home

DNC To FL And MI: Drop Dead

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:22:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Update [2008-5-6 14:14:16 by Big Tent Democrat]: Al Gore expects Michigan and Florida delegations to be seated.

Bumped and updated (BTD) This story has become a big one today. Hillary Clinton said 2209 is the magic number. Howard Dean said the DNC wants to seat FL and MI. Andrea Mitchell does not like it.

Yesterday, on the Clinton Media call, I asked if the Clinton campaign agreed that that Magic Number for securing the nomination was 2025, or did it believe that the Magic Number must include the MI/FL delegations, which would make the magic number 2209. The Media is picking up on Garin's answer: [More . . .]

That's what we believe is the standard for deciding this — who has the majority of the total delegates including Michigan and Florida to decide the nomination," said Clinton strategist Geoff Garin.

The DNC continues to tell Florida and Michigan to drop dead:

[Obama's] supporters in the Democratic Party's hierarchy reacted angrily yesterday to the idea that the 2,025-delegate finish line could be changed, especially because Mr. Obama is 273 delegates from reaching that magic number according to his campaign count. "When you totally ignore the rules, letting these people change the outcome, that doesn't pass the straight-face test," Allan Katz of Tallahassee, Fla., a member of the DNC's executive committee, told The Washington Times.

The voters of Florida and Michigan, "these people," as the DNC calls them, will not count, insists the DNC. Can we have a stupider Democratic Party than we have now? I do not think so.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments now closed.

< Yep, "Turnout Is Heavy" | Hillary's Position on Counting Florida and Michigan >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    DNC To FL And MI: Drop Dead | 234 comments (234 topical)
    Every time (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2008 at 07:53:43 AM EST
    one of Obama's supporters start talking about how MI and FL don't count it's another nail in the coffin of his already slim general election chances.

    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:04:32 PM EST
    has nobody but himself to blame for that. And since he was offered the chance to rectify the situation and refused I really don't have any sympathy for him. He played to lose in MI just like he's playing to lose if he's the nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    The DNC is supporting Obama? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 07:56:07 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Might as well be. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by rooge04 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 07:58:39 AM EST
    It's quite obvious by their tactics that they will give Obama this nomination no matter what.  

    Brazile and Dean might as well be Obama surrogates (with Brazile it's not even a question).

    I believe no matter what the outcome of the states left to vote, Obama will be given the nomination.  Then he'll lose the GE.

    [ Parent ]

    Aaah (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:04:05 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I thought for a little while (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by rooge04 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:16:24 AM EST
    that they would resolve this FL and MI thing. It's clear they will not. I wholeheartedly believe that if Obama had won FL and not taken his name off the ballot in MI and won there, FL & MI would have long ago been given their delegates. I truly do. I think a lot of this has to do with Obama's fundraising ability and the fact that Obama surrogates are quite loudly issuing threats.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, duh! The Obama National (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by MarkL on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:19:46 AM EST
    Committee would make sure of it.
    If Obama winning the nomination depends on excluding FL and MI, I am confident that Hillary will take the fight to the convention, and I fully support her doing so.

    [ Parent ]
    As do I. (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by rooge04 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:20:41 AM EST
    I want her to take it all the way to the Convention. And if it results in the worst split in Party history, well then the DNC and Obama brought it on themselves.

    [ Parent ]
    Big Split (none / 0) (#212)
    by ricosuave on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:04:04 PM EST
    I can't disagree.  I don't want to see the democratic party torn apart and unable to beat the republicans, but I feel like this "Unity" stuff is no different than the "bipartisanship" that the media constantly calls for.  

    If Obama can't win legitimately, or if the democratic party abandons its ideal of inclusiveness, why am I required to support them.

    [ Parent ]

    as do i (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by jedimom on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:30:47 PM EST
    yes to Denver then and if they give it to him with no voice for FL MI then its not legit IMHO and voters will defect in Fall, I know I will..

    [ Parent ]
    Obama 2007: Don't listen to DNC (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by catfish on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:31:23 PM EST
    Despite DNC sanctions, Obama says he'd seat delegates:
    By WILLIAM MARCH and ELAINE SILVESTRINI The Tampa Tribune

    Published: September 30, 2007

    TAMPA - Barack Obama hinted during a Tampa fundraiser Sunday that if he's the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, he'll seat a Florida delegation at the party's national convention, despite national party sanctions prohibiting it.

    Obama also appeared to violate a pledge he and the other leading candidates took by holding a brief news conference outside the fundraiser. That was less than a day after the pledge took effect Saturday, and Obama is the first Democratic presidential candidate to visit Florida since then.



    [ Parent ]
    KEY QUOTE, " if he's the presumptive (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by vicsan on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:50:20 PM EST
    Democratic presidential nominee." He'll seat them ONLY AFTER he's the nominee and not before. He refuses to allow them to be seated now because Hillary would be the
    "presumptive Democratic presidential nominee." Not counting MI and FL before the convention is just nuts. He'll be another illegitimate president. Just like Bush. He'll go down in the history books as the second US President to steal an election.....IF the SDs give it to him out of fear of riots.

