home

Clinton Campaign Accepts FL/MI Broke Rules

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:03:33 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

In today's conference call, the Clinton campaign conceded any rules-based or fairness-based argument for the full seating of the Florida and Michigan delegations. The Clinton campaign declared that, unlike Iowa, NH and South Carolina, Florida and Michigan did indeed break the DNC rules and without justification. The Clinton campaign expressly disagreed with the Michigan Democratic Party's contention that the DNC had selectively enforced its rules by allowing New Hampshire and South Carolina to break the sanctioned primary schedule, that Florida was not entitled to a safe harbor or waiver, and that the DNC had acted properly and within the rules when it stripped Florida and Michigan of its delegates.

The Clinton campaign's only argument now seems to be that yes, rules were broken, but to help us in November, the RBC should seat the delegates anyway. It seems to me that the obvious response by the RBC is to rely on its staff memo which says it can only restore half of the delegates, and that to honor the voters of Florida and Michigan, it will magnaminously do so. [More...]

I am not sure that Barack Obama or the DNC objects to such a result and the Clinton campaign has no justifiable basis anymore to object to it. To me, the statements made in today's conference call make tomorrow's meeting a mere formality.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments closed.

< S.D. Argus Leader Endorses Hillary Clinton | Pew Report: Support for Obama Slides Among White Women >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Clinton Campaign Accepts FL/MI Broke Rules | 241 comments (241 topical)
    The Clinton campaign is taking (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:10:04 PM EST
    her fight for the nomination to the convention.  They seem very confident about getting there too.  Wonder what they have up their sleeve?  Everybody is going to fight them tooth and nail about going to the convention with this fight, either they have stamina extraordinaire (they have proven to have that thusfar) or they have something nasty up their sleeve on Obama.

    And they should fight with all they have got... (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:30:49 PM EST
    I am sure that you, like myself, is tired of the double standard applied to this campaign.  Hillary is one smart cookie and I look forward to seeing a big surprise thrown at obama.

    Parent
    BTD, I heard you on the call and (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by D Cupples on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:11:15 PM EST
    I missed my prompt -- so I didn't get to follow up on your question.  Frankly, I think you're right that RBC treated MI/FL differently from the other primary-moving states.

    I don't think Flournoy adequately answered your question.

    On the other hand, I didn't really hear them fully concede that there is no rules-based argument.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Andy08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:17:20 PM EST
    D. Cupples. I was hoping to hear you following up on this.

    Parent
    Well tell me what their rules based argument is (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:15:46 PM EST


    Parent
    You're right, BTD, in that (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by D Cupples on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:03:20 PM EST
    They didn't tell you what the strategy is.  

    They clearly refrained from answering your question about the safe harbor,  but that's a tad different from saying that they disagree with you on that point.

    After you spoke (and I AGREE with you -- I've cited you in my posts at Buck Naked Politics), I was going bring up your question again, point out details (e.g., FL lege's numerical composition by party, etc), and try to get a real answer.

    I missed my prompt and they went on to someone else.

    I think they would have dodged my follow up on your question, incidentally.  I don't think they want to make our argument publicly -- though Karen Thurman and Bill Nelson (my senator) have.

    Parent

    I think is (none / 0) (#40)
    by Andy08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:18:59 PM EST
    it was that the RBC has the power to reinstate the delegates in full if it so chooses.

    Parent
    Indeed (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by andgarden on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:11:27 PM EST
    It cements the likely reality that this contest is over.

    To that end, Nancy Pelosi is right, after the last contests this week, the undeclared SDs should make their commitments and just get this over with.

    If the Clinton campaign isn't going to fight for the voters of FL and MI, then there's no use taking this much further. I would not support them going to the convention with nothing but an electability argument and a laughable popular vote claim that gives Obama no votes from Michigan.


    I would have to agree IF that is what (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by bjorn on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:13:03 PM EST
    happens tomorrow

    Parent
    How do you know (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by madamab on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:14:06 PM EST
    they're not fighting for the voters in Florida and Michigan?

    The delegates would seem to be a separate issue.

    Parent

    Because they're lowering the threshold (none / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:15:12 PM EST
    for Obama's nomination to such a degree that it is essentially guaranteed.

    Parent
    Lowering the threshold is true (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by vicndabx on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:35:31 PM EST
    but I think that's a calculated risk.  Again, if the meme is the rules and how they don't work for you, then that too plays in to the who's really for you theme -- we abided by the rules, which state a 50% reduction.  Shouldn't that have been applied from the get go?  How many of you wanted to caucus but couldn't get the time off from work?  Wouldn't a primary w/a mandated day or time off work better for you?  Do the current rules work for the American people?  Who does the DNC represent?  You.  Your votes should be counted as they are based on the rules.  Do the rules say anything about candidates who aren't on the ballot nonetheless getting your vote?  

    They wanted to play politics, let's do the same and call their bluff.

    Parent

    We'll see... (none / 0) (#41)
    by madamab on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:19:15 PM EST
    my non-attorney brain is a bit confused by all this maneuvering.

    Time to infuse it with a little food. Later all!

    Parent

    Sniff-sniff (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:12:56 PM EST
    Smells like a behind the scenes deal was made.

    Now, it's just kabuki, kabuki, kabuki!

    Regardless, if anyone thought the outcome would be anything but this, they must still believe in Santa too!  My read is that the outcome was apparently pre-ordained  and the Clinton camp refuses to fight it.

    This smells more like veiled threats than (none / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:15:42 PM EST
    deals to me.  Very very veiled threats

    Parent
    Please explain. (none / 0) (#39)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:18:48 PM EST


    Parent
    what do you mean? (none / 0) (#42)
    by dotcommodity on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:19:25 PM EST
    you think someone intimidated Clinton? With what? How much more could they do to her than what they have done?

    Parent
    If the campaign isn't winding down (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:22:02 PM EST
    it is my opinion that they are taking this convention and intend to make the DNC and Obama responsible for the rage of Florida and Michigan.  Maybe a few other things too, who knows with campaigns what is said off the record.

    Parent
    Seems very unlikely (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:03:36 PM EST
    I simply do not believe that Hillary is willing to bring down the Democratic Party and allow the Republicans to keep the White House.  

    Some anti-Hillary people believe that because they believe she will do anything to win but I don't believe it whatsoever.  

    She will get something out of bowing out gracefully, perhaps the VP slot perhaps something else.

    But she isn't going to engage in a scorched earth attack on the Democratic Party.

    Parent

    I'm confused. My friend sent me (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by masslib on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:13:13 PM EST
    notes from the call, and says theys uppoert a full seating of the delegations.  Confused.

    Sure they do (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:14:26 PM EST
    But not based on any rules.

    Just because.

    Parent

    Response -- (none / 0) (#50)
    by mkb662 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:21:31 PM EST
    Right BTD -- because "it punishes the voters of MI and FL and treats them like second-class citizens, see Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution,"  see prediction below.  

    Parent
    Equal Protection is (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by mantis on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:29:27 PM EST
    a rather silly argument, as this is a party nomination process.  The party could select a nominee with absolutely no voter input, if they wanted to.  They could throw all the votes out the window and nominate Gore, if they wanted to.  They could pick a name out of a hat.

    There is a right to vote in this country; there is no right to select a nominee for the political party of your choice.  An equal protection argument is no argument at all.

    Parent

    Like it or not (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by JRoyale on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:33:05 PM EST
    the Constitution doesn't protect one's right to vote in a political party's primary.

    Parent
    you're right (none / 0) (#137)
    by mkb662 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:49:48 PM EST
    But maybe I can say that the "spirit" of the EP clause is violated here.  2.3 million people voted!  Even if not enforceable by law, impossible to discount politically and emotionally.

    Parent
    Ahhh but... (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Rictor Rockets on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:55:00 PM EST
    Right BTD -- because "it punishes the voters of MI and FL and treats them like second-class citizens, see Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution,"

    ...if only this were actually a CONSTITUTIONAL issue.

    Which it's not.

    It's an internal party issue. The DNC could just decree who the nominee is going to be from the very start. All this junk with primaries and caucuses and stuff is just a high-falutin' poll they put on to rally the base. You don't have any particular "rights" to vote in a Primary or a Caucus, at least not anywhere near the same strength as you do with an honest-to-goodness Federal Election.

    If party primaries were under Constitutional law, then you could never have closed primaries or superdelegates.

    Parent

    First Amendment (none / 0) (#136)
    by kaleidescope on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:49:32 PM EST
    Right of association means the Democratic Party gets to decide who (and which states' votes) it chooses to associate with.

    Maybe Michigan and Florida can form their own party and nominate Senator Clinton to be their standard bearer.  They certainly have the constitutional right to do that.

    Parent

    So, what now? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:13:27 PM EST
    I guess she cannot expose the idiocy and injustice of the party's system.  Is she doing this to keep the party from looking like the idiots they are?  Or did they make a mistake of not bringing these argument early on and now it's too late politically?

    That idiot ship has sailed.... (none / 0) (#88)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:34:28 PM EST


    Parent
    I think the idiocy... (none / 0) (#103)
    by Y Knot on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:38:31 PM EST
    of this system has been pretty fully exposed this year.  I think its up to Democrats across the country to speak out to change the primary system.

