home

MI/Fl DRC Hearing: Afternoon Session Live Blog I

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:03:00 PM EST
Tags: Florida '08, Michigan '08 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Big Tent Democrat and I will live-blog the afternoon session of debate over seating Michigan and Florida delegates here. Comments will open at 4:15 pm ET.

Back From Ohio will continue live-blogging from the meeting room here.

The blog is below the fold. You can comment as usual or send us comments through the live blog. If you want others to see your comments, comment below the normal way. Only BTD and I see those submitted on the live-blog.

Comments now closed.

< DNC Rules Meeting: On Scene Live-Blog | Obama Resigns From Trinity Church >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    MI/Fl DRC Hearing: Afternoon Session Live Blog I | 193 comments (193 topical)
    I expect more strong work... (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:13:44 PM EST
    ...from the Clinton supporters in the afternoon session.

    Nelson, Blanchard and Levin made Wexler and Bonior look tendentious and amateurish in the morning. And Brazile's "cheating" remark is likely to make the YouTube rounds very rapidly, unfortunately for Donna.

    Tom P - Just replied to you and the person who said my 'ad' (sig) was obnoxious in the last thread.

    Jeralyn - As I said to the person mentioned above, I did not see your request to me to alter my signature. Had I seen it when you first made the request, I would have done so immediately. Now that I know (or at least think I know, second-hand) what you asked, I have complied.

    DB's remark is already youtubed and (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by nycstray on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:31:04 PM EST
    up at that other blog.

    [ Parent ]
    maybe she is hoping Obama will give (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:32:32 PM EST
    her a job, she might need one.

    [ Parent ]
    Yep, a vote for Obama is a vote for Brazile (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Cream City on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:38:13 PM EST
    to be appointed to a government post, sub-cabinet level as assistant to the secretary of something or other.  She'd probably like to be in the Dept of Justice.  Think about that before voting for Obama, folks.  Prima Donna has made some bargain here -- and pushing out Dean to run the party, since she's already doing it, won't be enough power for her.

    [ Parent ]
    Brazile at DOJ? (none / 0) (#132)
    by Spike on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:54:59 PM EST
    A policy-related appointment for Brazile would be highly unlikely. While she has demonstrated that she is a strong, accomplished woman, it would be more likely that she'd be in the White House political office, Congressional relations or at the DNC. DOJ would be a long-shot in my experience.

    [ Parent ]
    And you'd vote for that (none / 0) (#249)
    by Cream City on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:17:33 PM EST
    with your vote for Obama -- you'd vote for Brazile wrecking not just the Dem party but even the White House and an administration.  Heaven help us all.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks, Paul (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:44:58 PM EST
    Much appreciated. Welcome back.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks, Jeralyn! (none / 0) (#137)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:58:05 PM EST
    Happy to be here.

    I didn't see what you wrote to me, but I understand without having read it.

    I have always respected you and I will always demonstrate that respect as regards the choices you make which affect your site.

    Unlike the view which sometimes precedes me in various circles, I am not into anatomical measuring contests. I only seek fairness and evenhandedness.

    You, your site, BTD and many others here have long-ago demonstrated that you are about facts and justice. I am very comfortable with that and my knowledge of same precludes any inane hardline stances over my signature (or anything else).

    My thanks goes to you for taking me back.

    :)

    [ Parent ]

    I'm glad you're back (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Hope on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:05:16 PM EST
    I like your stuff :)

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks to Back from Ohio (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:15:03 PM EST
    and everybody watching this and adding their observations.  I continue to clean house and check in.  Can't figure out if it is the dust exposure or the reading giving me the beginnings of a migraine, probably the deliberations.  So I'll just thank you all in advance for saving me the Imitrex and take an Ibuprofen and ice the back of my neck and clean out another closet.

    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:17:50 PM EST
    Thanks to all the bloggers: Back to Ohio, Jeralyn, BTD and anyone else involved.

    Much appreciated.

    :)

    [ Parent ]

    You are setting an example for ... (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by cymro on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:20:40 PM EST
    ... the Democratic Party, where some house cleaning would be in order. I'd like to start with Donna Brazile.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't really have a horse in this race, but (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:15:17 PM EST
    And dkos is where I spend most of my time (though I tend to try to avoid primary diaries).

    However, I just stopped by over at dkos, and ran away about as fast as I could.  I realize that some of Clinton's supporters take it way too far as well, but jeez.  Can they at least act like that not everything that comes from the Clinton's campaign's mouth is automatically the dumbest argument ever conceived?

