Blanchard, Joyner and Nelson to Argue for Hillary and FL Democrats

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:23:32 PM EST
Tags: Florida '08, Michigan '08 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Update: FL State Senator Arthenia Joyner will argue for Hillary. Bill Nelson is arguing only for the Fla. Democratic Party. Katherine Seelye of the NY Times was mistaken.

Update: Florida Democratic Party Chair Karen Thurman sent out an email saying Bill Nelson will be arguing for the Florida Democratic Party. Is he arguing for both Hillary and the Florida Party? She says she expects the Committee will "restore at least half of our delegates." From the e-mail, which was forwarded to me:

The Party has not made any specific recommendations to the DNC since we submitted our delegate selection plan, but we have consistently noted that a record-breaking 1.75 million Florida Democrats voted in the state-run January 29th primary, which had all the candidates on the ballot.
Tomorrow, the Rules & Bylaws Committee will hear an appeal written by Florida DNC Member Jon Ausman. I have asked our senior U.S. Senator, Bill Nelson, to present on behalf of Florida Democrats

. [More...]

Yesterday I noted that David Bonior and Robert Wexler would be presenting the arguments tomorrow on behalf of Barack Obama and wondered, since the news article omitted the information, who would be arguing for Hillary. Here's the answer, from the New York Times:

The Clinton campaign also announced that former Michigan Gov. James Blanchard would be arguing the Clinton case on behalf of Michigan at the committee meeting. Senator Bill Nelson will be arguing for the Clinton campaign on behalf of Florida.

The Times also says that no matter what the Committee does tomorrow, Barack Obama won't reach the magic pledged delegate number. Nor will he after the June 3 primary. He needs superdelegates to get there.

If the DNC, as now widely expected, does some sort of 50% compromise, the 2026 number changes. It may not reach the 2210 number the Clinton campaign is arguing for, but it rises substantially:[More...]

Q. O.K., if the old magic number for reaching the nomination was 2,026, and the R&B committee decides to seat half these delegates, what’s the most likely new magic threshold?

A: Some guesstimates predict the figure will be, give or take a hundred more, maybe 2,110 or 2,131, depending on what the committee decides. (MSNBC’s First Read has several scenarios.)

Q: Without these states, Senator Obama is about 40-some delegates away from the 2,026 number. Will Mr. Obama reach either threshold once Puerto Rico (55 delegates), South Dakota (15) and Montana (16) conclude the Democratic contests?

A: No. However well he does, he can’t reach the magic number without an assist from some superdelegates, largely because Puerto Rico is likely to go overwhelmingly for her. He needs fewer superdelegates than she needs, but he still needs some. One scenario is that after the voting ends June 3, a passel of superdelegates comes out at once and puts Mr. Obama over the top.

In other words, barring an deluge of the 200 or so still uncommitted superdelegates coming out for Obama before the final primary, we have a race at least until June 3.

< Open Thread and Diary Rescue | Fairness, Rules and Self-Interest >

Legal

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.

Blanchard, Joyner and Nelson to Argue for Hillary and FL Democrats | 92 comments (92 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

We (5.00 / 0) (#1)
by tek on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:25:04 PM EST

move to FL next week. Never vote for Wexler.

Maybe you should find out a little more (3.00 / 0) (#17)
by independent voter on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:51:52 PM EST

about Wexler before making such a blanket statement. Things are not always so clear cut.
check out this website
He is a good man, who just happens to support a candidate that you do not support.


Wexler (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Brookhaven on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:01:49 PM EST

Wexler is a good guy. I've not heard him diss HRC has other "official" DNC'ers have done. Instead of dissing the opponent he has tried to make the case for Obama.

I'm a fan of Wexler's because he has been an open and strong advocate of impeaching Bush/Cheney. But, the Queen Bee wasn't having any of it.

Although I have appreciated Wexler for his politics, his demeanor is somewhat uninspiring and like Sebelius he puts me to sleep when he's on TV. But, he's a good guy. He just happens to be supporting the wrong candidate, in my view.


support Obama, fine... (5.00 / 0) (#40)
by p lukasiak on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:21:32 PM EST

be the spokescritter for Obama's indefensible behavior in Florida? Sorry, that turns you into a slimebag.

