home

Will May 31 Be The Biggest Day Of The Campaign?

There are no primary contests on May 31. But there will be a meeting of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee where the issue of the Florida and Michigan delegations will be taken up. This meeting will no doubt be the central political event of the day. It will garner a significant amount of coverage. And what will the Democratic Party say to Florida and Michigan on that day, on that stage? During today's Clinton Media Call, I asked about the May 31 RBC meeting:

I asked about the May 31 RBC process whereby the FL/MI question will be decided. I asked specifically who will be participating. I further asked that since the Clinton camp, the Obama camp and the DNC Chair Howard Dean have all said they want the delegations seated, is it possible that a faction of the DNC, led by Donna Brazile, could block the seating of these delegations over the wishes of the candidates and the DNC Chair.

Phil Singer responded that the Clinton campaign is confident that the DNC will act in the best interests of the Party, which is to act in a way that helps the Party win in November, which would mean seating the Florida and Michigan delegations. Phil made the point that if the purpose was to protect the early primary shcedule, that purpose has been served and thus it was time to look towards the best interest of the Party, which required seating the delegates.

In terms of the RBC process, Singer was unsure what would happen as the agenda had not yet been released, but that it would be an open and public process that will be seen by the entire country.

The nation will be watching. And Florida and Michigan will be closely watching. May 31 will be the biggest day left in the Democratic campaign, with serious consequences for the November general election.

By Big Tent Democrat.

< NARAL Endorses Obama | TX Appeals Court Overturns Vioxx Verdict Against Merck >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The video of that last meeting (5.00 / 11) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:48:09 PM EST
    suggests that the decision will be made before the session is gaveled in. I wonder whether the Clinton campaign is wise to sound so confident about this.

    I would consider threatening to take the nomination to the convention if the delegates aren't seated.

    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by bjorn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:55:14 PM EST
    If Donna Brazile has any clout, in real terms, there certainly will not be a resolution that is fair to all parties...it will most likely favor Obama.  Both Dean and Brazile have made it clear, imo, that they are not going to do anything that would change the election - meaning the election results that do not include FL MI.

    Parent
    p.s. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by bjorn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:56:51 PM EST
    I do think Clinton should have taken the MI deal a week or so ago, but under the condition that FL would be seated as is.  And all the votes count in the popular vote total.

    Parent
    What popular vote total? (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Knocienz on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:15:08 PM EST
    The popular vote doesn't really have any meaning save in the minds of the super delegates (and pundits and supporters of course).

    So each SD (and pundit and supporter) will decide for themselves how to weigh the popular votes in MI and FL. I expect those who want to support Clinton will come up with a weight that gives her the lead and Obama supporters will come up with a weight that gives Obama the lead.

    But it isn't a quest for fairness on either part as much as it is justification for a decision they've already made.

    Parent

    Obama won't agree (none / 0) (#13)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:59:21 PM EST
    to seating the Florida delegation as is, IIRC.

    Parent
    Oh - they'll be seated (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Josey on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:05:22 PM EST
    But it's always appeared they (and Obama) wanted to wait until he was the nominee before they officially assigned the votes and awarded the delegates.


    Parent
    Yes, this week TV talking heads (5.00 / 5) (#164)
    by litigatormom on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:22:12 PM EST
    have been guffawing over Terry McAuliffe's statement that Obama should have to get 2209 delegates before clinching the nomination. Ho ho ho, silly Clinton still thinks she can change the rules, ho ho ho.  They -- and the DNC, apparently -- still think that "seating" the FLA and MI delegates by giving them a convention pass only after Obama has reached the not-magic number of 2025 will solve all problems.

    The sad (to me) fact is that even seating MI and FLA as is will probably not get Clinton the nomination.  The supers may be a tad worried about the WVA results, but they don't have the guts to back Clinton now.  What no one seems to be focusing on over there in Donna-Howard-Obama Land is that this isn't about giving Clinton an edge -- the time when seating MI and FLA might have made a difference in the primary result is probably past -- it's about electoral legitimacy, and winning back the support of Democrats disenchanted with Obama.

    Donna Brazile can say that the party doesn't need working class whites to win the GE all she wants; she's wrong, and everyone but Donna ought to know it. People get pissed off when you tell them their support is superfluous to them.  People get pissed off when they called racist for not supporting someone whose surrogates say that their support is superfluous.  (Working class voters may be the Obama Movement's version of "Old Europe," but look what happened to the U.S. in Iraq without Old Europe's support.)  

    The burden is not going to be just on Clinton's supporters to rally to Obama's side.  Clinton herself will support Obama vigorously, as she's repeatedly made clear.  But Obama would be foolhardy to just assume that all Democrats will come home in the end.  He needs to woo them.  And tell Donna to stop appearing on TV.

    Parent

    andgarden, I find myself agreeing with you (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:06:12 PM EST
    so often. Pennsylvanians think alike?

    Parent
    I would go all in -- and threaten to run 3rd Party (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Exeter on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:16:11 PM EST
    And follow through with the threat if it doesn't happen.

    Parent
    Nah (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by BDB on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:30:06 PM EST
    The real threat is to fight seating delegates from caucus states.  If she has evidence that some of the caucuses violated the rules, and I'm betting she has at least a few affidavits from Texas, then the nuclear option is to fight seating them at the convention.

    Personally, I don't think she'd ever do this, but if you really want to go nuclear on the party that's how you could do it.  Expose the sham that is a democratic party caucus.

    Parent

    Hillary's goal is founded entirely in (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:50:39 PM EST
    putting a president in office who will undo the damage done by the bush administration and work tirelessly for the people.

    She's not an activist for shaking up the democratic party.

    Parent

    yeah... (none / 0) (#84)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:43:24 PM EST
    I mean, if I'm a Clinton surrogate on the committee, I'm going to demand a vote that all rules of the party be strictly enforced without exception....

    ...and I'm also going to stand up for the VOTERS of Michigan, and demand to know why Michigan politicians are sacrificing the will of their own voters in order to guarantee seats for themselves....

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#124)
    by BDB on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:05:56 PM EST
    I don't care what Brazile and other democrats say, the last thing they want is a strict enforcement of all party rules.  It's like when police contracts are up, they can't strike so they go to middle class and upper class neighborhoods and start enforcing all of the traffic and other laws.  

    Parent
    I can promise (none / 0) (#203)
    by Leisa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:48:14 PM EST
    that I witnessed illegal voting in my precinct convention/caucus in TX...

    Parent
    a compromise (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by Kathy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:35:29 PM EST
    means that neither candidate is happy, but both can live with it.  I have yet to see a compromise floated that does this.

    It should be very telling that Obama is so adamantly against a revote.  When the path you see to victory means that people are not allowed to have their voices heard, that is not a democracy.

    Parent

    Hilary doesn't need to compromise (none / 0) (#195)
    by Exeter on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:38:51 PM EST
    Michigan and Florida both had fair, officially sanctioned governmental elections. Michigans uncommitted delegates can vote for Obama if they want.

    Parent
    WAS. (none / 0) (#217)
    by ghost2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:56:51 PM EST
    It's too late for a revote now.  

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:58:12 PM EST
    The public meeting will be a showcase for whatever decision they have already made.

    Parent
    Showcase? (none / 0) (#166)
    by litigatormom on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:23:32 PM EST
    Or scary demonstration of how sausage is made?

    Parent
    Public to protect Obama (none / 0) (#232)
    by ineedalife on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:59:43 PM EST
    This will hamstring Clinton's group and prevent them  from making any strenuous argument that will hurt Obama. The media will be there to see that the Precious is properly coddled.

    Parent
    My bet (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by DCDemocrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:50:33 PM EST
    My bet is that they will come up with a compromise that will maximize Hillary's take of delegates while preventing Obama from suffering yet another humiliating defeat.  They will do the math in the way that seats lots of Hillary's delegates and guarantees Obama the nomination.

    I don't think that's going to fly with (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:58:56 PM EST
    the Hillary campaign at all.  I wish the Roolz committee lots of luck if that's their plan.  Did you notice Wolfson's face lately, nobody is railroading him and he says that Obama took his name off the ballot in Michigan because he knew he was going to lose. And Wolfson is ready to duke this out completely.  Donna looked like she wished he'd drop dead last night.

    Parent
    she looked like she wanted to kill him (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by bjorn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:00:02 PM EST
    herself

    Parent
    Is their a video of that somewhere... (none / 0) (#45)
    by cosbo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:13:29 PM EST
    haven't seen it, or the one from last week for that matter when she was called out by Campbell Brown.

    Parent
    Anderson Cooper (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Kathy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:37:08 PM EST
    actually used the word "disenfranchised" to describe FL and MI.  Donna corrected him, but my ears perked up when he said it.

    Coop can be a bulldog when he wants to.  It'll be interesting to see where he falls in this discussion going forward.

