home

The Epitaph

Via Political Wire:

"My momma taught me to play by the rules and respect those rules. My mother taught me, and I'm sure your mother taught you, that when you decide change the rules, middle of the game, end of the game, that is referred to as cheatin'."

-- Donna Brazile, quoted by NBC News.

The DNC Rules and Bylaws committee did not change the rules yesterday, They did not even pretend to follow them. What the RBC did yesterday simply is not allowed by the DNC Rules. There is not a person in the world that can say that RBC played by the rules. So Donna, what would your momma call that?

Comments closed.

< Late Night: For Puerto Rico | Unity >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I know what I call it, (5.00 / 9) (#1)
    by suki on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:21:53 AM EST
    but I can't write it here or you would ban me.

    Dean on MI (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by TalkRight on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:22:56 AM EST
    Just heard on thisweek (ABC)

    George Stephanopoulos : Under What RULE did you give those uncommitted to Obama, and then also take 4 from Clinton and give it to Obama.

    Dean: We did what MI asked us to do.


    When all else fails, let Carl Levin decide (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:28:15 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    And since Levin (5.00 / 12) (#17)
    by cal1942 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:37:51 AM EST
    decided he'd use my vote for purposes that I did not intend, then he'll not get my vote in November.

    If Obama's the nominee then that's two blanks on the ballot. Levin will win in a cakewalk but I'll have the satisfaction showing disapproval.

    [ Parent ]

    Fortunately hill have my vote (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:41:44 AM EST
    ANd the rest of Detroit, Flint, and Grand rapids.  I think we will be okay in MI

    [ Parent ]
    Moma Brazille is on ABC.. (5.00 / 8) (#25)
    by TalkRight on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:39:42 AM EST
    The best way Brazille can help heal the Clinton People is by NOT SHOWING UP ON TV.

    [ Parent ]
    Donna Brazile is (5.00 / 8) (#30)
    by Fabian on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:46:21 AM EST
    the DNC's Donald Rumsfeld.

    It was such a sad, pathetic joke when GWB dumped ol' Rummy after the fact, when the GOP could benefited greatly from Rummy being handed his walking papers six months earlier.

    Ditto for Brazile.  The DNC could gain a chunk of political capital by keeping DB so busy that she has "scheduling conflicts" every time that a media outlet wants her input.  They could train up someone else to handle those tedious media tasks.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, (5.00 / 6) (#37)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:52:04 AM EST
    they both have funny little phrases and are generally incompetent and dishonest. I think the comparison ends there, though. . .

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly. n/t (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Fabian on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:06:39 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Obama took 20 yrs to dump Trinity.. (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by TalkRight on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:05:18 AM EST
    Not sure how much time he would take to dump Donna..  If I know him correctly ..not any time soon.. he would throw her under the bus only when she threatens him.

    [ Parent ]
    A well known secret. (5.00 / 12) (#98)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:16:20 AM EST
    Brazile threatens his candidacy every time she opens her mouth.

    [ Parent ]
    Why is she even on the DNC, anyway (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by The Realist on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:15:45 AM EST
    It's not like brazile has done anything for DEMS, in the past

    [ Parent ]
    It depends on what your definition of (5.00 / 14) (#14)
    by kempis on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:37:20 AM EST
    Michigan is.

    The VOTERS of Michigan decided something different than what the Democratic party's bureaucracy decided.

    [ Parent ]

    The same thing is true for FL. (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:14:43 AM EST
    Ausman was jubilant in gleefully declaring Clinton is now "mathematically dead."  Quote was to the Tallahassee Democrat (newspaper), immediately after the Rules Comm. decision.

    [ Parent ]
    So Roolz are Roolz except when they're not ... ? (5.00 / 14) (#27)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:41:14 AM EST
    The pretzel logic to stuff Obama's bucket is just so tiresome. His DNC nannies aren't even pretending anymore.

    States beg for rulings on the plight of millions of voters and get ignored or punished (cause, you know, Roolz) but Dean's current story is that the DNC had to reward Obama not under the Roolz but because the states asked?

    Can you blame media fabulists for weaving tales of their own when this is the best the DNC has to offer?

    [ Parent ]

    Did you also hear Roosevelt say (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by nycstray on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:36:39 AM EST
    it was not a legal primary?

    I coulda sworn that's what he said . ..

    Donna B just said something about FLA getting their full vote back at some point this summer?

    [ Parent ]

    No surprise (5.00 / 1) (#234)
    by TalkRight on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:13:34 AM EST
    Wolf : What would happen if the Clinton took the challenge to the convention

    Dean: If you have teenagers you would know never talk about hypothetical.


    [ Parent ]

    Momma sez (5.00 / 11) (#3)
    by ding7777 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:23:17 AM EST
    Bamboozling or hoodwinking ain't lying, okie-dokey?

    Well My Momma Would Have Said (5.00 / 8) (#6)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:29:59 AM EST
    "When you take the advise of people who have proven themselves to be incompetent, you deserve the end results."

    Roolz is roolz (5.00 / 11) (#9)
    by Hope on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:32:47 AM EST
    Except when they ain't.

    This is amazing.

    They really, really want to lose.

