DNC To FL And MI: Drop Dead

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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.

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


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

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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..

    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:

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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...

    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.


    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.



    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.


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


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


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

    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


    Huh? (none / 0) (#8)
    by magisterludi on Tue May 06, 2008 at 07:59:24 AM EST
    Huh? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:03:53 AM EST
    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.

    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.

    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.

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

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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?


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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!?!?!


    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.


    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.  


    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.


    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


    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.


    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?

    (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.


    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>.


    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?  


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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".


    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?

    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


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.


    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?


    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%.

    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?


    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).

    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).

    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.



    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.


    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.

    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!

    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.


    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.

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


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

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

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


    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.  

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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?


    Heh (none / 0) (#112)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:20:07 AM EST
    The reporting on that story has never been refuted, or even questioned.  It's been over 6 months.

    Obviously the campaigns did not all, by sheer coincidence, happen to all show up on the last day and remove their names all at once.


    Thanks for the feedback! (none / 0) (#129)
    by Leisa on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:08:41 AM EST
    The nuclear option was disenfranchising two (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by FLVoter on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:30:22 AM EST
    states.  There was no need to tell FL and MI that they do not matter, but Guam does. Short of counting FL and MI before the nominee is chosen, "electing" Sen. Obama as the nominee will be nothing but a gift. He will never be seen as legitimate.  BTW, as a Floridian, since the DNC did not count me, then don't count on me in the GE.  I survived Presdient Bush and I will survive President McCain. Yes, I am a bitter over 40 woman with no dignity who is clinging to my gun and bible.  

    AGREE (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by jedimom on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:44:36 PM EST
    with you all the way
    I am clinging to the Democratic values of counting every vote, that is why I joined this party at 18 and 20 years later I am ready to leave if MI FL are not heard in selecting a nominee

    and no amount of Denni or anyone else, even Hillary, trying to 'guilt' me or others into voting for Obama in those circumstances will succeed..


    Herin lies the rub (none / 0) (#173)
    by andreww on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:50:34 PM EST
    I understand your frustration.  But can't you also understand that Obama supporters don't think it would be fair to count states where candidates weren't allowed to campaign?

    That's not very democratic either.  Where was all the anger when Hillary said that MI and FL wouldn't count?

    I won't vote for Hillary if she wins that way either.  So, therein lies the rub.  Both candidates should have gone with BTD's proposal.


    This is about the voters not the candidates (none / 0) (#191)
    by Step Beyond on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:55:14 PM EST
    Candidates were allowed to campaign.

    They chose not to campaign in order to gain favor with voters in the 4 early states. They made a choice. No one forced them. So if you have a problem with Obama not campaigning, talk to Obama.

    The DNC did NOT tell them not to campaign.


    Do you mean (none / 0) (#195)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:56:49 PM EST
    states where candidates voluntarily agreed not to campaign?

    Do you mean (none / 0) (#196)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:56:58 PM EST
    states where candidates voluntarily agreed not to campaign?

    I get your point, BUT... (none / 0) (#123)
    by Denni on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:43:36 AM EST
    YOU survived President Bush, more than 4,000 of Americas proud and brave did not.  More than a million innocent Iraqi did not.

    More than that, Clinton, Ickes, and McAuliffe agreed that 'disenfranchising' voters was the only option... until they needed them.


    The phrase "these people" or (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:31:51 AM EST
    "you people" crops up a lot in the mouths of Obama supporters -- I've seen it several times in the last week right here at Talk Left.

    i have a feeling (none / 0) (#169)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:48:24 PM EST
    it is referring to TalkLeft (i.e. Hillary) supporters.  wounldn't read to much into it (and frankly have seen much more troubling comments on here - thankfully, they're often deleted).

    This is why . . . (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by Doc Rock on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:36:05 AM EST
    . . . I have stopped contributing to the party and, instead, have switched my contributions to the ACLU and to select candidates.

    I guess there is no one at the DNC who (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Anne on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:38:44 AM EST
    has the ability to look beyond their own selfishness to understand how damaging the total disenfranchisement of two states in the electoral process will be.  How this nomination is resolved is really, in the grand scheme of things, the least of the consequences that will flow from shutting voters out of the process.

    What is it that people are so afraid of?  That doing the right thing for the voters might mean that the candidate they support might not get the nomination?  Have they considered what the fallout is if they continue to inhibit a full and fair electoral process, their preferred candidate gets the nomination and then loses in November?  