    Parent

    How did Donna "correct" him? (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by litigatormom on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:29:23 PM EST
    Did she say that MI and FLA voters violated the rules? Well, she couldn't say that.  Did she drag out the old saw about how if MI and FLA voters are pissed off, they should punish their party leaders the next time any of them are up for re-election?  Because that's really not a good remedy for being locked out of a primary fight that is almost over. Did she say that FLA and MI voters are somehow guilty by principles of respondeat superior for the alleged "violations" of their party leaders?** That would be novel.  Did she acknowledge that The ROOLz didn't require or even authorize the DNC to penalize MI and FLA by taking away all their delegates?

    So how exactly did she "correct" him?

    **Respondeat superior is the principle by which employers can be held liable for torts committed by their employees while acting within the scope of their employment.  

    Parent

    I think this is the video (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Josmt on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:29:54 PM EST
    Try noquarter (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:32:14 PM EST
    Here's Wolfson and Brazile.  Watch her face.  It was interesting that CNN kept going back to her.

    Parent
    check (none / 0) (#221)
    by ghost2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:05:57 PM EST
    Taylor Marsh.  She had it on a front page post yesterday.

    Parent
    Keep hammering that point home (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:51:19 PM EST
    We expect that
    the DNC will act in the best interests of the Party, which is to act in a way that helps the Party win in November

    Count the votes.

    And get some lost donations back (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by BarnBabe on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:27:08 PM EST
    Everytime I refuse them or send their envelopes back empty, I tell them why I will not donate any more to them. If others have done this, I suspect their fund raising is hurting. And people are probably donating directly to Obama as I do to Hillary. But no DNC. Yep, we shall see if the wallet approach hurt. Maybe not enough yet.

    Parent
    I (5.00 / 4) (#177)
    by sas on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:28:09 PM EST
    have sent back two DNC requests for money this week (disguised as a survey) .  No donations in either.

    They asked what I thought of Dean's 50 state strategy.  I crossed out the 50 and changed it to 48, since Michigan and Florida have been left out.

    They asked if the press and media were biased for the left or the right.  I crossed that out and put "Biased in favor of Obama".

    They asked whether I thought vote suppression by the Republicans would be an issue in the fall.  I wrote that vote suppression by Democrats against their own is a problem NOW.

    I also told them because of the comments and actions of supposed party leaders against Hillary that I was changing to Independent (which I am).

    I never thought I'd feel this way, but the party leadership is awful.

    Parent

    I (none / 0) (#178)
    by sas on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:28:09 PM EST
    have sent back two DNC requests for money this week (disguised as a survey) .  No donations in either.

    They asked what I thought of Dean's 50 state strategy.  I crossed out the 50 and changed it to 48, since Michigan and Florida have been left out.

    They asked if the press and media were biased for the left or the right.  I crossed that out and put "Biased in favor of Obama".

    They asked whether I thought vote suppression by the Republicans would be an issue in the fall.  I wrote that vote suppression by Democrats against their own is a problem NOW.

    I also told them because of the comments and actions of supposed party leaders against Hillary that I was changing to Independent (which I am).

    I never thought I'd feel this way, but the party leadership is awful.

    Parent

    I want to go (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by joanneleon on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:54:35 PM EST
    and stand outside the meeting chanting:
    "The whole world is watching"

    This thing had better be fair to Hillary.

    Solution (5.00 / 8) (#22)
    by Athena on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:02:41 PM EST
    1. Seat Florida as is.  All names were on the ballot.

    2. Redo the Michigan vote on August 5, 2008, when the state has its next scheduled primary.  Still in time for the convention.


    Parent
    Barack: Time to Face Michigan (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Athena on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:09:37 PM EST
    And here's what Hillary says about a Michigan revote: "Barack has not had a chance to compete for voters in Michigan.  I want to give him that chance."

    How is Obama going to say he doesn't want Michigan to be part of the nominatin process and is afraid of their voters?

    Parent

    Maybe that is why he is campaigning there (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by BarnBabe on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:28:02 PM EST
    I saw a blip that said he was campaigning hard in Michigan. Hmmm.

    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:38:18 PM EST
    I've been following that closely.  He has a lot of ground to make up in MI after the Sista Souljah routine he's repeatedly done on Detroit in his stump speech.  I wonder how they're reacting to his latest appearances.

    Parent
    Obama in Michigan (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:06:29 PM EST
    What a load of Cr*p this guy spews!

    LINK

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:10:08 PM EST
    I just saw this link.  Holy crap.

    I predict the TL commentariat is not going to be happy.

    Parent

    How about a synopsis. Link is blocked. (none / 0) (#134)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:11:30 PM EST
    Can't link to the video (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:14:45 PM EST
    "An unusual video clip from Sen. Barack Obama's tour of the Chrysler Stamping Plant in Sterling Heights, MI today.

    A reporter tries to question Obama about helping automakers.

    "Hold on one second there, sweetie," he says.

    The reporter's tag line: "This sweetie never did get an answer to that question."

    Parent

    Sweetie...just hold on (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:17:28 PM EST
    wow, the Bush factor on steroids.  The guy thinks he is president.  

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#156)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:19:01 PM EST
    I don't know that Bush is sexist.  He's disrespectful to everyone.

    Parent
    I agree. (none / 0) (#172)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:25:18 PM EST
    Bush is an equal opportunity hater. The only color he cares about is GREEN.

    Parent
    FOX is talking about it right now (none / 0) (#223)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:12:18 PM EST
    with Adam Smith, WA State. He says it is nothing in the greater scheme of things. Then, I'm pretty sure he's never been degraded.

    He's someone who shows up on my ballot. I hope he changes his alliance soon.

    Parent

    Rendall, right? (none / 0) (#137)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:11:52 PM EST
    Oh No He Didn't! (none / 0) (#168)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:24:17 PM EST
    He called her "sweetie!" I heard it and so did she!

    That female reporter was LIVID and deservedly so.

    Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#201)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:47:11 PM EST
    I can't wait to see what happens when the blogs start to pick this up.  I suppose anyone who gets offended is probably just PMS'ing, right?

    Parent
    Or periodically down! (none / 0) (#214)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:56:26 PM EST
    He's just (none / 0) (#219)
    by Leisa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:00:57 PM EST
    used to giggling female reporters on the plane with him.  Every loves me!  Me, Me, Me...

    Parent
    Obama says: (none / 0) (#159)
    by chancellor on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:19:41 PM EST
    "What we do is, tell us what the rules are and then we play by the rules," Obama said. "If I am fortunate enough to be the Democratic nominee, I'll have some say on what the rules are and I can guarantee we'll make sure that the Michigan delegates are seated."

    Sounds to me as though he's planning to announce that he is indeed the nominee before the Rules Committee meets.

    Parent

    what routine? n/t (none / 0) (#224)
    by Lil on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:13:38 PM EST
    Awesome! (none / 0) (#92)
    by magnetics on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:49:34 PM EST
    Why?? (none / 0) (#218)
    by dskinner3 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:58:13 PM EST
    Edwards, Obama, etc. supporters were urged to vote "Uncommitted" on the MI ballot. It was a big push to try to embarrass Clinton by having her lose to "Uncommitted," that failed. Those who took their names off the ballot do not deserve a revote for making a stupid tactical decision.

     If a revote were to take place, any voter who crossed over and voted (R) must not be allowed to vote in the (D) primary. 1 person, 1 vote. Simple.

    Parent

    That's funny (none / 0) (#138)
    by independent voter on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:12:19 PM EST
    Funny that it is your sentiment, and funny that it was high rated by so many. I thought the whole point was being fair to the VOTERS of FL and MI. AT least that is what so many here contend...everyone is just concerned about the voters having their say.

    Parent
    Obama prevented any fairness (none / 0) (#227)
    by joanneleon on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:22:02 PM EST
    to the voters.  He blocked any chance of a revote.

    So now, they'll all try to come up with some fair way of dividing the delegates.  Do you think there will be any fairness to the voters in that process?  

    We've also got Obama saying that he'll be the nominee, so he'll have some say in the decisions about MI and FL -- after he's the nominee -- in a process they had no say in!  I'm sure they'll be saying "oh yay!"  

    Oh, yes, that sounds fair to the voters to me!  How about you?!  I'm sure it's just fine with Obama supporters.

    Parent

    I guess you couldn't tell who I was (none / 0) (#228)
    by independent voter on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:37:29 PM EST
    responding to. To state "it better be fair to Hillary" certainly makes me question what the true motive here is, and it diminishes the argument that this process has been unfair to the voters. Do you understand now?

    Parent
    Will It Matter? (5.00 / 7) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:55:19 PM EST
    Obama intends to declare victory on May 20 after Oregon. If the uncommitted superdelegates agree and endorse him at that point, he will be declared the nominee. On May 31, he can say sure, seat MI and FL full strength.

    The important thing in my view is to seat FL and MI before the nomination is decided. Otherwise, it's a useless gesture.

    meaning (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:56:22 PM EST
    he will be declared the nominee by the media and party leaders...not officially.

    Parent
    If people listened to her response (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:05:19 PM EST
    to FOX's Major Garret interview this morning, they will understand the way this process was designed to work and why Hillary remains committed.