    I think it would also be incumbent on the loser of the process this year to spearhead such a charge.  Either one has enough support and political clout to do it.  (The winner shouldn't.  They should focus on winning the G.E., and then running the country.)

    As for bringing the argument early on, in order to affect THIS contest?  That was never a realistic option.  Once the campaigns agreed to abide by the rules of the election, that argument became moot.   Note I said "rules," not "roolz."

    Rules are binding, and should be, for a reason, without them, you have chaos.  "Roolz" are what the Bush administration uses.  Nice sounding words that you toss aside as soon as they become inconvenient, or lead to an outcome you don't like.  (They do this with "Lhawz" and "Rhites" too.)  I don't like it when they do it.  I don't like it when anyone does.

    We've all seen how horrible this process is.  It needs to change before 2012.  

    Parent

    Would calling out IA, NH & SC be considered (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by katiebird on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:14:12 PM EST
    a "nuclear option"?

    It seems like it might be for the states to call out other states.  But rather extreme to imagine that a Presidential candidate would argue for the un-seating or punishment of states.

    THIS (I think) is a time to be drawing the states together.  

    While I think I understand the legal argument that you're making, I think it would be a self-defeating political argument.

    katebird (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Andy08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:23:28 PM EST
    you might have a point. I think the HRC campaign has to be extremely careful in not alienating IO, NH, SC and NV.
    It would be political suicide -- which trumps any legal argument--

    Parent
    who cares.... (2.00 / 1) (#86)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:33:52 PM EST
    How many potential Democratic electoral college votes to FL an MI have?  We know the dems are going to lose SC, so who cares what they think...and the combined EC votes for NV, IA, and NH isn't as big as that of MI and FL.

    As long as the Clinton Camp argued that equal treatment under the rules was what they wanted -- and that the problem was the Rulz committee, not those states --the damage in IA, NV, and NH would be minimal

    Parent

    Well...minimal unless you want to (none / 0) (#102)
    by ruffian on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:38:19 PM EST
    run again in 2012.

    Parent
    That's not the point (none / 0) (#167)
    by Andy08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:03:14 PM EST
    imo.  Here they dealing with the DNC here and the DNC is all about the  "50 States Strategy"   -- .   This isn't about the EC votes for November yet-- That's a different argument.

    Parent
    As a South Carolinian, (1.00 / 0) (#73)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:29:20 PM EST
    I could not care less if the state lost all its votes/delegates.  That was a disgraceful episode.

    Parent
    Right on katiebird (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by angie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:38:12 PM EST
    I just posted a comment with these exact thoughts before reading yours -- this is the only argument that a person hoping to be the nominee of party can make to the party. FL & MI need to be the ones calling out SC, NH & Iowa. To think otherwise is unrealistic politically.

    Parent
    You're good, katiebird. (none / 0) (#29)
    by madamab on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:17:24 PM EST
    A ghost of that thought flitted through my brain too...but I wasn't articulate enough to put it into words.

    They may have decided that this particular argument would have more pitfalls than positives.

    I guess we'll see...

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:18:37 PM EST
    And what result do you think Clinton will get now?

    she has no reason to even show up tomorrow frankly.

    Parent

    Why court a perseption of going nuclear (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by katiebird on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:40:11 PM EST
    against IA, NH & SC if the meeting is stacked and the results predetermined.

    Clinton can count votes.  She very likely doesn't have the votes to get full seating.

    But, you don't go to Credentials in August without going through this step first.

    I always thought this would have to go to Credentials.  I've heard it discussed for months.

    Parent

    And what will she argue to them? (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:46:40 PM EST
    She conceded her best arguments today.

    Parent
    It's The Math, right? (none / 0) (#153)
    by katiebird on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:55:18 PM EST
    I thought I read somewhere that The Math of the full Credentials Committee is better for Hillary than at this Rules & Bylaws committee.

    My experience at previous conventions (and Young Democrat Conventions) that the arguments are for show.  It's only the votes that matter.

    Parent

    So the actual fairness of seating FL and MI (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:11:37 PM EST
    mean nothing to you?

    See, I was not in this fight for Hillary Clinton. I was in it for fairness and for the Democratic Party being fair.

    Parent

    I've obsessed on the unfairness of FL & MI (none / 0) (#221)
    by katiebird on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:29:03 PM EST
    since it developed.

    The reason I come to Talk Left is because I've been so impressed with you making it a priority for these last months.

    "So the actual fairness of seating FL and MI mean nothing to you?"

    Couldn't be more wrong as a description of my beliefs.  I've always believed that Florida and Michigan should be seated at the convention at full strength -- because it's the smart thing to do.  (Also, I happen to believe that any candidate that can't afford to seat the delegates is a weak candidate.  But, it's not - for me - about the candidates...)

    HOWEVER - I've been involved in credentials challenges.  And while I'm not deeply involved in this one, I can see the possibility that this meeting isn't what I thought it was.

    That decisions have actually been made. I guess I was clumsy in what I said.  

    All I meant was -- why argue with a done deal.  Especially if there's a friendlier crowd waiting at the end of summer.

    I'm not a lawyer, so I don't think like one.  I apologize for that.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:17:53 PM EST
    it would be calling out the DNC for unfair treatment of FL/MI as compared to treatment given FL/MI.

    If a lawyer can not make that argument, then he should retire.

    Parent

    The arguement could, of course, be made. (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Radix on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:51:15 PM EST
    But to what end? Clinton would be tarred and feathered if she supported such an argument. Let's remember, she is a politician after all. No, as Katie suggested, better to let FL and MI go forward with that portion of the program.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    Parent

    clinton tarred and feathered? (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:08:01 PM EST
    And that would be different how?

    What a joke.

    Parent

    Your point is well taken. (none / 0) (#208)
    by Radix on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:21:28 PM EST
    To my mind the difference would be the substance of the abuse she would get. All of what she's been subject to, so far, is fairly transparent gotcha non-sense. The argument which would be made against her, in this case, would be much more damaging long term. Even though she would be factually correct if she argued along your lines, it wouldn't help her politically, she would in fact be arguing for the stripping of votes from other states. That argument may be factually correct, based on the DNC's own rules, it would also most certainly be political suicide. IMHO

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah  

    Parent

    exactly.... (3.50 / 2) (#77)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:29:56 PM EST
    In order for rules to have legitimacy, they must be applied equally to all.   NH and IA have no real case regarding their violation of the rules, and MI, IA, and NH should all be subjected to the same sanctions.  (NH had no rationale for moving its primary at all, once MI was stripped of all of its delegates).

    SC and FL both have reasonable 'safe harbor' arguments, and both should be treated the same.

    And that is really the positions that the Clinton camp should have taken -- make it clear that the Rulz screwed up by treating states differently under the same rules, and demand that all delegations be seated as elected without penalty, rather than disenfranchise voters in states that violated the provisions and were given waivers anyway.

    Parent

    Of course you're correct. (none / 0) (#189)
    by Radix on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:12:07 PM EST
    We would then be treated to headlines of, "Hilary calls for the death of every man, women, and child, in the states of MI, IA, and NH", let's not kid ourselves about this likely out come. No, the folks that need to make this argument are the folks from MI and FL.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah  

    Parent

    Problem is (none / 0) (#49)
    by Andy08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:21:11 PM EST
    those rules are not "laws" are rules of a political party.
    They can't be 100% read as a legal document or a theorem.
    Politics is intrinsic to them by definition.

    Parent
    True. (none / 0) (#175)
    by Radix on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:06:31 PM EST
    It's just disheartening to learn the party you once thought was fair, turns out not to be.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    Parent

    I think the DNC rules say that Hillary has to (none / 0) (#78)
    by katiebird on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:30:15 PM EST
    get 2210 delegates and Obama only has to get 2025 delegates.

    And everything else is just for show.

    Thus, this meeting tomorrow is not a Court -- it's a bunch of allies & "very dear friends" (snort) trying to out-maneuver each other.

    A lawyer could make your argument against the DNC -- but (I'm guessing) that under "Hillary Rules" it would be interpreted as calling out those uther states.  

    And I'm sympathetic to Hillary not wanting to stir that up.  

    Parent

    My guess (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by blogtopus on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:14:13 PM EST
    I think they're trying to take this to the people (ie: Convention) and leave the lawsuits, etc, out of it. That way she doesn't seem like she's trying to litigate her way to the nomination (no matter how right she is, she's got a whole legion of people ready to pull out their 'sore loserwoman' signs if she continues. We all know that Gore was right to want to count, but the soundbyte media just destroyed any chance at a reasonable discussion on the matter)

    This may be one of her smarter moves. We'll see if it pans out.

    Your analysis sounds about right (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by scribe on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:14:26 PM EST
    and now the issue is how to wrap this up without producing any further division, damage, or disunity.

    As I see it, HRC will continue the campaign through the coming week's primaries.  This will give (I think) every state, territory and constituency  their chance to both see/hear the candidates and cast votes which are meaningful to them, even if not capable of changing the ultimate result of the nomination fight.  This is a useful party-building, energy-building and unifying exercise.  And, it gives the locals a chance to exercise their local GOTV apparatus.  Better in a primary than trying to do it on the fly in the general.

    As far as I've been concerned, the main objective is - and always has been - winning the general election.  

    Let's all get our focus on that - and keep it on that.

