home

FL/MI Live Blog: The Belated Afternoon Session

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:10:00 PM EST
Tags: Florida '08, Michigan '08 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

They are an hour and a half behind schedule. We smell a back room deal.

This is Big Tent Democrat's and my continuation of live-blogging the afternoon non-session of the Democratic Rules & Bylaw Committee meeting on seating Michigan and Florida.

The live-blog appears below the fold so it can be bigger. Comment in this thread as usual if you want others to see your comments. Only BTD and I can see those you submit through the live blog software.

Comments here will open when they reconvene now closed.


donate to TalkLeft

If you'd like to donate anonymously, here's the Amazon link.

Thanks everyone.

< Obama Resigns From Trinity Church | Unity? >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    FL/MI Live Blog: The Belated Afternoon Session | 237 comments (237 topical)
    So (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by Emma on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:06:04 PM EST
    Ickes was right.  Why not just take 20, or 27, delegates away from Clinton.  WTF ever.

    oops (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Emma on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:20:13 PM EST
    Not 23, 2 or 3.  Still, take delegates away from Clinton and give them to Obama.  Who's stealing now?

    [ Parent ]
    Michigan has 28 at large pledged delegates (none / 0) (#50)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:29:19 PM EST
    Michigan is allotted 28 pledged at-large delegates and 6 pledged at-large alternates.

    Michigan delegate selection plan.

    [ Parent ]

    I doubt they will use (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:07:06 PM EST
    the rules to explain if that is what they do!

    You've got to be joking! (5.00 / 8) (#9)
    by ghost2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:09:12 PM EST
    He took his name off the ballot.  And he gets not only delegates, but 23 add-ons?  

    I am Canadian, but if I wasn't, I'd refuse to belong to such a crappy party (my aplogies to everyone here).

    How could they do this? How could they?

    This establishes all kinds of crappy precedents.  

    BTD, on the next primary, watch politicians make backroom deals, take their name off the ballots, and then end up with the bigger share of the delegates, whereas if they had participated in the actual election, they would get say barely 15% of the vote.

    This is WRONG!

    I cannot see the Clinton campaign (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:10:35 PM EST
    agreeing to that. I just can't. There is nothing in it for them.

    [ Parent ]
    Can't imagine either campaign will have (none / 0) (#41)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:20:03 PM EST
    anything more to say about it once the committee makes its ruling today.


    [ Parent ]
    No offense taken (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by angie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:11:42 PM EST
    I'm a proud "Unaffiliated" voter now.

    [ Parent ]
    2 OR 3 addons, not 23 (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:15:22 PM EST
    Still a bum deal ... I guess Unities come in half-sizes.

    [ Parent ]
    With 1/2 vote or full? (none / 0) (#112)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:45:27 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    you like (none / 0) (#20)
    by CanadianDem on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:12:02 PM EST
    the reform party, aka the CPC? Otherwise I suppose you're in the minority up here.

    [ Parent ]
    absolutely NOT! (none / 0) (#32)
    by ghost2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:14:49 PM EST
    How does that imply that I'd like the reform?

    [ Parent ]
    The Rules are the Rules; except with Obama Roolz? (5.00 / 7) (#11)
    by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:09:44 PM EST
    So, the MI unity plan will give Obama delegates he didn't run for (by taking name off ballot) and didn't win.

    Damn.

    That's almost as good as pushing opponents off the ballot....

    whats up with this (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by CanadianDem on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:14:25 PM EST
    I noticed the usage of the Creative Class has all but lost it's flavour of the day, and now it seems various iterations of the 'roolz' etc is now popular.  I think it actually lowers the quality of people's posts/converations, just like the 'boiz' usage did. imho.

    [ Parent ]
    There are written rules the committee ignored, (none / 0) (#47)
    by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:26:32 PM EST
    such as the usual and rule-dictated 50% reduction in votes at the convention. Instead, the committee, for whatever reasons, perhaps a fit of ire at the number of states trying to move their dates, decided on an ad hoc rule, which was Draconian in its ferocity of completely depriving the offending states of all their delegates.

    That might be considered a Rool.

    There was a pledge demanded by the 4 regular early states demanding that the candidates not campaign in the offending early states, FL and MI. It was not DNC rule, but it became a Rule. Then, the Obama campaign began to say that this pledge was a Rool which required the candidates to not leave their names on the ballot.

