The DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee — the Clash in the Capital

Today’s the day. The Clash in the Capital. The Dispute in DC. The Scuffle in the Swamp. The Fracas at … well, you get the idea.

There’s a very good chance that today’s meeting of the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee will be anti-climactic, but as political theater goes, this is reasonably interesting stuff.

When Democratic Party leaders voted on Aug. 25, 2007, to sanction Florida Democrats for moving up the date of their presidential primary, no one anticipated that the decision would lead to a tense showdown that will help decide the outcome of the nomination battle between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Today, the 30 members of the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee will hear challenges to that decision and a later ruling, which together barred delegations from Florida and Michigan from the national convention in Denver because those states violated the party’s rules governing the nomination process.

Democrats on and off the committee said yesterday that a compromise appears likely that would restore half of the delegations from each state, although the precise terms remained under discussion. “It’s clear something’s going to be worked out,” said Carol Fowler, the party chair in South Carolina and a member of the rules committee.

Compromise scenarios continue to be bandied about, with the most interest in a plan to halve the votes for all of the Florida delegates, giving Clinton a net gain of 19, and making the popular vote from the state count. Michigan, meanwhile, would be split 50-50, after also being halved.

That’s clearly not what the Clinton campaign will demand. Despite believing the polar opposite earlier this year, Clinton’s team will urge the RBC to honor the non-binding results just as they are. This seems very unlikely.

As the WaPo’s Dan Balz noted, “[T]he real question is whether both sides — and the two states — are prepared to accept what the committee decides, or will instead take their grievances to the party’s credentials committee next month or possibly to the convention in August.”

Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist and veteran of rules battles, added, “What’s at stake is whether this nominating process will come to a quick conclusion in a way that unifies the party, or whether it will drag on for weeks and perhaps months in a way that threatens party unity and potentially hurts the nominee and the party.”

Quite right. Even if the Clinton campaign got everything it wanted from the RBC — a highly unlikely scenario — Clinton still wouldn’t be in a position to overtake Obama in the delegate count. But the Clinton campaign nevertheless believes it sway enough superdelegates to win the nomination if it can sufficiently narrow the gap with the results of the non-binding primaries.

It leads to a situation similar to the beginning of an awkward interrogation: we can do this the easy way, or we can do this the hard way. They’re both, in this case, pretty straightforward.

The easy way: The RBC meets and tries to reach some kind of accommodation. Clinton gains some delegates, Florida and Michigan get seated, and the nominating fight effectively wraps up over the next several days, with Obama getting the party’s nod. The general election phase of the campaign, assuming it hasn’t already begun, would start before the end of the week.

The hard way: The RBC meets and tries to reach some kind of accommodation, which the Clinton campaign finds unacceptable. They vow to take the issue to the DNC’s Credentials Committee, which meets in Denver on the first day of the party’s national convention. Obama would likely claim he has the nomination later this week, but the Clinton campaign would insist it’s illegitimate, and the nominating fight would continue to drag on through August.

As publius summarized nicely, “In the days ahead, the Clintons have the power either to unite the party going into the fall, or to leave a lasting, poisonous, and potentially-fatal schism. At this point, it’s not clear what path they’ll choose.”

MSNBC had a helpful rundown on what to expect procedurally today, but to summarize, the meeting began this morning with remarks from DNC chairman Howard Dean and Rules committee co-chairs Alexis Herman and James Roosevelt. That’s followed by Florida’s challenge, Michigan’s challenge, and then lunch. Committee members will then work towards some kind of resolution, which will require a majority of the 30-person panel (13 back Clinton, eight back Obama, nine are uncommitted). The conclusion could be pushed to tomorrow. All the while, WomenCountPAC will host a rally/protest outside the hotel where the meeting is taking place.

If you are inclined to watch the proceedings, here you go:

Like everything else shillary has said this spring – the disenfranchised voter meme is another lie. Josh Marshall has a good analysis at TPM:

What doesn’t get mentioned, however, is this: it was widely reported and understood in both Florida and Michigan that the results of these primaries would not be counted. And based on that knowledge, large numbers of voters in both states simply didn’t participate.

If the DNC were now to turn around and decide to make these contests count after all, these non-participating voters would be disenfranchised no less than the people who did turn out would be if the DNC sticks to the rules and doesn’t seat any of the delegates.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/197852.php

No matter what happens, voters are going to get disenfranshised and shillary is ensuring this by constantly moving the goalposts, “catapulting” kkkarl rove’s/mclame advisor’s lies, pretending she is a victim, and keeping the assassination meme alive.