    Speculation:  Ickes got the message that keeping a contest going to the convention for a third time, will not be the charm for him.

    The GE (4.00 / 2) (#34)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:18:20 PM EST
    Obama will have to win without me.  And more than likely the states of MI and FL.

    That's my guestimation.  

    Parent

    So you will join one among many.. (none / 0) (#128)
    by slw0606 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:47:18 PM EST

    thousands of disaffected people, not just in this election, but every Presidential election since Party politics began in 1796 who refuse to support an alternate candidate from your own party because your preferred candidate lost.

    It's a venerable American tradition, to vote or not vote however the hell you want for whatever reason you want.

    Parent

    We're not robots, we're people (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by nycstray on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:17:13 PM EST
    we have the right to disagree with a party and who they choose to nominate. I, like many others, have valid reasons for not playing along with this farce. The most glaring one is his utter lack of qualifications. Several others follow close behind, I'm sure you've heard them.

    If you want to write it off in the manner that you do, be my guest. You would be missing the point.

    Parent

    It's a venerable tradition (2.00 / 0) (#184)
    by scribe on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:10:54 PM EST
    but, in this year, it's also none-too-bright.

    Imagine, if you will, Vice President Giuliani ascending to the Presidency as the doddering old coot McCain's worn-out carcass finally craps out.  He'd be the Stalin to Bushie's Lenin.

    And you know I'm right about that.

    But, you would be secure in the knowledge that, rather than vote Democratic, you pouted and stayed home.  Not that it would do you any good when all the commenters at TalkLeft got picked up for anti-Republican activities, but you could still be smug.

    Parent

    You got that right! (1.00 / 7) (#117)
    by 1jane on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:43:34 PM EST
    Time to concede. The spectacle of unhappy women of a certain age protesting tomorrow at the RBC will be burned into every voters brain.

    Parent
    what is this crap (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by lilburro on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    knock if off with the ageist, sexist comments already.

    Parent
    It's been the spectacle of comments like this (5.00 / 0) (#201)
    by BoGardiner on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:15:18 PM EST
    that is already guaranteed to be burned into our national soul forever.

    There will indeed be many papers written about America's traditional contempt for our older women, as compared to many societies' reverence for them, and how this has played out as a major factor in this campaign.

    It's really more complicated than pure sexism; thus the feminists' divide.  It's about our national "little old lady" phobia.

    Young feminists better realize they will one day become old feminists.

    Sorry, got knocked off topic by this crap.  So sick of it.

    Parent

    Is the Clinton campaign's legal team (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by HenryFTP on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:18:10 PM EST
    comprised entirely of the sort of "brains trust" that gave Al Gore such excellent advice in Florida in 2000?

    As much as I would like to blame as many of this campaign's disappointments on Hillary's self-important and self-aggrandizing staff, on an issue as fundamental as this one it would be difficult not to conclude that Hillary had not endorsed this position herself.

    Many thanks to you, BTD, for so clearly and concisely explaining why it didn't have to be this way.

    I still suspect, however, that Florida certainly, and Michigan quite possibly, have credentials fights in mind for the Convention, regardless of Hillary's position.

    Sadly, I think that Hillary's position is not only incorrect, but that the Obama team and the corporate media will be merciless in pillorying her for making these concessions, both generally and in light of her rhetoric about how hard Americans have fought for the right to vote.

    A cruel fate for a great champion of Democratic values.

    Losing a battle to win the war (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by felizarte on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:33:17 PM EST
    is what I think it is.  It is recognizing that the deck has been stacked against them.  It is political jujitsu in the making.

    Parent
    Um (none / 0) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:34:23 PM EST
    what war is that?

    Parent
    I agree with you (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by dk on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:37:24 PM EST
    on the rules, and agree that Clinton could have argued that too, but really, what does it matter?

    Obama has the delegate lead.  It makes no practical difference what happens tomorrow on that score.  All that matters is the popular vote at this point, in my opinion.  The rules committee can come up with whatever percentage of delegate number they want tomorrow, but as soon as they recognize that those elections were real elections, then Clinton wins on her popular vote argument (if she decides to make it).

    Parent

    Assuming she actually has the.. (1.00 / 1) (#145)
    by slw0606 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:53:28 PM EST

    popular vote when including MI and FL and keeping in mind 4 caucus states never relased their popular vote totals where Obama won,

    in a few days Clinton supporters will bitterly realize it's all moot when super delegates push Obama over the top of whatever the sanctioned number is to claim the nomination (because the majority of super delegates know what the Clinton campaign said back in January - it's about the delegates).

    Parent

    that and 4 dollars . . . (none / 0) (#121)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:44:54 PM EST
    I thought she was fighting for FL and MI. It seems not.

    Parent
    I thought you were all about (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by dk on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:48:54 PM EST
    defining the will of the people, ultimately, as the popular vote.

    That's her best argument, the most effective political argument, and, it seems to me, still an honoroable argument in terms of doing right by the voters.

    Parent

    Uh huh (none / 0) (#174)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:05:55 PM EST
    Well, the vote are the votes. this is about the delegates.

    Parent
    The nomination at the Convention. (5.00 / 0) (#129)
    by felizarte on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:47:19 PM EST


    Parent
    By agreeing to the rules for now (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by felizarte on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:52:48 PM EST
    they can demand strict conformity to other rules that can only be taken up at the convention.  Counting half the delegates increases the threshold required; Pelosi and Reid may be able to strongarm some SD's but perhaps not enough.  By conceding the rules now, it keeps the Clinton from being perceived as a loser tomorrow and a big victory for Obama, perception wise.  Who knows what June 1 and 2 would bring?

    Clinton did not fight this hard only to fold.  I am sure there is method to this seeming madness.

    Parent

    I understand your fervent hope... (1.00 / 1) (#155)
    by slw0606 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:55:34 PM EST

    but it will be over by Wednesday.

    Obama will get enough super delegates to give him the nomination at whatever the new higher number will be.

    Parent

    The SDs endorsements (5.00 / 0) (#228)
    by PamFl on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:32:17 PM EST
    are not official votes until the convention. After the first round of pledged delegate voting, if neither candidate achieves the requsite number, there can be additional rounds of voting. During subsequent rounds, pledged delegates are free to change their votes. At some point, the SDs will be required to vote "on the record" to allow one candidate to achieve the majic number and the nominee will be selected.
    The BO campaign and the media are adding SD endorsements to the actual pedged delegate count. BO will not be the presumptve nominee unless Sen. Clinton drops out. Otherwise, it will go to the convention.


    Parent
    How does this help win that war? (none / 0) (#190)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:12:30 PM EST


    Parent
    when did ju-jitsu involve... (none / 0) (#119)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:43:56 PM EST
    ...rolling over and playing dead?

    losing gracefully does not involve accepting lies as truth.  It means fighting (fairly) to the end, and when you are beating, admiring your opponents superior skills (while s/he admires your skill and determination and integrity.)

    Parent

    Invoking the same adherence to the rules (5.00 / 0) (#148)
    by felizarte on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:54:23 PM EST
    in the August convention.  

    Parent
    Here is an Obama supporter... (3.00 / 6) (#59)
    by FedUpLib on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:23:43 PM EST
    Who is impressed with the Clinton Camp for the first time in a long time.

    Assuming she sticks to this...

    Parent

    Same here (3.40 / 5) (#61)
    by SpinDoctor on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:25:39 PM EST
    Was a very classy move on her part.

    Parent
    yeah you lurking obama trolls could take a (3.00 / 4) (#106)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:39:04 PM EST
    lesson....you are all so transparent...you think obama won something so you have to come to gloat.
    Your hollow compliments are just that....HOLLOW.

    Parent
    A bit soar are we? (n/t) (2.33 / 3) (#134)
    by slw0606 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:49:18 PM EST


    Parent
    10 comments per 24 hours (5.00 / 0) (#219)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:27:18 PM EST
    Your (you're) knew (new)  Please remember the rules (not to be confused with the Obama ruulz)  you are limited to 10 comments in a 24 hr period.  You sound a little angry people have the right to vote for who they want.  Ha! Get over it.

    BTW you are over your 10 comments in a 24 hour period.

    Parent

    It's sore....tell obama to buy you a dictionary... (2.33 / 3) (#179)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:07:55 PM EST
    Not sore, just disgusted at the lowly tactics of Hillary's opponents and the trolls who swarm this site like cockroaches just to gloat over a perceived win.  Go read the Houston Chronicle today and see what your boy and his camp are up to.

    Parent
    Wearing my "1" ratings proudly from the (1.00 / 1) (#199)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:14:34 PM EST
    obmatrolls....means I irked them one more time.  They appear as thin-skinned as their thuggish leader.

    Parent
    Just so you know (1.00 / 0) (#207)
    by CST on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:20:43 PM EST
    I really don't have a problem with your general sentiment (in the previous post not this one).  It's the language that offends.  Names are just childish, and frankly, calling Obama "thuggish" strikes me as a bit of race baiting.  So calm down with the language and tone, you can disagree without being ugly about it.

    Parent
    I am not here to please you....sorry....the (none / 0) (#224)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:31:04 PM EST
    language I use is acceptable here.  If I wrote what I really thought, I would not be here for long...Sorry your sensibilities are so offended, but if you are waiting for me to change...wellllllll.....

