DNC Rules Meeting: Review of Florida Speakers

What did you think?
What stood out to you?
What will happen?

Comments closed, new threads are up.

< DNC Rules Meeting: Live-Blog III With BTD and TL | DRC Hearing Live Blog IV: Michigan Portion One >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Wexler (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:30:22 AM EST
    needs to be primaried and voted out of office.

    at least the founders.... (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:37:06 AM EST
    counted slave as 3/5ths of a person.  Wexler wants to cut the value of Floridians to 1/2.

    This Floridian (5.00 / 7) (#32)
    by Step Beyond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:41:16 AM EST
    And please note that is a gift from Obama. I feel so lucky, that there is someone running to be President who has generously decided that he will allow me to be worth half a person in the name of unity.

    He had to scream (5.00 / 6) (#63)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:48:53 AM EST
    because his pucker was so tight he wasn't sure they could hear through the flood of kisses he was throwing.

    He was an embarrassment to the party, to his state, and to his position. No question he is part of the Obama movement.

    I hope his constituency was watching when he refused to state he would be onboard with a decision to count everyone at 100%. That is something he will be trying to live down for the rest of his life.


    Amen....what an idiot...as a rep of FLA you (5.00 / 0) (#124)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:55:41 PM EST
    would think he would want ALL the votes/delegates counted...same for Donna Brazile who knows what it is like to be screwed over...Arthenia Joyner was a joy to watch and listen to...my guess is some of those DNC members are thinking 100% for the votes/delegates, but Wexler wasn't having any of it...to my mind his entire argument was all he cares is that Hillary doesn't cut into obama's delegate count....any word on NOT giving obama any delegates/votes at all since he violated ad rules?

    Wexler (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:30:48 AM EST
    needs to be primaried and voted out of office.

    What??? I can't hear you, Jeralyn. (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by lobary on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:31:13 AM EST
    My ears are still ringing from the Wexler shoutentation.

    I think Huffman made the argument (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:31:51 AM EST
    that HIllary Clinton's campaign refused to. I am disappointed that the Clinton campaign did not put forward that argument.

    I guess what struck me most.... (5.00 / 8) (#5)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:32:40 AM EST
    ...is the Obama campaign fighting for nonvoters. Truly I thought this was an argument that was only fit for blogging. LOL. I didn't think anyone would bring it up as a serious issue.

    Yes! and Brazile's attempt (5.00 / 8) (#13)
    by Valhalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:35:25 AM EST
    at linking nonvoters to a 'diversity' concern was incoherent.

    I didn't like the less Savy remark (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by BarnBabe on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:49:50 AM EST
    made in reference to the people who did not vote.(Donna did not make this remark at least)I thought that was a smack in the face to all Florida voters and especially to the AA community. Are Florida voters who voted more savy because they are on a blog or watch television? And the less savy are those who do not know what is going on in politics? I understand from my Florida friends that the DNC in Florida encouraged all Democrats to vote and that the problem would eventually be fixed. I do not know of any do not vote campaigns going on. Thus, people voted thinking their vote would count. Eventually.

    Good... (5.00 / 6) (#18)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:36:51 AM EST
    I'm definitely a Barack non-voter.  :)  I won't vote for McCain, and in fact I'll tear him down every chance I get, but my Prez vote is probably going blank, or a write in, I forget if we can do that in our mail in ballots here in WA.

    Wexler, my lord what an *sshat.  Jeebus.



    Should be able to, but (none / 0) (#51)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:45:27 AM EST
    WA write-in rules are that you may not write-in anyone who lost the WA State "primaries" (I assume that means both vote and caucus).

    I've seen where people are trying to choose a single write-in candidate in the states with this rule that will show the fact that it is a protest against Obama.


    Thanks (none / 0) (#65)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:49:11 AM EST
    JCP, I don't necessarily have to write in Clinton, but i would love to deliver that blow as a principle.



    Agreed (none / 0) (#98)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:14:21 PM EST
    The goal was simply to make sure the vote was registered as protest votes by having the bulk of them go to one name, whomever that may be.

