home

DRC Hearing Live Blog IV: Michigan Portion One

Mark Brewer the Chairman of the Michigan Democratic Party is arguing for Michigan. the problem for Michigan is it has no rules based argument to support it. In essence, Brewer argues that if you want to win Michigan in November you better seat us.

Brewer speaks of asking for the waiver. No one questioned the Committee's power to grant a waiver. The RBC granted waivers to other states that violated Rule 11, we are asking for that type of waiver.

Michigan has no argument imo.

In terms of dividing the delegates, Michigan proposes a 69-59 split. Brewer argues that uncommitted was trumpeted as the placeholder for those candidates who took their names off the ballot.

This is a strange argument indeed, Because if you want to give Obama all the uncommitteds, which is what seems to be happening, as Brewer is pointing out, then why not seat the uncommitted for Obama. That makes it 73-55.

The essence of Michigan's 69-59 argument is that the exit polls had Clinton winning 45-36 with all other candidates under the 15% threshhold.

There is no rules based way of accepting this proposal. to me the only thing the RBC can do under the rule is reduce the penalty to 50%, with Clinton getting her share and the rest being uncommitted, which are going to Obama anyway.

But this a complete joke.

McDonald ask how many votes? 600,000 + 30,000 write-in votes, none of the writeins would be for Clinton? Seems fair.

Kamarck asks uncommitted means uncommitted according to the rules, how is it that work. It is almost certain that the uncommitted delegates will go for Obama, but the way Michigan is doing it, is the way to chaos. I agree. And Obama is getting and has gotten most of the uncommitted anyway. So why do it?

The fact is Michigan has no real argument for even seating more than half of the delegates UNLESS it argues selective enforcement and fairness. I do not know where we go from here with Michigan.

Other than the fact that we need Michigan in November, I think that a 100% penalty seems appropriate to me, IF you exclude the fact that the RBC did not strictly enforce its rules.

I think Levin better make a fairness argument because Brewer sure did not.

Are you relying on any rule? Uh no.

Ickes points out that the candidates who withdrew their names withdrew it voluntarily, no Party rule required it and there was no such pledge to withdraw.

True. But Michigan has no rules based argument to make here. And Brewer is right. Now he is making the care about the voters argument.

Here is the REAL problem - they can not possibly give Michigan more delegates than Florida. At best, Michigan will get half delegates.

If I hear the LOST VOTES argument from asnybody in the DNC or the Obama camp again I am gonna shoot somebody. Caucuses DELIBERATELY disenfranchise voters. and the DNC LOVES THEM. Shut up about the LOST VOTERS.

Now Carl Levin. Will he bring up New Hampshire? Let's see.

Unity. Michigan Dem Party achieved unity. Please preserve it. Full seating of full delegates is supported by Obama and Clinton for Michigan. disagreement on the allocation.

I repeat, there is NO WAY to seat Michigan fully and not seat Florida fully.

Levin argues that Clinton will argue for 73-55. Obama will argue for 64-64. Michigan Dem Party split the difference, 69-59.

Levin's argument is . . surprise, Unity.

My early impressions, based on the arguments presented by Michigan, give them 0.

Finally, Levin gets to his anti-Iowa and NH argument. No state should have the right go first and second in every election. Levin fought to open up the process.

In 2004, Levin was going to fight it out over NH but McCauliffe promised him they would fix the schedule. They was a new schedule, a minor change, but important - the change was that NH would go 3rd. Putting one or two first tier caucuses between Iowa and NH. NH hated it. Voted against it.

Michigan accepted it and praised it. Michigan applied to be one of the 4. We accepted that decision. Proivded NH accepted it. And then New Hampshire BROKE the rules. They announced they would break the rules.

MI asked, demanded that the DNC penalize New Hampshire. the RBC did NOTHING. Instead it gave NH a waiver for breaking the rules.

That is why we are here with regard to Michigan.

Carl Levin talks about the RULZ, if you are not enforcing the RULZ, then what is the point of having them?

Huzzah for Carl Levin.

RBC Member Ben Johnson ignore the NH violating the rules issue.

Levin says I agree about the rules. And this Committee did NOT enforce the rules against New Hampshire.

Alice Germond, who I find extremely annoying, avoids the New Hampshire issue. I wonder If Levin will ask her why she did not enforce the rules against New Hampshire.

Michael Steed, Clinton supporter, talks about precedents. Talks about the Uncommitted. And about taking away delegates from Clinton.

In a way, there is nothing related to the rules in THIS discussion.

The Emperor has no clothes. all this talk about the ROOLZ is just blather is what is most apparent from this discussion.

Ickes arguing for the primary results. which in the end will be 73-55.

What amazes me is that no one is even thinking about the problem with fully seating the Michigan delegation and giving half votes to the Florida delegation.

When Levin defends the allocation plan, it seems to me he is arguing for NOT seating Michigan at all.

And indeed, I think the rules argue for one of two results for Michigan- no delegates for Michigan, or 50% seating based on the primary.

Bonior for Obama. Adopts Levin anti-NH argument obliquely. Admits that Obama supporters voted uncommitted. And he cites exit polls ot support this proposition. Hmmm. I find it that he is persuasively arguing for a 73-55 split. I am sure that is not his intention.

Buuut, a 64-64 split is Obama's position. To me, might as well be zero then. there is no rules based, fairness based or any other good reason to seat the delegates of Michigan in the Obama position. I thought they might endorse the Michigan Democratic Party position.

My own view is that Bonior is not making a good argument but at least he mentioned the fact that Michigan will not get more seating than Florida. EXCEPT - Obama supports giving FULL VOTING to Michigan Super delegates but OPPOSES giving FULL VOTING to Florida Super Delegates.

Explain that one.

Clinton supporter Liz Smith asks "Why did they take their name on the ballot? No rule required it. There was no reason for it."

The CAUCUS is a very flawed process. INDEED do not speak to me of LOST VOTES please.

Bonior responds Obama was following the path of the RBC that the votes would not count. No campaigning. Uhm, uhm, uhm.

We all know the reason was to pander to Iowa.

I am finishing up with this observation, Wexler did better for Obama on Florida than Bonior did for Obama on Michigan.

Comments closed.

< DNC Rules Meeting: Review of Florida Speakers | DRC Hearing Live Blog V: Michigan Portion Two >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • If he is going to (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:41:30 AM EST
    guess on how the vote would go... why even have a primary?

    This is stupid?

    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by flashman on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:43:44 AM EST
    Brewer proves that the party has lost it's collective mind.

    Parent
    Ridiculous. (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:43:14 AM EST
    Exit polls?  Exit polls suggested she would only win PA by 4 points.  That she would win WV by 30 points.  This is absurd.

    Ickes must have read your mind (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:38:17 PM EST
    He's making an excellent argument against the exit poll reasoning.

    He's doing an excellent job on this particular topic.


    Parent

    Why are they making this about (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:43:41 AM EST
    the candidates?! They cannot assume voter intent by exit poll. What about the polls pre-primary? What about the actual votes?!

    I cannot believe Clinton EVER signed off on this.

    What were the choices, though? (none / 0) (#168)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:36:55 PM EST
    Agree or don't run? It's difficult to believe any of the candidates agreed to this unless they were given a no choice option.


    Parent
    The exit poll argument was ridiculous (5.00 / 11) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:46:25 AM EST
    Remember New Hampshire?

    This Michigan plan is not the way to go.

    Exactly. Exit polls have been (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:47:34 AM EST
    reliably wrong in this election.

    Parent
    Based on exit polls (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:48:43 AM EST
    Gore would be President.  

    Parent
    So would Kerry (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by BarnBabe on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:58:44 AM EST
    Dewey WINS! (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by ding7777 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:05:08 PM EST
    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:14:42 PM EST
    would have lost only by 1-2 points in CA.

    Parent
    HEh (none / 0) (#64)
    by Emma on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:59:48 AM EST
    So would Dewey.