    Right now their argument seems to be that reinstating Michigan and Florida is like California demanding that they suddenly get 5000 delegates and that they should all count.  How that makes sense, I'm not sure, but I bet the people there are eating it up.

    At the very least BTD is at least trying to remain somewhat levelheaded.  At least he actually has some rational arguments for his case instead of just bliovating.

    what I love about this site is attention to the (5.00 / 9) (#19)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:18:58 PM EST
    facts by Jeralyn and BTD.  And the balance they bring to each others arguments.  Also, Jeralyn is not a Clinton cultist and BTD is not an Obama cultist, they are both democrats.  I really find that refreshing compared to most other sites.

    [ Parent ]
    It's (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:21:13 PM EST
    become an echo chamber swamp imo. Here we're pretty reality based but we are very tough on Obama and Clinton when she needs it.

    It's very easy to get caught up in that kind of stuff. I did in 2004 and I later realized that it was a mistake. You have to take the good news and the bad news.

    [ Parent ]

    A lot of us 'refugees; here, fleet admiral (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:37:48 PM EST
    and the discussions here aren't nasty, thanks to BTD and Jeralyn.

    Also, doesn't matter whom you support, or how strong, here-- it's about discussion. Welcome!

    [ Parent ]

    I always enjoyed your diaries and comments (none / 0) (#245)
    by BarnBabe on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:02:20 PM EST
    There are a lot of people I miss but they seem to show up here too. I don't even bother to stop by there anymore. It was one of the things that drove me towards Hillary after Edwards. Then I came to realize that she was the best of the last two standing. The longer this has gone on the more sure I am of my choice. Stop by more often.

    [ Parent ]
    Tweety- what can I say? (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by kenosharick on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:19:08 PM EST
    I was flipping around and landed at MSNBC as he called Wexler "the star of the day!" Is he totally divorced from reality?

    It's the tingling up his leg. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by madamab on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:20:56 PM EST
    Short-circuits his mental processes.

    [ Parent ]
    Wexler's was the worst... (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:37:37 PM EST
    ...performance of the morning.

    He totally disrespected Harold Ickes and could not stop himself from pounding his fist to try to make his points, rendering him child-like in his demeanor.

    As Jeralyn could tell you, the more an attorney stunt-acts in his delivery less likely his case is to be strong.

    Tweety is, as you said, divorced from reality.

    [ Parent ]

    Ah, Tweety. (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:18:05 PM EST
    (Sigh!) Y'know, if only everyone here could be totally into style and cache -- as opposed to, let's say, substance and principle? -- we would thus be able to truly appreciate this gifted pundit's wondrous and masterful insight into the utterly pathetic  banality that is American politics today.

    [ Parent ]
    Wexler (none / 0) (#162)
    by Spike on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:07:35 PM EST
    I thought Wexler was quite effective. I particularly enjoyed his interactions with Ickes. Like all Members of Congress, his responses were as much directed at his constituents as to Ickes. Well done.

    [ Parent ]
    For Tweety.... (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:38:47 PM EST
    ..everyday is Opposites Day.

    [ Parent ]
    Not a good thing to hear (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:20:33 PM EST
    I've been disappointed in Howard Dean this year, but probably not as disappointed as he has been himself.  He always had pretty high standards for self.  I certainly don't wish him ill health.

    Todd actually noticed what Levin said? (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:20:38 PM EST
    Wow, that's excellent.

    He said Levin (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:26:09 PM EST
    is the one who would likely take it to the Convention.

    [ Parent ]
    Remember how Levin (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:28:33 PM EST
    was "Mr. Reasonable" on Iraq? I wonder how that narrative would change to suit the circumstances.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (none / 0) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:36:26 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Which of course means he's (4.50 / 2) (#84)
    by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:38:29 PM EST
    a Clinton plant is part of her grand plan to undermine Obama's election so that she can win in 2012.  /snark

    [ Parent ]
    Fyi, Clinton's brother is watching (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Cream City on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:22:27 PM EST
    and will he even vote Dem?  He doesn't know; he may have to vote for Bob Barr -- and more backstory here, including that he used to be the son-in-law of Barbara Boxer.  I didn't know that.  Her grandson is his son, and those family gatherings must be something.  But that family tree can't be any more convoluted than this meeting today.