    If there truly is a declaration of victory by Obama, it seems that will provide the "last straw" for those who have said they will not vote for him in Nov. His case for victory is nowhere near as logical or within the rules as Hillary's case for continuing on is.

    Parent

    Obama's gestures are not new (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by thereyougo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:50:02 PM EST
    its same old hype he's been trying to minimize Hillary's winnings and latest thumping Tuesday. After NH, after all the little states he won. He wants  the perception so bad that he's the winner. Meanwhile Hillary keeps chipping away, evidence he doesn't believe in his own hype or we wouldn't see him in Michigan trying to get those illusive working class votes.

    He wants to win the image wars, he believes in the commercial for Nikon: image is everything

    somebody give this guy a reality check.

    He comes across like a slacker.

    Rise Hillary Rise !!

    Parent

    meaning that may 20 is florida 2000 (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by sancho on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:28:05 PM EST
    all over again, except this time it is the dems doing it to themselves. i dont seen how dems can vote for the winner of such a process. doing so strikes me as self-disenfranchising.

    Parent
    IMO that will blowback bigtime over the summer (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by Ellie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:28:28 PM EST
    I mentioned in a near full thread, while watching the late-night rerun of the race in WV, the contrast of TeamObama's media and HRC's media.

    HRC's seeding areas that she -- and surrogates -- could revisit in the GE and have bloom in a timely way. (Lots of face time with voters, good footage at nat'l and local level, good pics.)

    Obama won't walk as easily down HRC's blazed trail without blowback. His footage either have scrums chasing him around like he's Mr. Supahstah, or his SPEECH footage shows him using the Inspirational Voice to near snoozy audiences.

    It widens the credibility gap and widens the opportunities for people (even supporters) to start filling it or bridging it with What Went Wrong.

    Whether in WV or MI down the road, he'll come off looking like a politician there for a General Election booty call.

    Parent

    Shocked, shocked... (none / 0) (#146)
    by lambert on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:14:48 PM EST
    ... that the press would pick our candidate for us; or that a candidate would try to make that happen.

    Parent
    Interestingly (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:57:41 PM EST
    Unless he gets to 2209, such declarations will look bad and Clinton will not stop.

    I wonder if there will be such a declaration on May 20.

    Parent

    Howard Dean has now said (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:00:39 PM EST
    he will not accept any "math" that leaves out the Michigan and Florida delegates.

    Parent
    Various factions of the Party (none / 0) (#35)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:08:42 PM EST
    are drawing lines in the sand.

    On the one hand, it's absolutely exciting; on the other, it seems like a political game of chicken (with the potential for unfortunate outcomes).

    Parent

    As the Democrats Turn! (none / 0) (#91)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:49:16 PM EST
    If the stakes weren't so darn high, I'd be having the time of my life.

    Parent
    And only when his words are backed with action (none / 0) (#222)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:09:23 PM EST
    will the DNC donations start up again.


    Parent
    Should I be encouraged? (none / 0) (#226)
    by Lil on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:21:53 PM EST
    I can't tell anymore. When Hillary wins she loses. Whe Barack loses it all the rage that he will declare victory. I'm stumped.

    Parent
    After the WV and likely KY thumping (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:01:33 PM EST
    I think it would be unwise indeed.

    Parent
    It sure would be... (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:03:38 PM EST
    like dissing 17 million voters as racist, uneducated hillbillies with old, scary vaginas, then expecting them to vote for you.

    Obama would never do anything so stupid.

    Oh....wait.....

    Parent

    I couldn't have ever made such a perfect mess (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:06:35 PM EST
    out of anything in my life to the degree that the leadership has managed to do here.  Not even as a two year old and turned loose in a paint factory.

    Parent
    Wolfson (I think) has already begun conflating ... (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by dwmorris on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:10:54 PM EST
    a unilateral May 20th victory proclamation from Obama with Bush's "Mission Accomplished" stunt.

    Hopefully, they'll back down.

    Parent

    Wolfson (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:22:13 PM EST
    has been fantastic at staying on message with this.

    Her campaign has finally become worthy of her. Demoting/tossing Mark Penn and Patty Solis-Doyle were clearly the right moves.

    Parent

    Why would they back down? (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by lambert on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:13:19 PM EST
    Address our concerns, if you want us to back down.

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#173)
    by dwmorris on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:25:48 PM EST
    Hopefully the Obama campaign will back down and not unilaterally declare victory on 5/20.

    Parent
    I think lambert (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:38:54 PM EST
    thought you were talking about Wolfson backing down. :-)

    Parent
    I'm afraid he's going to... (none / 0) (#198)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:44:04 PM EST
    Here's today's spin from the Obama camp.
    Great piece of fiction

    TO: Interested Parties
    FR: The Obama Campaign
    RE: West Virginia and Obama's Strong Position in the Race Ahead
    DA: 5/13/08

    West Virginia

    There is no question that Senator Clinton is going to win by huge margins in the upcoming primaries in West Virginia today and Kentucky next weeks. She has poured resources into both states and she, former President Clinton, and Chelsea Clinton have all campaigned extraordinarily hard there.

    The Clinton campaign has already been touting their margins in these states - In fact, Bill Clinton said that Hillary can win West Virginia with 80 percent--and the West Virginia Senate Majority Leader said Clinton needs to win by "80-20 or 90-10." And in keeping large margins in perspective, it is worth noting that, while Senator Clinton will win big in West Virginia, Barack Obama won neighboring Virginia by 29 points.

    But with 49 contests behind us and only six to go -- including several states where we expect to do well -- Barack Obama leads in pledged delegates, contests won, and superdelegates. And for perspective, while 28 pledged delegates are up for grabs this evening, Obama has won the support of 27 superdelegates in the course of just the last week putting him less than 150 total delegates away from clinching the Democratic nomination.

    Obama's Strong Position in the Race Ahead

    Nationally, Obama is running stronger among Independent voters than any winning Presidential candidate since 1988 and is significantly outperforming Sen. Clinton among these voters as well in general election polling.

    To understand a potential general election match-up between Obama and McCain, the only analysis and data that should be considered valid are the current head-to-head National polls rather than extrapolating irrelevant assumptions from exit poll data in Democratic primaries.

    And, on the issue of Democratic unity in the Fall, analysts need only consider that in April of 1992, on a night when Bill Clinton won four primaries and was the presumptive nominee, 6 in 10 Democratic primary voters said they wanted another candidate in the race. Despite this, five months later, Democratic voters were unified behind Clinton and he won his first of two terms in office.

    Debunking Five Myths About Obama's Support

    MYTH 1: The Primary has left Democrats divided.

    FACT: Democrats are united behind Barack Obama, even more so than Republicans are united behind McCain

    • May 12 Washington Post poll shows that Obama wins 81% of Democrats in a matchup against John McCain.

    • Indeed, more Republicans crossover to vote for Obama (15%) than do Democrats for McCain (13%).

    · NOTE: In 1996, Bill Clinton won 84% of Democrats.

    MYTH 2: The Primary campaign has hurt Obama with swing voters and Republicans:

    FACT: Obama is winning the swing voters against McCain by a wide margin.

    * Obama holds a 51-42 lead among Independents in the Washington Post poll.

    · NOTE: Clinton loses 46-49 to McCain among Independents.

    * Not since 1988, when George Bush beat Michael Dukakis 57-43 among Independents, has a candidate won such a large margin among swing voters.

    · In his two victories, Clinton only managed a 6-point margin over the Republican among independents in 1992 and an 8-point margin in 1996.

    · Indeed, no Democrat has won a majority of Independent voters since exit polls were first conducted in 1976.

    MYTH 3: Obama cannot perform strongly enough among white voters:

    FACT: Obama's is running as well or better than past Democratic Candidates among white voters.

    * LA Times (May 8) Obama: 41

    McCain: 45

    * Wash Post (May 13): Obama: 42

    McCain: 51

    * 2004 Exit polls: Kerry: 41

    Bush: 58

    * 2000 Exit Polls: Gore: 43

    Bush: 54

    * 1996 Exit polls: Clinton: 43

    Dole: 46

    * 1992 Exit polls: Clinton: 39

    Bush: 41

    Perot: 20

    MYTH 4: The race against Clinton has compromised Obama's position among women:

    FACT: Obama has begun attracting the support of a broad coalition of women and is poised to win historic margins.

    * Wash Post (May 13): Obama: 54

    McCain: 40

    * New York Times (May 3) Obama: 47

    McCain: 39

    * NOTE: No Democratic candidate has won women by so large a margin since exit polling was first conducted in 1976. The closest any candidate has come was in 2000, when Al Gore won women 54-43 over George Bush

    MYTH 5: Obama cannot win working class voters:

    FACT: Obama is already winning working class voters

    * In the recent LA Times poll, Obama wins every income group under $100,000.

