home

DRC Hearing Live Blog V: Michigan Portion Two

There's a big storm in DC and the tv coverage blanks out occasionally. BackFromOhio is live-blogging for TalkLeft from the meeting room here.

I'm going to start with Hillary's representative arguing her case. On Obama, I was surprised he asked for 50% of the delegates when the news yesterday was he abandoned that in the spirit of compromise. Apparently not.

Former Michigan Gov. Jim Blanchard is up for Hillary. I'll live blog below the fold:

He associates himself with remarks of Carl Levin.

On behalf of Hillary and Gov. Granholm, we urge you to make Michigan count. Michigan has close elections. Kerry only took state by 3%. But we have been reliably Democratic. Don't turn your back on MI and our 600,000 voters. That's more than IA, NV and NH. 4x as many votes as our firehouse caucus in 2004.

If Obama is the nominee, he will campaign vigorously for him. So will Hillary, I heard her say that in private company.

We need a nominee of 50 states, not 48 + territories.

How do we honor MI voters?

A bipartisan law was enacted to have Jan. 15 primary. Hillary had no participatin in that law. we had the primary. 4 tooked their names off the ballot. It was a knowing willing decision. They signed affidavits.

It wasn't a flawed election, they had a flawed strategy. 4 stayed on the ballot.

Neither law nor DNC rules required them to take themselves off the ballot.

Some vote uncommitted because they were mad at the process, and didn't know who to vote for.

There was a media campaign to get people to vote uncommitted. Obama and Edwards and Richardson had handbills handed out in Detroit.

Hillary got 73, there were 55 uncommitted. We want our delegates seated in that ratio with a full vote.

You need to honor the voters of Michigan and the assignment should fairly reflect their preference.

How can we see 48 states and Guam and PRico and not Michigan. We've already been punished. We didn't get to air our issues.

It makes no sense to punish the voters for our party's rules to be used to disenfranchise voters. It is not the American way. Applause.

We need to think about November. If you turn your back on FL or MI voters, you will flirt with McCain victory. We believe the right to vote is sacred. Dont' take us for granted. Florida, 2000. This committee should avoid being viewed as the Supreme Court of 2008.

Show us respect.

Q: Do you support MI party proposal of 69/59. We do not support MI proposal. We support 73/55.

He doesn't agree primary was flawed. It was a primary that our party leaders helped establish. They shouldn't have allowed people to remove their names from the ballot. 5,000 open polling places and 600,000 votes. They had a flawed strategy. They could have left their name on the ballot. People were following this electon.

I'm not going to do the whole q and a, just the parts of interest to me. I'm not interested in Iowa and NH as an issue, they are addressing that.

We shouldn't have rules that disenfranchise voters. Thomas Hynes disagrees and the chair cuts him off. Good, new questioner: (I skipped Sharon someone -- it was a waste of time.)

Don Fowler: on rules and consequences. Was any other rule not complied with by MI primary? No. this primary was fully legitimate with compliance with rules of the party. Don't insult the primary by saying that it was flawed. Applause.

Fowler also disagrees with changing the delegate apportionment. Blanchard agrees. He add, "By August, some of superdelegates may be switching back and forth." Silence in the room.

The principle is to treat the right to vote as sacred. That's what is at stake here.

The committee can do whatever it wants. But I want to make the case that 600k voters should not be ignored and the candidates who left their names on the ballot should not be punished.

Another member brings up those who didn't vote. Worst argument ever. Now this member is talking about write-in votes even though they knew they wouldn't be allowed.

Blanchard: No one said the votes wouldn't count. The leaders told people to vote. The media told them to vote uncommitted if their candidate wasn't on the ballot. They discuss fixing the write-in for the next election. [The write-ins were told not to write-in. They ignored the instructions. And they should count? ] Clinton's position: Seat all the delegates,count every vote and apportion in the manner they voted, 73 for Hillary -- give all 55 uncommitted to Obama if you must. Brazile lapses into dialect." what my mama taught me" --play by the rules. She gets big applause for that. Outrageous. She wants to count people who didn't vote and write ins for Obama. She says changing rules is cheating. No, Donna, what's cheating is Obama taking votes he didn't earn.

Blanchard: Hillary did play by the rules. She just said whatever the rules are, we'll try to win. I just want the voters to be treated fairly.

Morning Recess. Comments closed. New thread here.

< DRC Hearing Live Blog IV: Michigan Portion One | Recess and Morning Review: Reader Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Howard Wolfson on MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:04:24 PM EST
    FL compromise "might be good enough."

    FL certainly looks more hopeful than MI thus far (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by kempis on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:16:24 PM EST
    I was just about to write the same thing (none / 0) (#45)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:17:42 PM EST
    Rachel Maddow (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    saying that "Fair Reflection" might be used by Clinton campaign to not accept comm decision and go to convention.  I don't see how they can do that since they did not fight very hard in the hearing.

    Rachel Maddow always takes.... (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:14:20 PM EST
    ...whatever view of things that makes the Clinton campaign seem most devious.

    Parent
    Yes, Rachel has become a huge (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:36:01 PM EST
    disappointment since she has become part of the MSNBC family.

    Parent
    It's jaw dropping how (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Salo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:45:10 PM EST
    much the press own the party.

    It was sad to see the grey men talk about how great the primary schedule is.  It's been studied and the rules are good and scientific.lol

    Let's review the winning record of the losers that it has produced time after time.
    Bill Clinton was an absolute fluke--it's becoming clearer an clearer every day.  If Jackson had run in 1992 Bill would never have won and we'd have has Tsongas. Other than that it's a completely failed primary system.

    The gety eminences are dumb as a box of rocks.

    Parent

    Sad, but true (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by Lou Grinzo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:38:05 PM EST
    Of all the pundits and talking heads on TV and radio, none has disappointed me more during this primary season than Rachel Maddow.