    It would actually be bad for Clinton as the write-in, IMHO. She'd probably be called this year's Ralph Nader for the rest of her life.


    if not hillary, let's write in our favorite pet. (none / 0) (#76)
    by hellothere on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:56:14 AM EST
    make sure the media gets it. thousands of vote for muffin or doxie would sure say something. we prefer our pet to obama.

    that is (none / 0) (#88)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:04:53 PM EST

    shucks, thanks! bows head/turns red! (none / 0) (#96)
    by hellothere on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:13:46 PM EST
    States won't report that. (none / 0) (#117)
    by Joan in VA on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:38:20 PM EST
    oh well, it was a fun idea! (none / 0) (#119)
    by hellothere on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:40:12 PM EST
    we have so few smiles these days.

    Non-voters rights! (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by stillife on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:42:03 AM EST
    I'm all for it!  I'll be non-voting for Obama in November.

    Michigan;s proposal makes no sense (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:32:58 AM EST
    and is based on nothing.

    This is a joke.

    maybe based on some dipsh!t exit polling (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by RalphB on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:43:59 AM EST
    Frankly, how the he!! can anyone honestly argue for giving votes to someone who was not on the ballot.  That's an first class insult to democracy.

    What will happen (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:33:12 AM EST
    Well is seems clear with FL that it will be to seat delegates with half vote and count pop vote.  It is also clear this would have been a knock down drag out fight today if Clinton had not conceded the half vote deal, and Obama too.  Wexler is a jerk and did not answer any question he was asked.

    I can live with the FL outcome.

    not me... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:39:39 AM EST
    and I don't think its going to be be acceptable to Clinton voters in general -- not after this.

    Also, when snippets are shown on the (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by zfran on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:54:23 AM EST
    msm for the next few days and discussed on the sunday shows, Wexler's denouncment of counting all of the votes, imo, will not be shown. I hope he can live with himself this year, after championing in 2000. Would he have been so disingenous had he been a Hillary supporter, or a better question, a country first supporter!

    FOX will probably permanently place it (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:17:59 PM EST
    in their programmming ads, or opening throughout the GE. Sort of like that poor skiier who represented "the agony of defeat" every single Sunday for years.

    Wexler handed FL to the Republicans if Obama gets the nomination.


    sort of like the dean "scream" i think. (5.00 / 0) (#115)
    by hellothere on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:35:54 PM EST
    wexler will be played over and over and over. he made a name for himself in 2000 and now this.

    They are going forward with (5.00 / 9) (#9)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:34:10 AM EST
    the ridiculous 69-59 split in MI???  Jesus.  The fix is in.  They are actually taking delegates away from Hillary.  Moronic.

    Michigan's (2.00 / 0) (#47)
    by KristenWinters on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:44:59 AM EST
    "fairness letter" made a very persuasive argument.

    I think (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:34:52 AM EST
    Wexler's point was terrible and most people will see right through it.

    I also do not believe this committee has reached any kind of back room settlement.

    Obama has lost all credibility. (5.00 / 9) (#11)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:35:01 AM EST
    Arguing against the voters?  Noble.

    Bob Wexler made just (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by thereyougo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:45:27 AM EST
     as enpassioned plea to count ALL the votes, you wouldn't think he was for the watered down version.

    I think he unwittingly made Hillary's case just as well or better than Fl. State Sen. Athenia Joyner's not to punish Fl voters for the actions of a Republican legislature to count all the votes.

    Joyner was for the time honored tradition to honor all the voters who came out that day. You wouldn't know she was for Clinton vs. Wexler saying Obama's name over and over.

    Donna B. lost her luster but she too was a bit awed by Joyner's passionate delivery for the Florida voter. Donna is in the minority on the committee.

    I love it!


    I can't believe (5.00 / 6) (#15)
    by stillife on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:35:58 AM EST
    I used to like Wexler, after the 2000 election.  

    I was thoroughly impressed by Arthenia Joyner and Tina Flournoy.  

    This MI solution is BS.  Giving Obama votes that he didn't get?

    Wexler was yelling about Unity? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by lambert on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:35:59 AM EST
    Can we get more information on what he actually said?!?!

