FL/MI Live Blog: The Belated Afternoon Session

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:10:00 PM EST
Tags: Florida '08, Michigan '08 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

They are an hour and a half behind schedule. We smell a back room deal.

This is Big Tent Democrat's and my continuation of live-blogging the afternoon non-session of the Democratic Rules & Bylaw Committee meeting on seating Michigan and Florida.

The live-blog appears below the fold so it can be bigger. Comment in this thread as usual if you want others to see your comments. Only BTD and I can see those you submit through the live blog software.

Comments ~~here will open when they reconvene~~ now closed.

If you'd like to donate anonymously, here's the Amazon link.

Thanks everyone.

< Obama Resigns From Trinity Church | Unity? >

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

Menu

Home | About | RSS
E-Mail | Comment Policy |
Search
Login

Make a new account

Existing Users

Username:
Password:
Creator and Principal Author
- Jeralyn E. Merritt
TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections
Site Credits
- TalkLeft Graphics by C.L., Our Man in Hollywood (2006 - 2008)
- TalkLeft Header Graphic by Monk
- Powered by Scoop
Legal
- All Content Copyright ©2002-2024. Reprints only by permission from TalkLeft.com
- Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.
- TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.
"The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles"
© 1965 Bob Dylan

FL/MI Live Blog: The Belated Afternoon Session | 237 comments (237 topical)

So (5.00 / 6) (#6)
by Emma on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:06:04 PM EST

Ickes was right. Why not just take 20, or 27, delegates away from Clinton. WTF ever.

oops (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Emma on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:20:13 PM EST

Not 23, 2 or 3. Still, take delegates away from Clinton and give them to Obama. Who's stealing now?

Parent

: Michigan has 28 at large pledged delegates (none / 0) (#50)
by Jeralyn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:29:19 PM EST

Michigan is allotted 28 pledged at-large delegates and 6 pledged at-large alternates.
Michigan delegate selection plan.

Parent

I doubt they will use (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:07:06 PM EST

the rules to explain if that is what they do!

You've got to be joking! (5.00 / 8) (#9)
by ghost2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:09:12 PM EST

He took his name off the ballot. And he gets not only delegates, but 23 add-ons?

I am Canadian, but if I wasn't, I'd refuse to belong to such a crappy party (my aplogies to everyone here).

How could they do this? How could they?

This establishes all kinds of crappy precedents.

BTD, on the next primary, watch politicians make backroom deals, take their name off the ballots, and then end up with the bigger share of the delegates, whereas if they had participated in the actual election, they would get say barely 15% of the vote.

This is WRONG!

I cannot see the Clinton campaign (5.00 / 3) (#14)
by americanincanada on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:10:35 PM EST

agreeing to that. I just can't. There is nothing in it for them.

Parent

: Can't imagine either campaign will have (none / 0) (#41)
by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:20:03 PM EST

anything more to say about it once the committee makes its ruling today.

Parent

No offense taken (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by angie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:11:42 PM EST

I'm a proud "Unaffiliated" voter now.

Parent

2 OR 3 addons, not 23 (5.00 / 4) (#33)
by RonK Seattle on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:15:22 PM EST

Still a bum deal ... I guess Unities come in half-sizes.

Parent

: With 1/2 vote or full? (none / 0) (#112)
by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:45:27 PM EST

Parent

you like (none / 0) (#20)
by CanadianDem on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:12:02 PM EST

the reform party, aka the CPC? Otherwise I suppose you're in the minority up here.

Parent

: absolutely NOT! (none / 0) (#32)
by ghost2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:14:49 PM EST

How does that imply that I'd like the reform?

Parent

The Rules are the Rules; except with Obama Roolz? (5.00 / 7) (#11)
by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:09:44 PM EST

So, the MI unity plan will give Obama delegates he didn't run for (by taking name off ballot) and didn't win.

Damn.

That's almost as good as pushing opponents off the ballot....

whats up with this (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by CanadianDem on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:14:25 PM EST

I noticed the usage of the Creative Class has all but lost it's flavour of the day, and now it seems various iterations of the 'roolz' etc is now popular. I think it actually lowers the quality of people's posts/converations, just like the 'boiz' usage did. imho.

Parent

: There are written rules the committee ignored, (none / 0) (#47)
by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:26:32 PM EST

such as the usual and rule-dictated 50% reduction in votes at the convention. Instead, the committee, for whatever reasons, perhaps a fit of ire at the number of states trying to move their dates, decided on an ad hoc rule, which was Draconian in its ferocity of completely depriving the offending states of all their delegates.
That might be considered a Rool.
There was a pledge demanded by the 4 regular early states demanding that the candidates not campaign in the offending early states, FL and MI. It was not DNC rule, but it became a Rule. Then, the Obama campaign began to say that this pledge was a Rool which required the candidates to not leave their names on the ballot.
It has become a shorthand for written, usual and customary rules and new rules, without, most often, any written basis.

Parent

How do they justify this (5.00 / 4) (#23)
by americanincanada on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:12:40 PM EST

when it was clearly a bad idea before they went to lunch and the Clinton campaign lobbied against it?

this seems bad for obama (5.00 / 3) (#24)
by boredmpa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:13:01 PM EST

I've said previously that I felt his campaign and surrogates were anti-democratic (by heavily misleading voters and polarizing minority issues), but that was just my opinion. This would be pretty blatant if he gets add on votes.

Very dumb politically (not that it matters to me, i've stated repeatedly i wont vote for him).

My prediction on the other thread (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by Jeralyn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:13:16 PM EST

was 69/59 seated with half votes each.

Totally with BTD (5.00 / 8) (#29)
by Valhalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:14:31 PM EST

How can they possibly justify giving someone any votes or delegates based on this ephemeral 'intent of the voters' concept? based on exit polls? I can't believe the Clinton side would go for that, esp. behind closed doors. Or were the Clinton-leaning members of the committee not invited?

: 69-59 already gives him more than he earned. (5.00 / 8) (#39)
by Teresa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:18:23 PM EST

Adding more just angers me more.

Parent

Something tells me (5.00 / 11) (#30)
by Coldblue on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:14:38 PM EST

that today's rulings are not going to unify the party.

Are we still in the United States? (5.00 / 8) (#36)
by Andy08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:16:12 PM EST

Or is this going on in some pseudo-democracy somewhere else?

I guess this is the (5.00 / 9) (#45)
by joanneleon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:22:58 PM EST

Change We Can Believe In.

Parent

I believe in it. (5.00 / 4) (#60)
by dotcommodity on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:31:48 PM EST

We have changed beyond all recognition.

Parent

The NEW Democratic Party (5.00 / 4) (#220)
by MO Blue on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:09:18 PM EST

aka the Obama Party. Bush had Katherine Harris and SCOTUS. Obama has Donna Brazile and the RBC.