    Parent
    one more thing....go check out today's (none / 0) (#231)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:32:57 PM EST
    Houston Chronicle and see if "thuggish" is not the perfect word for the obama camp....think
    Alice Palmer

    Parent
    How's this for "classy"? (2.33 / 3) (#113)
    by angie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:41:20 PM EST
    Kiss my a_______.

    Parent
    That's very classy :) (none / 0) (#181)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:08:40 PM EST


    Parent
    Perhaps (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:19:34 PM EST
    But the clinton campaign undercut such a fight today.

    Parent
    Either they're quitting or they are taking (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:23:36 PM EST
    their fight elsewhere.

    Parent
    It's Kung Fu: DNC has to explain itself to voters (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by Ellie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:48:13 PM EST
    They can't use Sen Clinton or her campaign as shields, nor can the superdeez. She has no reason to stop campaigning until they officially declare a winner.

    They can't hide from voters behind abstracts like The Roolz and -- although I'm far outside any privileged knowledge on this -- Dems (incl superdeez) might be getting wobbly about being left with no political cover or place to deflect blame for their selective reinforcement.

    They need MI-FL in the general election and Dems there are going to start catching flak for this

    Parent

    BTD (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Andy08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:28:45 PM EST
    they were very strong on teh call about seating in FULL the delegations. I didn't hearthem wavering on this at all. You are correct that "legally" they might have a weaker case relative to
    fairness and equal treatment of all 50 states. But politically
    alienating IO , NV, NH nd SC is sth. MI & FL are welcome to do but HRC campaign has to go out of their way not to.

    Their position is that of inclusiveness of all voters they cannot make the argument to include FL & MI and say that if not they need to strip IO, NH, IO & NV. It is a contradiction.

    Their argument is not just legal but political and they have to be very careful not to sound divisive.

    That was the subtext in that call.

    Parent

    Great (none / 0) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:31:24 PM EST
    but where was the argument for actually doing so?

    Saying I WANT THIS is not an argument.

    Parent

    I agree they were not (none / 0) (#132)
    by Andy08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:48:53 PM EST
    clear at all as to which rule they were relying their argument on.
    But Ickes said repeatedly that the RBC has full authority  to seat the full delegations with full votes.
    He said:  "The Rules give the RBC full power to seat the delegations in full and with full votes".

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#176)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:06:45 PM EST
    But WHY? O what authority and why should they?

    Because I want it is not a good argument.

    Parent

    They didn't (none / 0) (#218)
    by Andy08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:27:15 PM EST
    say I want. They said  "The rules allows them to"
    I agree with you it is not clear to me at present under what provision they can do so or how
    apolitical the argument that convinces the RBC to enforce their
    power to seat the full delegation should be.
    But they are clearly basing their arguments tomorrow  "on the Rules".

    Imo that is probably a more effective argument than one that "appears" to be disputing the rules.... We will see I guess.

    I agree they did not answer your question properly.
     

    Parent

    The Legal Team Was Probably Hired By (none / 0) (#158)
    by kaleidescope on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:56:51 PM EST
    Mark Penn.

    Parent
    Graceful (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by clbrune on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:23:38 PM EST
    As much as I think all the voters (esp. in Florida) should be represented, I think it shows grace and dignity for Clinton to accept the rules-based argument.

    No need to squabble about the letter of the law.  That might look petty.  It's like objecting once, being over-ruled, and moving on.

    I think it remains a fair issue to keep alive, that the DNC is choosing of its own free will how to resolve this issue.

    The point (none / 0) (#62)
    by andgarden on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:25:47 PM EST
    is that she was supposedly fighting for the Fl and MI voters. It turns out that they may have had a false champion.

    Parent
    Despite the persuasiveness of (none / 0) (#111)
    by oculus on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:40:28 PM EST
    BTD's "rules-based" argument, it was never clear to me that Clinton had a dog in this hunt, so to speak.  FL and MI are the aggrieved parties.  If anything, Clinton was an amicus.  And as an amicus she is saddled with Ickes, who doesn't seem to want to offend the group deciding this tomorrow.  Not to mention, he voted for stripping FL and MI of all their delegates.  

    Parent
    She rejected the rules based arguments (none / 0) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:36:52 PM EST
    for Florida and Michigan. Whom she was supposedly fighting for.

    Parent
    I guess I just see this differently (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by dk on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:26:29 PM EST
    Even if MI and FL delegates were counted 100%, Hillary would still be behind in the delegate count.  So, I can see why it is a bit of a waste of energy to fight too much on that front.

    At this point, the reason Hillary should get the nomination is because the Superdelegates should vote for her because 1) She will likely be ahead in the popular vote and 2) She is more electable.  Thus, achieving the 50% solution tomorrow is victory enough for her, because it legitimizes Florida and Michigan enough that it justifies counting them in the popular vote tally.  Sure, the states will be punished in the delegate count, but they are recognized as having been real elections.

    But (none / 0) (#125)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:46:22 PM EST
    while she would still be behind in the delegate count, she would be closer to Obama....and Obama would need a lot more SD support than he does now to get the nomination.

    Its about the margins...

    Parent

    Fair point, (none / 0) (#142)
    by dk on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:52:42 PM EST
    but it could be she calculated that the PR and political damage of being overly litigious on the delegate issue might have be a net loss in terms of good will among the SDs.  I know BTD feels strongly about this as a lawyer, but I also think that even good lawyers can choose their battles if they think it will help achieve the ultimate goal.

    Parent
    Hillary realizes (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Kensdad on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:37:46 PM EST
    that the only path to the nomination will be some kind of organic movement away from obama between now and august as things like fr. pfleger continue to go "splat" on obama...

    maybe she will suspend her campaign, bow out gracefully without going to the mat over FL and MI or alienating IA, NH, SC, then hoping that obama just wilts in the polls as his past catches up with him?

    as has already been suggested, any "wrangling" that she does to secure the nomination will "taint" her and alienate the obama side of the dem party...

    let's see how she exits...  i expect that there will be no concession...  and she won't be campaigning for obama until after the convention should he manage to win the nomination despite his obvious weaknesses.

    The Deals in TDP and DNC (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by bmc on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:38:48 PM EST
    They're agreeing to a deal, not the "rules."

    But, I am prepared for the deals to come. It won't alter my complete rejection of Barack Obama in November. Sorry. I've seen too much.

    There are lots of "deals" being done behind the scenes apparently. Like the one the Obama campaign cooked up involving a female black candidate for head of the TDP. The candidate of "hope" and "change" indeed...just another corrupt Chicago pol.

    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/casey/5808894.html

    BTD, you've been written up in WSJ by Taranto:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121207853534129667.html?mod=Best+of+the+Web+Today

    Maybe Clinton campaign decided it (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by oculus on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:44:34 PM EST
    was better to let the news cycle continue to focus on the Rev. Pfleger?

    ouch (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by clbrune on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:53:18 PM EST
    part of me smiles at this, but I hope Clinton's decision is based on the issues at hand.

    She may not win, but I have confidence that her skill and intelligence are behind her decisions.

    I can't be an armchair quarterback.  She has my support because I trust her to do the best with what she has to work with.

    Parent

    Clinton will always be a loyal Democrat (5.00 / 0) (#123)
    by DandyTIger on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:45:55 PM EST
    in the end. I don't think she will do anything to hurt or undermine the party, even when they're wrong. It is of course sad for FL and MI, and I think sad for the party in the long run. I think the party will loose any semblance of standing for voters and democracy (ala 2000). Perhaps they can save themselves if they do the right thing tomorrow, also "just because." I'm OK with them doing the right thing and saying they didn't have too.

    I guess they're all nasty politicians in the end. Neither party really cares about "the people" or about democracy or about the poor, or about women, etc. I guess it was silly for anyone to think otherwise. They're just politicians. We should never expect more from them.

    It's an eye opener to be sure. Sad as it is. I think if that's the way things go, I'll switch to be an independent. I'll still tend to vote for the lesser of two evils, but it will rarely be more than that. And I won't donate. If they have no real passion about my issues, I won't have any real passion for them.

    Ever since N. Carolina/Indiana (5.00 / 0) (#126)
    by Trickster on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:46:36 PM EST
    Both sides have been acting very much as if a private deal has been cut.

    Really? (none / 0) (#194)
    by minordomo on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:13:07 PM EST
    - until Clinton started talking about taking this all the way to the convention all of a sudden. At that point it seemed that if there had been a private deal of some kind, they somehow failed to close the deal.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#213)
    by DaveOinSF on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:25:02 PM EST
    No way would the the Obama team have talked up the RFK thing had a deal already been cut at the time.  I think something happened this week.

    Parent
    that anyone who knows a thing about this (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:52:05 PM EST
    knows that most of the uncommitted MI delegates have already gone to Obama so it is a phony issue.

    hey (none / 0) (#161)
    by mkb662 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:58:27 PM EST
    The RBC has a great deal of discretion in fashioning a remedy to this.  They do not want this to go to the convention and they are likely to give Sen. Clinton what she wants -- full delegation without sanction for both.  

    Parent
    Quelle Suprise! (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by Rictor Rockets on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:57:32 PM EST
    Hmmmm. Despite my dislike for Hillary, the optimist in me would like to believe that she finally came to her senses, realized how far into madness she had descended, what an incredible foundation of sand her arguments had, legally speaking, and decided that if she was going to be taken seriously at all, and that if she wanted to Dems to win in November at all, it was time for her to put the grownup-pants on, and pitch in constructively.

