Is Donna Brazile Blocking A FL/MI Resolution?

So I take it we can agree now that 2025 is not the magic number?

Everything we're hearing is that a deal over Florida and Michigan could be cut in the next few days. . . . The hurdle isn't Clinton and Obama anymore, though; it is folks in the DNC who believe those two recalcitrant states still need to be punished in some form . . . [I]t's clear to us that DNC types want some flesh on this issue. Many hate the idea of Florida and Michigan getting full delegations . . .

Does anyone in the DNC want to win in November? Donna Brazile is a travesty.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Mississippi Drug War Blues: Cory Maye | Coca is Not Cocaine; Let the Farmers Be >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Is she secretly working for Rove? (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by dianem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:52:34 AM EST
    You don't punish "states". You punish "voters", none of whom had any say in when they got to vote. I'm sure that there are many voter's who don't care and will vote for Obama in the general election anyway, or who would have voted for McCain and will not switch. But history has shown that it doesn't take a lot to switch the tally from from "Democrat" to "Republican" in a purple state.

    Brazille, repeat after me: "The voter's of Florida and Michigan are important to the Democratic Party, and we will do everything in our power to ensure that their wishes are represented in this highly contested primary". There...was that so hard?

    I hate to cast aspersions (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by annabelly on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:15:13 PM EST
    In this already paranoid atmosphere, but one has to wonder. She's the one who's confessed to talking to Karl Rove several times a week since 2003 and she's the one that said on national TV that white male Republicans had done more for her personally in the last 7 years than Democrats. I don't know why she isn't' thrown out on her ear.

    Democrats don't need her. All she's ever done for us is lose (Gore, 2000).


    I was joking (none / 0) (#82)
    by dianem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:50:25 PM EST
    But you have some really good points. At the very least, it's safe to assume that her loyalties are divided. So ... why is this woman so important in the Democratic Party?

    even though Donna hasn't declared (none / 0) (#39)
    by thereyougo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:14:16 PM EST
    who she supports do you believe it isn't Obama?

    I can't wait till he throws her under the bus with the rest of Obama big supporters. Getting crowed in there.


    Words matter (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by litigatormom on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:34:46 PM EST
    But so do deeds.  Brazile explicitly said she is not uncommitted, but merely undeclared.  In other words, she is keeping her commitment a (very) thinly veiled secret.  So thin, in fact, that it can only be called a naked secret.

    Brazile, perhaps even more than Dean, seems to have her ego entirely invested in punishing the MI and FLA state parties who she thinks refused to bend to her will -- despite the fact that the FLA Democrats were effectively held hostage to the early primary date by a Republican dominated state legislature, and despite the fact that both state parties made repeated attempts to ameliorate the situation, including by conducting re-votes.  The DNC, no doubt at Donna's demand, made such proposals subject to Obama's veto.

    Brazile seems far more interested in keeping her ego inflated than in permitting innocent FLA and MI voters have their say in the nomination process. She seems entirely willing to permit -- nay, enable -- MI and FLA to go red this year.  In other words, she appears to be entirely willing to punish each and every one of us, every single American, by handing the White House to John McCain.  

    Please, Donna, don't complain to me about the voters who say they can't support Obama in the GE under such circumstances.  It is we, true and loyal Democrats, who will complain to you when the Third Bush Term begins on January 20, 2009. You, whose ego is more important than even your protege Barack Obama's victory.  As readers of this blog know, yesterday I said I was willing to vote for Obama in the fall. YOU can change my mind.  YOU seem to be intent on changing my mind.

    Is the real secret, Donna, that you WANT John McCain to be president?


    there seem to be a lot of big egos lately (none / 0) (#99)
    by hellothere on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:24:11 PM EST
    in obama's corner. that alone will do him in before november.