    Can I ask a dumb question? (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by befuddled on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:36:24 AM EST
    In the longer process, when this all goes to the Credentials Committee, are the two candidates bound to stick to the same arguments made yesterday, or can they change tack and use the rule-based argument of some days ago, where all the early states were penalized? (Don't roll your eyes, I'm a psychologist, not a lawyer. :))Thanks.

    Not under any rule (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:37:50 AM EST
    But it seems difficult to change your argument.

    [ Parent ]
    I asked that (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by befuddled on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:53:08 AM EST
    because when you first came up with the rule-based argument I thought it was excellent, what I had to fall back on in a hostile real-life situation. It "worked" but didn't win friends. Then Jeralyn argued  for seating everyone fully. The rule based argument hands out penalties all around very fairly, but then is a PR loss because it's a "lose-lose" argument (even though Clinton wins more delegates) and the other is a principle argument that leaves the Clinton narrative of "every vote counts" intact. "Win-win." I think everyone knew that the fix was in on this RBC meeting and the play might have been to take the lumps now and say later "we tried to make nice, and you screwed us every time, here are the rules."

    [ Parent ]
    A position I read last night was.... (none / 0) (#231)
    by ksh on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:12:44 AM EST
    That the Michigan state party failed to timely submit a delegate selection plan to the DNC and that their choice (the 69/59 split) was an acceptance of that plan. Conversely, it was stated that the RBC or DNC, for that matter, had no right to choose a delegate selection plan submitted by a candidate.

    The upshot of this position is that the Michigan compromise was rules-based and that even if they wanted to, they could not accept a plan put forth by a candidate.

    I don't know the legitimacy of this position, but perhaps you might want to wrap your brain around it and see if it fits.

    [ Parent ]

    i suppose they could (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by dws3665 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:38:22 AM EST
    but it would not be credible.

    psychologist here, too.

    [ Parent ]

    Another Credentials Cmtee question - (none / 0) (#69)
    by nulee on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:04:16 AM EST
    I had to leave right after Ickes' statement that HRC had authorized him to take this to the CC.  Does this mean she is definitely taking this Denver?  Barring some kind of unity ticket deal - that would certainly be what I favor now, taking it to Denver.

    [ Parent ]
    POPULAR VOTE. ELECTORAL MAP. (5.00 / 2) (#280)
    by vicsan on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:55:30 AM EST
    SHE will be ahead in the popular vote. BO will be ahead in delegates. The SDs decide WHO THEY BELIEVE WILL BE THE STRONGEST CANDIDATE AGAINST McCAIN IN NOVEMBER. Believe it or not, BO doesn't get to anoint himself the President.

    Hillary has the ELECTORAL MAP on her side AND the POPULAR VOTE. BO does NOT. THAT is what she's taking to the convention. Understand now?

    [ Parent ]

    Yes she does have the popular (5.00 / 3) (#292)
    by vicsan on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:14:34 AM EST
    and she will take this to the convention. She may not have to after the news tomorrow.

    [ Parent ]
    Playing by the rules (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by DFLer on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:36:31 AM EST
    I saw on another thread where PL referred to A. Herman saying that there was no prohibition on candidates campaigning in sanctioned states. (wtf?)

    I missed that yesterday.  I did notice impassioned pleas for sticking to the rules by comm. members when discussing the Fla. thing, but that stick seemed to evaporate as the day went on.

    None of it made much sense, and the media will give us only the shallowest of commentary.

    Donna Brazile's Mama (5.00 / 11) (#19)
    by Kensdad on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:38:07 AM EST
    oh, what would your mama say if you told her that 30 members of the RBC committee took away the votes of 2.3 million people, then gave back 1/2, but only after they changed how those votes reflected the elected delegates?  oh, and how about giving votes to a candidate who removed his name from the ballot?

    i think your mama would be more than a bit confused!  i bet your mama thought that fundamental democratic principles were more important than committee rules...  i guess the trick was on her, eh donna?

    Theatre. Pure unadulturated (5.00 / 8) (#21)
    by Practically Lactating on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:38:13 AM EST
    theatre. Donna has always been more about theatrics than doing her job, and yesterday was no exception.

    If Rules were so important...... (5.00 / 8) (#23)
    by Kefa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:38:25 AM EST
    all states would have been made to live by them.

    Brazile is just an embarrassment anymore (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by environmentally blue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:40:47 AM EST
    My Momma tells me it's easy to spot a liar and once a liar always a liar and they are never anyone worth trusting.

    Liar (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by bobbski on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:49:31 AM EST
    Your momma was right.

    It's always the eyes that give a liar away.  They will dart this way and that, always avoiding direct contact.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, the eyes don't lie (5.00 / 3) (#193)
    by environmentally blue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:58:09 AM EST
    And hers were rolling all over the place, uncontrollable with her lying.

    [ Parent ]
    Rules (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by bobbski on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:46:47 AM EST
    Could the Rules Committee's closed door session after lunch yesterday be called a smoke filled room?

    If not, how is iwhat happened yesterday any different from what used to happen in the smoke filled rooms that Obamabots and other democrats seem to loathe?

    Ditto - only Florida and I talked my (5.00 / 10) (#32)
    by nulee on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:47:16 AM EST
    whole damn family into a week-long GOTV effort - for what?  A big loser who now endorses Obama blindly when Clinton is clearly our winner.  What a travesty.

