home

Recess and Morning Review: Reader Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:55:40 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

They will reconvene at 4:15 pm for extended debate.

Here's a thread to review this mornings events.

Update: Here's the link for BTD and my afternoon live-blog. It won't work until 4:15 pm. Back From Ohio will continuing blogging from the meeting room here.

< DRC Hearing Live Blog V: Michigan Portion Two | DNC Rules Meeting: On Scene Live-Blog >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Recess and Morning Review: Reader Thread | 295 comments (295 topical)
    Donna Brazille (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:59:27 PM EST
    Thinks she's a blogger.

    No.  I should be more specific.  A dailykos blogger.

    It's all about the "smackdown" "trashtalk" for her at this point.

    If I was a republican, I'd give thanks to any higher powers for Donna Brazille.

    Donna is a caricature of herself (5.00 / 8) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:00:31 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Accusing the Clinton campaign of cheating (5.00 / 4) (#212)
    by joanneleon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:52:47 PM EST
    or of having the intent to cheat, was absolutely over the top and completely inappropriate for a member of the DNC leadership.  She should be held accountable for that, and in fact, should resign her position.  She has clearly become too biased and emotional to be effective as a decision maker in the DNC.  

    [ Parent ]
    and yet (5.00 / 3) (#229)
    by Lahdee on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:57:45 PM EST
    she is proclaimed "uncommitted."
    Baloney.

    [ Parent ]
    She's grandstanding and waiting for her (5.00 / 2) (#242)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:02:27 PM EST
    big moment to announce officially for Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    You're seeing how Obama-mania can change people (none / 0) (#198)
    by prittfumes on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:49:40 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Prima Donna (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by janarchy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:01:07 PM EST
    the gift that keeps on giving...to the RNC.

    If she's the mouthpiece of the DNC, I'm so outta there.

    [ Parent ]

    I may write Donna Brazile (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by Valhalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:10:07 PM EST
    and ask how I, too, can get a job where astounding failure is rewarded time and again.

    'Cuz where I work, it works a bit differently.

    [ Parent ]

    Performance Evaluation (5.00 / 5) (#74)
    by Brookhaven on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:17:23 PM EST
    Has she ever received one?  Because she would have been demoted a long time ago.  This woman will be one of the reasons people will resist the call for party unity.  She's behaved with unbridled maliciousness towards HRC and her supporters and continues on today with that uncalled for outburst calling HRC and her reps an us cheaters.  And, the Obama supporters in the audience cheer her on like she's their Queen and speaking truth to power.  She's a divider, pure an simple and she will singlehandedly drive more people away from the party and party unity and if she doesn't stop this partisan, malicious nonsense, McCain will be the next POTUS.  

    [ Parent ]
    Well once, depending on (none / 0) (#194)
    by brodie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:47:54 PM EST
    whether you believe one particular insider source, Gore in 2000 effectively demoted her during his Spring Cleaning campaign shakeup.  

    She kept her Campaign Mgr title, something she's traded on ever since in getting plum easy-lifting punditry jobs on cable, but was no longer consulted daily by Al as she was given lighter duties like minority GOTV.

    She might have been fired like campaign director Coelho was, and felt that was about to happen at one point according to Shrum, but that would have been mighty bad PR for Gore and his relations with the AA community.  

    [ Parent ]

    Interesting (none / 0) (#255)
    by Brookhaven on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:05:44 PM EST
    When I watched "Recount" on Sunday on HBO, I also noticed that the person who wrote the screenplay had the actress playing Brazile say one innocuous line and then that was it.  I've wondered why since she was supposed to be the Campaign Manager why she had so little presence in "Recount".  Perhaps you answered my question.

    I've got another.

    Do you know if she had any say in Gore's decision not to recount all of Florida?  Or, to concede after that disgraceful Supremes decision?

    Shrum is another piece of uselessness who keeps getting the same deal as Brazile with cable appearances.   He was an utter disaster when it came to Kerry's campaign.  I don't know if people still hire him as a political consultant but jeebus, they have to have their heads in the sand if they do and if they do they deserve to lose for being so foolish to hire useless Shrum.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:06:48 PM EST
    the GOP has given many thanks for her already. Remember she was a campaign manager for Dukakis.