    You Give too Much Credit (none / 0) (#103)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:50:37 PM EST
    I agree that there is probably some ego operating, but I think that singling out for punishment only 2 out of 5 states that violated the same rule is partisan and pro-Obama; everyone knew that Hillary also stood to do much better than Obama in both Michigan & Florida.    

    why (none / 0) (#44)
    by kcarab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:15:55 PM EST
    are people who support Obama automatically labeled as throwing Clinton under the bus?

    Someone in her position (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:26:23 PM EST
    as in on the Rules Committee and high up in the DNC, not to mention on TV, should remain neutral publicly.  She has no business being so obviously in the tank for Obama.  Just shows she's not professional.  What a hack.

    Because they are willing to (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by litigatormom on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:37:03 PM EST
    completely piss off the voters in two critical swing states rather than compete for them.

    And it's not just Clinton they are throwing under the bus. It's all of us.  MI and FLA are about far more than Hillary Clinton's victories there.  They are about the (supposed) principles of the Democratic Party, principles that are not supposed to change depending on the identity of the frontrunner or the nominee.


    It's not automatic (none / 0) (#81)
    by dianem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:48:52 PM EST
    It just keeps happening again and again.

    Call Me Crazy (none / 0) (#102)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:46:32 PM EST
    But I think Donna is doing what she does for Donna, like a lot of the anti-Hillary Dems, who seem to be acting out of fear that if Hillary is the nominee for President & gets elected, they will hold no power.  And hasn't Donna's consulting firm done work for Rove?

    Agree (none / 0) (#108)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:57:29 AM EST
    that the issue is clear.  Donna and the other nitwits think there's something to be gained from Obama.

    They don't like being led.

    However, my take is that they have done nothing but jumped horses.

    They'll be led.

    My personal conclusion?

    Their egos are in charge of their brains.  They will take the "hope" of leading him over the reality that they aren't really in charge.

    He'll dump her, too, just like he'll dump moveon.org, Huffington, and even Clyburn.

    Clyburn is the true sad story.  The guy just dumped his "mentor."  What chance does Clyburn have?

    He's a simple decade in thinking beyond Wright.  Not by much.

    He'll get dashed to the ground soon.  

    As soon as Obama decides, he no longer needs him.


    How did (none / 0) (#109)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:31:46 PM EST
    Obama dump Clyburn?

    no influence? (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Josey on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:57:17 AM EST
    Brazile pushed to change the DNC Rule from a 50/50 split of delegates to zero delegates for states holding primaries before the first 4 states voted.

    She had better (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by andgarden on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:07:17 PM EST
    There are several House seats in FL that, with the change of a a few thousand votes, could easily go D. After all, the Pennsylvania Republican gerrymander collapsed in 2006. The Same thing could happen in Florida this year--if the Ds are energized.

    Donna Brazile (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:08:21 PM EST
    Seems to be very into "punishment".

    I'll let your minds wander as to that image.....

    gack! (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by kempis on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:13:53 PM EST

    she is also into cooking (none / 0) (#46)
    by ruffian on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:17:10 PM EST
    Combine the two and my mind wnaders to Mrs. Lovett's meat pies in "Sweeney Todd".  Yes, I'm just that sick.

    these could be the worst pies in Washington


    FL and MI delegates better not get (none / 0) (#54)
    by ruffian on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:21:05 PM EST
    shaves and haircuts any time soon.  That's all I'm saying.

    off topic (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by DJ on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:11:10 PM EST
    but the McCain love fest is starting on FOX right now.  War hero, interview with cellmate, lieberman, etc.  No way Obama's story can trump this.

    I think Lieberman (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:31:32 PM EST
    will be seen a lot. A former Vice-Presidential candidate for the Dems, who endorsed McCain.  Oh, and don't forget, he was Obama's Senate mentor.....

    It's playing really well. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by DJ on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:53:22 PM EST
    McCain/Lieberman (none / 0) (#92)
    by Chimster on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:52:36 PM EST
    I think I just threw a little in my mouth.

    many travesties have been revealed (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by kempis on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:13:07 PM EST
    ...during this nomination process. Brazille is definitely one of them. The majority of the "progressive netroots" and MSNBC are others.

