC to question Nelson. Nelson has been involved all along and tried repeatedly. He has been repeatedly frustrated by the RBC. This could get really interesting.

Nelson is a "Professional" (5.00 / 1) (#171)
by cdalygo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:20:12 AM EST

Party hacks take note. This is HOW you win elections

As a proud Hillary supporter, BTD, I'm glad to see it. He's getting the facts out that the Rulz committee tried to smother. Plus he's doing it in a way that the public CAN understand.

: Which is what the Clinton camp (none / 0) (#182)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:23:11 AM EST

should have done.

[ Parent ]

Some of the DNC argument is looking (5.00 / 2) (#174)
by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:21:33 AM EST

like this has been a contrived effort to force MI and FL into a caucus from the very beginning.

That was their same effort when the discussions of getting a "re-vote" in both states, as well.

Nelson certainly made a solid argument for the voters and against the DNC's efforts to change the FL process to an Obama-friendly caucus.

Wow, he was great (5.00 / 1) (#176)
by Democratic Cat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:22:05 AM EST

I love Bill Nelson. Never thought I'd say that.

Nelson v. McDonald (5.00 / 2) (#177)
by Kensdad on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:22:22 AM EST

Sen. Nelson kicked the butt of that pompous turd, mcdonald... it was nice to see him tuck his squirrely little tail and run for the hills after Nelson put him in his place. maybe now he'll shut up?

i'm surprisingly impressed ... (5.00 / 3) (#178)
by p lukasiak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:22:26 AM EST

by Nelson..he put both of the committee Obots in their place... and the third Obot was afraid to even ask a question

: Indeed (none / 0) (#184)
by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:23:53 AM EST

And he proved that BTD was right yesterday about which challenge the Clinton Campaign should have gone forward with.

[ Parent ]
: Right--I've always seen Nelson (FL) as milquetoast (none / 0) (#196)
by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:30:59 AM EST

But, here today, defending his state's voters, he had true fire in his belly. I could vote for this guy.
This was a campaign speech--he used personel anecdotes, named individual Dem voters (probably both a Clinton and an Obama supporter?), appealed strongly and emotionally to the need to Count Each Vote and Value Each Voter.
Then he laid out the nefarious dealings of Repubs in enough detail, but with strong enough narrative that even the MCM (mainstream corporate media) should be able to understand it!

[ Parent ]

Roosevelt and Herman don't look happy (5.00 / 4) (#179)
by joanneleon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:22:41 AM EST

as Nelson finishes speaking and the crowd stands up whistling and clapping. Roosevelt has kind of a bitten lip, twisted look on his face.

: Roosevelt "hearts" Obama (none / 0) (#190)
by Kensdad on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:26:36 AM EST

he has commented privately that Obama is the most inspiring and charismatic democrat EVER... including his great (or is it "great, great"?) grandfather, teddy...
so, he's not in the tank for anyone, eh?

[ Parent ]

I am starting to understand Jeralyn's (5.00 / 1) (#185)
by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:24:08 AM EST

argument better now. I can see how legalistic challenges would not have gone over well in this setting. They are trying to get the votes counted but an adversarial approach would have left Clinton open to accusations of "stealing" the election or trying to anyway.

Exactly. (none / 0) (#187)
by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:25:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Except that the Florida Democrats (none / 0) (#188)
by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:25:31 AM EST

have an iron-clad argument. They should have put forward their best argument.

[ Parent ]

Exactly. And the DNC can exact (none / 0) (#193)
by Cream City on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:28:41 AM EST

tremendous punishments on FL and MI super-delegates. (So can Obama, for that matter, with his money.) It's how politics, she is played.

[ Parent ]

The Charter's SHALL means nothing to the RBC? (none / 0) (#202)
by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:32:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]

: The RBC SHALL (none / 0) (#261)
by Cream City on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:56:43 AM EST

read the "just words" of the rules as it pleases; isn't that clear yet? Of course, the word shall SHOULD mean what it means, but so SHOULD have many other words and clear -- to me -- provisions and proscriptions in the rules.

[ Parent ]

Nonsense (none / 0) (#197)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:31:00 AM EST

Nelson's argument with McDonald, perhaps his best moments, were entirely legalistic. That is the argument the Clinton camp threw away.

[ Parent ]

: Isn't Nelson also part of the ongoing (5.00 / 1) (#221)
by zfran on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:39:53 AM EST

lawsuit on behalf of FL. So of course, legalities enter the realm. There are legal arguments and political ones. Each, carry their liabilities.

[ Parent ]
: His legal arguments were made in politically savvy (none / 0) (#213)
by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:35:49 AM EST

way -- electrifying.
And, again, maybe the MCM will now report the role of the Repubs in messing up FL's Dem primary.
Faint hope...but he made it a good story. And the MCM loves conflict, which came about from MacDonal's (sp?) questions.
The story of the paper trail on electronic voting machines is, or SHOULD be, a compelling story for every Dem, every voter, every member of the DNC.
C'mon, Howard! Make the COUNT THE VOTES happen. Seat the delegates.
Boy, Nelson got me right fired up.

[ Parent ]

Nelson was great (5.00 / 1) (#186)
by stillife on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:25:06 AM EST

Joyner is good, too. I like how she's bringing up civil rights.

DK hates Bill Nelson (5.00 / 1) (#189)
by Josey on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:25:58 AM EST

because his comments conflict with Obama's propaganda.

: Yup, they are trashing Nelson (none / 0) (#217)
by Radiowalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:38:05 AM EST

big time over at the ObamaOrange.

[ Parent ]

What will the Obama side do after (5.00 / 1) (#194)
by Stellaaa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:29:26 AM EST

her? say NO?

: will they deride (none / 0) (#198)
by DFLer on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:31:31 AM EST

her comparisons to apartheid?

[ Parent ]
: Not sure (none / 0) (#200)
by americanincanada on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:31:39 AM EST

how Obama presents against this and comes out looking like anything other than self-serving.

[ Parent ]
: she is good! (none / 0) (#201)
by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:32:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]
: Wouldn't be the first time (none / 0) (#203)
by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:32:11 AM EST

they showed a preference for themselves over the people of this country.

[ Parent ]

Arthenia Joyner for President! (5.00 / 1) (#199)
by stillife on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:31:35 AM EST

Is it just me, or are the pro-Clinton speakers more interesting? They're talking about people, rights and votes while the others are talking about the roolz.