    It has become a shorthand for written, usual and customary rules and new rules, without, most often, any written basis.

    [ Parent ]

    How do they justify this (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:12:40 PM EST
    when it was clearly a bad idea before they went to lunch and the Clinton campaign lobbied against it?

    this seems bad for obama (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by boredmpa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:13:01 PM EST
    I've said previously that I felt his campaign and surrogates were anti-democratic (by heavily misleading voters and polarizing minority issues), but that was just my opinion.  This would be pretty blatant if he gets add on votes.

    Very dumb politically  (not that it matters to me, i've stated repeatedly i wont vote for him).

    My prediction on the other thread (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:13:16 PM EST
    was 69/59 seated with half votes each.

    Totally with BTD (5.00 / 8) (#29)
    by Valhalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:14:31 PM EST
    How can they possibly justify giving someone any votes or delegates based on this ephemeral 'intent of the voters' concept?  based on exit polls?  I can't believe the Clinton side would go for that, esp. behind closed doors.  Or were the Clinton-leaning members of the committee not invited?

    69-59 already gives him more than he earned. (5.00 / 8) (#39)
    by Teresa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:18:23 PM EST
    Adding more just angers me more.

    [ Parent ]
    Something tells me (5.00 / 11) (#30)
    by Coldblue on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:14:38 PM EST
    that today's rulings are not going to unify the party.

    Are we still in the United States? (5.00 / 8) (#36)
    by Andy08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:16:12 PM EST
    Or is this going on in some pseudo-democracy somewhere else?

    I guess this is the (5.00 / 9) (#45)
    by joanneleon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:22:58 PM EST
    Change We Can Believe In.

    [ Parent ]
    I believe in it. (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by dotcommodity on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:31:48 PM EST
    We have changed beyond all recognition.

    [ Parent ]
    The NEW Democratic Party (5.00 / 4) (#220)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:09:18 PM EST
    aka the Obama Party. Bush had Katherine Harris and SCOTUS. Obama has Donna Brazile and the RBC.

    The NEW Democratic Party will have to become viable without my support.

    [ Parent ]

    Please don't say that... (none / 0) (#240)
    by Larry Bailey on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:24:59 PM EST
    ...we'll find a way through this fog.  Though I'm just as angry as you are.

    [ Parent ]
    If Obama is so sure he's got the SDs needed to put (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:19:42 PM EST
    him into the majority, any decided upon majority, wny is his campaign so hell bent on doing something that seems to deny one voter, one vote?

    It seems petty and very negative. I mean, the party was nearly destroyed over the fair reflection (right phrase?) issues. Dueling slates of delegates, walk-outs. Wow.

    Is this to destroy the Clintons as power brokers in the Democratic Party (part of the leveraged buyout Lambert writes about)?

    It may be (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by Eleanor A on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:31:57 PM EST
    designed to be so outrageous that it goes to Credentials.  I'm hoping the hell so anyway.

    [ Parent ]
    Playing by the Rules (none / 0) (#211)
    by Spike on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:15:52 PM EST
    Some claim that splitting the Michigan delegates between Clinton and Obama is contrary to the rules. However, absent such a compromise, if the rules were strictly adhered to neither candidate would get a single delegate in Michigan because the flawed primary was determined to be against the rules before the vote was even held.

    [ Parent ]
    Travesty (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by joanneleon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:20:20 PM EST
    A complete sham.

    The DNC was in the bag all along.  

    How contrived is this going to be?  Their biggest concern is how they are going to make this look like they were conducting a fair process.  It's all about appearances.

    They never cared about rules or fairness.

    This is a travesty.

    My my (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by joanneleon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:22:17 PM EST
    If I didn't know better, I might think this debate was scripted and staged.

    But no, the Democratic party would never do something like that.

    Ahh (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:23:09 PM EST
    looks like we've all been virtually flown to Japan for nice entertainment.

    Gotta love the kabuki theater we're seeing now.

    At a certain point (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:30:21 PM EST
    I hope Clinton supporters get up and walk out.  No booing, no hissing, nothing..... I just want to see voters take a stand for themselves.  I do not want to see people grab their ankles and take it yet again from their govt.