    Parent
    This party process should (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Salo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:46:36 PM EST
    not include these fools. They own us. We are the hostage of the press.

    Parent
    someone should ask Bonier... (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:05:34 PM EST
    why Obama's name was on the Washington, Nebraska, and Idaho ballots ...BECAUSE THEY DIDN"T COUNT

    Excellent point (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:12:42 PM EST
    Since the man can argue for respecting the right of the people who didn't vote, and the voters who voted for Clinton because they really wanted to vote for Obama with a straight face, I'm sure he's got a really bright answer in his pocket for why he singled out the useless votes of MI to remove his name from their choice list.

    I voted in the WA primary because I expected those numbers to reflect the popular vote v. the caucus, which I was unable to attend, selecting the delegates. If Obama's name was on the ballot, I didn't notice :)


    Parent

    In Washington (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by JustJennifer on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:15:28 PM EST
    I went to caucus and didn't vote in the primary.  

    Parent
    2012 will be all mail-in (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:19:26 PM EST
    so maybe the caucuses will be history here.

    Parent
    it should be (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Salo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:50:00 PM EST
    like the French Presidential election.

    An open first stage nationally, and then narrow it down to the top two contenders and have those two duke it out four weeks (and four debates later.

    The party is a complete rube goldberg joke.  No wonder it could not compete with Reagan Bush Nixon etc.

    Parent

    I did both....caucus and vote. (none / 0) (#117)
    by oldpro on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:39:47 PM EST
    It is outrageous that Bonior (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:08:01 PM EST
    has asked for 100% strength for the Michigan SDs. I think we know why that is. (Hint: who has more SD support in MI?)

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by cmugirl on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:09:21 PM EST
    I think Clinton has more SD support in MI, but that could have changed.

    Parent
    finality (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:09:11 PM EST
    Michigan will come out with the 50% of voting strength, apportioned by the vote itself.  

    Uncomitted (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by Andy08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:10:34 PM EST
    should remain uncommitted till convention. Will they do that?

    Parent
    What a shameless lie (5.00 / 10) (#9)
    by Steve M on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:09:21 PM EST
    I still cannot believe Bonior sat there and told the committee that the four candidates removed their names out of respect for the DNC.  It's one thing if Internet commentors don't know any better, but he was Edwards' campaign manager, he knows it is an utter lie.

    He should be ashamed.  Debbie Dingell should have stood up and reminded everyone that, a mere one week before the primary, the Obama campaign ensured her he would keep his name on the ballot.  It was a stunt to delegitimize the election and help Obama in the early states, and Bonior damn well knows it.

    Exactly! (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Brookhaven on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:14:26 PM EST
    Bonior is a shameless liar.  

    Parent
    What's Good for the Goose... (none / 0) (#166)
    by Spike on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:48:52 PM EST
    "Bonior is a shameless liar."

    If you claim that Bonior is a liar, then the same must be true for Hillary Clinton. She said it didn't matter if she didn't take her name off the ballot in Michigan because it wouldn't count anyway. Either she was lying when she originally made the comment or lying when she later claimed that the votes had to be counted. Which is it?

    Parent

    Uh (5.00 / 3) (#201)
    by Steve M on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:59:06 PM EST
    If you want to try and play games with Hillary's truncated quote to try and change the subject, you will have to do that on your own.

    Do you agree that Bonior lied?  Yes or no.  If you'd rather talk about something else, respond to someone else's comment.

    Parent

    except that at the same time... (5.00 / 2) (#207)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:17:45 PM EST
    she said that, she said that the delegations would be seated.

    OF course, $4.00/trolls keep forgetting that...

    Parent

    Do you thing the committee (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:14:44 PM EST
    is that easy to snow? They (at least those who support Clinton) seem to be calling BS on these crazy arguments.


    Parent
    One of the other people on the RBC (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by janarchy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:20:22 PM EST
    I think it was Elizabeth Smith, pointed out about the ballot thing and said it was voluntary. Bonior didn't respond.

    Parent
    So (1.00 / 1) (#54)
    by brad12345 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:19:53 PM EST
    Edwards and Richardson removed their names because they wanted to help Obama win early states?  You can't possibly believe that.

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 5) (#64)
    by Steve M on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:22:11 PM EST
    Of course I don't believe that.  Are you seriously going to argue Bonior was telling the truth?

    Like I said, there is an excuse for uninformed Internet commentors to believe what he said.  There is NO EXCUSE for John Edwards' campaign manager to sit there and lie like that.  He knows exactly what happened.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by andrewwm on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:28:17 PM EST
    it was gamesmanship by candidates that had to respond to the fact that they knew Clinton was going to try and make something out of a Michigan win despite the fact it wasn't supposed to count and they couldn't compete there.

    The spirit of the DNC rules were to make Michigan not count (again, rightly or wrongly). The only way to make Michigan not count was to make it obviously an unfair election.

    Parent

    Steve....I believe your argument might be (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:34:51 PM EST
    wasted on brad12345...he is a lurker who likes to give troll ratings to Hillary supporters on here...your guess is as good as mine as to what he is up to...and I know what my guess is.

    Parent
    Edwards and Obama have a synergy (5.00 / 3) (#193)
    by Salo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:53:47 PM EST
    that probably crossed over into collusion. I say that as a supporter of Edwards.

    They were making sure Clinton was boxed in. No doubt about it. Although I also think Clinton was connected loosely to the move-up in Michigan.  

    What I can't stand is these tools like Andrea Mirtchell telling us how to run our party.  These fools need to be removed from the scales.

    Parent

    It was strategic ... (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by santarita on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:30:39 PM EST
    on the part of the campaigns and not because they wanted to honor the Rules Committee.  

    Poor strategy on their parts.  They wanted to game the system.

    Parent

    But... (none / 0) (#77)
    by andrewwm on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:25:59 PM EST
    given that they couldn't campaign there and Clinton would win anyway due to name recognition, from their perspective it was an unfair election because of the actions of the DNC.

