home

Who's On the DNC Credentials Committee?

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:15:00 AM EST
Tags: DNC 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution provides some details about who will serve on the DNC Credentials Committee and decide what to do about Florida and Michigan.

There will be 186 members. Howard Dean gets to choose 35 and he has already done so. The AJC says they are people who have their primary allegiance to Dean, rather than Clinton or Obama.

The states choose the remaining members, with their allotments determined by population.

The three co-chairs have old ties to Bill Clinton.

In addition to those appointees, Dean has named three co-chairmen for the committee, all with ties to the Clintons. Alexis Herman was Bill Clinton's secretary of labor. James Roosevelt Jr. was an associate commissioner at the Social Security Administration when Hillary Clinton was first lady. Eliseo Roques-Arroyo was a consultant for Bill Clinton from 1998 to 2000.
As to the committee's options: [More...]

DNC rules provide the committee could:

  • Uphold the sanctions and bar all the delegates;
  • Allow all of them to be seated; or
  • Create some kind of hybrid where half the delegates get to attend.

The committee could also decide how many of each state's delegates get awarded to which candidate.

That's not the end of the story though.

On the first day of the convention, Aug. 25, the Credentials Committee presents its report to the seated convention delegates. The report, which will contain the decision on Florida and Michigan, must be approved by the delegates — including all the superdelegates.

< Obama Starts Ad Blitz in Pennsylvania | Obama Advisor Is CEO Of Passport Breach Contractor >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Who's On the DNC Credentials Committee? | 188 comments (188 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Imagine (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:01:22 AM EST
    if the committee, the delegates and superdelegates vote ONCE AGAIN not to seat Florida and Michigan.

    Will Democrats ever win Florida or Michigan again in a presidential election?

    Is winning worth the long term damage (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by magnetics on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:32:43 AM EST
    to the Democratic party?  I accept -- although many do not -- the narrative that Obama withdrew from MI as an act of sabotage, and has basically been the roadblock to re-voting MI or FL.  Not everyone will agree with me; but those who do must view him more and more as willing to sacrifice the welfare of the party on the altar of his ambition.

    Say what you like about Hillary -- at least she's for counting the voters in these two crucial states.  The offers of an equal delegate split do not pass the laugh test; in the words of physics Nobelist Wolfgang Pauli "That's not even wrong!"

    Parent

    The numbers nobody talks about: (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Arcadianwind on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:48:54 AM EST
    And the ones that will certainly make a difference, come November:

    Like it or not, a few battleground states will decide this thing then. Ohio, West Virginia, Florida, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and maybe Tennessee.

    Of the 88 counties of Ohio, the count was 83 for Hillary, and 4 for Obama. In Florida, Obama won only 8 counties, in NY, 1 county, in Missouri, 5 counties. In Tennessee he won 9 counties, and in Arizona he got only 2. In West Virginia he will win zero counties, and in PA, other than the Philly area, he will not do much better.

    These are all states Hillary can win in November. Obama could take perhaps one or two in a best case scenario, which won't get it done. As the primaries count thus far, and you take out the bogus republican votes for Obama in the open primaries, Hillary is ahead in the popular vote by close to 1 million already, with more to come, in PA, WV, and Indiana.

    Both candidates have their negatives, that is certain, but Obama's will not play well at all in the battleground states.

    The Super delegates have a clear choice to make, if they want to beat McCain....

    Please feel free to post this on other sites.

    Parent

    You dont have to win many OH counties (none / 0) (#118)
    by riddlerandy on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:56:39 AM EST
    to win the state, just win the right ones by enough.

    That is true nationally as well.

    Bill Clinton won 31 out of 88 OH counties in 1992.

    In 2000, Bush carried 2439 counties to 674 for Gore and yet Gore won the popular vote.

    Try again.

    Parent

    You make a good point (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by ChrisO on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:16:17 AM EST
    so I assume we can apply the same logic to the "Obama won more states" argument.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#157)
    by riddlerandy on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:46:36 AM EST
    that is correct

    Parent
    rose colored glasses (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:17:27 AM EST
    ignoring Survey USA's recent report on Ohio (3/20) the above would make sense.

    But unfortunately, I cannot, and the Columbus Dispatch article titled - Signs of Big Trouble for Obama in Ohio makes this abundantly clear...he is toast in OH.

    and before you give me, that this is just one state, consider...

    Missouri where Obama is getting his clock cleaned by McCain where Hillary is winning,

    Massaschusets where all of a sudden, a take for granted blue state is in play with Obama as candidate

    Add FL where Obama simply cannot win, MI where he blocked the plan for revotes because it was 'complicated' and Obama is in the unenviable position of blocking the delegates from both FL and MI which is surely going to make him popular in those states...

    The implications are starting to become very clear, Obama as the Democratic candidate will get creamed.

    Parent

    Like I've said (none / 0) (#158)
    by riddlerandy on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:48:28 AM EST
    by the time PA is over, McCain will have it locked up

    I will vote for Clinton or Obama, whichever wins

    I would love to see Jeralyn or BTD do a poll how many other folks here are willing to make the same commitment

    Any takers?

    Parent

    addressed many time here (none / 0) (#170)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:18:14 AM EST
    BTD and I will vote for the nominee. If you'd like a reader poll, you can do one on your blog.

    Parent
    Ok then, got the message (none / 0) (#182)
    by riddlerandy on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:12:01 PM EST
    the suggestion box is closed

    I am glad to learn (belatedly due to my occasional parsing of your blog) that you will be supporting the nominee.

    I hope that more and more  folks will come around to that view, regardless of who the nominee is

    Now I am really going on a bike ride on this beautiful day in Berkeley

    Parent

    I refuse to take any loyalty oath (none / 0) (#185)
    by echinopsia on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:35:17 PM EST
    I haven't decided yet what I'll do if Obama is the nom. He hasn't earned my vote or convinced me that he cares about my issues, and I seriously don't think he can win. A lot can happen between now and November. This situation is ripe for a third party candidate.

    I used to say I'd vote for the Dem no matter what, but Obama has changed my mind. I think he is a disaster waiting to happen and I just hope it happens before August. He's already damaged goods.

    Parent

    Then why is he Obama campaign/media (none / 0) (#142)
    by kenosharick on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:25:28 AM EST
    making such a HUGE deal out of states won? They are trying to equate a win in states like N.D.and Miss. (states unwinnable in Nov.) to Calif. or NY.

    Parent
    Actually, none of those four states matter (none / 0) (#155)
    by riddlerandy on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:43:40 AM EST
    if they do, the election is a landslide one way or the other anyway

    Parent
    you did not understand my point at all (none / 0) (#188)
    by kenosharick on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:33:10 PM EST


    Parent
    In (none / 0) (#189)
    by sas on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:00:29 PM EST
    November here in PA -

    Hillary could pull it off, but Obama is toast.

    Parent

    Obama did not block MI and FL (none / 0) (#14)
    by annie1982 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:50:22 AM EST
    Why do you keep saying that its Obama who is blocking a re-vote in MI and FL?  The DNC, along with the state legislature, explained the rules months ago - candidates and state dem committees agreed.  You CANNOT re-run a race - not unless all things are equal Hillary clearly said, back in Oct., that the votes in MI and FL did not count and she didn't care if her name was on the ballot or not.  The time to fight for the delegate count was BEFORE the faux primary took place.
    Why should Obama agree to hold new votes in these states just to satisfy Hillary because she is not winning the delegate race?  How you cannot see this is beyond me!  If the voters in those states are so upset and feel disenfranchised, they should not elect the same state reps in the next election - or take the matter up with those who made the decision.  Candidates do NOT make the decisions in their own race, nor do they ever PAY for the race.

    Parent
    You're wrong on the rules and (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:52:38 AM EST
    so much else here in so many ways, sorry.  Do look back through past threads for the DNC rules, etc.

    Parent
    annie1982 (none / 0) (#160)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:52:25 AM EST
    is right on the point. The states decided to move their primaries up in violation of DNC after they were warned of the consequences. All the major candidates, including H. Clinton, signed a pledge not to "campaign or PARTICIPATE" in those primaries. Everyone knew that they didn't count.

    Demanding delegates from the non-counting primaries is PARTICIPATING. Sorry, that's just another example of Clinton's lying on the subject. Just because you support Clinton doesn't mean that you have to believe the lie.

    The final attempt at the primary in Michigan would have denied voting rights in the Democratic primary to the very people, Edwards and Obama supporters, who could not vote for their candidates in the January primary that did not count based on who voted where in the primary that didn't count. Why should Obama agree to that? Some people here are so devoted to Clinton that they cannot recognize what is unfair to other candidates and their supporters.

    Further, the Clinton campaign and their surrogates in Michigan and Florida continued to demand that the false primaries count from January on. All that time could have been used to negotiate a solution. They ran out the clock and now blame Obama personally for their own dishonesty and failures. This is not a recommendation for leadership.

    Parent

    ignoring of course (none / 0) (#166)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:08:24 AM EST
    the fact that Obama has not only failed to provide any leadership on this issue himself, he himself became the obstacle. He actually and quite unbelievably commented that the re-vote as planned in MI was 'complicated'  The clear takeaway was that Obama isn't capable of solving 'complicated' issues.