    Me Too! (5.00 / 7) (#89)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:09:46 AM EST
    Voting Rights Attorney in Jackson County FL for a week.  My own expense and traveled from Cambridge, MASS.  There were no violations to report at all.  The people in Norhtern Florida, though registered overwhelmingly as Democrats, hated Kerry.  The exact same thing will play out there in November, and to a greater degree, IMHO.  Northern FL went to Edwards in the primary.  Those votes were for the home boy, as N. FL is like the south, only whiter. Obama will loose FL.  I think the only county he won was Leon County (Tallahassee).

    [ Parent ]
    I'm hearing the same from PA (5.00 / 9) (#110)
    by nulee on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:25:01 AM EST
    - people who delivered for Clinton there say there's just no way Obama has made a strong case to the union and other blue collar voters there. They cannot deliver those votes to him this fall.

    [ Parent ]
    I live in PA (5.00 / 6) (#127)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:31:17 AM EST
    And given the general climate of a number of parts of the state (bombings in the the northeast; bomb threats in the center, ...), I would be stunned if the state went for Obama in November.

    If you know much about the background and make-up of the state you know that there is a much greater likelihood that PA will go to McCain than for Bambi.

    [ Parent ]

    I just remember that Union rep from Ohio... (5.00 / 6) (#138)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:39:05 AM EST
    talking about how Obama screwed them with the Maytag (I think that was the company) plant.  That was a powerful piece of video and, as I recall, was irrefutable.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes. It was Maytag. (5.00 / 4) (#238)
    by vicsan on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:15:56 AM EST
    Then Obama proceeded to take the Crown family's money to line his pockets. Galesburg, Illinois faced the same fate as Maytag moved their factory to Mexico.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree with you-In PA also (5.00 / 5) (#264)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:34:06 AM EST
    The people are not really talking about it. And they were so excited for Hillary before the primary. But, when someone brings up the election, it is generally, "I am not that happy with McCain, but I am real unhappy with Obama". The talk is basically that they hope McCain picks a really good Vice President and not Mitt. And they do not care who Obama picks as they do not care what Obama says. Period. They feel nothing Obama does or says can make them change their mind. Somewhere in the last month, people made the decision that Obama should not be President. Maybe it was the Wright thing or Obama's gaffs that showed he was not who we thought he was. Maybe even Donna's remarks on CNN.  Maybe even the arrogance of not wanting debates since the last one really showed him up. But it happened. And this time, people are not being moved by SCOTUS threats, guilt, or Iraq (Weren't we suppose to be out right after 2006? Maybe if there had been some progress on this issue alone, people might believe in the Dems getting it done, but without this, people are going to vote for experience. Watch for 527 ads quoting Obama saying he was not experienced enough to run for President. This will not be his time. Many people even on this site have made their decision not to vote for Obama and have voiced it. Swing states will not swing Blue. And once again, a check in the loss column for Donna. The new kiss of death following in Bob Shrum footsteps. At least he still writes good speaches and not the C**p she was uttering yesterday.

    [ Parent ]
    By what measure is Clinton the winner? (1.00 / 9) (#149)
    by Mavs4527 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:42:01 AM EST
    Even if you argue the Michigan proposal was unfair, Hillary only received 4 fewer delegates than what she was asking for, in an election in which she was the only major candidate on the ballot.

    Why are you guys trying to make it look like the whole nominating process depended on this one person and you got the shaft? It was a proposal made by the Michigan Democratic Party to make the best of a bad situation. Stop pretending this whole thing is something it is not.

    [ Parent ]

    Did you read the post before making (5.00 / 4) (#159)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:45:20 AM EST
    this comment?

    Doesn't sound like it.

    [ Parent ]

    Clinton is the winner (5.00 / 10) (#163)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:46:47 AM EST
    ...as Gore was the winner in 2000. It's not a very complicated concept to grasp for those not playing "See no evil, hear no evil."

    What happened with MI yesterday was invalid, had nothing to do with 'rules' and as Ickes said, does not meet the 'fair reflection' standard.

    Michigan's voters got shafted multiple times by Obama and his supporters. Yesterday was merely the latest in a series of muggings.

    And now Clinton has every right to go to Denver to try to seek justice for the 600,000+ voters who were   violated by the Rules and Bylaws Committee.

    [ Parent ]

    Troll rate as you will... (5.00 / 6) (#216)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:07:06 AM EST
    ...you will discover that this is not Daily Kos and your methods will not avail you here.

    As on The Daily Obaman, those who have the ability to communicate effectively anywhere on the 'net are targets of misused troll ratings. Like those corrupt members of the Rules and Bylaws Committee yesterday, your troll ratings merely reveal you for what you really are.

    You don't silence a majority, and those who have supported Clinton -- both among registered Dems and among all of the primary electorate -- are just that, members of groups which are > 50% of the voters.

    Good luck, happy troll-rating and I wish you success with your astroturfing, if that term applies to you.

    [ Parent ]

    HA! (5.00 / 5) (#204)
    by TalkRight on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:03:00 AM EST
    Stop pretending this whole thing is something it is not.