The NEW Democratic Party will have to become viable without my support.

Parent

: Please don't say that... (none / 0) (#240)
by Larry Bailey on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:24:59 PM EST

...we'll find a way through this fog. Though I'm just as angry as you are.

Parent

If Obama is so sure he's got the SDs needed to put (5.00 / 5) (#40)
by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:19:42 PM EST

him into the majority, any decided upon majority, wny is his campaign so hell bent on doing something that seems to deny one voter, one vote?

It seems petty and very negative. I mean, the party was nearly destroyed over the fair reflection (right phrase?) issues. Dueling slates of delegates, walk-outs. Wow.

Is this to destroy the Clintons as power brokers in the Democratic Party (part of the leveraged buyout Lambert writes about)?

: It may be (5.00 / 3) (#63)
by Eleanor A on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:31:57 PM EST

designed to be so outrageous that it goes to Credentials. I'm hoping the hell so anyway.

Parent
: Playing by the Rules (none / 0) (#211)
by Spike on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:15:52 PM EST

Some claim that splitting the Michigan delegates between Clinton and Obama is contrary to the rules. However, absent such a compromise, if the rules were strictly adhered to neither candidate would get a single delegate in Michigan because the flawed primary was determined to be against the rules before the vote was even held.

Parent

Travesty (5.00 / 3) (#43)
by joanneleon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:20:20 PM EST

A complete sham.

The DNC was in the bag all along.

How contrived is this going to be? Their biggest concern is how they are going to make this look like they were conducting a fair process. It's all about appearances.

They never cared about rules or fairness.

This is a travesty.

My my (5.00 / 5) (#44)
by joanneleon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:22:17 PM EST

If I didn't know better, I might think this debate was scripted and staged.

But no, the Democratic party would never do something like that.

Ahh (5.00 / 5) (#46)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:23:09 PM EST

looks like we've all been virtually flown to Japan for nice entertainment.

Gotta love the kabuki theater we're seeing now.

At a certain point (5.00 / 5) (#53)
by waldenpond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:30:21 PM EST

I hope Clinton supporters get up and walk out. No booing, no hissing, nothing..... I just want to see voters take a stand for themselves. I do not want to see people grab their ankles and take it yet again from their govt.

: Nope... (none / 0) (#117)
by Addison on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:46:46 PM EST

...booing, hissing, and heckling a Clinton SD.

Parent

Tina Flournoy (5.00 / 2) (#55)
by stillife on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:30:28 PM EST

is breaking my heart.

BTD, aren't you arguing a legal point of view? (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by Teresa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:30:48 PM EST

This obviously isn't a court room or any kind of fair body. I like the moral argument of seating them better since you have said that no court would get involved in this.

You just lost on the rules (5.00 / 1) (#83)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:38:24 PM EST

Now you know why I strongly believed that the rules argument NEEDED to be made.

You just lost and people just threw the rules in your face and you still do not see why the rules based argument was necessary?

Parent

I understand what you are saying and agree (5.00 / 1) (#93)
by Teresa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:40:17 PM EST

with you legally, but is a legal argument the only one that applies here since you've said they aren't bound by law?

Parent

: Can't you tell YOU just lost (none / 0) (#225)
by Edgar08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:13:31 PM EST

Notice BTD says "You" like 8 times.

Parent

The rules argument was never going to fly anyway (5.00 / 1) (#236)
by digdugboy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:22:20 PM EST

You saw what they did with Ausmus' "shall" argument regarding charter delegates. This process was about trying to include as many voters and alienate as few voters as possible, without disturbing the already-decided outcome of the nomination process. The rules were important only inasmuch as they were helpful to achieve the appearance of inclusion.

Parent

WHAT????!!!!! (5.00 / 5) (#58)
by Eleanor A on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:30:50 PM EST

Hillary wins the state and OBAMA GETS MORE DELEGATES???!!!!

I'm sorry, this just infuriates me. Good thing I've already got an August room booked for Denver, since I'm going to spend the whole week picketing my ass off.

Fournoy rocks, imho n/t (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by Valhalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:31:34 PM EST

Does anyone NOT know that (5.00 / 3) (#61)
by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:31:50 PM EST

BTD thinks Clinton screwed up on the RULES?

[snark]

It's the RULZ (5.00 / 5) (#62)
by Coldblue on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:31:53 PM EST

and egos that matter.

Voters? Not so much obviously

Seating half (5.00 / 4) (#64)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:32:10 PM EST

Clinton objecting, gives her a reason to go to teh convention.

Chaos will result in 2012 (5.00 / 5) (#65)
by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:32:56 PM EST

what a strange argument.

The rules are over-riding the voters, and the goal of the party to be victorious in November.

Shooting themselves in both feet.

Chaos (5.00 / 3) (#78)
by Coldblue on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:35:10 PM EST

in November...who cares about 2012.

These 'party leaders' are clueless....

Parent

: They are just so deep in Obama's movement (5.00 / 7) (#101)
by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:43:15 PM EST

they can't see the mess they are making.
They have sealed the fate of millions of their former members.

Parent

Making a civil rights argument (5.00 / 7) (#66)
by RalphB on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:33:31 PM EST

and bringing up MLK while you disenfranchise voters is the heart of hypocrisy.

Looks like they are going to lose me (5.00 / 7) (#67)
by splashy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:33:37 PM EST

I have been wavering for quite some time, hoping they would do the right thing, but this is appearing to show that they don't care about the voters.

They DID NOTE apply the rules evenly, they DID play loose with the rules, so it's not going to play with me.

Back in the USSR.... (5.00 / 4) (#68)
by Angel on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:33:42 PM EST

: You don't know how lucky you are! (5.00 / 0) (#75)
by stillife on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:34:50 PM EST

Parent

Alice Germond (5.00 / 2) (#71)
by Radiowalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:34:08 PM EST

I have put her on MUTE.

Wake me when she shuts up.

She so reminds me of Jean Schmidt (5.00 / 1) (#121)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:48:01 PM EST

Parent

Alice (none / 0) (#77)
by melro on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:35:07 PM EST

I'm going to pick up my take-out food now.

Parent

: She should be discouraged from speaking (none / 0) (#85)
by Valhalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:38:35 PM EST

If I were an Obama supporter, I'd encourage someone else to make her points (I don't even know what they are bc she's impossible to follow).

Parent

I think she is smoking (none / 0) (#90)
by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:39:38 PM EST

something

Parent

I wonder (5.00 / 3) (#72)
by Emma on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:34:13 PM EST

if Germond will feel equally as bad when Obama loses?

Rules vs. Voters (5.00 / 4) (#73)
by Lysis on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:34:23 PM EST

I used to know which party sided with each side of that battle.