    Then consider their positions going into the convention...

    HRC - seat the delegates...2 million people voted.
    BHO - don't seat the delegates...ignore the votes.

    I fail to see where Obama has established a leadership benefit from this controversy but perhaps you can actually explain how this inures to Obama besides 'playing politics as usual'

    How does Obama now state that voters count with clean hands?

    Parent

    This was equivalent to 'present' or 'no vote' (none / 0) (#204)
    by andrys on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:00:28 PM EST
    It's an Obama strategy.  And then there was a third one, in which he'd say he pressed the wrong button and didn't mean to do that -- on controversial issues, of course.

    Parent
    Howard Johnson is RIGHT (none / 0) (#171)
    by blogtopus on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:19:50 AM EST
    Harumph! Harumph!

    I didn't get a harumph out of that guy!

    It works both ways, of course, but it always brings a smile to my face to see teams working together for the greater good.

    Parent

    Obama (none / 0) (#192)
    by cal1942 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:33:52 PM EST
    actively opposed a DNC backed bill in the Michigan legislature that would have set up a new primary.  His supporters in the legislature wouldn't move on the bill.  The legislature adjourned on Thursday.  In effect, Obama ran out the clock.

    The amendment to the statute that you've drunk the kool-aid on was a sensible provision to prevent massive Republican participation.

    " ... denied voting rights in the Democratic primary to the very people, Edwards and Obama supporters, who could not vote for their candidates in the January primary"

    I'm an Edwards supporter and I voted Uncommitted in the Democratic primary as did roughly a quarter million others.  Uncommitted got 40% of the vote.

    As I recall something like 7% of the vote in the Republican primary was from crossover Democrats. If they chose to use their only vote in the Republican primary then that's the decision they made. There is no logic in the universe that can be stretched enough to claim disenfranchisement of people who've already exercised the franchise. The idea that Republican primary participants should get two votes sounds a little 'Chicago' to me.

    Michigan primaries have been warped before by crossovers.  In 1972 (Nixon was incumbent) Republicans voted in very large numbers insuring that Wallace carried the state. With no Republican primary there would be nothing to prevent massive Republican involvement.

    But what I'd really like to know is by what logic did you arrive at the conclusion that Clinton lied in any of this?

    Another thing about 'da rules.' Rules aren't sacred but principle is. If we're going to insist that primaries select our party's nominee (McGovern Commission 1970) then it should be incumbent on the party's national committee to insure that the residents of each state are afforded an opportunity to vote for delegates to the convention despite any quarrels with the legislature or leadership in any given state. We should carefully examine the rationale that determines a particular order for state primaries. What happened here was a power struggle between the DNC and the state parties. Ultimately the DNC acted in an irresponsible fashion to resolve the order of primary issue and deserves to get fried.

    Parent

    Dude: the primary date was set (none / 0) (#198)
    by magnetics on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:38:24 PM EST
    by the state legislature in FL, which is rethuglican.

    Parent
    Of course he did (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by felizarte on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:07:21 AM EST
    Did you ever hear him say 'yes' to a revote in Michigan or Florida?

    Parent
    It's not (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by tek on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:43:55 AM EST
    for Hillary, it's for the voters in those states.

    Parent
    yes it was Obama that blocked MI (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by fly on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:43:35 AM EST
    and he would not even discuss with FDp a re-vote.

    Obama blocked Mi by not accepting the re-vote as submitted by The MI Democratic party, it was accepted by Clinton and the DNC , the only one who didn't approve it was Obama, and the MI legislature could not move forward without approval by Obama's campaign..HE DID NOT APPOROVE,because the plan would notallow and the DNC rules would not allow republicans who voted in the republican primary to cross over and vote again in the dem primary re-vote.

    So it seems Obama is more concerned about republicans voting twice in a state than he is about Vets, and active Military, and all ethnic democratic registered Americans.

    That will surely not bode will for Dems or himself if he is the nominee in Nov.

    I can tell ypu in my state of Fla..he is toast!..he will not win in Fla and will prob lose in a landslide in Fla in Nov , if he gets that far.

    oh and i was a 2004 elected delegate in my state of Fla..i have a long internet list i work with daily since 2004..no dems i know will vote for him in Fla , after he and Dean and Donna Brazile tried and failed to manipulate our state with a caucus..we get it here in Fla..and there are many pisssed off Vets here..the state with the most Vets...they don't take kindly to anyone stealing their votes! and now it has happened one to many times!

     

    Parent

    Really, instead of just repeating (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by ChrisO on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:14:40 AM EST
    what you read on the Internet, it would help if you actually looked things up for your self. I don't mean this to be a personal attack, but on this topic, in particular, there is so much misinformation being floated by Obama supporters that it has really muddied the process.

    This is from a DNC press release on March 5, quoting Howard Dean: "The rules, which were agreed to by the full DNC including representatives from Florida and Michigan over 18 months ago, allow for two options. First, either state can choose to resubmit a plan and run a process to select delegates to the convention; second, they can wait until this summer and appeal to the Convention Credentials Committee..." (emphasis mine).

    Parent

    agreed (none / 0) (#167)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:16:16 AM EST
    and further misstatement of facts by Obama supporters here will be deleted.  He did object to the revote plan.

    Parent
    Pressure (1.00 / 0) (#127)
    by 1jane on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:11:14 AM EST
    Obama just flew out of my county of 200,000 folks late yesterday afternoon. One or both of the Clinton's are expected here in a few weeks. Estimates for the 5 Obama appearances across the state are approximately 38,000 folks attended the events across the state. The credentialing committee will be under intense pressure to follow their rules. The fear among the Democrats in my state is the utter distruction of the Party if the contest goes too long between the two candidates.

    I'll watch the fund raising numbers as one way to measure how the candidates are doing.

    By the way, General Tony McPeak, who looks and sounds like Clint Eastwood delivered one of the strongest rebuttals of a statement by former president Clinton we've heard. The crowd at the rally leapt to its feet.

    Parent

    McPeak? (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by lambert on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:22:13 AM EST
    Was the rebuttal that "[Obama] doesn't go on television and have crying fits?"

    That's the stuff to give the troops!

    Parent

    comparing Bill Clinton to McCarthy (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:24:31 AM EST
    was so over the top that even Richardson couldn't defend it on Fox this morning.

    So much for the politics of hope.

    Parent

    Obama can keep McSpeak since (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:10:52 PM EST
    Hillary has:

    Flag Officers who have endorsed Hillary Clinton
        General Wesley Clark
        General John M. Shalikashvili
        General Henry Hugh Shelton
        General Johnnie E. Wilson
        Admiral William Owens
        Lt. Gen. Joe Ballard
        Lt. Gen. Robert Gard
        Lt. Gen. Claudia J. Kennedy
        Lt. Gen. Donald L. Kerrick
        Lt. Gen. Frederick E. Vollrath
        Vice Admiral Joseph A. Sestak
        Major General Roger R. Blunt
        Major General George A. Buskirk, Jr.
        Major General Edward L. Correa, Jr.
        Major General Paul D. Eaton
        Major General Paul D. Monroe, Jr.
        Major General Antonio M. Taguba
        Rear Admiral Connie Mariano
        Rear Admiral Alan M. Steinman
        Rear Admiral David Stone
        Brigadier General Michael Dunn
        Brigadier General Belisario Flores
        Brigadier General Evelyn "Pat" Foote
        Brigadier General Keith H. Kerr
        Brigadier General Virgil A. Richard
        Brigadier General Preston Taylor
        Brigadier General John M. Watkins, Jr.
        Brigadier General Jack Yeager


    Parent

    flag officers? (none / 0) (#193)
    by diogenes on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:03:52 PM EST
    If that's what it takes then cancel the election because John McCain will get the large majority of flag officer endorsements.
    If flag endorsements won't count in the general election then why now?

    Parent
    The crowd "leapt to their feet?" (none / 0) (#136)
    by kenosharick on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:21:31 AM EST
    Oh really? At an Obama rally after an attack on a Clinton?  How shocking!

    Parent
    Nice try! (none / 0) (#148)
    by ghost2 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:30:13 AM EST
    You CANNOT re-run a race

    NO, my dear.  All this time, DNC was ASKING Florida and Michigan to schedule alternative primaries.  That option has always been open.  That's why Obama campaign has resorted to crappy 'concerns'.  

    Parent

    The Obama Echo Chamber Will Ping Itself Silly But (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Mark Woods on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:53:23 AM EST
    The rest of the world won't necessarily be listening.  Most folks will be having picnics in August, not reading blogs - and there's nothing on TV in August but reruns, so they won't even stumble onto arcane delegate vote committees by accident.

    And we have to wait and see if Free Tibet protests, anti-war/Bush protests or terrorism overtake the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games that run Aug. 08-24 2008 -- either way this news will eclipse the dreary 'he said/she said' babble of the current Barrack/Hillary spats.

    I think threatened August floor hissy fits by the Obama worker drones will get a lot of coverage for one day or less, swapping the incestuous blogosphere but never getting as much as a peep at crowded summer family gatherings at my midwestern relatives' backyard soirees.