    Parent
    Interesting tid bit (none / 0) (#106)
    by samtaylor2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:12:09 PM EST
    I was talking to a friend of mine's father, who was very high up in the Clinton Administration and he said that when they released the exit poll data for Florida, the republicans sent out tons of police cars into Black neighborhoods to intimidate people so they were afraid to go out and vote.  Trully disgusting

    Parent
    If this is true, samtaylor2, then I hope a (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by zfran on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:53:42 PM EST
    complaint was filed, the police (other than those sent out by repubs)called or their candidate of choice was notified. This is called voter suppression, and if proved, I believe is a violation of a voting act of some kind. Can you find a story on this?

    Parent
    Also factually wrong (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by ineedalife on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:02:08 PM EST
    Didn't the exit polls give ~15% of the uncommitted to Hillary. He said they were exclusively Obama and Edwards. So 0 for the other six candidates which is factually wrong. He also said that 100% of the write-ins were for Obama. We know from human nature that that is probably wrong too. He said the illegible write-ins were all arbitrarily given to Obama. This guy is a tool.

    Parent
    Not quite. (none / 0) (#231)
    by minordomo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:09:44 PM EST
    Didn't the exit polls give ~15% of the uncommitted to Hillary.

    and IIRC, they bizarrely enough gave about 10% of Hillary's votes to Obama.

    Parent

    I'm not sure that is bizarre (5.00 / 1) (#254)
    by JoeA on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:22:33 PM EST
    They were polled on who they voted for, and who they supported from a full list of candidates.  i.e. 10% of Hillary's voters in Michigan voted for her as Obama was not an option.  Presumably they didn't get the memo about voting for uncommitted.

    I also read that about 5% wrote in for Obama and had their votes discarded.

    Parent

    Levin (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:40:03 PM EST
    actually looks embarrassed. He should be.

    Parent
    This is nuts (5.00 / 12) (#16)
    by Steve M on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:46:58 AM EST
    I have no problem, frankly, with reallocating the uncommitted voters based upon the available evidence.  It doesn't matter, since the lion's share of these delegates are going to be Obama supporters anyway.

    But the notion of actually reassigning Clinton delegates to Obama, based upon exit polls that suggest some of Clinton's voters actually preferred Obama, is just nuts.  It's your vote that counts, not your response to the exit poll.  I cannot believe anyone takes this idea seriously.

    Yeah, you shouldn't assign him (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:48:06 AM EST
    Hillary's delegates. There's no way the committee will go for that.

    Parent
    Absolutely (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:49:13 AM EST
    Stay on the ballot if you want delegates.

    This sets a precedent that if you are losing in a state, take your name off the ballot, then argue that you should get those voters back.

    It's OBAMA's fault that he took his name off the ballot.  He shouldn't get any votes in MI.  The delegates should go uncommitted to the convention, and if they want to vote for him there, fine.  

    But there's a principle that needs to be held up, and he wasn't interested in doing so.  He should be penalized for that.

    Parent

    Did you somehow miss the bit about the election - (none / 0) (#238)
    by minordomo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:18:07 PM EST
    - not counting and the candidates pledging not to participate?

    Obama didn't take his name off the ballot in the context of an active, legitimate election, but in the context of a spoiled one.

    Parent

    So what was spoiled? (none / 0) (#246)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:44:09 PM EST
    The candidates rights or the voters rights?

    Parent
    The election was spoiled. n/t (none / 0) (#251)
    by minordomo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:07:22 PM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    snark! i feel the need to plant bananas (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by hellothere on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:20:07 PM EST
    all of a sudden. maybe this is now a banana republic! they'll be a movie done about this travesty. streep for hillary would be a good choice!

    Parent
    Arrrrggghhhhh (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Emma on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:47:28 AM EST
    MI Dem Party just absolutely f*cking s*cks!  OMFG!!!!  Yes, Kamarck!!  We HAD A VOTE!! COUNT THE F*CKING VOTES!!!

    Elaine Karmarck is making a great point... (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:48:25 AM EST
    This Michigan proposal is ridiculous. It would be fairer to toss out Michigan altogether.

    MI's argument is an effing travesty (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by Valhalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:50:01 AM EST
    You can't count votes based on exit polls.

    Now he's arguing that writein ballots that they didn't even look at must have been all Obama?

    What a tool

    THANK YOU DON FOWLER!!! (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Emma on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:50:17 AM EST
    WTF is wrong w/Brewer?!?

    Ok...I am partisan (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:51:49 AM EST
    but the Hillary supporters are just, I don't know, way more of the kind of people I like.  

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Steve M on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:51:54 AM EST
    I just lost my satellite feed, I am now reliant on TL to follow this for me.  Huge thunderstorm here in NYC, I probably shouldn't even be on the computer!

    go to (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:53:10 AM EST
    I'm embarrassed for the Obama supporters.... (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:52:01 AM EST
    ...on the committee. I know they have to be smarter than this, but they are forced into taking idiotic positions and asking only rhetorical questions. eg. Allan Katz.

    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:56:17 AM EST
    Wexler's carnival barker performance was completely humiliating to himself and Obama. His condescension towards Ickes was disgraceful.

    Parent
    Over at MyDD they're touting (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Shainzona on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:30:38 PM EST

    Wexler for BO's VP based on his awesome presentation...they report that Ickes stormed out after Wexler finished...as reported on MCNBO.

    Did that really happen?

    Is there a protest going on outside?

    Parent

    i say let them put wexler up for veep. (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by hellothere on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:49:37 PM EST
    then he can go around yelling all over the country. that'll do it!

    Parent
    No that's just trouble for both (none / 0) (#206)
    by Valhalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:52:55 PM EST
    they can't both be the one who's done the most for every group on the face of the earth.

    Parent
    Wexler? Who cares? (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:54:49 PM EST
    Try and get Hillary's votes from Women, Cubans, Jews, Elderly....  Does Wexler help?  Don't think so.  

    Parent
    Upshot (5.00 / 7) (#41)
    by Donna Darko on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:52:44 AM EST
    Bill Nelson was great. The RBC are bullies/Republicans. Arthenia Joyner kicked ass. The crowd is for Hillary. Brazile was a joke. She said they should count the votes of people who didn't go out to vote for diversity's sake. Wexler lied and said Obama didn't block revotes.

    That wasn't the only (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:44:46 PM EST
    lie Wexler told. He also said Obama didn't campaign in FL. Two weeks of tv ads contradicts that and the people of FL know it.


    Parent
    Yup. Bill Nelson was great. (none / 0) (#224)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:59:47 PM EST
    I can definitely see a Clinton/Nelson ticket.

    Parent
    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by JustJennifer on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:53:07 AM EST
    If the allocate the delegates in Michigan based on exit polls I will eat my hat.  

    Maybe I should say that.. the behavior of the DNC has been beyond odd this year.

    Bottom Line (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by cdalygo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:54:13 AM EST
    Obama mistakenly took his name off ballot. Now he must pay the price for it.

    Seat the delegates as the people voted.

    The same goes for Florida.

    Or else, do a revote in the week prior to the Convention (in both states) with the candidates and the DNC picking up the cost.

    If you don't, you have ceded away your moral authority to fight for voter rights. (You can't count voter intent from exit polls.)

    MI suggestion is the most (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:55:00 AM EST
    cockamamie thing I've ever heard.

    The committee (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Steve M on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:56:03 AM EST
    actually seems quite hostile to the idea of reallocating uncommitted voters.  They're right that it's not some metaphysical concept, it's a legitimate voter preference under the rules just like voting for a named candidate.  I guess we'll see.

    I was cleaning house instead today (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:56:50 AM EST
    came to check in, what a mess, wish I hadn't.  I feel for the Michigan voters, can't believe how they are being minimized or obliterated by most of the arguments.  It's shameful.  All in the name of a certain candidate gaining an upper hand. The leaders involved in our political process have become repulsive!  Do none of them possess an iota of natural shame?

    MSNBC just talking over questions which provoked (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:57:23 AM EST
    crowd reaction.
    What was it?

    Ickes was great (5.00 / 7) (#58)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:58:21 AM EST
    The Michigan chair conceded there was no requirement for candidates to remove themselves from the ballot, it was entirely voluntary.

    Okay I take back my earlier bashing of him. (none / 0) (#62)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:59:23 AM EST
    It is a mind blowing situation (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:01:24 PM EST
    that could have easily been avoided with revoting.