  • Why not do a massive poll in Florida and another in Michigan, identify those who would be able to vote in the Democratic primaries, and ask who the candidate should be?

    Then use the poll -results of “qualified voters” to determine the delegate splits

    That would be about as fair as anything the DNC could devise.

  • Yesterday on CNN, Paul Begala confirmed that all Clinton will accept is either the Florida votes remain as they stand (Obama gets NO delegates) or there can be a re-vote. That’s it.

  • Well, from the Huffington Post:

    DNC Florida Compromise Reached, Michigan Hangs In Balance

    Two sources, including a high-ranking official with the Florida delegation, have confirmed that the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee reached an agreement last night and will seat the state’s entire delegation but give each delegate half a vote. The result would be a net gain of 19 delegates for Sen. Hillary Clinton, though no word yet on how the superdelegates from the state will be allocated. It is, the official says, a compromise that Sen. Barack Obama will be willing to make. “There will be theater but not much fight.”

    Circumstances, however, are looking very much different concerning the battle over how to handle Michigan’s delegation. As of Saturday morning, no compromise had been reached. The idea of splitting the state’s delegation 50-50 has been discussed but Clinton’s camp, one source said, was not agreeing to the arrangement. In addition, reports are circulating around the DNC meeting that Sen. Carl Levin, who will be speaking on behalf of Michigan, will press for the seating of the state’s full delegation, with full votes for each.

    “If he does not get his way,” wrote The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder, “he will likely challenge the RBC’s ruling when the credentials committee convenes unless the rules and bylaws committee promises to strip Iowa and New Hampshire of their privileged status in 2012.”

    As it stands now, the Rules and Bylaws Committee could resolve the Florida situation while leaving Michigan hanging in the balance — a situation that is tenable under party rules but leaves open the possibility, however slim, that the delegation matter would be unresolved until the convention.

  • Florida seems a lot easier than Michigan, at least there is some kind of yardstick. With Michigan, having no Obama even on the ballot, and then, (as someone from Michigan), getting duped into believing it wasn’t going to count, how to tally those who didn’t bother to do to the polls because their candidate wasn’t on the ballot (that’s me), is going to take some measure of speculation – it would be easier if it wasn’t Clinton heading up this protest, because she wants everything to fall into her favor rather than really getting to the representation of the intent of the voters here. She doesn’t seem to understand how it felt to be told it wasn’t going to count and on top not having any other candidate on the ballot, voting “uncommitted” didn’t make sense and as we are seeing, she is making that point because it looks like now, the “uncommitted” votes are not going to count. So, only Hillary’s vote counts.

  • How is it remotely fair that any reliance be based on an election when people were told their votes were not going to count? Or that the candidates were forbidden to campaign? Anything this committee does other than deny representation based on the Florida or Michigan primaries is a travesty. And yes, I realize a compromise ruling gives the insincere aura of fairness, and may even put an end to Hillary’s absurd arguments. But the time to complain about the rules is long, long past.

  • Danp:

    The time to complain about the rules was right up until the campaigns all agreed to them.

  • chimpy had to use FL to steal 2000 and again in 2004 (though they need to hijack OH too) and now shillary wants to use FL to steal the democratic nomination, though she will need MI too and will use this to leverage the rest of the theft.

  • Josh Marshall’s column at TPM does not explain why the staying home in FL would differentially affect Obama compared to Clinton. If everyone was told the primary wouldn’t count, then the decrease can reasonably be expected to influence both candidates. If a larger number of Clinton’s voters went to the polls anyway, that then is a measure of the strength of their enthusiasm for their candidate. Obama’s voters had the same opportunity to show their enthusiasm (young voter enthusiasm was the watchword of his campaign around that time). If Clinton voters treated the primary as a referendum where they could show their support for their candidate, while Obama voters had better things to do and went wind-surfing instead, is that Clinton’s fault? I don’t buy Marshall’s argument — he seems to think that all the voters who stayed home would have given Obama some edge, but why? In fact, the elderly and working class voters that are Clinton’s mainstay would have had greater obstacles to overcome in order to cast their votes and thus can be expected to be depressed in numbers beyond any impact on voting for Obama. That she won the state anyway shows her strength there, and Marshall has presented no explanation for why the situation was a bigger handicap to Obama than Clinton.