    Actually treating the elections as real elections would have gone against the letter and spirit of the DNC rules committee decision (whatever you think about the rullng itself).

    Parent

    Sure (5.00 / 5) (#90)
    by Steve M on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:30:34 PM EST
    and so they did their best to delegitimize the election by taking their names off the ballot.

    I am pragmatic enough to understand the difficult position Obama and the other candidates were in with respect to Michigan.

    But my point here is that Bonior lied.  Flat-out lied.

    Parent

    Are you honestly trying to argue (5.00 / 5) (#92)
    by janarchy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:31:11 PM EST
    that no one in Michigan, the state adjoining Illinois, didn't know who Barack Obama was? Especially when John Conyers and his wife were advocating people to vote uncommitted as soon as Obama took his name off the ballot?

    Parent
    I'm not saying no one did (none / 0) (#109)
    by andrewwm on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:38:02 PM EST
    But if you took a poll of name recognition in Michigan on January 15th you better bet that Clinton would have won.

    In particular, it would have been grossly unfair to John Edwards and the minor candidates, and moderately unfair to Obama.

    You'll note that in most states post-Super Tuesday the longer Obama campaigned, the better he did. This phenomenon faded somewhat after TX/OH, but most certainly would have been the case in Michigan back in January.

    Parent

    Wouldn't the same have been true (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by cmugirl on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:43:54 PM EST
    of voters in Iowa before January 3rd?  Yet, Obama still won.  

    This is not a serious argument.

    Parent

    Uh (none / 0) (#162)
    by andrewwm on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:48:37 PM EST
    the difference, of course, being that he was allowed to campaign in Iowa, but was not allowed to do so in MI.

    Allowed to campaign = win
    Not allowed to campaign = lose

    It's obviously a little harder to tell how he would have done if the rules had allowed him to campaign, but he almost certainly would have kept Clinton under 55%.

    Parent

    Uhm, excuse me... (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:47:14 PM EST
    But John Edwards was our VP nominee just 4 years ago, I have a feeling that anyone politically active enough to vote in a primary had probably heard of him.  Obama had won Iowa, and was front page press for almost two weeks before the election.

    Anyone dedicated to Primary politics was going to recognize every name on the ballot, with the possible exception of Gravel.  And let's not forget the multiple debates on multiple National channels that voters in MI more than likely watched.  Name recognition as a lame argument is only outpaced by the newest argument, that non-voters should be considered as important as people who actually came out to vote.

    Jackson

    Parent

    You give voters way too much credit (none / 0) (#194)
    by andrewwm on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:55:39 PM EST
    Lots of voters are low-information. Poll after poll demonstrates this. Especially in a primary campaign.

    And additionally, name recognition isn't just having heard their name. It's being familiar with someone. Obama, Richardson, etc. at that point were still relatively unknown quantities to most voters outside of Iowa and New Hampshire while significantly more voters were very familiar with Clinton.

    Parent

    No they weren't any more familiar with (5.00 / 3) (#206)
    by tree on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:15:23 PM EST
    Clinton than they were with Obama. She may have had more name recognition, but name recognition does not equal "familiarity", nor does it equal acceptance. Clinton  has had some very high negative favorability ratings. Its quite likely that Michigan voters had no greater "familiarity" with Clinton than with Obama or Edwards. Obama was the US Senator from an adjacent state. Edwards had been the Vice Presidential nominee four years ago.  

    If name recognition was all that was necessary to win then George Bush could have won the Michigan Democratic. Its a silly argument, especially since there had been considerable news coverage of all the candidates and their debates in the weeks prior to the election.  

    Parent

    Jaysus.. (5.00 / 9) (#12)
    by JustJennifer on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:09:58 PM EST
    This is very frustrating.  Why on earth are they talking about the "intentions" of people who voted uncommitted or (and they finally mentioned it) the Democrats who voted in the Republican primary?  How about we get a psychic up there and they can tell us what the voters really meant when they voted?  I can't believe I am watching my party talk about manipulating the votes based on what they perceive to be their intent.

    Maybe (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by janarchy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:12:18 PM EST
    they can go with ouija boards and tea leaves and reading of entrails to determine the percentages.

    It's unbelievable to me that they really are asking for this with straight faces and claiming they KNOW that x amount of people would have or should have been able to or whatever.

    It's a joke.

    Parent

    Whose entrails? (5.00 / 0) (#124)
    by magisterludi on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:41:38 PM EST
    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:48:41 PM EST
    It is a voodoo reference, not some kind of threat.

    Jackson

    Parent

    lol...maybe the person who wants the (none / 0) (#177)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:50:13 PM EST
    uncommitted pledged to him, should be the one to offer them up for use magisterludi... :)

    Parent
    Or Maybe... (none / 0) (#192)
    by Spike on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:53:13 PM EST
    ...glass beads?

    Parent
    Yeh, now we have W.U.R.M. (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by Cream City on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:41:05 PM EST
    -- What the Uncommitted Really Meant.  What next?

    Today really seals the deal for me -- the Dems are fools, and I can see why voters will say that if they can't run their party, they can't run the country.

    We've even got RBC members uncomfortable with calling legal and certified primaries as primaries.  No, now they're "events."  So now the Dem leaders are just "event planners"?  They can't even start this "event" on time or keep it running on time.  This does not instill any confidence that they can run the country.  

    No wonder the networks are broadcasting this -- it is electing President McCain.  And remember, this meeting wouldn't have had to happen if Obama had not blocked revotes.  He reaps, he sows.

    Parent

    And Average Citizen (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:43:01 PM EST
    in Peoria who isn't partisan is going to say, who is more competent?

    And the answer won't be "the Democrat".