    Also, the Wash Times has brief video of the protest outside the meeting.

    I missed Bonior and Blanchard--Bonior bcz MSNBC (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:23:36 PM EST
    didn't show it, or they just had transmission problems.

    Wexler now spinning to Tweety that since Obama had 3 large rallies, he would win the state. Riiiiiiight.

    When I got back, Chuck Todd was on talking about how Hillary could get out of the race with class. Like Al Gore.

    That comparison was scary, bcz, yes, Gore left with class, but we were left with the Supreme 5's pick and war, deficits, higher debt, two wars, and threats of economic meltdown.

    Nice comparison, Chuck (I think he meant it in a good way, but still...when looking at what actually happened? Help!).

    Actually that's a strange comparison, (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:26:11 PM EST
    because everyone knows today that Gore actually won and that he was cheated.

    [ Parent ]
    this is why C-SPAN is the awesome! (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by thereyougo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:29:04 PM EST
    no background noise, just the facts!

    [ Parent ]
    Horrible comparison. (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by suki on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:30:33 PM EST
    My God, do some of those folks even hear what they're saying?

    [ Parent ]
    He looks fine (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:24:18 PM EST
    other than looking peeved off.  He should go back to practicing medicine.  He ain't much of a leader.

    When Howard Dean has a spine (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Cream City on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:24:41 PM EST
    to do something about this debacle, then it will be news.

    I'm just askin' ... (none / 0) (#157)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:05:57 PM EST
    ... but has anyone here who's been commenting about how ineffectual, mean-spirited, spineless Howard Dean, M.D. is, just stopped for a moment to consider the fact that Howard Dean is chair of the Democratic National Committee (emphasis on the plural is mine)?

    And as such, that he can't just act with impunity or move unilaterally, but rather only in accordance with the consent of a majority of its members?

    And that perhaps the majority of DNC members share outlooks and biases more similar than dissimilar with those held by Donna Brazile? I know that our state's three committee members walk in near lock-step with her crowd. Have you inquired of your state party's reps regarding their respective stands on this ussue? Do you even know who your state's DNC members are?

    (HINT: Your state's DNC delegation is comprised of your state party chair and two elected national committeepersons, one male and one female, plus sundry other permanent or temporary appointments that might be made at the discretion of the state or national chair.)

    I'm just askin'. I would further respectfully suggest that at this point, your justifiable ire over seating Florida's and Michigan's delegations would be far more effective if it's directed toward your state party and its DNC members, rather than at the head honcho. They're the ones who really need to feel the heat, not Howard Dean.

    [ Parent ]

    I have served as staff for committees (none / 0) (#250)
    by Cream City on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:20:06 PM EST
    and know all that staff can do.  I've even brought some to their demise, simply by doing detailed minutes showing exactly what they do and won't do.

    I stand by my statement.

    [ Parent ]

    Andgarden, this is becoming... (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Larry Bailey on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:25:30 PM EST
    ...a reunion of self-imposed Exiles.  Good to see you here.

    Me, too! (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Radiowalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:45:09 PM EST
    I'm another exile who's never been happier!

    [ Parent ]
    I miss those, so I wish you would (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Cream City on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:26:30 PM EST
    put those diaries and graphs up on a neutral site, say at blogspot or something.  There are a lot of commenters here who don't want to give DKos hits, even for the few remaining worthy diaries.

    Yes! That would be very nice (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by splashy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:34:27 PM EST
    I used to go to the orange for the health care diaries (among other things), and have asked people to cross-post to other blogs so I can read them.

    Please do this!

    [ Parent ]

    I find (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:27:24 PM EST
    it interesting that both of you agree that Wexler was an embarrassment. I happen to agree with that. What's the saying about lawyers...something about when you have the facts you argue them but when you don't you pound the desk and scream? Sounds like Wexler to me.

    It has hit (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by spit on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:33:49 PM EST
    a jaw-dropping level even more me, and I'm historically no great fan of either of the Clintons.

    I've been wandering around mostly lurking for a while on blogs with various slants, but I hardly even stop in at the big orange place at this point. I can handle bias, and I certainly don't have to agree with everything I read, but I can't handle intellectual dishonesty.

    FWIW, I think there are still reasonable people there, it's just that they're pretty much completely drowned out at this point. I don't see sanity particularly returning anytime real soon, though.