    It will be Tropical Hurricane Season in late August but any parties at my liberal circles' neighbourhood in South Florida are another story, where we're all waiting to see if we burn Howard Dean in effigy or let him live another year . . .

    Parent

    Holy Crow (none / 0) (#174)
    by blogtopus on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:26:55 AM EST
    You know Mark, I never thought about the timing of the Olympics vs the Convention.

    This is going to be a very tumultuous year. My guess is that the usual merry pranxters will be choosing whether to expend their energy on the Olympics or the Convention.

    'We have to get out into the streets to protest the Hillary Coronation!'

    'But my A.N.S.W.E.R. Alert says we also have to protest the Olympics!'

    'Oh man! I can only carry 1 case of redbull in my haversack! What are we gonna do?'



    Parent
    I am convinced that at this point (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by riddlerandy on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:01:07 AM EST
    it may just be rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

    By the time PA is over, Obama and Clinton -- and more importantly their supporters -- will have so thoroughly trashed each other that the winner will be lucky to keep 70% of the loser's supporters in the General.  That will not be enough.

    Hopefully it will not cost us the House.

    Parent

    Simple answer? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:33:32 AM EST
    No.

    Parent
    I'm really starting to think ... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:49:08 AM EST
    we're going to a second ballot (at least) in Denver.

    I don't think the Supers will all break one way.  And the first ballot will not result in a either candidate having enough delegates for the nomination.

    Hello, brokered convention!

    At last, an exciting convention to watch (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:02:02 AM EST
    again.  How I remember those riveting hours, so many decades ago, watching when I was only a kid . . . and being turned into a political junkie today.

    Amazing to realize, too, that some of the most exciting ones were watched in shades of gray on gray in the old black-and-white tv days, and only tv's so tiny compared to what we have today.  But so many greats I saw then were plenty colorful and larger than life, even so.  

    Of course, I also recall great convention coverage, great journalists then who just reported the stories when that was appropriate -- most of the time, just getting out of the way for us to see events for ourselves -- and clearly labeling analysis when they did so.  Those were the days.

    For those who haven't seen a brokered convention, or the manufacture of sausage, the old saw about sausage and politics is not so.  Brokered conventions pulling political machinations out of the proverbial back rooms and instead being played out before us are much more fun to watch, believe me!

    Parent

    Hooboy... (none / 0) (#18)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:53:56 AM EST
    there's a recipe for trouble...and big TV ratings...

    Parent
    The idea of a brokered convention... (none / 0) (#22)
    by reynwrap582 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:00:48 AM EST
    Seems sort of exciting to me, I'm afraid to admit.  Probably because I'm still young and my only "experience" with a brokered convention was from the final season of The West Wing.

    I have a feeling the real thing would be way uglier, though.

    Parent

    Nah, not ugly -- it's great reality tv (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:09:26 AM EST
    as we saw before we ever heard of such a term.

    Brokered conventions need not be ugly at all -- not unless someone wants to create a scene.  Of course, some will do so even if a convention isn't brokered.  Even walkouts just look like, well, a bunch of middle-age people walking.  I mean, if Donna does her walkout shtick, what are we going to see?  A middle-aged woman walking . . . straight to the cameras.:-)

    The worst scenes have been, sadly, outside conventions, anyway.  And Denver doesn't have a Mayor Daley -- the one who wanted to create a acene with his cops far more than any protesters did.

    Parent

    All I can say is, thank Dog they aren't (none / 0) (#67)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:25:54 AM EST
    in NYC this year! lol!~

    I kept a low profile during the Repub one. But during the Dem one, we had some 'visitors' which required action. Seems they had a prob with our womens clinics. OY! It was a very strange clash of principles. But an interesting, and at times uplifting, day. Great study in people/group interaction.

    Don't think a brokered convention would have helped. Is this still an issue (dem platform vs repub) that may need to be considered in Denver? Or is McCain too liberal to draw those troops?

    Parent

    I'm hoping for a massive (none / 0) (#94)
    by Dancing Bear on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:28:01 AM EST
    shoe fight like we see in other countries. Or some slugging.

    Parent
    Abrahan Lincoln (none / 0) (#154)
    by tek on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:37:19 AM EST
    was nominated at a very heated brokered convention.

    Parent
    Apparently (none / 0) (#29)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:19:02 AM EST
    the younger candidate in the West Wing is based, in some part, on BO.

    Parent
    A brokered convention (none / 0) (#112)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:39:42 AM EST
    is very exciting to watch, but I'd rather see it in the GOP.  I fervently hope ours gets resolved before that happens.

    Parent
    The Super Delegates (none / 0) (#31)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:26:36 AM EST
    will declare right after the last Primary on June 1--or earlier.....

    If Hillary does not win North Carolina, that could precipitate a superdelegate stampede....

    If Obama has the votes and the nomination locked up, the Florida and Michigan delegations will be seated consistent with his nomination.

    Parent

    I don't know about that (none / 0) (#175)
    by blogtopus on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:29:44 AM EST
    You may be right, they may want to make their declarations. But that isn't set in stone, and they may want to see which way the wind is blowing by the convention in August.

    If Obama is still being buffeted around by Wright or god forbid something else, and his national polls are still tanking, they might have to reconsider for the benefit of the party and the nation.

    Parent

    20% Is All That's Needed in Committee (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Dan the Man on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:49:29 AM EST
    I think Marc Ambinder has already talked this.

    Link

    "20% of the committee is all it takes to file a minority report that will be presented to the full convention, which will duly vote."

    Now you've got me thinking about ... (none / 0) (#25)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:02:33 AM EST
    that Spielberg/Tom Cruise movie.

    Why did you do that?

    Parent

    "if" not a word in a front runner's ...? (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:04:54 AM EST
    Okay ... it's Kipling time!

    "IF..."

    by

    Rudyard Kipling

    IF you can keep your head when all about you
    Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
    If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
    But make allowance for their doubting too;
    If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
    Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
    Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
    And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

    If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
    If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
    If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
    And treat those two impostors just the same;
    If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
    Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
    Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
    And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:

    If you can make one heap of all your winnings
    And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
    And lose, and start again at your beginnings
    And never breathe a word about your loss;
    If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
    To serve your turn long after they are gone,
    And so hold on when there is nothing in you
    Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'

    If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
    ' Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch,
    if neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
    If all men count with you, but none too much;
    If you can fill the unforgiving minute
    With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
    Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
    And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!

    Why does Obama refuse (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by ding7777 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:12:49 AM EST
    to embrace the popular vote in FL and MI when the DNC "banned" only the delegates?

    I don't know how (none / 0) (#83)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:11:21 AM EST
    the UN sanctions fair elections, but I imagine that two main requirements are that the candidates (1) are both on the ballat and (2) are allowed to actively campaign.

    Parent
    Then why did BHO (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by magisterludi on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:03:11 AM EST
    so obviously resist a re-vote?

    Roolz? Oh, puh-leeze.

    Parent

    Requirements vs voluntary removal (none / 0) (#108)
    by ding7777 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:09:19 AM EST
    (1) Obama voluntarily removed his name from the MI ballot - there was no rule or law requiring him to do so - not even a suggestion or hint anywhere that he do so, except in Obama's political playbook to spin the outcome.

    (2) all candidates voluntarily declined to campaign in FL and MI - there was law requiring them to do so - and all names were on the FL ballot.

    Parent

    If the Obama campaign is so sure (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by felizarte on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:05:32 AM EST
    of their "rithmetic' why do they act so nervous?  In the end it will be the entire American electorate that will decide.  I'm sure that Super D's will know who is really electable and whose not.

    The republicans are certainly not going to let Rezko and Wright go away.  And the Michigan and Florida voters will not forget either.

    the real worry (none / 0) (#85)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:14:59 AM EST
    is that the Clinton campaign will bloody the Obama campaign on the way to the GE and help make him unelectable.  If Obama wins the GE, Hillary won't be able to campaign for president until 2016.  If he loses the GE in 2008, she would be young enough to campaign in 2012 and would be able to claim even more "experience" while saying "I told you so" to all the Obama supporters.

    Parent
    How can Hillary Clinton (none / 0) (#107)
    by TN Dem on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:45:14 AM EST
    make Obama unelectable? He either is or he isn't!
    At least what is out now is out and the Republican's  won't be able to bring it out on their terms right? If anything, the 'vetting' should help.

    Do you honestly believe that the Republican's won't bring out more than this? Do you think the authors of the swiftboat campaign have nothing up their sleeve?

    Kerry, may argue diferently...you know the amazing candidate who used Bill Clinton to draw thousands to his rallies and campaign events to try and quiet the  Republican machine....oh the evils the Clinton's have perpetuated...sure...

    Parent

    You do realize... (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by magisterludi on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:27:58 AM EST
    every time BHO "believers" diss BC, they lose a dem vote for their anointed "One", don't you?

    Not with Florida and Michigan (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Dancing Bear on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:44:07 AM EST
    not to mention our friend Barack has been having a few public problems.  Delegates and Super Delegates can change their votes. Once she leaves PA with a full belly many of them are going to start looking at what their own futures will be.
    Many like McCaskill are already on the hot seat.