    Parent
    God these Obama supporters on the panel (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:58:56 AM EST
    ...sound just like Republicans. They have to make a pitch for Obama first and then ask their rhetorical question. They are repeating themselves.

    I know I'm partial, but the Hillary people seem to be asking real questions.

    Wexler now trimming and weaseling on MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:59:43 AM EST
    about how he/Obama support Ausman petition! They don't want SDs' vote to be more valuable than the voted for delegates' votes.

    MSNBC giving him a do over.

    Did Ickes storm out after (none / 0) (#158)
    by Shainzona on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:32:33 PM EST
    Wexler's presentation?  MyDD is reporting he did (according to MCNBO) and suggesting Wexler should be BO's VP.

    Parent
    mydd, With the Exception of Jerome (none / 0) (#245)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:42:02 PM EST
    a dkos annex of idiotic Obama supporters who had to follow Clinton supporters when they had no one left to bully and abuse at dkos.

    Please Jerome, clean the place up.

    Parent

    This is nutz. (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:00:54 PM EST


    What is so hard (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:01:09 PM EST
    about uncommiteds sorting it out?  

    If Thomas Hynes is correct.... (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:01:18 PM EST
    ...that if you only see Hillary Clinton on the ballot or uncommitted that you are likely to vote for Hillary Clinton then she would have gotten 75% of the vote. What a crock argument. Again, they are arguing that voters are stupid and cast votes that they don't intend.

    Hynes is embarrassing himself (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:01:59 PM EST
    Like the FLA argument about "the voters who didn't vote," the same for MI is not persuasive.

    I am so glad that this hearing is going on; we get to see who is who and what they will try to pass on to the American people.

    Thank you, Thomas Hynes. You are exposed.

    Brewer's argument (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by JustJennifer on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:03:52 PM EST
    was weak.  Very weak.  They can't possibly be considering this.  Guessing what people meant when they voted?  What the hell?

    The Obma campaign HYPOCRISY (5.00 / 6) (#80)
    by kenosharick on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:04:17 PM EST
    is UNBELIEVEABLE!!! They stopped every effort at a revote, and now they are crying that some voters did not get a chance to vote? It is very simple- Sen. Clinton is for increasing and counting every vote. Sen Obama takes the usually republican view that in order to win you suppress votes!!!

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:16:04 PM EST
    almost no difference between their arguments and Republican arguments in 2000.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Steve M on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:04:55 PM EST
    I predict Levin will not go easy on the early states the way the other speakers have.  I think he owns a dartboard with a map of New Hampshire on it.

    Oh no! Levin's asking DNC to preserve unity of (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:05:57 PM EST
    MI Dem Party by stealing votes from Clinton and giving them to Obama.

    Sheesh. Not saying that, but, c'mon!

    Is the MI Dem Party really this messed up??? Not good advertisement for Dem candidates.

    Nothing I've seen today reflects well on the (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Teresa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:08:09 PM EST
    party to me. I wish I was one of those non-voting people who don't care at this point.

    Parent
    Question (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:07:56 PM EST
    If they give Sen Obama the uncommited vote, will this open up future candidates to claim uncommited votes?

    yea, where are mine (snark) n/t (none / 0) (#99)
    by DandyTIger on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:09:00 PM EST
    Levin (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:08:15 PM EST
    says both candidates and the Michigan party want the  delegation seated in full.

    69-59 (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by zebedee on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:08:22 PM EST
    ,makes no sense at all. If you use the actiual votes, HRC gets a lot more. If you use the exit polls (46-35) and allocate the 128 delegates in proportion 73-55 (amazing same as per the vote of you gibe BO all the uncommitteds). So this should be the minimum. MI has ended up somehow with something worse than either votes or the infamous exit polls

    spelling (none / 0) (#101)
    by zebedee on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:09:49 PM EST
    soorry, i typed too quickly while watching TV :-)

    Parent
    Obama should not get "UNC" votes (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:09:06 PM EST
    Sorry, he waived that right when he chose to take his name off the ballot.

    I do like that Levin is laying in (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:10:30 PM EST
    to NH and IA.

    More (5.00 / 5) (#104)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:11:04 PM EST
    It's either 73/55, 69/59, or a 50/50 split according to Levin.

    My view: Hillary has to get the 73 who voted for her.

    Levin says Hillary's campaign will ask for 73/55, agreeing that Obama should get all the uncommitted.

    Again, she's going for the popular vote here. If they seat the MI delegates, how can they not award her her votes?

    The issue of what state goes first still strikes me as a weak one. The issue needs to be make every cast vote count and fix it so it does and move on.

    You don't understand (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Steve M on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:13:42 PM EST
    Asking Sen. Levin to not talk about which states go first is like asking the Cookie Monster not to talk about cookies.  He lives for the opportunity to bang this drum.

    Parent
    He's right (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:15:08 PM EST
    and I fully agree with him.

    Parent
    Just got back from the protest (5.00 / 5) (#105)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:11:37 PM EST
    Did ya see me on the TV?:)

    I went more just to observe than to protest, as I have somewhat mixed feelings about the MI/FL situation - very difficult to figure out what's fair at this point. One thing I do NOT have mixed feelings about, however, is the horribly unfair treatment Clinton has received so I wanted to just go down there and see what was shaking on her behalf.

    I'd say there were about 1500-2000 or so protestors at the entrance to the hotel at around 8:30 am. It was heartening to see both racial and gender diversity amongst the protestors. I saw not a single Obama supporter there. (Although I did see one wingnut guy with an Obama attack sign listing horrible misinformation about him. Told him to get lost.)

    Lots of people from many different states. Busloads of people came in from Florida.

    Saw Lanny Davis and Kim Gandy mingling in the crowd just prior to the start of the meeting. Spoke to Lanny briefly.

    When the taxis and cars began pulling up to bring the DNC and campaign people to the hotel, the crowd went wild yelling and chanting at them. "Fifty states, not 48" was the most popular chant and the most popular sign.

    After the meeting began, the crowd walked down to Cathedral Avenue to hear speakers and hold a rally.

    Just catching up now via TL on what's actually happened inside the meeting. Sounds lively...

    Whoa!! (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:12:12 PM EST
    Levin is saying about taking this to the convention!  I thought he was for Obama!?

    Levin is uncommitted (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:14:01 PM EST
    he says.

    Parent
    Uncommitted (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:15:41 PM EST
    Like Brazile and Clyburn are uncommitted?

    ;)

    Parent

    Nah (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Steve M on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:18:46 PM EST
    Although his brother is a Clinton superdelegate, and they are very close.

    Parent
    Levin (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Emma on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:23:09 PM EST
    is for Clinton, AFAIK.

    Parent
    Levin also said (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:12:17 PM EST
    that if the committee comes up with their own version of fair (ie. seat them all with no penalty) he would accept that as well.

    But must unify MI Dem Party, as well, right? (none / 0) (#134)
    by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:21:40 PM EST
    Levin's bringing in the New Hampshire timeline! (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by gmo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:14:17 PM EST
    Alright, now we're getting to the meat of this!

    Levin is rocking (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:14:47 PM EST
    Love that guy. He is crushing the DNC and New Hampshire, etc.

    Please remove your ads (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by riddlerandy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:20:11 PM EST
    Love His Comment on New Hampshire (5.00 / 6) (#115)
    by cdalygo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:15:02 PM EST
    It's about time that someone brought up ugly truth regarding New Hampshire/Iowa. It's all about money and influence for two of our smallest states (with one holdiing a caucus).

    The whole situation is a travesty.

    The DNC may be sorry that it let this meeting get televised.

    What a joke (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by JON15 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:15:06 PM EST
    I thought this meeting was about what to about
    the votes that were cast,tallied and certified.
    This discussion seems more about how to count votes that were not cast, but according to Obama
    supportes, would have been for him.

    The Democrats could have had a (5.00 / 5) (#118)
    by Grandmother on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:15:12 PM EST
    blowout this year except for their stupidity.  I am an ardent HRC supporter and if she is not the nominee, I'm with Emma and others and will cast my vote for McCain.