    And you guys can call us racist.

    I just CANNOT turn blind eye to this party's biased efforts to IMPOSE a a week candidate on us and take away the nomination from a candidate who had the Popular vote.

    It's Hillary ho got the shaft.. and she is still trying to unify the country by agreeing on the FL's half vote... and she is also trying to agree to give votes of Uncommitted candidate to Obama.. and then they still want to steal 4 more from her.. sigh.

    and then Donna came along and called that was cheating.. I just don't know how by giving 1/2 of her delegates in FL/MI and then letting Obama have all delegates of uncommitted to himself and then letting her be robbed of another 4 delegates is cheating.. what a unity prank..

    My chances of voting Obama had narrowed after I had started to learn about his great friends and connections and the thing that took the cake was when he labeled me a Racist while giving a speech to raise above racist remarks.

    Sorry.. keep calling me names and I will surely vote for you.

    [ Parent ]

    Whre's Jimmy Carter to investigate (5.00 / 1) (#272)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:42:14 AM EST
    ...this voter fraud that has been foisted on the Democratic voter?  He travels all over doing it for other countries....oh, wait, he's drinking Kool-Aide right now.

    I guess what's important to the rest of the world is not important right here at home.  Shame on Jimmy.

    [ Parent ]

    Carter will endorse Obama (5.00 / 1) (#308)
    by janedw420 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:15:24 PM EST
    so there is very little chance he will step forward on this. Gore would be the ONLY Super that may step up here, but he has stayed out. I also hear loud and clear the PENN argument. My family in KY share the same. They will not support Obama, not because of race, but view him as too liberal. Many will vote for McCain, and many more will not vote. That is Hillary's "more electable" argument, and it is a valid one.

    [ Parent ]
    She received a smaller... (5.00 / 7) (#245)
    by NotThatStupid on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:18:58 AM EST
    . . .percentage from the committee than she did from the voters. And Senator Obama, counting all the uncommitted votes for him -- which is absurd, in my opinion -- received a higher percentage from the committee than he did from the voters.

    We don't make up votes like that in this country, or at least we didn't use to. This isn't Nigeria, Congo, Venezuela, N. Korea, or any of dozens of other countries who play fast and loose with their citizen's votes - this is America.

    The committee's ruling yesterday was outrageous, and every American should be mad as he!! about it.

    Senator Obama is a disgrace. The RBC and those who voted to give him votes he did not earn are a disgrace as well.

    I cannot vote for Senator Obama, ever, I don't care who he chooses for VP.

    [ Parent ]

    It's called (none / 0) (#244)
    by vicsan on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:17:51 AM EST
    POPULAR VOTE, but what would you know? If you can't read, I wouldn't expect you to know that.

    [ Parent ]
    Popular vote? (none / 0) (#307)
    by Gabriel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:06:39 PM EST
    Er, the nominees are not selected by popular vote. You may disagree with that but that's the process we have today.

    [ Parent ]
    Nominees not selected by most delegates (1.00 / 1) (#312)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:46:01 PM EST
    going into the convention, either, if not the necessary minimum comprised of pledged delegates.  See numerous cases of nominees being behind in delegates going into the convention, when the delegate leader didn't have enough of the committed, pledged delegates.

    [ Parent ]
    Tempting, (5.00 / 13) (#33)
    by suki on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:49:07 AM EST
    but I like this site too much to say it.
    I have many Republican family members and a few friends I've been working on for years to move to the Dem side - I'd made some real progress but yesterday will probably undo most of it.
    I've already talked with one this morning and it wasn't pretty.
    How can you argue when you've lost the high ground on such a huge issue as counting the votes?
    To tell you the truth, the spectacle yesterday has wiped out the desire to do so.

    I think the first indication (5.00 / 7) (#180)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:53:13 AM EST
    ...that the DNC elites who are railroading the majority of the party who has voted for Clinton will be receiving of what is to come in November is going to be the number of Democratic voters who are likely to switch parties in their fury over what has been done to Clinton, MI & FL and to themselves ("If you don't vote for Obama you're...").

    We are watching, I believe, one of the greatest Pyrrhic victories I can recall in my lifetime. Obama's tossing of Trinity Church under his typical white grandmother's bus yesterday only solidifies this concept in my mind.

    [ Parent ]

    From the Detroit Free Press (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by cmugirl on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:53:13 AM EST
    Rochelle Riley is a columnist in the Detroit Free Press.  She had this to say this morning regarding the RBC hearings:

    "With months to plan, the Democratic Party, which is run no better than a fraternity house after a kegger, made no plans -- and months later finally realized that it could not disenfranchise voters -- voters who should have been filing lawsuits and raising hell last January."

    LINK

    thanks DNC (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by fraternity4me on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:53:33 AM EST
    I just read that Obama is in charge of the Democratic Party and it has finally been taken away from the Clintons.  After B. Clinton brought our party back from extinction this is the respect he gets. The DNC loves Obama. Maybe I'll change to Independent or write in Hillary. In 12 years we'll take back the party from the Obamaniacs.

    It's really (5.00 / 3) (#166)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:47:04 AM EST
    embarrassing how they treat the former President.  He did a lot of good things in his time.  