    Nope... (none / 0) (#117)
    by Addison on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:46:46 PM EST
    ...booing, hissing, and heckling a Clinton SD.

    [ Parent ]
    Tina Flournoy (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by stillife on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:30:28 PM EST
    is breaking my heart.

    BTD, aren't you arguing a legal point of view? (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Teresa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:30:48 PM EST
    This obviously isn't a court room or any kind of fair body. I like the moral argument of seating them better since you have said that no court would get involved in this.

    You just lost on the rules (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:38:24 PM EST
    Now you know why I strongly believed that the rules argument NEEDED to be made.

    You just lost and people just threw the rules in your face and you still do not see why the rules based argument was necessary?

    [ Parent ]

    I understand what you are saying and agree (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Teresa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:40:17 PM EST
    with you legally, but is a legal argument the only one that applies here since you've said they aren't bound by law?

    [ Parent ]
    Can't you tell YOU just lost (none / 0) (#225)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:13:31 PM EST
    Notice BTD says "You" like 8 times.

    [ Parent ]
    The rules argument was never going to fly anyway (5.00 / 1) (#236)
    by digdugboy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:22:20 PM EST
    You saw what they did with Ausmus' "shall" argument regarding charter delegates. This process was about trying to include as many voters and alienate as few voters as possible, without disturbing the already-decided outcome of the nomination process. The rules were important only inasmuch as they were helpful to achieve the appearance of inclusion.

    [ Parent ]
    WHAT????!!!!! (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by Eleanor A on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:30:50 PM EST
    Hillary wins the state and OBAMA GETS MORE DELEGATES???!!!!

    I'm sorry, this just infuriates me.  Good thing I've already got an August room booked for Denver, since I'm going to spend the whole week picketing my ass off.

    Fournoy rocks, imho n/t (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Valhalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:31:34 PM EST


    Does anyone NOT know that (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:31:50 PM EST
    BTD thinks Clinton screwed up on the RULES?

    [snark]

    It's the RULZ (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by Coldblue on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:31:53 PM EST
    and egos that matter.

    Voters? Not so much obviously

    Seating half (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:32:10 PM EST
    Clinton objecting, gives her a reason to go to teh convention.

    Chaos will result in 2012 (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:32:56 PM EST
    what a strange argument.

    The rules are over-riding the voters, and the goal of the party to be victorious in November.

    Shooting themselves in both feet.

    Chaos (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Coldblue on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:35:10 PM EST
    in November...who cares about 2012.

    These 'party leaders' are clueless....

    [ Parent ]

    They are just so deep in Obama's movement (5.00 / 7) (#101)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:43:15 PM EST
    they can't see the mess they are making.

    They have sealed the fate of millions of their former members.


    [ Parent ]

    Making a civil rights argument (5.00 / 7) (#66)
    by RalphB on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:33:31 PM EST
    and bringing up MLK while you disenfranchise voters is the heart of hypocrisy.  

    Looks like they are going to lose me (5.00 / 7) (#67)
    by splashy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:33:37 PM EST
    I have been wavering for quite some time, hoping they would do the right thing, but this is appearing to show that they don't care about the voters.

    They DID NOTE apply the rules evenly, they DID play loose with the rules, so it's not going to play with me.

    Back in the USSR.... (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by Angel on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:33:42 PM EST


    You don't know how lucky you are! (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by stillife on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:34:50 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Alice Germond (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Radiowalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:34:08 PM EST
    I have put her on MUTE.

    Wake me when she shuts up.

    She so reminds me of Jean Schmidt (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:48:01 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Alice (none / 0) (#77)
    by melro on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:35:07 PM EST
    I'm going to pick up my take-out food now.

    [ Parent ]
    She should be discouraged from speaking (none / 0) (#85)
    by Valhalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:38:35 PM EST
    If I were an Obama supporter, I'd encourage someone else to make her points (I don't even know what they are bc she's impossible to follow).

    [ Parent ]
    I think she is smoking (none / 0) (#90)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:39:38 PM EST
    something

    [ Parent ]
    I wonder (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Emma on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:34:13 PM EST
    if Germond will feel equally as bad when Obama loses?

    Rules vs. Voters (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by Lysis on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:34:23 PM EST
    I used to know which party sided with each side of that battle.