No more.

Germond: Rules, rules, rules, rules! (5.00 / 2) (#74)
by RonK Seattle on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:34:32 PM EST

I hope we can get (5.00 / 5) (#80)
by janarchy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:37:07 PM EST

a role call of those who voted for full seating of the delegation. They deserve kudos for doing the right thing. It's 12 for.

The fix is in (5.00 / 4) (#81)
by stillife on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:38:14 PM EST

Goodbye, Florida in the GE.

Take names (5.00 / 4) (#82)
by Radiowalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:38:14 PM EST

of those who don't vote to seat Florida.

There a 15 Democrats who need to get some mail.

Never in my life did I think (5.00 / 9) (#84)
by gyrfalcon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:38:27 PM EST

I would hear a room full of Democrats cheering wildly for a decision not to count all the votes.

These people sound just like the Bush people in 2000 in Florida. Can't they see that?

This is truly disgraceful.

Despicable indeed (5.00 / 2) (#129)
by Andy08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:50:52 PM EST

blind egocentrism that's what it is. They could care less for the voters of FL & MI. They care just about themselves.

Parent

For those of us who didn't do it already, we (5.00 / 3) (#131)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:51:06 PM EST

need to prepare to send (en masse) our torn up DNC cards to them with copies of our new Independent status.

Parent

: I just had (none / 0) (#243)
by Andy08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:29:19 PM EST

to renew my driver license last week and registered as an Independent.
This is really not my party anymore unless somehow Hillary gets nominated. Then I have faith things at the tops will change.
Otherwise and with all due respect to Jeralyn who put up with us in this blog; I cannot support in any way Obama and his new party.

Parent

Denver! Denver! Denver! (5.00 / 4) (#88)
by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:38:52 PM EST

The people will speak.

12 to 15 against motion to seat all the (5.00 / 3) (#89)
by oculus on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:38:55 PM EST

FL delegates. At least the chair made each person voting "no" raise a hand. Absolutely disgraceful. Hillary Clinton should play this video endlessly.

The DNC (5.00 / 7) (#92)
by txpolitico67 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:39:54 PM EST

just sealed its fate. Idiots. They voted 15-11 against seating FL full force

: Name names (5.00 / 3) (#103)
by Eleanor A on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:43:58 PM EST

I want to know who voted for this travesty.

Parent

Ohhh (5.00 / 10) (#94)
by Emma on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:40:37 PM EST

smell the unity!

Or, maybe that's just what the pony left behind.

One-half vote? (5.00 / 5) (#95)
by Radiowalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:40:53 PM EST

Why not a 5/8 vote?
That would at least have historic relevance.

Germond statement... (5.00 / 7) (#96)
by Oje on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:41:04 PM EST

The DNC was wrong to strip 100% of delegates from Florida.
By stripping 100% of delegates, the DNC made the Florida primary a beauty contest.
Because Florida was a beauty contest, the primary in Florida is not the will of Florida voters.
The DNC cannot support a 100% seating of primary that was not 100%.
But somehow, we can give 50% delegates to a "beauty contest" of the DNC's making!

So, by Germond's argument, the punishment of Florida by Teh Roolz is due to the DNC's extralegal action to strip 100%. Florida is being punished for a problem that Germond acknowledges was created by the DNC, not Florida.

: oops.... (5.00 / 1) (#100)
by Oje on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:43:12 PM EST

4. The DNC cannot support a 100% seating of primary that was not the will of the voters.

Parent

I thought Ausman showed pretty clearly that the SD (5.00 / 4) (#102)
by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:43:30 PM EST

votes are covered by the force of the word "shall" and cannot be cut in half?

Plus, the committee did initially ignore the DNC's written rules.

Which rules really count???

: Half a vote is better than none? (none / 0) (#110)
by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:45:02 PM EST

Parent

Printing out my party registration change now. (5.00 / 8) (#104)
by Lysis on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:44:09 PM EST

I remember thinking Dems were morally superior to the Bush 2000 thugs in Florida.

I cannot be a member of a party that doesn't value voters.

Sorry.

Independent.

As of today.

: Good for you! (5.00 / 1) (#222)
by txpolitico67 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:10:14 PM EST

The Democratic party is dead. It's grim reaper: Barack Obama.

Parent

Alice Huffman (5.00 / 6) (#105)
by Radiowalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:44:18 PM EST

is breaking my heart.

Denver! Denver! Denver!

FL SD's don't get full votes either (5.00 / 5) (#106)
by RonK Seattle on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:44:19 PM EST

I guess "shall" doesn't mean "shall".

: Maybe shall is just a shell game.... (none / 0) (#113)
by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:45:33 PM EST

Parent

oh (5.00 / 4) (#107)
by Cal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:44:20 PM EST

This is gonna get ugly.

: I hope so (5.00 / 6) (#120)
by waldenpond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:47:34 PM EST

If people don't walk out, I will be very disappointed. How much do people take from their govt before they stand up for themselves. I just don't get it.

Parent

And now Alice Huffman is (5.00 / 3) (#108)
by oculus on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:44:34 PM EST

calling for support of the compromise. How disappointing. She was so eloquent.

New campaign slogan: (5.00 / 7) (#109)
by Oje on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:44:57 PM EST

The Democratic Party 2008:

The next best thing to Democracy! (Huffman)

This is breaking down (5.00 / 7) (#111)
by Paul F Villarreal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:45:20 PM EST

...and I think it's going to get worse, sadly.

Damn you Howard Dean. And many, many others.

Ticking voters off (5.00 / 5) (#114)
by melro on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:45:56 PM EST

You know they can talk rules all they want but tick the voters off and you've got a problem.

If everyone in Michigan listened to the DNC that their vote wouldn't count and no one voted at all, then what would we be doing right now, just negating an entire state? It looks like that's what's in store for Michigan.

Huffman isn't compromising- (5.00 / 2) (#115)
by magisterludi on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:46:03 PM EST

she's bending over.

: You have to remember (5.00 / 2) (#126)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:49:19 PM EST

this is Kabuki theater. Everyone there knows what's going to happen.

Parent

I never did... (5.00 / 2) (#116)
by Cal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:46:22 PM EST

...like those Ausmans. Too much teeth and sappy music.

: LOL (5.00 / 1) (#127)
by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:49:38 PM EST

Parent

I think the "not fighting" (5.00 / 4) (#118)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:46:50 PM EST

is strategic. If all delegates were fully seated, etc, what reason would she have to go to the convention? This gives her a reason.

You heard the chant: Denver, Denver, Denver!

Well, they FIXED FL--why'd they wait so long? (5.00 / 1) (#119)
by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:47:02 PM EST

Well (5.00 / 2) (#122)
by phat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:48:21 PM EST

I don't think this helps the party very much.