    I'm really horrified that I've been sitting happily in the same boat with these people all these years, content to row along with them. No more.

    I wonder if the Democratic party will ever heal from this....There's going to have to be some serious housecleaning before any sort of reuniting happens, and I suspect that will take quite a while.

    It would be a good time for someone to do what the late, great Molly Ivins used to call for and start a true populist party.

    It is Sad When the Republicans Show Us Up So Badly (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Richjo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:21:43 PM EST
    The Reoublicans got this one right and we got it wrong. They followed their own guidelines by stripping half the delegates, and we should have to. Having those contests early helped sort out the Republican contest quickly and helped Republican voters see who would be their most electable candidate. There is no doubt they choose their most electable candidate, can we say the same thing? They made a decision that ensured all voters could have a voice, we didn't. Their party is not in chaos over this, our's certainly is. Obama could gurantee my vote by purging the party of everyone who had a role in this decision-first and foremost among them Donna Brazille.

    Brazile Loses FL, Yet Again. (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by JoeCHI on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:34:35 PM EST
    Isn't it enough for Brazile that she already lost one Presidential election due to her mismanagement of Florida?

    Why does she insist on doing it twice?

    List of current RBC members? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Step Beyond on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:53:03 AM EST
    Is there a list of the current RBC members and their email addresses?

    Specifically I've been looking for Garry Shays from California. He gave an interview where he said that the DNC asked the candidates to remove themselves from the ballot and I need some contact info to make sure he is set straight on the facts (politely of course).

    there was an article recently (none / 0) (#53)
    by karen for Clinton on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:20:58 PM EST
    politico or huffington po had a whole shebang about all the RBC people.  It was a clinton hit piece article iirc so I only read it briefly...

    Try searching those sites for RBC, perhaps.


    Thanks (none / 0) (#61)
    by Step Beyond on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:30:48 PM EST
    I'll go search right now.

    Someone Posted the RBC list here (none / 0) (#106)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:05:34 PM EST
    I believe during the last week.  

    On NPR's Morning Edition today (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:54:22 AM EST
    the word was that MI Dem. party wants a 50/50 split of delegates between Clinton and Obama.

    Incorrect (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:56:39 AM EST
    69-59 with 29 Superdelegates counting.

    In essence, Clinton's 18 delegate spread is limited to 10 delegates plus whatever she gains, if any from the SDs.

    If FL is seated as is, this is a good deal for Clinton, MI, FL and the Democratic Party.


    That will never fly. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by 1jpb on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:07:25 PM EST
    You can't use a non-contest, where campaigning was banned, the results didn't count toward the nomination, and not all candidates where on the ballot as a meaningful indication of the will of the people.  Banana Republic.

    HRC is better off talking about how she is the candidate who has the white demographic power.  While implying that whites won't vote for BO in the GE, her campaign can continue to minimize the importance of black voters in the D party (maybe she and her supporters are thinking about 3/5 of a person, that's been tried before.)


    You know we are past the point of where it helps (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Marvin42 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:17:11 PM EST
    her or him right? This is about retaining any semblance of a chance of a hope to win the GE.

    where should be weren't n/t (none / 0) (#28)
    by 1jpb on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:08:18 PM EST
    It looks liek it is about to fly (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:13:24 PM EST

    Troll somewhere else! (none / 0) (#88)
    by jackyt on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:08:33 PM EST
    IJPB (none / 0) (#97)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:11:20 PM EST
    you have 25 comments here today. You are chattering and may not post again until tomorrow. From now on, no more than 10 comments from you in a 24 hour period.

    I don't see (none / 0) (#14)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:58:57 AM EST
    how it helps Hillary that much.  Leaves the popular vote argument up in the air.  Eve if Florida is seated as is she would still be down by 140 or so delegates.