    I suspect in reality though, a deal was cut. I'm going to guess equal parts carrot and stick.

    You get a tingle up your leg (5.00 / 0) (#232)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:33:46 PM EST
    when you watch Chris Matthews don't you?  

    Parent
    Isn't it true that (5.00 / 0) (#169)
    by wtfwtf on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:03:21 PM EST
    even if the delegates are seated in full that it still comes down to the superdelegates?

    HRC arguments and what she does are all about superdelegates.  The path to the nomination is from superdelegates.  This RBC decision really doesn't matter that much (as long as they seat half the delegates to push out the finish line a little bit)...I don't think.  

    yes (5.00 / 0) (#188)
    by clbrune on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:11:38 PM EST
    The reality is that neither candidate was able to win on pledged delegates.

    It's in the superdelegates' hands.  Unfortunately, they are politicians, not intellectual giants ;-)

    Parent

    it matters a lot (none / 0) (#211)
    by zebedee on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:22:36 PM EST
    the question is how many SDs, big difference between half and full counting

    Parent
    FUBAR (5.00 / 0) (#185)
    by ruffian on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:11:00 PM EST
    is the only way to describe the whole thing.

    I hope that the reason Clinton does not want to argue on the basis of selective enforcement of the rules means that they are going to argue on the basis of the principle that the votes should count, and the PR damage done to the party. Maybe that is not as concrete an argument as the rule enforcement argument, but they may have been backed into a corner.  Maybe they told her behind the scenes that they were going to put her people on the spot and make them argue for cutting the NH, IA, and NV delegations. I can't blame Clinton for not wanting to make a bad situation worse.

    I hope we eventually learn the whole story here.

    I think the only way the DNC can even begin to salvage their reputation is to count the whole delegation even if the rules say they don't have to.  There is no reason for them not to do that - it is what they would have done anyway if the contest was not so close. If Obama is so sure he has the4 SDs he needs, he should agree to that. (Wait, I think I said that a month ago.  sigh.)

    that 4 is a typo. Of course he needs more than 4 (none / 0) (#193)
    by ruffian on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:12:58 PM EST


    Parent
    BTD, (5.00 / 0) (#215)
    by creeper on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:25:47 PM EST
    why can't you just come out and say you now support Barack Obama?

    You're not fooling me, you know.

    Wow. (4.00 / 2) (#1)
    by dotcommodity on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:08:17 PM EST
    Were you surprised?

    I was (4.33 / 3) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:08:38 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm Not (4.60 / 5) (#95)
    by BDB on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:36:10 PM EST
    Clinton is not going to argue against seating other states' delegations and that is what it would require.  

    Her problem all along has been that she's too good a Democrat.  If she were a less good Democrat, the party would be more scared about what she's going to do.  In the end, she's going to do what's best for the party whether the party deserves it or not.  That's why the party has been able to treat her like crap, they know they'll get her loyalty anyway.  

    My loyalty is another matter, but the party has made it pretty clear that us old-guard democrats aren't important to its new coalition.

    Parent

    Exactly! (2.00 / 1) (#206)
    by Josey on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:20:31 PM EST


    Parent
    This statement from the Clinton campaign (4.33 / 3) (#13)
    by mattt on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:13:02 PM EST
    is probably part of a deal that has already been cut, and tomorrow will be mostly about reading statements for the record.

    Kudos to Clinton for not siding with MI, and standing by the 4-state pledge she made which stated that NH, IA and etc had a special and unique role.

    Parent

    Well (4.75 / 4) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:16:26 PM EST
    Clinton made one fan today.

    Parent
    Still not a fan (4.00 / 2) (#48)
    by mattt on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:20:16 PM EST
    but credit where it's due.

    Continuing with yesterday's baseball analogies: she's a divisional rival of my home team, but I'd root for her if she made it to the World Series.

    Parent

    If the comment on the other thread is true... (4.00 / 1) (#197)
    by ineedalife on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:14:05 PM EST
    A commenter on the other thread claimed to know a RBC member and the deal is to only target particular people that they feel let the states down. So you lose a few SDs or delegates and gain the rest. Close to 100%. If so, it is in Clinton's interest to now say that yes, the states did violate and somebody must pay. To me, it is a brilliant solution. The DNC is vindicated and the voters are heard.

    And if they only disqualify people, and leave their slots, they can be replaced so 100% delegates are seated. But that is just me dreaming.

    Parent

    Let's see how long it lasts... (3.00 / 1) (#37)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:18:38 PM EST


    Parent
    She's agreeing to the roolz (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by andgarden on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:17:42 PM EST


    Parent
    Something is friggin going on! (3.50 / 2) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:10:45 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm not surprised at all (4.00 / 1) (#90)
    by angie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:34:37 PM EST
    FL & MI can argue for full seating if they want, but no way can Hillary Clinton argue that NH, SC & Iowa broke the rules because, by extension, she would be arguing that their delegates should be stripped and/or cut in half as as well -- you can't have it both ways. You know how that argument will be played in the media -- she gets crucified for even mentioning RFK, what do you think they would do to her if she said NH, SC & Iowa should have their delegates stripped or cut in half? This was the only argument that she, as the hopeful nominee of the party, could make to the party.

    Parent
    To be clearer: this is a standing issue (4.50 / 4) (#165)
    by angie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:02:21 PM EST
    Contrary to how the msm is reporting this, this issue is NOT about the candidates -- it is about the voters of FL & MI. Hillary does not have the standing to argue that NH, SC or Iowa should be penalized. Nor, imo, does Obama have the standing to argue that FL & MI should be. The most either of these two can do is give amicus arguments. It is up to FL & MI to make the argument BTD wants to be made.

    Parent
    Better get over to the thread Jeralyn (none / 0) (#212)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:23:11 PM EST
    just posted.

    Parent
    Wow, your handle worked really well with that! (5.00 / 0) (#229)
    by Ellie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:32:29 PM EST
    OT but I really love your handle.

    Parent
    My feeling is (3.00 / 0) (#116)
    by independent thinker on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:43:05 PM EST
    that this thing is about to end. Publicly Clinton will campaign hard through June 3, but privately her campaign recognizes the reality that in the delegate battle they lost. I also believe they will NOT take it to the convention because at the end of the day they recognize the potential dammage to the eventual nominee that would cause.

    Clearly the party needs to take a hard look at its current process. Changes will be made before the next primary in four years.

    I understand the one-person-one-vote way of doing things and I would support such a system for future primaries, but the reality is that this year's primary is about delegates. Everyone agreed to the system ahead of time. I won't go as far as some in the blogosphere who have call the popular vote arguement bogus, but the reality of the current system of open and closed primaries and caucuses it is almost impossible to calculate the true popular vote. This is why delegate can be the only reliable measure.

    Agreed! (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by 1jane on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:55:32 PM EST


    Parent
    Changes will not be made to this system (none / 0) (#138)
    by ruffian on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:50:00 PM EST
    if Obama is the nominee this year, and wins. He will be in control of the party, and what possible incentive does he have to change it?

    The FL Republicans will again vote to move the primary up. Maybe the DNC and candidates will be smart enough not to penalize FL for that next time. But I doubt it.

    Parent

    I'm not sure I agree. (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by independent thinker on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:59:02 PM EST
    With all due respect, this situation has been difficult for both campaigns, not just Clinton's. I believe he wants beneficial change in this process as much as any of us.

    Parent
    if he wanted beneficial change... (5.00 / 0) (#195)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:13:07 PM EST
    ...he could have said 'seat Florida and Michigan and lets do better next time' months ago.

    Your MUP isn't magical, he doesn't bring unity, and he's not a pony... he's a jack*ass. ;-)

    Parent

    Time will tell (none / 0) (#204)
    by ruffian on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:17:47 PM EST
    There were a lot of If's in my speculation.

    Parent
    changes will be made if McCain wins (5.00 / 0) (#172)
    by clbrune on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:05:01 PM EST
    If Obama gets the nomination, but loses, the system will change (after a few years of, yet again, blaming Clinton for everything).

    Same is true if Clinton somehow gets the nomination but loses.

    Bottom line remains that polls show Clinton is more electable.

    The supers ignore this at the peril of the party.

    Parent

    It's not as if Obama came up with the rules, (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by mantis on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:12:45 PM EST
    and he's had to deal with this mess too.  I'm sure he's not happy that a portion of the party will look upon his nomination (assuming he gets it) as illegitimate because of the mess this nomination process has created.  And the idea that the new Democratic president will have total control over crafting a new nomination process (or not changing it) is incorrect.  A lot of people are involved, and most of them, Obama included, recognize that something needs to change.  Just because he used the current rules to his advantage better than his opponent does not mean he thinks those rules should stay.

    As far as not penalizing Florida if they move their primary up again, what do you propose the party do?  Let the states do whatever they want?  Let the primaries start in November?  August?  How about we start the 2012 primaries this December?