Wexler sold his soul.


Every citizen (none / 0) (#65)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:37:52 PM EST

deserves the support of an attorney.

I don't hold this against Wexler. I actually like Wexler. He has fought the good fight and I haven't heard of him doing anything moronic (like Pelosi, Kerry and others have done).


: so, let him hire an attorney... (5.00 / 1) (#83)
by p lukasiak on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:13:54 PM EST

if he thinks he needs one.
Wexler isn't his client.
The people of 19th district are his "client" -- and he's going to argue against their interests. Broward County went for Clinton over Obama by 24 points. Palm Beach County went Clinton by 32 points. And Wexler is going to advocate against the will of the VAST majority of the Democratic voters in his district. If he was acting as an attorney, he'd be disbarred for that.
he's slime.

Paul (none / 0) (#86)
by Brookhaven on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:16:16 PM EST

I have to agree with Teresa, everyone deserves an attorney to plead their case even someone I dislike and whom I believe wants to be crowned king by disenfranchising voters. But, everyone deserves their day in "court".

All I'm saying is that I happen to agree with Wexler's politics and his voting record and especially his passionate advocacy for impeaching Bush/Cheney.

I don't know if he sold his soul because I don't know if we all have one to begin with. I don't know if he sold anything. He may well have for all I know. He also may just be one of those who have fallen for the Elmer Gantry sham that is Obama. I don't get it and many of us don't get it but I guess I can separate someone's voting record that has done some good for people from his defending the indefensible when it comes to disenfranchising people.

But, I cannot call him a bad guy for being an attorney for Obama even if I think the cause he is defending is bankrupt.

I just hope HRC's attorney's "win" (I don't know the proper term to use here because they are not pleading their case in front of a court of law just the DNC) because her cause is the "higher ground" cause, the worthy cause, that promotes what the party stands for, democracy with a small d, which I will always passionately defend and stand by.


Well (none / 0) (#30)
by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:03:04 PM EST

to be perfectly honest, I have a problem with his admitted cocaine use.


I wonder if Wexler (5.00 / 0) (#47)
by magisterludi on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:27:36 PM EST

has forgiven Colbert that little stunt? I could not believe a pol could be that easy a mark.


Really? (none / 0) (#35)
by Brookhaven on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:18:33 PM EST

I haven't heard that but if he did openly admit to taking cocaine and isn't taking it any longer I don't see the problem unless it affected his decision making when voting. And, unless he was forced to admit to taking it, I guess I'm not going to hold it against him. I've tried to learn from my own foolish mistakes in life to be more forgiving with people, you know. I always think "there but for the grace of a higher power go I" and all that. But, I still think he's a good guy when it comes to his politics and votes, even though I disagree with him passionately about Obama.


It's true (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:24:27 PM EST

Here is Wexler on camera admitting to a fondness for cocaine and prostitutes.


Thanks for the Link, Steve (none / 0) (#74)
by Brookhaven on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:48:17 PM EST

I watched that and maybe it's me but I thought that was a goof that Wexler was playing along with Colbert as Colbert has done that with others getting them to say things that are off the wall and not true. Not to take them literally. It looked to me like Wexler was trying to be cool playing along with Colbert.

I don't know I just think this is a goof. Has anyone else seen that Colbert video?

Honestly, my beef with Wexler is that he's supporting Obama, who is not in my view qualified to be POTUS now, not at a time in our history when so much is at stake and when we have someone like HRC who is the right person right now for the job. I truly feel she would be one of our best President's right up there with FDR. So, I think Wexler is way off the mark when it comes to Obama. I just think the Colbert stuff is a goof but that's how I'm seeing it and that's me. ;)


Wow (5.00 / 1) (#79)
by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:57:43 PM EST

I suppose you could be right that it's a parody. Even though it was on the Colbert Report, the possibility had never occurred to me before.