    [ Parent ]
    It won't work (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by AnninCA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:30:37 PM EST
    Hillary, by virtue of being chipper about voters, has checked them.

    There will be no back-room deal.

    Dean and Pelosi lose.

    [ Parent ]

    Testify! (none / 0) (#157)
    by jedimom on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:36:29 PM EST
    Amen and from your keyboard to God's ears...

    [ Parent ]
    It sure (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2008 at 07:58:33 AM EST
    seems like it sometimes.

    I think that the DNC has decided that McCain will win in Nov. Or that's the constant impression that I'm getting.

    [ Parent ]

    It's the Rosie Perez philosophy... (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by white n az on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:39:42 AM EST
    from White Men Can't Jump...

    You like all the white boys I ever met.

    You're like every brother I ever saw.

    You'd rather look good and lose than look bad and win.

    word

    [ Parent ]

    What The DNC (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:58:47 AM EST
    has done certainly has improved McCain's odds.  

    Putting aside the whole rules war I felt that entering the 2008 cycle Democrats were over-confident.

    When the primary candidate slate was complete everyone was talking about what superior candidates we had. This wasn't just rank and file as the polls showed, it was also among dues paying activist Democrats. In the after party meeting gatherings (drinks) everyone chortled about all the great Democratic candidates. I shouldn't say everyone, there were a few who weren't so sure and even most of those who weren't so sure of candidate quality felt that people had nowhere else to go and that this was our year.

    It appears the DNC slapped on the death penalty feeling that it wouldn't make any difference.  After all 2008 was in the bag. For the DNC it was a chance to let the states know it intended to keep control of its only actual responsibility, the presidential election process and the national convention.

    I've been told that the primary order battle has been going on since before the 2000 election.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:04:34 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Why would the DNC believe that? (none / 0) (#108)
    by Denni on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:12:33 AM EST
    Dems have just picked up a couple of seats they weren't supposed to win (with two candidates closely tied to Obama).  

    One seat, Cazayoux's seat, was held for 33 years by the Cons.  

    I think the DNC, and the candidates, are SURE this is a Democratic year.  That's why there's the threat to go to the convention, to ensure the win doesn't happen.  

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:17:28 AM EST
    We used to win Congress by wide margins, while losing the Presidency more often than not.  The two don't necessarily go together.

    [ Parent ]
    And (none / 0) (#117)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:31:57 AM EST
    Cazayoux won by a slim majority, when he was ahead by huge margins not long ago.  Why the slimming? Because the GOP ran ads combining Cazayoux and Obama. Cazayoux's opponent, Woody Jenkins, was even privately bemoaned by Republicans because he has been a divisive figure in local politics for decades.

    So a divisive figure that even the national Republicans didn't really care for, still came within 3 of a Dem linked via ads to Obama and Pelosi.

    [ Parent ]

    You might want to read the accounts (none / 0) (#125)
    by Denni on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:49:55 AM EST
    of Cazayoux's and Chandler's issues on Dailykos.  Chandler you'll hear from DIRECTLY.  The comment on Cazayoux is just WRONG, even according the to polling data posted at Cazayoux's own site.  He was slowly making his way UP the poll - leading by three points just a month before the election.  His 'slim margin' was closest to the largest margin he had all season (9 point lead).

    Even when Dems won the congress and lost the Presidency, they rarely won long held incumbent seats.  Cazayoux, tied to Obama - a race called a 'test' of Obama's strength by all the major papers including the lackluster NYTimes, won.

    Don't forget Foster and the others... The DNC isn't worry about Obama hurting the party.

    [ Parent ]

    Foster? (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:44:45 AM EST
    The guy who won Hastert's seat?  My ivy plant could've beaten Hastert.  That was no test of Obama's coattails.

    And the fact that you are citing Kos just proves that it really can't be trusted. They are, shall we say, a bit selective on what gets posted there.

    [ Parent ]

    Chandler (none / 0) (#167)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:45:56 PM EST
    threw Obama under the bus.

    [ Parent ]
    rove says (none / 0) (#152)
    by jedimom on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:34:33 PM EST
    the dark one Rove on Hannity last night as Sean bemoaned the lack of movement in GOP camp to push for wins in the Fall: Rove said last night they lost that seat in part due to the awful candidate they ran and the Reddish candidate the Dems ran

    that Dem he is unabashedly pro life he said
    and something else I cant remember, something appealing to GOP....

    in other words he is not very liberal at all

    McCain is perceived as moderate, Obama as liberal, (although I dont think Obama really is), this is something DNC should remember

    voters want a centrist

    [ Parent ]

    Huh? (none / 0) (#8)
    by magisterludi on Tue May 06, 2008 at 07:59:24 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Huh? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:03:53 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I'm sorry- (none / 0) (#32)
    by magisterludi on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:21:20 AM EST
    I should have not been so lazy. I didn't understand your DNC query about Obama in the comment section.