    Parent

    I'm already (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by janarchy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:44:03 PM EST
    cataloging the soundbites the Republicans will be using in their 527s in the fall if Obama is the nominee. Wexler: first he was for counting the votes, then he was against counting the votes. No one was more for counting the votes of the people of Florida (cue dramatic music) until it didn't work for his candidate...

    They also will be throwing up the fact that the DNC wants to give back votes for people who did not vote etc. Because they'll say they should give it to everyone and throw up the whole dead people in IL etc. Vote early, vote often...or don't vote at all. We'll make up your mind for you!

    Parent

    And Wexler just scripted ads against him (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Cream City on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:52:04 PM EST
    that he can expect to see.  And he will deserve every one of them.

    Parent
    They will not (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:10:25 PM EST
    go with the Brewer allocation.

    I am betting they seat the delegation at 100% and uncommitted stays uncommitted.

    There is no chance of that happening. (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by KristenWinters on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:21:15 PM EST
    None.

    Parent
    Gotta love (5.00 / 8) (#16)
    by stillife on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:10:41 PM EST
    Bonior and other Obama supporters (including Brazile) speaking on behalf of those who didn't vote.  Hey, plenty of folks couldn't vote in the caucuses, but I don't hear the Obama camp speaking up for them!

    Excellent point! (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:12:34 PM EST
    I can't even listen to Brazile any more.  It is clear she now has a GIGANTIC chip on her shoulder and guess whose fault it is -  us - she hates Clinton supporters more than Clinton.

    Parent
    Well... (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:15:43 PM EST
    it is more than God D*amned mutual.  I'm actually feeling better about the hearing, but if she has her way then bye bye Unity.

    Jackson

    Parent

    When I called the DNC to cancel (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by esmense on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:44:54 PM EST
    my monthly contribution, I was asked why -- I said, among other things, "Brazile." The woman on the other end of the phone sighed in a way that led me to believe she had heard the same response very often. I'm sure Donna is quite defensive about how she has contributed to the disunity in the Democratic party -- and of course wants to blame everyone but herself.

    Parent
    yep--and the assumption that non-voters (5.00 / 7) (#50)
    by kempis on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:18:45 PM EST
    all would have voted for Obama is bizarre to me.

    Or are Obama-supporters going to make that argument in November? All the people who don't vote in the General Election surely mean to vote for Obama?

    Parent

    Recent exit polls have shown (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by nycstray on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:22:55 PM EST
    many believe Obama we be the nom, BUT they still voted for Clinton. And she won a few of those states. So making assumptions based on non-voters is well . . .

    Parent
    It's Brilliant (5.00 / 7) (#72)
    by sumac on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:24:33 PM EST
    Maybe that's his campaign strategy for the GE:

    if you want Obama to be President, DON'T VOTE.

    He'll win in a landslide.

    Parent

    Of course he will..... (5.00 / 6) (#80)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:27:19 PM EST
    ...he can get all the nonvoters, which in this country generally exceeds the voters. And of course, they don't need to be registered either because to require such would be to disenfranchise them!

    Parent
    Bonior says we need to respect (5.00 / 9) (#17)
    by akaEloise on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:10:47 PM EST
    those Democrats who crossed over to vote in the GOP primary in Michigan since their candidate was not on the Democratic ballot.  I think he's nuts.  Neither party should condone that kind of interference in the other party's nominating process.

    I agree! (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by JustJennifer on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:12:12 PM EST
    Crossing over to mess with a primary is disrespectful and we should never condone or approve of it in any way.

    Parent
    Aren't you supposed to vote in good faith (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by nycstray on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:12:25 PM EST
    and not mess with the other party?

    Parent
    that was the most egregiously idiotic statement (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:12:48 PM EST
    to me, even worse than those statements about nonvoters...

    bananas, anyone?

    Parent

    The problem is (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by madamab on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:16:37 PM EST
    that Obama supporters like Kos actually advocated messing with the Republicans' primaries.

    Parent
    Kos (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by JustJennifer on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:18:05 PM EST
    Shame on him for being so full of himself that he advocated for people to act in such a way.  

    Parent
    No sympathy for people who follow Kos, (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:19:50 PM EST
    Rush Limbaugh, or any commentator on voting for someone other than one's party.

    Cross over-- mess with the oppo... well, there are consequences.

    Parent

    I agree... (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by madamab on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:22:38 PM EST
    I leave that kind of crap to the Republicans.

    Personally, I respect the privilege of voting far too much to treat it that way.

    Parent

    Kos was wrong to do so (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by akaEloise on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:24:01 PM EST
    But he is a private citizen with no standing in the Democratic Party (despite what some of his boosters might feel).  It would be much worse for the Party to endorse that kind of thing in any official sense.  

    Parent
    So in the same vein, Barack Obama, a private (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by zfran on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:42:16 PM EST
    citizen who told people to be a "democrat for a day" but does have standing in the Democratic Party is valid.

    Parent
    Maybe the committee (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by cmugirl on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:11:18 PM EST
    should consider things like this:

    From Rasmussen

    "Obama's numbers are 45% favorable and 53% unfavorable (see recent daily ratings). Those figures represent Obama's lowest ratings of the year. His favorability ratings peaked at 56% in mid-February. Twenty-five percent (25%) have a Very Favorable opinion of Obama while 37% have a Very Unfavorable view.

    Voters see McCain as the candidate most likely to reach across party lines and work effectively with both Republicans and Democrats. "

    McCain (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by madamab on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:12:25 PM EST
    actually has a record of doing what Obama says he's going to do.

    So does Clinton.

    Interesting, eh?

    Parent

    Only way they'll consider that (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by RalphB on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:14:34 PM EST
    is if they want to win.  I'm not convinced of that.

    Parent
    the thing is the obama campaign doesn't (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by hellothere on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:16:08 PM EST
    act to me as if they plan on winning in november. their actions say we want the nomination and of course they'll just give the presidency to us because we aren't bush. good luck with that!