    One of the RBC members (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Valhalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:39:58 AM EST
    asked why counting all the votes wouldn't be UNITY and his reply was that no one has done more for voting rights than he has.

    That was after he said it was all the RBC's fault for putting them in this position (which I agree with, except he was so smug).

    He never answered her question


    The Obama (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:41:27 AM EST
    campaign sounds desperate when they talk about unity now. They know that there's no way the party will unify around Obama.

    i don't think that obama really cares (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by hellothere on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:10:20 PM EST
    about unity. axelrod might for political reasons. personally i think obama isn't running to win the white house. he wants the nomination, star treatment, first aa in the nomination, books, tours, etc. but work? i don't think so. he serves the ends of the what i believe is a corrupt dnc and leadership. can anyone honestly tell me what the democratic leadership has done for us in the past two years. i advocate a change in leadership. maybe we need to get some folks from the blue collar group who are in touch with american thought, groom them and then run them.

    I agree (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:34:55 PM EST
    More pastors, more declining poll numbers don't seem to stop politicians from wanting his nomination. I have to say though they had better think about how to separate themselves from him in Nov or they're going to get hit too in Nov. Of course, him losing in Nov has a HUGE upside. Like you said, party purge get a blue collar guy or gal in leadership etc. The funny thing is that the latest Rasmussen says that voters see McCain as better on the economy.

    So how many think is going the convention.... (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by cosbo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:36:30 AM EST
    I haven't been watching but, from the liveblog I get the impression that nothing is truly decided.

    Absolutely (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Eleanor A on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:52:16 AM EST
    It's going to the Convention.  That's the ONLY reason the Hillary folks would just roll over on these issues.

    Any word on the HRC rally?  Gary over on Riverdaughter said there were some there early, but he's inside and couldn't report after about 9 AM.


    It HAD better go to the convention.... (none / 0) (#133)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:10:51 PM EST
    bottomline....nothing is set in stone until the convention.

    Though his delegate split is ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:37:57 AM EST
    It is obvious that the delegates should be seated as is, and obvious that Obama will get the uncommitted delegates.

    Why can't they let the delegates.... (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:41:22 AM EST
    ...decide for themselves? Weren't their names on the ballot? I think it is wrong to assume that all of Edwards voters would have gone for Obama. Also I think it is very wrong for them to try to base the delegates on exit polls. That is really really wrong.

    The same exit polls nobody fought for (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Eleanor A on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:49:11 AM EST
    when they showed Kerry winning Ohio last time.

    Or (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:11:58 PM EST
    how about the one showing Gore won Florida.

    Exit poll, schmexit poll.

    Obama was barely losing the CA primary in the exit poll.

    Exit polls mean nothing.


    Not clear (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Andy08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:45:18 AM EST
    about the uncommitted at all. It seems the RBC has no jurisdiction to "assign"  uncommitted to any particular person. The media conference call yesterday by the Clinton campaign made that argument very clear.

    They have to certified as uncommitted until convention. Then they can vote as they wish. Surely the will probably vote BO; but not ncessarily all.


    I think that the Clinton campaign should... (none / 0) (#55)
    by cosbo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:46:05 AM EST
    accept the 69/59 split...and then after they are seated lobby the pledged delegates to switch. Heh.

    Robert Wexler (5.00 / 9) (#23)
    by This from a broad on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:38:18 AM EST
    He just made a common mistake that politicans make -- he forgot the master that he serves.  He was elected by the voters of Florida, not Barack Obama.  I will do my best to get him unseated so that he can work full time for Obama, instead of wasting his time with those pesky Florida voters.

    Did everybody notice how he (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Valhalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:42:25 AM EST
    responded to a question he didn't want to answer by saying that no one has done as much for voting rights in Florida as he has?

    Maybe Obama copied it from Wexler!


    Good for you! (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Joan in VA on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:46:04 AM EST
    If I lived there, I would join you.

    he wants to be a player in what he hopes (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by hellothere on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:58:57 AM EST
    is the new power structure. what does that remind me up? oh, that right, republicans.

    remember, in the two counties... (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:59:55 AM EST
    that represents (Broward and Palm Beach), Clinton won by 32% and 24%.