    Ny biggest problem with all of this is that it appears from what I have read (somedays much too much) that the fix was in long before the voters of Florida and Michigan cast their votes.  No one has ever given a straight up answer (no one from the DNC) as to why Florida and Michigan got the wet noodle treatment and Iowa, NH, SC and Nevada got "waivers."  I've read these four states are somehow special and represent diversity, etc.  That's is not good enough for me and is a pretty lame reason.

    I have been a diehard Democrat for all of my voting years.  I've voted against my economic interests because I believed in the ideals and causes supported and put forth by the Democratic Party even if it meant paying higher taxes. I supported and fought for equal rights for all Americans.  I feel betrayed.  I remember the Reagan Democrats of the 1980s and I just couldn't figure it out.  Well I'm now a McCain Democrat because I just can't figure out what the hell is going on in this fight.

    amen, sister! (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:18:45 PM EST
    you took the words right out of my mouth.  i heart you.  :)

    Parent
    I'm in the same position (4.00 / 0) (#133)
    by Radiowalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:21:39 PM EST
    as you are and, believe me, I feel as angry and passionate as you do.

    But please reconsider your decision to vote for McCain.  I promise you won't like yourself in the morning.  If you can't pull the lever for Obama, at least leave it blank.  

    My protest is going to be that I am going to register as an independent.

    Parent

    How am I (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by Emma on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:28:10 PM EST
    supposed to ratify vote stealing by not voting against it?  This is absolutely ridiculous.  I'm so angry I can't even deal with it.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 6) (#157)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:32:00 PM EST
    A vote for Obama is a vote for unfairness and bad behavior.  I will not do it.  Not voting or writing in a candidate's name is not a strong enough message.  The DNC needs to get a VERY STRONG message from the party that they screwed the pooch big time.

    Parent
    In the general, my vote for Obama (none / 0) (#166)
    by Radiowalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:36:30 PM EST
    will be only a vote against McCain, nothing more.

    Parent
    If my state of Missouri (5.00 / 8) (#163)
    by Grandmother on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:34:29 PM EST
    looks like it is going to be tight, I will vote for McCain.  I am not going to write in because I do not, repeat do not want Obama as president.

    I practice law in both Mo and IL.  I spend time in Springfield, Illinois.  Obama was a nothing until Rahm Emanuel got John Kerry to showcase him at the 2004 convention.  This election has been in the making for a long time.  Axelrod specializes in getting black candidates elected.  This is dirty Chicago politics all wrapped up in warm and fuzzy.  He has never really practiced law, he has never really had an original idea for legislation, he has never taken any hard positions and what is happening today with the DNC is a bump in the road for Obama.  

    I still remember everyone standing around in the court house one day saying "Obama who" well now we know and for some of us - we don't like it and will not support it or his new party.

    Parent

    Quite Revealing, Grandmother (none / 0) (#241)
    by Spike on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:25:57 PM EST
    "Axelrod specializes in getting black candidates elected."

    Axelrod is clearly a dangerous man. If you find the prospect of "getting black candidates elected" a problem then you will probably be more comfortable in the Republican Party with John McCain.

    Parent

    No need to imply that she (none / 0) (#248)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:50:22 PM EST
    is a racist - although I understand that's a typical Obama supporter move when there is no valid counterpoint to be offered.  There is something to be said about the fact that his campaign mgr has a history of using the race card (if that's what's being implied) to get candidates elected.  

    Parent
    Yes Mccain will be better than Obama... (2.00 / 4) (#141)
    by Curious on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:25:41 PM EST
    ..for no reason that I or anyone else (except sulking Clinton supporters can see.

    But hey let's let more soldiers die  because of your hurt feelings.

    Parent

    you are insulting! (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by hellothere on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:28:42 PM EST
    Not to (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:34:56 PM EST
    mention women going back to "wire coat hanger"  abortions.

    Parent
    Zzzzz (5.00 / 4) (#173)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:39:28 PM EST
    I fought for this issue tooth and nail back in the day.  Young females are coming out for Obama in big numbers.  They should have thought about abortion when they decided to back the weaker candidate with absolutely no real history of supporting the pro-choice movement.  Let them fight for their reproductive rights. My ovaries and my will to go to the mat for this issue are dried up.  

    Parent
    Ditto....zzzzzzz (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by oldpro on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:47:02 PM EST
    ....could not agree more.

    Parent
    Same here (none / 0) (#205)
    by Radiowalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:52:50 PM EST
    I was right there, too.
    But I'm not willing to support McCain over Obama under any circumstances and certainly not out of pique.

    Parent
    Coathanger arguments, bloody shirts, ... (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:35:30 PM EST
    ... don't these weigh in favor of nominating the candidate more likely to win in November?

    Parent
    By all means... (none / 0) (#182)
    by Curious on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:42:34 PM EST
    ...support your candidate.

    It's the readiness to vote for Mccain against the Democratic candidate (whoever he or she might be) that I find unacceptable.

    Parent

    You don't have a vote on how I vote (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Ellie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:50:10 PM EST
    My vote doesn't come with a trailer, either, so you'll have to get your own.

    Parent
    Don't get a vote on how I vote either! (5.00 / 1) (#255)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:23:07 PM EST
    But then... (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:52:21 PM EST
    It's not really up to you to judge someone else's vote acceptable or unacceptable is it?

    Parent
    And you support my candidate too, don't you? (5.00 / 1) (#236)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:17:13 PM EST
    Or do you want more soldiers to die, etc, etc?

    Parent
    no i don't support your candidate. (none / 0) (#239)
    by hellothere on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:22:20 PM EST
    and you can shut your mouth and not make more insults by your indicating i have blood on my hands. how dare you!

    Parent
    sorry ron, i meant that post for someone else. (none / 0) (#243)
    by hellothere on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:26:19 PM EST
    Maybe I think (none / 0) (#240)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:25:25 PM EST
    that an Obama presidency will result in more soldier deaths.  Maybe I believe that his lack of any foreign policy credentials will prove to be a huge detriment to the safety of our borders.  Maybe I believe that a weak American president could result in further conflicts.  We have a candidate willing to meet face to face with crazies around the globe without pre-conditions.  How easy would it be for them to manipulate someone that naive into believing they were onboard with him while continuing to plot against us?  

    I'm sorry if I sound a little paranoid, but I have a sister who lives in NYC and safety/terrorism is still a huge concern of mine.  

    Parent

    I really do not (2.00 / 1) (#250)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:02:06 PM EST
    see Jeralyn and BTD letting this site become a support for a Repub presidency.

    I've seen several comments by both on this subject.

    If they were not so busy with the Rules Committee... they would have stopped this "Vote for McCain".

    Parent

    I was addressing 'Curious' ... (none / 0) (#249)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:51:25 PM EST
    ... who seems to think this blood-on-your-hands argument will carry weight in the general election, but somehow carries no weight in the nominating decision

    Parent
    fine, i'll write in hillary. (none / 0) (#207)
    by hellothere on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:53:06 PM EST
    Yes, these (none / 0) (#203)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:52:25 PM EST
    are arguments that the most electable should be the nominee.... but I don't think Hillary will get the nomination.

    As a support of Hillary, I also consider the fact the SHE will support the Dem Party and would want her supporters to follow her lead.

    Now, everyone HAS the right to vote they want.... but with that vote goes the outcome of our future.

    Speaking only for me (How's that BTD)

    I believe my future and my children's future will best served by a Dem President and Congress.

    I can vote for the nominee and campaign for the Congressional seats.... and feel good that I tried my best for a better future.

    Parent

    Has the roe v. wade blackmail been replaced now? (5.00 / 4) (#167)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:36:40 PM EST
    Are we now onto "the soldiers' blood will be on your hands"?

    Just asking.

    Why doesn't everyone just let everyone else decide their own vote?

    Parent

    At least we are talking about the deadlock (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:15:21 PM EST
    NH and IA have had, that needs to change.  A lot of things need to change before 2012.

    The committee is not going to go (5.00 / 4) (#120)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:15:40 PM EST
    by exit polls from their questions and demeanor.

    Several members have their arms folded.

    I agree Jeralyn (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:16:51 PM EST
    No way they ser the precident of using exit polls to decide this.