    [ Parent ]
    Oddly enough. . . (none / 0) (#55)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:36:27 AM EST
    each side seems absolutely convinced that the DNC has nefarious plans to "give" the nomination to the other candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    Oddly enough (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:41:52 AM EST
    I think they are just idiots.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, (none / 0) (#83)
    by Mary Mary on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:48:57 AM EST
    there's that, too. :-)

    [ Parent ]
    I won't go that far, even. (none / 0) (#113)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:20:13 AM EST
    I think the effort to restore sanity to the primary calendar is worthwhile.  I don't think anyone could have predicted what would happen this year.  For them to have been idiots, it's reasonable to ask who suggested this outcome at the time.

    [ Parent ]
    I Think The DNC Was Over Zealous In Their (5.00 / 6) (#119)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:33:29 AM EST
    decision.  FL did IMO have a legitimate claim why they should receive no penalty at all. Even if they chose to disregard that claim, they should have imposed the 50% penalty on both states as their own rules suggest.

    Also, IMO they needed to resolve this earlier in the primary season and resolved their disagreements behind close doors rather than having members make statements that are harmful to party unity.

    [ Parent ]

    Perhaps. . . (none / 0) (#128)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:00:59 AM EST
    but I'll just point out two things:

    1. With the 50% solution we'd still have a problem -- just half as much of a problem as now.  If those delegates made the difference between winning and losing the Clinton campaign would still be fighting for them.

    2. Again, I don't think anyone foresaw exactly (or even approximately) what would happen.


    [ Parent ]
    Good Management Requires Taking The Worse (5.00 / 5) (#132)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:42:58 AM EST
    case scenario into consideration when making decisions.

    While Clinton might still be fighting to seat the other 50%, that is not the only consideration. Disenfranchising voters in two states (key states) and not allowing them to participate in the selection of the nominee is not only undemocratic IMO, it is poor politics. The Republicans once again made a better choice by adopting the 50% penalty.

    [ Parent ]

    The main reason the Republican. . . (2.00 / 1) (#136)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:02:08 AM EST
    decision looks better is that it didn't affect the outcome since they didn't have a nailbiter of a race.  A 50% penalty may well have been better but it would either leave the two states concerned feeling they'd been (halfway) disenfranchised or else (if they felt it was worth it) it would have had no deterrent effect in the future.

    [ Parent ]
    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Step Beyond on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:38:06 PM EST
    Most people have no idea how many delegates their state gets. Plus with the system we currently have, people aren't treated equally in various states anyway (per Kerry votes Wy gets a delegate per 4k votes and Fl, if we had any, would get a delegate per 17k votes). Amongst Repubs here in Florida there simply was no real cries of disenfranchisement even before the vote (a few politicians but nothing meaningful).

    And whether it is a deterrent even now is questionable. Florida won't be moving its date back for the next primary. Why would the Repubs do that? And frankly if they are still in power in 4 years, they would be stupid NOT to make sure Florida is out of compliance again. How much of a deterrent can their current solution be?

    [ Parent ]

    Punishment is punishment. . . (none / 0) (#208)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:03:09 PM EST
    and if the voters didn't get the representation they were entitled to -- especially if that changed the result of the election -- they'd be cheesed off.

    The notion that moving the primary was a Republican plot is an canard that ought to be roasted and hung to dry in a restaurant on Mott Street.  The Democrats in both those states were fully on board with the decision.

    The problem with calendar creep was (and is) a genuine problem, the attempt to take strict measures  to reign it in was not an attempt to throw the election to one party or the other.

    [ Parent ]

    Nice strawman (1.00 / 1) (#234)
    by Step Beyond on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:13:34 PM EST
    No where did I say that moving the primary date was a "Republican plot." I was talking about in the future. To move the date NOW the Repubs would have to agree. And I said IF they are still in power in 4 years they would be stupid not to make sure we were out of compliance.

    Obviously this punishment has made Florida much more competitive for them with almost no effort. And since the DNC has shown itself very skilled at shooting itself in the foot, why would anyone not give them the opportunity to shoot themselves again?

    Go out and ask people how many delegates their state has. Almost no one would be able to tell you. How the delegates are doled out now isn't fair. Yet people aren't complaining because they don't know the system.

    People can live with a reduction, because it appeals to people's basic belief in punishment and still leaves them enfranchised. No one has a sense of entitlement over the number of delegates they get. Sure you will always have political junkies on the blogs yelling if it hurts their candidate, but overall it won't matter.

    [ Parent ]

    x (none / 0) (#59)
    by Mary Mary on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:39:14 AM EST
    I think they have nefarious plans to "give" the nod to the one they think best able to beat McCain.

    How they will arrive at that decision is what's making me bite my nails.