    Wexler is REALLY vulnerable at this point -- unfortunately, the date to challenge him in the Democratic primary has past...


    No he is not (none / 0) (#128)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:01:03 PM EST
    I live and work in those two counties. You would have to change the composition of the district before Wexler would lose.

    Judging by the crowd (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by Coldblue on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:39:02 AM EST
    reactions at the hearing, I don't see much chance of a unified party in November.

    Well, bullyism. (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:39:11 AM EST
    Huffman asked a clear question and he started acting like a maniac.  This is their style.  Bullies.  Joyner at no time did the Clinton campaign pandering, Wexler referred to Obama every other word.

    those speaking for Obama (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by ccpup on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:47:11 AM EST
    don't seem very confident today.  I think they -- as well as those "Uncommitted" rules followers -- realize they're being outplayed when it comes to the Voter's perceptions of who is really for Them ... and it ain't Barack.

    If a decision is made that unnecessarily punishes Hillary and helps Barack, I suspect his Poll numbers with those key Dem Demographics we need in November will trend down even farther than they are now.


    How could they (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:57:14 AM EST
    their goal today is to serve Obama, and to do that, they must scr*w the voters. Although they are more than willing to put their reputations on the line to do that, they are very aware of exactly what they are saying.

    Wexler probably has been promised a cabinet post and believes he will be fine taking the risk of losing his congressional seat.


    Obama already is delegitimized by this (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Cream City on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:44:13 PM EST
    debacle, if he is the nominee.  No matter what is decided today.  He is on his way to being asterisked for all time fpr what his divisiveness has done to the party, not only in this debacle but throughout the campaign.

    Wexler looked like Bill OReilly (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:39:21 AM EST
    his yelling, his consternation...

    Did he just took votes aways from Hillary? (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Josmt on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:41:35 AM EST
    Based on exit polls??????........

    Flournoy didn't miss that one (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by akaEloise on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:44:49 AM EST
    Yeah. You're right... (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by cosbo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:42:40 AM EST
    I thin the media, though, is going to have an orgasm if it does. They love conflict.

    After hearing this guy..... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:43:44 AM EST
    ...and how they come up with their reasoning, I'm starting to be convinced that they shouldn't count Michigan at all if the best they can do is propose an allocation that they came up with behind closed doors rather than actual votes cast.

    No Delegates for MI? (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Niffari on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:13:36 PM EST
    I think that is a strong option. There is really no fair or, IMO, justifiable way to allocate delegates when so many votes went to uncommitted. Just to add here, several high profile candidates were off the ballot, not just Obama, including Edwards who surely received a substantial number of votes in Michigan.

    Mark Brewer (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:43:58 AM EST
    is not playing with a full deck.

    Tina Flournoy (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:44:27 AM EST
    is heads over Donna Brazille and the jello man Ickes.  

    I think I'm getting closer (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Radiowalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:45:19 AM EST
    to registering as an independent.
    The Democratic party is a disorganized mess.

    i used to be a republican and left (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by hellothere on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:01:15 PM EST
    the party when they demonized clinton and started turning really mean, ugly and not representative of the people. i'll never go back. i registered as an independent and was considering earlier changing to democrat. my family have been democrats for generations. now? hell no!

    Kamarck (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:47:04 AM EST
    Is taking Jeralyn's stance on uncommitted delegates.

    Wexler actually contradicted himself-Ausman wants (5.00 / 6) (#60)
    by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:48:11 AM EST
    full SD vote and will settle for half for the voted for delegates. But he will take 100%. I think.

    Wexler kept saying he and Obama support Ausman, but he then said only 50% voting strength.


    Also, he would not answer questions put to him. According to the Rules, the committee may indeed give FL the full 100%. But he was working from The Roolz and had to look foolish for not answering bcz the answer would make him a Dem who didn't want to count all the votes. Sheesh.

    Who is the black woman with sandy brown hair? She's asking about the MI vote percentage. Answer: MI had incomplete ballot, for whatever reason. (Uh, bcz Obama was being too cute by half and took his name off to pander to NH and IA. Crikey.)

