As usual, I have severe criticism for everybody involved in today's fiasco. Let me start with the Clinton camp. You know my beef about the Clinton camp's tactics and strategy on this. Look at their statement just released after the meeting:

Today’s results are a victory for the people of Florida who will have a voice in selecting our Party’s nominee and will see its delegates seated at our party’s convention. The decision by the Rules and Bylaws Committee honors the votes that were cast by the people of Florida and allocates the delegates accordingly. [MORE].

Um what? Florida lost half its delegates when it did NOTHING wrong? Hooray? It is true the Clinton campaign is the only reason even half the delegates were seated. But Florida deserved better. The voters of Florida have been victimized by the Democratic Party. It is that simple. And the Clinton camp decided to throw away that issue in favor of a fight over Michigan, who did break the rules. From the Clinton statement:

We strongly object to the Committee’s decision to undercut its own rules in seating Michigan’s delegates without reflecting the votes of the people of Michigan.

The Committee awarded to Senator Obama not only the delegates won by Uncommitted, but four of the delegates won by Senator Clinton. This decision violates the bedrock principles of our democracy and our Party.

It does more than that, it violates the Rules. And here is my continued criticism of the sanctimonious hypocrisy of the RBC and its nonsensical "rules are rules" BS. There is not a rule the RBC can point to that allows them to do what they did. Indeed, as I wrote, I would have had more respect if they had seated NO delegates from Michigan, holding to their August 25 decision, than what they did today.

If the rules REALLY mattered, then the RBC had three choices. NO delegates for Michigan. Half of the delegates based on the January 15 primary. Or All of the delegates based on the January 15 primary.

The rulebook was completely thrown out on this one. Making a mockery of every single sanctimonious statement ever made by Donna Brazile and her RBC cabal.

But the biggest mistakes today were made by Barack Obama. Why? In my opinion, nothing that happened today could take the nomination away from Obama. Hell, he should have argued for full seating of both delegations based on the primary results, taking the Michigan uncommitted delegates. Even in the unlikely event the RBC would have agreed to that, that would have only cost him 57 delegates net. That was not going to threaten his nomination.

And it would have unified the Party. It would have been a wonderful gesture to the Clinton Wing of the Party. It would have shut everyone up when he wins the nomination. What did Obama do instead? He fought to take 4 delegates from Clinton in Michigan. For what? To piss off every Clinton supporter and keep the Party divided?

All over 4 measly delegates? Incredible.

Barack Obama will be the nominee of the Democratic Party imo, and for four measly delegates, he just made his already difficult task of unifying the Democratic Party that much more difficult.

In short, Democrats have proven yet again how stupid we really are. So what's next? More stupidity probably. Here is what the Clinton camp says:

We reserve the right to challenge this decision before the Credentials Committee and appeal for a fair allocation of Michigan’s delegates that actually reflect the votes as they were cast.

Great, fight for 4 measly delegates from Michigan but let Florida, who played by the rules, get screwed out of half of it delegates. Unity? Not hardly.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments Now Closed

< FL/MI Live Blog: The Belated Afternoon Session | Deep Thought >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    huh? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Robert Oak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:27:45 PM EST
    I thought they issued a strong "we reserve the right to challenge both FL and MI at the credentials committee" which meant hey are going to the convention with it.

    Which I think is the right thing to do....I also think they have a tough road because while they are and have been getting the shaft by this preordained Obama anointment, they cannot make it appear they stole it, and believe me Alexrod and his media machine would certainly do that.

    So, what am I missing here with the idea that the Clinton campaign just laid down like dogs and took the screw job on Florida?

    It's hard (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Emma on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:30:27 PM EST
    to take a decision you agree with to the credentials committee.

    You think (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by pie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:34:52 PM EST
    Hillary is giving up?

    I don't.


    Well (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by Emma on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:39:59 PM EST
    I don't know what to think.  

    I think she hasn't reserved her right to challenge the FL decision before the credentials committee.  From her statement:

    We reserve the right to challenge this decision before the Credentials Committee and appeal for a fair allocation of Michigan's delegates that actually reflect the votes as they were cast.

    Beyond that, I seriously have no clue.  I am adrift.  Seriously, badly, confusedly adrift.  Up until this moment I hadn't felt like a voter without a party.  Now I do.  My vote was stolen.  That's all there is to it. Stolen.  YOu know it.  I know it.  The Dems know it.  But they did it anyway.  Incredible.


    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by OrangeFur on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:57:41 PM EST
    I don't think you have to publicly reserve your right to anything to actually keep it. They still have the right to argue for Florida's full seating. Getting them in the door is the first big step. If the difference becomes Florida's half votes and Florida's full votes, something will happen then.

    I don't know what the Clinton strategy is right now. Obviously every delegate counts, but to me, Clinton's battle now is for the popular vote. My ideal goal for her is to have an unambiguous win in the popular vote, given some reasonable estimate of Obama's MI support, and present that to the convention:

    More people voted for me than for anyone else by any reasonable measure. If you want to take the nomination away from my voters because of arcane caucus rules and disenfranchisement in Florida and Michigan, that's within your power. But you can't hide from what you're doing. Do the people still run the Democratic Party, or do its elites?


    Are you from MI? (none / 0) (#107)
    by samtaylor2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:47:06 PM EST
    Yes, I am. (none / 0) (#126)
    by Emma on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:49:32 PM EST

    Maybe the Republicans will (none / 0) (#43)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:34:55 PM EST
    put enough out there on Obama between now and then to make the DNC require her to take it to the credentials committee.

    It would only result in a swing of four votes (none / 0) (#89)
    by andrewwm on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:44:47 PM EST
    at most.

    The Clinton camp has now put themselves on record as calling the 1/2 vote solution ideal. They won't be able to walk that back at this point. The only argument they have is that Clinton should get 73, not 69, pledged delegates from Michigan (and remember, those 4 votes only count for 1/2).

    So she'd be appealing for an extra two pledged delegate votes. That's not going to change anything.


    At this point, (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by dskinner3 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:47:05 PM EST
    while I want Clinton in the WH, I most certainly will not accept my vote for her being given to BO. It's no longer about the nominee at this point for me, it's my f'ing vote.

    You can also thank (none / 0) (#149)
    by andrewwm on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:53:04 PM EST
    the Michigan Democratic Party for this. First, they screwed with their election date (yes, I know NH and that argument, but two wrongs don't make a right); then they proposed and pushed for this compromise. And Sandy Levin is for Clinton, so you can't say that they were Obamabots out to get Clinton either.

    Trust me, I know (none / 0) (#164)
    by dskinner3 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:55:15 PM EST
    exactly who is responsible for this. They are all a disgrace.

    So it can go to (none / 0) (#103)
    by pie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:46:42 PM EST
    the convention.

    Obama is slowly imploding.


    It could have gone to the convention anyway (none / 0) (#127)
    by andrewwm on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:49:34 PM EST
    I'm not sure what she would expect to be changed at the convention after this though. She gets a couple of more votes, big deal. She's still going to be behind by a couple of hundred, give or take.

    If it goes to the convention, (none / 0) (#181)
    by pie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:58:46 PM EST
    I guarantee you that Obama will be looking bad by August.

    I disagree. Her campaign did not vote for (none / 0) (#182)
    by zfran on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:58:53 PM EST
    this split in the MI delegates. All the committee talked about was the rules. If the rules, or charter, do indeed say you cannot remove delegates from one candidate and give them to another, she has a case. Even 4 delegates is a case. Either you are consistant, or you are not.

    Nope (none / 0) (#39)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:34:27 PM EST
    As I heard it, they've only at least publicly "reserved the right" to go to the credentials committee over Michigan, not Florida.

    The "Michigan Compromise" (5.00 / 20) (#3)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:28:40 PM EST
    is vote theft plain and simple.  No ifs, ands or buts.

    The DNC just took the same path as the RNC.  However, I must agree with BTD.  Florida broke NO rules and was punished anyway, with respect to the Democratic party there.

    Donna Brazile, I hope you and "yo mamma" (her inflection NOT mine) live and die by your rules.  The amazing irony in all this IS Donna Brazile.  Yes Donna, your "message" that you wanted to send SOOOOO badly to Florida got through today.

    You and Obama will get THEIR message in November.

    Hats off to the a55hats at the DNC.  The unity pony was beat down today.

    Unity? We don't want no stinkin' unity... (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:39:15 PM EST
    Hey I'm sure (5.00 / 5) (#177)
    by cawaltz on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:58:07 PM EST
    the Dem pary will be unified, if unified while short about half of the people who will have left the party in disgust.

    Please don't insult the RNC. (5.00 / 19) (#65)
    by ghost2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:40:44 PM EST
    I am NOT kidding.  

    At least Bush by his first count had a lead of 537 votes.  As flawed as the process was, in the ususal count, he came ahead.

    Even Bush and Rove could never have the audacity of stealing votes that were cast and tabulated.

    Let be brutally honest.  What the democratic party has done in this primary election is a 100, maybe a 1000 times worse than what Bush did.

    The Democratic Party is a fraud.  It has no core principles.  You know, for the past 7-8 years, we have made excuses for them.  Every freaking step of the way.  Even longer than that.  Who stopped Hillary's healthcare plan in 1993?? Remember Democrats had the majority in both chambers, and the plan didn't make it out of the committee.  Great leadership by Kerry and Kennedy (insert deep, annoying voice of Kerry saying, "the two of us have 40 years of experience on healthcare").  Screw them.