    No more.

    Germond: Rules, rules, rules, rules! (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:34:32 PM EST


    I hope we can get (5.00 / 5) (#80)
    by janarchy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:37:07 PM EST
    a role call of those who voted for full seating of the delegation. They deserve kudos for doing the right thing. It's 12 for.

    The fix is in (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by stillife on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:38:14 PM EST
    Goodbye, Florida in the GE.

    Take names (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by Radiowalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:38:14 PM EST
    of those who don't vote to seat Florida.

    There a 15 Democrats who need to get some mail.

    Never in my life did I think (5.00 / 9) (#84)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:38:27 PM EST
    I would hear a room full of Democrats cheering wildly for a decision not to count all the votes.

    These people sound just like the Bush people in 2000 in Florida.  Can't they see that?

    This is truly disgraceful.

    Despicable indeed (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Andy08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:50:52 PM EST
    blind egocentrism that's what it is. They could care less for the voters of FL & MI. They care just about themselves.

    [ Parent ]
    For those of us who didn't do it already, we (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:51:06 PM EST
    need to prepare to send (en masse) our torn up DNC cards to them with copies of our new Independent status.

    [ Parent ]
    I just had (none / 0) (#243)
    by Andy08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:29:19 PM EST
    to renew my driver license last week and registered as an Independent.

    This is really not my party anymore unless somehow Hillary gets nominated. Then I have faith things at the tops will change.
    Otherwise and with all due respect to Jeralyn who put up with us in this blog; I cannot support in any way Obama and his new party.

    [ Parent ]

    Denver! Denver! Denver! (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:38:52 PM EST
    The people will speak.

    12 to 15 against motion to seat all the (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by oculus on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:38:55 PM EST
    FL delegates.  At least the chair made each person voting "no" raise a hand.  Absolutely disgraceful.  Hillary Clinton should play this video endlessly.  

    The DNC (5.00 / 7) (#92)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:39:54 PM EST
    just sealed its fate.  Idiots. They voted 15-11 against seating FL full force

    Name names (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by Eleanor A on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:43:58 PM EST
    I want to know who voted for this travesty.

    [ Parent ]
    Ohhh (5.00 / 10) (#94)
    by Emma on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:40:37 PM EST
    smell the unity!

    Or, maybe that's just what the pony left behind.

    One-half vote? (5.00 / 5) (#95)
    by Radiowalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:40:53 PM EST
    Why not a 5/8 vote?
    That would at least have historic relevance.

    Germond statement... (5.00 / 7) (#96)
    by Oje on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:41:04 PM EST
    1. The DNC was wrong to strip 100% of delegates from Florida.

    2. By stripping 100% of delegates, the DNC made the Florida primary a beauty contest.

    3. Because Florida was a beauty contest, the primary in Florida is not the will of Florida voters.

    4. The DNC cannot support a 100% seating of primary that was not 100%.

    5. But somehow, we can give 50% delegates to a "beauty contest" of the DNC's making!

    So, by Germond's argument, the punishment of Florida by Teh Roolz is due to the DNC's extralegal action to strip 100%. Florida is being punished for a problem that Germond acknowledges was created by the DNC, not Florida.

    oops.... (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Oje on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:43:12 PM EST
    4. The DNC cannot support a 100% seating of primary that was not the will of the voters.

    [ Parent ]
    I thought Ausman showed pretty clearly that the SD (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:43:30 PM EST
    votes are covered by the force of the word "shall" and cannot be cut in half?

    Plus, the committee did initially ignore the DNC's written rules.  

    Which rules really count???

    Half a vote is better than none? (none / 0) (#110)
    by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:45:02 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Alice Huffman (5.00 / 6) (#105)
    by Radiowalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:44:18 PM EST
    is breaking my heart.

    Denver! Denver! Denver!

    FL SD's don't get full votes either (5.00 / 5) (#106)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:44:19 PM EST
    I guess "shall" doesn't mean "shall".

    Maybe shall is just a shell game.... (none / 0) (#113)
    by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:45:33 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    oh (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by Cal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:44:20 PM EST
    This is gonna get ugly.

    I hope so (5.00 / 6) (#120)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:47:34 PM EST
    If people don't walk out, I will be very disappointed.  How much do people take from their govt before they stand up for themselves.  I just don't get it.