    Elaine Kamarck saying Uncommitted is a valid choice. Just like SD's, bound by no one. She had to work for those delegates for Mondale. Worried about arbitrary assignment of delegates when there was actual vote. Precedent that state parties can take a little data and then make assumptions about value of the data. Dems are for votes and counting them. In '68, many delegates did not represent the will of the voters in their states.

    Why do the candidates even have reps? (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Joan in VA on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:49:14 AM EST
    I thought this was between the states and the national parties? They should just be sticking to that. If either candidate seems to sway the decisions, then the other's supporters will never accept them as legitimate.

    This is truly politics at its worst (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Niffari on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:16:20 PM EST
    Most people, including myself, never guessed that this is how political parties run. It's unattractive and frequently nonsensical (superdelegates anyone???) but there it is. What also is very clear is that this process is being driven by political maneuvering not necessarily what's right.

    I bet it kills Donna (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:50:53 AM EST
    Brazile that she is sitting between two Clinton supporters

    Did anyone else notice that when Donna B (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by zfran on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:57:34 AM EST
    was addressing Sen. Joyner (was it Joyner?) she was breathing heavy as if she knew she was throwing this Sen. whom she obviously adores, under the bus? I've never, ever, seen her nervous, mad yes, nervous, no.

    MI wants to overturn the hard vote count (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by RalphB on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:53:25 AM EST
    with something they made up from exit polls.  Don Fowler seemed to put that ploy where it belongs, in the gatbage.

    Clinton/Nelson is a great ticket. (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:55:04 AM EST
    Sen. Nelson gave a reasoned, persuasive argument.  He is VP material.  That insures a FL EC win.

    and he's (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:56:18 AM EST
    a moderate almost conservative too.  that would seal the deal for the election.  excellent observation!!!

    Political perception (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:57:09 AM EST
    Fascinating to me, and probably will not be noticed, that the AA members and speakers represent Hillary, angry white guys, disrespecting said AA speakers is the play by play.  And how in Zeus' name did these people frame Hillary as a racist?  

    take it to the convention. let's have a (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by hellothere on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:57:51 AM EST
    million woman march on denver. let's see how those obama children like that.

    Wow (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by stillife on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:01:35 PM EST
    so now we have election soothsayers who can interpret the meaning of "uncommitted" votes or non-votes.  

    Let's extend this to all the primaries!  Most people don't vote in primaries, so Obama winz!

    Mark Brewer is Karnack! (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by janarchy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:00:32 PM EST
    As soon as he started babbling about "knowing" that the unread absentee ballots were all for Obama, I thought of Johnny Carson and Karnack. Now they're completely psychic and predict the contents of unread absentees. Really good move. Not.

    I thought of Jambi (none / 0) (#136)
    by stillife on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:23:47 PM EST
    from PeeWee's Playhouse.  =)

    Nah (none / 0) (#137)
    by janarchy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:25:17 PM EST
    Jambi was a big campy flaming head. Brewer's clearly an idiot.

    Mecka lecka hey mecki lecka hiney ho! (Has that helped anyone win the nomination?)


    Sounds l ike (none / 0) (#141)
    by stillife on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:33:25 PM EST
    a good slogan for the Obama campaign.

    Makes as much sense as "We are the ones we've been waiting for!"


    Or perhaps (none / 0) (#142)
    by janarchy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:35:43 PM EST
    "All hail Jambi!"

    Maybe if we go and make a wish with the Head-in-a-box, it'll all work out equitably?


    florida in november (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by DandyTIger on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:02:48 PM EST
    It still comes down to whether the Democrats want Florida to be in play and possible in November or not. If they give partial votes or no votes to the delegates, then I think Florida is red (for Obama that is). I don't think the partial vote will play in the end. Republicans may be comfortable giving partial votes to people, but Democrats should not.

    Wexler's argument that Obama did not block the re-vote in Florida is BS by the way. I still like Wexler and understand he is being political arguing for his nominee. But I think this issue is too important for that. The non voter issue is the stupidest thing I've ever heard too by the way. Who thought up that stupid talking point. And like others have said above, it leads to the obvious response, Obama has my non vote.