    Parent
    That would be really dangerous. (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by madamab on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:43:09 PM EST
    I sure hope they don't do it.

    Parent
    Hopefully... (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:22:16 PM EST
    since virtually every exit poll has been garbage this year, they should give little weight to them IMHO.

    Jackson

    Parent

    folded arms or closed eyes says (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by hellothere on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:27:59 PM EST
    "you lost me". jury consultants know that.

    Parent
    Levin: "Give us a waiver" (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:17:51 PM EST
    "You gave NH a waiver and denied us a wavier."

    Yes.

    BO removed his name from the ballot (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by vicsan on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:18:02 PM EST
    when it was NOT required. Why should he get any delegates/votes?  He shouldn't! Now we give votes to phantom candidates? That's not right.

    Levin's gravity shames Wexler (5.00 / 4) (#132)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:21:36 PM EST
    Carl Levin's preparedness and steady presentation contrasts with that of the child-like Wexler and his fist-pounding.

    Can you imagine Levin disrespecting Harold Ickes as did Wexler?

    No way. He is far too classy for such a move.

    God Bless Carl Levin.

    The "unity" talking point... (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:25:41 PM EST
    ...is falling woefully flat.

    You don't ask for someone to shake your hand after you have impaled them with a shiv.

    And you particularly don't ask them for this while you are impaling them with said shiv.

    Germond is Katherine Harris, part II. Along with Brazile.

    Alice Germond is incoherent (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by Valhalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:26:58 PM EST
    and blathering.  Not even bloviating.  I have no idea what she is talking about.

    she does seem mightly loopy! (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:28:26 PM EST
    Germond's "event" (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:27:24 PM EST
    is another losing argument.

    I'm SO glad this is all going to be on tape.

    Germond basically just applauded the people who did NOT vote in MI's primary.

    This is our democracy, then? Applauding those who choose not to vote?

    Somewhere, Nero is fiddling.

    I hope the clinton people ask someone.... (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:28:31 PM EST
    about "voter intent" and Texas, Washington, Nebraska, and Idaho....

    Some of us are concerned about ALL OF THAT (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:31:01 PM EST
    Years of public hearings (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:30:16 PM EST
    I know the Germond voice, the "I am so genuine and fair Marin county californian".  All process and talking while saying nothing.  I always preferred the Joyner voice.  Clear, direct, the Hillary style.  

    Who cares what (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Benjamin3 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:30:42 PM EST
    Obama wants out of Michigan. He chose not to run for President in that state.  If they're gonna seat FL the way they voted, then they must do the same for MI, which means Obama gets 0 delegates out of MI.

    Question (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by joanneleon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:32:51 PM EST
    Last week on CNN, Donna Brazile said that this meeting was going to be short.  Any idea why she said that, or what has changed since then?

    She seemed to think it was going to be an open and shut case.

    Donna Brazile (5.00 / 4) (#169)
    by Emma on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:37:05 PM EST
    is not the most objective of observers or commenters.

    Parent
    Maybe... (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:39:24 PM EST
    she just isn't all that bright and just assumed everyone would kiss her and Obama's *ss. I have to admit, this is not the kangaroo court that I was expecting (with obvious exceptions.)  I still don't feel good about it, but the issues are being discussed in full, and egos are being bruised.

    Jackson

    Parent

    Michael Steed CRUSHES Obama (5.00 / 3) (#162)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:34:26 PM EST
    That was superb, in his question to Levin.

    Basically, how do you reward someone -- and set a precedent of rewarding those -- who chose to take their name off of the ballot?

    Harold Ickes is on a roll (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:40:16 PM EST
    Crushes on the concepts of "fair reflection" and the arbitrary desire to take 4 delegates from HRC.

    Ickes' poise and comments make Wexler looks even worse for disrespecting him on a point which Wexler knew nothing about, fair reflection.

    Masterful.

    Wasn't it a 'Flawed Primary' because ... (5.00 / 3) (#176)
    by Ellie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:40:23 PM EST
    ... Obama took his name off and asked his voters to vote Uncommitted?

    And as for the rhetorical question of there then being no "scientific" way to establish fairly who voted for whom ... perhaps a revote?

    For the trifecta of passivity, We amorphously and inexplicably now find ourselves with a flawed primary.

    It seems like everyone was behaving aggressively at the time to create this fekaketah mess.

    I've been in and out on the coverage, so pardon me if I'm missing something, but this genuflection to Unity and Formula is embarrassing.

    Harold Ickes is on a roll (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:40:40 PM EST
    Crushes on the concepts of "fair reflection" and the arbitrary desire to take 4 delegates from HRC.

    Ickes' poise and comments make Wexler looks even worse for disrespecting him on a point which Wexler knew nothing about, fair reflection.

    Masterful.

    Levin said facts on the ground have already taken (5.00 / 4) (#181)
    by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:42:09 PM EST
    earned votes from Clinton and give them to Obama??

    OMG.

    Now, Ickes talking about "fair reflection," which I assume means of the actual vote.

    Huh? "Fair reflection" has long precedent (meaning Uncommitted has been used and accepted for long time in party primaries?).

    Talking about vote stealing from Clinton.

    What is going on in the MI Dem Party? Is there a group threatening to walk away and start a rump party? Or something?

    Levin keeps talking about unity as if there's about to be a divided party.

    And MSNBC cuts away (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:44:20 PM EST
    just before Levin answers Ickes' question so they can boost Obama's pov once again.  JFC.

    Parent
    Levin / Ickes (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by joanneleon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:43:40 PM EST
    ickes: group of cand who voluntarily withdrew themselves from ballot... same protections and same rights as a named presidential candidate.. proposal set forth by party would take those 55 del slots and convert them to one candidate by mark brewer's admission, don't know what exit polls he was looking at.. this year's exit polls have been notoriously off mark.. one is to take those del and convert them to obama.. that does enormous violence senator.. del that are put into those slots are fair game for any candidate who wants to go persuade them to join his/her ship... just take four del from clinton and give them to obama?  find it stunning that given the importance of fair reflection.. hell why not take 10 or 20, just keep on going.. i am right where you are on full del and full votes but sen I really plead when you think about fair reflection.. to come to this group.. in my view as a matter of law to help with harmony and unity i did not raise a parliam issue at the outset.. i do not think this comm has the jurisd.. but i didn't raise that, wanted to have harmony..

    herman: we really are out of time...

    ickes: you mention in passing about going to credentials comm

    levin: you're calling for a fair reflection of a flawed primary.. what we're trying to do is keep a party together so we can win an election in a critical state.. precedent we set is a good preced if this ever happens again.. two cand still standing where one was on the ballot and one wasn't.. what we've done is what we'd think you'd want us to do.. get obama and clinton supporters on exec committee.. how do you have a fair reflection of a flawed primary?  tried to get another primary, couldn't do it.. (he's going round in circles and not making much sense except to say that we tried to come to a compromise to unify our party, regardless of how much they ignored rules and principles)

    Ickes talking about assigning the uncommitted (5.00 / 4) (#188)
    by akaEloise on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:44:06 PM EST
    doing violence to the tradition of having uncommitted delegates.  I totally agree  It's all very well to say Michigan is an extraordinary situation that has never happened before.  If we learned nothing else in the last eight years, we should have learned that extraordinary situations are happening in elections more and more with every cycle.  We should expect more of them in the future, not fewer.  Therefore, decisions that set precedents should be made with extreme caution.

    Precedent (5.00 / 6) (#191)
    by Steve M on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:45:11 PM EST
    One important precedent to set is to discourage candidates in future elections from removing their name from the ballot.

    That stunt, more than anything else, contributed to the enormous difficulty the committee now faces in figuring out what to do with Michigan.  That's the sole reason FL is so much easier to resolve.

    If some of Clinton's delegates get taken away and given to Obama in the interests of redressing a "flawed primary," it only serves to encourage such stunts in the future.  It would be a terrible decision for the DNC to make.

    Simple get out of jail card to the DNC (5.00 / 3) (#192)
    by BarnBabe on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:46:21 PM EST
    It says: (Using the IWTOG theory) In as much as the Florida DNC TRIED to abide by the DNC date rule, it was taken out their hands by the Republicans in Florida. The GOP KNEW that it was going against the DNC rules and would cause a problem with Democratic voters and thus, not only caused the problem, encouraged a problem with the Democratic Primary. Thus, all votes and delegates are seated as is.