    Indeed there are, but they're... (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Larry Bailey on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:35:10 PM EST
    ...not about to buck that mob too much.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm listening to the review... (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:34:08 PM EST
    on CSPAN.  These people sound like morons.  It sounds like they are protecting the rulz to stop Hillary from being nominated.  Just ugly.

    If that sat the delegates as is (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:57:05 PM EST
    100% Hillary would net 111 delegates.  They don't want Hill under 100 delegates from Obama because then supers could easily nominate her with her pop vote lead and few delegates between them.  I'm sure you understand there is a reason Obama dsoesn't just ask the delegates to be seated as is.

    [ Parent ]
    Caller on C-Span (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:39:10 PM EST
    just called to say this meeting should never have taken place because they already had the rules in place.

    AND, here's the best part...normal people don't get such a long lunch hour.

    Since she liked the rules in place, she has to be supporting Obama.

    Oh my lord, (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by soccermom on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:44:25 PM EST
    They keep parroting "the rules" "the rules" and they don't have a clue what "the rules" are. Or that three other states jumped ahead with "waivers" that have no basis in "the rules" and that Obama took his name off the Michigan ballot and that he ran tv ads in Florida. It's stunning.

    [ Parent ]
    that's what they've been parrotting (none / 0) (#149)
    by janarchy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:03:15 PM EST
    all bloody day since before the meeting even started. Pity they don't know what the rules are, what the issues are or who did what to whom. I really love hearing that somehow this is all some nefarious plot for Hillary to 'steal' the election from all those poor people who stayed home and didn't vote, especially the ones in Michigan where her name magically appeared on the ballot and Obama's (and Edwards' and Richardson's etc.) did not.

    [ Parent ]
    Wexler sealed it for them (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:11:22 PM EST
    because he said Obama followed all the rules.

    Twice he lied, but no one called him on it.

    Blanchard, on the other hand, pointed out that Obama had even broken the rules of campaigning in MI when he took his name off the ballot and then started the campaign for "uncommitted". I thought that was a really valid argument.

    Obama will do anything and say anything to win.

    [ Parent ]

    Appeals are part fo the rules (none / 0) (#142)
    by ineedalife on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:01:25 PM EST
    That is what gets me. Everything we are seeing is part of the rules. These people should be embracing it.


    [ Parent ]
    And Hillary's fighting for their (none / 0) (#253)
    by zfran on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:32:10 PM EST
    vote, too!!!! Hah!!!

    [ Parent ]
    This thread is going to be full (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:40:59 PM EST
    before we even get started again.

    Yes. We need a new thread for me! (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Teresa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:48:00 PM EST
    My Windows Vista locks up here really bad. I was fine with XP. Don't anybody buy this crap.

    [ Parent ]
    The site is just locking up a few times. (none / 0) (#247)
    by BarnBabe on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:15:49 PM EST
    Probably because of the live blog. I am using my XP desktop and that has been happening. You go to post and it is a long wait. But, I agree I do not like the Vista on my laptop. Maybe it will go the way of ME. Was that what they called it? Between Windows98 and XP? ME was dumb.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by spit on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:41:16 PM EST
    I see they're operating on Politician Standard Time.

    These losers calling CSPAN (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:41:26 PM EST
    in support of disenfranching voters are an embarassment.

    We only get 200 comments per thread (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:46:21 PM EST
    so please stay on topic of the hearing today. I'm going to delete comments about other blogs, etc from this thread.

    Interestingly.... (5.00 / 6) (#122)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:49:59 PM EST
    I was at the DNC protest this morning for a little while. In listening to protesters talk, by far the most common sentiment that I heard (way more common than Hillary support or not, Obama support or not, anger about sexism, etc etc) was the outrage at the media and the blogs for spreading misinformation and lies.

    People are very upset that they have become propaganda arms during this campaign.

    I'm Sure Clinton (5.00 / 7) (#134)
    by BDB on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:56:57 PM EST
    will go along with whatever fix is in because she's a good Democrat.

    I hope Michigan and Florida take it to the convention.  Levin is right, they're getting screwed.  The RBC members have shown themselves to be corrupt, morons.  Not a surprise, they are politicians.  But given the complete lack of intellectual honesty, MI and FL shouldn't stand for this.  I don't care if Clinton and Obama hold hands and declare this thing resolved, they aren't the voters of MI & FL.  

    And all those politicians from those states arguing to disenfranchise their own people need primary challenges.   They are not good representatives of their people.