    Obama McCain

    · <$40K: 43 35

    · $40K-$59K 43 40

    · $60K-$100K 51 42

    · $101K+ 46 47

    * According to the Washington Post/ABC poll released today, despite Sen. Clinton's insistence that she is stronger among white, working-class voters the data shows that Sen. Obama performs nearly as well as she does in the general election. Among white, non-college voters in this poll:

    · Obama vs. McCain is 40-52

    · Clinton vs. McCain is 44- 52

    Parent

    What a bunch of crap. (none / 0) (#207)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:51:47 PM EST
    I expect no less from Obama now, unfortunately.

    • No, Bill did not say she could win WV by 80%.
    • Obama compares himself to everyone but Hillary Clinton, against whom he is, much to his regret, actually running instead of Bill Clinton, Michael Dukakis, John Kerry, etc. etc. etc.

    Meanwhile, Obama's team continues to pretend he can win HRC's Clinton Dem coalition by saying he's already winning it. No, he isn't...and no, he can't.

    Very, very sad.

    Parent

    Sam Stein analyzes whether (none / 0) (#209)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:53:22 PM EST
    Obama really needs the votes of Jews.  I didn't read it, but was astounded by the headline.

    Parent
    Whaaaaa? (none / 0) (#212)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:55:19 PM EST
    Yet another group of voters that are not good enough for the New Plutocratic Party?

    I'm flummoxed.

    Parent

    just finished a dnc conference call (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Klio on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:13:13 PM EST
    where the 'mathematically impossible' question was raised by someone in South Dakota.  What came out of the organizational explanation is that MI and FL will be seated in some fashion, but not at 100% so the number is neither 2025 nor 2209.  

    But I think it helpful, and also quite interesting, that seating all the states' delegations is being talked about openly now.  

    I had to correct the DNC lady who went on to say that Hillary  needed 90% of all remaining pledged delegates, pointing out that if they're agreeing to seat MI & FL in some fashion, though the percentages to be gained remain daunting it won't be 90%.  She agreed to the correction ....

    I'm sure someone knows this, but what is Obama's rosiest delegate scenario on May 20th?

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#95)
    by Lou Grinzo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:50:34 PM EST
    I think what you heard tells us exactly how it will go (as did Jeralyn above): The DNC will cook the books in a way that they can seat MI and FL without changing the outcome.  

    Obama will be anointed the nominee.

    The talking points from his supporters will instantly shift to: If Obama wins less than 48 states in November it's all the fault of Clinton's supporters, and they should be lashed with a wet noodle, or some such.

    Personally, I've made peace with this a while ago.  I voted for Clinton in the NY primary, simply because I thought she would make the best president among those still in the race.  If Obama becomes our nominee, no matter how much I think the process stinks on ice, I will still vote for him, as I refuse to give any support whatsoever to McCain and the SC nominees he will pick.

    I don't like how this is shaking out, but I see no way even the Clintons and all of their supporters can overcome the DNC's intent.

    Parent

    Popular vote totals (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:55:03 PM EST
    could be a very convincing argument. Let's wait to see how it shakes out.

    I understand EXACTLY what you're saying here, but I really think HRC could pull it off.

    And if Obama really does declare victory on May 20th, all bets are off.

    Parent

    I think they'll stay on the path (none / 0) (#19)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:01:17 PM EST
    to electoral suicide and uselessly coronate himself on May 20th.

    I will be very happy, and more likely to vote for him, if Obama cancels that plan.

    Parent

    That sounds like a circus sideshow (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:10:18 PM EST
    Yes, allow the votes but only after we select a nominee, and they don't matter.

    If they don't affect the outcome of the election then why even bother with this obvious pandering.

    Parent

    Am I mistaken (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:09:55 PM EST
    Or don't the rules provide that the person with the 50% +1 of delegate votes cast at the Convention is the nominee?  And aren't super-delegates free to change their minds as many times as they want up until the official vote?


    Parent
    You Are Not Mistaken (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by BDB on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:13:13 PM EST
    In fact, not only can SDs change their mind, so can pledged delegates.  Until the convention votes, there is no nominee.  There is only a presumptive nominee.

    Parent
    Yup - I plan to ignore any (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:26:09 PM EST
    proclamations of victory until then.  

    Parent
    so he would say seat them and let them (none / 0) (#11)
    by bjorn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:57:56 PM EST
    count, but the number is still 2025?  That would be the same as not seating them, right?

    Parent
    how do you know he intends to do so? (none / 0) (#14)
    by coigue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:59:25 PM EST
    Washington Post said so (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:02:22 PM EST
    here:

    The Obama campaign calculates that a victory May 20 in Oregon will give the Illinois senator a majority of pledged delegates to go with his lead in the popular vote, permitting him to declare victory despite losing West Virginia tonight and an expected loss in Kentucky on May 20.

    Have read it elsewhere too.

    Parent

    His 48 States (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Athena on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:04:42 PM EST
    Let him declare a 48-state victory.  The rest of us - and Hillary - are waiting for 50.

    Parent
    He's missing 9 (none / 0) (#33)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:06:40 PM EST
    according his math. ;-)

    Parent
    than most of you have been alive.  Last I heard, it was not the custom for a candidate to declare victory at all.  The victor waited off stage until after the last roll call vote--in fact, after the roll call vote to formally make the nomination unanimous.

    Parent
    It's that new kind of politics! (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by lambert on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:16:58 PM EST
    Get close enough to make a plausible case, make the claim, lie back, and let our famously free press start fluffing!

    Fine word, "legitimate"....

    Parent

    Look at McCain. (none / 0) (#160)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:20:41 PM EST
    With a lead of more than 1200 over Mike Huckabee, he is still the "presumptive nominee." That's the way it's done.

    Parent
    that says nothing of his intentions (none / 0) (#29)
    by coigue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:05:36 PM EST
    Try this link below. (none / 0) (#36)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:08:46 PM EST
    thanks (none / 0) (#46)
    by coigue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:13:37 PM EST
    Majority of pledged delegates is different (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:06:20 PM EST
    that is not 2025 and if FL and MI are not counted he can not even claim that.

    Parent
    He Can Claim Anything He Wants (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by BDB on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:21:40 PM EST
    And as I understand it, his plan is to declare victory on May 20th because he believes he will have won the majority of pledged delegates (not counting MI & FL) and believes he will have enough SDs to get to 2025.

    Is that right?  No.  Has he really won?  No.  

    That's why I keep calling it his Mission Accomplished plan.  He's simply going to declare victory and hope the party goes along.  Now, any self-respecting party would not only NOT go along, it would lessen his chances of being the nominee.  Thankfully for Obama he's a democrat so self-respect won't enter into it.

    Parent

    I think Hillary's victory and (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:29:36 PM EST
    especially her speech last night will effectively keep the SDs int he freezer until June.  
    The subtext of her tone and speech was 'don't you dare do this before it is over.  I will bury you.'

    Parent
    And frankly, if he can get it, he should go ahead and agree on FL and MI cuz he will then get 2210.

    Parent
    Looks Like He Isn't Going to Make It (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by BDB on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:11:04 PM EST
    Childers is a Super D. How ironic. (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:17:10 PM EST
    Sheesh! (none / 0) (#99)
    by magnetics on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:53:40 PM EST
    I could be wrong (none / 0) (#24)
    by standingup on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:04:28 PM EST
    but I thought Obama had been backing off the May 20 declaration recently.  I'll have to do some checking but I could swear there were statements that suggested he had recognized the potential for that creating more of a problem than it would solve.  

    Parent
    On NPR this a.m., they played a recording (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:16:28 PM EST
    pf a man in Missouri asking if Obama would select "Mrs. Clinton" as his VP.  Obama sd. it would be presumptious of him to talk about that before he gets the nomination.  

    Parent
    I believe it might (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by standingup on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:50:54 PM EST
    have been some of the comments made on May 9 that are covered in this from the Chicago Tribune.  

    Still, Obama brushed aside a new Time magazine cover with the words "And The Winner Is..." on a grinning picture of the senator.

    "I don't want to be jinxed. We've still got some work to do," Obama responded.

    But the campaign plans to drum in the idea that he is, in fact, the victor by marking a series of milestones in the coming weeks.

     

    Possibly a little more wishful thinking on my part than anything else.  I was on vacation in NYC an just catching bits and pieces of the news.  I was hoping Obama was smart enough to allow all the states to finish the primary voting since we are so close to the end.  I believe any sort of premature announcement will only work to further alienate and divide the party for the general election.  

    Parent

    Seems to have turned off WV voters (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:58:08 PM EST
    big time.

    Parent
    That would be the equivalent of the (none / 0) (#194)
    by felizarte on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:37:53 PM EST
    MISSION ACCOMPLISHED sign of W. Bush.

    Parent
    Is this really still the plan? (none / 0) (#225)
    by Lil on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:15:15 PM EST
    Clinton holds all the cards - I only hope she's .. (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by dwmorris on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:00:00 PM EST
    tough enough to use them.

    The Obama-controlled Party establishment desperately wants her out ASAP and Clinton has a solid argument for taking it to the convention.

    If she will just hold her ground, they will be forced to seat all of her delegates (no penalties) and give her some space for an honest debate with the SDs on electability.