    The whole thing is corrupt.  I guess, Nancy and her pals want to be top dogs, and don't want their stature and safey diminished by a strong president.  


    For clarity (none / 0) (#132)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:50:00 PM EST
    I meant that the RNC and the DNC only awarded HALF of FL's delegates for moving up their primary this year.  I am not referencing anything from 2000.

    Exactly. (5.00 / 5) (#105)
    by lansing quaker on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:47:01 PM EST
    And I think more needs to be said on this than just typing.

    This Michiganian says NO to DNC and Obama.


    Excellent! (5.00 / 0) (#225)
    by stxabuela on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:12:26 PM EST
    Especially the "giving him free stuff" comment.  

    On a more serious note, I can only imagine how betrayed you must feel.  I was furious at the gaming of the TX caucuses by Team Obama.  Your anger must be exponentially greater.  


    OT.. (none / 0) (#112)
    by dskinner3 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:48:07 PM EST
    You and Eastern grad? I'm in Mason, kids a Bulldog.

    The DNC can go Cheney themselves. (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by Shainzona on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:48:38 PM EST
    I've said it before, Donna B was (5.00 / 0) (#197)
    by zfran on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:01:54 PM EST
    greatly affected by the 2000 election! So were so many who were intimitally involved. Wexler, apparently takes on the side he's for, not what's best for his state.

    The Obama campaign (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:28:40 PM EST
    wanted far more than 4 delegates, BTD. They were actually arguing for a 50/50 split, remember?

    agreed (5.00 / 12) (#5)
    by Turkana on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:28:50 PM EST
    obama could have agreed to seat the delegates, or half the delegates, as voted on, taking a big 0 for himself, from michigan, and he'd still be the nominee. the possession of great intelligence does not always connote with the possession of great wisdom.

    That's not very reassuring Turkana. (5.00 / 13) (#36)
    by Teresa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:33:52 PM EST
    I think Clinton's people knew they couldn't take the high road on FL. They'd come off looking like Obama looks regarding MI even though they would have had the "rules" on their side. They were not going to win period with the 100% argument.

    As for Michigan, Obama couldn't look worse after this. He supports vote stealing in my mind. On CNN, the reporter outside said the Obama supporters were very surprised that the Clinton supporters were that upset. I think his campaign is just as clueless in this case.


    heh (5.00 / 5) (#55)
    by Turkana on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:37:45 PM EST
    i'm not trying to be reassuring...

    this could have been an easy win for obama, but this was not a win.


    You know I like you. (4.90 / 10) (#128)
    by ghost2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:49:40 PM EST
    I think if Obama gets elected, you'll have the emotional trajectory of Bush voters.  

    He is as arrogant, as clueless, and as entitled as Bush.

    Sorry to be so brutally honest.

    Put yourselves in the position of Republicans in 2000.  They thought it's time for change.  They thought this is a reasonable, moderate guy. They though he had smart advisors.  Voters generally like an 8/8 (as in years) split between the parties.

    Took 2 terms of Bush (and the tragedy of Katrina) for them to realize what they had bargained for.  

    I see that all tepid Obama supporters just say, OK let's just go for him.  BTD saying the press will be easier on him.  

    The press has been complicit in the worst events that has befallen the American democracy in the past 20 years (maybe more).  Saying you just trust things to work out well at the end is having your head buried in the sand.

    How could anyone stay a democrat after today?  

    my 2cents.


    because, ultimately, (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Turkana on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:54:37 PM EST
    it's not about us or about the party. it's about the  iraqis and the americans in iraq. it's about torture. it's about domestic spying. it's about global warming. it's about stevens and ginsburg. it's about what's left of the constitution. on absolutely every issue, obama would be so much better than mccain that it's not even debatable.

    i do not think he will be anywhere close to being as good as his rapid supporters think he will be, but i also don't think he will be anywhere close to being as bad as his fiercest critics think he will be.


    to be fair on this point (none / 0) (#12)
    by ksh on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:30:43 PM EST
    I don't think he could do that without knowing if Clinton would go to the convention or not.

    irrelevant (5.00 / 8) (#34)
    by Turkana on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:33:42 PM EST
    it would have been such a unifying gesture, it would have absolutely destroyed her ability to build support for a convention challenge.

    Obama should have done it weeks ago (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:36:30 PM EST
    Never since January has Obama been behind in delegates. He had and has very little to fear--except for the possible perception that he is unelectable. (A bad day for this meeting, huh?)

    until north carolina (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Turkana on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:39:31 PM EST
    i think there could have been some legitimate concern that his candidacy was faltering. when the demographics held true, revealing that clinton's seeming momentum had also been but a function of demographics, that's when he could have made his unifying move.

    Intra-party politics (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Knocienz on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:46:25 PM EST
    A lot of the folks currently targeted for message crafting are not activists or voters looking for unifying gestures but super delegates looking to see who has control over the party and who is in a position to reward/punish their political ambitions.

    Giving Hillary everything she wanted would have been a win for her and would have signaled she still had control over the powers in the party.

    I suspect a convention challenge would still have occurred, it would just have been based on the big-states,popular-vote argument. Further, by giving her everything on the MI and FL primaries, folks would argue that Obama conceded that Michigan and Florida popular votes should be counted like every other vote.


    Why? (none / 0) (#48)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:35:45 PM EST
    I don't think I follow.  Explain your thinking, please?

    BTD... (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:29:29 PM EST
    Why do you think Obama fought for those MI delegates when, as you say, he really gains nothing but more acrimony and division?

    What could he gain by this?

    Consolidation of power. Chuck Todd kept saying (5.00 / 10) (#119)
    by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:48:42 PM EST
    over and over that it's now the Obama Dem Party.

    This is proof of his and/or Axelrod's control.

    I mean, in the Dem Party, stealing votes from a winner to give to someone not even on the ballot? How anti-Dem ideals can you get? Unless calling  decent Dem politicians racist and race-baiting is considered. That's probably worse. Or maybe on a par.


    This whole exercise was all about Obama IMHO (5.00 / 0) (#238)
    by bridget on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:52:04 PM EST
    it was not about Michigan voters, it was not about Florida voters.

    This was basically an early Obama coronation to speed the whole nom process along to its known conlcusion. Did any of these members look as if they lost any sleep over it last night? I may have but not these folks.

    The Dem Party has made up it's mind long time ago that Obama will be the nominee. IMO there was not a single person in that whole group who didn't already know today's outcome yesterday and before that ... (who knows what they did during recess - play scrabble? ;-)

    The Dem party will not deny the nomination to the first African-American candidate. That's why the old guard, the Kerrys, the Kennedys, jumped on his bandwagon so fast immediately. Just listen again to Kerry's answer to the qs why he believes Obama is the best President for the US. And his answer had nothing to do with debates, policy issues, etc.

    Nothing and nobody can or will take the nom away from Obama. The whole procedure today was a waste of time really just like so many Senate hearings, and I wish I hadn't watched it on TV and cleaned my closets instead.

    I bet everyone around that table knew that Obama tried to block revotes. So to hear the Obama supporter Hyne (?) congratulate Obama for his leadership told me everything I needed to know: This was an Obama coronation. And it was also rude IMO.

    In response to all that went down Harold Ickes did the right thing but I doubt that Hillary will take it to Denver. What good will it do? Even a Clinton can't move this huge mountain.

    But maybe I am wrong. I hope so.


    He imposed his will (none / 0) (#146)
    by Lahdee on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:52:36 PM EST
    pure and simple.

    The ONLY mistakes were made by Obama (5.00 / 12) (#8)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:29:55 PM EST
    It's HIS General Election to lose.

    It's not Clinton's to win it for him.

    Unity my a$$... (5.00 / 21) (#9)
    by dskinner3 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:30:16 PM EST
    My vote for Hillary in MI now may count for the idiot who removed his name from the ballot. How utterly stupid, and blatantly schemed to favor the chosen one.

    No longer a Democrat. Period.

    And no, I will no longer work for or vote for Barack Obama. Downticket only.

    No longer a Democrat? (1.16 / 6) (#75)
    by Melchizedek on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:43:00 PM EST
    Over this? BTD's right, we are a really stupid party.

    If only those who voted "Uncommitted" in MI could have had their vote actually count for Clinton (who's name was on the ballot), then we'd really have a party to be proud of...


    Take it to the Bank! (5.00 / 9) (#125)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:49:29 PM EST
    This is the worst thing the Rules Comm. could have done.  I could never bring myself to vote for Obama now.  I am not alone in this.  I am a progressive, educated person who is a lifelong Democrat.  The Democratic Party needs to be sent a message, loud and clear, and that message will come in November, delivered by Pres. John McCain.

    You read that correctly. (5.00 / 4) (#156)
    by dskinner3 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:53:55 PM EST
    Sorry if there may have been a typo, but the Democratic party no longer represents my ideals.

    Good luck in November.


    November (none / 0) (#174)
    by joharmon86 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:57:16 PM EST
    Would you vote for Obama if Hillary was chosen as VP?