    Seriously (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by spit on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:02:33 PM EST
    what are they doing?

    Is there a smackdown going on somewhere in the building? Did somebody have too many lunch cocktails and throw up on Howard Dean?

    These things are always late, but we're looking at nearly an hour now.

    CNN sais Committee members (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by feet on earth on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:03:44 PM EST
    are meeting beyond closed doors. Cowards.

    Disgusting. (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:06:24 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Reminds me of '68! (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by stillife on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:07:15 PM EST
    Except now the rooms are smoke-free.

    [ Parent ]
    Trying to find a way to create new rules so they (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by Angel on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:08:22 PM EST
    don't have to abide by the original rules, all in an effort to keep Hillary from getting the nomination.  These people are not only cowards, they are morons and criminals.  This entire process has become a joke.  And it is a travesty.  

    [ Parent ]
    What do you think they talked about at (none / 0) (#156)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:05:19 PM EST
    lunch, or last night?

    Of course this is being decided off camera.

    [ Parent ]

    That's not my point (none / 0) (#175)
    by feet on earth on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:16:35 PM EST
    My point is that they advertised this meeting as a model of transparency and democracy in action.

    Now in front of the all nation and of the world watching they are looking and acting as the lords of feudalism. disgusting and vomit producing.

    [ Parent ]

    Depends on the result IMO (none / 0) (#180)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:17:45 PM EST
    I don't pay much attention to what politicians say. I watch what they do.

    [ Parent ]
    I wish I believed FL would get our full delegate (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by ruffian on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:04:51 PM EST
    votes back, because I believe the FL party did the best they could to prevent the primary from being moved.

    But I think seems too much to hope that they will back down from the rules violation finding they made in August.  They are not going to admit that mistake. The removal of the 100% penalty is probably what will happen.

    It was however a huge mistake, and cost the Dems a lot of approval here in FL.  I'm not sure it can be repaired with the half way solution.

    shuttle launch - where's my  boom?

    Um.. have you ever seen a candidate more (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by derridog on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:07:09 PM EST
    divisive than Obama?

    Yes. (5.00 / 3) (#195)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:24:35 PM EST
    George W. Bush.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, not when he was running for office. (5.00 / 3) (#200)
    by derridog on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:28:43 PM EST
    Then he was the "uniter not the divider!"  What does that remind me of?  Hmmmmm.... and there are other similarities between him and Obama.   Let's see, thin-skinned, arrogant, insulting -- a "my way or the highway" sort of guy?  I think we could make a longer list. Anyone else?

    [ Parent ]
    George Bush (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:36:27 PM EST
    DIDN'T divide his own party.  He didn't do that.

    [ Parent ]
    I really haven't seen (none / 0) (#191)
    by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:21:20 PM EST
    the candidate himself (either of them really) be much of an issue.  My main issue are with their hard-core supporters.

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry to delete (5.00 / 4) (#165)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:10:21 PM EST
    the off topic comments about other blogs and welcome Fleet and other new readers, but we only get 200 or so comments per thread and the hearing hasn't started yet.

    It's a lot of work to set these live-blogs up and so I want it to last as long as possible.

    Thanks for understanding.

    No problem! (none / 0) (#192)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:21:27 PM EST
    And sorry to you that I veered OT on the other blogs - it is so easy to forget the OT rule and get distracted by other issues! Will be better.

    [ Parent ]
    I wanna know (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by phat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:12:40 PM EST
    Are they smoking cigars back there?

    Backroom deals. Why am I not surprised? (5.00 / 3) (#186)
    by Angel on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:20:22 PM EST
    That's the way it always works, unfortunately.  What a sham, what a scam.  

    I thought (5.00 / 3) (#189)
    by tek on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:20:51 PM EST
    I kept reading that Donna Brazile was not going to be at this meeting and now she's all over the place?  Drowning out Harold Ickes?

    BTD, I think they are wrong to do it behind (5.00 / 4) (#193)
    by Teresa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:21:29 PM EST
    closed doors. They promised an open meeting and whatever they decide, they will have lost a PR war with the media by denying them the drama of seeing it. Whichever side/or both that feels cheated will also be that much angrier about it.

    CNN is talking about this right now (5.00 / 3) (#219)
    by joanneleon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:46:20 PM EST
    saying that people are unhappy with the back room deals and the Republican party is taking advantage of it by shooting videos of disgruntled people and putting them up on YouTube.  They are trying to push the message that the Democratic party is not trustworthy.