    I was trying to think of the best president we've had in the last 30 years and it has to be Clinton.  

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah, that's the narrative I've seen (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by Fabian on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:02:12 AM EST
    Victims of CDS backslapping each other.

    I hope someone is compiling all this wonderful Unityness for the months to come.

    [ Parent ]

    I Beg You (5.00 / 2) (#215)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:06:39 AM EST
    And I urge you and anyone you know (and all readers of TalkLeft) who intends to write-in Hillary in November to check the rules of your state.

    Unless Hillary registers as a write-in candidate, a write-in vote for her goes automatically to the Democratic nominee on the ballot i.e. Obama.

    I for one plan to write-in Hillary, if it is possible, but I will also make sure my vote does not go for Obama. Ever.

    [ Parent ]

    Didn't MI want a revote a month ago or so? (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by katiebird on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:53:54 AM EST
    So, if they were just doing what Michigan wanted, why couldn't they have their Firehouse Caucus last month?

    We couldn't let them have a revote, but we can let them overturn the election they had?

    (steaming)

    Obama people (5.00 / 5) (#102)
    by cal1942 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:20:21 AM EST
    in the state killed any chance of a re-vote after they said they would support any plan approved by the DNC.

    The DNC approved Michigan's plan for a re-vote.  Then the Obama campaign came up with lame excuses in opposition.

    [ Parent ]

    (shaking my head) (5.00 / 0) (#112)
    by katiebird on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:25:22 AM EST
    Bizarre.

    [ Parent ]
    IIRC Having A Revote Would Disenfranchise (4.87 / 8) (#119)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:28:03 AM EST
    those voters who voted for a Republican. IOW people who voted for a Republican in the initial primary should be allowed to vote twice or it would not be fair. NEW Democratic Party RULZ: Disenfranchise hundreds of thousand voters who chose to vote Democratic to allow safeguard the rights of voters who chose to vote Republican.

    [ Parent ]
    Because BO said NO (5.00 / 1) (#283)
    by vicsan on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:58:24 AM EST
    to the revote and had his thugs stop it.

    [ Parent ]
    Donna is so heavy (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by laurie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:54:33 AM EST
    I love the way she talks down to people, like they were eeny weeny kids, who need slapping down with MOMMA SAYS, or need some good ole home COOKING. I'm sure a decent discussion of rules and procedures wouldn't be beyond her-or would it?

    One thing is certain she's been a kiss of death for the Democrats and any campaign she's been involved in.
    I liked her when she limited herself to spouting voter statistics. BUT maneouvering in South Carolina for your own (undeclared) candidate, and then acccusing his rival of CHEATING  while you graciously concede her HALF votes in 2 States is TOO MUCH.

    We don't need no stinkin' rules (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by joanneleon on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:58:42 AM EST
    when it suits our purpose.

    I see (5.00 / 7) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:59:17 AM EST
    so the rules themselves do not really count, just the ROOLZ.

    Nice admission.


    You should post up Alexis Herman's statement (5.00 / 7) (#71)
    by ineedalife on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:05:00 AM EST
    when she allowed the motion. She outright acknowledged they were violating the charter. It is one thing for one of Obama's minions to try to get away with this. For the Co-Chair of the committee to  state, on the record, they were doing this with full awareness of what they were doing is incredible.

    Dean should be asked to explain how that is possible.

    I was there (5.00 / 9) (#75)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:06:09 AM EST
    and watched Brazile, for entertainment mostly. She was visibly upset and trying to contain when anything was said that you knew she disagreed with

    Of course the hall was filled with O supporters and when she used the word 'cheaters", they stood and gave her a standing ovation. They did the same when she entered the hall after the lunch recess.

    Seems Donna is now the Obama progressives new goddess.

    I will write about other observations but got to go site see for an hour before I leave DC
    .

    No one has done more for the candidacy of... (5.00 / 6) (#92)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:14:08 AM EST
    ...Barack Obama than Donna Brazile.

    [ Parent ]
    Donna is Obama's undeclared Unity Pony Guru n/t (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:20:44 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Well, maybe Obama (none / 0) (#152)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:43:51 AM EST
    will choose Danna as his VP running mate.

    That way they both can put the final nail in the Dem Party's coffin.

    How in the world did my beloved Dem Party get to the place.... oh, no... I now remember ... power greedy politics!!

    But I just came back from John McCain's Web site...UUUUUUGH!! I just can't go there.

    My district will go Republican, but my state will go to Sen Obama... so my vote won't make a difference. I'll stay with the Dem.

    But I'm going to fight like he#$ against the repulsive actions of the RBC!!

    [ Parent ]

    here is the video of that exchange (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by The Realist on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:07:08 AM EST
    Be good to yourself: be Indy, support worthy Dems (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:07:35 AM EST
    On the scale of madness (marine edition) voting Repug comes after drinking one's own urine and addressing the sun by a first name.

    I will support worthy Dems (5.00 / 7) (#137)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:38:42 AM EST
    And Obama is not among their number.

    Definitely voting for McCain if Bambi is nominated. No ifs, ands or buts about it. Will also campaign my tail off for him as well.

    The Obama campaign must not be rewarded for what is has done to Clinton, her supporters or the party. Saving the party -- which I am a lifelong member of -- from those who would exploit ethnic divisions for their own gain as Obama has done is priority #1. If we lose the party, nothing remains.