    [ Parent ]
    she's not the worst (none / 0) (#20)
    by Salo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:04:54 PM EST
    the dumbness of the gey suits is astounding.

    [ Parent ]
    grey... (none / 0) (#91)
    by Salo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:22:50 PM EST
    oops.

    [ Parent ]
    Hee (none / 0) (#112)
    by Emma on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:27:40 PM EST
    It's a good thing you don't spell it "gray".  ;)

    [ Parent ]
    gey? (none / 0) (#102)
    by BethanyAnne on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:26:34 PM EST
    the gey suits?  what?

    [ Parent ]
    ahh (none / 0) (#106)
    by BethanyAnne on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:26:56 PM EST
    much better :-)

    [ Parent ]
    Donna Brazile played to the cameras (none / 0) (#140)
    by catfish on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:34:57 PM EST
    If I were for Obama, I would actually think what she did was a smart move saying "you can't change the rules in the middle of the game". It made a good video clip (atrocious for me since I'm for Hillary.) Then the MI governor, who is for Hillary, said "I couldn't agree more" but his statement will get cut out because it was not as dramatic.

    [ Parent ]
    Harold Ickes got a good camera moment (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by catfish on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:37:53 PM EST
    though, when he said "to take away delegates from Clinton to give to Obama" sets a bad precedent. "Why take just five delegates from Clinton, why not take ten, twenty." So that should make the highlights on the non-Obama networks, if any exist.

    [ Parent ]
    Donna Brazile just accused Hillary (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:00:27 PM EST
    and her voters of cheating.  Unfriggenbelievable.

    eeeeeeyep (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:01:54 PM EST
    UNITY NOW!

    [ Parent ]
    Chuck Todd on MSNBC just pronouced... (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:02:04 PM EST
    ...Donna Brazile to be the most influential committee member during deliberations. So that's that. So much for fairness.

    [ Parent ]
    You have to know Chuck Todd isn't (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:03:19 PM EST
    always correct.

    [ Parent ]
    Apparently (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by janarchy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:03:25 PM EST
    "unity" doesn't mean what Chuck thinks it means.

    [ Parent ]
    no sweat, it is after all obama central. (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by hellothere on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:52:39 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps that is because (4.63 / 11) (#43)
    by oldpro on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:11:00 PM EST
    Donna is always willing to play the race card and guilt trip some (too many) whites into backing down, shutting up, not voting, not arguing...weak people just want it to be all over and not take responsibility for anything.

    [ Parent ]
    That is so true. Anyone who has (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by derridog on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:17:26 PM EST
    ever had to work with a committee has had that experience.

    [ Parent ]
    He meant to say (none / 0) (#252)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:05:20 PM EST
    In the eyes of MSNBC pundits and moderators, Donna Brazilch is considered th most influential committee....

    [ Parent ]
    Up is down (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by madamab on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:03:12 PM EST
    in her world.

    Come on, Donna, you're just a laughingstock at this point. 600,000 people now cheated by voting?

    This is classic Rovian crap. Attack the opponent for your own actions.

    [ Parent ]

    That was despicable (5.00 / 7) (#28)
    by kempis on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:07:04 PM EST
    In the same breath that she accuses people who challenge her Red Queen Wonderland Roolz of being cheaters, she then goes on to declare that "we're all here for unity."

    Does she even know what "unity" means? Does it mean the right to spit in your face and then expect you to agree with me?

    HOW did this woman rise so high up in the Democratic party?

    Lord have mercy I'm so glad I changed my voter registration to Independent so that I don't feel like my wagon is tied to Brazile and these other Obama-supporters who seem to think they can slap us around and get us to "unify" with them.

    No frickin' thank you.

    [ Parent ]

    Gov Blanchard (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:13:37 PM EST
    was visibly upset by that and his response to her was spot on. The committee members near her did a nice head shake/eye roll.

    She makes people not want to be on her team.