Florida (5.00 / 5) (#123)
by Lahdee on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:48:33 PM EST

The Half State. The republicans must be very proud of their handy work.

How does Obama get any delegates from MI (5.00 / 2) (#130)
by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:50:55 PM EST

if he wasn't on the ballot?

Better question...why does he get some of hers? (5.00 / 5) (#135)
by Teresa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:52:35 PM EST

Parent

: Exactly. (5.00 / 3) (#143)
by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:54:46 PM EST

I can see 50% for FL, begrudgingly. I can't see any Obama delegate from MI.

Parent

I guess he'll have to change his name (5.00 / 5) (#138)
by Dr Molly on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:53:22 PM EST

to Uncommitted.

Parent

: LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#148)
by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:55:33 PM EST

Parent

Looks like you will have to write the DNC and (5.00 / 3) (#144)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:54:47 PM EST

ask them...apparently their hypocrisy knows no bounds....Pelosi, Reid, et al, need to be dealt with also.

Parent

: Now we get to see what (none / 0) (#176)
by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:02:19 PM EST

Pelosi and Reid are going to do to end this process of nominating the candidate for the party.
It's been so fair thus far! YIKES!!

Parent

Sickening. (5.00 / 4) (#132)
by Cal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:52:04 PM EST

Absolutely sickening.

This stinks (5.00 / 8) (#133)
by Emma on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:52:25 PM EST

Dems stole my primary vote and gave it Obama. They won't get a chance to do it again in November.

Look at them, with visions of political plums (5.00 / 5) (#134)
by BoGardiner on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:52:32 PM EST

dancing in their pointy heads.

Mr Ickes (5.00 / 9) (#136)
by Lahdee on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:52:50 PM EST

is blasting the committee for the 69/59 solution. Go get em Harold!

Outrageous! Giving Obama 59 delegates when (5.00 / 9) (#137)
by Angel on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:53:16 PM EST

he wasn't even on the ballot. And UNCOMITTED received only 55% of the vote. This is totally outrageous. What a sham! This is a bad as the 2000 fiasco except it has been sanctioned by our own party - or I should say my former party because I am now an independent.

I'm completely with BTD on this (5.00 / 5) (#139)
by kayla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:53:33 PM EST

The whole thing seems phony and disingenuous now without the Rules argument from the Clinton campaign. What's the point? The committee is getting away with lying. I was hoping the truth would be coming out, but now it's all just a joke. It's a charade debate. Teh rulz won, but not the rules.

Can McDonald rationalize an Aye vote on this? (5.00 / 1) (#140)
by RonK Seattle on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:53:54 PM EST

Ickes (5.00 / 9) (#141)
by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:54:23 PM EST

has done a beautiful job of putting this committee in its place.

"Fair reflection" isn't so hard to understand that Wexler really needed to be educated on it. He just didn't want to admit he was rallying against it.

Democracy is DEAD. As of this moment. (5.00 / 8) (#142)
by Angel on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:54:24 PM EST

The only hope (5.00 / 5) (#145)
by PlayInPeoria on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:54:50 PM EST

that the Dem Party has fo UNITY is Hillary Clinton.... she is the only one BIG enough to do it.

Let us all hope she can do it because the DNC and Sen Obama are going to just expect the unity.

Democracy now equals (5.00 / 7) (#146)
by LoisInCo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:54:55 PM EST

DEMOnstrating hypoCRACY.

I'm very pleased Ickes is sticking it (5.00 / 10) (#147)
by oculus on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:55:01 PM EST

to the committee re MI.

Ickes: Taking votes is not path to unity (5.00 / 9) (#175)
by Cream City on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:01:52 PM EST

and Clinton has instructed him to inform the committee that she is ready and willing to take this action -- taking away voters for her, taking away four delegates voted by the voters -- to the credentials committee.

And, we can imagine, to the convention floor.

For those not watching, the ambience is getting very ugly. The audience is hooting, booing, shouting out.

Oh no, not again -- member Everett Ward (I'm taking names) is citing the civil rights movement, Fannie Lou Hamer, etc., to support taking votes and delegates away? He is disgracing the memory of the great Fannie Lou Hamer.

Parent

: So, if all the SD's decid to cross over to (5.00 / 3) (#188)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:08:20 PM EST

Clinton, they won't mind? There HAVE to be some fairminded SD's out there. Not everyone is going to be pleased with this gross miscarriage of justice.

Parent

Harold Ickes (5.00 / 10) (#149)
by Radiowalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:55:51 PM EST

is on fire and rightly so!

Hijacking votes indeed! This is a disgrace!

Party unity? Not after this.

I am liking Ickes (5.00 / 10) (#150)
by waldenpond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:56:18 PM EST

He reflects my views. I am appalled at what the DNC is doing.

Credentials Committee

DENVER!!!!!

Rock on, Ickes! (5.00 / 8) (#151)
by stillife on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:56:21 PM EST

It's going to the (5.00 / 3) (#152)
by Coldblue on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:56:38 PM EST

Credentials Committee!

Reserving her rights to take this (5.00 / 5) (#153)
by Radiowalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:56:38 PM EST

to the Credentials Committee!!

Yeah!

Holy cow! (5.00 / 2) (#154)
by phat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:56:39 PM EST

Denver!

YES! (5.00 / 6) (#155)
by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:56:45 PM EST

Ickes takes no prisoners!

Yes. Mrs. Clinton has instructed me to (5.00 / 4) (#156)
by oculus on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:56:56 PM EST

reserve her rights to take this to the credentials committee. Them's fighting words.

Going to Denver, as it should be (5.00 / 5) (#157)
by Democratic Cat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:57:10 PM EST

This is outrageous. The Democratic party needs to rename itself.

: Yea....the DUMBOCRATIC PARTY (5.00 / 2) (#192)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:09:14 PM EST

Parent

Ickes (5.00 / 15) (#158)
by joanneleon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:57:12 PM EST

We find it inexplicable that this body that is devoted to rules is going to fly in the face of the single most fundamental rule in the delegate selection process which is fair reflection.. this motion will hijack -- hijack, remove four deleg won by Hillary Clinton and most importantly .. 600,000 voters. this body has decided that they are going to substitute their judgement for 600,000 voters. Now that's what I call democracy. [applause] There's been a lot of rhetoric about democracy.. i am stunned that we have the gall and the chutzpah to substitute our judgemet for 600K voters... was the process flawed? you bet your ass it was flawed. there's not a process in the US that's not flawed. Wanna say something Mr Dawson? [silence] we have one of the lowest rates of voting in the world. i've never heard that excuse. hell I don't think there's one election that would withstand the test put forth here. ?? pointed out last night that this is in the charter, this is in the constitution of the party.. fair reflection.. not only will this take 4 del from Clinton, it will take 55 delegates from uncommitted and convert them to barack obama. I'm going to vote against this and I hope others join this. there's been a lot of talk about party unity -- let's wrap our arms around each other. I suggest that this is not a good way to start party unity.