    Oh, and all you people that think the Super Delegates should vote the way their states did should ask Bill Richardson exactly WTF he did?  She won his state.  She won the hispanic vote all over the country.  What will he ever win again?
    Maybe Survivor or some dancing show.

    Sorry I misread your post initially (none / 0) (#180)
    by riddlerandy on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:08:00 PM EST
    always drink two cups of coffee before posting, my new rule

    Parent
    Jeralyn and BTD (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Dancing Bear on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:02:57 AM EST
    Perhaps we could do a thread on what might take place in PA.  A precursor of what to expect.  How can this state be turned upside down given the clear lead.

    Can we take our name off the ballot?  Can we get court orders to extend voting hours? What tactics will be used to further disenfranchise the voters in a clearly Clinton State? Maybe if we get the things out in the open they will be less likeley to try them.

     Maybe this state will have votes that count and people willing to stay for the GE.

    Commenters (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:35:26 AM EST
    Cy Street is a chatterer who is trying to dominate the conversation with his/her opposing views. He/she is limited to four comments a day. Several posts of his/her's with false information has been deleted.

    Bob in Pacifica is also limited to four comments a day and warned to stop posting his opinions as facts  because they spread misinformation.

    See the comment rules. We are well aware of other blogs urging Obama supporters to come here and take over the conversation. Obama supporters are welcome to join the conversation but they cannot present their opinions as facts and they cannot chatter by repetitively making the same point or trying to hijack or dominate the discussion. These have been the rules here since 2002 and they are not changing.

    friends of bill on the cred committee (1.00 / 3) (#3)
    by joe in oklahoma on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:06:40 AM EST
    so, it comes down to this.
    behind in delegate count,
    behind in states won,
    behind in popular vote,
    Hillary controls the chair at the cred committee...

    the Clintons cannot believe anyone would have the chutzpah to challenge their power or their "right" to the Oval Office.  Just imagine if the current situation were reversed:
    imagine Clinton winning over a dozen primaries in a row, being ahead in the delegate count, ahead in the popular vote, and way ahead in the number of states won.
    I suspect there would be tremendous pressure on Obama to pull out.
    i further suspect Clinton would regard a decision by Obama to stay in the race as underhanded chicanery.

    and yet what do we see in this situation in which we find ourselves?
    Clinton carries on, with a minimal chance of victory, and actually had the ovaries to offer Obama a veep slot.
    everything she does now is intended to destroy his standing vs McCain.
    she and Bill even speak more favorably of the Republican candidate than they do of their Dem opponent.
    the democratic party "leadership", which would be telling Obama to drop out if the situation was reversed, is cowed into silence, and when one superdelegate speaks out (Richardson) is he labeled a Judas.
    but a Judas requires a Savior, and Hillary ain't no Savior.

    It comes down to this: (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by magnetics on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:34:32 AM EST
    won in every important swing state, and in every major blue state except Illinois, which is her opponent's home state.

    What am I missing here?

    Parent

    Wisconsin (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ben Masel on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:53:03 AM EST


    Parent
    Spin gone wrong (none / 0) (#19)
    by Jgarza on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:55:27 AM EST
    Obama won different swing states.  MO, Virginia, Wisconsin, CO, Minnesota.
    This Hillary won the states that are more equal then others line is not good spin.

    Parent
    Take a look at those same states polls (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by Dancing Bear on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:57:42 AM EST
    after Uncle Reverand made his lovely comments.
    Claire McCaskill has sure gotten quiet.

    She may be working at the Mall when this is all over.

    Parent

    I'm with you Jgarza... (none / 0) (#21)
    by mbuchel on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:00:27 AM EST
    ... if the Hillary folks echo idiot Mark Penn's words about "important states", you come across as strictly a hack rather than someone interested in honest debate.
    Can we once and for all debunk the myths about how primary results are predictive for general election results?

    Parent
    Maybe a journey through the maps of (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:33:05 AM EST
    past Dem elections would help? Blue states do turn red . . .

    Obama hasn't shown he can capture the blue base. That is what i want to see.

    I also want a Dem in the WH. Assumptions don't do much for my confidence in that area.

    Parent

    Florida is more important (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:23:23 AM EST
    Than Utah!

    Sorry Utah.  Love ya'.  I do..

    If we ever get to a point where there's 12 million folks in Utah and half of them are actually Democrats, then that's Awesome!

    Mark Penn was right.

    Parent

    can we debunk the myth (none / 0) (#125)
    by sancho on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:06:25 AM EST
    that primary states are predictive of ge results?

    Most democratic nominees for president since 1964 have debunked that myth pretty effectively.

    obama will as well since he can't likley win either.

    Parent

    What's that old phrase? (none / 0) (#176)
    by blogtopus on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:33:32 AM EST
    If you try to please all the people, you end up pleasing none.

    The Unity pony is trying to have it all ways, but in the end, everyone will end up with pony poop in their living room.

    Parent

    This is Obama Camp propaganda (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Josey on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:20:58 AM EST
    that Hillary believes she has a "right" to the Oval Office. This lie has been effective for Obama supporters racheting up Hillary-hate.
    The media began the "inevitability" meme - not Hillary.


    Parent
    The "annointed front runner" (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by lambert on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:26:57 AM EST
    Yes, Hillary was the annointed front runner.

    Our famously free press always annoints one, and then they try to destroy them. They like the narrative. Was it MoDo who likened the process the pulling the wings off flies?

    Given that narrative and dynamic, it's amazing that she's still in the race at all. Must be a lot of people who utterly discount the press and the conventional wisdom? Like about 50% of Dem voters, and more than that in the base?

    Parent

    Her tenacity (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by magisterludi on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:53:46 AM EST
    is one of her most remarkable qualities. She.Is.Tough.

    Parent
    Obama could unite the Dem Party (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by Josey on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:34:08 AM EST
    by agreeing to be Hillary's VP running mate.
    But Obama isn't into "unity" - proven by his continuing to "find" racist or offensive motives in every Clinton comment.
    It's obvious Obama wants the primary to continue - and he can continue dividing the party.

    Hillary's VP comment was an effort to bridge the divide while Obama has shown much contempt toward Hillary supporters.

    Parent

    If the situation were reversed? (none / 0) (#8)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:33:50 AM EST
    No one would dare to suggest that another Democratic candidate quit -- one who was in an 'all but statistical tie' for the nomination -- quit before there is a clear winner and everyone who is eligible has voted...and been counted.  

    No one would dare suggest that the first black candidate with a chance...even a slim chance...to be nominated, should drop out in favor of the other (white) finalist.

    So it comes down to this:  we are Democrats and we don't quit just because somebody wants us to.  We don't advocate voter suppression...we advocate everybody voting and everyone's vote being counted.

    And oh yes...Hillary didn't "offer Barama a veep slot."

    Let's not make things up.

    Parent

    Right (none / 0) (#24)
    by mbuchel on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:02:24 AM EST
    Like no one would be calling for Obama to drop out if the rolls were reversed - losing 11 straight contests, behind in delegates, behind in votes, pushing to count votes in primaries when Hillary wasn't even on the ballot, lagging in fundraising.

    Parent
    if the situation was reversed (none / 0) (#28)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:17:47 AM EST
    people would be calling for him to back out.

    I think if there were confidence in BHO's electability, HRC would have probably dropped out.

    The fact is, there is no confidence that BHO would win the GE.

    Therefore, HRC stays in.

    This comes down to the convention floor fight.

    BHO is in the unenviable position of disenfranchising MI and FL voters.

    Not a pretty picture...

    Parent

    if the situation were reversed, (none / 0) (#60)
    by cy street on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:09:21 AM EST
    obama would have stepped off after wisconsin.  there is no path to the nomination for the house of clinton.  there is no way the supers are going to go against the will of the pledged delegates.

    if you believe otherwise, please site for us one example of when this has happened before.

    the house of clinton plays the game of delay better than any, but, time does not equal delegates.

    Parent

    House of Clinton? (none / 0) (#101)
    by Dancing Bear on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:55:12 AM EST
    Perhaps the "Hut" of Obama will fall.  It's only made of sticks and strings and promises never to be kept.  It will go up in flames because of the lack of integrity of his backers.

    Watch the pledged delegates evacuate the building when they see his huge loss in PA. Not to mention the others.  You see, this is the Democratic Party.  Not the Cross Over Party or Independant Party.

    Remember when the Precincts had to stay open with a Court order in Ohio?  That was the clear end of Barack Obama.  The disenfranchisement of the voters reared it's selfish, self serving, ugly head.

    Parent

    Ummm, Cy.... (none / 0) (#126)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:10:26 AM EST
    ...thing that 'have never happened before, happen all the time.' See 9-11 for instance...

    That is not the issue.  The question is, what do the convention rules allow and how does the convention function...ever been to one?  Eye-opening and educational!

    Parent

    ever heard of joe biden? (none / 0) (#58)
    by cy street on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:04:03 AM EST
    chris dodd?
    bill richardson?
    john edwards?

    all good men, all stepped aside when their math went south.

    it is easy,
    concede.