    I know Obama supporters like to claim that Obama was sitting on his hands while Clinton campaigned behind everyone’s back. That didn’t happen. If anything, Obama fudged the rules more than Clinton did and he still didn’t do well. Obama (and Josh Marshall) need to admit that Clinton should be ahead in a state full of her core constituents, the groups she does best with (women, elderly, Hispanic, gay, non-college). Using a rule snafu that Clinton had nothing to do with as an excuse to deny Clinton’s obvious victory in a situation where she would have won by a larger margin had everyone campaigned, shows how the Dem leadership is desperate to sew this up for Obama.

  • Have you all forgotten that Obama took his own name off the MI ballot, presumably because he was aware he would lose big if he left it on and he didn’t want a Clinton sweep at the beginning of his campaign? Others besides Clinton didn’t take their names off, and the rules did not tell Obama to remove his name (obviously, since Clinton was able to leave hers on). Obama now, after the fact, claims he would have done better there. On what basis can he say that? He, not Clinton, is the one wishing to go back and change a decision in order to gain political advantage.

    If Obama wants to claim he was complying with the spirit of the rules, then he just shows what an amateur and neophyte he is. He is either being revisionist about something he thought would help him before, but now hurts him, so he wants a do-over, or he was stupid and wants a do-over. Take your choice.

  • Mary, as my kitty would say:

    meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow

    meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow

    meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow

    meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow

    There is much more honest and legitimate analysis in the few prose of this feline than in the hundreds of threads you post your lies in.

  • You either didn’t read marshall’s post, are deft, or are just lying again.

  • But please do explain, why should democrats support a candidate that bases her campaign on the opinions and “analysis” of kkkarl rove, advisor for republican mclame.

    Would you not agree that it would be, at minimum, unprecidented?

    And please do explain why democrats should now embrace the support of rush limbaugh – a man who’s entire career was built bashing bill clinton and leveraging it to create the largest republican takeover of congress in the history of the nation?

  • Well, Obama’s motivations for taking his name off the ballot now, are unfair and moot to project. But, suffice to say in January, Clinton was a brand name, recognizable household to everyone whereas in January, obama was still the fledgling underdog – had the Michigan Democrats slated their vote to occur in March-May sometime, Obama’s star was rising and that is also a speculative consideration. Would they have been before the Rev. Wright bruha or after – big considerations – but either way, let’s leave reality to its place without slanting movitations and what ifs because there are many. I think Obama is very willing to give Hillary bragging rights in Florida and Michigan as long as it doesn’t get recharacterized as a new “reality” that only she could ever get those states, because that is not an outcome of any argument here: we are just trying to seat the delegates, nothing else.

  • Mary – Don’t you think eight years with a president who doesn’t believe in rules is long enough?

  • I don’t buy Marshall’s argument — he seems to think that all the voters who stayed home would have given Obama some edge, but why?

    He doesn’t “seem to think” anything of the kind based on anything he said in that post, and that you would read it that way is yet more evidence of your pathological need to look at every piece of information through your Clinton-colored glasses. In fact, Marshall makes no reference to or even suggestion concerning Obama when he states quite correctly that those who chose not to vote because they were told the primary wouldn’t count will be treated unfairly if any delegate is seated.

    Marshall makes no reference to this helping or hurting Obama because this post addresses the
    “disenfranchisement” situation from a purely factual point of view, not by molding and contorting the arguments to suit a candidate’s convenience. He presents no explanation for “why the situation was a bigger handicap to Obama than [to] Clinton” because, whether or not that’s true, that’s not the point he’s making.

    In your condition, it is impossible for you to recognize or consider any objective standard, Mary, but most people–including the superdelegates–are completely capable of evaluating facts outside of the lens of whom those facts hurt or help in this nomination process.

  • Re Michigan:

    Opinion piece of Don Riegle, former Rep and Senator from Michigan:
    http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080530/OPINION01/805300308

    The Michigan Democratic primary election offered a Soviet-like ballot — in that Michigan voters were not given a real choice among candidates. There was no competitive Democratic primary in Michigan — a primary where viable candidates compete to earn the support of voters. Instead, Michigan Democratic Party officials permitted an election to take place even though three of the viable candidates (Barack Obama, John Edwards and Bill Richardson) had properly removed their names from the ballot to fully comply with DNC rules. The election went forward with only one viable candidate on the ballot (Hillary Rodham Clinton) in direct violation of DNC rules and with full knowledge — and acknowledgement — that the Michigan delegation would not be seated at the nominating convention in Denver.

    As a result, the percentage of Michigan voter turnout was lower than any other state except Utah — a state the Republicans won in 2004 with 70 percent of the vote. It is estimated that a competitive primary would have resulted in at least 700,000 more Democratic voters in Michigan. In fact, those who might have voted actually represent a greater number than those that did vote in the rogue Democratic primary.