    And I'm not just talking the fallout of having Republicans running the show for another four years, either - heck, we've been there before and we'll deal with it.  What I'm talking about is the complete loss of faith in the Democratic party, the damage to the Democrats' credibility on voting rights issues, and the terrible lesson for the millions of young people and new voters whose disillusionment with the process may return us to the apathetic years of abysmal voter turnout, leading to the loss of Congress and any hope we might have had to have a voice.

    That's what angers me.  This should never, ever have become a process driven by who the candidates are - because they will come and they will go - and the fact that the likes of Howard Dean and Donna Brazile, and all the other DNC-ers who can't see past the ends of their own noses, continue to stonewall and manipulate and flat-out lie about "the rules" is not encouraging.  It may, in fact, be the most depressing and infuriating aspect of this entire primary season.

    Yes. (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by pie on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:45:53 AM EST
    What I'm talking about is the complete loss of faith in the Democratic party,

    The dems have been an ineffective minority party and not much better as a (barely, I'll admit) majority party, serving with (under?) the worst American administration in history.  It wouldn't take much to start hemorrhaging members.

    This would do it.


    How stupid is Allan Katz for dissing (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Joan in VA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:42:50 AM EST
    his fellow Floridians? His statement is dripping with disdain for the Clinton camp but it's Florida's votes that would change the outcome. Wouldn't want to be the one who answers his phone!

    The Controversy Will Live Another Day (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by CoralGables on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:43:01 AM EST
    If Obama wins both states tonight, MI and FL will fade back away for another day. If Clinton wins both tonight, they will come back to the forefront just as they did after Texas and Ohio. Either of these two outcomes will be a staggering blow to the other.

    Once again, Obama has a chance at a knockout blow. Not quite the equal, but nearly as damaging, would be a one-two punch tonight from Clinton. Hillary can keep MI and FL alive all the way to the convention, thereby making any pre-determined magic number mute by chalking up a big performance this evening.

    Magic numbers are definite. When the rules say those numbers can be contested on the convention floor, and  SD's are theoretically non-committed until the day they vote, there is no magic number worth considering.

    prediction (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:51:18 AM EST
    Hillary is taking it to the mat.
    Sharpton and Jackson want to threaten blood in the streets if they dont get what they want?  let them.

    I think if they do that (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:59:11 AM EST
    They and their movements will become totally irrelevant.  

    If the Obama supporters riot in Denver, as some have mentioned, not only will McCain win in November, but I predict some Senate and House seat pickups for Republicans in districts where they have no shot as of now, and in fact could get a majority in one or both houses.

    THEN we'd be in trouble - Republicans once again controlling everything.


    And (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by janarchy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:44:02 AM EST
    it won't look good for the demos making up that part of the base because no one will want to deal with them in future.

    Personally, I really hope someone does call them out. If only to prove that pandering to a bunch of idiots who threaten to riot when they're not given their way is not democracy. It's mob rules.

    Bill Schneider said something ridiculous on CNN this weekend about how "there could be riots and we don't want that!" when asked about the problems with seating MI and FL.


    thats exactly right. (none / 0) (#96)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:01:32 AM EST
    I haven't heard threats from them. (none / 0) (#98)
    by Joan in VA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:02:55 AM EST
    Have you? I thought it was just anonymous rabble-rousers. Probably Obama fans trying to scare people into caving on the nomination.

    Al Sharpton Threatened To March On The (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:11:58 AM EST
    DNC headquarters in D.C. if FL and MI were seated. Brazile has made comments that came very close to the line IMO.

    threats (none / 0) (#105)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:10:39 AM EST
    insinuated and indirect of course, from both.
    they played some clips on FOX recently.
    but the threats from the blogger boys is far less indirect.
    what I wonder is if we will see similar threats from Hillary/MI/FL supporters if they try to shut them out.

    There is an unhinged Obama blogger (none / 0) (#228)
    by shoephone on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:08:32 PM EST
    who has been going into the comment sections of various liberal blogs, threatening that "if Clinton tries to steal this election we will burn Denver down to the ground!"

    I kid you not.


    x (none / 0) (#103)
    by Mary Mary on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:08:57 AM EST
    I think it's best to let Republicans invoke scary images of angry black men.