One last word. Mrs. Clinton has instructed me to exercise her right to take this to the credentials committee.

YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (5.00 / 4) (#181)
by Eleanor A on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:04:23 PM EST

(does little dance)

Now this way, HRC can not ONLY claim the popular vote, she can go to Denver with it!!!!!!!

Parent

: Most of us agreed it would go to the convention (5.00 / 2) (#195)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:10:32 PM EST

and rightly so....in the immortal words of Lenny Kravitz....'IT AIN'T OVER TIL IT'S OVER'

Parent

Denver! (5.00 / 7) (#159)
by Robert Oak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:57:23 PM EST

Well, well the behavior of the DNC locked their fate...all the way to the convention man, go for it, raise hell, this entire system STINKS!

What a rigged game they are trying to just hand it to Obama.

: Just wait... (5.00 / 3) (#166)
by Cal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:59:18 PM EST

You'll get an e-mail begging for money tomorrow.

Parent

Hijack 4 votes from Clinton and take 55 from (5.00 / 4) (#160)
by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:58:12 PM EST

Uncommitted and give them to Obama. What if some of those uncommitted wanted to vote for Edwards? Or another Dem not on the ballot.

Allocation of vote results by guess, backroom deals, averaged polls. Grrrrrr.

Clinton reserves rights to take to credentials committee.

Whohooooo!

Wow, let's just outsource our elections to SUSA!

This does say the Dems don't need my actual vote- (5.00 / 7) (#170)
by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:00:07 PM EST

they'll just guess, right?

Take that to the Electoral College.

I know I'll calm down, but I am quite upset at this moment.

Parent

: Don't calm down (5.00 / 5) (#178)
by Democratic Cat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:03:20 PM EST

Write a letter to the DNC, telling them you object. Call your rep and senators. As the lady said this morning, even if you think you're not going to be heard, it's your responsibility to speak anyway.

Parent

This is as stupid as it gets (5.00 / 12) (#161)
by Steve M on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:58:23 PM EST

Is any Obama supporter on the planet under the impression that he is only going to win the nomination by 4 votes?

By fighting for a lousy 4 delegates to be reassigned from Clinton to Obama, they're going to give the Clinton camp a free argument from now until November and delegitimize the nomination of their own candidate, for NOTHING.

What a clueless, clueless strategy.

I gotta agree with Ickes/Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#205)
by zfran on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:13:21 PM EST

on this one. They talk about rules, rules, rules. If the rules state what he says they do, they have a case to take to Denver. No, I do not believe he will win by 4, but given the fact that this is tipped in Obama's favor (maybe because he's got such great (ugh) leadership),maybe this leaves an opening!! What a farce today was!@!!!

Parent

Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#213)
by ruffian on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:17:20 PM EST

That has been my main point all along. What has he gained by all this drama? Nothing.

Parent

Amen brother n/t (none / 0) (#171)
by angie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:00:09 PM EST

Parent

: I think I just witnessed (5.00 / 6) (#193)
by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:10:02 PM EST

the DNC snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and have a vote to do so. On to Denver!

Parent

Hopefully you all realize (none / 0) (#244)
by independent voter on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:31:09 PM EST

this is what MICHIGAN asked for.

Parent

Ickes statement (5.00 / 9) (#162)
by gyrfalcon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:58:32 PM EST

is electrifying. He missed his calling. He should have been a union leader.

Not arguing his tactics have been the right ones, just that he made my hair stand on end with his statement here, especially his remarks about the unity pony all these folks keep invoking.

: Thank God Ickes said it (5.00 / 5) (#174)
by angie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:01:03 PM EST

someone had to.

Parent

Thank Senator Obama for his leadership. (5.00 / 1) (#163)
by oculus on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:58:38 PM EST

What leadership?

Praising Obama's leadership in MI (5.00 / 7) (#164)
by angie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:58:56 PM EST

is the BEST laugh of the day!

Hynes is unbelievable (5.00 / 6) (#165)
by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:59:03 PM EST

Senator Obama's LEADERSHIP in this? What leadership? What did Obama do to further the integrity of this process?

Hyne adds insult to injury. (5.00 / 6) (#167)
by RonK Seattle on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:59:34 PM EST

Congratulate Obama (5.00 / 7) (#168)
by waldenpond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:00:04 PM EST

OH GAG ME!!! What an @ss. Leadership? That was a joke. That was appalling. I loved the booing! Also loved the 'you shut up' in the background.

So (5.00 / 6) (#169)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:00:04 PM EST

Credential's Committee. That means DENVER, right?

It should go to Denver. In fact, it HAS to go to Denver.

Denver, Denver, Denver!!!!

Next (5.00 / 4) (#172)
by Athena on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:00:20 PM EST

Now to the Credentials Committee.

Hynes - vomiting now (5.00 / 7) (#173)
by Valhalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:00:52 PM EST

thanking BO for his leadership? What a weasly, horrible little man.

Mr. Hynes, you dishonor your candidate n/t (5.00 / 6) (#177)
by BoGardiner on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:02:46 PM EST

Uh oh, sounds like the racial divide is now on TV (5.00 / 1) (#180)
by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:04:21 PM EST

and will haunt the Dem Party into the future.

I don't see any unity stemming from (5.00 / 10) (#183)
by oculus on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:05:02 PM EST

this day.

Elizabeth Smith -- (5.00 / 5) (#184)
by Emma on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:06:02 PM EST

says don't steal the votes. No wonder Roosevelt didn't want to let her speak.

No offense I have to mut Brewer (5.00 / 3) (#185)
by waldenpond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:07:06 PM EST

He's a moron. Giving dels to Obama is disgusting. I wish I could reach through my teebee and smack him.

: unbelievable (5.00 / 1) (#210)
by Emma on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:14:59 PM EST

Brewer and Levin have ALWAYS been f*cking unbelievable on this. I wish I could mute him. Unfortunately the jack@ss is coming back to Michigan. I wish D.C. would just f'ing keep him.

Parent

Line up the buses! (5.00 / 5) (#187)
by magisterludi on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:08:12 PM EST

I'm wakin' the kids and canceling the paper!

Ugh (5.00 / 1) (#194)
by stillife on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:10:16 PM EST

Martha Fuller Clark - repugnant Obama supporter.

They keep talking about how tired they are (5.00 / 1) (#198)
by ruffian on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:11:40 PM EST

Poor babies - working a full day. These people drive me nuts in soooo many ways.