    [ Parent ]

    The DNC getting worried (none / 0) (#202)
    by dianem on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:00:51 PM EST
    It has become painfully obvious that Obama has a glass jaw. Clinton has been running pretty much a McCain style campaign (not her politics, which are quite different, just the "nice" style). Yet Obama is getting weaker with every state. It is obvious that Obama has peaked and the only way out of this is a split ticket with Obama as the VP. But the DNC has no way of forcing him to accept that unless they can narrow the electoral count AND get Clinton ahead in popular votes. Thus Michigan and Florida enter play. Obama supporter's won't like it, but if Obama is promised full support of the DNC in 2016 he would be a fool go oppose the idea of being VP. He has to be figuring out that he can't win the election unless McCain completely implodes, which is highly unlikely for a seasoned pol like him. This would mean that he will never be President.

    [ Parent ]
    What makes his chances 'slim'? (none / 0) (#99)
    by Denni on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:05:46 AM EST
    I haven't seen anything that suggests his chances are 'slim'.

    Clinton, herself, said 'drop dead', when she was winning.  In an interview with NPR last year, she said that we could all 'make up later'.

    As DNC chair, McAuliffe said, 'drop dead' to Levin when Michigan wanted to move up its primary in '04.  He told Levin that the closest MI would come to the Boston convention was watchig it from their televisions at home and he MEANT it.... he bragged about backing Levin down.  (Read the excerpt from his book, 'What a party...'

    Why is Sen. Obama (or his supporters) being faulted for having the honesty and integrity to play by the rules previously agreed to!?!?!

    [ Parent ]

    You forgot (5.00 / 7) (#110)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:16:24 AM EST
    the most important part....The DNC also said (by the ROOLZ) that MI and FL could have their delegations automatically seated if they could re-do their votes. Obama said he would go along with whatever the DNC decided.  MI came up with a plan, but was not going to vote on it unless both candidates agreed (they weren't going to waste time and taxpayer money voting on a measure that wasn't going  to happen).  HRC agreed to a revote, the DNC approved the plan, and then....Obama didn't like it because it would not allow people who voted in the Republican primary (where their votes were counted) to vote again in the Democratic primary. So, no revote.

    This is now squarely on the shoulders of Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    Roolz were agreed upon, by all involved. (none / 0) (#126)
    by Denni on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:54:04 AM EST
    The people of Michigan did NOT agree to pay for a revote, and neither did the people of Florida - the cost was prohibitive and there was no time.

    Clinton supporters agreed to pay in MI, not the state.  No one but a moron would allow his opponents supporters agree to pay and run the election.

    I'd like to see the evidence that the DNC said that those delegates could automatically be seated, as is, with a revote.  I may have missed that, so I'd appreciate any info on when that was stated.

    The 'roolz' were  agreed to by Clinton.  They were the same 'roolz' Ickes voted for, he was one of the DNCers who voted to 'disenfranchise'.  They are the same 'roolz' McAuliffe employed against MI when they tried to hold an early vote in 2004.

    The DNC isn't the problem.  The State legislators in MI and FL are.  

    [ Parent ]

    As far as I can tell, no one has consulted (5.00 / 4) (#149)
    by Joelarama on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:33:18 PM EST
    "the people" of Michigan or Florida.

    The point is, no "people" support their votes not counting.

    You know when Democrats will hear from "the people" of Michigan and Florida on this question?

    In the general election.  And it won't be pretty.

    [ Parent ]

    no.. (5.00 / 3) (#158)
    by jedimom on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:37:56 PM EST
    they agreed to FUND it and said the state party could RUN it, of course they didnt expect to run the election and Obama knew that

    Obama sealed his illegitimate Nominee status by blocking that revote in MI

    [ Parent ]

    the rules (5.00 / 5) (#164)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:43:22 PM EST
    the RULES at the time that FL and MI moved their dates up was a loss of 50% of their voting power at the convention.

    the DNC changed the rules after the decision was made -- not only did they increase the punishment, they didn't punish NH and IA for breaking the rules and moving their own primaries ahead of when THE RULES said they could be.

    So please knock off this nonsense about "the rules" as if they were written in stone.  They aren't, and never have been.

    [ Parent ]

    IA and NH (5.00 / 1) (#231)
    by jackyt on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:09:03 PM EST
    The whole point of not letting states move up their primary dates was to ensure that IA and NH would remain first. Since IA and NH moved up their dates to remain first, disenfranchising any other state's votes should be a moot point, shouldn't it?

    [ Parent ]
    (Sigh) (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:04:21 PM EST
    Obama had the chance to pony up some of his money to help pay for it and HRC backers had $30 million ready to contribute - no cost to taxpayers.  Since he refused the revote idea (after he said he would go along with the DNC), he didn't give the money. The state wouldn't have paid for it.

    Hillary actually spoke out to seat the Florida delegates before people voted there. She released the following statement on January 25, 2008 - before the primaries on January 29.

    "I hear all the time from people in Florida and Michigan that they want their voices heard in selecting the Democratic nominee.

    "I believe our nominee will need the enthusiastic support of Democrats in these states to win the general election, and so I will ask my Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan. I know not all of my delegates will do so and I fully respect that decision. But I hope to be President of all 50 states and U.S. territories, and that we have all 50 states represented and counted at the Democratic convention.