    It's about more than Hillary at this point. (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:57:48 PM EST
    At least to me it is. The damage to Hillary's campaign has been already been done. For all intents and purposes these victories have already been diminished because any momentum that she might have gotten from them was stripped away by branding them as illegitimate. But millions of people voted and their votes should be counted.

    it helps the party (none / 0) (#22)
    by DandyTIger on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:03:20 PM EST
    Sure, that formula may not be as nice has Clinton would have liked. And we have to be very careful not to be seen as vote stealing in MI (i.e., giving Obama votes he didn't get). But something has to be done. And now.

    Of course when those are counted, and the popular vote count is very close, whether she's ahead by a smidgen or he is, then there is certainly still an argument to the SD's if they'll listen. Not sure they will anymore with all the spin and propaganda flying around, but who knows.


    More importantly, IMO (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Eleanor A on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:19:18 PM EST
    We need to seat Florida to stop Republican legislative delegations from getting the idea they can meddle in the Dem primary by rearranging primary dates.  If they see this is a winning issue for them, there'll be five or ten states in this same boat in 2012.

    She doesn't need the delegates (none / 0) (#77)
    by litigatormom on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:41:09 PM EST
    to make the popular vote argument. Since, as Obama keeps saying, the popular vote isn't an official "metric," she can't count them no matter what happens.

    Of course, she should also get the delegates that were elected to vote for her.  I would rather than permit her MI delegates to be cut at all.  There is no reason to believe she would have gotten fewer than 55% of the vote had Obama and Edwards been on the ballot. But this is the closest-to-sane proposal I've heard of.


    Oops (none / 0) (#78)
    by litigatormom on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:41:45 PM EST
    "I would rather NOT permit her MI delegates to be cut...."

    Mea culpa. Can't verify via NPR what (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:37:35 PM EST
    thought I heard.

    Actually (none / 0) (#9)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:56:46 AM EST
    it would appear that Michigan is asking for a 59-49 swing for Hillary.  AP article

    I suspect that Obama would be fine with this.  Hillary probably won't but it will be difficult for to argue otherwise.


    I think Hillary accepts this (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:57:52 AM EST
    10 or 18 do not matter a s much as accepting the popular vote count.

    I don't think the pop (none / 0) (#17)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:00:20 PM EST
    vote argument will sway that many supers, sure maybe some, but Obama would still need only about 30% of the supers to agree that delegates NOT the popular vote should decide the nominee.

    though when MI and FL get seated the magic number rises, he still needs to convince ALOT less supers to go with the delegate count, then she needs to convince to go with the popular count.


    We'll see (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:12:57 PM EST
    How does it? (none / 0) (#18)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:00:50 PM EST
    By accepting that the delegate count is skewed it implicitly suggests that the popular vote count is skewed.  How can she get a 320,000 vote swing when she only got a net 10 delegate swing?

    The popular vote count is an argument point and has no actual official value.  Do you really think that SDs will all of the sudden consider a 320,000 to 0 vote spread legit because some deal was made?


    Inside baseball (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:11:35 PM EST
    If Michigan's delegates count, so does the pv. Obama gets credited with the uncommitteds.

    yeah i know (none / 0) (#40)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:14:30 PM EST
    I am saying that I think enough supers won't be swayed by a popular vote argument.

    its my opinion but I mean best estimates are PR has to make up anything she is down, I don't see to many supers being swayed that 100,000 more Puerto Ricans wanted Hillary over Obama. I think at least 40% of the supers follow the pleaded delegate winner, and that will be Obama.


    John Edwards was still in the race then (none / 0) (#59)
    by ChuckieTomato on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:30:04 PM EST
    he was pulling about 10-15 percent in polls. he should get some uncommitted. plus he still has some delegates he can release.