    Parent

    Obama cannot win... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Alvord on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:47:27 AM EST
    ... the general election. His "Dems for a day" will desert him when the matchup is against John McCain rather than Hillary Clinton and a good part of the Democratic base that supports Hillary because of her superior qualifications will not vote for the inexperienced Obama. For the good of the party and the progressive movement Obama should take to heart the lessons from his losses in the big states and join the other good men who have left the race and drop out as well. If he doesn't the Democratic party is headed for a debacle the likes of which haven't been seen since Walter Mondale lost big to Ronald Reagan in 1984.

    Parent
    The concept of Dems for a day is such a (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Dancing Bear on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:49:45 AM EST
    bastardization of the process. To be part of that is to be part of a deceptive, dishonest ploy to sway the out come of the election.

    Parent
    This is happening in Pa (none / 0) (#169)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:17:14 AM EST
    Obama is running ads asking voters to switch parties and many have.  The new registrations for Democrats are above 111,000 and Republican registrations have decreased.  I don't know if they are new voters for Hillary but the numbers are suspect.

    Bastardization of the process is mild to what I am thinking if it should turn out that Obama is actually stealing an election.  I know, it's like the old Tammany Hall style and people laugh and says "that's just politics" but it's morally wrong; it is stealing an election.

    I don't know if Hillary can win, but she needs to stay in to the finish. After it's done, I have to step back and decide if I am still a Democrat.

    Parent

    It is a strange year indeed (none / 0) (#178)
    by riddlerandy on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:03:25 PM EST
    when Dems seemed concerned about swelling Dem voter rolls and dwindling GOP registrations.

    Parent
    Nonsense (none / 0) (#111)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:36:46 AM EST
    "a good part of the Democratic base that supports Hillary because of her superior qualifications will not vote for the inexperienced Obama."

    This is nonsense.  Hillary's base are primarily lifelong Democrats, not Johnny-come-latelys to the party or the process.  They are supporting HRC because of their intense focus on bread-and-butter issues.  These are not people who stay home and sulk because their candidate didn't win.

    Whether the mobs of young people and weak-identifiers with the Dem. Party would do the same is an open question.  Personality cults don't easily change their allegiance.


    Parent

    So what would you have us do? (none / 0) (#119)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:59:30 AM EST
    Just give up and hitch our wagon to the "weak identifiers?" Because we need them to win? Isn't that winning at any cost? Oh I'm voting for Obama if the choice is McCain or Obama but I'm at the point where if a viable third party candidate came along (no, not Nader) I'd seriously consider it.

    Parent
    Recent national and state polls... (none / 0) (#151)
    by Alvord on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:33:16 AM EST
    ... don't support your thesis.

    Hillary's base are primarily lifelong Democrats, not Johnny-come-latelys to the party or the process.  They are supporting HRC because of their intense focus on bread-and-butter issues.  These are not people who stay home and sulk because their candidate didn't win.

    A good fraction of the lifelong Democrats who support Hillary Clinton say that if Obama is the nominee they will either support John McCain or they will not cast a vote for president in the GE. The progressive blogs may decry that decision by these voters but the voters by and large don't read the progressive blogs.

    Parent

    Yellow dog democrat here, but, dig, (none / 0) (#197)
    by magnetics on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:30:28 PM EST
    "...I will vote for the Democratic candidate, be he even a yellow dog; but lower than that ye shall not drag me!"

    Have voted for the Dem in every presidential since McGovern -- my demographic is: biracial household, 2 Ph. D.s.

    Parent

    if you want a winner... (none / 0) (#195)
    by diogenes on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:11:11 PM EST
    If you want a winner, rather than the Clinton ambition machine, then the dream ticket is Gore-Obama.

    Parent
    They ran out of money (none / 0) (#128)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:12:22 AM EST
    and some went into debt before they read the handwriting on the wall.  That is why they 'stepped aside.'

    Parent
    it is not Hillary's fault (none / 0) (#117)
    by sancho on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:55:39 AM EST
    that Obama is un-electable. I'd want any viable candidate to stay in the race as long as possible. The fault, really, is the absurd system the DNC has devised. No doubt Obama is willing to sacrifice the party for personal ambition but I don't see that as too surprising--this gesture is typical of the highly ambitious. (Richardson, for instnace, did not endorse the candidate he liked better or thought would make the better (or worse)prez--he went with the one who seemed to offer him a  better deal. That's politics, folks. No roolz there.) Anyway, Hillary's continued viability exposes how weak Obama is. If he were a strong candidate, he would have already ended it against an opponent with so many identified "negatives."  

    What if the states' delegates were winner take all, as the Republican primaries mostly are? How different would the numbers be? Asking this question shows how arbitrary the process is.

    Parent

    This is at least as interesting as (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:36:39 AM EST
    Spitzer wearing black socks.

    Hope the Credentials Comm. report is made public before the delegates and Super-Ds vote on it.

    C-SPAN.... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:22:08 AM EST
    it will not only be public, it will be televised.

    Parent
    I love C-Span ... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:35:57 AM EST
    can't say it often enough.

    Parent
    Hmm. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Iphie on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:13:44 AM EST
    I wonder what happens if the seated delegates don't approve the Credentials Committee's decision. And what is the percentage by which the the approval must pass?

    bottom line.. its super delegates that will decide (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by TalkRight on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:45:44 AM EST
    I hope they don't add a veto right to candidates.. that is so silly (obviously the candidate not benefiting will veto) .. the bigger standard should be : Is it fair.. (and not if it helps one or the other.. because it will help one and not the other).

    Parent
    If (none / 0) (#20)
    by Jgarza on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:58:09 AM EST
    this election goes to the primary we will loose, no matter the nominee.  There will also be down ballot repercussions.

    News agencies are desperate for August audiences (none / 0) (#30)
    by Mark Woods on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:19:50 AM EST
    and the only thing that brings folks in off the patio in August to watch TV is a subway bomb in London or a hurricane in TX, FL, LA or the Carolinas.

    TV addicts will be weary of Beijing Olympic overload and it seems to me that the MSM will invent and inflate every controversy to attract even a few more viewers.

    But to attract an audience away from something on TV they have to already be watching, and in late August most people are still outside eating hot dogs and swatting mosquitoes; others are busy at mall buying school clothes.

    Parent

    I don't agree (none / 0) (#35)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:30:00 AM EST
    I don't think the fact that it will be the end of August that determines the outcome...but rather the candidate.

    Parent
    Well then (none / 0) (#48)
    by Jgarza on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:51:28 AM EST
    I think you fail to understand the importance of a campaign as an organization and GOTV and ground games in winning elections.  These things take months to get going, there would be so much lost time if we wait till august to have a nominee.  

    Parent
    ignoring of course (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:18:55 AM EST
    the fact that their organizations were already established in the primaries...that is the point of the primaries.

    You are simply trying to create a causal situation for a problem that doesn't exist because it suits your sense of how things should turn out.

    It seems fairly clear that there is no result other than this goes to the convention and the super delegates.

    That is the way they designed this nomination process to work.

    Parent

    How Clinton can unify the Democrats (none / 0) (#27)
    by Manuel on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:14:14 AM EST
    It has become clear that neither  Clinton nor Obama will be in a position to lead a united Democratic party in the fall elections.  They have inflicted too much damage on each other and the feelings run deep.  Significant constituencies are likely to sit out the election no matter which of the two wins.   Recognizing that a divided party might well lose in the fall at a time when neither the party nor the country can afford it, Clinton should drop out of the race.   She should not endorse Obama, however.  She should throw her support to John Edwards.  

    There are two ways this could work.  She could drop out after Pennsylvania and let Edwards take over in North Carolina for the rest of the primaries.  Without Clinton's negatives, Edwards may be able to run the table in the rest of the primaries making a strong case to the SDs.  Another possibility is for Clinton to indicate that should she fail to win the nomination on the first ballot at the convention, she will ask her delegates to support Edwards in subsequent ballots.  This would effectively make Clinton a surrogate for Edward's candidacy.  Reading the writing on the wall, Obama drops out and supports Edwards in exchange for the vice presidency.  

    Among all Democratic Party leaders, only Clinton is in a position to do this.  She sacrifices her ambitions in exchange for a Democratic victory in November and the good of the country and the party.  Clinton, Edwards, and Obama  campaign all over the country.  The Democrats win in a landslide in November.  The Republicans won't know what hit them.

    I want (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:27:02 AM EST
    whatever it is that you've been smoking.

    Parent
    I am watching a train wreck happen (none / 0) (#44)
    by Manuel on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:43:29 AM EST
    Obama as the lead candidate is too risky.  Multiple ballots needs to be an option for future primary voters.

    If the convention goes to multiple ballots we are likely to end up with a consensus candidate.   That would be either Gore or Edwards.  Ever watch those U.N. or Papal elections?


    Parent

    I love how no (none / 0) (#52)
    by Jgarza on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:53:35 AM EST
    evidence is ever given to this Obama is too risky line.  Repeating things does not make them fact.

    Parent
    It's pretty clear (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:59:32 AM EST
    if you watch this.