    "I hope my fellow potential nominees will join me in this.

    "I will of course be following the no-campaigning pledge that I signed, and expect others will as well."

    =========
    We can blame the DNC all day (and yes, they are at fault), but a viable solution was presented and all but Obama was on board. BTD had a few blogs on the fact that it was Obama who blocked the revote.

    [ Parent ]

    Paying for Michigan (none / 0) (#184)
    by wasabi on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:53:39 PM EST
    "Clinton supporters agreed to pay in MI, not the state.  No one but a moron would allow his opponents supporters agree to pay and run the election."

    It's too bad Obama's supporters had no money.  Otherwise I am sure they would have ponied up to pay for half of the election.  I'm absolutely sure of that <snark>.

    [ Parent ]

    Hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 07:57:28 AM EST
    When you only count some of the votes, you're also letting "some people" change the outcome.  Only in that case, it's not the voters doing the changing.

    one thing is certain... (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by white n az on Tue May 06, 2008 at 07:59:11 AM EST
    That in the face of 2209, Obama, DNC and surrogates are completely blunted from floating their inane 'delegates from FL and MI' will be seated line.

    2209 is the number and any one who points to the 2045 line is presuming that FL and MI delegates will not be seated, end of story.

    Well, calling that reaction what it is (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:00:55 AM EST
    is a good way to shame them into dealing with MI and FL--if the DNC has any collective shame.

    Collective amnesia is more like it. (5.00 / 3) (#156)
    by Joelarama on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:36:28 PM EST
    Do they remember Florida in 2000, when every voter counted?  

    Do they remember the 1980s, when liberal Democrats repeatedly failed to reach people who were culturally unlike them?  

    [ Parent ]

    DNC Rules Committee (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by wurman on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:02:11 AM EST
    Seems as if we're still waiting to read, hear, or see that the roooolz group, standing committee, of the DNC has met & changed the total number of delegates for the convention & what makes a majority of that group.

    And even if Sen. Obama does get to 2025, Sen. Clinton will still go to the convention with 1900, or so, Edwards will have 32, about 70 or so will be pledged undecided, & there will be 795 superdelegates divided some to O, some to C & about 200 undecided.

    Some of these comments by some of these self-styled experts are becoming tedious.  They just flat-out make stuff up.

    The lying liars (5.00 / 9) (#16)
    by Fabian on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:13:15 AM EST
    and the people who believe them.

    That's the biggest disappointment of blogging to me.  People lie.  Bloggers, being people, lie.  But it's the people who repeat lies, knowing they are lies that bug me.  Even worse are the people who believe the lies without blinking.

    I've always looked for bias and bias errors in the media and now, in the blogs.  I can correct, somewhat, for bias.  But what I've seen this season isn't bias, it's pure propaganda.  If it sounds good, people run with it.  Even if it turns out to be 99% bullcr@p, they'll still use it.  I feel like blogdom has turned into Conspiracy Theories Unlimited on bad days.

    [ Parent ]

    Long ago . . . (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by wurman on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:49:00 AM EST
    . . . lost the ability & skill to adjust for the blatant insanity of the lame stream media.

    It seems as if there was a time when the fake pundits & working journalists attempted to start with a kernel of truth & then perhaps stretch it or bend it or shade it into a theme for the korporatocracy or the military-autocracy or the wall-street-oligarchy, as their tastes may have preferred.

    But then came Nixon & the constant fabrications.

    Then Ronny Raygun & the endless Teflon slithering.

    And even though I admire the guy, Big Dog Clinton's parsing, stone-walling & outright lies about his actions were a real low in my views of national politics.

    And now we have effluent from the demented, drug-crazed minds of radio talk show hosts actually being covered as "newz" in what used to be real media.  I notice the supermarket tabloids now struggle because their lame stream overlords can out-blast them from a bigger, louder stage.

    Some thought the net would change that.  And, as we now know, it's worse.  On-line versions of the old media are fiction; the blogs are almost like labyrinthine sewers of dark fantasy (are bloggers inherently paranoid?); some websites are toxic.

    Anyway, what Jeralyn has generated here feels like a safe-harbor of moderated sanity.  At least most of the content tries to be sane, logical & on topic.

    [ Parent ]

    backpocket (none / 0) (#174)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:50:36 PM EST
    I think that the Clinton campaign has some "rules" of their own they'd like to see enforced....

    particularly when it comes to states following their own rules for caucuses.

    I'm pretty sure that if FL and MI aren't seated, that the texas caucus delegates will be challenged.  Not only were the precinct caucuses a mess, but the county organizations failed to properly handle credential challenges arising from the precinct caucuses.

    (IIRC, it is the responsibility of the state party to certify that its caucuses were run in accordance with the rules that they laid out to the DNC.)

    And it might not be just Texas -- there were complaints about how the caucuses were handled in other states, and I'd not be surprised if the Clinton campaign doesn't have a pile of sworn affidavits from other states as well.