I guess some people are just naturally bad at detecting sarcasm. You know?


: Hey Steve, not to worry, it took me a long time (none / 0) (#94)
by Brookhaven on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:42:30 PM EST

to get my sarcasm/satire/parody radar in place and I'm still fine tuning it. You have to see it on it's off days. lol :) ;)

Queen Nancy (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by cmugirl on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:27:20 PM EST

is cracking the whip behind the scenes. Just you watch.

She will probably injure herself in the process (5.00 / 0) (#5)
by cymro on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:32:51 PM EST

... considering how little skill she seems to have in that activity.


Now that was funny....I really think she is not (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:41:27 PM EST

as bullet-proof as she thinks she is. After the first 100 days as speaker...no sizzle, just fizzle.


: Sure wished she cracked that whip (5.00 / 1) (#84)
by Valhalla on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:14:59 PM EST

in favor of some of the Democratic agenda in the past two years, instead of waiting around and trying to swing an election against the will of half the party with it.
Sigh. I had such high hopes in 2006 after the elections.

Having been so proud of Pelosi's ascent (5.00 / 6) (#13)
by nulee on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:42:57 PM EST

to the Speaker - I have been aghast at her behavior in this election - how can she be so singularly clueless and unsupportive of a fellow female high ranking Democrat?


I was proud of her too (5.00 / 7) (#27)
by Grace on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:59:04 PM EST

and now I am just so tired of hearing her name mentioned as it relates to the Democratic party nominee for President.

Between her and Howard Dean, I don't know who is worse. They both seem to be totally tone deaf as to what is going on within the party. It's NOT Hillary causing the divisivness within the party, it's the party ITSELF! Not letting this go to the Convention is a huge mistake!

They talk about "backroom deals" and yet what are they doing? Trying to twist arms in the backroom!

Give us transparency! Let this thing play out the way it should!


Uh, no... (5.00 / 4) (#45)
by masslib on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:26:50 PM EST

But this kind of blatant bias is unprecedented for a Speaker of the House. Further, I'll be the first to admit the only reason I supported her for Speaker of the House was because I thought it would be good for women. If I had known that she would publically ridicule and criticize Clinton, tell super delegates how to vote, pre-empt the nomination process in favor of Obama, and sit by silently by while Hillary faced unprecedented misogny, I would NEVER have supported her in such a position.


Ha! (5.00 / 2) (#54)
by pie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:30:49 PM EST

Quite the contrary, actually.

Nancy's been a disappointment, but Washington loves her.

That's all that counts, right?

Too bad we seem to be giving up the things that matter most: accountability, credibility, and qualified employees.

Because that's what these people are: employees.

I thought the dems would surely show that these things matter after watching the ineptitude of the Bush administration.

Not feeling too good about the prospects right now.


No, and nobody suggested that either ... (2.00 / 0) (#53)
by cymro on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:30:35 PM EST

... so why are you rebutting it? That's typical troll behavior.


Exactly -- but you posted ... (5.00 / 2) (#80)
by cymro on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:59:04 PM EST

Do you expect her to support Clinton simply because of being a "fellow female"?

... when nobody had argued that position.

Also, because of her position in the party, she ought to be wise enough not to interfere in an election in which half of all voters support each candidate. If she had stayed out of it, she could have avoided alienating half her party. By interfering, she has immediately lost her credibility with half of her constituents.

What smart politician does that? Even George Bush had the common sense not to come out in favor of any of the Republican candidates before McCain won the nomination.


Your response ... (none / 0) (#103)
by cymro on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:15:48 PM EST

She has as much right as anyone else to have a preference

... demonstrates that you do not understand what you read, and you do not understand much about either leadership or politics.

First I did not say anything about her right to have a preference, my point was that she should not be using her leadership in the party to influence the outcome of a hotly contested election in which half of the electorate disagree with her preference.

Second, if you can't see why the highest ranking elected official in the party should remain neutral in the interests of party unity, I am not going to waste any words explaining, since my previous post already did that.