    Only one black man is important in such a scenario, and that's Barack Obama. I think he is an ambitious guy and he will play ball with the party if he doesn't get the nod. What other option does he have?


    as I said above (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:12:20 AM EST
    its not about race.  Sharpton and Jackson happen to the high profile mouthpieces.  they anger worse will come from left blogistan.
    its not about race.  its about class.
    those who have it and those who do not.

    "they anger worse" (none / 0) (#109)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:13:21 AM EST
    the anger and worse.
    if I could type.
    its early.

    because the rules weren't honest (5.00 / 5) (#115)
    by cpinva on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:26:30 AM EST
    to begin with.

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

    had the "rules" actually been followed by the DNC, IA, NH and SC wouldn't have had their caucuses/primaries when they did. Dean admitted that SC was exempted solely due to the large AA population; IA & NH to make them feel important. so much for the "rules".

    think: orwell: animal farm: all states are equal, some states are just more equal than others.

    only FL and MI were penalized for holding their primaries "early", and FL really had no say in the matter, it was the republican controlled legislature that forced it on them.

    i'm really just a tad tired of hearing about the "rules", "rules" only applied selectively. frankly, they were stupid rules to begin with, whoever thought them up should be tarred and feathered out of the democratic party.

    And (5.00 / 4) (#122)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:36:20 AM EST
    The ROOLZ also say that MI and FL should have been stripped of 50% of their delegates, not 100% (the true "nuclear option").

    And the rules have rules to change the rules (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by lookoverthere on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:43:05 PM EST
    in furtherance of the goal: to select the best candidate to win in the general election.

    BTW, interesting op/ed from Baltimore Times Online about the stupidity of ignoring the voters of MI and FL.


    Love this! n/t (none / 0) (#190)
    by DJ on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:55:08 PM EST
    Ugh. Enough!! (none / 0) (#178)
    by Marco21 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:52:10 PM EST
    Count me among the masses who are sick of hearing about the fricking rules.

    Did anyone ask 2.3 million voters how they would feel if their votes would not get counted? No.

    This party is hellbent on disenfranchising its own  members and the "creative class" of true "progressives" sits back and smirks under the watchful eye of  - get this, it's rich - the UNITY candidate.

    What a fricking joke.

    Obama supporters are always talking math. I hope they're good with subtraction because not counting MI and FlA will equal losing those states in the fall.


    MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Saul on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:43:23 PM EST
    has really turnout today for Obama.   All the moderators  in their interviews pick topics to criticize Hilary.  Have yet to see an interview that ask questions that is in favor of Hilary or that they supports Hilary in any way, by any of the moderators that have come on the station since 10 this morning. It is blatantly  obvious their in the tank for Obama.  Almost like a plot that said let see if we can convince people to go vote today for Obama and not Hilary.  Like a cheering squad.

    Hmm (none / 0) (#186)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:54:03 PM EST
    they must be scared.

    Dean on CNN (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by ricosuave on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:49:44 PM EST
    Just saw Howard Dean on CNN.  He gave his have-it-both-ways answer of saying that the FL and MI delegations would be seated but didn't specify how that would happen or what it meant.  He seemed to be saying that he wanted to let the rest of the primaries play out before anything final happens on those so that they wouldn't change the delegate counts in mid-stream.  

    It didn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but I think he is still hoping that the other elections will make MI and FL not matter--ie he is banking on Hillary losing outright and Obama winning without having to seat the delegations.  IMHO that is an extremely dangerous game because we face the strong possibility of a situation where the race is going to be decided on how FL and MI are handled, and that is about the worst place to be because it hurts the legitimacy of either candidate's win with the other's supporters.  

    What an appalling lack of leadership by Dean.  Hoping it will work out OK?  Hope is not a plan.

    One more thing: he mentioned the "48 states who followed the rules."  It seems to me like only 44 states followed the rules.  2 were punished to keep the other 4 from having an incentive to break the rules.  Those other 4 broke the rules anyway and got a waiver.

    Betting the farm... (5.00 / 3) (#226)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:06:47 PM EST
    What is really go on here is that Dean is betting the farm on Obama winning the White House.

    Basically, with Obama in the White House, Obama's grassroots personality cult organizations can get absorbed into the local/state parties -- for Dean, this is all about jump-starting his 50 state strategy.

    For people like Pelosi, Obama is all about his donor list -- Congressional dems never liked the 50 state strategy, because it shifted power and especially money/resources away from DC to the states.  Obama's mailing lists mean that the DCCC and DSCC will have direct access to Obama's donors -- and since what they really care about is their own incumbency and power, and campaign contributions are the lifeblood of entrenched Dems, Congresscritters are happy to support Obama.