    This party is a mess.  Rather the party leadership is a mess.  I'm trying to think of a good cliche for 2008 and the Dem party.  Something along the lines of grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory.

    [ Parent ]

    Why did they even fell compelled (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:48:56 PM EST
    to do this behind closed doors anyway? Where they just afraid of showing off their squabbling in the public or what?  Why even schedule an afternoon session if you were going to do it behind closed doors anyway?

    [ Parent ]
    I love this free and open debate and discussion. (5.00 / 1) (#229)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:50:26 PM EST
    Heck, let's let the delegates meet and run the Jeralyn/BTD ticket.

    [ Parent ]
    How can they give anyone popular votes? (5.00 / 3) (#201)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:28:56 PM EST
    LOL.  I have never heard of such a thing.

    I don't believe (5.00 / 2) (#213)
    by madamab on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:38:07 PM EST
    that any institution in our system has the power to give anyone popular votes.

    It's completely un-democratic and, despite BTD's assertion, not within any Rules. (Well, maybe it's within Roolz. ;-) )

    But in any case, if they give Obama ANY popular votes from Michigan, it will be setting a horrible precedent in many ways. One, it will be rewarding his ridiculous behavior, and two, it will be counting votes for a candidate who is not on the ballot.

    I just don't know how anyone could possibly think that was okay. "Intent" is not an argument that works when it comes to voting. It never has and it never should, because it is not factually determinable.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly. My God he TOOK his name off (5.00 / 3) (#215)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:39:49 PM EST
    the ballot.  The election was certified by the state.  You don't go giving someone votes when they were not even on the ballot.

    [ Parent ]
    On the topic (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by spit on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:32:37 PM EST
    I don't see how they can effectively change the delegate proportions from the vote in MI, honestly. And it sounded like quite a few of the folks on the committee had problems with that, too -- not having read the Dem charter myself, I have no idea how "the rules" really come down on it, but it just seems philosophically like asking for a mess in the future.

    What I would do if I ran the universe is seat FL as is, and seat MI at a 50% penalty in delegates but with the results of the election that they had, whatever its flaws. If that isn't feasible, I'd honestly not seat MI at all, personally. You can't just use guesses about how votes that don't exist might have gone if things had be different -- that's a really dangerous precedent IMO. And the "rights of the non-voters" argument makes absolutely zero sense to me, never has in this context. Nothing barred them from voting, not even in the abstract, and there's no way to know how many people might have voted or for whom if the DNC hadn't made its earlier decision.

    As for what they will do, I have no idea. I think some of the committee very clearly does get the core issues at play here, but I also think that the desire for the party to just get this over with and unify is strong -- somewhere in the middle of the candidates' positions would be more unifying, but IMO incorrect in terms of honoring the fundamental importance of votes that are cast.

    Copper coinage. And oh, to be a fly on the wall right now in whatever room they're arguing in.

    Smoky back room deals (5.00 / 4) (#206)
    by joanneleon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:33:37 PM EST
    Some things never change, I guess.  Everyone seems to think that they are making the deals right now in the back room.

    So why did they bother having this meeting at all?  What happened to the public debate and vote?

    If they come out and just announce a resolution, I will be really upset with the DNC.  This isn't transparency.  This is cowardice.  Come out and debate in public.  Show your positions.  Vote in the sunlight so everyone can see how this process played out and who stood for what.

    Smoky back room deals -- that's old style politics isn't it?  I thought we were all about change.  What's going on Howard?  And you're going to come and ask me for money after all this?  Fat chance of that.

    We'll be going to another live thread when they (5.00 / 2) (#209)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:35:37 PM EST
    announce their deal or whatever. Until then, please try to stay on topic. I really feel bad deleting your funny and interesting comments but I have no choice.

    Well.. (5.00 / 4) (#210)
    by JustJennifer on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:35:59 PM EST
    Chuck Todd just said the party belongs to Barack Obama now.  For what that is worth.. but the comment bothered me immensely.  The party belongs to the people.

    Once again... (5.00 / 2) (#214)
    by madamab on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:39:33 PM EST
    the Party has left me.

    IAAO? I don't think so. Some of us believe in principles over personalities.

    [ Parent ]

    OK. So I guess those millions of Clinton (none / 0) (#217)
    by nycstray on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:43:31 PM EST
    voters are in the wrong party then?