    [ Parent ]

    She was pissed because the rules trump the roolz (none / 0) (#236)
    by ineedalife on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:58:52 PM EST
    Fowler cited the Democratic Charter, the ultimate rule, that said the RBC can't apportion delegates. Slam dunk, Clinton position wins by the ultimate rule.

    [ Parent ]
    Donna Brazile brought up her "momma". (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:13:14 PM EST
    Would her "momma"  be proud of her bias, yet maintaining neutatlity?  That's not being forthright.  My "momma" wouldn't be proud of my  obfuscating the truth.  Oh, I call her my Mother.  Is there a reason Donna doesn't do the same?  
    Please no flaming.  There is a reason for her words.

    [ Parent ]
    Donna must not be able to remember (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:14:30 PM EST
    if she's on This Week, Meet the Press, or CNN when there are cameras in the room.

    [ Parent ]
    The point is (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:41:22 PM EST
    her choice of words and to what extent her words have influence.  In addition, as she tries to have influence, her bias is apparent, a fact her "non-disclosure of support" flies in the face of "her words".

    [ Parent ]
    asinine? (none / 0) (#178)
    by Salo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:43:46 PM EST
    We are Donkey's being led my these bickering fools.

    [ Parent ]
    With all due respect, (none / 0) (#230)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:57:48 PM EST
    what's asinine?  Pretending to be neutral, or calling one out on one's supposed neutrality (when having a microphone available to state an opinoin that flies in the face of neutrality)?  Worst, using vocabulary is very powerful.  I have no doubt Donna Brazile is aware of this; her power of the microphone and her use of vocabulary influences and belies her neutrality.  If she declared her support, a wholly differnet argument.

    [ Parent ]
    and where were you with all this (none / 0) (#218)
    by hellothere on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:54:05 PM EST
    self righteous bruahaha when hillary was being bashed? yeah, right i thought so.

    [ Parent ]
    Donna is running scared (5.00 / 5) (#122)
    by ccpup on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:29:48 PM EST
    A strong person confident about their position and the outcome wouldn't act in such an angry, fear-based way.

    And Blanchard's response -- smile and all -- was one of those "I've got her *&$% in a vice and she knows it" moments.

    This meeting has not gone the way Donna/Precious/Axelrove envisioned it would.  Otherwise there wouldn't be so much yelling, fist-pounding, HRC's cheating, etc from the Obama Camp.


    [ Parent ]

    Cheating? (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by janedw420 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:34:20 PM EST
    Then why did NH get a waiver and not MI? insane.I was waiting for someone to point out that she "cheated"--

    [ Parent ]
    If Obama had just agreed (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by madamab on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:01:09 PM EST
    to the re-votes in MI AT LEAST, his representatives wouldn't be reduced to arguing this nonsense about non-voters and write-ins and such.

    This really makes him, and them, look very bad IMHO.

    The write-in issue is nonsense... (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by NotThatStupid on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:30:36 PM EST
    ... If they were so concerned about allowing write-in voting, why don't they do something about the caucuses where you can't even mail in a vote?

    [ Parent ]
    I know... (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by tree on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:38:48 PM EST
    Every time they wail about the non-voters I think of all the voters who couldn't make the caucuses. Nobody who supports caucuses really cares about voter enfranchisement.

    [ Parent ]
    I have an aversion to any process (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:44:10 PM EST
    That makes it more difficult to vote.

    [ Parent ]
    Caucuses cut out a huge swath (none / 0) (#269)
    by splashy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:15:16 PM EST
    Of voters. The elderly, those caring for family members, those working, those that can't go out at night, those that just don't have the time. A recent study done by a DISABLED person shows that caucuses are discriminatory. Jeralyn posted about that recently.

    Only those with the time, energy and health can caucus.

    Primaries that last for a week, all day long, are MUCH more democratic. You can pick a day and time that works best for you.  

    [ Parent ]

    If it's the same as a Primary (none / 0) (#287)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:27:59 PM EST
    Then it's just semantics and the people proposing the solution SHOULD have just called it a Primary.

    What's the point in calling something that has ALL THE FEATURES of a primary and NONE OF THE FEATURES of a caucus a caucus.

    I bet there's a good reason why it's called a caucus.  Don't you?