    Parent

    Chuck Todd (2.00 / 0) (#3)
    by mattt on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:08:58 PM EST
    with Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC just now (single quotes for my paraphrase): 'Michigan opened this rejuggling of the calendar....there's a sense that Michigan has continually disrupted the process.'

    he also said he thinks (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by bjorn on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:11:07 PM EST
    this deal will allow her to count the popular vote

    Parent
    I think the deal (1.00 / 0) (#22)
    by mattt on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:15:00 PM EST
    will "recognize the validity" of the PV in FL or somesuch.....they won't say "count" because according to the official process it doesn't "count" for anything.  (I understand it is important for legitimacy, arguments to superdels and etc).

    Parent
    Popular Vote count (none / 0) (#38)
    by mantis on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:18:40 PM EST
    What do you mean "allow her" to count the popular vote?  Clinton's campaign has included Michigan and Florida in their popular vote count already (at least since April), and the popular vote doesn't have anything to do with the nominee selection (except as an argument to persuade SDs).  There aren't rules about how candidates are "allowed" to count the popular vote.

    Parent
    That's Right (5.00 / 0) (#166)
    by kaleidescope on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:02:52 PM EST
    Since when does Senator Clinton need permission from anyone to count the votes in Michigan and Florida?  All we're talking about, really, is an argument you can make to super delegates to vote for Clinton.  Nobody needs permission from anyone to make an argument.

    My niece voted for Senator Clinton in an informal poll at her pre-school.  Senator Clinton is free to count my niece's vote too if she thinks that might help persuade superdelegates.

    Parent

    That's winning the battle (none / 0) (#68)
    by ghost2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:27:22 PM EST
    and losing the war.

    Parent
    No that's losing the battle (5.00 / 0) (#122)
    by MMW on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:45:26 PM EST
    and winning the war, or at least keeping the chance of winning the war.

    She is effectively saying the delegates do not matter (she can't catch up there), however the popular vote does.

    Any seating must involve counting all the votes legitimately. They can't now say she's cheating on the popular vote.

    Parent

    As long as she's claiming - (none / 0) (#236)
    by minordomo on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:40:05 PM EST
    They can't now say she's cheating on the popular vote.

    - that there are no Obama voters in MI, her including MI results for herself is dishonest - "cheating" if you will.

    Parent

    And there is a sense that Andrea Mitchell is (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:17:29 PM EST
    an idiot who clearly needs to be put out to pasture...I have to wonder when was the last time she had a thought of her own.

    How much is obama paying his trolls...I could use some extra money Mattt.

    Parent

    Haha.... (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by mattt on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:30:20 PM EST
    I wish.

    Sorry if my Chuck Todd post sounded like piling on.  BTD had expressed interest in his view on the matter.  My purpose here really is not to p*** people off.

    Parent

    Apparently Chuck Todd is an idiot (none / 0) (#55)
    by Step Beyond on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:23:30 PM EST
    Florida moved its primary before Michigan did.

    Parent
    There are soooo many idiots....so little time (none / 0) (#71)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:28:44 PM EST
    Chuck has seriously been off his game lately; but I guess that comes from thinking up new and innovative ways to keep pushing the obama agenda.

    Parent
    I think it's a moot point (2.00 / 0) (#146)
    by CST on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:54:03 PM EST
    They will only be "uncommitted" until they get to the convention, at which point I assume they will vote for Obama, similar to how many Edwards pledged delegates are coming out for Obama.  The argument that they are pledged to uncommitted seems a little rediculous, especially since Edwards's "pledged delegates" are moving.  However, the point that the DNC can't automatically award them to Obama may be true, I think in actuality it doesn't matter and that they will vote that way anyway.

    Assumptions are by definition correct, ... (5.00 / 0) (#202)
    by cymro on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:15:25 PM EST
    ... until they are disproved by facts. And speaking of things "moving," I don't think you're going to enjoy watching the polls over the next three months. I suspect that the task of retaining Obama's "pledged" superdelegate support will start to resemble herding cats long before we get to the convention. Good luck with that, it should be fun to watch.

    Parent
    How do they pick truly uncommitted (1.00 / 0) (#177)
    by independent thinker on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:06:51 PM EST
    delegates. That seems like a rather difficult task. The only thing that seems clear to me is that 40% of the voters came out in the middle of winter to vote for anyone but Clinton in a contest they believed to be meaningless. Being that only  one candidate other than Clinton is still in the running, it is not unreasonable to designate those to Obama. If it were me making the decision, I would designate 55% of the delegates to Clinton, 40% to Obama and the rest as uncommitted.

    Parent
    My understanding is (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by andgarden on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:08:42 PM EST
    that they were already picked at the state convention, and that they are all Obama supporters anyway. It's a moot argument.

    Parent
    Far as I understand it - (none / 0) (#186)
    by minordomo on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:11:06 PM EST
    - the "uncommitted" delegates have been chosen, and a certain number of them are for Obama. Interestingly, a few of them are for Clinton (even though Clinton was on the ballot, not sure I understand that.

    Parent
    I can understand that (5.00 / 0) (#200)
    by ruffian on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:14:51 PM EST
    People not ready to commit to her in January could have decided to by the time the convention happened.

    Parent
    Now that IS interesting - (none / 0) (#241)
    by minordomo on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:53:15 PM EST
    People not ready to commit to her in January could have decided to by the time the convention happened.

    So it would actually be possible to determine the will of the people based on the current slate of delegates?

    Parent

    That speaks in favor of 50% dels counting - (1.00 / 0) (#150)
    by minordomo on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:54:47 PM EST
    • but so as to get over this fiction propagated by the Clinton campaign that there are no Obama voters in Michigan, either -

    • the proportion of where the "uncommitted" delegates currently stand should be made public, and the popular vote presented in proportion accordingly, or -

    • the exit polls should provide a guideline as to where voters in MI actually stand.

    Hillary Clinton has made the dishonest claim that she is ahead in the popular vote for several weeks now, based on counting the results of a spoiled election in which she received over 300,000 votes, but in which over 230,000 votes are completely disenfranchised in Clinton's media narrative.

    The DNC has no jurisdiction (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by americanincanada on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:14:16 PM EST
    over the popular vote in this. They do not have the power to take state certified popular votes and give them to a candidate who did not receive them or was not on the ballot.

    I am sure this will be made clear tomorrow.

    Parent

    Nobody has jurisdiction - (1.00 / 0) (#220)
    by minordomo on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:27:53 PM EST
    - over the popular vote in this contest. As a matter of fact, the popular vote is irrelevant in this contest, it is simply something that the Clinton campaign has been pushing (however dishonestly, by effectively silencing over 230,000 MI voters) in order to influence the thinking of the superdelegates. So far, they have been quite unsuccessful in this regard, with Obama seeing a net gain of about 60 superdelegates since NC and IN.

    The point I was trying to make was that the media coverage should reflect that there are plenty of Obama voters in MI. Clinton has been getting a free ride on her claim for some time now.

    As for the tired argument that Obama chose to take his name off the ballot (as did Edwards and others), he did so in the context of an election whose result would not count in the primary and in the context of their pledge not to participate in that election. It was entirely correct of him to do so, as it was correct of Edwards and the others to do so in this context.

    To hold an election under these circumstances results in a spoiled election, clear and simple. While there are compelling political reasons to seat the delegates in some form (50% penalty, whatever), it makes no sense to now pretend it was a normal election and that Obama should be punished for having done something that was reasonable and legal under the circumstances.

    Having said that, I wonder what the Clinton camp is hoping to gain from this. Even the best-case scenario for her (seat FL as is, seat MI as is with uncommitted not counting for Obama, and seat them all 100%) doesn't get her close to beating Obama in the delegate count.

    If it really is about the idealistic posture of making sure "every vote counts" why the eagerness to cut 230,000 MI voters out of this? Even if one takes on board the point that it is not possible to unravel the "uncommitted" votes at this point, at the very least Clinton and her supporters should not be including such a spoiled result in their calculations. It completely undermines the wish to see "every vote counted".

    Parent

    Again, your facts are wrong (5.00 / 0) (#216)
    by cmugirl on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:26:23 PM EST
    but so as to get over this fiction propagated by the Clinton campaign that there are no Obama voters in Michigan

    Um, what are you talking about?  No one has ever said that there were no Obama voters in Michigan.  What has been said, which is true, is that Obama voluntarily removed his name from a ballot, thereby denying his own supporters from casting a ballot for him.  He should receive no votes in a popular vote count because he chose to remove his name.  It would be equivalent of me applying for a job, going to an interview, and then removing my name from consideration, yet still expecting to get the job after I told the employer not to consider me.

    (We're also omitting the fact that Obama had his supporters make affirmative and proactive motions to inform the public that people should vote "uncommitted" if they wanted to vote for him - even John and Monica Conyers made radio commercials that specifically mentioned Obama's name. This message was all over the radio, TV, newspapers, billboards, flyers, etc. all over Michigan, so for anyone to argue that Obama supporters were not aware of this option are liars).

    Parent

    Interesting argument - (1.00 / 0) (#222)
    by minordomo on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:29:28 PM EST
    (We're also omitting the fact that Obama had his supporters make affirmative and proactive motions to inform the public that people should vote "uncommitted" if they wanted to vote for him - even John and Monica Conyers made radio commercials that specifically mentioned Obama's name. This message was all over the radio, TV, newspapers, billboards, flyers, etc. all over Michigan, so for anyone to argue that Obama supporters were not aware of this option are liars).

    - in favor of having the "uncommitted" delegates count for Obama.