    If Obama wins fair-and-square under these circumstances, I won't be happy but I can probably support him.

    If this Party takes away the nomination (5.00 / 8) (#17)
    by masslib on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:00:22 PM EST
    from Hill and she has the pop vote(I think she will) they will have taken away the nomination from the far stronger candidate, winner of the swing voters, winner of the big electoral states, winner of the swing states, and winner of registered Democrats, and of course, the first female candidate for President.  All the NARALs and VP positions in the world ain't going to help.

    but Obama is entitled to be the nominee (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Josey on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:10:54 PM EST
    because he won red states, avoids small towns, and is a cash cow for the Dem Party.
    ;>


    Parent
    He's a cash cow until John McCain becomes (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by masslib on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:12:26 PM EST
    President.  Then that well will dry up.  

    Parent
    And in doing so - (1.00 / 2) (#73)
    by minordomo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:34:08 PM EST
    - will have given it to the candidate who won by the rules, fair and square. Wow, imagine that.

    On the other hand, imagine if they changed the rules half way (from delegates to popular vote), thus depriving the AA candidate who actually won the most delegates of the nomination... any idea what that would do (1) to the general election, and (2) to the AA voting block in future elections?

    It's a good thing we had rules agreed at the outset so we're not burdened with having to make up new ones right now, eh?

    Parent

    Yawn. (none / 0) (#78)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:37:28 PM EST
    Make up some new lies, please.

    These are getting very, very old and boring.

    Parent

    Please specify what was a lie.n/t (1.00 / 2) (#81)
    by minordomo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:41:35 PM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    Changing the rules halfway is a lie (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by jfung79 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:48:47 PM EST
    The rules allow superdelegates to choose based on their own criteria.  If they decide based on popular vote, that is their right.  

    Parent
    It certainly is their right. (none / 0) (#106)
    by minordomo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:56:44 PM EST
    And in exercising that right, they are trending heavily toward Obama.

    http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html

    Check out the little graph along the left.

    Parent

    Then they're not changing the rules (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:53:48 PM EST
    halfway, are they?

    Buh-bye now.

    Parent

    The superdelegates are not - (none / 0) (#231)
    by minordomo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:53:57 PM EST
    - but Hillary and her supporters sure would love to change them rules, wouldn't they? Hence all that talk about making a case about the popular vote at the convention. Fortunately, however, there were rules in place in advance, so we're spared the hassle of making stuff up at this point.

    Parent
    lies... (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:49:09 PM EST
    the lie is that Obama wins because he wins the most delegates in caucuses and primaries.

    that is not the case.  A lead in pledged delegates is ireelevant if it isn't equal to 50% plus 1 of the total number of delegates.  

    So please go back to Dkos and come up with some new lies.   Everyone here has already heard these old ones dozens of times already.

    Parent

    Still don't see what the lie was - (1.00 / 1) (#115)
    by minordomo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:00:35 PM EST
    - because I didn't say that "Obama wins because he wins the most delegates in caucuses and primaries".

    Of course he needs both pledged delegates and superdelegates. And he's leading in both.

    Parent

    The most pledged delegates doesn't give you the (none / 0) (#86)
    by masslib on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:44:27 PM EST
    win if you don't earn the required number.  

    Parent
    No, but the majority of delegates does.n/t (1.00 / 2) (#97)
    by minordomo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:53:33 PM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    No, you are incorrect (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:07:21 PM EST
    Or purposefully inaccurate. The majority of whatever gives you nothing in the current rules.

    Well, maybe a hardy handshake.

    Parent

    Not sure what I'm missing here - (none / 0) (#135)
    by minordomo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:11:39 PM EST
    - but the majority of all delegates nets the nomination in the current rules, far as I understand it.

    Parent
    My bad apologies (none / 0) (#157)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:19:20 PM EST
    I misread, the majority of ALL delegates does (which is 2025 or 2209), but majority of pledged delegates does not. I was reading something about Obama's "victory" declaration and brundled the two together...

    Parent
    May 20 will be telling (none / 0) (#233)
    by DWCG on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:52:16 AM EST
    On the same day Obama will be claiming the majority of pledged delegates, Clinton can likely claim she's taken over the popular vote, if she wins by the 150K or so votes in Kentucky and at worse only loses by 50-65K votes in Oregon.

    I think it sets up a great frame to argue that the superdelegates are overturning the will of the people.  I think that's exactly where this is heading.

    Parent

    Here's a list of the RBC members. (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by wurman on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:05:31 PM EST
    It may help in that commenters here can identify any of the members known to them & "guess-timate" opinions.

    First, the link to a quick PDF. [List below modified by me to eliminate PDF format]

    RULES COMMITTEE Chairs
    Sunita Leeds
    Mary Rose Oakar
    David Walters
      [Here's a link to the DNC "very short bios" for the 3 chairs.

    Party Leaders and Elected
    Officials

    Reginald Weaver
    Carol Alvarado
    Joe Carmichael
    Michael Coleman, Mayor
    Kevin Conlon
    Rev. Luis Cortes
    Donald Dunn
    Irma Esparza
    Bishop David Evans
    Joe Garcia
    Deborah Groene
    Cinda Hughes
    Kate Hughes
    Sandi Jackson, Alderman
    Sheila Johnson
    Evan Low, Council Member
    Claire Lucas
    David Mack, State Representative
    Bishop Vashti McKenzie
    Regina Montoya
    Roy Neel
    Don Roman
    Bren Simon
    Art Terrazas
    Wilma Webb
    Sam Yoon, City Councilor

    It Looks Like Brazile Was Moved Off (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by BDB on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:24:15 PM EST
    Of course on CNN she made it sound like she was still on the Committee.

    Parent
    Roy Neel... (none / 0) (#43)
    by Dawn Davenport on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:13:11 PM EST
    ...was high up in Dean's staff during Dean's presidential run; didn't he take over from Trippi after Trippi quit?

    Parent
    Since we've been discussing (none / 0) (#123)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:05:53 PM EST
    voting blocs (asian, black, so forth), it looks to me like the hispanics are pretty well represented.  (And I am not a racist!  Just going by names, if that's forgivable.

    Parent
    Donna Brazile is a cancer (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by The Realist on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:06:48 PM EST
    I just posted a bit about her reported DNC shenanigans.

    very, very sad (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by bjorn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:10:09 PM EST
    As a gay person I am disgusted by her actions.

    Parent
    Me too, And (none / 0) (#52)
    by The Realist on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:19:43 PM EST
    She is one of us.

    Parent
    that is what I thought (none / 0) (#57)
    by bjorn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:23:08 PM EST
    she is totally incomprehensible

    Parent
    It's the Lynne Cheney syndrome. (none / 0) (#72)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:31:43 PM EST
    If you're in a minority group, you feel you must self-loathe in order to be part of the power structure.

    Parent
    you mean (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by The Realist on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:35:02 PM EST
    Mary?

    Parent
    Heh. Yes indeed. (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:36:43 PM EST
    Mary is out, at least.

    Lynne...well, let's just say her penning of a lesbian love novel doesn't give me confidence that she is 100% honest about her sexuality. ;-)

    Parent

    Lynn Cheney's novel was shrieking good fun (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Ellie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:57:07 PM EST
    Some really hot examples of Lynn's pioneering spirit as expressed through pioneering women getting down to what such women do when left alone in a log cabin but no men around to hold'em back.

    Phew. I had to work it off on the butter churn (the olden days version of a cold shower and running a marathon.)

    Parent

    Somehow as a straight woman... (none / 0) (#117)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:01:26 PM EST
    it would not occur to me to write such a novel.

    Go figure. ;-)

    Parent

    roflmao (none / 0) (#82)
    by The Realist on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:41:53 PM EST
    ZZZZiiiinnnnggggg!

    Parent
    Is she (none / 0) (#63)
    by LoisInCo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:27:16 PM EST
    "officially" one of us or is it just a rumour?

    Parent
    She is out and proud (none / 0) (#67)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:28:40 PM EST
    as far as I know.

    Parent
    I say (none / 0) (#71)
    by The Realist on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:31:35 PM EST
    replace her with Hillary Rosen. She is one sharp, out lesbian.

    Parent
    she may be gay (none / 0) (#87)
    by Kathy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:44:52 PM EST
    but she is not one of us.

    Parent
    I don't understand (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Josey on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:16:13 PM EST
    How would gays be offensive to the civil rights movement?

    Dean:
    "I wanted equal representation for gay and lesbian Americans," he said, "and I wanted to achieve it in a way that wasn't offensive to the history of the civil rights movement."

    Parent

    HUH? (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:19:39 PM EST
    Civil rights are civil rights. They don't offend anyone except bigots.

    I really don't understand that statement AT ALL.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#193)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:35:06 PM EST
    As an analogy, when the issue of whether to acknowledge the Armenian genocide comes up, some of the foremost opponents of calling it genocide have been Jewish groups like the ADL.  As a Jew myself, I actually find it sick, but I guess acknowledging other people's genocide would make us less special or something.