    [ Parent ]
    And now Alice Huffman is (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by oculus on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:44:34 PM EST
    calling for support of the compromise.  How disappointing.  She was so eloquent.  

    New campaign slogan: (5.00 / 7) (#109)
    by Oje on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:44:57 PM EST
    The Democratic Party 2008:

    The next best thing to Democracy! (Huffman)

    This is breaking down (5.00 / 7) (#111)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:45:20 PM EST
    ...and I think it's going to get worse, sadly.

    Damn you Howard Dean. And many, many others.

    Ticking voters off (5.00 / 5) (#114)
    by melro on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:45:56 PM EST
    You know they can talk rules all they want but tick the voters off and you've got a problem.

    If everyone in Michigan listened to the DNC that  their vote wouldn't count and no one voted at all, then what would we be doing right now, just negating an entire state? It looks like that's what's in store for Michigan.

    Huffman isn't compromising- (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by magisterludi on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:46:03 PM EST
    she's bending over.

    You have to remember (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:49:19 PM EST
    this is Kabuki theater.  Everyone there knows what's going to happen.

    [ Parent ]
    I never did... (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Cal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:46:22 PM EST
    ...like those Ausmans.  Too much teeth and sappy music.

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:49:38 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I think the "not fighting" (5.00 / 4) (#118)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:46:50 PM EST
    is strategic.  If all delegates were fully seated, etc, what reason would she have to go to the convention?  This gives her a reason.

    You heard the chant:  Denver, Denver, Denver!

    Well, they FIXED FL--why'd they wait so long? (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:47:02 PM EST


    Well (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by phat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:48:21 PM EST
    I don't think this helps the party very much.

    Florida (5.00 / 5) (#123)
    by Lahdee on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:48:33 PM EST
    The Half State. The republicans must be very proud of their handy work.


    How does Obama get any delegates from MI (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:50:55 PM EST
    if he wasn't on the ballot?

    Better question...why does he get some of hers? (5.00 / 5) (#135)
    by Teresa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:52:35 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Exactly. (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:54:46 PM EST
    I can see 50% for FL, begrudgingly.  I can't see any Obama delegate from MI.

    [ Parent ]
    I guess he'll have to change his name (5.00 / 5) (#138)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:53:22 PM EST
    to Uncommitted.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:55:33 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Looks like you will have to write the DNC and (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:54:47 PM EST
    ask them...apparently their hypocrisy knows no bounds....Pelosi, Reid, et al, need to be dealt with also.

    [ Parent ]
    Now we get to see what (none / 0) (#176)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:02:19 PM EST
    Pelosi and Reid are going to do to end this process of nominating the candidate for the party.

    It's been so fair thus far! YIKES!!

    [ Parent ]

    Sickening. (5.00 / 4) (#132)
    by Cal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:52:04 PM EST
    Absolutely sickening.

    This stinks (5.00 / 8) (#133)
    by Emma on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:52:25 PM EST
    Dems stole my primary vote and gave it Obama.   They won't get a chance to do it again in November.

    Look at them, with visions of political plums (5.00 / 5) (#134)
    by BoGardiner on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:52:32 PM EST
    dancing in their pointy heads.

    Mr Ickes (5.00 / 9) (#136)
    by Lahdee on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:52:50 PM EST
    is blasting the committee for the 69/59 solution. Go get em Harold!

    Outrageous! Giving Obama 59 delegates when (5.00 / 9) (#137)
    by Angel on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:53:16 PM EST
    he wasn't even on the ballot.  And UNCOMITTED received only 55% of the vote.  This is totally outrageous.  What a sham! This is a bad as the 2000 fiasco except it has been sanctioned by our own party - or I should say my former party because I am now an independent.  

    I'm completely with BTD on this (5.00 / 5) (#139)
    by kayla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:53:33 PM EST
    The whole thing seems phony and disingenuous now without the Rules argument from the Clinton campaign.  What's the point?  The committee is getting away with lying.  I was hoping the truth would be coming out, but now it's all just a joke.  It's a charade debate.  Teh rulz won, but not the rules.

    Can McDonald rationalize an Aye vote on this? (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:53:54 PM EST


    Ickes (5.00 / 9) (#141)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:54:23 PM EST
    has done a beautiful job of putting this committee in its place.