    [ Parent ]

    Remember (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:02:54 PM EST
    He was supporting revotes and schedulin events in MI and then something happened.

    Wright made headlines.


    [ Parent ]

    I'm confused about Obama's support for re-votes. (none / 0) (#149)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:37:35 PM EST
    The last I remember, he didn't support re-votes because some of his supporters may have voted in the MI Repub nomination and that he wanted those people to be able to vote for him in the MI Dem nomination.  Do you have info to clarify?

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly. It's in violation of the law (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by Cream City on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:51:23 PM EST
    to support voting twice -- and this from the U of C "prof" who teaches a course called Voting Rights Law.

    Remember that: Obama teaches voting rights law so knows exactly what he is doing to disenfranchise voters in caucus states, MI, FL, etc. -- no matter how much he protests his innocence, stays above the fray to blame it all on campaign managers, staff, etc.  He teaches how to cheat voters, he teaches how to undermine democracy.

    [ Parent ]

    A good thing to tell people (none / 0) (#173)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:42:47 PM EST
    If he thought he could win there, he'd have the revote.

    All I know is the Wright story broke while all this was going on, and an overall attitude change about the idea took place with respect to both states.


    [ Parent ]

    Jaw dropping seeing who runs this party. (5.00 / 8) (#10)
    by Salo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:02:49 PM EST
    Someon said this Primary system was a the result of careful study and scientific method.

    Pardon me sir, it's only produced a single winning candidate in 40 years. Additionally, Bill Clinton won inspite of the results in NH and Iowa.  If he'd had Jesse Jackson running we would have nominated Tsongas for heavens sakes. It's so profoundly screwed up as a system that it clearly need to be ditched.  It's producing failure on a consistent basis.

    I suggest replication the French Presidential System.  Open first stage followed (a month or two later) by a second ballot contested between the top two from the first stage.

    That would actually allow regional/specialist/insurgent  candidates to emerge, and it would cleanly end the process with a candidate that got a  50%+ mandate.

    Well yes (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by Hope on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:50:04 PM EST
    But it's not foolproof.

    You still need the candidates to do their business.

    Interestingly Jospin lost for exactly the same reasons Obama is looking weak ... too elitist, soft on security ...

    The French Socialist party, which I have left for the same reasons a lot of you are leaving the Dems (it having left me), has similar problems too many middle class people who have no idea how the ordinary French person lives. Though to their credit they PRETEND to care, unlike the Obamas.

    Interestingly, a lot of them were saying that "old" people should be disenfranchised after the last election. Bet you'll get that soon.

    [ Parent ]

    My God (5.00 / 11) (#14)
    by Steve M on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:03:21 PM EST
    Did Donna Brazile's mother tell her that you must always play by the rules, UNLESS YOU ARE NEW HAMPSHIRE?

    May God strike me dead if I ever invoke my sainted mother's name in support of such an utterly disingenuous point.  For shame.

    Poor Donna (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:05:00 PM EST
    she thought her mother was talking about the ROOLZ.

    [ Parent ]
    Amen n/t (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by kempis on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:08:11 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I want to mash that Dona Brazille presentation ... (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by Ellie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:03:23 PM EST
    ... into a dance mix to play at the McCain inauguration.

    Ok, smarmy alert (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:03:56 PM EST
    For all those that think this is destructive, for democracy and the Democratic party I say bunk.  This shows the true nature of democracy and justice.  It's messy, takes a lot of work and a lot of diligence.  It just does not happen.  

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Steve M on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:18:01 PM EST
    This is a pretty wise comment.  Democracy is messy.  Tyranny is extremely simple and straightforward.

    [ Parent ]
    it's bloody (none / 0) (#161)
    by Salo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:40:09 PM EST
    and ends in a violnt thunderclap, and there are always violent revolts when you have a tyrant.
    I'd say that Tyranny is messier in reality.

    This RBC feels like a prospective tyranny to me. They suspeded the voting process--these fools suspended a vote.   They have not behaved democratically IMHO.