    Parent
    Troubling polls (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Davidson on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:43:26 PM EST
    According to Rasmussen, McCain beats Obama on two supposedly "winning" Democratic issues: the economy and Iraq.  And this is before the GOP has even put him in their cross-hairs and with the media currently going all-out to prop him up.

    Parent
    Just wait (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Lou Grinzo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:43:49 PM EST
    Assuming he is the nominee, what do you think his numbers will look like after the Republicans and their 527's spend the GE cycle hammering him?

    Parent
    TINA!!!!! (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:14:13 PM EST


    I'd say the Obama's MI proposals are outrageous. (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by kempis on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:14:39 PM EST
    What the heck? Is this a Banana Republic? We're giving votes to people who aren't on the ballot?

    Tina rocks! (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:14:55 PM EST


    Hear hear, Ms. Flournoy! (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:15:18 PM EST


    This formula nonsense over a fresh revote ... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Ellie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:15:36 PM EST
    is simply obscene.

    agree. and a tad bit insane. (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by nycstray on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:18:36 PM EST
    Seating in full (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by zebedee on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:18:24 PM EST
    Bonnier says they supporting seating full delegates for MI (presumably irrelevant with 64-64). This undermines their 50% position for FL

    Totally (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:19:39 PM EST
    The Super Delegate discrepancy doesn't (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:21:03 PM EST
    make any sense at all.

    Parent
    and as you mentioned (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:25:50 PM EST
    supporting full seating in MI but not in FL makes no sense.

    Parent
    I am so freaking annoyed (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by madamab on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:30:33 PM EST
    that they didn't do the re-votes, at the VERY LEAST in MI. All this drama is just ridiculous.

    I was so 100% with you on that one, BTD.

    Parent

    And who was it (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by janarchy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:32:30 PM EST
    that opposed the revote in Michigan?

    Parent
    I know, I know. (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by madamab on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:36:55 PM EST
    [grits teeth]

    Parent
    WTF (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:23:52 PM EST
    Hey, I'm sleep deprived, so maybe I'm not getting it, but wasn't Florida more of a real contest (all candidates on the ballot and so forth) than Michigan?  If I'm reading that right he did just undercut Obama quite badly, because if you seat MI in full you have to, at least morally, seat Florida in full as well.

    At least Bonior isn't screaming like some madman, or he wasn't the last time I saw him.

    Jackson

    Parent

    Bonior is Divisive (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by santarita on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:34:35 PM EST
    Trying somehow to blame Hillary's statement on NH NPR for causing people not to vote in Michigan.  Come on!

    Parent
    To clarify... (5.00 / 0) (#113)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:38:50 PM EST
    my comment was more of a shot at Wexler than it was a compliment of Bonior.

    Jackson

    Parent

    Flawed strategy. I love it. (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:21:48 PM EST


    Nice (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:22:14 PM EST
    Heh ... Oh no he didden! (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by Ellie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:22:52 PM EST
    It wasn't a flawed primary, but a flawed strategy!

    The Great Lakes? (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by stillife on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:26:18 PM EST
    I thought they were in Oregon!

    Her two spokespersons have talked about (5.00 / 6) (#82)
    by Teresa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:27:43 PM EST
    the voters. One even promises vigorous campaigning for Obama if he wins. Obama's spokesmen have campaigned for Obama and slandered Hillary by misstating her positions.

    Are you surprised? (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:31:16 PM EST
    Rhetorical question.

    Parent
    Upsetting Clinton voters (5.00 / 5) (#85)
    by zebedee on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:28:32 PM EST
    They should also be making the point that (given Obama is probable nominee) the people you have to be most careful to avoid upsetting is the 55% who voted for Clinton, as the HRC voters are the most vulnerable in terms of coming out for the Dems.

    Nice speech by Blanchard (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by stillife on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:28:53 PM EST
    Particularly his pointed remarks about winning in November.

    Excellent (5.00 / 6) (#87)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:30:07 PM EST
    Seat the delegates 73-55.

    I think the 55 should go to the convention uncommitted.  However, this works for me.

    Obama supporter asks should we have rules? (5.00 / 5) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:33:09 PM EST
    My answer would have been ONLY if you actually enforce them.

    No no, he asked about the ROOLZ, (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:35:40 PM EST
    not the rules.

    Parent
    You know (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:36:44 PM EST
    I had heard Blanchard was a dim bulb. Seems pretty sharp to me.

    Parent
    I heard that people who have problems (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:37:50 PM EST
    with him over other ISSUES think he is dim.

    Parent
    I had heard the same thing, BTD (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by janarchy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:39:06 PM EST
    He's really been surprising this morning. It's actually a relief.

    Parent
    It is because (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by JimWash08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:44:14 PM EST
    he loves to make his arguments and counter-points in a roundabout way, which is what we witnessed in the earlier part of his message.

    Parent
    Correct (5.00 / 5) (#111)
    by Steve M on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:38:15 PM EST
    Michigan agreed to a schedule with the understanding that all 50 states would have to follow the schedule, not that some would and some wouldn't according to the DNC's arbitrary discretion.

    Parent
    Blanchard is destroying Hynes (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:33:13 PM EST
    The ref should stop this right now.

    Total destruction.

    Utter demolition (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:34:13 PM EST
    Hynes better stop now or else he is going to totally self-destruct in front of the nation.

    Parent
    Bravo, Blanchard! (5.00 / 7) (#102)
    by madamab on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:34:54 PM EST
    He doesn't agree primary was flawed. It was a primary that our party leaders helped establish. They shouldn't have allowed people to remove their names. 5,000 open polling places and 600,000 votes. They had a flawed strategy. They could have left their name on the ballot. People were following this electon.

    Yay!