: I can see that ... (none / 0) (#105)
by cymro on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:41:02 PM EST

... you do not understand. One day maybe you will.

Jealousy n/t (none / 0) (#36)
by Eleanor A on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:19:50 PM EST

In my opinion (none / 0) (#67)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:39:04 PM EST

Pelosi is treating her like crap. What this person is saying, is should Pelosi be treating women like crap?

Should anyone, for that matter.


Biggest Disapointment (5.00 / 9) (#19)
by Brookhaven on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:54:09 PM EST

She's been one of the biggest disappiontments for me. When she took impeachment off the table and seemed to cower before Bush/Cheney along with Reed on Iraq, that did it for me. She's no different than any other pol who is overly ambitious wanting to maintain her power at whatever cost and will go along to get along.

Although she hasn't come out and said she is not supporting HRC, one has to be pretty dense not to see by all of her actions and words that she's no friend of Hillary's. Why? I cannot imagine her only reason for not supporting HRC is because she voted for a bill that eventually got us into Iraq. I mean, Pelosi wanted Murtha to be House Leader and Murtha was one of the first to speak out against the War and he supports HRC because of her plan to get us out of it. So, what other reason could Pelosi have for supporting Obama. Is it that she feels she can control him or rather sway him with her agenda more than she can HRC? Or is it because she cannot stand there being an even stronger woman than herself, one with backbone and courage and scary smarts in power and even more powerful than she? What is it?

Her bias for Obama has been stunning in it's arrogance with public pronouncements which favored him without saying so outright. Her sticking her nose where it doesn't belong and isn't wanted in trying to stop the race for the Dem nom has been disturbing and eye-opening. A Dem who doesn't want to count all the votes. Quite a lot of that going around in the party nowadays.

And, our democracy has gotten weaker since that sucker punch it took in 2000 and it just keeps getting worse with every passing day.

It's a good thing we have places to vent like here in addition to the family dinner table. I feel somewhat numb after these past 15 months.


Thank you... well said and numb is the word. (5.00 / 0) (#25)
by mogal on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:58:44 PM EST

why pelosi does it... (5.00 / 6) (#52)
by p lukasiak on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:30:24 PM EST

while I wouldn't be surprised to find out that she is jealously guarding her position as the (second) most powerful woman in the world (except for Oprah), I'm certain that he main reason is because Obama will have no agenda. There will be no pressure on her (and Reid) to get a President Obama's agenda passed -- he might submit a bill, but that's where his involvement will end, and Pelosi (and Reid) will be in complete control of how it finally turns out.

Clinton, on the other hand, will make demands on Pelosi and Reid; she'll have an agenda, and expect as Party Leader that the Democratic Congressional Leadership will push the Clinton agenda.

And so what if Obama loses -- she and Reid still get to set the Congressional agenda.... except that I don't think when she made the deal she realized Obama's full potential to be a complete and utter disaster for the Democratic Party, and that there will be lots of Congressional districts that the Dems lose because the Democratic candidate has to support Obama....


: thank you, p lusiak (5.00 / 2) (#71)
by sancho on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:44:33 PM EST

that's my read too. glad to see someone else say it.

: The most logical (5.00 / 1) (#93)
by Brookhaven on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:35:37 PM EST

reason, Paul. I agree. HRC is too smart, independent and has political principles whereas Obama is all things to all people with no political convictions or passions to call his own except his passion for power. I wonder though if the unthinkable happens and he surpises them and refuses to be their puppet. We've all seen him lash out (in that passive-aggressive way he has: this was a very apt description which I'm borrowing from Marc Rubin who is a guest poster over at Taylor Marsh) when things don't go his way. So, I'm not sure what Pelosi and Reid think they may be getting with Obama they will get. But, I do believe you are spot on with the reason why they are in his corner.