    So what we have now is "party leadership" that is leading the party on the path to destruction because they aer more concerned with their personal agendas than winning in November.

    Puh lease (1.00 / 2) (#47)
    by thea2b on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:32:45 AM EST
    I can see this blog is dominated by Clintonistas, but lets look at teh facts. 1. Mi and FL were told BEFORE they did this that if they did they would not seat delegates.  2. HRC said herself that the delegates wont count in 4 different interviews or sound bites. 3. The HRC camp continually talked about super tuesday Feb 5th being the end, they were they anointed ones, it was her turn. 5. 25% of the electorate stayed home as they were told their vote would not count. 6. This was a FL republican party scheme forced into a bill to get a verifiable vote process in place in FL. If the dems had rejected it, the rethugs would have pilloried them in the elections for voting down a vote that is verifiable.  
    7. All candidates agreed to the terms when they were announced.

    In NFL terms..This would be like the Patriots and Bill Belicek asking for their 1st round pick back!

    The only fair way to do it would be to give FL and MI 1/2 their delegates and split them evenly.

    the magic number is 2025

    Fair to whom? (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:35:19 AM EST
    My inclination is to be fair to the voters of FL and MI before being "fair" to one particular candidate or another.

    But I don't expect people who come here protesting about the roolz to actually care about fairness. For them, it's all a partisan agenda.


    Cheers! (none / 0) (#232)
    by liminal on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:09:45 PM EST
    You're so right.  This isn't a bloody game of Sorry.  Any discussion of "fairness" should be about "fairness" to the voters, to ensure that voters get to have their votes counted.  I'm considerably less concerned about perceived "rules of the game" fairness to the candidates themselves, as to me the voters' individual and collective rights to vote are of paramount importance.  It's not Hungry Hungry Hippos (remember that game!), it's not Monopoly, and it's not basketball.  Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have the same right to vote that the rest of us have.  We can discuss fairness in terms of the candidates when it comes to media coverage or opportunity costs or bias or whatnot 'til the cows come home, but when it comes right, straight down to process-oriented questions surrounding the actual-factual election, "fairness" is defined as one person, one vote and any other attempt to do so is, IMO, foolish and false.  

    And I'd say this if the excluded states were big Obama strongholds, too.


    Fine (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:36:11 AM EST
    Give MI and FL 1/2 their delegates. Obama still doesn't get any from MI, and the popular votes also count in full (plus, their SD's get to vote).

    BTW- MI and FL were also told last fall that they more than likely would be seated at the convention anyway.


    thea2b to FL and MI: Drop Dead (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:38:58 AM EST
    BTW, no more insults from you.

    You are suspended for the day.

    Come back tomorrow.


    thea2B (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:46:03 AM EST
    Suspension means no more commenting for the day.

    See you tomorrow.


    BTEW in your scheme (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:40:08 AM EST
    The Magic Number would be 2105.

    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:42:33 AM EST
    Do you understand that your point #6 militates against the disenfranchisement of Florida?

    As Karen Thurman tried to tell the DNC. . . (none / 0) (#72)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:43:28 AM EST
    Fair? (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by Leisa on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:09:56 AM EST
    Since you seem so well informed, please site the terms and conditions of the agreement that candidates signed.

    Please give evidence to the legality of the agreement by the rules and bylaws that direct the DNC's primary elections.

    Why is it that you think it is acceptable to disenfranchise voters??

    Obama would have done well in MI if he had agreed to a revote.  Splitting the delegates 50/50 still does not give voters a voice, and it is stupid... it achieves NOTHING.


    I see hands on hips (none / 0) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:40:30 AM EST

    Actually, Florida had a record turnout. So (none / 0) (#71)
    by FLVoter on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:43:12 AM EST
    pretending that the turnout was low is disingenuous.  You miss the point.  It is irrelevant what any candidate states about FL and MI.  This is about the DNC.  It was the DNC that used the nuclear option. It is the responsibility of the DNC to correct their error.  Spliting the Florida delegates is absurd.  FL had a legal election.  All state rules were abided by.  The DNC needs to do the right thing and count FL in accordance with the voting results of January 29, 2008.  If the DNC continue on this suicide path, there will be a President McCain.  

