George Stephanopoulos : Under What RULE did you give those uncommitted to Obama, and then also take 4 from Clinton and give it to Obama.

I missed that yesterday.  I did notice impassioned pleas for sticking to the rules by comm. members when discussing the Fla. thing, but that stick seemed to evaporate as the day went on.

"With months to plan, the Democratic Party, which is run no better than a fraternity house after a kegger, made no plans -- and months later finally realized that it could not disenfranchise voters -- voters who should have been filing lawsuits and raising hell last January."

We couldn't let them have a revote, but we can let them overturn the election they had?

Of course the hall was filled with O supporters and when she used the word 'cheaters", they stood and gave her a standing ovation. They did the same when she entered the hall after the lunch recess.

Seems Donna is now the Obama progressives new goddess.

This party is a complete disgrace.  After sticking with the dems for thirty years of mostly clothespin votes, I'm finally done.  After watching a Congress who we worked hard to get to majority status completely shirk their responsibility and let the BushCheney admin. run roughshod over this country, I'm finally done.  After watching this party stand by and allow the things that have happened in this primary without protest, I'm finally done.

It's time for a new, independent, populist party in this country.  We are becoming the thing that we loathed.  I can't stand by and be a part of it.

I prefer civil discourse but I tire of applying rational thinking to an insane situation, which I might add is THE definition of insanity when it happens over and over again and nothing changes.

I tire of my intelligence being insulted by a party I used to trust. I tire of watching reprehensible behavior by people who should know better. I tire of greed and lust for power being paraded as acceptable. I tire of racism, sexism and lies. I tire of the hate projected by BO, MO, and their clueless "fans".

Living through 7.5 years of total crap has made my skin claw, but, in the last several weeks I now have developed acid reflux watching tapes of Rev. Wright, Fr. Plfeger, trying to make sense of BO's hemming and hawing, the continuing coverage by Baghdad Bob media, those clueless comments by BO supporters, the sham "RBC meeting" - it is cumulative.

Am I taking all this too seriously? I don't think so. It is not a game. There are certain guidelines that I as a human being must perceive  existing in a society that I want to be a part of.

But, looking over the entire fiasco of MI and FL, I think the early analysts had it right: When the 100% deduction penalty was announced, the pundits who looked at the history of these things said it was highly unlikely MI and FL would not be allowed to vote at the convention and most likely it would be at the 50% regular rule. This was in almost all the articles about the issues.

I think there was never any real chance of even FL getting 100% bcz, even tho' FL had right and rules on its side, politics would not permit the DNC to give FL 100% ex post ad hoc 100% Rool and not give MI 100%.  

Since MI was such a mess internally, 100% was almost impossible to give 100% to with any rationale other than "bcz we want to."

So, I was not surprised by the 50% ruling.

What still shocks me even as I'm more calmly viewing this is that the DNC decided, on the basis of no rules or principles to give Obama more than the delegates he could have possible earned in the actual voting y Michiganders.

Just take votes from a winners actual vote count to...do what? Make nice to Obama and his supporters?

Well, it wasn't the SDs doing that (altho' most of those on the committee are SDs), it was pure, raw political power playing. WHY?

Terry McAuliff on right now saying he's never seen votes earned through actual votes won simply willy nilly given to another candidate. Nor basis in rules or principles. "This is not the Democratic Party [he] know[s]." Nor me.

Howard Dean on right now saying the Rules Committee did an incredible job. True, Dr. Dean: Incredible!

Roosevelt said rules set for primary have force of law per SCOTUS. Had to come up with best reflection of how the voters intended to vote. He left out, IF THEY HAD VOTED. Also, voters of MI had come to the DNC to suggest this plan, so it's all good.

Does that mean if voters come to the DNC and say they have buyers' remorse about voting for Obama, the DNC will just give delegates to Clinton? Oh, I don't think so...

Listening to Dean and Roosevelt is making me sick. To say and feel that about someone with the name Roosevelt is almost more sickening. Oh, Democratic leaders, what have you done?

Roosevelt now saying it was their duty to "honor the rules." Which freakin' rules, doooood?

I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, and stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong. - Abraham LIncoln

I won't be with this "Chicago style rules" Democratic Party again.  When I see someone with even a tiny bit of integrity come into the party, when they've hung around for a few years and proven themselves, then I might think of going back.  In the mean time, if someone decides to form a new party, I'll be there.