    No reward for trying to game the system. If the votes didn't count, fine, but at least the candidates could have given their supporters the chance to vote for them! Then, the problem would have rested entirely with the DNC.

    exactly! (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Josey on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:41:30 PM EST
    Great Answers (5.00 / 5) (#105)
    by cdalygo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:36:32 PM EST
    Blanchard gets his points across with humor and grace.

    Of course, he probably got to eat unlike committee. But that's fitting punishment for their ineptness.

    Let them eat waffles (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by stillife on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:40:51 PM EST
    I think the Hillary people have done very well. (5.00 / 7) (#112)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:38:39 PM EST
    They have argued simply for the people.  The BO people have argued for the rulz.

    Fowler invokes the Rules (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:39:11 PM EST
    What do you know about that?

    Allen Katz of FL (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:42:15 PM EST
    argues against FL.

    Parent
    These pleas about apportioning delegates ... (5.00 / 4) (#116)
    by Ellie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:39:26 PM EST
    ... because Obama took his name off the ballot, but campaigned for "his" voters to vote Uncommitted, don't wash in the face of leaving it on ballots for other states that 'didn't count.'

    Also, playing up Fair Reflection seems ridiculous in the face of Obama using strategies like Dems a Day* that were implicitly used to thwart Fair Reflection.

    * also gaming the caucus process and impeding access went against Fair Reflection.

    Woo! (5.00 / 6) (#118)
    by stillife on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:39:57 PM EST
    Loved Blanchard's crack about SD's switching before August.  

    I totally missed that (none / 0) (#148)
    by JimWash08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:45:49 PM EST
    but I caught the last bit.

    Would you humor me and flesh it out for me?
    It sounds like something I have also believed and would be interested in hearing...

    Thanks.

    Parent

    Fowler destroys Obama position (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:40:32 PM EST
    Blanchard and Fowler have completely cleaned the clock of the Obama people. Wipeout.

    I like the idea of saying (5.00 / 7) (#123)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:41:36 PM EST
    If you're going to run for president as a Democrat, you CAN'T take your name off the ballot in any state.

    This gaming stuff is WRONG.  Keeping people from voting for you in one state to win favor in another state is unethical, dirty politics.

    It is Florida 2000 (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by cdalygo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:42:11 PM EST
    The same result happens here. Stealing votes from Clinton is equivalent to turning voters away from polls.

    Blanchard is very effective (5.00 / 7) (#132)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:43:34 PM EST


    This point about being penalized (5.00 / 4) (#136)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:43:56 PM EST
    for not voting is moot, it seems to me. Obama had the opportunity to participate in a revote, and he blocked it. Any other proposition is a lie.

    Not voting (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by stillife on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:44:57 PM EST
    is the new voting.  Voting is so 2000.

    Parent
    Not voting (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by stillife on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:45:06 PM EST
    is the new voting.  Voting is so 2000.

    Parent
    Yes, it is a weak canard (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:45:47 PM EST
    And as you said about revotes, totally irrelevant.

    This is what we thought it would be: A CYA attempt -- and a poor one -- by the Obama backers on the Committee.

    Thank goodness this is all one tape.

    Parent

    Hey hey Paul (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by DFLer on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:58:51 PM EST
    perhaps you didn't see the comment from jeralyn, but she asked you not to attach your website to your comments as it can be found on your profile, and is distracting.

    (yeah, I know...who made me site cop?...just saying cause J and BTD are pretty busy.)

    Parent

    Not to mention (5.00 / 5) (#147)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:45:49 PM EST
    there are many people every election that do not vote. Are we now to consider their intent all the time?

    And are we supposed to change the rules about write in votes just because Obamabots couln't figure out to pay attention to the info that was out there?

    Parent

    Yes. This way if the youth don't vote (5.00 / 7) (#164)
    by nycstray on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:48:43 PM EST
    in Nov, they can still count them  ;)

    Parent
    Oh, I don't know, I kind of like this nonvoting (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by Valhalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:50:46 PM EST
    thing.  I'm going to be a nonvoter for Obama in the fall, so shouldn't my nonvote count for Clinton?

    Parent
    Lord, can you imagine this arguing for (5.00 / 5) (#139)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:44:36 PM EST
    non-voters?  Unbelievable.

    Every group has to have one oddity (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:49:43 PM EST
    but, this committee does seem to have more than their fair share.

    Donna Brazile is back at the microphone! Another Obama argument.


    Parent

    Not penalizing non voters (5.00 / 8) (#144)
    by Coldblue on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:45:33 PM EST
    is just about the most ridiculous position I've heard throughout this meeting.

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#190)
    by cmugirl on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:52:57 PM EST
    If that's the Obama camp's message -that we need to consider non-voters, let's look at this:
    According to the 2006 census, Michigan had 10,000,000 people (+/-).  Of that, 24.6%, or 2,460,000 were over 18 and eligible to vote. Of that, 600,000 voted in the Democratic primary and 869,000 voted in the Republican primary. That theoretically leaves 2.3 million people who could have been eligible to vote but didn't.  So does Obama get all their votes too?

    Parent
    Blanchard is awesome (5.00 / 5) (#145)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:45:38 PM EST
    Can he run for president? ;-).  He might be my write-in candidate.

    Clark (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:46:24 PM EST
    Interesting how she is now trying to change yet another rule, as long as rules are on the table. Write-in votes would not count was a different state rule, and that's ridiculous.

    I know if I were to write-in a vote and then find out it couldn't be counted, I would have to consider it my bad luck.

    Not to mention (5.00 / 4) (#165)
    by janarchy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:48:49 PM EST
    sometimes people write in candidates names not on the ballot for the sake of protest. So do we take it seriously if there are votes for Mickey Mouse,  Charlie Brown, Cruella De Ville or someone else who actually exists?

    "Look, 10,000 people voted for Brad Pitt! Someone tell him he's the state's nominee". Sheesh.

    Parent

    Arguing for write ins, lol!~ (5.00 / 4) (#151)
    by nycstray on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:46:41 PM EST
    That could backfire in Nov.