    Given that voters were offered no real choice among candidates and that Michigan’s vote would not count, voter participation as a consequence was reduced by 50 percent or more.

    The results of this fake primary cannot be used as a proper basis for determining the allocation of delegates to the remaining two Presidential candidates. As there was no real competition, there is no meaningful basis for accurately measuring either candidate’s level of support in Michigan.

    Further, the statute enacted by the Michigan Legislature, which changed the date of the Michigan primary from Feb. 26 to Jan. 15, and which established the procedures for the primary, has since been declared unconstitutional in federal court — some two and one-half months after the election had taken place.

  • Maria, yes he does. Marshall is pro-Obama. He is coy about it, but it shows nevertheless, most frequently in his choice to headlines. His post was intended to support Obama’s position on dividing up the delegates from MI and FL. But, even if we accept your contention that his post was only being factual, why would his argument have any bearing on the issue at all as stated, if supporters of both candidates were affected equally? Think about this. There would be no point in even mentioning that argument, since something that affects both candidates equally would have no impact on the outcome. He clearly thinks his argument is important, enough to post about it, so why? There are always people who stay home in any election — that is what “get out the vote” is all about. No one cries disenfranchisement unless there is a differential impact that hurts one candidate and helps another. For Marshall to say that millions of people stayed home makes no sense as an argument — more people stay home than vote in EVERY election. Unless he thinks there is some special reason why Obama voters stayed home while Clinton voters voted, why advance that argument at all?

  • This part of Hillarious’ campaign might be the most destructive of all — except for her praise of McCain. Until this whole thing was turned into Zimbabwe, the Civil Rights struggle, the Pankhurst marches, and Bush v Gore, nobody in either state would have considered this important at all. After all, some states that traditionally had late primaries have never seen their votes matter before, and I don’t see — pre Hillarious — many Floridians or ‘Ganders actually caring that some delegates — whose name nobody knows — were or were not seated at a convention that nobody — traditionally –watches.

    But now that the rabble-rousing has gone on for the months of Hillary’s desperation, this has now become an issue loud enough that it might threaten Obama’s chances in these two states. (I am sure he’ll win Michigan, but I think Florida is closer that it would have been had she simply STFU. It might make the cut as one of the ten states that McCain actually has a chance in…

    …all over a non-issue on the Willie Horton, Kerry’s war record, gay marriage level.

    (As a bisexual, of course I believe gay marriage is important — if only there were a way of making it retroactive so I could, in some manner, see that my two mothers’ 30 year relationship was given the term they couldn’t have imagined but must have wished for. I am referring to its use in the 2004 campaign.)

  • I forgot to add — the disenfranchisement referred to by Clinton supporters is the people who voted, not the ones who stayed home. Marshall obviously thinks the ones who stayed home were disenfranchised, but he has not shown why they could not have voted if they wished to. Failing that, the term doesn’t apply that way.

    Obama was going to be creamed in both states and he deliberately avoided making that obvious. Now he wants to go back and steal a few extra delegates from Clinton’s victories. And you guys have the nerve to say that Clinton is working the system to gain delegates! Clinton won them. Obama is trying to either keep her from getting them or gain a few more than he would normally have been entitled to. Neither Clinton nor Obama set up this situation, but BOTH are scrambling for advantage.

  • Gosh your reference to Hillary as Hillarious is cute!

    Maybe I should start referring to Obama as Obitter or Obatman or Osama (oops, slip of the keyboard) or just that stupid fucking jerk who has made this shoo-in election into a train wreck.

    Little touches like that are what keep discourse civil, after all.

  • It is unconscionable to seat ANY delegates from either Florida or Michigan based on the just-for-fun, won’t-count, not-everyone-on-the-ballot elections that were held there.

    They broke the rules, with malice of forethought. Make ’em stay home.

    Unconscionable!

  • The DNC has botch up this primary, disenfranchised voters, and otherwise alienated most of the electorate. I am a Democrat but do not trust trust them to run this country. The fact they can’t run a primary adequately, along with the poor performance of Democrats in Congress means Democrats should sit this one out in protest or vote for moderate McCain.