    Wasn't the point of the earlier studies (none / 0) (#127)
    by Denni on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:57:11 AM EST
    that 2 million people who would have voted didn't because they were REPEATEDLY told (Clinton, McAuliffe, the DNC, Ickes, others) that their vote wouldn't count?

    The other point is that Sen. Obama has ALWAYS closed the gap when actively campaigning in states he was supposed to lose by huge margins.  


    That wasn't a study (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Step Beyond on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:20:20 AM EST
    A couple of people made assumptions and guessed. Not a factual study. Did you notice how they didn't give their data?

    Here's my diary on that "study". Can you point to ANY state that had anywhere near the 68.89% turnout they said Florida should have had?

    Try to apply some critical thinking when you read something online and not to accept that it must be true. That "study" doesn't make sense and examining it shows it flaws.


    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:51:43 AM EST
    All the newspapers in Florida were urging people to vote because of the likelihood that the election would wind up counting in the end.  The Michigan Democratic Party was urging people to vote, and urging them to vote "uncommitted" if they supported a candidate who wasn't on the ballot.  Obama surrogates like John Conyers mounted a full-fledged campaign to get out the "uncommitted" vote for Obama.

    Your comment is not exactly what I would call factual.


    Florida had record turnout. (none / 0) (#74)
    by MarkL on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:44:06 AM EST
    The percentage of Dems who participated was nearly as high as in SC, and of course the number was much higher.

    What? (none / 0) (#9)
    by pie on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:00:51 AM EST
    letting these people change the outcome

    Who's letting whom change the outcome?  The DNC is tampering with this election and, in essence, picking the candidate with its refusal to recognize MI and FL.

    "these people" (none / 0) (#30)
    by ruffian on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:20:46 AM EST
    are in states that are no more important than any other states, said Dean on MTP.  I hope he enjoys those highly coveted 6 electoral votes from North and Sough Dakota combined.  Oh yeah, he won't get those either.  

    The stooopid...it buuurns.

    Has anyone heard of a 'late primary state delegate bonus'?  I just heard the NC Dem party chair tell of such a thing on XM radio. Juat another example of the mircomanagement of the Dem delegate allocation process.  I'm not even sure it favors eitehr candidate right now.  But the Dems seek to control behavior at every level - i am really beginning to understand some of the Republican arguments a little better. This process has been a real learning experience for me.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:24:08 AM EST
    They do give a bonus to states that vote later in the process, in order to give states an incentive to not all vote on Super Tuesday.  There are far greater problems with the delegate process than that one.

    Yes there are for sure! (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by ruffian on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:59:06 AM EST
    that was just one I was unaware of until this morning.

    Didn't Michigan and Florida Tell (none / 0) (#79)
    by AdrianLesher on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:46:57 AM EST
    the Democratic Party to shove it when they scheduled their primaries when they did?

    Didn't Terry Mccauliffe himself say that punishing Michigan and Florida was necessary?

    "these people" (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:48:48 AM EST
    really dont want to win do they?

    AdrianLesher to MI and FL: Drop dead (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:54:26 AM EST
    It's Clear, These Elections Are Not Going To Count (none / 0) (#81)
    by AdrianLesher on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:48:03 AM EST
    for Anything.

    Hillary Soundbite on BBC right now.

    She was for it before she was against it.

    Michigan (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:55:23 AM EST
    She did indeed say that.

    And that tells you what? Why it tells you to say "Drop Dead MI and FL."


    This is not about the candidates (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Davidson on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:01:33 AM EST
    Who the hell says she's right?  This is not about either Clinton or Obama, but the principles (democracy), following the actual rules (which allow for the states to be seated), and winning the general election.

    I remember (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:33:51 AM EST
    when liberals actually criticized Bush for not changing his policy based on the facts on the ground (e.g. Iraq, tax cuts, etc.)

    Now "progressives" have developed a Bushian viewpoint that we can't count MI/FL because the "rules" are the rules and we can't change them based on the facts on the ground (a razor-close race) -- even though the DNC defied their own rules in the first place.  

    It's apparently okay if Democrats lose the general because of the illegitimacy of a nomination without including MI/FL.  They already have their scapegoat lined up -- Hillary.


    Consider the PR angle (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Edgar08 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:32:59 PM EST
    A flip flopping opportunist fighting for someone's right to vote actually comes out looking better than someone's consistent principled decision to deny someone their vote.

    It's amazing how some don't get it.

    Even when you adopt your Obama campaign spin and lame framing on the issue, your candidate sill comes out looking worse.