    Edwards still in (none / 0) (#105)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:59:44 PM EST
    Isn't Edwards still technically in the race, so that he should be given certain delegates.  

    the DNC wrote these rules (none / 0) (#23)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:05:54 PM EST
    they are familar with them, if they wanted the popular vote to decide they would have written the rules that way.

    once FL and MI are seated 2209 is the magic number the candidate who gets it will be the nominee.
    they will both argue to get supers so they can hit that number, I still think the pledged delegates carry more weight then the popular vote. I think this because thats how they wrote the rules, its not like the popular vote concept didn't exist when they wrote the rules, they decided that is not how they want to choose a nominee.

    I think Obama can find more supers who are leaning to the pledged delegate leader, then Hillary will find that would give it to her if she does get the pop vote lead.


    Sheesh (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:12:40 PM EST
    Here we go again.

    As an argument to the SDs is my reference.

    Are you REALLY arguing that it is illegitimate to argue the popular vote to the SDs? sometimes you folks say the craziest things.


    did I say it was illegitmate (none / 0) (#45)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:16:32 PM EST
    or ENOUGH supers to give Obama the nomination won't be swayed by a popular vote argument.

    we can wait and see, but even if Hilary becomes the pop vote leader, Obama will be the nominee.

    the supers aren't in agreement that the pop vote should decide, and I think there are enough that don't agree for Obama to get the nomination.


    I think you are right about that (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by ruffian on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:13:00 PM EST
    If the pledged vote count was closer to a tie, then I think the popular vote count would be a useful metric for the SDs to use to break a tie.  But as it stands I think Obama will be far enough ahead in pledged delegates, even if FL and MI are seated, that SDs won't feel obligated to look at popular vote per se.  (which is why I've said all along Obama should have been pushing to seat them and get it over with and off the table as an issue)

    But I do think the electability argument hinges on popular vote in the swing states,and they may look at that harder. But I don't think they will.

    I want FL and MI resolved for their own sakes, not because I have any hope of it helping Hillary at this point.


    except for (none / 0) (#49)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:18:04 PM EST
    her popular vote lead will come from pueto rico, they don't vote in the fall. if the only way she leads is with PR, and Obama is still 100+ delegates ahead.

    then nope, I say enough SD's won't be swayed by PR choosing Hillary to over turn the pleaded delegates.


    You do realize you have a ridiculous argument... (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by cosbo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:40:42 PM EST
    right? Hillary will simply argue that a majority of Obama's delegates are from states that we have no hope of winning in the fall. Are you sure you want to go down that road?

    Up to this point (none / 0) (#60)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:30:10 PM EST
    Most of his total popular vote lead came from Chicago and the surrounding areas. So maybe SD's should take that into account.

    Also, don't forget, if MI and FL come in, so do their SD's.  I won't take bets, but how many do you think will be for Hillary and how many for Obama?


    If you are right (none / 0) (#50)
    by Manuel on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:18:07 PM EST
    then why the extreme reluctance to just seat FL and MI as is (with uncommitted in MI for Obama).  We already know that Obama will end up with the pledged delegate lead.  The fact is that the rules allow superdelegates to decide any way they see fit.

    This reminds me of another concrete action Obama could take to heal the party.  He could lead in calling for substantial reforms to the nomination process.


    Good for Pelosi (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:54:33 AM EST

    Yes (none / 0) (#96)
    by BDB on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:44:01 PM EST
    And interesting when combined for her prior love of the pledged delegate count.  I also give Howard Dean props for not agreeing to the 2025 number and saying that he won't know the magic number until after the MI/FL appeals are heard on May 31.

    Wouldn't it be embarrassing for Obama to prematurely declare Mission Accomplished only to have it unaccomplished eleven days later?  Even Iraq didn't go bad that fast.  Makes me wonder why they're doing this.  They really seem to be almost desperate to drive Clinton from the race RIGHT THIS MINUTE.  If they've got this thing wrapped up, what's another three weeks?  


    Better than Obama's nuclear option (none / 0) (#7)
    by ineedalife on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:55:38 AM EST
    Declaring victory without FL and MI would be a catastrophic disaster.

    So what if it makes him work harder in Puerto Rico if they are included?