    Parent
    i just realized your name (none / 0) (#57)
    by Jgarza on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:03:07 AM EST
    that was a hilarious Esteban Colberto episode.

    Parent
    I don't know what you're talking about. (none / 0) (#61)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:09:55 AM EST
    I don't watch that guy.  He's way too right-wing for my taste.  Besides, his name sounds way too "French" (if you know what I mean . . .).

    Parent
    And there's this by those swift young'un (none / 0) (#71)
    by andrys on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:50:37 AM EST
    Pants suits and The Truth

    Parent
    Don't forget this one (none / 0) (#72)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:56:16 AM EST
    right here.

    Parent
    Take a look (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Manuel on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:14:33 AM EST
    here.  I know these are volatile polls but they are worrisome.  Also, there are polls available that demonstrate how about 20% of each candiate's supporters will support McCain instead (slightly more for Clinton supporters).  That is spotting McCain a significant advantage.  With Obama and Clinton persisting with the negative campaigning, I see no reason why that will improve.

    Parent
    The only problem (none / 0) (#66)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:24:49 AM EST
    Obama is facing now is being attacked on two fronts.  Once Obama (and the media) is able to focus on McCain, he'll start to do a lot better.

    Parent
    How will he appeal to Clinton supporters? (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Manuel on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:36:15 AM EST
    All he has said so far is he is taking them for granted.  He'll have to do more than that.  Also, his campaign is likely to step in it by going after McCain for being old.  That won't help with Clinton's demographics.

    Parent
    Young Obama newbies: old=bad (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by andrys on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:58:31 AM EST
    In watching the various forums, I find it's pretty obvious that the younger set new to politics are drawn by the issue of NEW (them) vs "yuck, OLD" (old ways, old people)... The word "old" is used over and over again.

     That includes complaints about Hillary's wrinkles, etc.

     I saw a funny one the other day complaining about "that old corrupt lady"  -- I didn't know which adjective was worse to the writer.

    Obama wasn't wrong before he said it, but once he did, Clinton supporters were no longer automatically Obama's, especially after he said that he didn't know if his would go to Clinton and Michelle showed a disinclination to say she'd work to support Clinton if HC should win (even way back then) while Bill C said his usual thing about how he'd work his head off (well, possibly not the best way to put it) for Obama.  And Bill does like the limelight, so he was probably telling the truth.

    Parent

    Manuel, they don't think they need us... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:14:48 AM EST
    ....remember? They are setting us up to be the scapegoats of this election because god forbid anything should be the fault of the Obama Unity Camp. We will be left behind in the Rapture.

    Parent
    you're kidding (none / 0) (#123)
    by sancho on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:03:21 AM EST
    the evidence is the dem nominating process thus far. but you seem to think that acquiring dem delegates in nebraska and utah and idaho and alabama and georgia and mississippi and south carolina is the same thing as winning the ge. sadly, you are not alone in your reasoning, if that is the right word.

    humphrey-mcgovern-mondale-dukakis-gore-kerry-obama.

    Parent

    I think an Edwards candidacy (none / 0) (#33)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:27:56 AM EST
    would be disappointing for lots of people in both camps.  Not only would we, as a party, give up the opportunity to elect the first woman or first black person to the presidency, but we would also be investing our hopes into sort of political black box.  Edwards has record as a very progressive campaigner, but a record as a very centrist Senator.  He hasn't had much traction, electorally, and the right-wing attack machine isn't any more afraid to attack them then they are our current candidates.

    Parent
    How Obama can unify the Democrats (none / 0) (#34)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:28:48 AM EST
    Let's spin the scenario another way: Obama should drop out of the race.  He should not endorse Obama, however.  He should throw his support to John Edwards.  

    There are two ways this could work.  He could drop out after he inevitably loses Pennsylvania and let Edwards take over in North Carolina for the rest of the primaries.  Without Obama's increasing  negatives, Edwards may be able to run the table in the rest of the primaries making a strong case to the SDs.  Another possibility is for Obama to indicate that, should he fail to win the nomination on the first ballot at the convention, he will ask his delegates to support Edwards in subsequent ballots.  This would effectively make Obama a surrogate for Edward's candidacy.  Reading the writing on the wall, Clinton drops out and supports Edwards in exchange for the vice presidency.  

    Among all Democratic Party leaders, only Obama is in a position to do this.  He sacrifices his ambitions in exchange for a Democratic victory in November and the good of the country and the party.  Clinton, Edwards, and Obama  campaign all over the country.  The Democrats win in a landslide in November.  The Republicans won't know what hit them.

    Huh, it makes just as much sense as your spin.

    Parent

    I've decided to stop tormenting Cult members (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Mark Woods on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:40:11 AM EST
    who are friends of mine since we're all probably going to have to get along in September working side-by-side on the inevitable Clinton-Obama ticket -- Pelosi's posturing be damned.

    Edwards never attracted enough money to resonate nationally. Superdeez are also politicians themselves and they will take note of Hilllary's GE money hoard, I bet.

    And I really can't picture FL superdeez coming home without getting our delegates seated -- this ain't going to happen.

    FL is too big and too rich and too important to be squeezed out.  We are not a backwater bayou, contrary to all stereotypes -- and all my Democratic friends are holding their donations until AFTER August to wait and see  what Dean does . . .

    Parent

    why should Obama (none / 0) (#53)
    by Jgarza on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:54:55 AM EST
    have to be her VP?  That would be the ultimate in silliness.

    Parent
    Well, he can bow out and she can chose (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:19:36 AM EST
    someone else. . . .  ;)

    Parent
    Now an Obama and Clinton ticket (none / 0) (#82)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:08:06 AM EST
    now that would be amazing!

    Parent
    It's less amazing than Clinton quitting (none / 0) (#89)
    by Mark Woods on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:04:04 AM EST
    and Edwards replacing her, wouldn't you agree?

    And Hillary has already indicated she's game for a compromise ticket, and after the beating Obama's going to get in the next round of primaries he might be, too!

    No it's not amazing, it's called politics.

    Parent

    No Obama can't do this (none / 0) (#39)
    by Manuel on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:37:22 AM EST
    He is percieved to be the front runner.

    Parent
    Either scenario works for me (none / 0) (#80)
    by alsace on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:07:00 AM EST
    It would be good to see my number one preference back in the mix.  I wouldn't say I have an excess of  enthusiasm for the still-standing lady that I originally put at number five, and I have much more concern than enthusiasm for the novice who was my number seven.  

    Parent
    i like this game. (none / 0) (#65)
    by cy street on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:21:24 AM EST
    we could be president for one day.

    has a bowie feel to it.

    Parent

    Wham Bam! (none / 0) (#75)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:24:41 AM EST
    We can be President, just for one day.

    Ahhh, I already have my next 2 future dogs named as a bow down to Bowie. And yes, Wham Bam is one  ;)

    Parent

    per politico today: (none / 0) (#40)
    by cy street on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:39:24 AM EST
    "One important Clinton adviser estimated to Politico privately that she has no more than a 10 percent chance of winning her race against Barack Obama, an appraisal that was echoed by other operatives.

    In other words: The notion of the Democratic contest being a dramatic cliffhanger is a game of make-believe."

    And this contest hasn't already ... (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:42:48 AM EST
    had it's share of "make-believe"?

    Nothing that happens this year would surprise me.

    If a UFO landed on the convention floor in Denver, I'd just think it was par for the course.

    Parent

    in completely separate words (5.00 / 6) (#45)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:44:14 AM EST
    Jim Vandehei is not exactly an objective reporter...see his book on Hillary

    Politico is not exactly the most reliable source...big shock there

    an 'un-named' but you elevated to 'important' advisor...

    Gosh...if we take these things into account, it's possible that this Politico article is nothing more than something Obama partisans such as JMM, HuffPo and cy street are pointing to.

    Parent

    i studied euclid in high school. (none / 0) (#47)
    by cy street on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:47:39 AM EST
    i do not need the politico or huff po to understand the math.  make believe is the house of clinton spin.

    a pair of fours is a pair of fours.  i wish this were for money.

    Parent

    Really? (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:52:16 AM EST
    "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable--what then?"

    -1984, George Orwell

    Parent

    I studied Euclid in high school..... (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:02:53 AM EST
    ..but it was in grad school that I mastered statistics, lol.

    Parent
    Article is somewhat inaccurate (none / 0) (#42)
    by muffie on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:42:08 AM EST
    The most important thing is that the committee members are allocated by the state proportionally based on the statewide delegate count.

    Also, the number of committee members is not proportional to population, but rather determined based on "the same distribution formula used to allocate delegates to the [DNC]."

    Extra potential craziness comes about as follows.  There are actually three committees (rules, platform, credentials.)  The committee members are proportional to delegates won, but split between the three committees.  My reading of the DNC rules is that the decision of which committee they are on is done by drawing lots.  So in Hawaii, there's a 1 in 3 chance that Hillary would have the sole representative on the credentials committee.

    What a system.

    Here's some better math (none / 0) (#46)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:46:15 AM EST
    from Chris Bowers at Open Left.

    Hillary could make up the lead in pledged delegates if she wins the remaining races ~65-35.

    Right ... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:53:11 AM EST
    but even that number could be wrong, depending on the nature of her wins.