  • Mary, I stayed home and I am a very active Democrat voter. I stayed home, because voting “uncommitted” seemed rather ridiculous and now, as it turns out the way Hillary is counting the votes, it was. So, staying home or voting uncommitted is going to have the same impact, it won’t count unless one voted Hillary. I’m getting a sense that is okay with you and by your logic. Personally, I don’t and I am not sure if you are from Michigan, but I am. I lived it and you are possibly just speculating from a righteous standpoint. Either way, today is the day and I don’t think Marshall is an Obama supporter here. I think he is trying to step into shoes like mine that you are unwilling to step into.

  • But, even if we accept your contention that his post was only being factual, why would his argument have any bearing on the issue at all as stated, if supporters of both candidates were affected equally? Think about this. There would be no point in even mentioning that argument, since something that affects both candidates equally would have no impact on the outcome.

    You really don’t get this, do you? You really can’t get your mind around anything beyond “does it hurt or help Clinton?” Honoring the rules as they were written and agreed to by all candidates is the only objectively fair way to proceed here, regardless of whom it benefits. There are stakes here far beyond Clinton, beyond Obama, and beyond this election, and plenty of people are thinking about the future even if you can’t think past Clinton’s potential candidacy.

    Now, I recognize that for the sake of people who are reacting emotionally rather than rationally now (but who will vote in November), that honoring the rules isn’t the solution we’re going to end up with. And whatever the RBC decides, there are going to be bad feelings and someone is going to feel unfairly treated–whether it be people who stayed home, people who are angry that their elected party leaders and the GOP screwed them out of a binding primary, etc. But that’s not the point of what Marshall is saying. The simple point is that if one is going to talk about “disenfranchisement,” one also must consider the people whose votes will be left out if a non-compliant primary suddenly becomes countable. Honest, it’s not that hard to grasp this. You just have to have a modicum of honesty.

    (It would be really interesting to see how you approach your research [if you do research], given your much-demonstrated inability to approach any action objectively outside of your desired outcome. If the totality of your posts here is any indication, you mold your studies to reach your wished-for conclusions and are held in low regard by other scholars for that reason.)

  • #20 Prup/Jim: “states that traditionally had late primaries have never seen their votes matter before”

    Quite true. Oregon rarely matters. This year we did, which was cool.

    Mary: your arguments are laughable. ALL of the voters who voted or would have voted had they thought the results would count were disenfranchised.

    Why did some not vote? Well, why waste your time (if you had any spare to give) or efforts in an act that will make no difference? I don’t think I would have. Not if it involved time off from work, or having the kids in daycare or with the babysitter extra time, or trying to find a place to park, or wait in line for who knows how long.

    Mary: “Obama was going to be creamed in both states and he deliberately avoided making that obvious.”

    Uh-huh. Sure. That’s why he didn’t run in Kentucky or West Virginia. Oh, wait. He did. And got creamed. And still won some delegates.

  • Obama has no great attachment to rules. I’ve followed (via CSPAN and XM’s POTUS’08) the rule-breaking by Obama people during each of the primaries and caucuses. Obama’s folks in Texas handed out caucus literature at the polling places before the polls closed (against the rules) and presented caucus sign-in sheets at the polling places, again during active voting. In PA they had Obama people electioneering too close to several polls. Obama has challenged poll closing times in every primary state, hoping to gain a few more votes by keeping the polls open longer, asking local judges to help him out. Obama’s supporters were the ones strong-arming people in the LV caucuses. Obama broke the rule about campaigning in FL by carefully placing ads on media in adjacent states so that FL voters would see them.

    You support Obama and don’t like Clinton, so it is in your interest to portray Clinton as some sort of evil rule-breaker. Obama’s hands are far from clean.

    Then, lets talk about Rezko and Obama’s lies about his contacts with the people testifying in Rezko’s trial. Obama thinks that if he denies knowing the guy everyone will just believe him and drop the subject, yet Rezko’s gangster connections are talking about meeting Obama at dinner parties at Obama’s home, at Rezko’s home, and about favors done by Obama’s senate office for Rezko’s connections — something Obama conveniently claims he does not remember. Mr. Clean? In what universe?

  • Hannah, it is about the timing. For Obama to be wiped out in key states so early in his campaign might have kept him from gaining traction. He can withstand losses at the end of the primary season in KY and WV because he has already won a bunch of delegates. MI and FL are not KY and WV and it would have been damaging to him to try and obviously fail to gain support there, raising questions a lot earlier about his viability in the Fall. That’s why he is so desperate to claim that the voting there does not show strength for Clinton.

  • Shannon — Obama took his own name off the ballot. You stayed home because he did that. He didn’t have to do it, so why did he? Because Clinton was going to win big there, despite your support. Now he wants to have things both ways — go back and claim delegates he wouldn’t have won in a fair primary and didn’t earn in the voting that did take place. How is that honoring any rules?