Speaker Polisi (1.00 / 3) (#46)
by 1jane on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:27:24 PM EST

is one of the best political players the Democratic Party has ever seen. She understands when to activate the Republican base and when not to do so. She has outsmarted and out played the Republicans but does it quietly and without fanfare. Just as she knows the most electable candidate for the Democrats is the one she will back because it brings down more GOP House members. The bigger picture is to win as many Democratic contests as possible so we can quickly walk back some of the disgusting legislation passed by the majority Republican Congress. We'll have the spectacle of angry women of a certain age burned into our brains tomorrow, like thats going to help future women candidates for any elected office.

Heh (5.00 / 4) (#60)
by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:34:41 PM EST

You sound like the people who told the blacks to simmer down in the 60s because all those angry black people in the streets would work to the detriment of the civil rights movement.

The notion that it holds back the cause of women for women to protest is incredibly self-defeating.


: Yes. As far as I know, we still have the (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by derridog on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:37:30 PM EST

right to free assembly in this country, unless Bush has issued a signing statement against that.

Really? (5.00 / 1) (#68)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:42:00 PM EST

Congress' approval rating has only gone down under Pelosi.

Dems were given a mandate to end the war. Pelosi has done nothing toward that end.

Just because Pelosi is adversarial toward Hillary, it doesn't make her a good pol....except to you, maybe.


1jane, 1jane,1jane (sigh) (5.00 / 2) (#70)
by magisterludi on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:44:20 PM EST

The GOP guys were and are dying like flies because of the crap they've pulled as the "party of ideas" ever since Reagan. Obama has nothing to do with the shape they're in, they are low-hanging fruit at this point.

Oh, and I hope you reread your comment in about 30 years and regret the dismissive tone as youthful arrogance when you spoke of "women of a certain age".


: I was about to go off on her for that... (5.00 / 3) (#89)
by p lukasiak on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:20:41 PM EST

Oh, and I hope you reread your comment in about 30 years and regret the dismissive tone as youthful arrogance when you spoke of "women of a certain age".
what do you expect from someone who thinks that Obamagirl is a fine role model for women?
Misogyny -- its not just for men anymore!

Maybe she should change jobs? (5.00 / 4) (#72)
by cymro on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:44:37 PM EST

She has outsmarted and out played the Republicans but does it quietly and without fanfare.

Amazing! Who knew? She's been so thoroughly successful at this quiet strategy that she has not only escaped any fanfare, she has hidden these successes altogether. It's obvious that she really would be better suited to some kind of clandestine government department the Secret Service, the CIA, or NSA.


Or (5.00 / 1) (#82)
by kenoshaMarge on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:12:32 PM EST

maybe one of the big telecoms that spy on citizens for the Secret Service, the NSA, the CIA, or who ever else is spying on us.

One thing she and Steny Hoyer and Jello Jay Rockefeller have been good at is allowing the telecon immunity plot to keep coming back again and again and again. And now Good Ol Steny is conspiring with Kit Bond to bring those poor misunderstood folks spying on us for the government the immunity they've had OUR elected officials trying so hard to give them for so long!


: Good point. Since she like to work in secret, (none / 0) (#91)
by cymro on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:25:43 PM EST

... herself, it explains her sympathetic attitude to telecom immunity. Even if she isn't personally implicated in some way, she can imagine herself in a similar situation.

thank you (none / 0) (#28)
by bjorn on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:59:18 PM EST

well at least the SDs are consistent (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Josey on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:33:55 PM EST

everytime there's negative news about Obama or another Obama-preacher in the pulpit demonizing Hillary - the SDs roll out for him.
"Ouch Kerry! you're hurting my arm." BAWAAAA!
"OK, OK - lemme go - I'll endorse Obama."

"Nancy, what do you mean 'no earmarks for my district next year'??"
"Hmm...you know, I've been thinking about endorsing Obama."


But they aren't coming out in droves...remember (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:42:32 PM EST

when they were saying awhile back...50 SD's were going to be announced for obama. Where did they go?

Really...nothing matters til the convention.


I hate to crush your theory (none / 0) (#20)
by independent voter on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:54:09 PM EST

but 63 SDs have come out for Obama since May 6th.


Since then (early March) - (none / 0) (#24)
by minordomo on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:56:26 PM EST

- Obama has had a net gain of about 75-80 superdelegates.