    May I answer? (5.00 / 5) (#214)
    by Cate on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:06:16 PM EST

    BTD (5.00 / 11) (#13)
    by facta non verba on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:31:01 PM EST
    is so right. The party is destroyed over so little. A glance at the Clinton blogs, there is nothing but fury and determination. It amazes me and it inspires me.

    She's fighting (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:31:01 PM EST
    the fight she can win.  If she fights both states' results, she just whining.  Now, agian, she is fighting to have voters be represented according to their votes.  

    Why I will not join in unity (5.00 / 16) (#16)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:31:13 PM EST
    cause I do not want the Obama wing to have this much power.  So, they need to be clipped.  They want absolute power, at the cost of the Party.  

    Here he is on TV blathering at a news conference about his idiotic faith.  Makes me sick.  

    Another Similarity To Bush (5.00 / 3) (#230)
    by creeper on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:17:13 PM EST
    They want absolute power...

    The more I learn of Barack Obama the more he reminds me of George W. Bush.

    How about a list?

    Delivers sweet speeches
    Struggles to form a coherent sentence without prompts
    Has limited experience
    Hates being crossed
    Claims God is on his side
    Is blind to his own negative impressions
    Pursues votes ruthlessly
    Creates his own reality

    What did I miss?


    And guess who voted exactly the wrong way (5.00 / 11) (#17)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:31:19 PM EST
    every single time: hypocrite Donna Brazile.

    But, but she's uncommitted n/t (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by Lahdee on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:54:12 PM EST
    To the truth clearly (none / 0) (#186)
    by Regency on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:59:14 PM EST
    If she has any committment to anything it's the voices in her head that remind her of what her mama said.

    Donna Brazile (none / 0) (#183)
    by joharmon86 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:58:55 PM EST
    This focus on Donna Brazile bogels my mind. She only has one vote just like every other member of the committee. The decision made is not her fault and Sen. Obama had no control over the ruling either.

    Donna Brazile started to earn (5.00 / 8) (#223)
    by TimNCGuy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:12:13 PM EST
    this hatred the moment she intentionally twisted Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" comment and claimed it was racist.  At that moment she should have been admonishing Michelle Obama for twisting that comment and instead, she joied in with her.

    Brazile should be drummed out of the DNC for her behavior.


    The reason for the focus (5.00 / 6) (#228)
    by suki on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:13:04 PM EST
    on Donna Brazile is because of numerous divisive statements she's made since this primary began.
    All completely unnecessary, IMO.
    You can pretend otherwise of course.

    Not sure about Clinton and Obama... (5.00 / 18) (#21)
    by OrangeFur on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:32:01 PM EST
    ... but what the RBC did today is an utter travesty. It's something you'd expect a Communist elections bureau to do when announcing their "official results".

    This makes the 2000 Supreme Court decision on Bush v. Gore look rational by comparison. There at least the decision was based on some actual vote totals.

    I do think the biggest thing Clinton gained today was legitimacy of the Florida popular vote.

    I would like to know (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:32:17 PM EST
    what the Clinton campaign's rationale for this was. I can't figure it out, which I have to assume means there's some piece of behind-the-scenes info we simply don't have.

    The Clinton people have at crucial times made some very bad decisions, but they've had six months to think about this one, yet it looks like some hasty, ill-thought-out, last-minute decision from the outside where we all sit.  I don't think it could have been, so I'm left wondering what it is we don't know about.

    I hope the question of why they did it this way will at least be asked at the next conference call. (hint, hint)

    I'm beginning to believe the narrative (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:33:23 PM EST
    that they actually wanted the ambiguity around Michigan.

    But they fought for Michigan (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:46:25 PM EST
    as BTD keeps pointing out.  It was Florida they didn't fight for.

    Maybe, just maybe (none / 0) (#129)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:49:45 PM EST
    it's because that is identical to the Republican punishment.

    Just guessing.


    Honestly, I think the Obama people felt (none / 0) (#209)
    by Seth90212 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:05:15 PM EST
    they would've been very competitive in MI, maybe even come out victorious. They recognized that Clinton would've won FL by at least 10.

    My understanding is (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:33:58 PM EST
    No matter what they did, Obama had already won.

    I concede that (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:47:21 PM EST
    Believe it or not, I still care DEEPLY about the principle of the thing.

    Me too (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:49:01 PM EST
    That's why I value the principle argument presented.

    Obama hasn't won anything. (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by pie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:50:15 PM EST
    We need a candidate that can win in November.

    Let's just say (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:53:24 PM EST
    The people criticizing Clinton's role in this, they're the ones who believe she has already lost.

    Well, why would Clinton want to (5.00 / 0) (#226)
    by zfran on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:12:35 PM EST
    alienate the party at this stage. She accepted a deal, won the popular vote, is threatening to take this to the convention and got the winning delegate count moved upwards. Given that fact that (it looked) it seemed so many Obama supporters on the committee, she worked out what she could. I had hoped she'd come stormin' in to fight for each and every vote personally, but then she would have lost everything. She doesn't have the power to wield. What should she have done.

    I don't know why Obama's decision (5.00 / 7) (#26)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:32:54 PM EST
    surprises you. It was in keeping with his theme throughout this process.

    Obama will say and do anything to win. It is important that he be given the TV coverage that shows him for who he really is. There is still time between now and the convention to make sure he doesn't become the nominee.  Those SD commitments can go to the other side and he failed to take the nomination with pledged delegates.

    His campaign needs to go to convention. And it needs to lose. I really don't understand his supporters and why they feel the need to be so threatening.

    But why make himself look this bad (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:39:59 PM EST
    when he doesn't need to do this to win (as his obnoxious supporters keep reminding us ad nauseum - he's already won THE MATH)? I don't get it, JCP.

    I think he's just lazy (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:48:07 PM EST
    and has attached himself to some really vile people who are looking to get a puppet in a position of great power. Obama just lets them do what they need to while he convinces himself he's the best thing to happen to this country since JFK.

    It's his supporters who are threatening riots at the convention, and shout down Clinton supporters. That is the kind of administration we would have to live with for four years if he were to win the GE.

    It would take decades for the democratic party to recover from an Obama administration.


    We're Going To The Convention....I would (5.00 / 7) (#31)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:33:25 PM EST
    have to venture a guess that Hillary and Bill are several steps ahead of us in what they have plotted out.  This reminds me of a chess game.  And never, ever underestimate Hillary.

    It could be worse. (5.00 / 8) (#45)
    by Fabian on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:35:38 PM EST
    I was having problems accessing this site, so I went to the big orange where I could see the entire spectrum of the rainbow in the comment threads.

    The diary was about "Hillary supporters" but it's likely the phenomena wasn't restricted to one diary.

    Just useless cheerleading and bashing with nary a concern where this leads the party in the present and short term and long term futures.  Why do I get the feeling that I'm watching a Warner Bros cartoon where one character charges up to the barricaded door only to have swing open at the last second and the hapless character charges straight through the door and over a cliff.

    A whole lotta emotion and momentum and not a plan in sight.

    That was an amazing analogy (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by coolit on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:51:47 PM EST

    "a Warner Bros cartoon where one character charges up to the barricaded door only to have swing open at the last second and the hapless character charges straight through the door and over a cliff."

    The image is worth a laugh.... or cry


    Why do you think Obama fought for those MI delegat (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by camellia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:36:30 PM EST
    es?" ........  Ummmmm.  Vanity?  Need to reconfirm his position as leader?  Step on the face of this uppity woman?  

    This man is an arriviste, a poseur, an opportunist.  He has found the perfect time for him in history -- Dems want a victory so much in November that some of us will compromise any values, sell out any principles, to ensure that victory.  We hope.  

    MI is the most egregious violation of democracy (5.00 / 8) (#53)
    by jfung79 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:37:06 PM EST
    I can understand the Clinton camp focusing on taking the Michigan case to the credentials committee because at least there was some basis in actual voters for the Florida decision by the RBC.  The Clinton supporters fought hard for fully seating Florida but lost the vote 15-12.  It's not something to agree with, but not as egregious a violation of principle.  On the other hand, the allocation of the Michigan delegates is practically pulled out of thin air and has no basis in votes.

    i hate to state the obvious, but (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by cy street on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:37:26 PM EST
    the republicans did the same thing almost in advance.  they have a nominee and they are preparing for the general.  

    you take on the four delegates resonates with me.  however, the clinton supporters that are lost are lost already.  team obama is looking at a razor's edge in electoral math as it is with the "clinton" defections.  in comparison to "00 and "04 though, his chances are far better.  

    today, if anything, puts unity to rest.  there will not be any such thing.  the house of clinton has bended their last argument with no change in the outcome.

    as i predicted, post wisconsin, the results after tuesday will leave obama needing a/some dozen/s of delegates, while clinton will need hundreds.

    the race has not changed since, give or take twenty delegates.  this has been all for not and the only question outstanding is:  as the supporters of clinton leave the party, will she?

    I'd venture a guess (5.00 / 14) (#70)
    by dskinner3 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:41:34 PM EST
    and say that:

    the clinton supporters that are lost are lost already

    that number grew by a large number today.


    most likely the number will grow (1.00 / 1) (#114)
    by cy street on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:48:07 PM EST
    higher than that.  now that the party has opted for new leadership, it is on the new leader to replenish those lost with new members and grow beyond the failed coalition of the past twelve years.

    the hill is steep and the stakes are high, but i back obama fully and completely to go where clinton, gore and kerry never did, wide majorities in both houses and a bipartisan white house.

    if not, i hope mccain brings all those new jobs to central pennsylvania he is about to start promising.