    [ Parent ]

    Yup. And Yup. (none / 0) (#179)
    by wurman on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:52:22 PM EST
    Northern CA has some uuuuuuugleeee credential stuff that could be challenged.

    [ Parent ]
    Also, (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:07:06 AM EST
    It's issues like this one that makes it abundantly clear that the nomination will go to the convention. When has any candidate with such a high percentage of the Delegates as Hillary NOT gone to the convention?

    The DNC wants to end this in June? Determine MI and FL NOW.

    Kennedy was 1,000 delegates behind Carter (5.00 / 5) (#101)
    by dotcommodity on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:06:33 AM EST
    so of course he had to go to the convention! A thousand delegates difference! ...oh, and a family dynasty?

    All the blogger boiz screeching about Why won't the stupid b** quit?  unaware that it is the voters who won't quit on her. With a couple hundred thousand difference after 30 million have voted it is much much closer than when Kennedy "wouldn't quit".

    [ Parent ]

    Has the Democratic Party EVER won... (2.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Denni on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:07:46 AM EST
    when the losing party refuses to accept the will of the people and then forces a fight at the convention?

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, Let's see, (5.00 / 4) (#116)
    by Radix on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:27:02 AM EST
    there was that JFK guy, he won. Then there was Carter, Clinton. There's probably a few more as well.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    [ Parent ]

    How incredibly (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by magisterludi on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:13:25 AM EST
    myopic the DNC has become. They are a laughingstock with indies and reps and rightly so! Yet they continue on this suicidal path.

    Unless they've got a rabbit of gargantuan proportion ready to pull out of their campaign hat (and the suspense is KILLING me if they do) they are just handing McCain the reins.

    Not counting votes is fundamentally unfair in the eyes of the average voter. There's no getting around it, roolz be damned.

    Gosh (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:14:07 AM EST
    I'm pretty sure it is not in the institutional interests of the DNC to portray either possible outcome as illegitimate.  It's a very, very dangerous talking point to deploy if it doesn't work.

    I'm disappointed with the Obama campaign for deploying this "rule or ruin" argument, but that still doesn't mean that actual DNC members should be playing along.  There is no way this is good for the party.

    Obama is playing chicken with the nomination (5.00 / 10) (#21)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:16:12 AM EST
    and dragging the DNC into it.

    [ Parent ]
    The best analysis of what's going on (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:18:24 AM EST
    said in the fewest words anywhere in the blogosphere.

    [ Parent ]
    you know what (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:25:44 AM EST
    I dont think Hillary is going to swerve.


    [ Parent ]
    The DNC (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:50:54 AM EST
    is the problem.  The aren't just on a bumpy road, they've gone off road and are heading for a cliff.  Of course, they will bail and try to save themselves, but the bus will still go over the cliff.

    [ Parent ]
    You got it (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by AnninCA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:33:37 PM EST
    right on the nose.

    She will not get off track.

    What Dean and Pelosi and Obama are trying to pull is a true back-room deal.

    They are throwing out a convention fight as a red-herring, based on old stories from the past.

    Really, today, the back-room deal is what they are doing.

    I repeat.  People aren't stupid.

    Small personal story.  I'm in a highly Dem area of the country.  GF who is a pretty standard Jewish Dem today said, "I so liked Obama.  I hope he'll try again."

    It's over for him.  Everyone in my So. Cal. area knows it.

    The tide turned.

    [ Parent ]

    Please. (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Mary Mary on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:14:36 AM EST
    An Obama supporter on the DNC executive committee does not equal the DNC.

    Also from the article:

    "Let's see what happens on May 31," DNC spokeswoman Karen Finney said yesterday.

    You want to talk stupid, talk about the Dems screeching PANDER about Hillary Clinton's brilliant pivot on McCain's gas tax holiday.

    Amazing (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:20:19 AM EST
    Ask yourself, where were all these people when it was only John McCain talking about a tax holiday?

    The Democrats are really only effective at fighting other Democrats.  That's why it's frustrating to be a Democrat.

    [ Parent ]

    Yep, (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Mary Mary on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:26:48 AM EST
    instead of playing defense, she went on offense and raised the stakes. THAT is how you fight Republicans.

    On topic? Savvy pols are sure to appreciate it; I'm hoping there are enough among the superdelegates to make a difference.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:21:52 AM EST
    If you are in the DNC, it seems to me you should watch your words.

    Let the DNC disavow the words I quote.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, I quite agree. (none / 0) (#45)
    by Mary Mary on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:31:54 AM EST
    Then again, why should Donna Brazile be the only one allowed to shoot her mouth off? Doesn't seem quite fair.

    This, IMO, makes the Obama camp look bad to the party apparatchiks and there will be probably be pushback. Public? Maybe. Privately? Much more likely.

    More important than listening to people talking out of school is looking at the composition of the Rules & Bylaws committee.

    [ Parent ]

    Rules & Bylaws (none / 0) (#50)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:34:27 AM EST
    I am betting htat by August we will all know much more about both.