    Parent

    Hillary has trumpeted it repeatedly - (none / 0) (#234)
    by minordomo on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:35:44 PM EST
    No one has ever said that there were no Obama voters in Michigan.

    - by claiming that she had a majority of the popular vote when the only way to attain that result was by claiming Clinton voters in MI, but pretending there were no Obama voters there.

    Parent

    Now lets move forward... (1.00 / 3) (#237)
    by Max Peck on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:40:43 PM EST
    Hillary please, STFU and make me a sammich...

    /glad that is over...

    They should call off the protestors then (none / 0) (#6)
    by bjorn on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:10:10 PM EST
    I hope some deal was cut for the popular vote to count.  

    The Protestors (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by AmyinSC on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:22:38 PM EST
    Are operating on their own, and are not part of the Clinton campaign. They are exercising their First Amendment Right.

    Parent
    Disagree (2.00 / 4) (#135)
    by 1jane on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:49:21 PM EST
    The protest was organized the day after the Oregon primary and was given a boost by field ops who were still on the ground for Clinton. I read most of the organizing memos.The information was passed through.

    Parent
    Speaking as a protestor (none / 0) (#235)
    by honora on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:36:16 PM EST
    I am a Clinton supporter and feel that the DNC has not acted impartially in their actions.  However, I am going to DC to protest the disenfranchisement of Democratic primary voters.  I would hope that all Democratic voters would recognize that if the 'DNC' and their rules are more important than the voters and justly determining the will of the Democratic electorate, then all of our votes are equally at risk.  

    Parent
    Impossible - (none / 0) (#238)
    by minordomo on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:41:47 PM EST
    - can't change the rules at this point. The popular vote only "counts" as a rhetorical argument used in an attempt to persuade superdelegates. And as far as that goes, it's not working well at all.

    Parent
    BTD: completeing mhy thought (none / 0) (#11)
    by D Cupples on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:12:49 PM EST
    I DID hear them say that they disagreed with the MI party.

    What I didn't hear was their declaration that FL didn't deserve the safe harbor proviced by 21-c-7.

    I heard flountroy (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:15:04 PM EST
    say it quite clearly.

    Parent
    Maybe it's over (none / 0) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:18:20 PM EST
    maybe they decided this morning to end it.

    That seems possible (none / 0) (#43)
    by andgarden on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:19:25 PM EST


    Parent
    Dean, Pelosi, Reid are sending a (none / 0) (#58)
    by bjorn on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:23:39 PM EST
    letter to SDs to come out after Tuesday.  It does seem like Clinton must now know the SDs will swarm around Obama by Wednesday next week.  I thought long ago it would be better for her to get out before that happens.  But this conf call today sure took whatever wind was left out of my sails.

    Parent
    Well then she should concede on Tuesday night (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by andgarden on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:26:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Disagree.... (5.00 / 0) (#149)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:54:38 PM EST
    She should not concede.

    She should just say, 'well, we know where the SDs stand now, and while I'll do what I can to help Senator Obama win in November if he is the nominee, I don't think he can win even with my help, so I'm not conceding.

    That's what her supporters and the SDs need to hear -- none of this "I'm a better choice" nonsense, just a warning that if they pick Obama and he loses -- and damages downticket races in district that she's won -- its on them, because she's said it publicly.

    Parent

    I do not want her to say (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by andgarden on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:58:10 PM EST
    that she doesn't think Obama can win, even if that's what she believes.

    I won't support the strategy you describe.

    Parent

    Why not? (5.00 / 0) (#171)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:03:49 PM EST
    seriously, what is wrong with Clinton saying she thinks Obama can't win in November?

    Do you think that hurts his actual chances in November, and if so why and how?

    Parent

    Because it is one of the few things (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by andgarden on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:07:41 PM EST
    she could say that would actually make her ineligible for the VP slot. I think her not being on the ticket WOULD hurt his chances in November.

    Parent
    No can do (none / 0) (#214)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:25:21 PM EST
    If Hillary were out there saying "he can't win" while close allies like Paul Begala and James Carville have been saying "sure, he can win, we think he will win" she just comes across like a madwoman.  What you propose is not realistic.

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:34:44 PM EST


    Parent
    Let's see what happens tomorrow...everyday (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:40:25 PM EST
    of this campaign has brought new surprises...


    Parent
    I think she needed to go this far - (none / 0) (#239)
    by minordomo on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:43:49 PM EST
    I thought long ago it would be better for her to get out before that happens.

    - to show her supporters that she fought as hard as she could. I hope she ends it constructively though, and I think she will.

    Parent

    Prediction for BTD (none / 0) (#45)
    by mkb662 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:19:35 PM EST
    BTD:  Write this down.  I predict that the full pledged delegations of MI + FL will be seated without penalty.  However, the RBC will punish the superdelegates and party leaders from both states.  There you have it.  This was a suggestion of an RBC member I know, he is not affilliated with the Clinton camp.  It also makes sense to me, as it does not punish voters.

    Wait up (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:24:30 PM EST
    They will all be seated with half votes.

    Parent
    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by mkb662 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:27:07 PM EST
    I think they will be seated in full, not with half-votes but without sanction.  This follows from the "lets not hurt the voters" but the "lets take it out on those responsible" argument.  Hope springs eternal, but this time it was an RBC member that said it yesterday.  

    Parent
    question to BTD (none / 0) (#96)
    by mkb662 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:36:47 PM EST
    Did you see Lyn's letter (HRC's counsel) to the RBC?  It is posted on politico and was just released. http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/

    Parent
    Hmm (none / 0) (#114)
    by andgarden on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:41:38 PM EST
    It looks like she disagrees with the conference call.

    What's going on here?

    Parent

    I tell you (none / 0) (#157)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:56:49 PM EST
    that congerence call was a disaster. They should have just released the letter and not concede anything.

    Parent
    Ugh (none / 0) (#163)
    by andgarden on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:00:11 PM EST
    Senator Clinton, an excellent candidate, appears to still be saddled with a horrifically uncoordinated team.

    Their strategy seem to be throwing $hit at the wall.

    Parent

    Okay, now my head is spinning... (none / 0) (#225)
    by madamab on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:31:14 PM EST
    what is wrong with the people on that conference call? If she is making a rules-based argument, why didn't they admit it?

    Thank goodness I'm a dumb opera singer and not an attorney...;-)

    Parent

    Ickes? (none / 0) (#173)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:05:12 PM EST
    BTD, do you think Ickes went off the reservation with the call in order to keep his DNC buddies happy?

    Parent
    I think Ickes has divided loyalty. (none / 0) (#192)
    by oculus on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:12:46 PM EST


    Parent
    No clue (none / 0) (#196)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:13:37 PM EST
    Flountroy emphatic answer to alegre was shocking to me.

    Parent
    is that the same (none / 0) (#233)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:35:11 PM EST
    "Flournoy" from the rules committee video who thought that since DC was able to hold caucuses when it scheduled its primaries too early in 04, that it should be no problem for Florida?

    if it is, I'm not the least bit surprised that she can't come up with a decent argument.

    Parent

    Write this down (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:20:02 PM EST
    Not a chance.

    Parent
    ok, if I am right, you owe me. (none / 0) (#53)
    by mkb662 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:22:39 PM EST
    Trust me, I will write you back.

    Parent
    boy is that a mistake (none / 0) (#47)
    by Robert Oak on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:20:04 PM EST
    That is a major mistake.  The entire primary is one hell of a rigged game and the Clinton campaign should plain disown it if they want the people to stick with the Democratic party.  I mean this is pathetically unfair, from MI/FL to the supers to the distribution of delegates, one big glorified insider game and not letting the people choose.

    Huge, huge mistake, bah humbug Clinton campaign.

    The time (2.33 / 3) (#94)
    by JRoyale on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:36:05 PM EST
    for the Clinton Campaign to complain about the rulez was back in August of last year.  Everyone agreed to the rulez back then, so whining about them now just makes you like a sore loser.

    And yes, we need to change the rules... for 2012.

    Parent

    Michigan (none / 0) (#63)
    by Robert Oak on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:25:57 PM EST
    Who here thinks Michigan is being made a scapegoat and that the governor is getting personally blasted?

    Frankly when I first heard of this I agree with them because Michigan is ground zero on economic destruction.  The only way to get the candidate with the best economic policies was to move up their primary!  They are desperate for true trade, economic reforms.

    So now they are being slammed constantly in the MSM and if I were that state, well, I'd consider plain starting a 3rd party.  Highest foreclosure rate in the country, decimated by bad trade deals, offshore outsourcing....i mean let's get real here and it's like the DNC just doesn't want those issues front and center.

    Well (none / 0) (#64)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:25:59 PM EST
    This is a strategy with no endgame.  But if they honestly figure it's over and the die has been cast no matter what, this is probably the right move in terms of saying the right things to help the party move past the MI/FL issue for November, even though the arguments are knowingly disingenuous.

    It's possible, I guess, that they got some kind of concession from the party elders for agreeing to roll over on this.

    Um (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:29:46 PM EST
    I do not see it that way.

    they could have made good solid argument respectful of everyone and made their best case and if they lost, accept the result.

    NOT making the argument makes no sense at all.

    I really disagree with you on this.

    hell, clinton looks like she was just doing a ploy now.