    [ Parent ]

    How can you argue that it isn't destructive (none / 0) (#31)
    by tigercourse on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:07:50 PM EST
    to the Democratic party? We're on the verge of losing Michigan in the general election. That's pretty darn destructive to out awful party's hopes of presidential victory.

    [ Parent ]
    What is not destructive (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:10:38 PM EST
    Yes, it was a mistake.  But the process, the hearing, etc.  is a sign of democracy.  That is all I am saying.  I think it's good for people to watch how complex issues are, how things are not black and white, how things are not as simple as" rules are rules" idiocy.  This is the first time we have had a dialogue about this that was not a sound bite.  

    [ Parent ]
    The Process is Good (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by santarita on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:22:09 PM EST
    What we are seeing out in the open for a change is some of the ridiculous people who have risen to power.  

    [ Parent ]
    the system and personnel (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Salo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:27:17 PM EST
    are fully integrated as a whole package.
    This oganization is built for catastrophic failure.

    Indeed, Bill Clinton won inspite of and in opposition to the set up.  1992 was the only time the process worked. And I say it only "worked" if you are being very generous and ignore the nature of the Clinton victory in 1992.  He was a fluke.

    [ Parent ]

    Good point and maybe why (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by ap in avl on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:50:54 PM EST
    so many of these clowns dislike the Clintons so much.

    The Clintons have been successful DESPITE the party leadership's attempts to rig the system (for failure I might add).

    [ Parent ]

    So true, and there is nothing in a democracy (none / 0) (#166)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:41:50 PM EST
    that says only one way of thinking, behaving, or believing is allowed.

    We have seen that not everyone who rises to a position of leadership is always fair, smart or a good leader.  

    [ Parent ]

    nah it's a press circus. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Salo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:08:43 PM EST
    The entire thing is laughable.

    Democracy is voting . This is an internal power struggle interpreted to us my Chris Matthews.

    [ Parent ]

    Perhaps democracy is also (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by oldpro on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:15:41 PM EST
    about how the people you get to vote for are selected...and by whom?

    [ Parent ]
    This is a power struggle among (none / 0) (#131)
    by Salo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:32:38 PM EST
    the party movers and shakers.  It's rotten.


    [ Parent ]
    and recognizing the votes. (none / 0) (#226)
    by hellothere on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:56:55 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    unbelievable (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by SarahinCA on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:05:01 PM EST
    The people calling in are atrocious and ill informed, it shocks me they are spending all day watching this.  The most reasonable caller so far has been a Republican who suggests a total re-vote for MI.

    The GOP (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by Salo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:11:02 PM EST
    actually has a more reasonable and democratic process.   But they are also hitched to the press manipulation too.  Although their use of the Electoral College (winner take all) innoculates them to some extent.  It's partly why they beat us on such a consistent basis.  

    [ Parent ]
    yeah. I wish we had their winner take all system. (none / 0) (#259)
    by derridog on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:10:10 PM EST
    Hillary would have won this already.

    [ Parent ]
    Hint for watch C-SPAN (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:06:12 PM EST
    ALWAYS mute the callers. ALWAYS.

    [ Parent ]
    if Donna is talking about (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by ccpup on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:05:19 PM EST
    Clinton "cheating", things must not be going the way she thought they would in this meeting.  Why else would she allow her Inner Thug to peek out?

    Fear, frustration and anger will do that to you.

    good point (none / 0) (#35)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:09:33 PM EST
    when someone gets hysterical it is not a good sign.  I agree with Andgarden about the FL solution, but I actually now think they will seat MI based on the election results with half vote.  I think Levin could live with that and if they don't give him something he will appeal. They want this over.  I might be wrong, but seriously, how can you justify not giving both states the same penalty.  Most uncommits will go for Obama in MI anyway.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not as sure as you (none / 0) (#48)
    by ccpup on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:12:21 PM EST
    about the Uncommitted vote going exclusively to Obama.  After this debacle and his efforts to ignore the State's voters as well as Wright and Pfleger and his Electoral Weakness ... there may be more than a few who feel that supporting the Candidate who is strong and supported the State is the strongest choice.

    And that ain't Barack.