    [ Parent ]
    x (none / 0) (#52)
    by Mary Mary on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:35:40 AM EST
    Try June. The R&B meets May 31. That's what the spokeswoman was referring to.

    [ Parent ]
    repeat my question from above (none / 0) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:42:20 AM EST
    if a battle ensued the rules committee might agree with Hillary but the credentials committee probably would not because it was packed with Dean appointments.
    anyone know if this is true?

    [ Parent ]
    Well (4.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:44:07 AM EST
    if the Rules Committee sides with Hillary, I'm not sure the Credentials Committee will be relevant any longer.  The reason MI and FL are excluded is because of a ruling from the Rules Committee in the first instance.

    [ Parent ]
    x (none / 0) (#80)
    by Mary Mary on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:47:40 AM EST
    You're assuming that Dean supports Obama. If Dean controls the Credentials committee it will choose the candidate the DNC thinks will be able to beat McCain.

    Another question I have is whether Dean controls the R&B committee? He might. I believe the members have changed since the original penalties against FL/MI were enacted.

    [ Parent ]

    It's going to come to a nasty breaking point (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:15:52 AM EST
    Good leadership is also about heading off painful fracturing with diplomacy whenever able and since the DNC is running this, that would be their job and NOT the job of the candidates!  Sad that that breaking point has been called the Clinton campaign nuclear option and they allowed anyone to call it that.  Since when has voters getting to vote and having their votes count become a nuclear option?

    a nuclear option (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:23:53 AM EST
    great point.
    last night Newt was on FOX saying FL amd MI would have to be included or the democrats are dead in the fall.
    god I hate agreeing with Newt but there it is.

    he said something else interesting.  he said if a battle ensued the rules committee might agree with Hillary but the credentials committee probably would not because it was packed with Dean appointments.
    anyone know if this is true?


    [ Parent ]

    From What I Read (none / 0) (#85)
    by flashman on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:49:50 AM EST
    Please forgive if my numbers aren't accurate; I'm writing from memory, but hopefully you'll get the idea.  The CC is, approxamately, 40% Clinton supporters, 40% Obama supporters, and 20% Dean's people.  So, the odds are stacked against HRC - 60% to 40%.

    [ Parent ]
    Not true. (none / 0) (#100)
    by wurman on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:06:11 AM EST
    And not even possibly true.

    The standing Credentials Committee has 3 chairs & 22 members.  At the convention the committee will grow to 186, with 183 voting.  The 161 added members will come from the so-called "pledged" delegates of each state (chosen in caucus).  No superdelegates will be added, although some of the standing committee members happen to be supers as a matter of course.

    The standing committee is obviously a product of the years preceding the primary season.  One of the chairs, James Roosevelt, has appeared to be particularly harsh about the FL & MI nonsense.

    Dr. Dean wants to teach all state parties a future lesson about discipline.  The standing Credentials Committee seems to agree.

    Sen. Levin of MI has been a prime mover about trying to set IA & NH aside as "bellwether" states for the nomination.  He over-played his very weak hand.

    As for FL--meh, feh, teh, sheesh!  Folks have to realize there may be a great deal of genuine, highly motivated hate toward the Sunshine State & its affect on Democratic Party politics over the past 9 years.

    Anyway, this will be handled at the convention by 25 sort of, kind of Dean "appointees," accumulated over the years (with no knowledge of who would be the potential nominees) & 161 caucus chosen delegates.

    Gingrich--certainly no expert on DNC politics, hunh?

    [ Parent ]

    Here's an analysis. (none / 0) (#118)
    by wurman on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:32:16 AM EST
    Good read by Politico (link).

    [ Parent ]
    Here's a different take. (none / 0) (#121)
    by wurman on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:35:03 AM EST
    Concise contrary view shifting the decision from Credentials to Rules, Corrente comments (link).

    [ Parent ]
    The leadership in the Dem party (none / 0) (#151)
    by AnninCA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:34:24 PM EST
    is NOT Dean and Pelosi.

    arrrrrgggggghhhhhh!

    [ Parent ]

    Forgot (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Mary Mary on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:17:32 AM EST
    to congratulate BTD on inserting that idea into the discourse. Brilliant!

    2209 Is the Magic Number (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:20:56 AM EST
    if Florida and Michigan are seated. Obama said he would seat them. Dean said they would be seated.

    It seems illogical to me to call 2025 the Magic Number if everyone is saying Florida and Michigan will be seated.

    [ Parent ]

    They're telegraphing their intention (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:22:21 AM EST
    to make the seated delegates impotent in some way or another.

    [ Parent ]
    And the talking heads. . . (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:30:33 AM EST
    claim Hillary is the castrating candidate!

    [ Parent ]
    Back in the days (none / 0) (#48)
    by ruffian on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:33:51 AM EST
    last fall - so long ago - when they did not expect a close primary season - they flat out said that they fully expected the presumptive nominee to ask that the FL and MI delegates be seated.  They were admitting they would be seated and impotent, just the pretty flowered wreath around the neck of the unity pony.