    THIS not these. Only talking about MI (none / 0) (#91)
    by Joan in VA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:58:17 AM EST
    and not in context.

    Yay (none / 0) (#114)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:21:15 AM EST
    The estoppel argument again!  Oh how I've missed that talking point.

    (bursting into tears) (none / 0) (#138)
    by katiebird on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:28:25 PM EST
    Thank you BTD -- You may have turned things around with your question.

    Interesting....it looks like (none / 0) (#139)
    by AnninCA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:29:21 PM EST
    you challenge, BTD, was heard.


    obama says seat them (none / 0) (#140)
    by oldnorthstate on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:29:44 PM EST
    Words VS Actions (none / 0) (#171)
    by Leisa on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:50:10 PM EST
    Sorry, I don't buy it or his sincerity.

    Did he say "At least my campaign has been positive"... when asked about how divided the party is?

    I turned it off after that.


    i know i know (none / 0) (#220)
    by oldnorthstate on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:05:40 PM EST

    All that time (none / 0) (#210)
    by DJ on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:03:13 PM EST
    and all he could say was my plan is better than hers, better than McCain's....BUT NOTHING ABOUT WHAT HIS PLAN IS???  How can you run a campaign on that?

    Search Google news for 2209 (none / 0) (#145)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:31:42 PM EST
    The headlines aren't pretty. . .

    i thought 2025 (none / 0) (#147)
    by andreww on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:32:23 PM EST
    was the magic number with FL and MI.  Guess not?

    Anyway, I'm curious, what would the delegate split in FL have been if it did count?

    2208 or 9 (none / 0) (#155)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:36:14 PM EST
    so... (none / 0) (#168)
    by andreww on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:46:21 PM EST
    Do you know what the split would have been?  Seems like Hillary would only have gained what - 30 delegates?  I'm annoyed by the whole FL and MI argument Clinton is making - but I still feel Obama mis-played it entirely.  As I've said dozens of times - he should have called for re-votes on the same day as the PA primary as soon as HRC started talking about seating them.  

    But here's the thing - let's say they seat MI and FL based on the results earlier.  How many delegates does Hillary gain on Obama?


    Obama's delegate margin slims considerably (none / 0) (#183)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:53:39 PM EST
    if you consider the coming blowouts in KY and WV when FL and MI are added.

    I have read. . . (none / 0) (#162)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:42:28 PM EST
    I make no claim to the accuracy, that if Florida and Michigan were counted (Michigan's uncommitted going to Obama) that Clinton would be net 14 pledged delegates behind as of today.

    That is only correct (none / 0) (#175)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:50:58 PM EST
    if Obama gains none of the uncommitted delegates out of Michigan.

    More likely, Clinton gains about 50 delegates net.


    Suppose she gets an additional (none / 0) (#192)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:55:41 PM EST
    30 out of WV and 40 out of KY? Not impossible, it seems to me.

    Rules are Rules (none / 0) (#153)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:34:34 PM EST

    I didn't Hillary supporters complaining when the DNC decided this (prior to Clinton losing).  

    It is insane to complain now when all along it was known by the entire party (most specifically the clinton campaign).  

    Seat the delegates in some manner but do so w/ the acknowledgment that the DNC declaration before the primaries meant something - split them if need be (given that elections won't be held - i.e. real, pre-approved elections).  

    Rules are rules---so why are you making up (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by MarkL on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:38:13 PM EST
    your own? Nothing you say bears any relation to what the DNC rules actually said.

    fact (none / 0) (#182)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:52:56 PM EST
    Democratic leaders voted to strip Michigan of all its delegates to the national convention next year as punishment for scheduling an early presidential primary in violation of party rules.

    Yes, that was an arbitrary decision, not (none / 0) (#185)
    by MarkL on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:53:52 PM EST
    one made in accordance with the rules.
    Understand the difference?

    what? (none / 0) (#198)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:58:04 PM EST
    it was the DNC rules panel who decided such.  Your comment makes no sense.

    The votes matter now (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Edgar08 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:38:45 PM EST
    Yes. Some decisions were made under the impression that FL and MI would not likely make up the margin of victory.

    Long story short.  People often make a comparison between the DNC and RNC on this issue.

    And the logical assumption is that if the RNC primary was still this close and you could imagine FL providing the winning margin there, there'd be the same fight we see here.

    It now matters because, well, it matters.

    No one cared about butterfly ballots either until a handful of them would determine our president.