    [ Parent ]

    Agreed, but ... (none / 0) (#100)
    by cymro on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:24:42 PM EST
    ... nobody needs to talk about that possibility until after this process is complete.

    [ Parent ]
    The calls on C-Span (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by janarchy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:05:29 PM EST
    are just annoying as hell. They're still going on and on and on about The Rules The Rules The Rules and how HRC signed a pledge not to make them count.

    So should Obama's people ought to have argued even more strongly that the votes in both states shouldn't count because he pledged not to.

    One woman even said (seriously) that she was sure that the voters in MI and FL wouldn't ever EVER say "my votes didn't count in the primary so I won't vote in the General Election". Really? In what world?

    In what world? Obamaland! Have a unitypop! n/t (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by kempis on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:09:18 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Are they shaped like ponies? n/t (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by janarchy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:11:16 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    that one (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by SarahinCA on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:10:18 PM EST
    said this is why Clinton is untrustworthy as well.  I haven't watched TV coverage of this election since Super Tuesday, and now I know why.

    [ Parent ]
    Todd Spangler - Detroit Free Press (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:16:46 PM EST
    managed to get his call on air...he said that he was disgusted by the crowd booing in the background, and he said specifically the Clinton supporters.

    Anyone remember that happening?  I remember some from the Obama group, but not the Clinton. I could, however, have selective hearing on the subject.


    [ Parent ]

    There was booing (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by janarchy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:23:24 PM EST
    for both Wexler and Brazile. Much deservedly, I might add. You don't call 50% of the voting base of your party cheaters and expect to be lauded for it.

    There were boos on the other side as well.

    [ Parent ]

    No wonder I didn't notice (none / 0) (#182)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:44:02 PM EST
    I was probably hollaring at the same time :)

    [ Parent ]
    Brazile was booed. (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:23:37 PM EST
    But they were polite to everyone else.

    [ Parent ]
    It was at some outrageous comment made by (none / 0) (#109)
    by santarita on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:27:28 PM EST
    Bonior, I think.  I thought that the Committee should have enforced a little more crowd control of the partisans.  

    [ Parent ]
    There was (none / 0) (#179)
    by Steve M on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:43:49 PM EST
    some booing, and also some cheering, when Wexler argued Obama was making an "extraordinary concession" by agreeing to seat Florida 50/50.

    [ Parent ]
    Ah, yes (none / 0) (#196)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:48:16 PM EST
    just saw that on the C-Span replays going on during the lunch break. That was the only time the gavel was used to restore order, correct?

    So, Todd Spangler's comment was intended to plant a belief for those Obama supporters who weren't watching. Can't wait to see what he's going to write in the Detroit Free Press on the subject.


    [ Parent ]

    I really (none / 0) (#56)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:13:57 PM EST
    liked the guy who called ....

    He doesn't trust Hillary's husband so he is not voting for her!!

    My head is spinning,my face is distorted.... but, hey, this is not sexist! SNARK!!

    [ Parent ]

    spouses (none / 0) (#243)
    by teachermom on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:03:21 PM EST
    So does that guy like Obama's wife???

    [ Parent ]
    Obama leads in "unfavorable" (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Josey on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:06:09 PM EST
    Rasmussen - http://tinyurl.com/ysufen
    Wonder how that number will look (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:22:57 PM EST
    come Monday after Wexler's performance today.


    [ Parent ]
    Wow! There is no way ... (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by cymro on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:29:33 PM EST
    ... he can survive until August.

    [ Parent ]
    Hmmm (5.00 / 2) (#208)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:51:22 PM EST
    11% drop since his best polling numbers.

    It will just keep getting worse. I can't wait to see how any SD's justify supporting him by the end of August.


    [ Parent ]

    Well Tweety just invited viewers to join him... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:07:40 PM EST
    ..Timmeh, and KO on Tuesday night to celebrate Obama's nomination. Now they are calling it a huge Hollywood ending.

    They're not even (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by madamab on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:10:29 PM EST
    pretending anymore, are they?

    That's absolutely disgraceful.

    I hope their viewership plummets to zero - although I guess they could always count the non-viewers as viewers, if they follow Obama's logic!