    But sadly I feel that if there is a deal to seat them with partial representation, or with awarding Obama delegates he didn't earn, then I think this is part of Hillary's exit bargain.

    She used to be on the rules committee (none / 0) (#12)
    by ruffian on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:58:12 AM EST
    and is still a superdelegate.  She had, and possible still has, a lot of influence on this issue.

    Ironically (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Emma on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:35:30 PM EST
    Brazile is chair of the DNC's Voting Rights Institute.  And an Asst. Prof. of Women's Studies at Georgetown.

    Kinda of like (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by litigatormom on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:38:25 PM EST
    Donald Rumsfeld becoming the head of a peace institute.

    That is insulting (none / 0) (#87)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:05:45 PM EST
    I think these attacks are just unfair.  There is nothing ironic about her being on professor of women studeis nor is their anything ironic about voting rights act. She has done great things to move Blacks and women forward.  Give respect where respect is due.

    As part of the DNC she needs to help democrats that are being thrown under a bus of nonsense such as Ayers or Rev. Wright, these issues are bad for Obama AND the democratic party.  If you think they aren't nonsense, I guess that just ends the discussion. She supported the clinton's when they were dealing with their nonsensicle scandals as well.

    This whole debate has led people to think you can't be for something or someone, while supporting the other thing.  In my mind it had led to a lot of sexist and racist statements coming out of the mouths of progessives (that I really don't trully think these things).


    Sure it's ironic (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Eleanor A on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:20:04 PM EST
    She's chair of a voting rights institute while doing her dead level best to disenfranchise millions of voters.  She's also claiming to represent the supposedly-neutral DNC while being wholly in the tank for Obama.

    If there were any justice she'd been running some hotdog stand in the Bronx, instead of bloviating on television.  There are far more qualified people for both those jobs, IMO.


    Also Author of DNC Whitewash on Ohio (none / 0) (#107)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:09:58 PM EST
    Donna B also in charge of DNC report claiming nothing was untoward about the Ohio presidential vote in 2004.  The attempted substantive arguments for this position were less than sophomoric.  

    she is now standing in the way of voter rights. (none / 0) (#100)
    by hellothere on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:28:20 PM EST
    i don't care what her background is. frankly i consider it(her so called backgroun) much ado about nothing. she helped lose in 2000..bascially she brings nothing to the table but her elbows and a big ego.

    I think the DNC should just accept the MI (none / 0) (#13)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:58:15 AM EST
    plan, I think all states have learned enough that jumping ahead is NOT worth it, maybe strip the super delegates so the party officials learn a lesson but just accept the deal so the MI issue can be dropped.

    I don't know if FL has submitted a plan yet so I don't talk about them, but MI has Obama accepted, Hillary should accept. DNC accept and lets be done with this already.

    time for (none / 0) (#15)
    by OldCoastie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:59:57 AM EST
    another call to the DNC.

    DNC/Brazile not helping Obama (none / 0) (#16)
    by DandyTIger on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:00:07 PM EST
    I don't know what they heck they're up to, but if MI & FL aren't counted fully and reasonably, since the re-vote was already blocked by Obama/Brazile, then they can kiss those states good bye. And they can count some other states out as collateral damage as well -- i.e., there are actually people in other states that like the idea of democracy. With friends like these... jeeez.

    Amazing (none / 0) (#21)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:02:21 PM EST
    how the only way Michigan voters will consider their delegate legitimate is by giving Hillary 80 delegates and Obama 0.

    disagree (none / 0) (#24)
    by DandyTIger on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:06:23 PM EST
    I don't think MI voters are that silly or naive. Nor are Clinton supporters. I think some compromise would be find and reasonable. Of course since Obama blocked the re-vote there, I can see some people thinking he doesn't deserve a single vote. But I'm fine with a compromise.

    Strawman (none / 0) (#25)
    by Manuel on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:07:11 PM EST
    That isn't the compromise being considered.  And the post mentions that it is DNC officials not Obama who are opposed to the plan.