    The DNC under Dean has has a few embarrassing incidents with respect to GLBT issues.  One is the Brazile controversy referenced above - and in fact, if you check out the DNC's delegate selection rules, they have explicit rules relating to affirmative action on the basis of race, gender, etc., and then GLBT kind of gets tossed into the "other" category where there's no explicit mandate for affirmative action.

    There was also Dean's unfortunate appearance on the 700 Club where he misstated the Democratic platform by claiming it says marriage is between a man and a woman (it doesn't).

    There was also a flap when the DNC eliminated its GLBT outreach position, consolidating the role with some other minority outreach assignments.  For some, this left a bad taste.

    I've always been a fan of Howard Dean and the 50-state strategy, but it's sort of hard to defend this pattern of events.  I guess some Democrats feel like as long as the other party hates gays, all we have to do is be a little better than them.

    Parent

    obvious: (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:01:57 PM EST
    Dean is saying that the term 'civil rights' belongs to the movement for black civil rights.  Coin another phrase, please.  Maybe he'd prefer 'gay rights' (I am old fashioned; I still apply the term 'gay' gender free.)  

    Parent
    uhh (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by CST on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:04:53 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure the civil rights bill was for racial AND gender equality.

    Parent
    Did it work? (none / 0) (#192)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:34:30 PM EST
    And if we got gender equality, why did we need ERA?

    Parent
    Civil Rights (none / 0) (#216)
    by CST on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:56:41 PM EST
    I'd say it worked about as well for gender equality as it did for racial equality.  Which is to say, not well enough.  But civil rights was never specifically defined as a racial issue.  That's the whole point, it's called "civil" rights, not "black" rights.  As in, every civilian should have them, regardless of race, gender, etc..., or sexual orientation (DEAN).

    Parent
    The term 'civil rights' does not belong (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:16:15 PM EST
    to any particular group or movement.  Civil rights are being fought for all over the world every day.  It is insulting to people everywhere for anywone to commandeer that term.

    Parent
    You know, that statement (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:04:48 PM EST
    just put me over the edge. Now that there is no hope if a revote in FL I am changing my registraiotn back to Independent.  I can't be affiliated with a party this stupid.

    Parent
    1 of my problems lately (none / 0) (#229)
    by Lil on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:37:51 PM EST
    is feeling like an ally to other disenfranchised groups (my whole life) and not getting the same in return. I try to confront racism whenever I see it and I'm still waiting for the same courtesy in terms of sexism and homophobia. What I hear most now is that I am racist because I support Clinton and gay opression is not the same thing as race oppression. Yeah, I think we are dividing.

    Parent
    Party's Future Existence Depends on 5/31 (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by cdalygo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:26:48 PM EST
    Well having deregistered a democrat this week, I probably shouldn't comment. But as someone who has spent a lot of time and money with the democrats - not to mention votes - I'm going ahead anyway.

    If they do not honor these votes, they can kiss their party goodbye. It won't happen overnight - as much as I would like to see that - but it will be complete after this GE. (Even if Obama ekes out a victory, it will be without key constituencies. More to the point, he will replace the party with his folks from top to bottom and most of them are following an individual not a policy.)

    Here are the quickest ways for any government or organization to lose power :

    1. Not deliver. (That can be forgiven if people feel part of the process (see no. 2).

    2. Deny people the right to be part of the process. (Sometimes you can overcome that if you deliver (see no. 1));

    3. Do both 1 and 2 at the same time (my prediction for November 2008);

    I would argue that number 2 actually burns you more in the end than number 1. That's why we elevate due process to almost religion in the US (and I agree with it).

    "an open and public process" (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:42:19 PM EST
    I hope this is true but I will be surprised if it is.

    They rubber stamp their decisions in public (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:44:10 PM EST
    With Kangaroo courts and Saddam Hussein "elections" (aka, caucuses).

    Parent
    Can we all agree BTD is an A-list (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:49:45 PM EST
    blogger?  Not only is the Clinton campaign taking questions from him.  They are also listening and adapting.  Good show.

    A-... (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:02:50 PM EST
    because he won't admit Obama is unelectable yet.

    I keed! I keed!

    A+, in reality.

    Parent

    Good point. On the cusp though, IMO. (none / 0) (#125)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:06:05 PM EST
    Attending the May 31 meeting. (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by Iphie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:54:16 PM EST
    The May 31st meeting is open to the public and I am seriously considering going. I live in NYC and it is a very easy train ride to DC, making it a one day excursion (same is true for other big NE corridor cities like Boston and Philly). I throw that out there in case anyone else would also like to attend, we can begin to organize.

    how big is the room? (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:56:20 PM EST
    and is public comment allowed.  I have a few choice things I'd like to say about Donna Brazile that I can't say here... ;-)

    Parent
    According to Ms. Brazile (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Iphie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:24:24 PM EST
    herself last night on CNN, she didn't know which hotel would be hosting the meeting -- but I have to imagine that it will be a larger than normal room (or auditorium) given the increased interest. And I do believe they are taking public comment -- I'm not if that's in advance or not, I'll do a little research.

    Parent
    Why Should She (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by BDB on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:48:02 PM EST
    She isn't on the committee.

    Parent
    Well, (none / 0) (#230)
    by Iphie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:47:09 PM EST
    she was doing a lot of "we will decide" and "we will hear arguments" and "we welcome the public" so whatever her official position, it sure did sound like she was planning on taking an active roll.

    Parent
    An undisclosed location. Perfect. (none / 0) (#174)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:26:02 PM EST
    I almost want to make the trip just (none / 0) (#136)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:11:49 PM EST
    to watch you publicly comment on this. I hope you get to do it.

    Parent
    why didn't the Rules committee meet today? (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Josey on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:54:47 PM EST
    or last month?
    Did they purposely pick a date after Obama was projected to win and had declared himself the nominee?

    Yup. (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:06:45 PM EST
    They had to make sure whatever they do will not affect the outcome.  Just a big show.

    Parent
    Punt... (5.00 / 6) (#102)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:55:00 PM EST
    I have the feeling that the rules committee isn't going to do anything on the 31st but punt.

    The Puerto Rico primary is the next day, and I don't think that the rules committee is going to want to do anything that looks like a slap in the face to Clinton's Latin@ support.  

    ***
    I really wish Wolfson would start calling Obama the "presumptuous nominee"  ;-)

    Presumptuous nominee? (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:57:30 PM EST
    That is FANTASTIC!!! LOL

    Parent
    Dig this from (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by The Realist on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:20:48 PM EST
    no quarter usa

    Under Obama's proclamation, Hillary wins.

    wrong (none / 0) (#186)
    by ibextati on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:30:59 PM EST
    If HIllary wins 403 SD and Obama wins 386,SD, Obama will win the nomination easily because of his pledged delegate lead.

    Parent
    That is amazing! (none / 0) (#190)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:32:37 PM EST
    It just shows how much the caucuses have propped up Obama, doesn't it?

    I actually don't agree with this argument at all, but hey - HRC's camp are not the ones that have been putting it forth.

    I guess a staffer must have been doing Obama's "math" that day...;-)

    Parent

    BACK A WINNER (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by chopper on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:28:26 PM EST
    Superdelegates and the media need to open their eyes and stop coddling a loser.

    Hillary is ahead in the popular vote.  Remember what Pelosi said "the will of the people".

    Hillary is ahead in electoral votes.  The ones it takes to win in November.

    Hillary won most of the big states, again needed to win in November.

    Obama ticked off FL and MI by blocking their votes, which Hillary won overwhelmingly. Say what you want, the fact is Hillary won FL and MI.

    Obama ticked off TX voters by reversing Hillary's win in the primary with his corrupt caucuses. People don't like to be pushed, blocked, threatened, have documents stolen, etc. and forced out of caucuses unable to vote or have their vote overturned through corruption.

    Buyers remorse is setting in.  People are realizing Obama is a lot of hot air with no record of accomplishments, very poor judgement based on the fact that it took him 20 years to figure out his preacher is a racist, anti-American adulterer, when it took Oprah a very short time.

    And, based on his deals with indicted Rezko, his money laundering with other Chicago crooks.  And, his long-time friend and boss who help him launch his campaign, the unrepentant terrorist bomber, Ayers. The money men, Auchi, the Iraqi billionaire, the PLO people, and others.

    And, his continual lying about Hillary, her programs, plans, and thoughts.  Lying about his stand on Iraq, past and present.  He didn't hear the preacher, then he did.  He "doesn't" take lobbyist money. He tells Canada don't listen to him, it's only political rhetoric, and on and on.

    The superdelegates should realize that the popular vote represents the will of the people.  The electoral votes represent the chance of winning in November.

    The pledged delegate system is totally inequitable. The following tries to explain how delegates are based on square footage rather than population, which is absurd.