  • Mary, please stop with the hysterics. Seriously, you’re thoroughly embarrassing yourself with this vomiting forth of unrelated grudges, strawmen and vague hostilities about anything and everything. You are so direly in need of anger management it hurts to watch you, cupcake.

    Let’s try to focus. The subject here is the FL and MI primaries and the RBC’s consideration of whether and how to seat them given their non-sanctioned status. Honestly, if it weren’t so patently unfair to millions, such bad policy for the party going forward and such a poor idea to reward toddlerish temper tantrums, part of me would really like to see Clinton get every outrageous thing she asks for. Then, when the superdelegates overwhelmingly go for Obama next week anyway, she’ll have to come up with another self-contradictory and humiliatingly lame reason to stay in, and her less balanced supporters can busily convince themselves of a whole new case of victimhood.

    Ah, I wish this were one of those movies with alternate endings to compare with each other…Clinton has become a cartoon character and one wonders what she’ll come up with next.

  • Obviously, some cannot key text and think at the same time. It’s a complicated psychomotor skill that can be improved with practice – careful repetitions of hand movements until they become semi-autonomous. Here’s some home row drills to get started:

    jfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;
    ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls; ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls; ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls; ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls; ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls; ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls; ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls; ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls; ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls; ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls; ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls; ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls; ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls; ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls; ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls; ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls; ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls; ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls; ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls; ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls; ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls; ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls; ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls; ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls; ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls; ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls; ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls; ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls; ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls; ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls; ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;ajfkdls;

  • Oh – keep fingers on “home row” (you will feel a little bump under each index finger) and reach over to the return key with your right pinky.

  • Andrea Mitchell (MSNBS) just said that Hillary has agreed to accept the decision of the committee.

  • Mary: OK, even if I buy your “timing” re FL and MI, which I don’t… your argument still doesn’t hold water. Obama competed in all of the states, why would he not in those two? And he got “creamed” less in FL and less in MI (according to exit polls) than he did in KY and WV. In fact, the exit polls had Clinton at under 50% in MI. Some voters indicated that they supported Obama or Edwards, but voted for Clinton since she was on the ballot. That you even buy into that being a fair outcome makes your judgment on anything suspect.

    Speaking of timing, polls show that if the CA primary were held today, Obama would beat Clinton by around 9%.

    Oh wait. I guess you’re right. It really is all about the timing.

    /snark

  • Now he wants to have things both ways — go back and claim delegates he wouldn’t have won in a fair primary and didn’t earn in the voting that did take place.

    Thanks for conceding that these primaries weren’t legitimate. Otherwise, it’s another post from La La Land. What “Obama wants”–indeed what everyone in the party except the most mired-in-unreality Clintonites wants–is for there to be some semblance of fairness if we’re going to go down the already-unfair road of seating any of these delegates.

    And a semblance of fairness is what we’re going to get today. You should be happy–Clinton will be spared the hard work of coming up with a new excuse for trying to take down the party in pursuit of her own dream.

    Now I must run out and play. Mary, do some deep breathing exercises and don’t skip this week’s appointment with your therapist. Everyone else, have a loverly sunny (hope it is everywhere) day.

  • Harold Ickes just asked Wexler if he believes in “fair reflection”. Wexler replied, “You’ll have to explain that to me.” The crowd went wild. Ickes essentially crawled under his chair.

  • Shorter Mary:

    blahblahblahblah – black is white – blahblahblah – up is down – blahblahblah – day is night – blahblahblahblah

  • 30. Mary said: Shannon — Obama took his own name off the ballot. You stayed home because he did that. He didn’t have to do it, so why did he?

    I’ll ignore all the other stupid things you have said in this thread, but not this one. Let’s explain this one more time for the terminally biased: Obama, Edwards and Richardson all took their names off the Michigan ballot, because they had signed a pledge not to compete in Michigan or Florida. Clinton also signed the same pledge, but we know how worthless her word is. She also said many times before the Michigan primary that it wouldn’t count.

    After the fact, after she started losing, Clinton changed her mind and decided the illegitimate result in Michigan should count the same as all of the states which followed party rules. She didn’t change her mind because she felt empathy for all the poor disenfranchised” voters, even you aren’t stupid enough to truly believe that. She changed her mind because she had no chance of winning without those Michigan votes.