    What? (5.00 / 4) (#138)
    by OrangeFur on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:51:21 PM EST
    A bipartisan White House? What does that mean?

    Good grief. (5.00 / 5) (#167)
    by pie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:55:48 PM EST
    the hill is steep and the stakes are high, but i back obama fully and completely to go where clinton, gore and kerry never did, wide majorities in both houses and a bipartisan white house.

    Heh.  Well, we've all been disappointed.  I expect you will be too.


    i voted for all three, including bill twice. (1.00 / 1) (#189)
    by cy street on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:00:16 PM EST
    i voted for hillary too, but the decision to abandon wisconsin was the turning point and nothing has changed since.  the math is not popular in these discussions, but nothing has really changed since then.

    obama is the presumptive nominee.  i lost and i accepted long ago.

    i will do everything possible to elect him and democrats of all regions in november.


    A few points of disagreement... (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by OrangeFur on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:44:11 PM EST
    Clinton will not leave the party.

    The Clinton supporters are not yet lost. I'm struggling with the decision every day. At times I can't believe that I'm even considering not voting for the Democratic nominee, and at other times (such as right now) I'm so angry that it takes conscious effort not to write a rude two-word note on the latest DCCC fundraising letter and send it back to them.

    And the damage is not done only at the presidential voting level. Whether or not I end up voting for Obama if he's the nominee, I'm certainly not giving any money to the DNC, DCCC, or DSCC this cycle. They can all go straight to [heck] as far as I'm concerned.


    Of course she won't (5.00 / 8) (#143)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:52:13 PM EST
    What a stupid question.  She's devoted her life to the party.  It's her JOB.

    We, on the other hand, have only voted Democratic all our adult lives.  It's not our job.  We are free agents.

    And if you think Obama's chances are "far better" than 00 and 04, I'd like to have some of what you're smoking.


    For want of 4 delegates (5.00 / 8) (#67)
    by janarchy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:41:10 PM EST
    a party was lost. I really hope everyone's happy now.

    And call me a tinfoil hat paranoid but does anyone think that it's a coincidence that Obama's leaving the church today happened at the same time as the RBC was making decisions? Backroom deals, anyone?

    Trying to bury the (5.00 / 7) (#73)
    by dskinner3 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:42:26 PM EST
    fact that he STOLE (or was handed) delegates he DID NOT EARN!

    I wondered (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by janarchy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:50:21 PM EST
    if the deal was that if he threw the church under the bus, they'd do the deal for him. If not, they might be inclined to side more with Hillary.

    I don't know any more. All I know is the Democratic Party is dead to me. This is not the political party I want to be affiliated with. The voters should count before any candidate, any rules, any bureaucracy. It's just wrong, plain and simple.

    Luckily some people on that committee knew it. Just not enough.


    If they wanted unity Obama (5.00 / 12) (#68)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:41:18 PM EST
    should not have fought for four lousy delegates.  He's a sore winner.  Eff Unity.

    Yes, aside from everything else (5.00 / 7) (#90)
    by Valhalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:45:11 PM EST
    that bothers me about Obama is that he is not a gracious winner.  I think that being gracious in defeat is an admirable trait, being gracious in victory is ... a minimum requirement to a claim to have any character at all.

    Gracious (1.00 / 3) (#201)
    by joharmon86 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:03:03 PM EST
    How is Obama not a gracious winner? You just say stuff with nothing to support it.

    The MDP (5.00 / 5) (#108)
    by OrangeFur on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:47:17 PM EST
    has no more power to reallocate the votes than I do.

    Votes belong to the voters, not to anyone else.


    Oh come on.... (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:49:11 PM EST
    You don't honestly believe Obama had nothing to fo with that?  Foolish and silly.

    They thanked him in the last few minutes (5.00 / 5) (#191)
    by ruffian on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:00:38 PM EST
    for helping forge that 'compromise'.  Of course he had a lot to do with it.

    An indictment of the party and progressives... (5.00 / 14) (#71)
    by Oje on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:41:55 PM EST
    For the Democratic party, they exposed themselves as no better than Republican party of 2000. A ruling committee invokes rules in ways that massage a desired outcome for a particular candidate, and violate rules and precedents in the process. It punishes a state (Florida) for a "beauty contest" of the DNC's own making. Then, a state party (Michigan) that jeopardized the will of primary voters by its own actions in the state house is rewarded with the power to divide its pledged delegates in whatever manner it desires.

    Additionally, the outcome today seems like a classic political atrophy for the progressive blogosphere. The progressive blogs came into existence accusing the inner workings of the Democratic party as undemocratic. Today, it lauds the party's ability to direct undemocratic outcomes to the ends that progressive bloggers desire. It is classic Republican dittohead political action: the progressive blogs accuse the Clintons of undemocratic intentions, then orchestrate and cheer on an undemocratic outcome against Hillary Clinton as the "appropriate" response. Nevermind that the Hillary Clinton, in all of the DNC's rulings, has suffered at every step and never at any step violated the spirit of democracy.

    My wife and I are apoplectic. We have decided to cut off funding for the Democratic party due to its actions here. While I regard the "party savior" hope a ridiculous position to take, I cannot help but dream that Al Gore will step forward to question the actions of the rulings made by the DNC today. Democrats surrendered the high-ground on all disputes of enfranchisement in their own party and in our country by its own abuse of rules and principles for democratic representation - and the party did this in the name of "the rules." That committee is a travesty of party democracy and representation.

    I haven't seen anyone actually TRY! (5.00 / 5) (#72)
    by Fabian on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:41:58 PM EST
    I'm waiting for one serious, good faith, no preconditions attempt at Unity.

    What is Obama Afraid Of? (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by DaleA on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:42:30 PM EST
    If he is as close to the nomination as his supporters claim, why grab the four delegates? This makes no sense unless there is something else going on. Could be very big news that would shake a lot of his delegates lose. No clue here. Just amazed at the spectacle on TV.

    What's the filing deadline for Wexler's (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:43:29 PM EST

    This wasn't Obama's plan (none / 0) (#185)
    by Mavs4527 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:59:10 PM EST
    He wanted an even split of the delegates from Michigan. This was a plan from the Michigan Democratic Party and a resounding majority of Rules Committee members voted in favor of it.

    I should ask you whether you wish to push the Democratic Party into chaos over a question of 4 delegates?


    What's with 'push'? (5.00 / 2) (#211)
    by DaleA on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:05:43 PM EST
    We are already there. This simply stirs the pot even more. And probably will make matters even worse.

    Is he gonna turn down his illegal delegates? (5.00 / 5) (#76)
    by Teresa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:43:02 PM EST
    At the very least, his fighting for delegates in MI has to put the popular vote into play in some way. Whatever percent they use, you can't ignore the voters if your counting the delegates.

    Those delegates were legalized today (1.71 / 7) (#91)
    by Seth90212 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:45:13 PM EST
    That was the whole point of this exercise, to come to a reasonably accommodation whereby those delegates could be brought in from the cold.

    Stop using the wrong word (5.00 / 10) (#111)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:47:58 PM EST
    Legal is the wrong word.

    the delegates were recognized today in an exercise of rule breaking by the RBC.

    I wish people could be honest and rational about this.


    Seth90212 has been disrupting the threads (5.00 / 0) (#155)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:53:48 PM EST
    most of the day.

    And I've done it by only commenting on 2 (1.00 / 3) (#170)
    by Seth90212 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:56:14 PM EST
    threads all day (including this one). Quite a feat huh?

    A kind word from me for Bill Nelson (5.00 / 8) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:43:15 PM EST
    who did an extraordinarily good job in presenting the case for Florida.

    Indeed (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:44:40 PM EST
    And you can tell that he wanted to make the safe harbor argument, as he has been doing since last summer.

    This is Obama blog nonsense (5.00 / 16) (#83)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:43:54 PM EST
    Everybody who spoke acknowledged that essentially all the "uncommitted" delegates would be Obama supporters.  It's a technical matter only.

    My opinion-- he who takes his name off the ballot doesn't get delegates officially committed to suporting him, period.  He tried a stunt, it failed, he should pay at least a small price.

    I would like that to be reflected at least technically in the formal designation of those delegates as uncommitted, even though we all know the party people in Michigan are arranged it so Obama would get to pick the "uncommitted" delegates.

    This is a GD banana republic we've got in the Democratic Party right now, but at least we could TRY to observe the proprieties.

    And to echo BTD for the zillionth time, WHY does Obama insist on this crap when he has to know it just further alienates Dem. voters?

    That's the big mystery to me.