Heh (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:04:30 PM EST

The claim was that they would endorse within a week, not that at some point over the ensuing months the total would reach 50.

It was obviously false information designed to create a feeling of inevitability right before the Ohio and Texas primaries. Just people playing politics.


I know, and Obama denied it at the time (2.00 / 0) (#33)
by minordomo on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:09:59 PM EST

But nevertheless superdelegates continue to trend heavily to Obama, about 3 or 4 to 1. Keep in mind that's a 75-80 net gain, meaning the actual number of superdelegates he won is even higher.

It was obviously false information designed to create a feeling of inevitability right before the Ohio and Texas primaries.

It can just as easily have been misinformation by Obama's opponents to mess with expectations. And seeing as we don't know, we don't know.


: spin if you must minordomo....it was posted all (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:20:19 PM EST

over 50 delegates ready to come out for obama...all at one time, not in dribs and drabs.

: Heh (5.00 / 2) (#48)
by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:27:42 PM EST

You think Tom Brokaw didn't know whether he was getting information from Obama's campaign or his opponents?
It's pathetic to argue that right before the Ohio and Texas primaries, Hillary's campaign would have created this rumor - which obviously made things look better for Obama in the short term - just so after the election, they could somehow score a point in terms of expectation. Frankly, you insult everyone's intelligence by making that argument.

You sir, are correct... (none / 0) (#39)
by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:21:23 PM EST

: you sir, are correct was in response to STeve (none / 0) (#41)
by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:21:53 PM EST

Looks like it. (none / 0) (#26)
by minordomo on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:58:58 PM EST

Good resource here: http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html


Impressed by Her (none / 0) (#96)
by Spike on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:56:03 PM EST

Tip O'Neill was Speaker when I came to DC. I remember when Pelosi arrived in town as a freshman rep. I've been continually impressed by her growth as a leader. She's the most effective and powerful speaker I've seen in my 30 years in DC.


To me the biggest (5.00 / 8) (#3)
by txpolitico67 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:31:17 PM EST

diversion tomorrow will be Donna Brazile. I bet she will enjoy the likes of Senator Nelson making his case on behalf of Floridians.

If I were Senator Nelson, after I made my legal points and case for recognizing FL, I would close with, "Ms. Brazile, you have stated that you want to send my state a message. As you are here before me, and a large segment of FL is watching this, would you please convey that message so we will know exactly what you are talking about?"

She would crumble in a heartbeat.

Well, it's all about the theatrics and (5.00 / 0) (#6)
by MarkL on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:33:13 PM EST

public impression. I like BTD's legal arguments, but but I would be surprised if the decision tomorrow is determined by legal requirements.


the problem is... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by p lukasiak on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:33:25 PM EST

that I don't see anyone on the pro-seating side that is capable of making the kind of good 'theatrical' argument tomorrow needs.

We need fire and brimstone... and we're going to get 'civil discussion'.


Civil discussion (none / 0) (#85)
by kenoshaMarge on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:15:05 PM EST

that has all ready been decided upon beforehand I expect. Tomorrow is just a circus for the masses and the pin-headed press.


: Does that mean (none / 0) (#90)
by Grace on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:21:33 PM EST

Russert and Tweety will be there?

Gov. Blanchard (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:32:49 PM EST

an old friend of the family!

When he narrowly lost reelection in a big upset, the local paper in Lansing got caught running a "Dewey Defeats Truman" type headline because everyone was so confident Blanchard would win.

I used to work for the Michigan Parole Board back in those days. Something that may annoy Jeralyn, in eight years as governor, he never pardoned a single convict and commuted a mere six sentences - and most of those were as a lame duck. I like the guy, but it's kinda sad to see Democrats act like that for fear of being called soft on crime.

Hope (5.00 / 3) (#8)
by Brookhaven on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:35:48 PM EST

I just hope with all that has gone on, that the SD's wake the hell up and see how HRC is the stronger candidate to run against McCain. I'm not one of those H