    AtD To FL and MI: Drop Dead (none / 0) (#154)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:35:52 PM EST
    why am i saying drop dead? (none / 0) (#176)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:51:03 PM EST
    BTD, when did you start complaining about this?  seriously.

    Saying that the rules were stated and known prior to the primaries is not saying "drop dead"; rather it is stating the facts.  facts are stubborn i know.


    Yes, you should acquaint yourself with some (none / 0) (#181)
    by MarkL on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:52:53 PM EST
    before you post another comment on the subject.

    very informative post (none / 0) (#188)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:54:58 PM EST
    please explain

    When did Kos start complaining about it? (none / 0) (#214)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:04:10 PM EST
    Rather, when did he flip-flop? (none / 0) (#222)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    Answer: when he, like everyone else, realized that it would matter.

    i don't remember talking about (none / 0) (#224)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:06:31 PM EST
    Kos. ?

    "Rules are Rules" (none / 0) (#225)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:06:46 PM EST
    Well, they are until they are enforced.  When rules are enforced, like all laws and all sorts of other rules, they tend to lose their ruliness.  They enter the realm of judgement, human judgement.  The Rules are Rules argument assumes that all rules have an obvious interpretation.  So, please, stop making this argument.  

    The DNC has jiggled and wriggled.


    LOL (none / 0) (#236)
    by madamab on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:49:05 PM EST
    you're really getting to the heart of the matter there!

    Lord. (none / 0) (#197)
    by Marco21 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:57:22 PM EST
    Is that the only argument here? Rules are rules?

    2.3 million Democrats won't get a voice and it's okay because their leaders couldn't get it together?

    Hillary was silent. Know what? She was wrong. Obama was wrong. Edwards was wrong.

    2.3 million voters getting bent over a barrel is more than wrong. It's unforgivable.


    only argument? (none / 0) (#203)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:00:54 PM EST
    i think it is pretty logical to think that Dems should follow their own rules.  If we didn't like the rules then we shouldn't have made them (or we should change them).  but yes, i think Rules should be followed - fairly straight forward belief.

    Logically... (none / 0) (#216)
    by Marco21 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:04:23 PM EST
    tossing out 2.3 million voters who had no choice in the matter is pretty much against everything a Democrat should stand for, especially after 2000.

    I am not calling you out specifically. I don't know you. My harshness is for the argument, not you personally.


    i agree. (none / 0) (#233)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:09:49 PM EST
    truly.  but i find it hard to argue, after the fact, that the votes that were cast, should determine a delegate split when the delegates were declared (by the DNC Rules Panel) void.  

    It points to a lack of planning and foresight by the party but i don't think either campaign should benefit (or not) from these states.  The party made the rules, and the party should stand by those rules.  Fixing them will clearly be a priority (i hope).


    Bwawhaha (none / 0) (#199)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    If you don't recall any complaining when the DNC decided this, you weren't paying attention.

    Seems the complaining picked up (none / 0) (#207)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    a bit when Hillary's inevitable presidency become not.  maybe i'm a little off but...

    She won FL with 50%, MI with 55%... (none / 0) (#177)
    by mike in dc on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:51:58 PM EST
    ...so whatever delegation gets seated shouldn't have proportions too far off that, right?

    I mean, if the proposed delegations were slanted more like 2:1, that'd be pretty seriously gaming the system, right?

    Hmm? (none / 0) (#204)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:00:56 PM EST
    Are you suggesting that Clinton should get only half the delegates from a state she won by 17 points and nearly 300,000 votes?  Good luck with that argument.

    Why would she be entitled to 2/3? (none / 0) (#218)
    by mike in dc on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:04:39 PM EST
    Normally you have to get around 63+ % of the vote to get something approaching 2/3 of the delegates at stake.  50% in a 3-way race should net you something less than 60% of the total delegates--if she gets 105 out of 185, I have no problem with that.  I do have a problem with what happened at the MI convention to select delegates, where Clinton's cronies gamed the system to grab multiple delegates above and beyond her estimated 73-75 out of 128.

    Obama got 33% in Florida (none / 0) (#209)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:03:11 PM EST
    and 0 officially in Michigan.

    40% were uncommitted.


    The DNC had (none / 0) (#221)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:05:42 PM EST
    ruled that these states would be stripped of their delegates.  Everyone, especially the campaigns, knew this.  am i wrong?