    It's not up to Obama (1.00 / 4) (#151)
    by joharmon86 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:53:20 PM EST
    Do people not understand that despite their conspiracy theories that suggest otherwise, this wasn't up to Obama. This was up to the committee and the groups that had the most influence over the committee were the state parties. The solutions supported by both state parties were adopted by the committee. While they took into account Obama's supporters and Clinton's supporters, the committee's decision was based ultimately on what the state parties wanted. The Senators that presented (Nelson and Levin) were both supportive of Clinton (Nelson declared and Levin Clinton-leaning). The ultimate decision made was accepted by both parties and even proposed by both parties. Even Clinton issued a statement which confirmed that she felt Florida's decision was fair and a "VICTORY." Obviously, Clinton herself and her campaign are  on another page than Clinton supporters. The reality is that the rules stated that they should be totally stripped of their delegates and the fact that Clinton got anything out of this frankly is a miracle for her campaign because it pushes back the number Obama needs to secure the nomination.

    LOL, you make Obama sound so helpless. (5.00 / 5) (#199)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:02:12 PM EST
    Once Again (1.00 / 1) (#213)
    by joharmon86 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:05:55 PM EST
    You don't provide anything substantive in response.

    The R&B overrode (none / 0) (#216)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:06:36 PM EST
    the State law didn't they?  I thought they said that uncommitted was a legally recognized option in their state?  I must have misunderstood because I don't see how the party could override the State's election law.  

    Anyone know what happened?


    Obama must be running short on SDs.... (5.00 / 5) (#86)
    by ineedalife on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:44:17 PM EST
    if stealing 4 delegates was worth the fight.

    According to Chuck Todd (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by andrewwm on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:47:35 PM EST
    He had the votes for a 50-50 seating but decided it was better to have a more unanimous decision.

    The question remains.. (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by ineedalife on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:52:48 PM EST
    why go after 4 delegates. If he had the muscle to do anything why not just give Hillary the full amount just to shut her up? I don't believe Todd.

    How nice of him to steal fewer votes! (5.00 / 8) (#171)
    by Teresa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:56:47 PM EST
    See, was it so hard to say something nice? LOL. (5.00 / 4) (#204)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:03:52 PM EST
    Uncommitted (5.00 / 9) (#92)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:45:19 PM EST
    should have been just that.  "Uncommitted" is a perfectly sound designation and category with the imprimatur of the rules.  Obama and Edwards full well knew what "uncommitted" was when they jockeyed for those votes.  What is wrong with "uncommitted" delegates?  I think it unreasonable, inequitable, and egocnetric that Obama claims and gets these now.  

    Obama didn't claim anything (1.20 / 5) (#160)
    by joharmon86 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:54:22 PM EST
    This was the COMMITTEE'S DECISION. The only staunch support of a candidate on the committee was ICKES.

    Because we all know Donna (4.20 / 5) (#198)
    by dskinner3 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:01:56 PM EST
    is "Uncommitted"

    but hey, aren't all the uncommitteds now Obama's? Plus at least four more of Hillary's.


    Depends on how the state put it re Uncommitted (none / 0) (#192)
    by Christy1947 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:00:39 PM EST
    What the state representatives all said was that there was a campaign to get O voters and E voters to vote "Uncommitted" rather than not vote at all. It might have been a different matter if the state had not itself bought the argument and came up with the 69-59 compromise to take into account what they knew about "Uncommitted" and the 30,000 wastebasketed ballots. Once they did that, the standard "uncommitted' option was no longer one because of the nonstandard way in which the party said it had been in fact used.

    Depends on how the state put it re Uncommitted (none / 0) (#200)
    by Christy1947 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:02:41 PM EST
    What the state representatives all said was that there was a campaign to get O voters and E voters to vote "Uncommitted" rather than not vote at all. It might have been a different matter if the state had not itself bought the argument and came up with the 69-59 compromise to take into account what they knew about "Uncommitted" and the 30,000 wastebasketed ballots. Once they did that, the standard "uncommitted' option was no longer one because of the nonstandard way in which the party said it had been in fact used. And Ickes gave up that argument going in, going instead for 73-55, and can't go back now.

    It's corruption plain and simple. (5.00 / 9) (#94)
    by WillBFair on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:45:41 PM EST
    The replublicans in 2000 only stole FL. The DNC stole FL and MI.
    It's a fitting capper to this sleazy primary: the media smear job, Obama's nonstop age, race, and gender baiting, his supporters false accusations and disgusting insults.
    They've shown again and again that they'll do anything to win.
    Even if we loose, we'll have our integrity, which is more than I can say for the other side.

    Um, (5.00 / 9) (#95)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:45:48 PM EST
    The state parties got what they wanted. What else matters?

    Read closely: Neither the state parties nor the candidates matter. Only the voters do. The voters have not been made whole.

    Oh please. (5.00 / 9) (#97)
    by OrangeFur on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:46:03 PM EST
    Seriously. A few people make their feelings known at a meeting and that's an indictment on the 17 million people who voted for Clinton?

    Illegal? (5.00 / 9) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:46:23 PM EST
    You know it was legal. you can argue they were against the rules, but the one thing they were was LEGAL.

    BTW, Florida's primary was properly within the rules.

    You know who DID break the rules? New Hampshire. so did Michigan.

    I don't know about legality (1.00 / 2) (#224)
    by samtaylor2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:12:17 PM EST
    This discussion of legality is above me.  But as a MI resident, and someone who stays pretty informed, how I understood (and many others understood the siutation as I did) is that the vote wouldn't count.  I did not vote, and many us didn't.  We didn't vote because I was lazy, but because I read the paper and listened to what the national party said.  The primary was flawed, and it ould have been flawed if Obama had stayed on the balate.  Electons should not be based solely on name recognition.

    Thus what is the best solution.  I think listening to the MI Democratics is the best solution.  


    And Carl Levin gave it to them (none / 0) (#130)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:49:50 PM EST
    over that.

    To tell you the truth, I actually respect the rationale behind the vote split compromise, I just don't think it was the right move.


    good point (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by manish on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:46:23 PM EST
    hey BTD,

    Barack Obama will be the nominee of the Democratic Party imo, and for four measly delegates, he just made his already difficult task of unifying the Democratic Party that much more difficult.

    A very fair and reasonable point.  Though it should be noted that this was the solution of the MI Democratic party, not Obama.  Neither Clinton's proposal of just saying none of the uncommitted were necessarily for Obama nor Obama's 50-50 proposal were completely fair.

    I think that if Clinton had said let Obama keep all of the uncommitted votes, her proposal would have had a greater chance of being accepted.

    While I recognize that you probably wouldn't have much issue with Obama keeping all the uncommitted delegates, I'm not certain that how many of your Clinton supporting friends agree.

    But most would have accepted it (none / 0) (#142)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:52:08 PM EST
    All of the Uncommitted would have voted for Obama (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by jfung79 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:55:53 PM EST
    But there's no reason why they should have been pledged to Obama officially.  I would not have accepted that because it does not respect actual votes, which is what elections are all about.  

    Obama BLEW IT (5.00 / 7) (#102)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:46:30 PM EST
    Clinton now has her link to stay in the race.  She has an appeal to take to the convention.  She can suspend, keep raising money and go around the country with different state reps discussing issues that effect that state... why not?  I expect her to have a lot of joint legislation she will need to discuss.

    I have NO idea what the Obama camp was thinking.  They are outmanuevered at every level.  McCain is going to chew him up if he gets the nom.  What a noob.

    She can stay in the race until next March (1.00 / 1) (#233)
    by riddlerandy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:31:47 PM EST
    Obama is now going to focus on beating McCain for the presidency

    She can stay in the race until next March (1.00 / 1) (#234)
    by riddlerandy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:31:47 PM EST
    Obama is now going to focus on beating McCain for the presidency

    So why didn't Obama (5.00 / 7) (#115)
    by Lahdee on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:48:08 PM EST
    permit full representation for both MI and FL? IMO he doesn't want to give the Clinton camp even a whiff of victory. It's really come down to him imposing his will on the Democratic party. Sure looks like he took a giant step towards that today.

    Let the Unity Pony ride to Obamaunity begin! Clinton must go! Supers must align with the chosen!

    Be dazzled by the light, be very dazzled.

    The Rules Committee (5.00 / 12) (#116)
    by joanneleon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:48:09 PM EST
    doesn't have to go by the rules, clearly.

    Everyone else has to follow the rules, but the Rules Committee doesn't.

    They totally and completely blew all their credibility out the window today.  Donna Brazile's mama would be shocked.  In fact, it might even be called cheating.

    Hypocrites.  A bunch of hypocrites talking about how they know the importance of the vote, some were pontificating about how they know the importance of the right to vote more than anyone else, and then in the next breath they vote to take votes away from people, to disenfranchise them, without even so much as a rule or a precedent to justify it (in Michigan's case).

    Bloody calculating, self-serving, manipulative, authoritarian hypocrites.

    Here's A Rule (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by Athena on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:54:20 PM EST
    They can put this rule in their pipe and smoke it:

    There is no nominee until the vote is taken on August 27, 2008.


    Fighting in the hallways (5.00 / 5) (#117)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:48:24 PM EST
    I don't think anyone is unifying any time soon!


    Well, that's normal (1.36 / 11) (#217)
    by RussTC3 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:06:40 PM EST
    You see the VOCAL minority, which is who TalkLeft and all online communities represent, never fairly represent the actual people.  

    The SILENT majority do.

    It's a shame that Clinton made this such a big issue.  By the way, where is the outrage towards Floridians who voted Republican and, according to you people, were also disenfranchised?