    Not only that, but she is apparently trying to argue that none of the Uncommitted votes in Michigan should be counted for Obama because he wasn’t on the ballot. You’re the big proponent here of enfranchising everyone. Which are you going to argue: that Obama doesn’t have any supporters at all in Michigan or that his supporters shouldn’t have any representation at the convention?

  • That is a great video, Hannah. Thank you. I have been pretty stressed and upset about this stuff and it is nice to be able to laugh about it. 🙂

  • The MI spokesperson at the rules meeting just now said their MI Dem committee recommendation is to fully seat the MI delegates – 69 for Clinton and 59 for Obama. The MI cmt, composed of supporters for both candidates, said they came to this conclusion based on:

    The MI Democratic party took the position, after Obama, Edwards and Richardson took their names off the ballot, that their supporters could vote “Uncommitted” and then work to get delegates for their candidate elected to the convention. The party publicized this position and the Obama and Edwards campaigns also worked to educate people in order to get Uncommitted votes. 40% of the voters voted Uncommitted. 40%!!!

    Exit polls showed 46% for Clinton, 35% for Obama (Mary calls this “creamed”) and the remaining 19% for all others. Clinton’s 55% of the vote was therefore overstated and that’s why they deducted delegates from her column.

    Write ins were not allowed in MI. There were 30,000 ballots with write ins. Details of these votes are not available. The 30K represents 5% of the total vote.

    His further argument is that MI voters have been further punished by no official visits from either Clinton or Obama.

    It’s clear that many, many voters were disenfranchised by not being able to vote for their preferred candidate because he wasn’t on the ballot, not knowing to vote uncommitted, writing in and therefore having their vote not count, or staying home because they were told their votes wouldn’t count.

    Michigan resident Shannon @ #25, does that sound about right?

    IMO given this information, that Clinton would say that Obama should get no delegates because he received no votes, is 1) ridiculous and 2) disenfranchises voters who wanted to vote for those not on the ballot but were told to vote Uncommitted.

  • I wrote: “Exit polls showed 46% for Clinton, 35% for Obama (Mary calls this “creamed”) and the remaining 19% for all others. Clinton’s 55% of the vote was therefore overstated”

    I read that these extra 9% (55-46) of Clinton voters said they would have voted for one of the three not on the ballot, but voted for her since she was. They apparently didn’t know about voting uncommitted or who knows?

  • Mary, you continue to find reasons everybody’s vote for “Uncommitted” or nonvote is void, but again, listen carefully, it comes down to either way, only Hillary’s votes are going to matter in her proposal. You obviously buy this spin hook, line and sinker. You continue to say, if it is equally so, — yes, if only it were, it isn.t’ And, let’s go ahead and jump to the real posit here.

    If denying the FL and MI vote are in a parallel universe with Hillary to Zimbabwe, 2000, and human rights, then Hillary’s sleight of hand issue here is compared to the Nazi’s conning the jews to get on the train. Because Hillary clearly doesn’t really care if MI or FL are seated in accordance with the people of those respectives states’ wishes – what she has done is to create so unreasonable a situation, that a reasonable person will meet her half way to shut her up, and then she is going to clobber us with the real reason we all came to this point. I wish I could say what it is – I don’t. But, I can tell you that I have seen enough of Hillary’s art of war to know that it is Machievallian at best and goes down hill from there, so either scenario, she gets us here and outs a 20%/80% truth/rumor that will take weeks to clear up while she barters with the superdelegates, or she simply goes for the jugular with what she has. Either way, it isn’t going to end here, nonetheless, in the last effort of good faith, here we are.

  • A question about the impact of the Puerto Rico primary and Senator Clinton’s “strategy”- does anyone think that it is likely that she will claim her numbers there add to her popular vote total? They don’t, in some significant ways, but her rhetoric in PR has been the same sort of guff about will of the people and every vote counting. The Obama campaign is hardly going to make any kind of statement that might be construed or spun to say he thinks that the PR votes don’t count, which gives the Clinton campaign some wiggle room.

  • Absolutely, the numbers will be added. That is why they keep saying Puerto Rico is “key” because she should really add to her numbers there.

  • What a waste of time, effort, and money (Obama is the inevitable nominee) just to appease Hillary! She is an attention addict; feverishly fighting to get just one more fix!

    All-or-nothing Hillary supporters claim they will defect and vote for McCain (or not vote at all) because Hillary is an also-ran!

    Is Hillary a loyal Democrat or the head of a cult?

    Hillary, the Queen of Spin and a Legend in Her Own Mind!

    http://klintons.com

  • Whoa. CNN reporting Obama has left his church. I don’t see that he had much choice after that last outburst but glad to see he didn’t screw around getting to it.