Oh man (5.00 / 1) (#200)
by phat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:11:46 PM EST

This really is a disaster.

From Michigan (5.00 / 1) (#201)
by melro on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:12:14 PM EST

There will be a ruckus. We have a tendency to get physical here (too much hockey). Fist fights break out at Detroit Public School Meetings!

: I am absolutely (5.00 / 4) (#235)
by dskinner3 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:21:29 PM EST

livid! SO now my vote for Hillary, can be counted for a guy who wasn't even on the ballot?????
I'm sorry but I'm no longer a Democrat. Done. Over.

Parent

That's IT! (5.00 / 3) (#202)
by vicsan on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:12:32 PM EST

They just gave 59 freakin' delegates to someone who wasn't even on the ballot and stole 4 votes from Hillary in the process! I am so finished with this party.

oh he** no. (5.00 / 2) (#203)
by madamab on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:12:56 PM EST

This does not fly.

At all.

HRC will take this to the Convention.

What a freaking joke.

All I have to say is ... (5.00 / 2) (#204)
by Robot Porter on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:13:09 PM EST

onto the Credentials Committee!

Wow...just wow..... (5.00 / 2) (#207)
by Maise7 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:13:54 PM EST

Yeah, 'thanks' for a 'job well done'. WTF? Really, WTF?!?!

All this gratutious thank you's is just all nonsense.

What are they clapping for?!

I am furious....this was a sham.

Congrats, DNC. You just made McCain our President in 2009.

What was the rationale for giving Obama (5.00 / 1) (#208)
by oculus on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:14:12 PM EST

extra MI delegates?

: it does make some sense.. (none / 0) (#232)
by BostonIndependent on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:18:49 PM EST

I think the extra delegates in MI being given to Obama are a calculated and smart move (or so his supporters think). It makes the new goal post be 2118 (?) which Obama is just shy of 64 odd some delegates. My guess is that those 59 MI delegates were calculated in a way to move him closer to being able to claim victory on Tuesday. (I imagine he needed those given the number of SD's who will come out in his favor -- to make it all seem like a justified coronation on Tue -- LOL).
Unfortunately for him, I think this move is going to back-fire. People can argue rules all they want, but how can ANYONE, ANYONE, justify -- awarding 59 delegates in a primary to a candidate that was not even on the ballot?! Un-believable. Is anyone in the MSM or the Repub. camp going to point that out I wonder?

Parent

now there's a lesson on unifying the party (5.00 / 4) (#209)
by DandyTIger on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:14:35 PM EST

snark. Wow, amazing. Well, stick a fork in us, I think the dems just gave away the GE. What clever politicians.

I have just sent my resignation (5.00 / 5) (#212)
by themomcat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:15:56 PM EST

from the Democratic Party. I will not belong to a party that supports this undemocratic decision. I am sending a change of party status to NY state. I will vote as an Independent in the future. I will not vote for Obama if he is the nominee as he is deeply flawed and as terrible a choice as John McCain. I have been a Democrat since 1968 when I was first eligible to vote. I cannot in good conscience be a part of this trashing of democracy.

: Very glad I just cleaned house today (5.00 / 1) (#223)
by Militarytracy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:10:39 PM EST

and checked in here. I'm probably only half as overwhelmingly bummed out. It'll probably be a pretty long term bummed though.

Parent

What a wasted day (5.00 / 5) (#214)
by melro on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:29:31 PM EST

Spent the whole day on this thing and it didn't come out any different than what was decided here quite awhile ago 69/59 split with 1/2 vote. Big deal.

And I agree. The few times Obama even made it to Michigan he insulted the car companies and was unempathetic to the citizens in MI and he gets this?

Bad move. Michigan might look blue but the sw side of the state is DeVos/Blackwater/Cheney country. Hillary better take this to the credentials committee because I know a whole lot of construction skilled trades that absolutely will not vote for Obama.

Ladies and Gentleman (5.00 / 7) (#217)
by txpolitico67 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:05:35 PM EST

We just witnessed today the Democratic party steal votes from one candidate and give them to her opponent.

My Dear Democracy letter from another post is very appropriate right now.

Democracy, is dead.

: and so is (5.00 / 4) (#218)
by stillife on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:08:19 PM EST

the Democratic Party. No more moral high ground!

Parent

So the DNC (5.00 / 4) (#221)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:09:44 PM EST

and the Obama campaign stole 18,750 votes from people who voted for Clinton.

Is this legitimacy?

Bag Job (5.00 / 4) (#224)
by befuddledvoter on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:11:51 PM EST

if there ever was one!! MI?? How did they every arrive at that? Obamabots are celebrating but in so many ways this was the worst thing for their candidate, if he becomes the nominee. I would NEVER vote for Obama now.

Take it to the convention Hillary. (5.00 / 4) (#226)
by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:14:19 PM EST

Her supporters will NOT vote for Obama under these circumstances.

Since there was no mention of the (5.00 / 2) (#227)
by americanincanada on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:14:23 PM EST

popular vote...

I assume this brings it into play but I hope the Obama campaign does not expect state certified popular votes from Michigan that were certified uncommitted.

This is the Change (5.00 / 2) (#228)
by magisterludi on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:16:20 PM EST

Obama has wrought, Lego.

What I have just seen from the DNC (5.00 / 5) (#230)
by camellia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:17:54 PM EST

amounts to the murder of the Democratic Party. This, in the name of "unity".

I came to this country as the wife of a US foreign service officer in 1961. Because we were going overseas soon and the State Department requires that spouses be citizens, I received accelerated naturalization and I have been a US citizen since 1962. I come from a country with a proud tradition of democracy, and I have been proud to vote Democratic in this country. I have voted in every election since I became a citizen -- I voted for LBJ, Hubert Humphrey (whom I knew, liked and respected), for Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton and Al Gore and even (Godhelpme), John Kerry. I knew and loved Adlai Stevenson,although I arrived here too late to vote for him.

My husband and I were in Moscow during the Cuban missile crisis and during JFK's assassination; we have lived through the Vietnam War, Watergate, LBJ's announcement that he wouldn't run again, the on-the-ground work for civil rights -- knocking on doors to get people to sign the petitions for fair housing, and taking in the face the abuse and insults dished out to us. I was in DC alone during the riots while my husband was overseas when MLK and RFK were assassinated. Today is the first time that I have been ashamed to be associated with the Democratic Party. I will never again say that I am a Democrat. If the people at that conference imagine that these decisions will unite the party, I cannot believe that they have the sense to come in out of the rain. My state does not require party registration, but I will no longer mark "Democrat" on anything at all. From now on, I am an independent.

The Obama Campaign is stupid (5.00 / 2) (#231)
by ccpup on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:18:18 PM EST

to be celebrating this decision. I strongly suspect A LOT of fair-minded Americans will be upset with him in effect stealing 4 delegates from her (in a State where he wasn't even on the ballot) and trumpeting that as some kind of "win".