    But, again... (none / 0) (#223)
    by mike in dc on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:06:20 PM EST
    ....why would she be entitled to, say, 2/3 of the delegates at stake when her vote share wasn't close to that?

    Maybe (none / 0) (#180)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:52:32 PM EST
    Hillary gave Howard one of her cojones. It sounds like he finally may be deciding to do the right thing. Look, if I was an Obama supporter I would be disappointed with this but the larger issues everyone should agree with: peoples votes are way more important than any one candidate. Disenfranchising MI and FL could have repercussions for many elections past 2008. Besides, any candidate who is serious about winning in Nov. should be advocating to have them seated. The sooner the better.

    Whatever the mertis of Clinton's argument (none / 0) (#189)
    by magster on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:55:06 PM EST
    if Obama reaches 2025 before MI and FL problem is resolved, he'll be crowned the nominee, and Clinton will be dubbed a sore loser if she fights it.  

    This is especially so if tonight is a tie or better for Obama.

    Disagree (none / 0) (#193)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:56:38 PM EST
    a tie tonight means that Obama is bleeding badly. Especially if he doesn't win NC with at least a 10 pt margin.

    "Tie" meant expectations (none / 0) (#200)
    by magster on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:00:24 PM EST
    of Obama at 10% in NC and Clinton at 5% in IN.

    Not well stated by me (surprise surprise)


    Ah (none / 0) (#211)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:03:47 PM EST
    well, I expect a slightly better night for Hillary, with In closer to H+10 and NC closer to O+8-9.

    Not now (none / 0) (#206)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    Bravo (none / 0) (#219)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:04:46 PM EST
    DNC in the tank for Obama (none / 0) (#194)
    by stillife on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:56:41 PM EST
    They want to get their candidate nominated, regardless of the price that they'll pay - and make no mistake, they will pay - in November.

    my belief is that (none / 0) (#213)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:04:08 PM EST
    the DNC declared these rules when Hillary was up by 20 points in every state.  I don't think the DNC, in any way, voted to strip Michigan and Florida w/ Obama in mind.  

    Did I say that? (none / 0) (#227)
    by stillife on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:08:10 PM EST
    The rules were idiotic in the first instance, but I'm not saying there was a conspiracy from the beginning.  My contention is that their refusal to seat the delegates until after the votes wouldn't matter is proof that they're in the tank for Obama.  

    Why's BO getting so many bites at the apple here? (none / 0) (#201)
    by Ellie on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:00:36 PM EST
    There's no way he'll attract the supporters or juicy new money to match his burn rate.

    He's such a rotten choice, spent a historically unprecedented amount in PA (and 3:1 against HRC) to budge voters not one whit.

    And that's in a Democratic primary.

    If the Dems won't count MI and FL, they simply CAN'T count (and certainly will not count to me.)

    Whether through the Repug forces or his own self-destruction accellerated on by party kingmakers, Obama won't be my President.

    Playing hardball or the nuclear option (none / 0) (#205)
    by zebedee on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:01:38 PM EST
    Hopefully Hillary will play hardball on this. If, afetr the primaries, she is ahead in popular vote and, with Florida and Michigan fully counted, ahead in total delegates, she should refuse to accept the outcome. She has more power here than people think and the DNC cannot steamroller her. If she doesn't play along, the dems know they will lose in November, guaranteed. She can cause a fight at the convention, refuse to endorse BO or even run as an independent.

    All this is in effect the real nuclear option and I don't think the DNC will tough it out with her.

    What I fear is a conniving scheme to get enough superdels secretly lined up "for the sake of the party" so they can then count the Fla/MI delegates. In this scenario she would still lead in popular vote (especially since Fla/MI pop vote is legitimized) and there should be enough insiders favoring HRC to tell wheter the superdel lineup  was cooked.


    New Party (none / 0) (#229)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:08:35 PM EST
    I hope Bill and Hillary start a new political party.  The country is ready for it, they can have this carcass of the Democratic party.  There are plenty of Indies looking for something and the Republicans are sick of their party as well.

    The Audacity of hoping.  

    Gore expects FL and MI should be seated (none / 0) (#230)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:08:43 PM EST
    Comments now closed (none / 0) (#235)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:24:05 PM EST
    there's a new florida/michigan thread up.

    The new magic number..thanks to BTD (none / 0) (#237)
    by lily15 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:08:14 PM EST
    I think BTD gave them the idea that they should be pushing a new magic number.  Great job!!