    The delegate-to-voter ratios among the states are anything but equal, even if we remove the superdelegates from the calculation. There is a rather striking violation of political equality. Voters in large states are underrepresented by delegate apportionment. In fact, among states that have held primaries to this point, those we might consider large (defined as having a population of at least four million) have a pledged delegate-to-voter ratio of 1 to 11,901 while in small states (those with a population of less than four million) the ratio is 1 to 8,753. It turns out, then, that even if there were no superdelegates (and no caucuses), the process of selecting delegates via primaries would distort the principle of one-person, one-vote.

    From: http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2008/04/a_qualified_defense_of_superde.php

    Florida Reps (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:31:25 PM EST
    Representing Florida will be:

    Raul Martinez, Clinton supporter and former Hialeah mayor who is currently running against Republican Lincoln Diaz-Balart for a House seat

    Janee Murphy, Obama supporter and DNC member

    And of course, Jon Ausman, uncommitted currently but former Kucinich supporter and DNC member who brought the appeal

    If Obama Were A Woman ... (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by ToughOnCrime on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:41:26 PM EST
    monkeys can be any "race" (none / 0) (#208)
    by Josey on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:53:03 PM EST
    we've been mocking one in the WH for the past 8 years.
    ;>


    Parent
    Obama camp announcing... (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by mike in dc on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:54:54 PM EST
    ...major endorsement at 6:30 PM EST tonight.

    Speculation is rife that it may be John Edwards.

    Why is that on-topic, you ask?

    Because his endorsement(if and when it happens) could affect the delegate race, especially with regard to Florida and Michigan.  Edwards picked up 13 pledged delegates in Florida, and if he endorsed Obama, Obama would be much more likely to be successful in arguing to have the 55 uncommitted Michigan delegates assigned to him.  Obama could have a net potential pickup of up to 87 delegates from a single endorsement.

    That would alter "the math" a bit.

    Heh (none / 0) (#220)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:03:35 PM EST
    If I had a delegate for every time the Edwards endorsement has been rumored, I'd be the nominee myself.

    Parent
    does it seem to you (4.75 / 4) (#58)
    by Josey on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:24:06 PM EST
    we're watching something like a coup that was decided a long time ago?
    Newly elected senators don't begin plotting a presidential run during their first month in office.
    Newbie senators aren't given the responsibility of handling important legislation like an Ethics reform bill.

    florida and michigan (1.00 / 1) (#50)
    by littlejake on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:18:37 PM EST
    you guys are getting mad at obama for the mich and fl disaster...but I do want to remind everyone that when the decision was made (which even at the time I thought was a really bad one), just about everyone except obama and maybe his mom, thought Hilary was going to win...the people who made the call -Mcaulife etc.- were and still are hilary supporters, and Hilary herself repeatedly said she supported the decision not to count fl and mi...

    I say this because the problem is not Hilary's or Obama's.  the problem is the democratic leaders are just so good sometimes at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory...whoever the candidate is.  

    By the way, the republicans just said the states that violated their rules could only seat half...no screaming, no headlines...which means even if the gop nomination had been close, there probably would not have been a big problem with the rogue states.  

    the democratic party needs to stop and think about the consequences of decisions they make...not because of any particular candidate but because of how politics can change quickly and they don't want to get caught alienating voters or candidates or donators...all of which is a potential danger here.

    Is there a macro for this comment? If (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by MarkL on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:20:13 PM EST
    so, I suggest tuning it for factuality.

    Parent
    huh? (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Josey on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:50:03 PM EST
    >>>Hilary herself repeatedly said she supported the decision not to count fl and mi...

    What was the alternative?  cancelling FL & MI primaries?
    Obama knew he couldn't win either state, and it was his supporters that pushed to change the penalty from 50% to 100%.


    Parent

    She did not say that actually (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:58:25 PM EST
    from Oct. 2007 (1.00 / 1) (#140)
    by The Realist on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:12:50 PM EST
    http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=John+DiStaso%27s+Granite+Status%3a+Hillary+%27weaseling %27+on+pledge%3f&articleId=6152bb2f-4817-4bf2-b4ee-20008faab1c7

    Before any primary had been held.

    The campaigns of Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden -- all of whom withdrew from the Michigan ballot -- are looking for a chink in Clinton's armor in New Hampshire, where she holds a 2-1 lead, according to recent polls. This was a clear opportunity to attack, and attack they did.

    But when one reads the August pledge, a legitimate question is raised.

    It states, "I, (name), Democratic candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential primary election or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina." It goes on to specifically say that "campaigning" will be as defined by "the rules and regulations" of the Democratic National Committee.

    It gives no specific definition of "participate," but the other campaigns say that, clearly, leaving one's name on the ballot falls within the plain meaning of the word.

    Dick Bouley, state chair for Bill Richardson called Clinton's decision "very disturbing. This is a person who claims to have leadership qualities and wants to lead the party -- and she pulls something like that, which could be very harmful to the New Hampshire primary."

    Bouley said it's "double-talk and a game of semantics. How is this not participating?"

    Parent

    Oy vey (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:29:50 PM EST
    does anyone even read the posts anymore? I write that Obama is determined to seat the delegates.

    Seems like you should be the one mad ay Obama.

    Parent

    Yes it will! (none / 0) (#2)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:48:16 PM EST
    Finally we agree BTD! Unity at last! :-)

    Most Likely Outcome (none / 0) (#56)
    by ibextati on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:23:06 PM EST
    DNC will seat all delegates but each delegate will have 1/2 vote at the convention, with Obama getting the 40% who voted uncommitted in MI. I don't think DNC will award all delegates full representation at the convention because those states did break the rules and must be punished. If they do award full representation, that will send dangerous precedence for future presidential primaries, where states moving their primaries ahead IA or NH without facing any consequences.

    Trust me, (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by The Realist on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:29:26 PM EST
    After this debacle, there will not be a next time. Dean and Brazile are on their way out, after this. They have disenfranchised too many voters and  put too many politico's career's on the line with this, and if Obama is the nominee and he loses the GE, they are gonners for sure.

    Parent
    Baloney (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by herb the verb on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:53:39 PM EST
    Those states have already been punished enough. The votes in those states have had zero effect in influencing the direction of this race.

    That was the DNC's goal in the first place, to keep them from big-footing SC and influencing the race. Mission accomplished.

    Seat them already, with a promise from them that they will change their primary date to the DNC's satisfaction, and if they do not, their delegates WILL NOT be seated next time.

    Parent

    FL didn't break the rule - (none / 0) (#116)
    by Josey on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:00:52 PM EST
    only the purpose of the rule which was to schedule primaries after the first 4 states had voted.
    FL primary was after the first 4 states.


    Parent
    Why didn't (none / 0) (#60)
    by coolit on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:24:29 PM EST
    Clinton just take her name off the ballot in all the caucus states?  That way people couldn't count the vote totals because "her name wasn't even on the ballot"

    If i know the DNC, (none / 0) (#66)
    by Left of center on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:28:36 PM EST
    they will figure out a way to screw this up.
    As Mike Dukakis might say, they're IN THE TANK for Obama.

    2025 (none / 0) (#79)
    by cannondaddy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:37:45 PM EST
    Is likely that Obama will be very close to reaching this before May 31.  He is 135 away right now.  Probably get fifty delegate from KY/OR.  With 4-5 Superdelegates declaring every day he will close to less than 30 delegates from achieving the 2025 number, maybe even be over.  

    The delegates in question should be seated in some form.  But I doubt it would be politically possible at that point for the the nomination to go to Hillary.

    2210 is the number that matters (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:57:46 PM EST
    Start calculating when Obama gets that with FL and MI included.

    Parent
    Yeah, but if he gets to 2025 (none / 0) (#154)
    by cannondaddy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:17:29 PM EST
    before the May 31... Don't the actual DNC rules call for half seating for this type of violation?

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#170)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:24:53 PM EST
    Not for Florida anyway.

    Parent
    Pledged delegates remaining . . . (none / 0) (#155)
    by wurman on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:17:50 PM EST
    KY = 60
    PR = 63

    OR = 65
    SD = 23
    MT = 25

    236 total.  At a 50/50 split, Sen. Obama falls short on the pledged number.

    Green Papers (link)
    "Soft" (Pledged + Unpledged) Delegate Votes
    (FL, MI sanctioned)
    Need to Nominate    2,026.0
    B Obama                1,883.5
    H Clinton                1,716.0
    (available)                431.5
    J Edwards                  19.0
    No Preference 0.0
    Total                      4,050.0

    He's 142.5 short, even with his pledged & superdelegate count.

    Parent

    Dean and the DNC will be just fine (none / 0) (#89)
    by Joshuasolom on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:48:49 PM EST
    I've been reading TalkLeft for a long time but this is my first time commenting.  I don't understand a lot of the confusion and complaining here.  

    Michigan and Florida broke the rules and have suffered consequences for that (I think rightfully so).  Originally, when Dean and the DNC decided to punish the two states by stripping them of their delegates I didn't hear Hillary Clinton's campaign complain.  

    Can anyone find a Clinton campaign complaint about Michigan and Florida BEFORE she started losing the nomination?  Back when she was the inevitable candidate the states were irrelevant.  