    And if it was the proposal (none / 0) (#30)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:10:31 PM EST
    Obama took his name off the ballot.  You make a choice, you live with the consequences. Record numbers of Michigan (and Florida) voters made their choices too - and yet Obama will still reap benefits instead of being punished as Brazile is so fond of saying.

    Another hurdle ... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Demi Moaned on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:01:59 PM EST
    is the intensity of opposition to this idea (as well as the idea of a Unity Ticket) among the denizens of DailyKos-- which we all know the Obama camp listens very closely to.

    Although we like to bash Brazille.... (none / 0) (#20)
    by ineedalife on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:02:07 PM EST
    because she is the public face I think the real villian is Roosevelt, FDR's grandson.

    He is co-chair of the rules committee and he has gone on record saying FL and MI will never be allowed to have a determinative say in the outcome. And I think he is part of the Kerry-Kennedy cabal and thus a closet Obaman. My impression is that he is a DNC purist, and he has seen too many elections come and go to get to bothered if this one is won or lost. He wants the DNC temple to be properly venerated and MI and FL did not do that.

    Donna (none / 0) (#41)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:14:50 PM EST
    is drunk with power.

    It's obvious.  She's out of control.

    whoops (none / 0) (#42)
    by kcarab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:15:10 PM EST
    i thought it was Obama that was blocking it?

    Damn, I clicked on your link (none / 0) (#48)
    by karen for Clinton on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:17:55 PM EST
    it took me to PMSNBC.  I have a peacock phobia these days.

    Anyhoot... the party is clearly off of its meds.
    We should send "get well" cards.

    I have decided to stay a democrat if BO gets the nom.  I will leave the top slot blank and vote for all the downticket dem races as always.

    I will not vote ob, I will not vote McCain.

    I highly suspect the entire country map will be entirely bright RED on that sad November morn after election day, as history taught us before...

    To paraphrase Dylan "the DNC's gone mad! When? All this year. no!"

    There may be a resolution for MI at hand (none / 0) (#52)
    by jcsf on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:20:27 PM EST
    Check out this story.

    Looks like most of the top Michiganers are on board.

    Link? (none / 0) (#57)
    by nell on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:27:20 PM EST

    Don't Know About A Link (none / 0) (#84)
    by flashman on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:55:33 PM EST
    but I watched her say this on video, NBC or CNN.  I almost fell out of my chair.

    The rooolze are the rooolze (none / 0) (#58)
    by karen for Clinton on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:27:33 PM EST
    Obama got zero votes in Michigan, his choice to pull a political maneuver.

    Obama should have zero votes in Florida due to his breaking his pledge and running ads and for speaking to reporters.

    Obama should get zero votes and zero delegates if they follow the roooles.

    Now that would be a pay back for him refusing to revote both states when there was a chance to.

    From what I have read, according to the Rules he doesn't get a single vote or delegate from either state.  So whatever they do give him is more than he technically deserves.

    Small correction (none / 0) (#66)
    by Step Beyond on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:35:08 PM EST
    The DNC RBC didn't say they couldn't campaign. It was part of the rules but they didn't go with the punishment in the rules. Instead they went with the 100% delegate reduction. So it doesn't matter if they did campaign or not (and I'm not saying he did or didn't). The only reason they didn't campaign was due to that 4 state pledge which had nothing to do with the DNC. And there was no punishment for breaking that pledge.

    How does this solution sound you Clinton supporter (none / 0) (#63)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:33:31 PM EST
    Allow the Florida and Michigan delegates to sit as is.  Unpledged delegates remain unpledged.

    However all superdelegates are srtipped of their voting rights.  

    The vote goes back to the people.  

    What say ye?

    SDs (none / 0) (#68)
    by Step Beyond on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:36:53 PM EST
    As much as I hate SDs I don't see how that is fair either. I think only 2 of Florida's SDs had a vote on the primary date. Remove those 2 if you want. But the other SDs had nothing to do with it. Again it would be punishing people for the actions of others.