    That is my position, and no matter how much Axelrodian Astroturfers expend oxygen trying to Jedi Mind Trick me otherwise, it will remain my position.

    Obama and his peeps wanted to play chicken and now they will have their car crash. It was their choice, it is their fate.

    [ Parent ]

    NObama 08 bumper stickers are now (5.00 / 5) (#176)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:51:01 AM EST
    ...on our cars.  I actually replaced the one that I've had for the past 4 years..."Anybody But Bush".

    Wow, that really tells you something about the depth of my feelings.

    [ Parent ]

    I have to say (5.00 / 2) (#254)
    by Hope on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:26:18 AM EST
    I'm actually beginning to prefer Shrub to this guy. A-mazing.

    [ Parent ]
    How many people... (none / 0) (#305)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:04:51 PM EST
    did Obama get killed?  

    Start a useless war and occupation, cool bro.

    Dare to question Hillary's legitimate line to the throne as a member of the Clinton royal family...how evil.

    [ Parent ]

    Count up the war funding bills (1.00 / 1) (#313)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:47:40 PM EST
    for which he voted, over and over, and get back to us on that.

    [ Parent ]
    Congrats (1.00 / 10) (#191)
    by Mavs4527 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:57:26 AM EST
    Glad to see you have absolutely no perspective at all in politics and would seemingly prefer to have an anti choice, pro war, mentally unstable John McCain as President simply because your chosen candidate in our party's primary didn't win. You should be so proud of yourself.


    [ Parent ]
    I am proud of myself. I'm a very good person. (5.00 / 5) (#232)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:12:44 AM EST
    Always have been.  Always will be.

    Thank you for reminding me of that!

    [ Parent ]

    On November 5th (5.00 / 5) (#235)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:13:37 AM EST
    ...when John McCain is the President-elect, I will be the first Democrat (or former Democrat) ready to sit down with Obama supporters and sing rounds of "Kumbaya" and talk party unity. Once justice is done for FL, MI, Clinton and her supporters, I think the majority of the party which has backed Clinton this primary season will be more than willing to come to the table and start making plans as to how we proceed and heal the divisions which this contest has caused.

    Before that? No.

    I hope you and your Obaman brethren will be ready to let bygones be bygones after McCain is elected. I am sure that we Clinton supporters will be more than happy to accept you -- the minority of the party who backed Obama -- back into the fold.

    [ Parent ]

    Isn't it more telling (none / 0) (#322)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:58:04 PM EST
    to the DNC for us to stay Dem through November & vote only downticket Dem??

    [ Parent ]
    Battle cry for the NEW Democratic Party (5.00 / 9) (#82)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:07:55 AM EST
    "Count the RULZ not the votes." NEW Democratic Party Disclaimer: All RULZ are subject to change without prior notification if they do not result in the desired outcome.

    How can anybody trust Democrats goping forward? (5.00 / 12) (#83)
    by ineedalife on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:08:02 AM EST
    They don't even feel bound by their own charter. There isn't a principle they will defend in the face of political expediency.

    Errrr! "going forward", oops. (n/t) (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by ineedalife on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:08:47 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Amazing typo-pun! When Dems to GOP-like things (5.00 / 5) (#130)
    by jawbone on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:32:18 AM EST
    it does make Dem voters highly suspicious and uncomfortable.

    Brilliant typo!

    [ Parent ]

    I still won't vote for McCain (5.00 / 12) (#94)
    by joanneleon on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:15:05 AM EST
    but I will declare my independence from this party.  On July 4th.

    This party is a complete disgrace.  After sticking with the dems for thirty years of mostly clothespin votes, I'm finally done.  After watching a Congress who we worked hard to get to majority status completely shirk their responsibility and let the BushCheney admin. run roughshod over this country, I'm finally done.  After watching this party stand by and allow the things that have happened in this primary without protest, I'm finally done.

    It's time for a new, independent, populist party in this country.  We are becoming the thing that we loathed.  I can't stand by and be a part of it.

    Nonetheless, I really believe McCain will win in November.  I have no confidence in Obama and I have strong reservations.  For the sake of my kids, who will soon be draft eligible, it might be time to figure out a way to go and live somewhere else.

    UHC has become (5.00 / 7) (#167)
    by magisterludi on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:47:30 AM EST
    a perennial campaign promise that the DNC has used as a political carrot for years. Oh, and how "bout ending that war? More carrots. I could go on...

    Who among us believe at this point that the dem leadership would rather have these as issues to cage votes as opposed to actually enacting real change? I know the number is greater today than it was yesterday.

    [ Parent ]

    Just e-mailed Donna B to express (5.00 / 9) (#100)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:18:49 AM EST
    my distaste for what happened yesterday. Momma to momma about rules. I have never sent so many e-mails, made so many phonecalls as with this election. My momma would be proud...she was very political, very active politically and I wish she were here for this one...we'd be up till all hours talking about this one!!!!!

    Stunning Abuse of Power ....hm, how often (5.00 / 11) (#101)
    by Boo Radly on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:19:57 AM EST
    has that very apt phrase been used in the last 7.5 years and nothing was done about it by the formerly known party of Democracy? Shades of Bu$hit continue.