    It says: In as much as the Michigan DNC requested a waiver and was not granted one, but other states were, to be fair to Michigan voters, all votes and delegates are to be seated. And in a fairness to Obama, who choose to take his name off the ballot, we will award him the undecided delegates and votes.

    The DNC then saves face and is saying to the voters, no one will be penalized. They will also assert that attention for future primaries will be reexamined so further conflicts will not happen in the Democratic Party. (I would like no caususes or crossover votes either)


    Why not Uncommitted go to Uncommitted? (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:51:24 PM EST
    Let them be added to the SD stew!

    I know, the DNC wants it decided by mid-June.

    Parent

    From Your Lips To God's Ears . . . (none / 0) (#211)
    by cdalygo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:54:12 PM EST
    But it will never happen. That would require a committee looking out for party interests -- not their candidates and not their jobs.

    Of course, their job is to look out for Party's members. But let them "eat bread" (with historical definition of bread equals S**T

    Parent

    And lack of funds (none / 0) (#219)
    by BarnBabe on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:57:25 PM EST
    The only protest we have is the wallet not opening. But, maybe those new Democrats will make up the difference.

    Parent
    unfair (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by zebedee on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:48:40 PM EST
    how can they agree to the 69-59 split if this gives Obama (not even on the ballot) more than he's entitled to if he gets ALL the uncommitteds? 73-55 is the actual split and the exit poll (46-35) ratio. Sorry if I'm repeating my previous comment but the pro-Clinton RBC memebers should pounce on this. Of couse, they should still push for the 55 to be uncommitted.

    Levin argument was this was halfway between positions of 64-64 and 73-55. This is bogus, the 64-64 was the same as disenfranchising MI.

    David Bonior (5.00 / 3) (#208)
    by Steve M on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:53:11 PM EST
    is flat-out lying.  Wexler did his best to be an advocate but he at least didn't try to make up his own facts.

    Claiming that four candidates took their names off the ballot "to respect the committee's decision" is just a lie.  There's no other word for it.  It insults the intelligence of every informed person watching.

    The bigger lie (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:55:13 PM EST
    is that Obama didn't try to block the revote.

    And by arguing to split the delegation, he is arguing that Michigan voters should have absolutely no influence on the outcome.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by Steve M on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:57:55 PM EST
    by that point he didn't even have any credibility left.

    Bonior was Edwards' campaign manager.  He knows better than anyone on the planet why the candidates removed their names.  What an astounding lie to tell this committee.

    The 50/50 proposal does nothing to respect the voters and rewards a candidate for helping to spoil the election.  It is a request with less than zero merit.

    Parent

    Bonior is a distant member of an in-law's (none / 0) (#220)
    by RalphB on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:57:44 PM EST
    family.  They would tell you him lying means only that his mouth is open.  :-)

    Parent
    Could bonier be more divisive? (5.00 / 2) (#209)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:53:24 PM EST
    seriously... the guy is just making problems for the party.

    That's the same observation I'd have about (none / 0) (#223)
    by digdugboy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:58:33 PM EST
    Ickes. Levin eviscerated his longwinded speech with one terse statement: "You're asking for a fair reflection of a flawed election." Blam!

    Parent
    How on earth... (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by Dadler on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:55:37 PM EST
    ...are they not arguing the ONLY point there is to argue?  The selective enforcement by the DNC IS the issue.  I'm telling you, the Democratic Party is falling apart at the very weak seams.

    Dear Democracy (5.00 / 2) (#218)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:57:24 PM EST
    The idea of having you around for the Democratic primary season would have been nice.  However, because of the interest of one candidate's desire to win at all cost, with the help of the media and the DNC, you, Democracy, were kicked aside.

    We were saddened, when you were put down in 2000.  We thought you made a comeback in 2004.  Alas, the GOP made sure you were expelled.

    Now it's the Democrat's turn to make sure you are not around this time.  Democracy, you just don't stand a chance here in America.

    Try as they might, the Clintons enjoy your presence, but since they are the ones bringing down western civilization as we know it with their ideals of democracy, you're just not in very good company.

    Senator Obama likes democracy, but only when it favors him.  So since it didn't favor him in FL and MI you are not wanted nor needed.

    Goodbye Democracy.  You are being dismissed.  America will miss you!

    Shorter Bonior: I must ask that no one call Obama (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by Ellie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    ... a big baby in this process just because he repeatedly behaved like a big baby.

    Thanks Mark Brewer (4.50 / 2) (#45)
    by Emma on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:53:54 AM EST
    Now I AM voting McCain in November.  This is crazy.  Just crazy.  At least the Repubulicans just didn't count votes in FL.  They didn't take away actual votes and give them to somebody else.

    Levin (4.50 / 2) (#131)
    by digdugboy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:21:22 PM EST
    Best presentation so far.

    what is ridiculous is that Obama (4.42 / 7) (#13)
    by athyrio on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:45:40 AM EST
    took his name off the ballot and isn't being penalized for it at all.....If Florida and Michigan have to be penalized then he should too....IMO..

    He took his name off the ballot (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:48:47 AM EST
    to encourage New Hampshire voters to vote for him.  He isn't a saint.

    Parent
    Penalize him for what exactly? (none / 0) (#234)
    by minordomo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:11:57 PM EST
    Taking his name off the ballot in an election he pledged not to participate in?

    Keep in mind that Michigan was a spoiled election and an attempt is being made here - for political reasons - to do something that would otherwise be completely irrational: to make a spoiled election count somehow.

    Parent

    Flawed By Your Candidate's Choice (4.33 / 6) (#180)
    by cdalygo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:41:38 PM EST
    This is all about protecting Obama from his mistakes.

    If you don't agree to it, then it's not unity. At its essence that's the Obama position -- surrender to us or it's not unity.

    Obama is the affirmative action candidate (2.60 / 5) (#35)
    by Donna Darko on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:50:48 AM EST
    The media, bloggers, DNC, free MI votes, disenfranchising votes, suppressing votes help him. He can't win fair and square.

    I'm sorry (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Emma on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:57:30 AM EST
    But that is exactly how it will play in MI given Brewer's asinine "take Clinton's votes and give them to Obama" position.  Especially in the state that just voted to amend the constitution to forbid affirmative action.

    Parent
    Affirmative Action Candidate? (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Spike on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:23:23 PM EST
    To imply by this remark that Obama has won the nomination only because of his race is both wrong and offensive.

    Parent
    stop with the race card (5.00 / 1) (#242)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:26:02 PM EST
    Affirmative action is not all about race.  The term itself has NOTHING to do with race.

    Parent
    frankly obama can't win under any (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by hellothere on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:23:27 PM EST
    conditions. look at this campaign for the primaries. dog whistles and threats of violence won't work well with the repubs.

    Parent
    I will say that I agree with Brewer's point (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:40:36 AM EST
    that Hillary's vote was overstated in the January vote. The exit poll says so.

    It doesn't matter (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:42:12 AM EST
    we don't elect nominees by exit polling.

    Parent
    Of course it matters (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:43:25 AM EST
    Because it is ridiculous to say that Obama had no support in Michigan.

    Of course, this is why we needed a revote.

    Parent

    You're on the wrong side here. (5.00 / 8) (#10)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:44:36 AM EST
    There is just NO principle supporting giving delegates or votes to a candidate who voluntarily removes himself from a ballot.

    Parent
    I am on the side of the voters (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:45:55 AM EST
    fu*k the candidates.

    Parent
    There's no precedent I am aware of (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:49:00 AM EST
    for giving Obama votes or delegates from MI.
    It is an OUTRAGE to do so---a violation of the core principles of democracy.

    Parent
    It's not an outrage (2.00 / 2) (#67)
    by digdugboy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:00:55 PM EST
    to Obama supporters in Michigan. It's more outrageous, generally speaking, to credit the results as they stand, because no campaigning was allowed and not all of the major candidates were on a ballot which, at the outset, everybody knew was not going to count for anything anyway. That's the true outrage.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by squeaky on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:53:49 AM EST
    This is not about Obama or Hillary it is about the voters. Most voters can accept having their favorite democratic candidate losing, but it will anger those who voted to say you do not matter and your vote does not count.  