    To imply that there is some sort of Obama/DNC conspiracy is laughable.  Come on.  He's barely winning as it is.  Clearly the majority of the Democratic Party establishment has only recently been partial to Obama.  Two months ago Hillary Clinton had 100 more party leaders  (superdelegates) supporting her than Obama did.

    I've donated to Clinton's campaign and volunteered for it as well.  I am a fan.  But she is obviously losing and that's not Obama's fault.  It's not Michigan and Florida's fault or the DNC's fault or a supposedly biased medias fault.  

    It's because her strategy didn't work and her message has only begun to really resonate recently.  Maybe too little too late.  On May 31 I hope they seat half of MI and FL delegation just like the Republicans did in the first place.  Then, if Hillary can't magically pull out this nomination, I hope she enthusiastically supports Barack.

    Josh
    joshuasolom@gmail.com


    "Yes I can" (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:11:29 PM EST
    Press Release from 1/25/08 (4 days before the Florida and Michigan primaries)

    LINK

    Statement by Senator Hillary Clinton on the Seating of Delegates at the Democratic National Convention

    "I hear all the time from people in Florida and Michigan that they want their voices heard in selecting the Democratic nominee.

    "I believe our nominee will need the enthusiastic support of Democrats in these states to win the general election, and so I will ask my Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan. I know not all of my delegates will do so and I fully respect that decision. But I hope to be President of all 50 states and U.S. territories, and that we have all 50 states represented and counted at the Democratic convention.

    "I hope my fellow potential nominees will join me in this.

    "I will of course be following the no-campaigning pledge that I signed, and expect others will as well."

    Parent

    I stand corrected. (none / 0) (#147)
    by Joshuasolom on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:14:54 PM EST
    That makes me feel better about the woman that could.  Thanks for that find.  

    Still not so sure why Big Tent Democrat out and out attacked me on my very first comment on this blog.  Welcome to me I guess??

    Parent

    maybe because you're not aware (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Josey on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:21:50 PM EST
    of Obama's efforts to not count the votes?
    He's rejected all plans. Maybe to run out the clock?
    He refused to accept the 40% of uncommitted MI votes. And instead wanted it split 50-50 - resulting in Hillary losing 5% and him gaining 10%.
    That's as "fair and balanced" as Obamedia.


    Parent
    Playing Politics (none / 0) (#179)
    by Joshuasolom on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:28:12 PM EST
    I'm not defending Obama.  I think they're both playing politics and it makes the party look bad.  I was just offering an alternative point of view.  If Hillary (whom I support and voted for here in Illinois by the way) had managed to actually win more delegates it wouldn't be an issue at all.  It is only an issue now because of politics, not because Hillary (or Obama, obviously I guess) feels strongly that all 50 states need to be counted.

    Parent
    Hillary's press release (none / 0) (#200)
    by Josey on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:46:14 PM EST
    was Jan. 25, 4 days before the FL primary.

    "I believe our nominee will need the enthusiastic support of Democrats in these states to win the general election, and so I will ask my Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan. I know not all of my delegates will do so and I fully respect that decision. But I hope to be President of all 50 states and U.S. territories, and that we have all 50 states represented and counted at the Democratic convention.

    Parent

    Thanks! (none / 0) (#148)
    by Josey on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:15:04 PM EST
    but this is wrong. FL was on Jan. 29 (correct) - but MI was some time prior.

    >>>Press Release from 1/25/08 (4 days before the Florida and Michigan primaries)

    Parent

    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:19:34 PM EST
    You're right -Michigan was Jan 15; Florida the 29th.

    My bad  :)

    Parent

    thanks for the MI date (none / 0) (#165)
    by Josey on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:22:38 PM EST
    Obviously you have NOT been reading (4.20 / 5) (#105)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:56:41 PM EST
    TalkLeft for a long time based on that comment.

    Parent
    really? (1.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Joshuasolom on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:04:49 PM EST
    Since October 2007.  Why would it be obvious based on that comment that I haven't been reading?  Do you have a magic computer?

    Parent
    why should FL Dems be penalized (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Josey on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:12:21 PM EST
    for a trick intentionally created by the FL Republican legislature?

    Parent
    Because you ask questions (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:24:07 PM EST
    that have been answered in great detail on the FL/Mi issue.

    Parent
    I really like your blog posts (none / 0) (#188)
    by Joshuasolom on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:31:35 PM EST
    Mr. (or Miss) Big Tent Democrat.  That's why I read this site.  I was responding to people's commentary on this specific blog today.  I really am sorry if I offended you but I think you are a little off base swinging around accusations right out of the gate.

    Parent
    The Party's over (none / 0) (#108)
    by Oldman Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:57:24 PM EST
    I think that the Democrats are on course to lose the general election no matter who the nominee.
    If Obama becomes the nominee, the argument being made by the Clintons is Obama can't win the white (working class) vote, there's definitely some truth that America is not yet ready for a non-white president, this may now be resonating with those whites that had no racial issues with voting for him. He has become damaged goods and perception will become reality. Of course he is a muslim and that doesn't help either. (a little sarcasm)
    If Hillary wins without the lead of the pledged delegates and the popular vote without counting Michigan and Florida the election goes to the repubs. John Mccain gets to say how the Clintons view the rules as only for others not the Clintons (those eletist) and black voters can feel cheated by the party establishment. Black voters can change the election in key Blue states with low turnout. This puts in play DC 3 electorial college votes, PA 21 votes, NJ 15, Mich 17, IL 21 and MD 10 and without the black vote in the south I doubt any red states turn blue. Not to mention Obamas young vote realizing that politics has nothing to do with democracy and they stay home.
    The good news is that congress should pick up a bigger Dem majority in both houses. Let's say it one more time, gridlock.

    x (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:24:55 PM EST
    Hillary has an excellent chance of winning the popular vote, whether FL and MI are counted or not. Right now, after the WV vote, she has a 269,502 popular vote lead with FL/MI counted. If they are not counted, she is down 353,579. Kentucky will drop that down by half. Obama won't make all that up in Oregon because he won't get a 20-30 point victory there. I predict a single digit win. Then there is the biggest primary left - Puerto Rico - which Clinton is expected to handily win. That state will blow away any remaining number he is still up by large margins. Again, she WILL have the popular vote when this is over.

    Something else no one seems to be paying attention to is that Hillary already has won more congressional delegations than Obama has. Since cd's are roughly equal, that is another metric that should be considered.

    Pledged delegates are suspect, as we all know, since they have no relation to the number of voters. Please check out the number of votes per delegate for Wyoming or Alaska as compared to the number of votes it takes to earn 1 delegate in California. That alone should tell you how undemocratic pledged delegates are.

    Yes, I know pledged delegates are in the Democratic Party's very undemocratic rules. But if no one gets to the magic number, more people are going to be satisifed with how the actual voters voted.

    Parent

    but according to RCP - (none / 0) (#215)
    by Josey on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:56:39 PM EST
    Obama leads by 80K - counting FL & MI - and caucuses.
    http://tinyurl.com/2hbf4a


    Parent
    why should Obama be entitled (none / 0) (#129)
    by Josey on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:09:27 PM EST
    to the nomination because he gamed the caucuses and won red states that will stay red in Nov?
    Yet he can't win swing states required to win in Nov.
    Organizing was a cinch for Obama using the FaceBook crowd, but the "most electable" candidate involves more than a numbers game.

    Parent
    That's true. (none / 0) (#199)
    by sweetthings on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:45:35 PM EST
    It involves money. Lots and lots and lots of money.

    Parent
    that's why we need a rockstar for president? (none / 0) (#204)
    by Josey on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:50:00 PM EST
    Go Britney!


    Parent
    Sort of. (none / 0) (#213)
    by sweetthings on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:56:23 PM EST
    Personal wealth is handy, as Hillary has shown - but it's not enough. Much of Bill Clinton's success came because he was (and still is, to a degree) a fundraising dynamo. That guy could collect money like nobody else could. Hillary's no slouch, mind you, but this is one area where Obama seems to have her firmly on the ropes, and I fear it's one that Supers watch closely.

    Parent
    If true (none / 0) (#163)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:22:11 PM EST
    Just shows Edwards is weak - couldn't endorse before it would make a difference.

    That is pretty big. (none / 0) (#176)
    by wurman on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:26:35 PM EST
    If Edwards "releases" his delegates, they can drift to where they feel comfortable.

    If all go to Sen. Obama, his campaign will be over the 2026 after Oregon & possibly whatever the "compromise" number will be after dealing with FL & MI.

    edwards endorsement (none / 0) (#182)
    by The Realist on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:28:52 PM EST
    A month ago, that might have a big deal. I think most people are solid for either candidate. I could be wrong,though, as i often am.

    I've heard a lot of rumors (none / 0) (#191)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:34:17 PM EST
    of endorsements out of the Obama camp. Remember Gore and Carter?

    I'd be very surprised if this were true. But if it is, I'll also be very upset with Edwards.