    I prefer civil discourse but I tire of applying rational thinking to an insane situation, which I might add is THE definition of insanity when it happens over and over again and nothing changes.

    I tire of my intelligence being insulted by a party I used to trust. I tire of watching reprehensible behavior by people who should know better. I tire of greed and lust for power being paraded as acceptable. I tire of racism, sexism and lies. I tire of the hate projected by BO, MO, and their clueless "fans".

    Living through 7.5 years of total crap has made my skin claw, but, in the last several weeks I now have developed acid reflux watching tapes of Rev. Wright, Fr. Plfeger, trying to make sense of BO's hemming and hawing, the continuing coverage by Baghdad Bob media, those clueless comments by BO supporters, the sham "RBC meeting" - it is cumulative.

    Am I taking all this too seriously? I don't think so. It is not a game. There are certain guidelines that I as a human being must perceive  existing in a society that I want to be a part of.

    My last call to DNC is to the toll free contributions number - 1.877.335.7200. I want my money back - they do not represent me or my vote.

    Indeed, this is not a game. (5.00 / 4) (#155)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:44:08 AM EST
    Last night I was imagining what would happen if I was drafted to go to Iraq under McCain's 100 Years of War. (Thank goodness, my husband is too old for that.) How gas being $8 a gallon would bankrupt the entire country. How dissenters could be thrown into the prison camps Halliburton is building all over the country. How our entire privileged American lives could be completely destroyed for something unrecognizable.

    All so the DNC and the Democratic Party could nominate the worst, least electable candidate I have seen in my lifetime.

    You are right, there is some reason behind it all, but I don't think it has any basis in logic or sanity.

    Apparently, those qualities are no longer important in today's New Plutocratic Party.


    [ Parent ]

    I agree the Clinton camp could have argued better- (5.00 / 10) (#105)
    by jawbone on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:21:02 AM EST
    on FL. BTD has made that point well and frequently here.

    But, looking over the entire fiasco of MI and FL, I think the early analysts had it right: When the 100% deduction penalty was announced, the pundits who looked at the history of these things said it was highly unlikely MI and FL would not be allowed to vote at the convention and most likely it would be at the 50% regular rule. This was in almost all the articles about the issues.

    I think there was never any real chance of even FL getting 100% bcz, even tho' FL had right and rules on its side, politics would not permit the DNC to give FL 100% ex post ad hoc 100% Rool and not give MI 100%.  

    Since MI was such a mess internally, 100% was almost impossible to give 100% to with any rationale other than "bcz we want to."

    So, I was not surprised by the 50% ruling.

    What still shocks me even as I'm more calmly viewing this is that the DNC decided, on the basis of no rules or principles to give Obama more than the delegates he could have possible earned in the actual voting y Michiganders.

    Just take votes from a winners actual vote count to...do what? Make nice to Obama and his supporters?

    Well, it wasn't the SDs doing that (altho' most of those on the committee are SDs), it was pure, raw political power playing. WHY?

    Terry McAuliff on right now saying he's never seen votes earned through actual votes won simply willy nilly given to another candidate. Nor basis in rules or principles. "This is not the Democratic Party [he] know[s]." Nor me.

    Howard Dean on right now saying the Rules Committee did an incredible job. True, Dr. Dean: Incredible!

    Roosevelt said rules set for primary have force of law per SCOTUS. Had to come up with best reflection of how the voters intended to vote. He left out, IF THEY HAD VOTED. Also, voters of MI had come to the DNC to suggest this plan, so it's all good.

    Does that mean if voters come to the DNC and say they have buyers' remorse about voting for Obama, the DNC will just give delegates to Clinton? Oh, I don't think so...

    Listening to Dean and Roosevelt is making me sick. To say and feel that about someone with the name Roosevelt is almost more sickening. Oh, Democratic leaders, what have you done?

    Roosevelt now saying it was their duty to "honor the rules." Which freakin' rules, doooood?

    I shouldn't have watching this program.

    Oy. Shoula proofread! Do not post when angry! (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by jawbone on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:28:16 AM EST
    I remember last fall reading about FL and MI reading those predictions that both would have 50%, and thinking, well, not too bad. I did not think the DNC would let the threat of no representation fester until now.

    Again, why the almost abusive/super controlling parent--or chilsh?--initial approach of yelling, "Get outta my house! Until you learn to behave, you cannot live under my roof! As long as you live in my house, you will follow my rules, no matter how capricious!"

    [ Parent ]

    Don't you dare improve or we'll all have to! ;-) (none / 0) (#194)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:58:48 AM EST
    I use preview more, but I find words and phrases are getting clipped out of my browser's text window. (My browser's text selection is weird.) If I'm on one of my fast systems, the proofing goes easier, otherwise, I just post hoping karma air-miles kick in and beautify my words in transit.

    [ Parent ]
    The pundits (aka, "everyone") (none / 0) (#113)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:25:36 AM EST
    said that Florida would be seated, and the implication was that they would be seated at full strength. Why? At the same time the pundits usually acknowledged at the Republican nominee would seat the full Florida delegation too.

    It seems a curse to have a memory that extends before January.