    "Fair reflection" isn't so hard to understand that Wexler really needed to be educated on it. He just didn't want to admit he was rallying against it.

    Democracy is DEAD. As of this moment. (5.00 / 8) (#142)
    by Angel on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:54:24 PM EST


    The only hope (5.00 / 5) (#145)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:54:50 PM EST
    that the Dem Party has fo UNITY is Hillary Clinton.... she is the only one BIG enough to do it.

    Let us all hope she can do it because the DNC and Sen Obama are going to just expect the unity.

    Democracy now equals (5.00 / 7) (#146)
    by LoisInCo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:54:55 PM EST
    DEMOnstrating hypoCRACY.

    I'm very pleased Ickes is sticking it (5.00 / 10) (#147)
    by oculus on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:55:01 PM EST
    to the committee re MI.  

    Ickes: Taking votes is not path to unity (5.00 / 9) (#175)
    by Cream City on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:01:52 PM EST
    and Clinton has instructed him to inform the committee that she is ready and willing to take this action -- taking away voters for her, taking away four delegates voted by the voters -- to the credentials committee.

    And, we can imagine, to the convention floor.

    For those not watching, the ambience is getting very ugly.  The audience is hooting, booing, shouting out.  

    Oh no, not again -- member Everett Ward (I'm taking names) is citing the civil rights movement, Fannie Lou Hamer, etc., to support taking votes and delegates away?  He is disgracing the memory of the great Fannie Lou Hamer.

    [ Parent ]

    So, if all the SD's decid to cross over to (5.00 / 3) (#188)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:08:20 PM EST
    Clinton, they won't mind?  There HAVE to be some fairminded SD's out there.  Not everyone is going to be pleased with this gross miscarriage of justice.

    [ Parent ]
    Harold Ickes (5.00 / 10) (#149)
    by Radiowalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:55:51 PM EST
    is on fire and rightly so!

    Hijacking votes indeed!  This is a disgrace!

    Party unity?  Not after this.

    I am liking Ickes (5.00 / 10) (#150)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:56:18 PM EST
    He reflects my views.  I am appalled at what the DNC is doing.

    Credentials Committee

    DENVER!!!!!

    Rock on, Ickes! (5.00 / 8) (#151)
    by stillife on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:56:21 PM EST


    It's going to the (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by Coldblue on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:56:38 PM EST
    Credentials Committee!

    Reserving her rights to take this (5.00 / 5) (#153)
    by Radiowalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:56:38 PM EST
    to the Credentials Committee!!

    Yeah!

    Holy cow! (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by phat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:56:39 PM EST
    Denver!

    YES! (5.00 / 6) (#155)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:56:45 PM EST
    Ickes takes no prisoners!

    Yes. Mrs. Clinton has instructed me to (5.00 / 4) (#156)
    by oculus on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:56:56 PM EST
    reserve her rights to take this to the credentials committee.  Them's fighting words.

    Going to Denver, as it should be (5.00 / 5) (#157)
    by Democratic Cat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:57:10 PM EST
    This is outrageous. The Democratic party needs to rename itself.

    Yea....the DUMBOCRATIC PARTY (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:09:14 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Ickes (5.00 / 15) (#158)
    by joanneleon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:57:12 PM EST
    We find it inexplicable that this body that is devoted to rules is going to fly in the face of the single most fundamental rule in the delegate selection process which is fair reflection.. this motion will hijack -- hijack, remove four deleg won by Hillary Clinton and most importantly .. 600,000 voters.  this body has decided that they are going to substitute their judgement for 600,000 voters.  Now that's what I call democracy. [applause]  There's been a lot of rhetoric about democracy.. i am stunned that we have the gall and the chutzpah to substitute our judgemet for 600K voters... was the process flawed?  you bet your ass it was flawed.  there's not a process in the US that's not flawed.  Wanna say something Mr Dawson?  [silence]  we have one of the lowest rates of voting in the world.  i've never heard that excuse.  hell I don't think there's one election that would withstand the test put forth here.  ?? pointed out last night that this is in the charter, this is in the constitution of the party.. fair reflection.. not only will this take 4 del from Clinton, it will take 55 delegates from uncommitted and convert them to barack obama.  I'm going to vote against this and I hope others join this.  there's been a lot of talk about party unity -- let's wrap our arms around each other.  I suggest that this is not a good way to start party unity.