    You do realize (none / 0) (#74)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:39:34 PM EST
    that the superdelegates are entitled to vote in the actual primaries as well, right?

    I don't believe that politicians have any sort of inalienable right to have a vote that is the equivalent of thousands of regular voters.


    Sounds like a good plan (none / 0) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:37:52 PM EST
    Turns out the reality is gong to be different we hear.

    I just sent an e-mail (none / 0) (#73)
    by sander60tx on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:39:04 PM EST
    democratic party expressing my views on the issue.  Why don't y'all do the same?  It doesn't take long and it can't hurt.  

    Jimmy Carter says no to seating (none / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:40:14 PM EST
    MI and FL delegates.  But he isn't on the rules committee is he?

    Seriously? (none / 0) (#79)
    by Emma on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:41:49 PM EST
    The same guy who wanted to bring in the U.N. to monitor U.S. elections?

    Link: (none / 0) (#80)
    by oculus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:48:50 PM EST
    Speaking for me only (none / 0) (#86)
    by AdrianLesher on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    if I were to say BTD is a travesty would my comment be deleted?

    yes it would (none / 0) (#98)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:12:50 PM EST
    by me.

    Donna B (none / 0) (#89)
    by Cal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:08:53 PM EST
    I mean this in the nicest possible way, but something seems not quite right about the lady.  Have you seen some of the e-mails she sends out to individuals who contact her?  They have the petulant, foot-stomping, emotional blackmail tone of a twelve year old.

    Donna Brazile, the Bob Shrum of the 21st century (none / 0) (#90)
    by Belswyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:28:52 PM EST

    In my mind's eye... (none / 0) (#91)
    by jackyt on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:35:05 PM EST
    I just keep seeing Obama, the night of the New Hampshire primary, saying, "Don't worry, I'm from South Chicago. We know how to win elections!". A chill came over me when he said it, and, for once, he has been true to his word.

    Over at Correntewire, there is a posting that talks about big city dems having to hold sway in candidate selection. Giving the locals their druthers keeps them happy and buys their votes locally. And the money for the pols is in local control, not the presidency. (Wildly paraphrasing, of course.) Remember all the talk about the Chicago machine breaking the Nixon/Kennedy tie? Tuesday night was a flashback moment for me.

    i saw that also and had the same feeling. (none / 0) (#101)
    by hellothere on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:35:28 PM EST
    Amen! (none / 0) (#104)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:52:41 PM EST
    MI & FL chose to miss the deadlines! (none / 0) (#93)
    by MSS on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:09:41 PM EST
    Sorry, TL, I think that MI and FL intentionally chose to miss the deadlines set by the DNC. And Hillary Clinton chose to run in those states, knowing the deadlines had been missed, when Edwards and Obama withdrew, in accordance with DNC rules.

    So NOW, the Clinton campaign weeps for those voters whose states chose to miss the deadline because they thought it would give them more clout?

    Gimme a break!

    The states knew the rules. Everyone else followed the rules. Tough noogies for them.

    Divide the MI and FL delegates in half, and be done with it.

    Um (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by janarchy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:31:08 PM EST
    how many times do people have to explain it before people actually get the facts. The ROOLZ did not state that anyone had to withdraw from the ballot in MI. Edwards, Obama and other candidates did it voluntarily in order to focus on IA etc. There was no ROOL what said that anyone had to withdraw. Kucinich stayed on the ballot along with HRC although he said he might have done if there had been time. John Conyers and others urged Obama supporters to vote "uncommitted" instead.

    NO ONE (and I will say it slowly so you can get it through your head)...NO ONE withdrew from any ballots in FL. No one was supposed to campaign in FL and yet, Obama did. NOT HRC. Meanwhile there was record turn out for voting for a number of reason.

    So once again withdrawing from the ballot in MI was not part of the ROOLZ you lot so love to quote and nobody withdrew from the FL ballot. Get the facts.