    Crazy argument (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:06:26 PM EST
    so, Mr Hyde added a fourth element: let's not take at face value that all the votes in MI that were given to Clinton actually belong to Clinton.

    Typical Obama supporter. I shudder to think what an Obama run government would look like, but I venture to say it could make GWB look smart.

    Please (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by bocajeff on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:13:47 PM EST
    Because the DNC punished the states and therefore the voters (as well as non-voters) any solution WILL  be unfair. The DNC caused this last year. One of the Committee members even stated that she didn't think it would be a problem at the time.

    Understand: There can not be a fair solution. The DNC is at fault for the penalty. Not the republicans, not the voters and/or non-voters, not the candidates, just Howard Dean and the DNC. They should all be replaced and someone should take over and prevent this in the future.

    Any person who didn't vote because the DNC said their vote wouldn't be counted (as did the candidates - both Clinton and Obama) were disenfranchised if any delegates are seated. So, any solution will be unfair to someone.

    Wexler's disunity (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by suzyqueue on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:14:37 PM EST
    I think Wexler's unmodulated screaming, combined with seeming to give, then take away, full votes for the Florida delegation, hurt Obama more than he helped him.  His "concession" wasn't really a concession, and when challenged on it, he weasled out with his unity spiel.

    My Tribute to Corrine Brown... Fighting since 2000 (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by SunnyLC on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:15:12 PM EST
    "My Tribute to Corrine Brown Who Has Been Fighting for the Vote Since 2000 and (Is Fighting) Update: FOUGHT for Hillary Clinton Today"


    Here's a review of some of what this fantastic woman has said and done...remember when she was CENSURED for speaking out????

    I think (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by janarchy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:52:21 PM EST
    1. Bill Nelson did a wonderful job in his speech.

    2. Arthenia Joyner was an amazing woman to watch. No wonder she's (as someone else here pointed out the other day) Florida's Barbara Jordan. For those who would like to claim all Clinton supporters are racists, maybe I point out that I'd vote for Ms. Joyner (along with other women such as Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Maxine Waters and Sheila Jackson Lee) for any post she'd so chose in a heartbeat.

    3. Bob Wexler is a big baby. His sucking up to the RBC was unbelievable and embarrassing. His tantrum was embarrassing. I really hope his constituents vote him out and soon. I know he ran unopposed last time -- I have never been more disappointed in someone I used to think of as one of the good guys.

    4. Donna Brazile showed her true colours. Again. Her argument that somehow people were disenfranchised by what the DNCs rules said so therefore nothing should count was both bizarre and ridiculous. And the fact that she had the chutzpah to even suggest that somehow the only people left out were minorities, especially to Arthenia Joyner, was staggering.

    5. The use of the word 'unity' especially from Mr Wexler was also a joke. Once again it was 'just do what we want and support us and it'll all be okay'. Perhaps some of us don't want to 'unify' with a party that only wants to support some of the people some of the time when it's politically expedient.

    6. What I think will happen is that they'll go with the Ausman suggestion and dock them by half. Whether it's half the delegation or half the voting power, I don't know. They'll see it as an equitable compromise. But it's not.

    A bully screaming "Unite" at me (5.00 / 0) (#129)
    by BoGardiner on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:04:05 PM EST
    ... makes me oddly reluctant to come to him.  Or to "come to Obama."

    Go figure.


    Funny how that works (5.00 / 0) (#132)
    by janarchy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:07:57 PM EST
    I'm a stubborn New Yorker. When people get in my face and scream at me, I tend to flip them the bird and scream back. I don't go rushing to agree with them.

    Bo, that was a racist comment (none / 0) (#138)
    by Cream City on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:28:51 PM EST
    if my comment was sexist, as you claim, on the lat thread.  Wakeup call:  Men on tv wear makeup, too.

    Ugh, MSNBC. Rachel Maddow lies (5.00 / 0) (#123)
    by Cream City on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:52:33 PM EST
    again, against Clinton, or Maddow simply refuses to do her homework and would rather do her makeup.

    Back to CNN.