    Parent
    I'm not saying (none / 0) (#54)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:56:01 AM EST
    it's gonna happen, I just don't want to rile up the locals.

    Sometim in early June, one of our candidates will have enough pledged delegates and superdelegates to claim victory.  The sooner we come together as a party and understand that we (for the most part) want the same things, the better.  This primary has been very difficult for the party and we need to find a way to come to terms with each other before November rolls around.

    Yeah (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:42:25 AM EST
    And we're all gonna come together and play nice while one poster here consistently calls Hillary's campaign "the House of Clinton" and another puts "concede, it's over" at the bottom of each post.

    Just can't stop insulting Hillary supporters and that is part of why, IMHO, it is impossible for the Democratic Party to get back together. Too many insults, too much anger, too many people that think calling another Democrat names is a good way to get their people to vote for your candidate.

    Parent

    Indeed. (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:07:26 AM EST
    It's not unity that these particular Obama fans want. They confuse Talkleft with a sports website and so they came here to trashtalk. So tedious.

    Parent
    Unity? (none / 0) (#96)
    by magisterludi on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:36:58 AM EST
    Feels more like they demand submission. All bow before the bright shiny pony! (or else).

    Parent
    That's why I call it (none / 0) (#105)
    by Fabian on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:23:07 AM EST
    teh singularity instead.

    Of course, the astronomical definition of a singularity is a star that collapses under its own weight, dragging nearby objects into its gravitational embrace and to their doom.

    Parent

    Giant Step Backwards (none / 0) (#76)
    by ding7777 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:03:48 AM EST
    1965 - An amendment to the Voting Rights Act bans the use of literacy tests, poll taxes and other obstacles designed to keep people from voting.

    2008 - The DNC uses "delegate banning" designed to keep from counting the people's vote.

    She needs to win by 63% (none / 0) (#78)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:38:04 AM EST
    of the vote in remaining states to catch up.  She needs 58% of all remaining delegates including Super Delegates to catch up.  

    This is based upon CNN current delegate counts and multiplying the remaing states delgates and superdelgates by the presumed % and adding it to total counts.  

    If you need further proof do the math.

    The problem is determining (none / 0) (#106)
    by TN Dem on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:38:07 AM EST
    which figures to use whilst doing "the math".

    For example, why not count FL and/or MI popular votes (in which case all uncommitted goes to Obama...spotting him Edwards votes as well). I realized the DNC must have great power to not count the delegates, but I did not know they had the power to make us forget the millions of people who actually went to the polls and voted in those two states!


    Parent

    I like how they say McCain is looking Presidential (none / 0) (#84)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:14:23 AM EST
    As he shows a completely inept knowledge of the Middle East.  I guess Bush has lowered are expectations as to what it takes to look presidential.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#97)
    by tek on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:42:28 AM EST
    these people have ties to Dean and not the candidates, but Dean has made his "enthusiasm" for Obama known.

    I know this is OT but... (none / 0) (#104)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:04:26 AM EST
    Richardson is on Fox preaching unity pony now. And he didn't really defend Bill Clinton from the McCarthy smear. He chose instead to change the subject.

    Old and new (none / 0) (#146)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:29:03 AM EST
    He used the words old and new and it's time to bring in a new generation.  I thought it was funny.  I like it... no one over... let's say 40, not vote or vote for the 'old guy' Republican.  Good strategy???? Sometimes I wish politicians weren't allowed on teevee.

    Parent
    The numbers nobody talks about: (none / 0) (#110)
    by Arcadianwind on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:31:44 AM EST
    And the ones that will certainly make a difference, come November:

    Like it or not, a few battleground states will decide this thing then. Ohio, West Virginia, Florida, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and maybe Tennessee.

    Of the 88 counties of Ohio, the count was 83 for Hillary, and 4 for Obama. In Florida, Obama won only 8 counties, in NY, 1 county, in Missouri, 5 counties. In Tennessee he won 9 counties, and in Arizona he got only 2. In West Virginia he will win zero counties, and in PA, other than the Philly area, he will not do much better.

    These are all states Hillary can win in November. Obama could take perhaps one or two in a best case scenario, which won't get it done. As the primaries count thus far, and you take out the bogus republican votes for Obama in the open primaries, Hillary is ahead in the popular vote by close to 1 million already, with more to come, in PA, WV, and Indiana.

    Both candidates have their negatives, that is certain, but Obama's will not play well at all in the battleground states.

    The Super delegates have a clear choice to make, if they want to beat McCain....

    Please feel free to post this on other sites.

    I've been biting my fingers (none / 0) (#121)
    by independent voter on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:00:52 AM EST
    (so I wouldn't type) through this whole thread, but I just have to ask: who will determine the "bogus Republican votes for Obama"? That sure sounds like a blatant attempt to disenfranchize voters. Interesting, how once you throw out the votes YOU DON'T LIKE you decalre Hillary ahead in popular vote.
    Read what you are writing. Take off the primary "my candidate is the only one" blinders. Is this truly what you believe, and truly what you think the Democratic party stands for?

    Parent
    Fallacious argument (none / 0) (#124)
    by digdugboy on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:04:45 AM EST
    Okay, Hillary beat Obama in Texas in the popular vote. When was the last time a democrat won Texas in the general election?

    It's fallacious to extrapolate anything about the general election from results from counties in swing states. A vote for Hillary is not necessarily a vote against Obama, and vice versa. Most democrats will unite behind the nominee.

    To repeat: merely because Obama won Wisconsin in the primary doesn't mean Hillary wouldn't beat McCain in the general. It says nothing about Hillary's chances against McCain in Wisconsin in the general. The same is exactly true about every swing state in which Hillary eked out a slight victory against Obama.

    Parent

    good point, (none / 0) (#187)
    by Arcadianwind on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:32:06 PM EST
    about extrapolation. You are correct on that. However, the point is not about county counting. It is about geopolitical realities and the demographics in the heartland, if we may call it that.

    For example: If you look at Ohio or even Texas or Florida for that matter, you will see that Hillary won across the expanse of these states, not just NE, SW, or central regions. Obama's wins appear only in heavily urbanized areas. and he doesn't get all of them either. The rural vote, and even the suburban vote, he does not get (in these regions)in any numbers. In Ohio, for instance, In many of the 83 counties he lost in, the margin was not by 8 or 10%, it was 30 or 40 points.

    I think it is clear that Obama does not stack-up well against McCain in Ohio, WV, Missouri, or Florida. These are must win states.

    A big part of the puzzle is this:
    In Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Missouri people are generally a moderated representation of the country. They are less inclined to buy into hype or charisma or fads that  may enrapture elsewhere in America.

    The writing is on the wall, let's just hope that it will be seen by the "number counters" in the Democratic leadership.  

    Parent

    Deep Breath (none / 0) (#134)
    by Coral Gables on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:19:14 AM EST
    Counting counties is even more meaningless on an extended scale than counting states. Too many people get too wrapped up in silly math. (not meant personally here, it's done by multitudes of people)

    It's people and it's electoral votes come November. One hopefully leads to the other. New York does not equal Wyoming. One county does not equal one county...and no one having enough pledged delegates to garner victory at the convention on the first ballot does does not necessarily equal a brokered convention.

    Take a deep breath all you over the top supporters. We are entering the fourth quarter of a game where you have to reach a certain total to win and the initial phase of the game can end with no winner.

    Being in the lead but not reaching the promised land can be just as meaningless for either candidate. If you can't reach the totals on your own, you then have to lay out the cards you have up your sleeve to change delegate votes, and those cards are all about electability...and those cards don't even count until after the first ballot in August.

    Electability cards? swing states, new voters, fund raising, popular vote, experience, lack of negatives, who you know, how long you've known them, etc. etc.

    Obama supporters want Hillary to drop out? Beat her in PA. Hillary voters want Obama to back down?  Gain complete momentum by beating him in PA, NC, WV, and Indiana.

    Otherwise, all the talk of anyone dropping out is proverbial chest thumping. And those that think one of these two won't be ultimately chosen by way of smoke filled back room deals...that's less chest thumping and more mental masturbation.

    And it's still 4 weeks until Pennsylvania.....

    Parent

    "counties" (none / 0) (#196)
    by diogenes on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:16:33 PM EST
    My New York county has 40,000 people, mostly redneck whites.  Manhatten, Brooklyn, the Bronx, and Queens each have about 2 million people.  Obama wins big cities--each of which are contained in one county.  Last I heard electoral votes were distributed by the state, not the county.

    Parent
    Why are you so intent (none / 0) (#114)
    by sancho on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:46:55 AM EST
    on cramming a sure GE loser down the throat of the Democratic party? A democratic candidate who cannot win Cali, Penn, Ohio, Florida, or Michigan cannot win the GE. He gamed the little states. He exposed crucial flaws in the nominating system.

    If the situation wre reversed, if Obama had won Hillary's states and Hillary had won Obama's states, I'd be arguing for Obama to be the nominee.

    It is not, or should not, be personal. The roolz, as currently applied, are forcing us to pick a loser in a election that seems especially vital.

    Wake up Obama folks. Before we reach the ledge.