I spoke with a couple of AA friends who are anything but pleased with this. They fear there are those who'll now believe he couldn't win it fair-and-square and needed a "leg up" from the Powers That Be (Brazile and Dean). If he's seen as an illegitimate candidate by many in part BECAUSE of what happened today, it'll hurt him in the General and may hurt truly talented, intelligent, completely worthy AAs who run in the future (the BO Effect, as they now call it).

Hillary as a Wronged Woman plays well with voters (see NH) and I trust she'll continue to make her case right up to the Convention. And who knows what sorry state Barack will be in polling-wise, scandal-wise or "can't I just eat my waffle?"-wise by then.

The SDs may end up BEGGING her to run by August.

jeralyn, i know you've (5.00 / 3) (#234)
by cpinva on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:20:59 PM EST

repeatedly stated that you would support and vote for whoever the dem. nominee is, because either would be better than mccain.

i used to feel that way as well. no longer. should sen. obama, by virtue of these machinations, be the dem. party nominee, i can't justify voting for him. they weren't even particularly machiavellian, just blatantly unfair.

it's reasonable to assume that how one runs one's campaign gives some indication of how one might perform in office, should one be elected. so far, sen. obama's campaign has left me staggeringly underwhelmed.

i have to think, based on this, that he would cause massive damage to the democratic party in the white house, and to the country as a whole. we've already had 7 years of delusions of mediocrity, masquerading as a president, do we really need "4 more years!"?

let mccain take it, and deal with a strong dem. majority congress, a veto proof dem. majority. let him damage the republican brand even more. who knows, obama might be ready by 2012, assuming he's not permanently damaged goods.

I have rarely (5.00 / 1) (#237)
by Andy08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:22:25 PM EST

been so angry about today; especially MI.... What a travesty, what charade. If Obama gets the nomination the DNC pretty much guaranteed he will never be viewed as a legitimate winner. The stole 4 delegates from Clinton: that is they took votes from people that voted FOR Hillary and changed them to Obama.

That is called FRAUD; that is VOTE STEALING.

This is so MUCH worse than what happened in FL 2000. Much worse. It did nothing but deepen the divisions and fracture of the Party.

They went out of their way to give OBAMA what he had not earned  

This is NOT the Democratic Party I once believe in.

This is the Obama Party and I want nothing to do with it.

: No longer (5.00 / 4) (#241)
by dskinner3 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:25:53 PM EST

a Democrat here. That party no longer represents my views. I've been a Dem since I started voting, a proud union member. I will do everything in my power to keep Obama from getting elected at this point. Thieves have no place in the Whitehouse.
Never thought I'd see the day....just f'ing wow.

Parent

I dont' think it has anything to do (5.00 / 2) (#238)
by ccpup on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:22:44 PM EST

with his race and everything to do with Brazile/Dean disliking Hillary and not only trying to marginalize her, but destroy her politically as well.

Voters who are upset by this decision (the 4 delegates given to Barack) will be upset not because he's black or she's a woman. It'll be because the decision in and of itself was patently unfair and, to many, will look like what it is: cheating.

And no one likes a cheater, regardless of their race or gender.

You think the committee knows the meaning of (5.00 / 1) (#242)
by indy woman on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:28:47 PM EST

irony? While they 'debated' Florida, it was all about the rules, and for Michigan, rules, went out of the window. It looks to me that the committee cared more about not giving Senator Levin an excuse to take it to the Credential Committee, than to be fair. The only person who got screwed by the rules was Senator Clinton.

I have (5.00 / 2) (#248)
by tek on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:33:07 PM EST

said since January and will keep saying, something very sinister is happening in the Democratic leadership. Something just stinks. One thing about this, if Obama is the nominee I will have no qualms about voting for McCain. McCain's a moderate, there's a highly organized group of Republican Women for Pro-Choice. Hell, I might even join the DAR when we get to Florida!

Let's not forget something very important (1.80 / 5) (#179)
by Mavs4527 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:03:32 PM EST

No matter what happens with Florida/Michigan, the end result does not change. Obama has too large of a lead and after the final contests on Tuesday, the superdelegates will give him the necessary delegates to be our party's nominee. Fight over the issues of Florida and Michigan if you please, but let's not try to take this fight to the convention with the impression that this will in any way change the final outcome.

It's in this moment you'll find out which those that actually arguing this Florida/Michigan issue fall into what camp. On principle or bias in favor of a presidential candidate seemingly hoping to create open party chaos.

HA! (5.00 / 6) (#186)
by Eleanor A on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:07:39 PM EST

Obama has been promising for months to deliver "50 delegates". Why hasn't he done so?

Because he doesn't have them, that's why. We have no assurance enough SDs will put him over the top in the immediate future.

Even so, they can change their votes until August 28, as many have done up till now.

DENVER ALL THE WAY, BABY!

Parent

A nominee has NOT been chosen during (5.00 / 5) (#189)
by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:08:28 PM EST

the primary process.

It has no choice but to go to the convention. Just like it did in 1980 when Ted Kennedy went nearly 800 delegates short, among others.

Your Obama talking points won't fly here.

Parent

LOL! (5.00 / 3) (#190)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:09:12 PM EST

That's called shooting the messenger. It was the PARTY that was bent on creating chaos by mis-applying their own RULES

Parent

Kinda funny (5.00 / 5) (#191)
by Steve M on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:09:14 PM EST

Why is Obama fighting so hard to take away 4 of Hillary's delegates in Michigan, if the end result doesn't change?

Parent

: To consolidate power? (5.00 / 2) (#196)
by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:10:34 PM EST

Parent

The jig is up ya think Jeralyn? (none / 0) (#5)
by txpolitico67 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:50:20 PM EST

What makes you think that a backroom deal is about to happen?

So he will get more than Hillary in MI? (none / 0) (#8)
by Teresa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:07:54 PM EST

Explain to me someone what BTD said.

I heard it was (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by Coldblue on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:10:46 PM EST

two add-on superdelegates.

Parent

Why would they go to Obama when Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Teresa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:12:34 PM EST

won MI? (I know you don't know but I have to ask.)

Parent

: The committee is just now coming back (none / 0) (#35)
by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:15:48 PM EST

is any of this real, or just speculation?

Parent

Where are you hearing this? (none / 0) (#34)
by vigkat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:15:31 PM EST

I was on CNN, now switched to C-Span.

Parent

: It was MSNBC n/t (5.00 / 2) (#38)
by Coldblue on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:18:22 PM EST

Parent

No, (5.00 / 3) (#27)
by rjarnold on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:14:14 PM EST

The plan is for Obama to get 2 add-ons. It was probably a typo. But it would mean only a net-gain of 3 delegates for Clinton which is still ridiculous.