    C-Span. No talking heads ;) (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by nycstray on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:00:48 PM EST
    No sexism, please (1.00 / 0) (#125)
    by BoGardiner on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:56:02 PM EST
    But no more lies from Rachel, double please and amen.

    Men wear makeup, too. As a feminist (none / 0) (#140)
    by Cream City on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:32:00 PM EST
    I would appreciate if you would learn what sexism is, call it out when it exists, but do not dilute such calling out by seeing it where it is not.

    Wexler... (5.00 / 0) (#144)
    by OrangeFur on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:40:58 PM EST
    Was he actually arguing against his own constituents? Geez. How out of touch can you be?

    I didn't get to watch the entire session (3.66 / 3) (#14)
    by talex on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:35:39 AM EST
    but I can say this with certainty...

    Donna Brazile is The Anti-Christ.

    Not a fair minded citizen. Not even a real Democrat.

    She is the Anti-Christ!

    Please do not insult the Anti-Christ that way. (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by RalphB on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:38:58 AM EST
    She's not nearly bright enough to be the Anti-Christ.  Just an Anti-Christ poseur.

    I object (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by DFLer on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:44:51 AM EST
    to the language of this personal attack, and I believe it is against the comment policy of TL.

    Can't we do better than that?


    Triumph (1.33 / 3) (#84)
    by 1jane on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:01:13 PM EST
    for Clinton in winning the popular vote and a good solution to give her 19 more delegates. MI is the interesting mess to watch. The DNC, not Senator Obama or the Obama campaign made the rules, enforced the rules and changed the rules. This is about the country going into the hands of John McCain. Clinton can now claim victory and mend the party to win in November or ruin her legacy and former President Clinton's legacy.

    I support and am respectful ot he Clinton legacy. (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:06:33 PM EST
    And I will continue to do so even after the GE, regardless of the outcome.  How about you?

    1jane (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:10:41 PM EST
    isn't dKos taking comments today?

    Hey, they gotta get the talking points (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by nycstray on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:19:36 PM EST
    out. Not only will it be her fault if the party splits, she will also ruin her and Bill's legacies.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#99)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:14:23 PM EST
    Isn't DKos the Obamania site?  

    Yes (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:27:09 PM EST
    look at 1jane's comment history. She just comes here to stir things up.

    1jane (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by suki on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:28:53 PM EST
    I'm tired of your borderline and over the top remarks about the Clintons.
    Just what are you trying to accomplish here?
    It certainly doesn't look like it has anything to do with bringing people together.
    Apparently you are getting something out of it - I really wonder about people like you.

    It's clear that - (1.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Invictus on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:22:15 PM EST
    Obama supporters in this hearing are seeking compromise and unification, while the Clinton supporters are just using the occasion to advance their singular interests.

    Yea (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:24:14 PM EST
    clear as a bell!  LOL! you were being facetious, right?

    Not at all (1.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Invictus on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:31:23 PM EST
    Hillary is using "the voters" like Bush uses "the troops."  The only ones that are truly demonstrationg concern are the state party officials and Obama supporters that are advocating compromise and unification.

    Hillary is just trying to maximize her delegates by exploiting the election screw-ups.


    Um, people voted for her. (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:39:39 PM EST
    What is "non-unifying" about acknowledging this fact.  IMO, denying this is "non-unifying".

    You might consider that (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:25:04 PM EST
    her "singular" interests are supported by half the voters in this nomination and more than half of registered Democrats.

    The other half - (1.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Invictus on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:32:26 PM EST
    support unity and compromise.

    LOL! (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:34:00 PM EST
    That was sarcasm, right?

    yes (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:36:28 PM EST
    we all know Obama supports compromise. There is no principle he isn't willing to compromise away is he?

    Yeah right, (5.00 / 0) (#121)
    by AugieDaddy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:47:42 PM EST
    as long as that "compromise" and "unification" recognizes their candidate as the winner.

    Ahe...... (none / 0) (#143)
    by Invictus on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:58:28 PM EST
    That doesn't need to be "recognized."  It's been a matter of fact since February.