    Whoever is going to be our nominee needs these voters.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 9) (#17)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:47:03 AM EST
    But if he wanted support he should have kept his name on the ballot.  He disenfranchised voters, essentially said, I'll hold no election here.  And he did it not to benefit Michigan IN ANY WAY.

    He has no argument for votes, IMHO.  Absolutely none.

    Parent

    No Sympathy for Obama's Position (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by santarita on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:33:36 PM EST
    Look at what he did in the Chicago election against Alice Palmer.  He systematically had other candidates removed on technicalities, in part, to eliminate the need to spend money and time to campaign against them.  He and the other candidates did the same thing in Michagan.  They voluntarily agreed to take their names off the ballot not for some principle but so he wouldn't have to spend time and money campaigning there.

    Parent
    But we don't (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:48:21 AM EST
    choose nominees this way.

    Uncommitted it uncommitted. Obama made that choice.

    Parent

    Wow! (5.00 / 9) (#31)
    by flashman on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:49:23 AM EST
    We can elect, select our leaders from exit polls.

    Mail in ballots is too unreliable, though ( I'm rolling my eyes now )

    Why not just do rock, papaer, scissors.

    Parent

    I supported a mail-in revote (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:52:19 AM EST
    My Comment (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by flashman on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:00:15 PM EST
    was about the absurity of accepting exit polls as a legitimate electoral process, not a personal criticism of you.  Sorry if it came across that way.

    Parent
    baloney (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:51:55 PM EST
    no one is saying he had no support, but he HAD NO VOTES.  That is his fault.  He shouldn't get any delegates from MI.  He shouldn't get any from FL since he campaigned there.  Rules don't just apply to other people.

    Parent
    Tough. Obama blocked the revote (none / 0) (#237)
    by Cream City on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:17:24 PM EST
    in the sequence of many mistakes he made in this.  Reap, sow.

    Parent
    And as BTD says (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:45:26 AM EST
    to me the only thing the RBC can do under the rule is reduce the penalty to 50%, with Clinton getting her share and the rest being uncommitted, which are going to Obama anyway.
    I think this is what will happen.

    Parent
    But andgarden, Kerry's exit polls were also (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Teresa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:47:40 AM EST
    overstated if you go by them. Isn't an actual vote more accurate than an exit poll which has proved faulty a lot lately?

    Parent
    I believe the exit poll (none / 0) (#30)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:49:14 AM EST
    when it says that some number of Hillary voters would have rather voted for Obama.

    Still, I accept the proposition that we should go by the actual vote, and if we do that Obama will get most or all of the uncommitteds.

    Parent

    Then why didn't they vote uncommitted? (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Teresa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:52:43 AM EST
    As a HC supporter, if I couldn't vote for her the last thing I'd do is vote for her main competition. If you said he was their second choice or Edwards was their second choice, I might could see that. Either way, you can't take away honest to God votes based on exit polls. (And I know you agree to that.)

    Parent
    Perhaps because they were soft supporters (none / 0) (#47)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:54:20 AM EST
    and figured that Hillary would be ok. But it's clear that for at least some number of her voters, she was not the first choice. Whether we do anything about that is the point under dispute.

    Parent
    In the general election (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by tree on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:01:21 PM EST
    you can rest assured that for many voters neither McCain nor Obama will be their first choice. Do we exit poll on first choices and adjust the general election vote accordingly? That is the precedent you are setting with using exit polling rather than actual voting to determine representation.

    Parent
    You are neglecting (none / 0) (#82)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:04:48 PM EST
    the inverse.... some Clinton supporters were confused about what to do (Obama ads) and voted uncommitted of all the silly things.

    Parent
    The exit poll says (none / 0) (#89)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:06:15 PM EST
    that there were none or almost none.

    Parent
    So? based on exit polls... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Josmt on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:43:18 AM EST
    He took votes away from Hillary.... OK... This is not making sense...

    somehow i lost my talkleft page (none / 0) (#9)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:44:19 AM EST
    for about 15 minutes, and went to the GOS to see what they were writing... ugh... doesn't matter whom one supports, just ugh.

    Go Tina!! (none / 0) (#11)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:44:43 AM EST
    Great question!

    Brewer: Very professional & fair (none / 0) (#18)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:47:10 AM EST
    That is how it is done, Congressman Wexler.

    Excellent job by Michigan's Brewer

    Live blog coming back for FL/MI? (none / 0) (#28)
    by gmo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:49:05 AM EST
    Jeralyn/BTD:  Is the live blog going to come back up?

    No...crashing... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:50:23 AM EST
    GO HOWARD!!!! (none / 0) (#49)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:55:11 AM EST


    Ugh Ickies.... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:55:29 AM EST
    ...Achilles Heel.

    Surprise? (none / 0) (#52)
    by dmk47 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:56:13 AM EST
    I can't believe anybody is surprised by the Michigan proposal.

    MI best data is the VOTE--Give to Clinton and (none / 0) (#54)
    by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:56:29 AM EST
    Uncommitted.

    Now Ickes on Obama voluntarily removed name from MI ballot. Pledge had no requirement to withdraw name--but was an attempt to curry favor with IA, etc.

    Brewer wants to get MI voters' will expressed--then why play with percentages.

    Iowa (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by zebedee on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:58:30 AM EST
    They should be arguing that Obama benefited in Iowa as he took his name off MI to curry favor with them. He opted for that beenfit than the chance for getting something from MI

    Parent
    I wonder (none / 0) (#70)
    by JustJennifer on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:01:18 PM EST
    if anyone will bring up the crossover votes - Democrats who voted for Romney to mess with the Republican primary.

    yeah... (none / 0) (#88)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:05:57 PM EST
    and the DKos strategy of getting dems to vote for Romney, so will Kos claim those votes in his imitation of Rush moment ?

    Parent
    Good Point (none / 0) (#170)
    by Spike on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:37:32 PM EST
    My siblings in Michigan supported Obama but voted for Romney in Michigan's primary -- at my urging -- to delay the nomination of McCain. With Clinton saying that the vote wouldn't count, it seemed like the most meaningful vote to cast.

    Parent
    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by tree on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:01:59 PM EST
    Funny how so many Obama supporters now claim that they hung on every word that Clinton said about Michigan and only decided not to vote in Michigan because Clinton supposedly said it wouldn't count. They apparently didn't care that their own candidate's surrogates in Michigan were urging them to vote "uncommitted". Go ahead, pull the other one.

    Parent
    OMG (none / 0) (#75)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:02:36 PM EST
    Is Brewer serious in ending that way?!?!?

    Comparing using polls to determine affirmative (none / 0) (#97)
    by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:08:21 PM EST
    action goals to using polls to determine outcomes of elections???

    That will play well in 30 second Repub ads!

    Don't these pols look around the corners???

    Parent

    Levin is saying to the committee if you see (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:10:22 PM EST
    better to way to "unify" MI Dem Party, do it. But he thinks it should be as MI proposed (take from the winner to give to the guy who took his name off the ballot).

    Now Levin attacking primary system's differences and timing, etc.

    Going after the early states. May play well in MI....?

    Parent

    so he thinks the only way to unify the party (none / 0) (#247)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:46:44 PM EST
    is to screw Clinton and give Obama votes he did not earn , including some of hers?

    Parent
    Don't forget (none / 0) (#76)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:02:59 PM EST
    BackFromHio is live blogging from the meeting room and is covering the Michigan portion as well. The thread is here.

    Levin is taking the mike (none / 0) (#77)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:03:17 PM EST
    .....

    He Doesn't Deserve Uncomitteds (none / 0) (#78)
    by cdalygo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:03:33 PM EST
    You can't assume the uncommitted hate Hillary. After all when the choice has been Hillary/Obama, she has been winning in primary/swing states.

    He doesn't deserve, nor should he get every non-Hillary vote. Anymore than Hillary should get every non-Obama vote.