    It hurts her in my eyes personally.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:34:33 PM EST
    I am not saying I see a coherent basis for this.

    But if they figure it's all over no matter what, there are a lot of ways to exit gracefully.  99.9% of the people will never have any idea that a strong argument was left on the table.

    In terms of fighting for the voters, I'm not sure anything matters at the end of the day other than ensuring that those elections count for something.

    Parent

    This is not graceful in my eyes (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:35:52 PM EST
    And Florida ESPECIALLY will not see it so. They did NOTHING WRONG.

    Parent
    Do you mean (none / 0) (#104)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:38:36 PM EST
    the delegates, or the voters?

    I agree with you that the FL delegates may be upset, but they get to make their arguments regardless.  If you mean the voters, why would they be outraged by a delegate penalty, as long as the election counts?

    Parent

    FL Dem in group has seemed (none / 0) (#115)
    by oculus on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:42:21 PM EST
    conflicted on these issues for a long time.  

    Parent
    Both (none / 0) (#118)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:43:42 PM EST


    Parent
    Did you read the (none / 0) (#124)
    by andgarden on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:46:20 PM EST
    Utrecht letter?

    Parent
    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:51:48 PM EST
    She makes an interesting argument, one I had not heard before.

    She argues that MI and FL are entitled to a waiver, not because of efforts that were made or not made to oppose the early primary date, but because of their good-faith efforts after the fact to organize a re-vote.

    I don't have time to consult the rules right now to figure out if this argument flies, but it is very interesting.  I certainly am puzzled at this juncture as to where the Clinton campaign really stands.

    If they have some clever plan, something they can't discuss with people just yet, it seems to me that they shouldn't have had a conference call today at all.

    Parent

    I'm really tired (5.00 / 0) (#147)
    by andgarden on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:54:10 PM EST
    of her uncoordinated team. I will NOT miss that.

    Parent
    that is a nonsensical argument (none / 0) (#152)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:55:15 PM EST
    the step contemplated are to change the legislation.

    But hey, Ickes and Flountroy did not make that argument in the conference call.

    It is a bit of a joke if you ask me.

    Parent

    Crappy argument imo (none / 0) (#156)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:55:43 PM EST


    Parent
    I think Steve M has it... (none / 0) (#107)
    by mattt on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:39:49 PM EST
    this is part of a deal where Clinton also got something.  Maybe she was persuaded that she needed to be seen mending fences before she could be chosen as VP.

    Parent
    why do people think she wants to be VP? (none / 0) (#183)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:09:24 PM EST
    seriously?

    I don't get it.  

    She's already done the same basic job (representing the administration at official functions, etc) for eight years.   As a Senator from New York -- and one that millions of Americans voted for, she'd have a lot more power and influence than as VP.

    Parent

    Agreed (none / 0) (#226)
    by cmugirl on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:31:30 PM EST
    1. I don't think he's ego will allow him to offer it;

    2. She would outshine him;

    3. He would relegate her to attending funerals and she would never be heard from again after election day;

    4. She could better hold his feet to the fire in the Senate.  She won't become majority leader, but, with Kennedy's career uncertain, she know becomes the lion of the Senate and the voice that will always be chiming in and she will be the one the press will get a reaction from when anything happens in DC. (Yes, all of a sudden, they will want to hear what she says, especially if it is in opposition to a President Obama - the press loves drama).


    Parent
    Bad hand - bad typing! (none / 0) (#230)
    by cmugirl on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:32:47 PM EST
    I don't think he's ego will allow him to offer it;

    Should be "I don't think his ego will allow him to offer it

    Parent

    With half of delegates from Mi and Fl (none / 0) (#112)
    by felizarte on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:41:10 PM EST
    then the delegate threshold is increased and Obama may not have that many delegates ready to carry him over that threshold. With the results of PR, Montana and S. Dakota, this might even prove more advantageous to Clinton.  

    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#69)
    by mffarrow on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:27:52 PM EST
    That is really good news.

    One thing I am sure of, and that (none / 0) (#70)
    by Anne on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:27:53 PM EST
    is that whatever was said today and whatever happens tomorrow, none of it will bear any relation to what is reported in the media and on the pro-Obama blogs.

    And, I have a feeling that whatever cards people think were on display in that conference call, there are some that have not been played - and until they are, and until Clinton herself concedes the fight, I'm not willing to go with media spin and speculation as a substitute for reality.

    Me either Anne (none / 0) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:29:38 PM EST


    Parent
    (nodding) (none / 0) (#85)
    by katiebird on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:33:20 PM EST


    Parent
    (also nodding) (none / 0) (#244)
    by MonaL on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:14:53 PM EST


    Parent
    not sure she shoulda (none / 0) (#99)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:37:33 PM EST
    done that...

    Count (none / 0) (#109)
    by Missblu on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:40:19 PM EST
    I may have missed this in the blogs so what is the final delegate majority count.  Is it now 2105 with her getting 1/2 count of all her delegates. If so this is not bad.  BTD please explain.

    According to DemConWatch (none / 0) (#240)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:46:26 PM EST
    The new magic number should be 2116.  

    Obama would get 45 delegates in total.  His magic number would go from 40 currently to 82.  

    Hillary would need 239.5 more delegates.  There are currently 308 remaining delegates, both pledged and super.

    Source


    Parent

    Except that (none / 0) (#209)
    by DaveOinSF on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:21:38 PM EST
    Except that the votes of the people of Florida and Michigan are not Hillary Clinton's to concede.  They belong to the 2.3 million voters.  Disappointing that Hillary Clinton is not making a bigger fight here, but it seems clear to me that some deal has been or is about to be cut.

    Well (none / 0) (#227)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:31:42 PM EST
    They're not giving up the votes, just the delegates.  Under a 50% solution, the elections count, the voters are heard from.

    Parent
    I find their strategy interesting... (none / 0) (#210)
    by outsider on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:21:43 PM EST
    but not hugely surprising.  I guess the Clinton camp decided that taking a forceful line at the committee, and making accusations (even very well backed up ones) about inconsistent enforcement of the rules would be too acrimonious, at this stage.  Although I don't like the idea, I wonder whether it means they are now finally getting ready to wind down the campaign.  I guess the only other reason they might be going softly-softly on this is that they are trying to pick their battles, and not fight on too many fronts at once.  She may think that this strategy will gain her enough good will for people to allow her to continue to make her case to the superdelegates uninterrupted.  A mistake, IMO.  If only half the MI and FL delegations are seated, she will not be in a strong position to avoid being pushed out of the race.

    Hope they have something up their sleeve. (none / 0) (#242)
    by Angel on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:13:26 PM EST


    New Women's Website (none / 0) (#243)
    by Missblu on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:29:09 PM EST
    Another protest women's website up today. This one started by women for Hillary leaders in Ohio.
    Will be for long haul.
    Founders to be on Fox at 4:30PM

    Site:www.womanforfairpolitics.com

    Sign it anyway! (none / 0) (#245)
    by LauraInCali on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:43:40 PM EST
    ACTION ALERT!!!!PLEASE EVERYONE GO TO COUNT ALL THE VOTES CAST AND SIGN THE LETTER TO THE DNC...TIME IS RUNNING OUT! DO IT NOW!!!

    http://www.countthevotescast.org/letter.php

    From Hillary 44 (none / 0) (#246)
    by LauraInCali on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:50:51 PM EST
    The Democrats allege Florida and Michigan violated the DNC Rule 11.A prohibiting a caucus or primary before Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire. DNC Rule 20.C.1 specifies the punitive measures that both states lose 50% of their vote: Florida 210 delegates, Michigan 156 delegates. The DNC Rules Committee will be meeting this coming Saturday, May 31 to hear Obama's utterly bizarre plan allowing only the superdelegates (ironically the votes he desperately needs to capture the nomination) to be seated, while delegates elected by popular suffrage are repudiated by being half-counted, oddly reminiscent of a colonial enumeration of freed "Black Men and Indians."

    By why is there even a debate? Constitutional law is unequivocal. Every vote cast must be counted. This constitutional principle, pronounced by the United States Supreme Court since Ex parte Yarborough (1884) and reiterated as recently as Gray v. Sanders (1963), is simply beyond reproach. This rock-bottom constitutional demand applies to primaries as well as general elections. United States v. Classic (1941). Deliberately refusing to count votes cast may, under certain fact scenarios, constitute a Federal crime, United States v. Classic, citing now Section 241 of the Federal Crimes Code. Reiterating black letter law stated in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966), the high court reasserted in Bush v. Gore (2000) that "once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another

    My largest problem is... (none / 0) (#247)
    by Max Peck on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:28:37 PM EST
    that Hillary wanted to seat the delegates after agreeing that no campaigning in either state should occur. Hell, Obama's nor Edwards' names weren't even on the ballot in MI due to agreements that they broke DNC rules. Rules seem to be something the Clinton's have a hard time adhering to. This back handedness and conniving is just what I came to expect from this soon to be former Democratic candidate for President, BTW, did they return ALL the furniture removed from the White House during their move? It's character flaws like this that causes me to wretch when considering her candidacy and how she has comported herself throughout this campaign. I agree that America is ready for a woman president, just not this flawed one.

    It has always been that way for politicians named Clinton, by hook or by crook.

    Clinton Campaign Accepts FL/MI Broke Rules | 241 comments (241 topical)