    They still have not changed that position despite the fact that there very likely will not be a presumptive nominee. I think they are just praying they can hold on and hope Obama gets enough SDs by the time that committee has to decide at the end of May.

    This is totally disregarding the damage being done in FL, at least, for the sake of pretending everything is OK and having the DNC be seen as knowing what they are doing.  The Obama folks will praise them to the skies.

    I have no words anymore for the hypocricy.

    [ Parent ]

    If you read back far enough (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:37:06 AM EST
    you'll find astringent Obama supporters like kos saying that everyone knew the FL and MI delegations would be seated.

    [ Parent ]
    Not so far back---he said it in Jan. (none / 0) (#64)
    by MarkL on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:41:32 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    yup (none / 0) (#69)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:42:55 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yes (none / 0) (#90)
    by ruffian on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:58:01 AM EST
    I thought it was even as recent as this year, but was not as sure as I was of hearing it in the fall.

    Anwyay, it all would have gone according to their plan if the nomination were not so close, or if Clinton had not called attention to it again in January.

    The FL fighters of this, like Bill Nelson, seemed to pretty much give up on it after they lost the court case, until Hillary brought it up again.

    That was when Kos and TPM started going virulent against Hillary also.  She's changing the ROOOLZ!!!!

    The books written about this season will be very interesting if they can get isnsiders to talk and tell the truth. Big IF there.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, does (none / 0) (#131)
    by misspeach2008 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:36:51 AM EST
    Unity pony + donkey = mule?

    [ Parent ]
    I was thinking (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Nadai on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:31:15 PM EST
    more horse's a$$.

    [ Parent ]
    An option where Obama loses is nuclear (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by lambert on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:18:32 AM EST
    It's a new rule.

    I think you trangressed the unwritten law, there, tracy!

    Counting votes! It's the O-nuclear option! (none / 0) (#28)
    by MarkL on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:20:20 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Hey lambert ;) (none / 0) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:32:19 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    the phrase 'Nuclear Option' (none / 0) (#76)
    by white n az on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:44:21 AM EST
    seems to have originated at Lekkington Post

    Let's not amplify it's usage as it has a loaded meaning.

    It is about having FL and MI involved in the process which means that it should rightly be called 'the Democratic Option' or 'the 50 States Option'

    [ Parent ]

    Is There Really An Option? (none / 0) (#88)
    by flashman on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:54:31 AM EST
    It sounds like PR to me.  I have never bought into this idea that the Clinton's have all that much control over the party.  Influence yes; control no.  They don't really have any option other than hope and an effort to try to persuade the party to change their collective minds.  Failing that, they hope to win late in the election ( ie Today! ) as a way to win over SD's, or have momentum going into the convention.  

    [ Parent ]
    The DNC and Howard Dean (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by zfran on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:23:09 AM EST
    talk about how long this "process" is taking and we're losing valuable time against McCain. This should be a "slam dunk" for a Dem this year. How much campaigning should it take. We've evolved into an "instant" results-type country. One added note...I'm amazed at how fresh and alive Sen. Clinton looks and how tired and draggy Sen. Obama looks. I've noticed this since PA. GO HILLARY!!!

    P.S. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by zfran on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:28:16 AM EST
    Does anyone know why Sen. Obama took his name off the ballot in Michigan and left it on in Florida?

    Apparently. . . (none / 0) (#41)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:29:50 AM EST
    it was not possible to remove one's name from only the primary ballot in Florida.

    [ Parent ]
    x (none / 0) (#49)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:34:13 AM EST
    He took his name off the MI ballot to pay homage to IA and NH voters (I think Steve M has a few posts on it on this blog, but I can't go back and find them).  Supposedly, he wanted to take his name off FL, but it was too late, or something like that.

    [ Parent ]
    My ears are burning (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:41:24 AM EST
    Iowa Independent, October 2007:

    Five individuals connected to five different campaigns have confirmed -- but only under condition of anonymity -- that the situation that developed in connection with the Michigan ballot is not at all as it appears on the surface. The campaign for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, arguably fearing a poor showing in Michigan, reached out to the others with a desire of leaving New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as the only candidate on the ballot. The hope was that such a move would provide one more political obstacle for the Clinton campaign to overcome in Iowa.

    As for why they didn't do this in Florida, maybe it's because of what Larry said (that's the party line, in any event), or maybe the other campaigns simply wouldn't go along with that one.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, in FL if you take your name (none / 0) (#94)
    by ruffian on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:00:32 AM EST
    off in the primary, you can't have it on in the GE.

    [ Parent ]
    here is an article with an idea (none / 0) (#95)
    by Leisa on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:00:51 AM EST
    about why he removed his name from the MI ballot.  

    I think that this reporter needs to come forward with names just to make the story more credible.  I do not doubt there were many motivations for Obama to remove his name form the ballot.  It seems that it is all political wrangling and spin.  

    Why did he fight a revote there?

    [ Parent ]