    [ Parent ]
    I certainly (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by madamab on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:45:10 PM EST
    am starting to feel that way.

    Independent registration, here I come!

    [ Parent ]

    From what I've witnessed today (none / 0) (#251)
    by Cream City on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:23:07 PM EST
    he can have it.

    Of course, from what I've seen all along, he already had it.  Well, I've had it, too.

    [ Parent ]

    I JUST remembered something!!! (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:41:44 PM EST
    Wasn't Wexler the guy that Stephen Colbert got him to say something on his show admitting drug use or prostitution?????
    Obama thinks resigning from his church (5.00 / 1) (#232)
    by vicsan on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:50:54 PM EST
    now will save face? I don't think so. He's about 19 years too late.

    TalkLeft (5.00 / 2) (#238)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:52:21 PM EST
    "Threw Up"

    I understand.  This is making me nauseous too.

    Um, this is starting to look really bad (5.00 / 3) (#239)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:52:22 PM EST
    Do they not realize what perception they are creating here? They make a big deal of opening up the debate to the public, then disappear for the afternoon???

    Laughingstock.

    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#243)
    by spit on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:58:53 PM EST
    I'm going from "a bit annoyed but unsurprised" to "what the frack can take this long to say to each other, in which there's benefit to making proceedings opaque?"

    I can even forgive them, after watching Brazile say about the most divisive stuff she could've managed, for trying to work out some boundaries with the cameras off, but this is taking way too long for that.

    Either they're running around trying to find a way to justify whatever they've already decided, or there is one heck of a nasty argument going on, is my guess.

    [ Parent ]

    C-Span just admitted the committee is (5.00 / 1) (#240)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:52:56 PM EST
    meeting outside the view of the audience.

    I hope it is all being video taped, and accurate and complete transcripts will be available.

    There is a tape at CNN where Donna Brazile said the committee NEVER meets in secret when she was asked if this meeting would be open to the public.

    Yup (none / 0) (#242)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:55:26 PM EST
    Donna. . .

    [ Parent ]
    i have tried to avoid watching pundits and hacks (5.00 / 1) (#244)
    by boredmpa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:59:19 PM EST
    But that is a nauseating video of donna brazile and disgusting from a rhetorical standpoint.  She goes to race issues to bolster her question, undercuts the man before her and then "compliments him," all the while lying about who was involved in the meetings and deceiving listeners by suggesting everything that was done was within the rules and that "changing" them would be cheating.
    Whatever happens today - (2.00 / 4) (#75)
    by Invictus on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:37:04 PM EST
    Tuesday is the end.  Clinton can carry on as long as she wants, but Obama will ignore her and begin the general election campaign against McCain.  Unless Obama is eaten by a bear, Clinton will be irrelevant unless she opts to support Obama's campaign instead of pouting and dividing the party.  By August, there won't be a handful of super delegates that would assist her in any effort to reverse the situation.  

    Pouting and dividing the Party? (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:38:24 PM EST
    How silly.

    [ Parent ]
    If this is true... (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:39:10 PM EST
    then get ready for President McCain. What we are seeing today is not unity or leadership.

    [ Parent ]
    this might be true (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:39:33 PM EST
    but shouldn't we be worried about what Obama is going to do to unite the party, not Clinton...isn't up to him to persuade us?

    [ Parent ]
    Unity begins when Clinton concedes. (1.00 / 4) (#130)
    by Invictus on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:54:42 PM EST
    eom

    [ Parent ]
    Oh please... (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by joc on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:12:01 PM EST
    That sounds like President Bush's view of unity. His definition of uniting means that you had to do everything he wants. We're Democrats (at least I am), we should hold ourselves to a higher standard that a small child would.


    [ Parent ]
    Yes. Dream on. (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by derridog on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:14:02 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Totally Disagree (none / 0) (#252)
    by Spike on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:26:33 PM EST
    Unity will begin next week when Barack Obama proclaims that he has sufficient delegates to win the nomination and graciously congratulates Hillary Clinton on her campaign and sincerely reaches out to her and her many supporters to support the Democratic ticket in November.

    [ Parent ]
    Since Obama will reach out to Clinton (none / 0) (#255)
    by Valhalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:10:13 PM EST
    on the first cold day in hell, then I'd say Unity will have to wait a bit.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm surprised Obama hasn't ignored (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:46:05 PM EST
    her all along.  It was over on Feb 5, yes?