    One last word.  Mrs. Clinton has instructed me to exercise her right to take this to the credentials committee.

    YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (5.00 / 4) (#181)
    by Eleanor A on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:04:23 PM EST
    (does little dance)

    Now this way, HRC can not ONLY claim the popular vote, she can go to Denver with it!!!!!!!

    [ Parent ]

    Most of us agreed it would go to the convention (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:10:32 PM EST
    and rightly so....in the immortal words of Lenny Kravitz....'IT AIN'T OVER TIL IT'S OVER'

    [ Parent ]
    Denver! (5.00 / 7) (#159)
    by Robert Oak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:57:23 PM EST
    Well, well the behavior of the DNC locked their fate...all the way to the convention man, go for it, raise hell, this entire system STINKS!

    What a rigged game they are trying to just hand it to Obama.

    Just wait... (5.00 / 3) (#166)
    by Cal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:59:18 PM EST
    You'll get an e-mail begging for money tomorrow.

    [ Parent ]
    Hijack 4 votes from Clinton and take 55 from (5.00 / 4) (#160)
    by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:58:12 PM EST
    Uncommitted and give them to Obama. What if some of those uncommitted wanted to vote for Edwards? Or another Dem not on the ballot.

    Allocation of vote results by guess, backroom deals, averaged polls. Grrrrrr.

    Clinton reserves rights to take to credentials committee.

    Whohooooo!

    Wow, let's just outsource our elections to SUSA!

    This does say the Dems don't need my actual vote- (5.00 / 7) (#170)
    by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:00:07 PM EST
    they'll just guess, right?

    Take that to the Electoral College.

    I know I'll calm down, but I am quite upset at this moment.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't calm down (5.00 / 5) (#178)
    by Democratic Cat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:03:20 PM EST
    Write a letter to the DNC, telling them you object. Call your rep and senators. As the lady said this morning, even if you think you're not going to be heard, it's your responsibility to speak anyway.

    [ Parent ]
    This is as stupid as it gets (5.00 / 12) (#161)
    by Steve M on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:58:23 PM EST
    Is any Obama supporter on the planet under the impression that he is only going to win the nomination by 4 votes?

    By fighting for a lousy 4 delegates to be reassigned from Clinton to Obama, they're going to give the Clinton camp a free argument from now until November and delegitimize the nomination of their own candidate, for NOTHING.

    What a clueless, clueless strategy.

    I gotta agree with Ickes/Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by zfran on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:13:21 PM EST
    on this one. They talk about rules, rules, rules. If the rules state what he says they do, they have a case to take to Denver. No, I do not believe he will win by 4, but given the fact that this is tipped in Obama's favor (maybe because he's got such great (ugh) leadership),maybe this leaves an opening!! What a farce today was!@!!!

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#213)
    by ruffian on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:17:20 PM EST
    That has been my main point all along.  What has he gained by all this drama? Nothing.

    [ Parent ]
    Amen brother n/t (none / 0) (#171)
    by angie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:00:09 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I think I just witnessed (5.00 / 6) (#193)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:10:02 PM EST
    the DNC snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and have a vote to do so.  On to Denver!

    [ Parent ]
    Hopefully you all realize (none / 0) (#244)
    by independent voter on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:31:09 PM EST
    this is what MICHIGAN asked for.

    [ Parent ]
    Ickes statement (5.00 / 9) (#162)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:58:32 PM EST
    is electrifying.  He missed his calling.  He should have been a union leader.

    Not arguing his tactics have been the right ones, just that he made my hair stand on end with his statement here, especially his remarks about the unity pony all these folks keep invoking.

    Thank God Ickes said it (5.00 / 5) (#174)
    by angie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:01:03 PM EST
    someone had to.

    [ Parent ]
    Thank Senator Obama for his leadership. (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by oculus on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:58:38 PM EST
    What leadership?  

    Praising Obama's leadership in MI (5.00 / 7) (#164)
    by angie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:58:56 PM EST
    is the BEST laugh of the day!

    Hynes is unbelievable (5.00 / 6) (#165)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:59:03 PM EST