    Donna laments (5.00 / 4) (#161)
    by Coldblue on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:48:35 PM EST
    about Michigan election rules. How ironic.

    Parent
    Donna Brazile (5.00 / 11) (#152)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:47:10 PM EST
    Booo! Hissss!!!

    Shut up donna.

    there is no more divisive figure in this process than Donna Brazile.

    Shut up!! (5.00 / 4) (#167)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:48:56 PM EST
    donna. Please disappear forever.

    Parent
    Play by the roolz (5.00 / 4) (#173)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:49:55 PM EST
    Except if you are New Hampshire, in which case you can do what you want.

    Parent
    Cheating!!! (5.00 / 6) (#197)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:57:44 PM EST
    What a disgraceful person.

    Donna Brazile needs to disappear from the Democratic scene.

    Parent

    ROOOOOLZ!!!!!!!!! (5.00 / 3) (#175)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:50:04 PM EST
    No, no (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:51:10 PM EST
    she's there in the spirit of unity.

    Did you see the eyes roll when she tried to call the Clinton group cheaters?

    Parent

    Donna, doesn't think white people can be (5.00 / 5) (#154)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:47:15 PM EST
    disenfranchised.

    Sit down Brazile and Shut Up (5.00 / 5) (#155)
    by cdalygo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:47:31 PM EST
    You embarrass yourself by reminding everyone how badly you handled Florida in 2000.

    Quit assuming that those 30,000 write ins were all for Obama.

    Ewwww (5.00 / 6) (#156)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:47:51 PM EST
    Mute button!  Donna Brazille.  Ick-yuck!

    She's was also not a proponent of counting votes in 2000.  She cherry-picked counties to count when the whole state should have been counted.

    Oh, no! (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by stillife on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:49:43 PM EST
    now she's talking about what her momma taught her. Sounds like she got a few boos.

    Ugh, the roolz.  Glad she got some boos.

    Parent

    No one has done more (5.00 / 7) (#157)
    by stillife on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:48:02 PM EST
    for non-voters than Barack Obama!

    Its ridiculous to assume that people who... (5.00 / 4) (#158)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:48:18 PM EST
    ...wrote in a candidate did so because they didn't know to vote uncommitted. Obama side wants to be mind readers on voter's intents when it suits them. Frankly when I hear the Obama side's arguments what they persuade me to advocate is that Michigan not be counted at all. Too FUBAR. Too many rules broken.

    "intent to vote" (5.00 / 7) (#159)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:48:27 PM EST
    now is receiving status and consideration.  So, will Hillary get all the voters who intended to attend caucuses?

    Brazile trying to buck-up Katz (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:48:28 PM EST
    Not effective, not going to work on the PR front, Donna.

    You have a losing argument, and you know it. Obama is going to be illegitimate, despite your and the Effete Dem Elite's attempts to alter that correct perception.

    The fact that (5.00 / 4) (#168)
    by JimWash08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:49:06 PM EST
    Donna Brazille questions those speaking for the Clinton campaign speaks volumes to who she's going to endorse.

    Where, and how, does she get off by going on multiple news show panels and call herself an "Uncommitted Superdelegate?"

    Her op-ed in the Washington Times recently infuriated me, and I would implore anyone on the DNC to ask her to step down.

    That's the heading given to the (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:56:45 PM EST
    committee members who have not formally announced.

    Donna doesn't pretend she isn't an Obama supporter, she's simply saving her endorsement until she thinks she and he will both get the most mileage out of it.

    She officially calls herself "undeclared" but admits she is decided.

    Parent

    Donna indicates that (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:49:38 PM EST
    she will support seating delegates. But she's going to fall back on the ROOLZ.

    Brazille - Disenfranchise (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by Robert Oak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:49:45 PM EST
    Disenfranchised oops, can't use that word.  Oh, now we need a Political compromise.

    Look at her ripping the Clinton representative.  She should be disqualified to be on this committee.  

    Brazile is a hack. her momma? (5.00 / 4) (#178)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:50:17 PM EST
    Shut up, Donna.  Who the hell is clapping for this fool?

    LOL. Donna Brazile is the main reason why... (5.00 / 3) (#187)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:51:37 PM EST
    ...I'm glad I'm not an Obama supporter. I can't imagine feeling like I have to support the crap that comes out of her mouth.

    Parent
    Another angry Obama supporter moment. (5.00 / 4) (#179)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:50:30 PM EST
    She is an embarrassment. Uncommitted my a$$. Just accused us of cheating. She really wants me to quit the party.

    Donna's spirit of unity (5.00 / 6) (#180)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:50:30 PM EST
    tells us we are "cheating".  Case closed.  

    So there goes Donna again (5.00 / 3) (#181)
    by janarchy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:50:31 PM EST
    Did someone in the audience just say "I got a word for your momma" when she started to invoke her momma and teh ROOLZ?

    I also cannot believe she just started throwing up "cheating".

    i wish the audience would shut up (5.00 / 4) (#183)
    by hitchhiker on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:50:46 PM EST
    this might actually turn into an adult conversation.

    brazile just accused the clinton people of cheating.

    used that word . . . "cheating."

    what nerve.

    Brazile is ruining her future (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:50:52 PM EST
    She is destroying herself and is now being booed again, correctly.

    She is done after Obama loses, and rightfully so.

    Bringing up 'cheating,' booed again.

    Now trying to play 'unity' after playing 'cheating' card.

    Totally embarrassing.

    Cheating? Counting the votes is cheating? (5.00 / 5) (#186)
    by Teresa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:51:19 PM EST
    Donna, one of us is going to have to leave this party because I don't share any values with you.

    DUCK! Donna's throwing her Mama at the DNC (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Ellie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:52:32 PM EST
    This is going to get me deleted, but if dwarf throwing was rightly rendered illegal as a sport, then Team Obama should be chastised for this riotous Mama Throwing.