    [ Parent ]
    I think not. (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by vicsan on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:46:59 PM EST
    The candidate who will be ahead in the popular vote and the only one that can beat McCain, will be taking this to the convention.

    Have you seen BO's UNFAVORABLE numbers from the latest Rasmussen poll? 53% UNFAVORABLE for BO. Hillary isn't going anywhere.

    [ Parent ]

    The problem for Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:51:53 PM EST
    is that once Obama gets over the magic number, why necessarily continue.  Unless there is a sign that some of Obama's superdelegates may start going back over to her, there is little reason to keep fighting.  You'll lose on the first ballot, and the press will do nothing but sling mud at you.

    As much as Clinton doesn't like it, for her sake she probably has no choice but to drop out after Obama clenches.

    Whether Obama can win or not (I think he can, but will have to work harder at it than Clinton) is kind of irrelevant.  The party will nominate who they will nominate.  If they nominate the loser, Clinton can't save the party from itself.

    Of course, Obama's people are already declaring that if Obama loses, it's 100% Clinton's fault.  So they get to feel good either way - they can either get President Obama or label Clinton a traitor. They win either way.

    [ Parent ]

    that should be (none / 0) (#126)
    by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:53:07 PM EST
    "If they nominate a loser, Clinton can't save the party from itself."

    As I just said, I don't think Obama is a for-sure loser.  Actually I think he is probably still odds-on favorite to beat McCain.  He just has a significantly smaller margin of error than Clinton.

    [ Parent ]

    The fact that they think (none / 0) (#128)
    by madamab on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:53:43 PM EST
    Clinton losing = winning, tells you all you need to know about them.

    [ Parent ]
    The press does nothing but sling mud at (none / 0) (#178)
    by derridog on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:17:22 PM EST
    her now.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (none / 0) (#139)
    by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:58:25 PM EST
    that polls at this point aren't the most reliable thing, and I've said as much at dkos.  However, Clinton's starting position is, at of this moment, is a lot stronger, and I think the constituencies that are her strength help in that.  But I do think to disregard the polling altogether and to say that Obama starts equally as strong against McCain than Clinton does is the Obama's supporter's mistake.

    But also, just because a map doesn't show Obama winning now doesn't mean that he can't win.  That's the mistake Clinton's supporters make.

    And while it is 99.9% certain Obama will win the nomination, I wold hesitate to say "he won" definitively until he's over the magic number.

    [ Parent ]

    It is (5.00 / 3) (#198)
    by tek on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:25:57 PM EST
    VERY incorrect to say that Hillary has working class and white women.  I have four degrees including a PhD and I am for Hillary.  Many, many people on the Hillary blogs are highly educated people, including AAs, men, Asians, and Hispanics.  Hillary has a BROAD (no pun intended) coalition.  Obama does not.

    [ Parent ]
    The problem is (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by FleetAdmiralJ on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:29:54 PM EST
    at least as of now - Obama's coalition seems to be barely large enough to win the election...maybe.  Now, I don't really doubt that he'll be able to grow it enough to win, but he's hardly running McCain off the electoral college map at this point.

    Clinton's coalition is much broader and larger.  As you say, the only issue there is that some of them have a tendency to vote GOP more than Obama's base.  But then again, polling at this point suggests that they aren't going over to McCain.

    [ Parent ]

    And Clinton's supporters are HARD CORE. (5.00 / 3) (#207)
    by Angel on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:34:27 PM EST
    They will show up at and vote for her.  I wonder about the young kids who flocked to Obama through the lure of the cult atmosphere.  Where will they be in November?  And all the crossover voters, where will they be?  Voting for McCain or staying home?  One has to wonder.

    [ Parent ]
    If you read your own comment (5.00 / 3) (#204)
    by RalphB on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:32:08 PM EST
    you'll find your reasoning backward.  If one assumes you're correct about their bases, then Obama will get far fewer of hers than she of his.  That's just fundamental.


    [ Parent ]
    I'm sorry but you both are starting to sound like (none / 0) (#194)
    by derridog on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:22:54 PM EST
    concern trolls. Maybe you should buck up and go back to DKos to discuss the "magic number" and WWTSBQ.  We've been hearing these arguments ad infinitum for months.  We know them by heart and -- you know what?  We don't agree with you and you are wasting your time over here trying to be "nice" to us so that you can bring us around to vote for your candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry to add to the OT, but FleetAJ is a pretty (none / 0) (#197)