    [ Parent ]

    The Repubs simply followed their written rules-- (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by jawbone on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:30:46 AM EST
    break the schedule and lose 50%. It was the Dems who went ballistic--over R's manipulating them in FL and a combination in MI. (Levin seemed to make it clear MI Dems and officials were making a deliberate statment. Wilentz, iirc, did say the MI Dems did have rebel's remorse, and tried to walk back the legislation. But the R's saw their advantage and told them to take a hike and live with their messed up primary results.

    [ Parent ]
    I liked Kerry (5.00 / 8) (#121)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:29:09 AM EST
    about a billion times more than the presumptive Democrat nominee this year.  

    Of course, my real first choice was Wesley Clark.

    I was for Clark this cycle, too. (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:41:15 AM EST
    And was actually mad when he endorsed HRC.  That shows how far I have come with the candidates - I only became a HRC supporter at the end of January, but by the time Super Tuesday rolled around, she had me hooked!

    [ Parent ]
    Me too! When he worked for Fox (5.00 / 2) (#255)
    by vicsan on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:26:52 AM EST
    I was so angry. I refused to watch him while on that network...even though I ADORE that man. My son and I traveled from Illinois to Nashville, TN to work on his campaign for 4 days and then he dropped out of the race while we were driving home from Nashville.. I was CRUSHED. As much as I love him, I just could not bring myself to watch him on Fox. The network was banned in our home for 7+ years. Now, It's the ONLY network I watch! The world has turned upside down for me. It really has and now my party has left me.

    [ Parent ]
    Barack Obama makes... (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:41:59 AM EST
    ...John Kerry look like a combination of Washington and Lincoln.

    [ Parent ]
    Could someone strive to explain (5.00 / 13) (#129)
    by andrelee on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:31:52 AM EST
    The point of taking away HRC's piddlin a#% 4 delegates in MI and giving them to OB. What did he or the DNC gain but the utter contempt of, say, a couple of million people who are already contemplating showing their feelings with their vote against OB and decreasing their support for the DNC.  What? It makes no sense. He's not losing by 4 delegates, 4 more won't put him over the top by any measure nor would it do much for her. Seriously, these actions are very 'Bush-like' in the myopic outlook that one would use to justify this as a plus, a win, or a action with no obvious drawbacks. Help.

    Good grief. (5.00 / 8) (#206)
    by pie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:04:23 AM EST
    In fact, most of the very few people who are following it closely will forget all about it in a few weeks.

    Obama supporters are delusional.  

    [ Parent ]

    Go back to the playground, (5.00 / 2) (#214)
    by pie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:06:22 AM EST
    little man.  That seems the place in which you are comfortable.

    [ Parent ]
    Excuse me? This needed to be done? (5.00 / 1) (#289)
    by vicsan on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:05:44 AM EST
    Think again. They just lost the election if he is allowed to steal this nomination.

    [ Parent ]
    giving 4 to Obama (none / 0) (#154)
    by ding7777 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:44:08 AM EST
    makes it an 8 delegate difference  

    [ Parent ]
    Here's a quote I saw (5.00 / 14) (#131)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:34:17 AM EST
    last night.  Thought you might like it.:

    I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, and stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong. - Abraham LIncoln

    I won't be with this "Chicago style rules" Democratic Party again.  When I see someone with even a tiny bit of integrity come into the party, when they've hung around for a few years and proven themselves, then I might think of going back.  In the mean time, if someone decides to form a new party, I'll be there.

    But yes.  A state broke the rules, and we must follow the rules, so let's throw the rules away.  That kind of foolish logic only happens in kangaroo courts, (I suspect)in military tribunals at GITMO, and in a Democratic Party that wishes it didn't have to rely on silly voters to nominate THEIR CHOSEN CANDIDATE.

    Great quote...can I borrow it... (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:43:29 AM EST
    to use as a comment with the Obama dead-enders I encounter at other sites?

    [ Parent ]
    Not my quote! (5.00 / 4) (#165)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:46:54 AM EST
    It's Abe's, so feel free.

    [ Parent ]
    The latest spin (5.00 / 12) (#136)
    by joanneleon on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:38:34 AM EST
    on the Sunday shows is that Obama has promised Michigan and Florida that, once he is the nominee, they will be seated at the convention at full strength.

    Does that strike anyone else as bizarre?  Once he secures the nomination he'll let them all vote?  Wasn't the purpose of the primary to give them a say in who becomes the nominee?  These states are supposed to be appeased by this?

    [shaking head -- it must be me because I feel like I'm in a Bushlike Bizarro world again]

    Donna B just sent me an email (5.00 / 0) (#139)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:39:07 AM EST
    answering mine where all she said was that she "respectfully disagreed" with my position. I have now emailed back for her to explain. Simply saying she doesn't agree is the same to me as saying she is "uncommitted."

    More responsed to e-mails? (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Arabella Trefoil on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:46:51 AM EST
    Take her Blackberry away. She's going to get herself into trouble with e-mails again. Now she sounds temperate, but she stresses out easily.

    Doesn't she know that e-mails are forever? She is hurting her own candidate.

    [ Parent ]

    I hope there is a tape. Implosion extraordinaire. (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Angel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:40:00 AM EST