    Counting the votes of the voters who didn't vote (5.00 / 7) (#191)
    by joanneleon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:53:12 PM EST
    That's seriously what Donna Brazile (and others) are saying needs to happen.

    They actually want to create votes that were not cast.

    But (5.00 / 5) (#198)
    by janarchy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:58:06 PM EST
    that is not "cheating" right?

    Really, someone needs to sit down and explain reality to Prima Donna. Not that I think it would sink in to her thick head.

    Parent

    michigan voters = michigan non-voters? (5.00 / 4) (#195)
    by hitchhiker on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:56:01 PM EST
    well, this is clearly a new era in democratic politics.

    C-Span has numbers up for calling in! (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by nycstray on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:58:27 PM EST
    202 585-3885 Clinton
    202 585-3886 Obama
    202 585-3887 All others

    I bought a new TV yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by akaEloise on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:00:27 PM EST
    So it would be a really embarrassing time to throw my TV through the window.  That's why I turned it off when Donna came on.

    Cheating (5.00 / 3) (#203)
    by Robert Oak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:11:15 PM EST
    Brazille should be out period.  Cheating, that is just beyond the pale.  How many Clinton voters didn't come out.

    The obvious answer should have been a redo of the entire primary but no, they couldn't do that.

    So to me they should see FL as is, both on the ballot, done deal and demand an entire new primary in Michigan.

    Let Michigan put the final decision on this and demand a new primary.

    There is one thing certain, I feel the Obama's campaign behavior in all of this will guarantee a loss in the general if he is the nominee.

    C-SPAN is fuzzing out for me too (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:03:15 PM EST
    but not completely gone--and I'm in the center of the storm.

    we're in a storm break. (none / 0) (#5)
    by nycstray on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:07:40 PM EST
    If what they said yesterday is true, things are going to get worse later here. My poor doggie hates thunder  :(

    Parent
    Wolfson, what is (none / 0) (#10)
    by Andy08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:09:45 PM EST
    he saying???

    Can someone tell me is there (none / 0) (#11)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:09:53 PM EST
    a CSPAN link?

    cnn is streaming it live (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:12:56 PM EST
    the link is on their home page

    Parent
    Here is a link (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by splashy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:14:00 PM EST
    C-Span fine for me (none / 0) (#13)
    by splashy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:10:13 PM EST
    With Dishnetwork. Sorry about those with problems.

    It's my cable company (none / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:12:33 PM EST
    that's getting a cruddy feed from its dish. . .

    Parent
    The DC Rainstorm (none / 0) (#31)
    by JimWash08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:14:23 PM EST
    has pretty much cleared up now.

    I live right on the same street as where the meeting is take place.

    Transmission should be clearing up now.

    Governor Blanchard (none / 0) (#44)
    by Steve M on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:17:18 PM EST
    Looks so much older!  I haven't seen him since I was in college.

    I was just thinking that. N/T (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by LoisInCo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:18:16 PM EST
    He is giving an excellent presentation (5.00 / 7) (#70)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:23:59 PM EST
    I especially like that he has documents to prove those who removed their names did so at their own risk, and that once they became "uncommitted", they actually campaigned in the state, which was against the rules.

    Parent
    Personal note (none / 0) (#55)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:20:00 PM EST
    My son was on a Little League with one of Roosevelt's brother's sons, I guess, I swear they are clones, dead ringers.  Some families are just like that.  

    I liked Blanchard's (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by riddlerandy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:21:06 PM EST
    note that his mother's first vote was for FDR

    Parent
    Blanchard going on about his mom and his life (none / 0) (#57)
    by akaEloise on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:20:36 PM EST
    His digressions can't be going down too well to the hungry people in the room.

    Blanchard needs to get (none / 0) (#58)
    by JimWash08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:20:39 PM EST
    to his point really quickly now.

    I'm getting confused now.

    Was Blanchard's comments on his.... (none / 0) (#59)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:20:48 PM EST
    ...humble beginnigs a rebuke to white entitlement? That was a bit odd.

    Just sayin' Obama's not unique? (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by nycstray on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:25:14 PM EST
    And his is prob closer to the truth. . . .  

    Parent
    Headline from Michigan Hearing So Far (none / 0) (#73)
    by KristenWinters on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:25:01 PM EST
    Levin:

    "You're asking for a fair reflection of a flawed election."

    If it's a flawed election (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:25:58 PM EST
    Then Obama is a flawed candidate.


    Parent
    Counter Headline (5.00 / 8) (#79)
    by JimWash08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:26:31 PM EST
    "It wasn't a flawed election; It was a flawed strategy."

    Parent
    So Obama should have wanted a revote? ;) (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by nycstray on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:28:18 PM EST
    What Levin was truly saying was: (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:30:10 PM EST
    this was a flawed election, therefore, I'm presenting a flawed solution, and that's what is fair. The World According to Obama.

    Parent
    "The World According to Obama", a (none / 0) (#205)
    by zfran on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:12:49 PM EST
    flawed candidate!!!!!

    Parent
    Check different sites (none / 0) (#81)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:27:28 PM EST
    There are lots of different headlines.

    Parent
    They are really starting to look (none / 0) (#95)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:32:41 PM EST
    like they can't listen one more minute. They should have taken their lunch break before Blanchard. He's not getting their full attention.


    This is crap. (none / 0) (#128)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:42:27 PM EST


    Alan Katz ineffectual (none / 0) (#129)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:42:53 PM EST
    His arguments are non-persuasive. All he needs is the fist-pounding to be Wexler.

    Weak sauce by Katz

    His argument: (none / 0) (#134)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:43:50 PM EST
    "WE decided to screw Michigan. We did."

    We know -- and you're wrong, Alan. Not going to get it done, your weak attempts.

    Parent

    The Roolz (none / 0) (#176)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:50:08 PM EST