    [ Parent ]

    That's it (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by janarchy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:12:57 PM EST
    if we don't tune in, we really ARE tuning in so they'll just count us in their demographics! The Phantom Audience! The Phantom Voters! Woo hoo!

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by akaEloise on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:14:57 PM EST
    That's right.  Those viewers would have been watching MSNBC, but they were under the impression that it would not count since it wasn;t sweeps week, so they watched the Food Network instead.  

    [ Parent ]
    Too bad they don't still have the test pattern. (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by derridog on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:47:06 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    If Hillary can count MI and FL popular vote (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:12:01 PM EST
    I think she could sway some more SDs, so MSNBC may be celebrating prematurely.  Also, this definitely means Obama has to hit a higher number of delegates to go over the top.

    [ Parent ]
    Isn't this celebration supposed to (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by nycstray on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:15:07 PM EST
    be at the same location as the Rep Convention?

    I wonder if he'll have to dial it back again . . .

    [ Parent ]

    I was on the Obama (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:13:05 PM EST
    channel briefly.  I heard Andrea say IO and NH were excluded from being early because they were too white, too privledged.  I changed the channel.  sigh.

    [ Parent ]
    jumping the gun (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by ccpup on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:16:26 PM EST
    is always a sign that one is afraid that the result one wants is suddenly in great danger of not panning out.  Ergo, blow up your own balloons, drop your own confetti and act as if what you wanted to happen is happening.

    Not reality-based and Clinton isn't going to play along by dropping out, but it gives great insight into how "confident" these ObamaBoyz (including Precious himself) really are.

    And the answer is "not very".

    [ Parent ]

    yes (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by Hope on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:29:13 PM EST
    if someone would just tell me, if superdels get to vote in secret, and they did, I would say that if it goes to the convention, Hillary could win.

    I consider Obama to be a Monty Python parrot at this juncture. And I can't be the only one.

    And I think Obama knows that.

    By the way, I think this is a foretaste of what an Obama presidency would look like, about about petty roolz, never mind the spirit, what does alinea 3.3 say? Except that I don't actually agree with them on that. The rules say one can appeal. The rules say there can be waivers, just like Levin says, the rules didn't say he had to take his name of the ballot.

    So actually, I don't think his rules case stands. So what do they want? The PRETENCE of following the rules.

    [ Parent ]

    Just watch the polls over the next 3 months (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by cymro on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:33:05 PM EST
    Obama is going to self-destruct once he cannot fill the news with anti-Clinton talking points. By the Convention the superdelegates will be flocking to Clinton to rescue the party.

    [ Parent ]
    and don't think (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by ccpup on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:38:15 PM EST
    Clinton doesn't know this.  That's why she's doing what she's doing, why she refuses to quit and why she's working hard for every vote as well as touting her very real Electoral Strength.

    She knows Barack doesn't have what it takes to handle Life in the General Election and he'll be eviscerated by the Media once it's decided he "is" the Nominee.

    Stupid she ain't.

    [ Parent ]

    Ha! (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by cmugirl on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:35:06 PM EST
    I consider Obama to be a Monty Python parrot at this juncture. And I can't be the only one

    Is he pining for the fjords?  :)

    [ Parent ]

    I think (5.00 / 2) (#214)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:53:13 PM EST
    that you are making a pretty important point when you say that today's meeting shows exactly what an Obama presidency would look like.

    [ Parent ]
    it's the first time (5.00 / 2) (#264)
    by Hope on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:12:44 PM EST
    we've seen an Obama "administration" in action. I thought it was unpleasant, disrespectful (or worse derriere licking, I got the feeling that didn't go down too well), and, well boring. As someone who's disenfranchised (I live in a foreign country), my great concern is enfranchisement, they seemed to have no interest in that.

    I found the Floridians and the Migichanis (?) facinating and interesting, and frankly the MIs had the unity pony down pat, no worries about Michigan Dems! I was impressed with the Clinton people. Their arguments unfolded throughout the hearing, each pertinent to the moment. I think the Clinton is evil thing is totally wrong (invented by the media). From what I've seen, she plays straight up and down the line.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama is Nervous (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by santarita on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:38:39 PM EST
    Why have Bonior and Brazile act like attack dogs otherwise.  Clearly they were risking "unity" doing that.  I was astounded at the cheap shots taken by both of them.  