    This talk about losing in November is nonsense.  Stop your faux-outrage and try to understand that the DNC did the best they could to both punish the FL and MI democratic parties (100% warranted. Sorry but I live in Ohio and I would want the exact same thing to happen had Ohio broke the rules.  Rules are rules, after all.) and have them be represented at the convention.

    But whatever, if you truly believe that McCain is a better candidate than Obama, then vote for him.  His election would be no one's fault but your own.

    I have more faith though in the American people, and am smart enough to realize that the opinion of you folks, the vocal minority, has no basis in reality.


    I'm getting a lot of this tonight. (5.00 / 6) (#121)
    by Fabian on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:48:46 PM EST
    Not surprised.  Not gonna defend them either.  Or denounce them.

    What they did wasn't racist or sexist.  What they did was political and it was aimed squarely at the DNC.  The message probably is one that the DNC has heard before, repeatedly.  Maybe this time they'll listen?

    Disagree on who was shouting (5.00 / 7) (#131)
    by Valhalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:49:55 PM EST
    First, there were just as many disruptive Obama supporters.  Virtually everyone on this thread was watching, so you prob won't get far with this.

    But from watching the levels of cheering/booing for various points made, I'd say the booing at the end (and the Denver calls) had to be Clinton supporters and Count-the-Vote folks from FL and MI.  Just because the party officials were willing to compromise does not mean the people of MI and FL agree.

    But we'll see in Nov, if Obama gets the nom, won't we?

    Hmmm - not a good idea to jump to (5.00 / 5) (#196)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:01:42 PM EST
    conclusions on who the shouters were supporting when it really could have been either side promoting the Denver ending.

    Obama supporters are pretty rough and ready for a fight and they've got their organizers preparing to let off some steam there.

    Certainly, there were moments when it was very obvious who the boo's would have been coming from. However, even during the final debate/vote of the committee, it appeared to be Florida people screaming for their votes and that could have been supporters of either candidate.


    Lies, lies and (5.00 / 10) (#135)
    by dskinner3 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:50:23 PM EST
    more lies. He took his name off in MI to pander to IA and NH, and anyone who argues differently is knowingly lying. My vote for Hillary was certified by the SOS of MI. Count it as it was cast FFS.

    Ok. Whatever. (1.00 / 8) (#163)
    by Seth90212 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:54:37 PM EST
    This is pointless. It is a fringe opinion but you're welcome to it. As you have witnessed it didn't hold sway.

    I'm not going to over the same old territory over and over. The matter has been decided in any event.


    Fringe? (5.00 / 5) (#187)
    by dskinner3 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:59:17 PM EST
    Because you call it that right? I'm sure I'm not in the minority with my opinion on the matter. Stupid amateur political move that will cost him MI in November.  

    The nomination (5.00 / 5) (#202)
    by pie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:03:19 PM EST
    has not been decided.

    Obama took his name off the ballot in MI because he knew he would lose badly.  Hillary got 55% of the vote!!

    You have no argument.


    What YOU advocate actually is (5.00 / 7) (#206)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:04:38 PM EST
    illegal---giving someone credit for votes that were not cast for him.

    why did Obama stay on the FL ballot? (5.00 / 3) (#219)
    by Josey on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:07:39 PM EST
    since Fl was also an "illegal" election.

    Fringe Idea? (5.00 / 8) (#136)
    by creeper on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:50:48 PM EST
    Your logic baffles me.  Where I come from, the idea that someone who was not on a ballot should receive votes is a fringe idea.

    We all know why Barack Obama's name was not on the Michigan ballot and it had nothing to do with the rules.  It was a cold, calculated decision for the sole purpose of pandering to Iowans.

    The fact that it worked doesn't say much for my fellow voters here in Iowa.

    Michigan made that argument. RBC said 'nope.' (none / 0) (#210)
    by Christy1947 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:05:34 PM EST
    Well (5.00 / 7) (#137)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:51:09 PM EST
    If you think therein lies the path to Unity, more power to you.

    What a fool.

    The Clintons destroy the party??? (5.00 / 12) (#139)
    by swiss473 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:51:24 PM EST
    Bill and Hillary Clinton saved the Democratic Party from oblivion.  Without them there would be no pary.

    Do these #s have any menaing to you?  49, 13, 112, 174.

    The first 3 are the respective EVs the party got from 1980-1988.  174 is the total # they got in that period.

    Without Bill Clinton do democrat would have President since the 70s.

    He saved them.

    And this is the thanks that he and his family get?

    To have the DNC steal their votes on live television?

    Hillary needs to run independent.  She might win anyway, and if she didn't she'd finish off the Obama wing and be able to rebuild the party.

    I know lots of family and friends who are ready to sit home or vote McCain.  These are hardcore dems who never even gave a 2nd glance at the GOP ticket.  They voted for Dukakis without blinking an eye.  Voted for Mondale no problem.  And now they're ready to vote McCain, or stay home.

    I know a bunch of women who are even more upset.  They've said if McCain has a woman VP they'd vote for him in a heartbeat.  Obama better watch out that McCain and the GOP don't sense the immense female anger, pick a woman VP who is groomed to run in 2012 after McCain serves one term, and win the elction with that bold move.

    Today was a travesty.

    I may be alone here, (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by samanthasmom on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:52:22 PM EST
    but I wish Hillary had stuck to her call "to count the votes". I wish she had fought for all of the votes in both Florida and Michigan to count as voted and for full seating of both delegations.  This mess is not the fault of the voters in either state.  It was the high road, and I'm sorry she veered off of it. Taking the high road is something Obama seems incapable of doing, and it would have set her so far apart from him.  I want her to win the nomination, but I wanted her to keep her eye on her message, too. I will support her all the way to the convention, but I'm disappointed. And thanks to TL for the wonderful coverage.

    Isn't Clinton OFFICIALLY ahead in the (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:52:35 PM EST
    popular vote count now?
    That may be all she wanted from today.

    No (5.00 / 4) (#161)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:54:27 PM EST
    And what happened today bears no relationship to the popular vote, which is a completely unofficial count anyway.

    Actually I just read that at MyDD (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:58:09 PM EST
    I thought I'd throw it out to see what people here think.

    Most commentators last fall were actually predict- (5.00 / 10) (#147)
    by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:52:38 PM EST
    ing almost exactly this outcome. Almost all said the party would seat the two states, most likely with half their delegate votes.

    They just hadn't imagined the Dem Party would give one candidate's delegates to another. That's the shocker.

    Well, at least it shocks me.

    What was the uniy being preserved in MI?

    OMG!! I do not (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:53:27 PM EST
    know if I can survive another 4 years of Republican rule.

    The Dem Party just lost the election before it started.

    The ONLY UNITY that could save this election is having Sen Clinotn on the ticket.

    Well, if the Obama camp is will to go to such lengths for 4 friggin delegates... the is no way in #$&* that she will be VP.

    And I'm the first in line to drink the Dem Party koolaid!!! I now need a scewdriver with a double shot of vodka..... cause I just got scw@#%$!!

    Unity my end (5.00 / 4) (#165)
    by Regency on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:55:21 PM EST
    I already didn't care about unity, but I'm feeling so uninspired that my mother are considering becoming Republicans. Sure, they hate poor people, but so do the Democrats. Maybe we can change them.  We tried staying with the Dem party but they just got worse and worse.

    This relationship has got to end.

    This was a farce from beginning to end and that is the shame of it. We will feel it in November.

    I don't belive in unity. Like the Obama campaign, I don't even know the meaning of the word.

    Since comment space is limited (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Steve M on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:57:11 PM EST
    My thoughts on this, which are similar to BTD's, can be found here.

    What I think is (5.00 / 9) (#195)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:01:21 PM EST
    That none of the people who are PO'd enough about this are PO'd because of a set of rules being followed or not.

    They are PO'd because a spirit of Democracy that we believe in was crapped on.


    You lost me at (5.00 / 3) (#222)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:11:15 PM EST
    "I will not be disappointed if Clinton drops out tomorrow."


    That would be handing Obama a huge reward for behaviors throughout this campaign that should get him investigated, at the least, and probably thrown out of the race.


    Good diary (none / 0) (#203)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:03:50 PM EST
    The point about NH is ignored again.

    well from what i heard presented (5.00 / 6) (#184)
    by TimNCGuy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:59:09 PM EST
    the MI rep said the exit polls gave Obama 75% of the uncommitted votes.  So, at BEST, he should have gotten the delegates for that and the other votes that Clinton didn't win should have remained uncommitted.  Instead, their big compromise was to GIVE Obama ALL the uncommitted, even though they claimed he only earned 75 of them and then they gave him some of Clinton's besides.

    How can dems EVER again complain about Repugs stealing votes when the DNC now fully endorses doing it in public and claims it meets their own rules?

    I do have sort of a fantasy (5.00 / 3) (#207)
    by Valhalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:04:53 PM EST
    that we'll have another year 2000 fiasco in November and the DNC will get hoist on their own particular petard.

    Because really, although they aspire to be as backdealing and weasly as the Republicans, the Republicans make them look like posers.


    I swear to GOD (5.00 / 5) (#188)
    by Mrwirez on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:00:09 PM EST
    I hate the Obama Roolz Party. That puppet show today was just disgusting. The loser becomes the winner and the winner has lost. I thought the whole process was to be out in the open?? They hid like school kid bullies and then came back 2 hours later with a prerecorded message.