    Carl Levin up now (none / 0) (#81)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:04:26 PM EST
    Don't expect any puerile Wexlerian fist-pounding, thank goodness.

    Levin is being ridiculous (none / 0) (#85)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:05:37 PM EST
    I don't care what the candidates think. It's about the VOTERS.

    Levin: "Michigan was united" (none / 0) (#86)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:05:50 PM EST
    Please reflect that unity.

    That is how it is done, folks.

    :)

    Paul please do not (none / 0) (#109)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:13:17 PM EST
    include tag lines and your blog name in your comments. It's in your user profile and distracting. Thanks.

    Parent
    It has NOT (none / 0) (#90)
    by Emma on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:06:28 PM EST
    produced unity in Michigan, Carl!!!

    a non rule argument can still be a good argument (none / 0) (#92)
    by DandyTIger on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:06:59 PM EST
    because the argument can still come down to, do you want Michigan in November or not. Do you want to be a party of counting the votes and empowering people, or do you want to be a party of disenfranchisement and partial votes. I agree they're on shaky ground as far as rules go, but the current exclusion of MI is a disaster, and so needs to be addressed. There are reasonable ways to deal with it. I think either count as they voted or divide up uncommitted based on polls is workable. Not counting or partial counting is a recipe for disaster imho.

    oh, and stealing votes is worse than not counting (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by DandyTIger on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:08:01 PM EST
    in my humble opinion.

    Parent
    A non-rule argument can carry weight, but not ... (none / 0) (#148)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:28:34 PM EST
    ... in the Rules and Bylaws Committee (except perhaps if it moves them to waive the rules by the equivalent of Unanimous Consent).

    If there's a place for a non-rule argument ... it's the Credentials Committee.

    Parent

    Will they seat MI with full rights and not FL?? (none / 0) (#128)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:19:59 PM EST


    I just don't see how (none / 0) (#136)
    by flyerhawk on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:22:20 PM EST
    either state can bring up other states as a defense.  Not that it isn't a good argument but politically it is extremely damaging and would almost assuredly piss off the DNC not to mention the states being called out.

    The best argument that they can make is the argument they cannot make.

    I can't see how (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by ding7777 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:28:39 PM EST
    Obama can continue to use the ruse that the DNC or the Pledge required him to take his name off the MI ballot

    Parent
    It doesn't matter (none / 0) (#194)
    by flyerhawk on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:47:32 PM EST
    Whether Obama should or should not have taken his name off the ballot is irrelevant.  What's done is done.  

    The DNC isn't going to seat the full delegates as-is. And the reason isn't because of an undying love of Obama.  The reason is that seating the delegates as-is would make them look like utter and complete idiots.

    Parent

    I have to disagree (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:30:48 PM EST
    I think the public needs to know what the DNC has been up to.  As far as I'm concerned, if the Dem party implodes because of it, it is deserved.  If they are honest about their screw ups, voters would be more accepting.  The fact that they have been lied to is what is going to p!ss them off.  I am glad they are not being allowed to lie and that their manuevering and manipulations are being exposed.  NO state deserves preferential treatment.  Makes me admire MI that much more.  Piss off the other states and the DNC, it has been sleazy politics as usual.  Disgusting.

    Parent
    So you prefer (none / 0) (#204)
    by flyerhawk on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:52:48 PM EST
    to throw out the baby with the bathwater?

    No one is innocent in this matter.  DNC screwed up but so did MI and FL.  

    Parent

    Tina Flournoy's (none / 0) (#177)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:40:31 PM EST
    facial expressions are priceless.  I love that woman.  

    BTD, I think it's funny (none / 0) (#179)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:40:48 PM EST
    that Ickes, who criticized you the other day for asking a long question, just made a speech in the form of a question.

    Michigan isn't going to get seated (none / 0) (#184)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:43:40 PM EST
    I just don't see how anyone is going to agree on anything.

    Lost coverage at mention of Credentials Committee- (none / 0) (#186)
    by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:43:58 PM EST
    What did he say about that?

    OMG., Harold Ickes may have valid points (none / 0) (#187)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:44:06 PM EST
    to raise, but they are not coming across as persuasive.  Harold, as one Hillary supporter to another, please pass the mic to someone else.

    Boinor brings up that (none / 0) (#197)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:49:43 PM EST
    stupid Hillary quote of vote not counting...man, no wonder Edwards lost.  

    But Brewer himself (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:52:24 PM EST
    admitted the state party encouraged people who supported ALL the other candidates to vote uncommitted.

    Parent
    Off Topic, but IRONIC...,worth noting... (none / 0) (#215)
    by SunnyLC on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:55:48 PM EST

    Off topic, but something that should be noted:

    McClatchy Reports that Bush Donors are Giving Money to Obama...

    http://tinyurl.com/5xvlay

    I note the probable real reasons of the big guys being the real force behind this not the "little folks" taken with Obama...


    And Obama goes nuclear through Bonior (none / 0) (#216)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:55:54 PM EST


    If it's a flawed primary (none / 0) (#217)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:57:24 PM EST
    why do they claim any votes?  

    David Bonior (none / 0) (#221)
    by joanneleon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:57:51 PM EST
    David Bonior (on behalf of Obama campaign)
    former house maj whip, D-MI
    Support a compromise.. understand that our state has had a diff path to this mtg today.. have been interested for many years in playing an early role in primary process.. MI applied to be one of the early states.. however NV and SC were selected.. adding diversity was and is a worthy goal.. comm s/b commended for sel NV and SC.. RBC approved plan for feb 8.. mid 2007 FL adopted it's prim.. our state party leaders who for years have argued .. decided to adopt early prim for MI jan 15.. led you to impose penalties.. chairman of dnc asked pres candid to honor and none of the candid campaigned.. took names off ballot to be consistent with this.. sen clinton decided not to keep name off ballot.. told public radio that MI prim would not count.. and she added that her name would stay on ballot only so as not to offend MI voters.. prim was held.. supporters of obama cast as uncommitted but many stayed home.. many voted for their fav cand in the repub primary.. all write-in votes were not counted.. results at time were astounding.. uncomm powered mostly by legions of obama supporters.. perhaps most telling exit polls AA voters and young voters voted ?% for obama over clinton.. clearly obama voters were struggling to have their voices heard in this process.. and again tho many obama voters did not vote in this prim.. we cannot ignore these facts.. four major cand kept their name off the ballots out of respect to this committee.. due to all these circumst was that this event was not anything close to a normal election and cannot allocate delegates in a normal way.. out of simple fairness.. fairness requires us to honor those voters who did not vote for their chosen candidate.. want to correct notion that obama was resp for not holding second primary..this is an insult to the mich legislature.. so late that it could not be resched.. sen obama was in no way responsible for this.. must find a way as dems to resolve so that MI can particip in this historic nominating process... reconsider penalizing.. disagree with 10 favoring one candidate.. allow MI a full delegation at 50% level with delegates split evenly between the two candidates

    Dave Bonior (none / 0) (#225)
    by Spike on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:00:14 PM EST
    I've known Dave Bonior for 30 years. He's one of the smartest, thoughtful and effective politician that I've ever met. I've supported Obama from the beginning but gave John Edwards more consideration than I otherwise would because Dave was his campaign manager. I'm glad he's now in Obama's corner. He will help bring the Michigan Democratic Party together for the general election.

    bonoir while doing a good job in the house (none / 0) (#230)
    by hellothere on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:08:17 PM EST
    has lost some creds in recent years. his attempts in recent campaigns haven't turned out well.

    Parent
    Emperor Has No Clothes (none / 0) (#228)
    by cdalygo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:03:41 PM EST
    Good job on question --- plus she brings up caucuses.

    Why did you take your name off ballot? How can you override ballots'

    (Working together for so many years ---> points out her age. Right.)

    Dave Bonior (none / 0) (#235)
    by Spike on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:16:28 PM EST
    I've known Dave Bonior for 30 years. He's one of the smartest, thoughtful and effective politician that I've ever met. I've supported Obama from the beginning but gave John Edwards more consideration than I otherwise would because Dave was his campaign manager. I'm glad he's now in Obama's corner. He will help bring the Michigan Democratic Party together for the general election.