    [ Parent ]
    If someone tried to (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by suki on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:17:08 PM EST
    force me to watch that at gunpoint I would tell them to just pull the trigger.

    [ Parent ]
    Ditto. (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by nycstray on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:21:17 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    So (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:18:37 PM EST
    there going to have a party of three? LOL. Do they realize that seating the delegations changes the number?

    What are they going to do in Nov? Have a collective cry fest or what?

    [ Parent ]

    Won't watch MSNBC ever again and (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:24:11 PM EST
    try to pretend no Clinton supporter does.


    [ Parent ]
    For some reason (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:27:21 PM EST
    making a cottage industry about hating Clinton has caused their ratings to go way up.  So not watching them isn't good enough, apparently.  

    [ Parent ]
    Matthews used to be a strong Clinton (none / 0) (#261)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:10:36 PM EST
    supporter....Bill, that is. When the Monica story finally got to the truth, Chris acted personally betrayed by it. He has never forgotten how deeply he hates Bill and he will do whatever it takes to make sure he never has a role in the WH again.

    [ Parent ]
    Excuse me (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:11:21 PM EST
    Rachel Maddow really is stupid. She acts as if there are no reportable vote results in Iowa, Nevada, WA and Maine. that is simply falase. They REFUSE to do it.

    My own view is that is because they are unfavorable for the claims of participation AND unfavorable for Obama's arguments.

     

    She's not stupid.... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:13:50 PM EST
    ...she just acts stupid in order to curry favor with her new overlords. I can't believe I used to really respect her.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, she's actually (none / 0) (#72)
    by madamab on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:17:07 PM EST
    quite a smart woman.

    She learned very quickly how to parrot the company line.

    I used to love her before she took sides and decided she needed to sell out to play with the Boyz at MSNOBAMA.

    [ Parent ]

    Me toooooooo (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by LoisInCo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:24:41 PM EST
    I actually still like Nora O'Donnel. I probably shouldn't but I do.

    [ Parent ]
    I think she's brilliant (none / 0) (#215)
    by Salo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:53:26 PM EST
    But she's a Matthews protege.  It's sad to see her ruined like that.

    [ Parent ]
    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by phat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:15:01 PM EST
    5% turnout in IA wouldn't look so hot would it.

    [ Parent ]
    She's on the list of people I don't listen to (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:16:25 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Levin, Bonior and Brazile (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by santarita on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:16:08 PM EST
    Levin is a hero.  He recognized the flawed primary-caucus process on a national level.  The reasons that he gave for his position were consistent with democratic and Democratic principles.

    Bonior and Brazile couldn't have been more divisive if they tried.  Accusing Hillary of cheating and trying to influence Michigan voters not to vote is reprehensible.  

    The sad fact is that the Rules Committee screwed up in the first place and put all of the candidates into positions in which whatever they did was going to be questioned and questionable.  What a mess.

    And trying to count voters that didn't vote - how can they assume that some of the voters who didn't vote might not have voted for Hillary?  How the Democratic Party leaders decide these question may alienate people for a long time if they don't do it well and in a logical manner.

    agreed, I thought Levin (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:17:53 PM EST
    made an excellent argument for changing the system

    [ Parent ]
    Levin (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Steve M on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:26:54 PM EST
    is my favorite Senator, always has been.  I felt lucky to be represented by him growing up in MI.

    I don't agree with him on everything, obviously, but it's just so rare to be represented by any politician with that much intelligence and integrity.  I think the world of him.

    [ Parent ]

    He is a man of integrity (none / 0) (#222)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:55:20 PM EST
    his face appeared to be a shade of red when the committee member challenged his reasoning in saying that Obama should get any delegates from the people who voted for Clinton. There was another element to his argument that was challenged at the same time, but I'm not sure what it was right now, so I won't guess.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama's a wimp. (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:18:35 PM EST
    If he had any cajones he would have said seat the delegates.  This is just another Alice Palmer.