    I think the reason Hillary conceded the rules (1.00 / 1) (#130)
    by g8grl on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:05:16 PM EST
    arguement was perhaps because she knows there is footage out there from January or Feb. where she's saying that FLA and/or MI broke the rules.  If she has something like that out there, she can't now say that a closer reading of the rules says that there were other rules that may allow for the full counting...that would make her a flip-flopper.  Otherwise there were no reasons for her initial concession.  

    You don't want (5.00 / 0) (#135)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:22:53 PM EST
    to go into flip-flopper mode ;-).  Your candidate is the king of being all over the place.

    looks like they are on MI (none / 0) (#8)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:33:34 AM EST

    Ickes (none / 0) (#12)
    by lobary on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:35:21 AM EST
    Where was he going with the "fair reflection" line?

    Does anyone think (none / 0) (#20)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:37:16 AM EST
    they might seat the full Florida delegation?

    It would not be unreasonable to do so... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:39:39 AM EST
    ...given how the hearing is going, but I have become totally jaded about the party and I believe the fix is in.

    Maybe... (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:41:25 AM EST
    It's possible, but not probable.  But so far it is easy to see who is being the most effective for their sides, idiots like Brazille arguing for non-voters and Wexler pounding his desk like kruschev on crank in opposition to Nelson and Joyner.

    That is a pretty easy call.



    So This Is What Democracy (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by creeper on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:48:20 AM EST
    comes down to...who can yell the loudest?

    Popular Vote (none / 0) (#33)
    by Andy08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:41:18 AM EST
    in FL:  if the seat the full delegation with 1/2 the vote each;
     will the popular vote be counted in full and officially?

    Or they will start also chopping up the popular vote totals by 1/2?

    Help anyone?

    Can't half the pop vote (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Step Beyond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:45:03 AM EST
    They have no power over the popular vote. It is what it is.

    Great! (none / 0) (#58)
    by Andy08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:47:41 AM EST
    Thanks Step Beyond.

    But will it be part of the "official" record? That is will RCP and other media making the distinction as to what are the popular vote totals? (not that I care about the media per se but about their influence in perception with the public and with SD).


    should read (none / 0) (#61)
    by Andy08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:48:11 AM EST
    "stop making a distinction"

    Popular vote (none / 0) (#114)
    by Step Beyond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:35:13 PM EST
    isn't really an official measure. It is being used as a suggested metric, amongst others, for SDs to use in their decisions.

    RCP uses the total Florida and Michigan vote counts. Since delegates per vote isn't an actual measure nor is it a fixed amount per state there is no reason to think the the popular vote is at all altered by the delegate count.


    Thanks! (none / 0) (#134)
    by Andy08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:16:53 PM EST
    In order to arrive at the actual equivalent of (none / 0) (#59)
    by MMW on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:48:07 AM EST
    half, they must know what the original whole and what all its proportions are right?

    Isn't the popular vote the whole, aren't the proportions part of the popular vote?

    Seems to me they must take into account the whole.


    Yes, they have but (none / 0) (#71)
    by Andy08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:52:23 AM EST
    they can use that number to assign delegates; but they could  back to it --politically-- and say the punishment means all is at 50%
    including the popular vote. I know it is ridiculous but,
    can they RBC do it-- not recognize the popular vote at 100% ?
    For HRC argument her total number of voter is important.

    Florida Settlement (none / 0) (#93)
    by Niffari on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:11:17 PM EST
    It should mean all delegates with a 1/2 vote each. I believe I predicted that outcome in  a post here last week. There was never any way for Hillary to walk out with a full delegate count substantial enough to offset Obama's advantage. I think Clinton should walk out with about 19 more delegates in FLA.

    MI OTOH is a mess for the obvious reason that Obama (and Edwards too) took their names off the ballot.


    I know that (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Andy08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:24:51 PM EST
    I am asking about the popular vote count.

    Which one is Tina Flourney? (none / 0) (#67)
    by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:49:22 AM EST

    The light skinned (none / 0) (#131)
    by janarchy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:05:24 PM EST
    African American lady with short curly blonde-ish hair. I think she's sitting next to Harold Ickes.

    Harold Ickes (none / 0) (#75)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:55:26 AM EST
    needs to be QUIET