    If the Roolz are the Roolz.. Mr. "I'm off the ballot" should get ZERO! Now he gets 4 Clinton Delegates, God knows how many of Edwards, Judas Iscariot's, and who ever else was NOT on the ballot. Plain and simple, Mrs. Clinton got HOSED.

    In My Opinion, Mr O will be hosed in November, which by default hoses all of us

    I feel used and fu*ked over again by the weak liberal side of the Democratic party. I switched to Independent 3 weeks ago, and I am going with Ron Paul in November, if he is even on my ballot. Mr Obama will Not be getting my vote. EVER

    Chicago politics served Pittsburgh Style ....bastards. There is my rant.

    DNC message: Obama couldn't win (5.00 / 6) (#190)
    by DandyTIger on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:00:25 PM EST
    without stealing Clinton's votes in MI. It doesn't make sense to me, but that's the message I get from them. I think this has been a massive mistake on Obama and the DNC's part. Do they not understand how this looks? Do they not know what will be made of this action taken by the committee and DNC to save Obama and let him win in this way? Do they not see how this looks?

    Bottom line, the decision today was to make McCain president. I know that sounds overly dramatic. But I'd be willing to be on it. I did in fact, I gave money to the Clinton campaign in order to save this miserable party. At least I did my part.

    And BTD, I agree with you. Clinton made the political play for her and not first and foremost for FL. And it may have been the wrong political play. But at least it was in the ballpark. What the heck was MI about?

    RIP Demo Party 5-31-08 (5.00 / 9) (#208)
    by cdalygo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:05:14 PM EST
    There is no other words that can be said today.

    Disenfranchising Florida -- which is WHAT they did -- after we saw results of 2000 and can study Tilden/Hayes debacle of 1898 (year?). That is indefensible.

    But stealing delegates to give to Obama was the cherry on top.

    November will be ugly. But perhaps overdue anyway. How pathetically sad.

    This ends it (5.00 / 1) (#232)
    by flyerhawk on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:31:44 PM EST
    I realize that a lot of people here believe that Hillary would somehow change the vote with a compelling argument regarding electability.

    But the truth is that the supers follow the will of the Democratic Party and they will NEVER go against the party.

    This was the veiled threat that Pelosi made this week.  She and Reid and Dean have tremendous power within the party.  They can destroy a person's career if they feel it necessary.

    I have said for about 3 weeks that the nomination process was over. Not because the powers that be love Obama.  It's over because they are fully cognizant of the fact that Novermber SHOULD be a Democratic blowout and they will not tolerate party fighting that may risk that.

    If Hillary were up 200 delegates right now the roles would be reversed and the Party would pressure Obama to quit.

    Keep things in perspective.  November is what matters.  

    There will be no unity (4.69 / 13) (#58)
    by Coldblue on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:39:05 PM EST
    The winner of today's rulings is John McCain.

    Unless Hillary wants unity (1.00 / 3) (#169)
    by Mavs4527 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:55:59 PM EST
    Like I've said countless times, this ruling makes no difference on the overall outcome. It was never going to. Obama is going to be our nominee. The only question is does Hillary want to promote chaos by not suspending her campaign in the next week or so and going to the credentials committee with such vigor as to make it seem that any change in the Michigan delegation decision is going to change the end result. All this chaos does is prevent any chance for us to come together as a party over an issue of 2-4 delegates.

    She and her supporters are going to have to decide whether 2-4 delegates are more important than seeing a Democrat, and not John McCain, elected President.


    Let me tell you (5.00 / 4) (#193)
    by Coldblue on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:00:51 PM EST
    after what we've witnessed today by the RBC, this isn't just about Hillary.

    I'm not surprised that you didn't get that.


    Never thought I'd say this, but I'm voting for (4.20 / 5) (#237)
    by Angel on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:42:53 PM EST
    McCain in the general election if Obama is the nominee.  My state will go red anyway so my vote will not matter in the electoral.  However, I have principles, and I will not vote for anyone who has stolen the nomination, or gamed the system, or in any way tried to eff people like me.  I have given thousands upon thousands of dollars to the DNC over the years but no more.  That faucet has been turned off forever.  I am now declaring myself an independent.  I want nothing to do with a party who does not stand up for the principle of one person, one vote.  The entire charade today was the final nail in the coffin for what we know as the party.  It has been forever changed because politicians, once again, did what they wanted to do without regard to the will of the people.  No longer will I support anyone connected in any way to this travesty.  I will support Hillary Clinton but not one other Democrat so long as they are members of the party.  And I am not alone.

    Yes We Can (2.00 / 2) (#239)
    by MelB on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:24:31 PM EST
    Hi folks just loved the drama today.  Hillary supporters are so passionate and loud.  Break the rules and don't get punished?  Is that a real position?  Encourage Dems to hate each other and think the opposing side is the devil.  How mature!!!  Grow up dems the repups are just waiting with baited breath for you all to fall apart and from where I am the falling has begun.  Vote for whom you may but I know who I am voting for.  OOPs I forgot I am not not eligible to vote not an American.  Enjoying the soap opera keep the laughs coming

    God Bless

    to the general... (1.09 / 11) (#104)
    by jor on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:46:52 PM EST
    ... the question is, when will TalkLeft become responsible, and start helping re-unite the party. The primary is over. Its amusing, how there is very little to no-coverage of Obama aggressively attacking John McCain.

    If you guys want to talk about party unity -- its time you start doing your part.

    It's over? (5.00 / 6) (#124)
    by OrangeFur on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:49:20 PM EST
    Did Puerto Rico, South Dakota, and Montana secede along with Florida, Michigan, and Appalachia?

    Here is how I start (5.00 / 10) (#150)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:53:14 PM EST
    and I thank you for the opportunity. you are suspended. comment no further at Talk Left today.

    Please explain from whence (5.00 / 6) (#172)
    by Valhalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:57:10 PM EST
    this responsibility of TL comes?

    Obama lost my respect quite a while ago, due to his own actions.  He decided he didn't need my support, that the Unity Pony could ride with me.

    It's on him, and those who support him, to win me back.  TL has no responsibility to you or him.

    This is part of the reason why people see him as arrogant and falsely entitled; he expects people to support him just because ... he expects it.


    You're asking a blog (5.00 / 6) (#176)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:57:45 PM EST
    to be responsible and unite the democratic party? Um, that seems a little weird. I think you should put that challenge to your candidate. If he's won, then he should be doing the uniting thing. It would be the responsible thing to do.

    Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (1.00 / 1) (#154)
    by RussTC3 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:53:30 PM EST
    and their respective supporters shouldn't have been involved.  This was a matter to be resolved between Florida, Michigan and the DNC. PERIOD.  No candidate should have had any influence.

    and how sad (1.00 / 11) (#166)
    by RussTC3 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:55:29 PM EST
    was it that the Clinton campaign is angered over four delegates?  

    Though it's nice to see they saw it was okay to give Clinton a greater percentage of delegates in Florida than she actually won.


    It's about democracy (5.00 / 4) (#179)
    by jfung79 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:58:15 PM EST
    Not speaking for other Clinton supporters but for myself, I am angry about Michigan because the allocation of delegates has no basis, zero, in votes cast.  It's not about four delegates, it's about a bedrock principle of democracy.    

    Um (5.00 / 6) (#180)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:58:20 PM EST
    that is false she lost half of the delegates she won in Florida.

    Stick to the facts or leave the site. your choice.


    What in the world are you talking about? (5.00 / 6) (#218)
    by gmo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:07:01 PM EST
    She received HALF the delegates she won in Florida.

    And the point is: those measly, puny "four delegates" that you so quickly write off as a paltry nothing represent the voices of tens of thousands of actual VOTERS who did NOT vote for Obama.  They voted for HER.


    See past the partisan point of view you have (1.00 / 3) (#220)
    by Mavs4527 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:09:00 PM EST
    The party set up primary rules. Michigan and Florida broke the rules. Hence there has to be some punishment handed out to their delegations.

    You either have rules or you have chaos. Some people here seem to prefer chaos as long as it benefits their preferred candidate.

    Oops, I made a mistake, sorry (1.00 / 2) (#229)
    by RussTC3 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:15:37 PM EST
    Oops, I meant Michigan, not Florida.

    By the way, I could be wrong on this, but Obama didn't gain delegates from Clinton. The MDP counted about 30,000 write-in votes for Obama, pushing the total turnout in the state to 624,398.

    That drops Senator Clinton's percentage down to 52.5% or 67 delegates instead of 70 (55%).