Does that strike anyone else as bizarre?  Once he secures the nomination he'll let them all vote?  Wasn't the purpose of the primary to give them a say in who becomes the nominee?  These states are supposed to be appeased by this?

From Wiki:
Having been declined by the "name" Senators, McGovern turned to lesser-known candidates, and Eagleton, who had opposed the Vietnam War, was selected on July 14 with only a minimal background check. Eagleton made no mention of his earlier hospitalizations. Newspapers soon revealed them. McGovern and Eagleton initially joked about the case with Eagleton saying he would undergo a psychiatric examination if other candidates (e.g., Nixon) would do the same. But the charges kept coming. Columnist Jack Anderson wrote a column falsely accusing Eagleton of being arrested for drunk driving -- a charge that Anderson had to retract.
SNIP
McGovern said he would back Eagleton "1000%", but on August 1, Eagleton withdrew at McGovern's request and, after new search by McGovern, was replaced by Kennedy in-law Sargent Shriver.

Clinton MUST go to Denver, now. It is the only way.

All I managed last night was reading through the hearing posts and comments, which confirmed that the DNC did just what I suspected they would do: whatever it took to make sure Hillary made up no ground on Obama with delegates.  And their decision to penalize Clinton 4 delegates she earned in Michigan, and reward Obama for not being on the ballot?  That one is going to haunt them for a long, long time.

I am just so disgusted with the party and with the so-called leaders who have chosen to allow their partisan allegiance to a terrible candidate to drive the entire matter; if Obama is The One, why the heck does he need the DNC to subvert and pervert democracy to make sure he wins?  And why is the DNC willing to do it?

Clinton ought to call their bluff, and suggest that if Obama ends up with the nomination and loses, every single member of the DNC should be required to resign.  

If their contemptuous attitude was localized to internecine squabbles that would be one thing.

Their contempt is for voters, and not just in slamming the popular vote as if it means less than some slick political hucksters bullsh!t du jour. Their contempt is clear with stupid pol tricks like getting voters to vote Uncommitted, or get Repugs in on the joke by being Dems for a Day.

Why should anyone be an activist for this mockery?

How dare Donna Brazile huff and puff with Mamma talk and lay that fake Della Gente smack about disenfranchisement. She's no Dem but she's definitely one of the biggest Jackasses to ever disgrace this once proud party that made me declare Independence from their shameful Bush era record.

Stealing votes from Sen Clinton, and shredding others so they won't count, lays down the doubt in millions of voters' heads that it could be his or her vote that was treated that way.

That's the thing, unless EACH VOTE is treated as precious, even a small number of votes shabbily treated puts the entire process in jeopardy.

The other self-defeating principle of this contempt for the popular vote is going to make it hard for all but those swimming in BO's tank of Whine-Koolaid to GOTV, knock on doors for him.

Why, when votes don't count for the candidate, should disenfranchised Dems go out and scrape together every possible vote for this (impending IMO) most expensive landslide loser in history?

Also, if "uncommitted" is a recognized category, then the RBC ruling conveniently eliminated that category under DNC rules yesterday, right?

The RBC took the "uncommitted" category and changed it to Obama! Now, Obama took his name OFF the ballot; no one forced him to do that. And, they could have allowed "uncommitted" delegates to choose to endorse/vote for whichever candidate they preferred, either in Denver or over the summer.

The RBC ELIMINATED the "uncommitted" category. They SUBSTITUTED Obama's name in that category. And, they STOLE 4 delegates from Clinton--that she earned from voters--in the process!

By what possible measure of rationality do they justify such an astonishing, brazen, and public act? This is simply breathtaking. Still shaking my head....this is really not good for the Democratic Party--not for November, and not for the future of the party. I cannot abide by this action, and Donna Brazile has earned my contempt with this craven defense of the indefensible.

Then you will get the president you deserve.  

Really. Seriously. Truly.

I feel the same way about Hillary you do about Obama, but I would still vote for her in a heartbeat before I pull that lever for McCain. Either of the Democratic candidates is miles ahead of that man, who will continue to destroy this country with George W. Bush, Part III policies.

As reflected by their votes, not some polls or state officials' desired outcome of the votes and/or polls.

If he had said the delegate slates must reflect the will of the voters, or something very, very clear, it would have played better on TV.

Yes, it was the language of the Charter, but we cannot trust our MCM to explain to the public anything they do not find convenient for their narrative. Since The Narrative is Obama Forevah! among most of the MCM, they will not see a need to inform the public.