Parent

I call that cheating. I guess Donna's Mama (5.00 / 8) (#37)
by Teresa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:16:31 PM EST

didn't teach her the whole truth.

Parent

OUTRAGEOUS. Absolutely outrageous. (5.00 / 1) (#70)
by Eleanor A on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:33:51 PM EST

I'm done. I live in a state that doesn't register by party and will still support my locals, but I will give no more money to the DNC, DSCC or DCCC until Brazile and Dean are both gone.

Parent

: I live here too Eleanor (5.00 / 1) (#79)
by Teresa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:36:19 PM EST

(tabbycat). I wish TN had party registration now.

Parent

I think they are accepting (none / 0) (#13)
by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:10:28 PM EST

Levin's proposal...I think.

Parent

: What about the add ons BTD mentioned above? (none / 0) (#17)
by Teresa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:11:09 PM EST

Parent

I don't think they will use a rules (none / 0) (#10)
by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:09:41 PM EST

justification for this...Clinton probably agreed if they let her count all the popular votes.

: Or they'll be like the Supreme Five and say this (5.00 / 3) (#18)
by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:11:37 PM EST

in no way sets a precedent and applies only to this one, singular situation.
And we're supposed to swallow this and smile?

Parent

on topics comments only here (none / 0) (#12)
by Jeralyn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:09:50 PM EST

there's another thread on Obama and the church resignation.

2 add ons, not 23 (none / 0) (#21)
by zzyzx on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:12:03 PM EST

Obama will get the MI add ons, not all of them.

FL full seating, full voting (none / 0) (#48)
by RonK Seattle on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:27:42 PM EST

McDonald will oppose the motion, but it looks like the deal is done.

: Uh uh (none / 0) (#51)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:29:31 PM EST

Half voting.

Parent
: Ooops - will NOT pass (none / 0) (#56)
by RonK Seattle on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:30:42 PM EST

This is just the set-up for whatever the deal is.

Parent

Why (none / 0) (#49)
by Emma on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:27:53 PM EST

do I not believe that when these decisions were made nobody was thinking about the campaigns?

Gates just tipped (none / 0) (#52)
by Coldblue on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:29:38 PM EST

the result. It has lost.

Is This A Scripted Show? (none / 0) (#54)
by JimWash08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:30:24 PM EST

The committee spent nearly two hours behind closed doors.

Could they have planned out the general way of how this "debate" would go?

: possibly. (5.00 / 1) (#97)
by cpinva on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:41:27 PM EST

Could they have planned out the general way of how this "debate" would go?

i think they were also trying to figure out what to do with all of their noses, once they cut them to spite their faces.
maybe transplants for "darwin award" nominees?

Parent
: Yes (none / 0) (#69)
by vigkat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:33:47 PM EST

That's my impression. According to a script.

Parent

Is the west coast on a 10 minute delay? (none / 0) (#76)
by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:35:03 PM EST

Mona is just now debating on C-span in my state.

Seating (none / 0) (#86)
by melro on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:38:47 PM EST

Did it just pass by one vote?

It'd be awfully hard for Hillary to appeal either (none / 0) (#87)
by Mavs4527 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:38:51 PM EST

considering the deal that has been struck with Michigan was the idea of the Michigan Democratic Party itself. Kind of hard to go to the credentials committee on behalf of that state when the state itself is signing off on the deal being challenged.

What were they chanting? (none / 0) (#91)
by Valhalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:39:52 PM EST

I couldn't make it out.

: They're chanting (5.00 / 5) (#98)
by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:42:03 PM EST

Denver! Denver! Denver!

Parent
: Denver Denver (5.00 / 4) (#99)
by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:42:10 PM EST

Parent

Why does Edwards get delegates from FL? (none / 0) (#124)
by rjarnold on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:48:39 PM EST

I was pretty sure that he didn't cross the threshold, and I think that some might switch to Obama.

: North Florida (none / 0) (#216)
by Step Beyond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:05:08 PM EST

I think he earned some in north Florida as he did well there.

Parent

Why didn't Katz vote? (none / 0) (#125)
by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:48:41 PM EST

was he protesting the 1/2 vote? Or was he ineligible to vote?

: Ineligable (none / 0) (#128)
by spit on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:50:35 PM EST

as he's from FL.

Parent

What about the add ons? (none / 0) (#197)
by Teresa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:11:01 PM EST

The issue of Michigan and the campaign (none / 0) (#199)
by Mavs4527 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:11:40 PM EST

should be separate. I keep saying it. If you're fighting this issue on principle, you'll mention this fact. Obama's lead is too great and after Tuesday, the superdelegates will put him over the top. The outcome is not in question. Obama is our nominee.

Stop inciting party chaos that only ensures our difficulty in winning the November election.

: you are so on your own for November. (none / 0) (#246)
by jackyt on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:40:20 PM EST

"Stop inciting party chaos that only ensures our difficulty in winning the November election."
No way you get my vote, my support, my money, my good will... you get NADA!

Parent

so - what's the bottom line, currently? (none / 0) (#206)
by Josey on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:13:37 PM EST

(sorry, tuning in late.)

I was happy to see all the yelling and protesting (none / 0) (#219)
by DandyTIger on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:08:25 PM EST

Any ideas on what can be done about this travesty? Sadly probably nothing. This is a total joke. The MI decision is clear vote stealing and anti-democratic. I guess it depends on if there is any reaction to their decision. Then again, maybe not. So should we reward the Democratic party and their new boss, Obama, for these results?

: No (5.00 / 1) (#229)
by Edgar08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:17:37 PM EST

We should not.

Parent

Agreed. It does no good for your candidate (none / 0) (#245)
by Mavs4527 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:39:02 PM EST

Or your party. I will remind many here that Hillary continues to say she'll support the Democratic nominee for President. Obama will very likely receive the necessary number of delegates this upcoming week to officially become our nominee for President. It will likely be enough delegates to make pretty much any change to the delegation from Michigan a moot point if it's appealed to the credentials committee. At that point, I hope Senator Clinton and her supporters do what she has said and support our nominee. No matter what misgivings you may have, (I think most of us have probably rarely ever voted for a politician we didn't have least some disagreement with) we are all Democrats and we can ill afford to have the pro-life and pro-war John McCain in the White House.

"The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine," Cochran said about McCain by phone. "He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."
Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS)

Comments now closed. (none / 0) (#249)
by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:42:13 AM EST

FL/MI Live Blog: The Belated Afternoon Session | 237 comments (237 topical)

FL/MI Live Blog: The Belated Afternoon Session

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

Menu

Search

Login

Creator and Principal Author

TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections

Site Credits

Legal