  • Why do Iowa and New Hampshire have this birthright to the first caucus & primary? Maybe this debacle will somehow lead to a more fair system, such as a rotating order.

  • We need a national primary day in May or have like a rotating schedule of maybe 5 Super Tuesdays.

  • Hillary has thoroughly boggled my mind! According to her, she’s from Pennsylvania when she campaigned in Pa., then she was from Arkansas before SuperTuesday, then she was a native of Illinois and also she is from New York to voters in New York. Hillary is making promises to Puerto Ricans to resolve their status and fix the funding problems in their Police Department and 1st of all, Puerto Ricans WANT to be indepent of the U.S. Government! They love their Statehood position and voted overwhelmingly to continue it for years so what is she going to do about that? 2nd, Hillary can’t fix problems in New York! Why doesn’t she do something about the injustice being inflicted on her black constituents in her own state before tackling problems elsewhere? She’s just like the politicians in the past, always putting problems in other nations and territories ahead of us, the TAXPAYERS who pay them!! Hellary is just playing a game on the ignorance of people who aren’t paying attention! She is UN-PRESIDENTIAL!! SHE WOULDN’T GET ELECTED PRESIDENT OF A HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT BODY TODAY AFTER HER INDIGNANT BEHAVIOR AND ALL THE LIES SHE HAS TOLD AND IS CONTINUING TO TELL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!! I’m glad the delegates were split in half! The truth is the rules of the DNC were disrespected and good citizens in 2 states honored the ruling and stayed home on the day of their primary! THIS DEVIL, HILLARY IS THE ONE WHO MARGINALIZED THOSE CITIZENS BY TRYING AND PARTLY ACHIEVING HER GOAL OF SEATING THE VOTES OF THE LAWBREAKERS WHO ACTUALLY VOTED! HOW DO YOU THINK THE PEOPLE FEEL NOW WHO DIDN’T VOTE OR WHO VOTED “UNCOMMITTED”! AND SHE WANTS TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SHE’S TRASH! AND I HOPE SHE LOSES HER SENATE SEAT IN NEW YORK SINCE SHE ONLY TRANSPLANTED HERSELF THERE TO POSITION HERSELF TO RUN ON THE DEMOCRATIC TICKET FOR PRESIDENT OF THE USA ANYWAY! SHE’S NOT EVEN A TRUE DEMOCRAT THAT’S WHY SHE HAS NO PROBLEM JOINING WITH REPUBLICANS AND VOTING WITH JOHN MCCAIN FOR THIS WAR! SHE WAS RAISED BY REPUBLICAN PARENTS AND THEREFORE, SHE SHOULD HAVE CONSERVATIVE VALUES, NOT LIBERAL! SHE’S A FAKE DEMOCRAT! WE’RE NOT ALL DUMB HILLARY! YOU SHOULD BE IN JAIL FOR MANY THINGS YOU’VE DONE IN THE PAST! TELL ME THIS, HOW DID YOU MAKE MILLIONS IN THE BULL MARKET IN THE EARLY 80’S WHEN THE REST OF US WHERE CONTEMPLATING PULLING OUR MONEY OUT OF EVERYTHING FINANCIAL? THE STOCK MARKET, HOUSING MARKET AND GASOLINE PRICES ARE JUST A FEW OF THE MANY ISSUES REGULAR AMERICANS WERE CONTENDING WITH AT THAT TIME BUT YOU, THE “INTITLED” MADE MILLIONS IN THE BULL MARKET! LET ME HEAR YOU DENY THAT YOU LIAR! WHAT ARE YOU EXPECTING ANYWAY! WHAT ARE YOU REALLY UP TOO? I DON’T TRUST YOU! AT THE SAME TIME YOU MADE THOSE MILLIONS PLANS WERE IN PLACE AND A TIMETABLE WAS SET TO CLOSE STATESIDE MILITARY BASES THANKS TO JOHN MCCAINS’ RIGHT HAND MAN, PHIL GRAMM AND ANOTHER CONGRESSMAN NAMED RUDDMAN! PEOPLE WERE LOSING THEIR JOBS ALL OVER AMERICA AND YOU WERE GETTING RICH!

  • I should’ve read all of your comments before posting my thoughts! I’m now convinced that all of Hillarys supporters will follow her to the toxic kool-aid table and drink the cyanide laced kool-aid just like the followers in Jonestown!! GOOD RIDDANCE!!

  • Comments are closed.