    You don't need a degree............. (1.00 / 1) (#240)
    by CommonSense on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:07:39 PM EST
    .....to understand what has taken place in the Michigan and Florida situation. First off, the Obama campaign did not steal votes. Hillary Clinton and her campaign used the Michigan and Florida situation as a political strategy just in case she was loosing. For those of you who continue to support her efforts are being used to further hurt the Democratic party. The delegates were given to Obama in an attempt to unify the Democratic party and make the best of an already bad situation. In my opinion, none of the votes should be counted, because the rules are the rules. I do feel Michigan and Florida should have some delegates seated at the November primary mainly because this is America and we all should be  heard. However, that does not mean that the rule breaking early primary of Michigan and Florida has to count. Everyone at the DNC hearing was speaking on integrity, but where was Senator Hillary Clinton's INTEGRITY in honoring her word in agreeing to not count the votes and following the rules of the DNC. Also, how can you honestly hold a hearing about fairness on an issue that was anything but fair. The DNC's decision was not an attempt to strip any American of their vote, but rather to salvage what little bit of respect the rest of us who followed the DNC rules may or may not have for what is suppose to be OUR political process whether you are Dems or Republicans. This was really not about anyone stealing votes or disrespecting the voters of either FL or Michigan, but again this was about making the best decision with the mess that was made by those who decided in the first place to go against what the DNC rules were..and they knew the outcome if the rules were broken...WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!

    Clinton has such poor people (none / 0) (#1)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:26:07 PM EST
    representing her. This is actually one of the strongest arguments against her candidacy.

    reminds me of gore (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by Turkana on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:30:26 PM EST
    in 2000. btw- who was running his campaign, anyway?

    She was so bad.. we never heard from her (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:31:25 PM EST

    she did save mary landrieu (none / 0) (#23)
    by Turkana on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:32:10 PM EST
    but other than that- i wish...

    That's probably lucky (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:34:49 PM EST
    I think it's impossible that we could get a better Senator out of Louisiana. And considering how $hitty Landrieu is, that says something.

    agreed (none / 0) (#46)
    by Turkana on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:35:41 PM EST
    and landrieu was in big trouble. brazile did save her.

    Woody Jenkins took it (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:38:18 PM EST
    to the Senate too.

    THe one who recieved the ROOLZ (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:32:04 PM EST
    from her mother.

    Brazile ran Gore's campaign in 2000 (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by stefystef on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:32:14 PM EST
    just a reminder.

    Er, we actually know that (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:33:00 PM EST
    Nothing they did (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:31:23 PM EST
    Would have made a difference.

    Even BTD can see that.


    Oh I think that's right. This was a (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:33:34 PM EST
    pre-ordained, political decision.

    So you're criticizing a team (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:34:51 PM EST
    For putting in a rookie after the division's been clinched.

    If it goes to (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by pie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:31:53 PM EST
    the credentials committee and the convention?

    I'd say she looks pretty good.


    Not really (none / 0) (#69)
    by andrewwm on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:41:30 PM EST
    they've already agreed in principle that 1/2 votes for violating the original DNC rules are an acceptable penalty. The only thing they can argue is to give themselves back 4 delegates (with the power of only two votes) that the rules committee just gave to Obama.

    The most swing that they can expect out of the credentials committee is two pledged delegates. That's going to amount to nothing, really.


    Then Obama's in real trouble. (none / 0) (#215)
    by pie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:06:35 PM EST
    This had better go to the convention.

    I'm not sure who you mean by the (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by chancellor on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:34:57 PM EST
    "people representing her." Blanchard? He was superb today, giving all the right arguments. Ickes? He argued passionately, and rightly, IMO, that ignoring the intentions of 600,000 voters has nothing to do with how America defines democracy. So who are the bad guys (or ladies)?

    I guess Carl Levin had some weight (none / 0) (#6)
    by ksh on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:29:25 PM EST
    with the committee and the fact that it was the Michigan Democratic Party that came up with the idea, but I would have advised Obama to support 1/2 vote and 70% of the uncommitteds plus his own 5% write-in vote (according to green paper, if I understand it right). If no 5%, then just 70% of uncommitted with others to make their choice by a date certain before the convention rather than at it.  I guess they felt they needed to give deference to what the state party wanted.

    and where in the rules (5.00 / 12) (#15)
    by Turkana on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:31:06 PM EST
    does it provide for that? where does it provide for literally arbitrary allocation of delegates?

    Doesn't as far as I can see (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by ksh on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:33:11 PM EST
    It seems the committee gave the state party a lot of weight.  Why they did that, I don't now.  If they do some sort of written decision, I'm guessing they'll tie it to something, but it's a mystery.

    Great idea giving the state party (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by dskinner3 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:34:01 PM EST
    weight.. they're the ones who got us into the mess to begin with.

    that's true (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by ksh on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:38:20 PM EST
    I wonder if they involved Levin in the negotiation....we'll use your plan and you don't take it to the convention and we give Michigan a pre-super tuesday position next election.

    and that's the problem (5.00 / 6) (#81)
    by Turkana on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:43:19 PM EST
    this was not decided by the rules.

    While they're at it... (5.00 / 13) (#47)
    by OrangeFur on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:35:42 PM EST
    How about they spare us all the Division and Acrimony from the rest of the primary season and allocate all of California's pledged delegates to Obama? If that's not enough, add in New York, too.

    If they can do that to Michigan, I don't see what stops them from doing it to anybody else.


    Short answer... (none / 0) (#29)
    by dskinner3 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:33:19 PM EST
    the rules do not.

    I am hoping someone will explain... (none / 0) (#32)
    by RandyRP on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:33:27 PM EST
    I read in the media that Clinton recieved .55 of the popular vote. When I multiply .55 X 128 = 70.4.
    So I am wodering how the 73 delegate number was calculated. I am not trying to make any suggestion here, just learn a little, thank you.

    Also (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by jfung79 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:43:03 PM EST
    The people who voted for Dodd and Kucinich did not reach the 15% threshold for delegates so Hillary and Uncommitted would get more of a percentage of delegates than their percentage of the vote.

    I will not claim (none / 0) (#49)
    by dskinner3 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:36:09 PM EST
    to know for sure, but I believe it has to do with voting districts and their allotted delegates.

    Thank You (none / 0) (#96)
    by RandyRP on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:45:59 PM EST
    It seems logical and explains why her total (73) does not quite jive with an accross the board calculation. I appreciate your response.

    I agree with most of this post (none / 0) (#231)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:18:58 PM EST
    For all the talk about the rules they sure didn't pay much attention to them, and that was mighty ugly. Just power under a veneer of procedure.

    As far as this sowing further division, the Obama side must have felt it was a tradeoff worth making to take the nomination that much further out of Hillary's reach - to demoralize her side and potentially get her to drop out instead of making it tantalizingly closer and energizing her campaign to push on with new hope. That's the only reason that makes sense, not the four additional delegates themselves. Whether that turns out to be a good calculation or not for the fall, I guess we'll have to see.

    A Step Toward Unity (none / 0) (#235)
    by Spike on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:39:07 PM EST
    Today was a nasty mess. And I agree that the four delegates in Michigan were an unnecessary provocation. But there was no easy path through this thicket. The Obama campaign could have conceded every single point to Clinton and it would have only emboldened her campaign to continue to fight a hopeless cause. It's been obvious for months that Obama would be the nominee. Nonetheless, he has patiently waited for the primary process to play out. That will happen on Tuesday. Both Obama, the DNC and the Florida and Michigan parties realize that this has to end so the general election against McCain can begin. Clinton fought a valiant fight but came up short. It's time to move on. Today was a difficult but necessary step in consolidating the party behind Obama.

    I'm not sure why I can't reply to my post... (none / 0) (#236)
    by RussTC3 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:39:24 PM EST
    but, I made a mistake in saying Florida, when I meant Michigan.

    By the way, I think Clinton lost delegates because her percentage shrunk due to the write-in votes that were awarded to Obama (I heard 30,000 during the meeting).

    That drops her percentage from 55.2% to 52.6%.  

    Plus, more write-in votes may be included, further dropping her percentage.

    I think it's important to find that out, no?

    The Best Thing Would Be (none / 0) (#241)
    by squeaky on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:12:51 PM EST
    Unity ticket as a given, but go to the convention.

    Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton can -- by putting aside personal irritations, and to some extent personal aspirations, and agreeing to end the hostilities and form a ticket that gives us both of them, a candidate for president and a candidate for vice president who is clearly good enough to serve as president, should the occasion arise. That candidate for vice president would also have a good chance of being elected as president eight years from now because neither of the two would be too old in 2016.

    If they are not capable of doing that, alternatively, the two could announce they will complete the primary schedule and Convention with the winner becoming candidate for president and the other agreeing to be a candidate for vice president, thereby mollifying to some extent the constituency of the candidate who was not chosen as the nominee for president


    Mario Cuomo

    Write-ins Illegal (none / 0) (#242)
    by cal1942 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:24:44 AM EST
    I was floored by the attempted inclusion of write-ins.

    Under Michigan election law only a candidate who has filed an affadavit is eligible to receive a write-in vote.

    Voters can write in whomever they want but that vote will not count unless the person they cast their vote for was eligible by written application.

    No one filed an affidavit for write-in eligibility for Presidential nominee.

    The primary election on 01/15/2008 was a legal election financed and operated by the State of Michigan and certified by the Secretary of State.

    Donna Brazille (none / 0) (#243)
    by DemocratDi on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:10:38 AM EST
    I sent this message to Donna Brazille after the first session of the rules committee yesterday:  "I watched you during the meeting of the rules committee today and knew you were waiting until the end to make a dramatic statement, and you were true to form.  Well, I had a mama too and she told me that anyone who proposes to take votes away from over 2 million voters is an unethical political hack.  Stop the drama queen act, it's getting tiresome."