    After reading (none / 0) (#120)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:00:09 AM EST
    through the comments... I though it might be appropriate (even if it is OT) to remember that we are celebrating the 50th aniversary of the Peace symbol.

    Here is some interesting history....
    Peace

    Michael Randle was there in 1958 when Holtom explained his idea: matching the 'N' for nuclear & a straight up-and-down 'D' for 'Disarmament,' with a circle around it. "That's the symbol, very simple and straightforward," Randle recalled. "It was that explanation coupled with his vision of what the march would be like, his sketch of what the march would be like, that really sold it to us and we said, 'Right, we will adopt that.'"


    Happy Birthday Peace (none / 0) (#137)
    by Coral Gables on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:21:52 AM EST
    And those that want to read more on this OT topic, go to happybirthdaypeace.com

    Parent
    If their primary allegiance is to Dean, that (none / 0) (#130)
    by tigercourse on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:14:56 AM EST
    means their secondary allegiance is to Obama, since he's Dean's candidate.

    Hillary and seating MI and FL (none / 0) (#135)
    by 2liberal on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:20:00 AM EST
    Many are saying "Hillary is for the voters" but I would like to know - does anyone really think she would support seating the delegations if Obama had won FL and had been the only name on the MI ballot?

    Because I don't think so.

    Question (5.00 / 0) (#144)
    by Coral Gables on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:26:50 AM EST
    Do you think that argument is a defense for them not being seated? Obama and his supporters on this topic are damn near 100% in the wrong. You don't refuse to count votes. It doesn't matter who benefits from those votes. You don't ignore the people.


    Parent
    What's your point (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:29:04 AM EST
    That Obama's no different than Clinton?

    Parent
    forgetting of course (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:32:51 AM EST
    that SCOTUS thought it impudent to recount the votes in FL in 2000 and where did that get us?

    How is telling over 2 million people in FL and MI that their votes don't count a winning strategy for Obama?

    It's a good thing that he eschews politics as usual.

    Parent

    asdf (1.00 / 0) (#183)
    by 2liberal on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:20:00 PM EST
    It wasn't Obama that made the decision to disallow the FL and MI votes - that was made by the DNC before the votes actually took place. I don't think it is right to change the rules in the middle - neither Hillary nor BO were for seating the delegates before the votes took place.

    Parent
    Why make these claims on the rules... (none / 0) (#184)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:30:46 PM EST
    when you don't know the rules?

    The delegates elected in FL and MI will indeed be presented this summer unless there is a re-vote as is in the rules. Those are the DNC rules.

    It will be the Obama campaign that objects to their seating as it is clear that Hillary has stated her desire to see them seated and her desire to have a re-vote.

    It's this simple...If Obama says seat the delegates, they get seated and no change of rules is necessary at all.

    Please inform yourself.

    Parent

    asdf (1.00 / 0) (#186)
    by 2liberal on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:42:06 PM EST
    I don't know the complications of the rules but I am certain that FL and MI are in a different category, than, say, Ohio or CA. BO couldn't stop Ohio or CA from being seated so somehow there must be some rule that applies to FL and MI. The MSM put out the information that FL and MI wouldn't be seated before the votes.

    I am sorry but I am not going to do a lot of research based upon your assertation. Can you provide a link to an impartial source that explains how the only thing preventing MI and FL from being seated is BO?

    Parent

    seek and ye shall find (none / 0) (#190)
    by tree on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:07:11 PM EST
    All you have to do is look at Jeralyn's post above to start this comment thread.

    As to the committee's options: [More...]

    DNC rules provide the committee could:

            * Uphold the sanctions and bar all the delegates;

            * Allow all of them to be seated; or

            * Create some kind of hybrid where half the delegates get to attend.

        The committee could also decide how many of each state's delegates get awarded to which candidate.

    In other words, the DNC Credentials Committee will vote on whether to seat the two delegations. The Committee is primarily made up of Clinton and Obama supporters. Clinton's already on record in favor of seating the delegation. Its only Obama who is blocking the FL and MI delegation from being seated at this time.


    Parent

    and if you want a link (none / 0) (#191)
    by tree on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:10:48 PM EST
    just click on the link that Jeralyn provided to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

    Parent
    asdf (none / 0) (#199)
    by 2liberal on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:37:21 PM EST
    thanks for the info - obviously i didn't take the time to read all the way thru the post ...

    I still think it is fair to think of MI and FL in a different category than OH and CA. Obama withdrew his name from MI (his name is NOT spelled "uncommitted"!) and didn't do any direct campaigning in FL (neither did Hillary). There has been a history of big Clinton leads being reduced when Obama does some real world visits.

    BOth candidates faced sanctions if they had campaigned directly in state (if i recall correctly - I still haven't read the rest of the post.)  

    Parent

    Obama campaigned for 'Uncommitted" (none / 0) (#200)
    by andrys on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:49:06 PM EST
    He was on record as asking the Michigan voters to vote "Uncommitted"  -- that's why many of us are all for him taking that Uncommitted vote.

    That was an alternative recommended by him for voters, if none of the above, meaning Please Don't Vote for Hillary.

      Neither one campaigned there after the rules came down, but interested voters could watch TV and read newspapers and (in some cases, blogs) to get the normal acquaintance.   I voted and I have never seen Obama.  I realize I might have glazed eyes now if I had, but as curious as I was (and his crowds include those also), I don't like standing for hours and it turns out he was hours late.

      I love that he says his name wasn't on the ballot -- as if it had just somehow disappeared and he had no choice in that.  Nothing in the rules mentioned taking one's name off the ballot.  But this way he will get some that were meant for Edwards.  Just as long as they have SOME nearly-fair way of counting Mich and seating them.

      Turns out, by the way, that in Florida, they could not remove their names for strategic visits without making a statement they did not plan to run for President.  So, all names remained.

      Also, he campaigned there by holding an impromptu press conference after a fundraiser (which is ok to have) and by having several ads a day on TV for the last 10 days or so before the primary.

      In other words, he was the only one who did campaign in Florida!  He and Clinton each held about 15 fundraisers there and they had a debate there also.


    Parent

    Correction: strategic reasons (not visits) (none / 0) (#201)
    by andrys on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:50:31 PM EST


    Parent
    But what does that prove? (none / 0) (#143)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:25:55 AM EST
    What you think or I think? The fact is that it is Obama who is for disenfranchising voters. I personally believe that if the shoe was on the other foot that the Clintons would not have been allowed to get away with what Obama is apparently getting away with since he is the favored candidate of Dean and the media.

    Parent
    Not so fast (none / 0) (#141)
    by Sunshine on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:24:41 AM EST
    Obama did campaign in MI, he campaigned for "uncomitted"  and in FL, he campaigned with national TV commercials that went into FL..  It's Hillary that did not campaign, she went to FL after the voting was over....  The Obama campaign should get the inocent look off their face and let the votes stand....

    The Florida TV ads played several times a day (none / 0) (#202)
    by andrys on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:51:33 PM EST
    for almost 10 days, I read.

    Parent
    Keep it up! (none / 0) (#150)
    by bw on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:33:06 AM EST
    Hello, President McCain.

    Cy...this is not a faith-based (none / 0) (#153)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:34:02 AM EST
    contest for Hillary supporters.

    We don't 'believe' nuttin'....

    What we think, tho, is that the voters should vote and we should count them and then the Super Ds will each make their vote known (if they haven't previously) and those who are going to switch will switch and none of it is final until the convention.

    The path to victory remains to be played out and we shall see.  Why do you have a problem with that?

    How do the states select? (none / 0) (#159)
    by Foxx on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:50:33 AM EST
    HOW do the states select the committee members, and how many does each state get? Can we predict from that process whether a majority will be Obama supporters?

    Do we know whether the three co-chairs are still Clinton supporters?

    How the heck ... (none / 0) (#172)
    by TalkRight on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:22:58 AM EST
    Obama: "She's Just Trying to Tear Me Down, and That's Not the Kind of Politics We've Been About"
    Over the top... (none / 0) (#173)
    by TalkRight on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:25:33 AM EST
    Blames Clinton for negative turn of race, but apparently missed his own campaign manager talking about Clinton on Friday conference call, where David Plouffe said there's a "real character gap" and she has a "history of misleading voters."

    Plouffe also said about her: "The American people simply are not going elect someone that they believe is not being honest and trustworthy."

    Parent

    This is Obama politics, not the old politics (none / 0) (#203)
    by andrys on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:54:32 PM EST
    His staff also had an official conference-call in to press to try to get them to go with the Bosnia story more, giving many reasons why they should.

    Shameless, but he fools a LOT of people when he says he's not "into that."

    Parent

    Sure leaves the voters in the dust! (none / 0) (#179)
    by Doc Rock on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:05:28 PM EST
    Let's seat no one and have Howard Dean for our nominee.

    Bill Richardson... (none / 0) (#194)
    by diogenes on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:05:36 PM EST
    Bill Richardson had close ties to Bill Clinton too.  That didn't mean that he would necessarily be loyal to Bill Clinton's wife until August.

    Who's On the DNC Credentials Committee? | 188 comments (188 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment