Live Thread II at the RBC

Walking around the corridors outside the hall, I heard that there is 17-11 support (an agreement shook out last night) for the Ausman proposal that would resolve Florida. As for Michigan, there's nothing tangible. No one knows. Brewer is looking for a "unique remedy" but its not clear what it will be, and his doesn't seem to have much support in a reading of the rules.

Update [2008-5-31 13:13:5 by Jerome Armstrong]: Senator Levin says that there is support among the candidates here, in support of the plan they've offered, for full seating. Obama says to divide the 128, 64-64, because the primary was flawed. Clinton says the 128 should be divided 73-55. The MDP asks for a 69-59 delegation. Seated in full. "If you don't do that it will interject a element of disunity." Levin is great, advocating for a reform of the nominating system for many years. And he throws the issue right back on the RCB.

Update [2008-5-31 13:48:49 by Jerome Armstrong]: The RCB is worried about the precedent of giving "uncommitted" delegate to a candidate, and giving delegates to a candidate that voluntarily removed their name from the ballot. It is troubling. When Obama removed his name from the MI ballot, his campaign officials told the Edwards staffers that they would only remove Obama's name only if Edwards did so as well (I've confirmed this with 3 top Edwards directors). It was a backroom deal that Obama made to take his name off the ballot, with Edwards (and Richardson) agreeing on it (keeping Clinton out of the talks). It was a gamble Obama took, and now, in a sense Obama's getting rewarded for having lost that gamble by taking away delegates that Clinton won to give to Obama.

Ickes talks about "fair refection" (which Wexler has never heard of before) as a fundamental value, and this proposal would do violence to that principle. Taking those 55 delegate slots, and converting them to one candidate, based on off-the-mark exit polls. The 55 delegates are "fair game" because that's what an undecided vote means. Plus, taking 4 delegates from Clinton and just "giving them to Obama. Hell, why not take 10, 20, keep on going."

Ickes makes good points. This would be a terrible precedent, if the RBC went down this road, which the MDP has raised in its proposal. Levin gives a great pragmatic argument, that fair reflection doesn't apply to a flawed primary, but that still doesn't address the issue of appointing something other than either accepting the vote as it happened, or throwing it out completely. The RBC is in a tough position with MI. Basing the delegates on splitting the difference of what the two candidates desire has no basis in the rules. If this doesn't reach resolution, its going to the credentials committee.

Update [2008-5-31 14:55:44 by Jerome Armstrong]: Rep. Bonior argues on behalf of Obama. His position, reslating with a 50-50 split. Its hard to believe that anyone would try to say with a straight face, that Obama and his campaign had no role whatsoever in their not being a re-vote in MI, but Bonior gives the revision his best shot. Bonior gets some hisses at saying 50-50 is fair, Herman throws down the gavel again. Cheers and boos (mostly from the balcony in the back) near the end of his conclusion. No unity here.

Bonior agrees with Ausman about the superdelegates, asking that they also be reinstated, at full representation. Obama is going to be in Michigan again on Monday. I imagine Clinton will be in South Dakota.

Update [2008-5-31 14:55:44 by Jerome Armstrong]: Smith asks about Obama removing his name from the MI ballot, and adds: "The caucus is a flawed process." I get the feeling that we have seen the beginning of the end of the caucus system in the Democratic nominee process. Bonior says "we were following the path set by this committee that the votes would not count." Second, they agreed to not campaign in the state, so why not remove your name. The gambit was that if they took their name off the ballots, then they would be able to declare the whole contest being void.

Reiley asks about the need to "honor the integrity of the vote." Bonior, who has been much more professional than Wexler was for Florida, replies that those who didn't get to vote need to be respected as well. Reiley proposes that we stick to allowing the vote to stand and provide them with half a delegate-- the same solution for Florida. It does make sense, right, to treat FL and MI the same.

Update [2008-5-31 14:55:44 by Jerome Armstrong]: Gov Blanchard is representing Clinton. Michigan is a loyal Democratic state, he points out, with the only exception being Carter'76 win as the exception to a Democrat winning the Presidency while winning MI. He points out that the Obama campaign had a "flawed strategy" in taking his name off the ballot, that nothing required them to take their name off the ballot, and that Obama, Richardson, and Edwards held a rigorous "Uncommitted" campaign drive in Michigan.

The Blanchard/Clinton position though, as I understand it, of a 73-55 split, doesn't make sense. It's making up rules on the fly to decided that Uncommitted can be allocated to a candidate by the RCB. I don't see the RCB going along with this proposal either.

Update [2008-5-31 14:55:44 by Jerome Armstrong]: Hynes asks, should their be DNC rules of timing? Blanchard says yes, but I say no. That's what has gotten us into this mess to begin with, and there is no way in hell that it will ever change from IA and NH having a protected position, and having this situation repeat itself, unless this is changed. The rules come from the states. All the solutions of a rotation or otherwise setting the rules are pipe dreams.

Update [2008-5-31 14:55:44 by Jerome Armstrong]: Blanchard clarifies the Clinton position, that 73 will go with Clinton and 55 remain as Uncommitted. He believes you could assume that those 55 go with Obama, but "who knows, by August, you might have some of them switching back and forth." OK, strictly by the rules, that makes more sense. Katz tries to say that there is not equivalence in what happened in FL in 2000 with what's happened in MI in 2008. Blanchard says the principle is the same, counting votes, and punishing someone for staying on the ballot is wrong.

Update [2008-5-31 14:55:44 by Jerome Armstrong]: Clark, brings it back to the point of thinking about those that didn't vote. Where does this argument lead too? She says it important that we recognize that, but OK. That MI didn't have a write-in process disqualified 30,000 votes, very good point. MI needs to clean up their ballot process. Brazile wants to follow up on the use of the word "disenfranchise", and those 30K votes, and hints toward supporting the Levin/MDP proposal. "My mama, you mentioned your mama... taught me to play by the rules", says Brazile, and changing the rules in the middle of the game is "cheating", so we need to pay "tribute" to those who voted by write-in and those who didn't vote. Blanchard replies, "Hillary Clinton did play by the rules... whatever it is, we'll try to win it."

Ickes with the final question, has three comments... but Roosevelt points out that this is the question period. It's kinda fun to think about these guys father and grandfather having the same back and forth back in the 30's during the Roosevelt presidency.

See you in a few hours after the break.

Tags: 2008 election (all tags)

Comments

224 Comments

Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

I bet Obama concedes here too

by cardboard 1 2008-05-31 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

Why would it matter?  He'll win either way.

by Lawyerish 2008-05-31 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

Looks like he is willing to unify the party...No reason not to

by cardboard 1 2008-05-31 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

I agree... As long as he gets the 55 Michigan votes, its all good for him.  1/2 Florida and the 55 Michigan votes gives Clinton a gain of 37.  With the already declared Mich and Florida SDs, Obama is 79 away.  If he can get the Edwards delegates commitments (since NONE have gone to Clinton that I know of this shouldn't be hard) and a few more SDs, then after PR and Montana and SD this thing will be over.  

The key strategy is to get the 55 delegates, get Florida halved and avoid this going on through the summer.  

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-31 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

What I don't understand is how Florida could possibly be cut in half while Michigan gets seated in full.  Neither Florida Democratic Representatives nor Florida voters are responsible for them being moved up.  Michigan Democratic Representatives ARE responsible.  And yet they would somehow be punished less?  That makes no sense to me.

That being said, as an Obama supporter I would support almost every proposal offered.  I would take them both being seated as is, as long as there is some kind of delegate reduction as a way to deter this in the future.  It doesn't have to be cut in half; I'd be content with them both being seated at 75%, just for a token slap on the wrist.  And I'm fine with them being seated as is because it will make Obama look magnanimous.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-05-31 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

Its a fair point, BUT since polls and the Florida Dems all are OK with that split then so be it.  Its called compromise for a reason... no one is 100% happy but it stops the fighting.  

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-31 10:03AM | 0 recs
Hillary gets to cheat

by picking up net delegates in contests where voters were told their votes wouldn't count and Obama gets to win anyway.  

Justice is only slapped in the face instead of being completely run over by a truck.

"It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything."  -Hillary Clinton, fighting for democracy before the voting started.  

by Sun Dog 2008-05-31 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary gets to cheat

At least it brings some closure.  We all know Obama is going to win.  The question is, do we have to wait for 3 months of Hillary fighting for the 55 Michigan uncommitteds, or does this thing end tomorrow?  If both states are seated 100%, as is, Obama still wins tomorrow.  

by ProgressiveDL 2008-05-31 10:40AM | 0 recs
or

Hillary uses those results to make her weird popular vote argument and claim either that the superdelegates should come to her or if they all go to Obama that she got 'pushed out' by party muscle and she will continue to undermine Democratic chances in the fall.

To me, she seems like a snake in a sleeping bag.  If you're going to fight the thing, you'd better finish it off.  I've seen nothing from her that suggests her being reasonable about anything.  She will game any situation no matter how shamefully dishonest if it can get her closer to the nomination.  

I say fight it tooth and nail now or you're going to have to fight her later in some other way.  

by Sun Dog 2008-05-31 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: or

I think that if the supers move to Obama, she will bow out.  Whether or not it will be graceful is still up for debate.

The popular vote argument hasn't worked so far, so I don't see any reason for it to suddenly change the minds of all those supers.  

And I don't see a good reason why uncommitted supers would have been waiting all this time to come out for Hillary.  She needed them months ago.  The uncommitteds are almost certainly going to come out for Obama; they may have been waiting just to let everyone vote, or they may have been wary of getting on Hillary's bad side until they were sure she wouldn't win.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-05-31 01:34PM | 0 recs
What's with the Bob Barr

sig line?

by Radiowalla 2008-05-31 09:09AM | 0 recs
Barr will pull votes from McCain.

He needs funding to be competitive. The more competitive, the better.

by sricki 2008-05-31 09:10AM | 0 recs
Speaking of sig lines,

yours is superb!

In fact, it highlights the only reason I will probably vote for Obama in November if he is the nominee.

by Radiowalla 2008-05-31 09:44AM | 0 recs
Thanks,

that's the only reason I need, too!

by sricki 2008-05-31 10:15AM | 0 recs
Re: What's with the Bob Barr

Every vote Bob Barr gets is one that McCain doesn't, naturally.  Keeping his campaign afloat is a good strategic move.

by Lawyerish 2008-05-31 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

I have never heard Carl Levin talk before.  I like him.

Is my first impression correct?

by CAchemist 2008-05-31 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

Mostly,

by fwiffo3 2008-05-31 09:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

He's good here.  Has a tendency to (as MI Senator) avoid Democratic positions on environmental issues (CAFE Standards, and such).  To be expected, I suppose.

by freedom78 2008-05-31 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

Carl Levin is a shill for the big three car makers.

He has been a one man roadblock against increasing CAFE mileage standards on cars in the U.S. As a result of this one obstructionist asshole too many Americans are chained to a gas guzzling car that is sucking up more and more of their paychecks.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-31 09:27AM | 0 recs
As are all Michigan elected

officials, sad to say.

by Radiowalla 2008-05-31 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

He's the key person responsible for the Michigan F-Up.
by killjoy 2008-05-31 10:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

But it sounds justified, very much civil disobedience.

by CAchemist 2008-05-31 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC


It was a fighting the last war, i.e. '04.

Well, the good of it is that the caucus system is going to get carved down a couple of notches.  Making the Party more small d democratic, in keeping with the times and its constituency.

by killjoy 2008-05-31 10:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

I wish Clinton would have listened to him in 2002 about Iraq - twice. And then again in 2007 about Iraq! He is great now?

I am here at the RBC meeting. What does jerome look today? Email me at comingawakeing at gmail. Thanks!

by comingawakening 2008-05-31 12:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

Does anyone else get a little jolt up their leg watching Jerome pretending to be a journalist?

Yah, the Florida deal is the front-page headline on HuffPost.

by Deadalus 2008-05-31 09:15AM | 0 recs
The proper term is

yellow journalist.

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-31 10:15AM | 0 recs
What a circus

Clinton seems to have sent a mob to help make a mess of things.

Obama instructed his supporters to go out and do party building activities like registering voters.

Seems pretty obvious which one cares more about building the party.

by fwiffo3 2008-05-31 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: What a circus

You have a memo signed by Senator Clinton on this?

by usedmeat 2008-05-31 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: What a circus

Better yet....in the Hillbot blogger conference call she encouraged it.

by Deadalus 2008-05-31 09:48AM | 0 recs
Carl Levin

I like his advocacy for reforming of the nominating system.

by grlpatriot 2008-05-31 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Carl Levin

I do as well.  I didn't realize that the rules committee had authorized that another state go between Iowa & NH and NH defied that rule and moved up their date.

by colebiancardi 2008-05-31 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Carl Levin

Yep, and were not penalized.

by grlpatriot 2008-05-31 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Carl Levin

Check your DNC rules.  The first 4 states had the right to move their primaries as they wanted too, but the Nevada Caucus was agreed upon.  When Florida and Michigan jumped, NH felt that they wouldn't have the influence they had and selfishly jumped ahead, along with Iowa who moved things forward.

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-31 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Carl Levin

I thought today would be all rhetoric, but I actually learned something from Carl Levin.  Kudos to him.

I am all for primary reform and I hope this forces the DNC take it more seriously next time.

by CAchemist 2008-05-31 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Carl Levin

hopefully they will.  This is event is front and center and I am sure all invested Democratic activists are watching it with major interest.

The history that Levin pointed out was something I was not aware of.  I am glad he spent time explaining it.

by colebiancardi 2008-05-31 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Carl Levin

I don't think there is a single democrat that thinks this system, as is, is the way to go moving forward.  Everyone is advocating for a different system, it's just that some people are arguing to the change the rules midstream.

by RockvilleLiberal2 2008-05-31 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Carl Levin

I do too.  It's a great idea... for the 2012 election.

Let's go by the 2008 rules, as established before the primaries started, for this one.

by mistersite 2008-05-31 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Carl Levin

Since Obama will win, it probably won't be an issue in 2012.  But in 2016 it will be important.

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-31 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Carl Levin

Which makes 2012 the right time to do it.  No partisan motives at play if the nominee is already known.

by jello5929 2008-05-31 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Carl Levin

Didn't think of it that way.  2012 as a test run.  Good point.

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-31 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Carl Levin

Yep, that's my thought.  The only person who can bring change is a Democratic incumbent - because otherwise, everyone's wrapped up in his or her own or his or her own candidate's agenda.

by mistersite 2008-05-31 10:13AM | 0 recs
Hillary's Cynical Ploy In Michigan

shouldn't be rewarded with a single additional delegate. Leaving her name on the Michigan ballot to game the system was unethical.

^The Michigan primary was about as fair as the recent election in Burma.

Michigan's delegates should be split 50/50 between the candidates.

Michigan and Florida Super Delegates should each be given 1/4 of a vote for their part in creating this mess.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-31 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Cynical Ploy In Michigan

what about Obama's cynical ploy to remove his name to appease the first'er states?

goes both ways.

by colebiancardi 2008-05-31 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Cynical Ploy In Michigan

Obama and Edwards took their names off the Michigan ballot to comply with the spirit of the DNC's ruling on Michigan. Kuchinich also tried to remove his name but was too late. Dodd's name was on but he had dropped out

Only the unethicl Hillary Clinton and Mike Gravel chose to leave their names on to gain an edge by running unopposed.

Shame on them.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-31 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Cynical Ploy In Michigan

keep telling yourself that.

by colebiancardi 2008-05-31 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Cynical Ploy In Michigan

She "Pledged" not to campaign in Michigan and signed the pledge. So did everybody else. It's just that her "pledge" didn't mean anything. Depends on what the meaning of the word "campaign" is? Sound familiar?

Her excuse for remaining on the ballot in Michigan at the time was that "it didn't matter" because "the vote won't count." Now "all the votes must count."

What happened? She lost the nomination by losing 10 primaries in a row and her hopes for a pledged delegate lead evaporated. Her only hope became a shell-game with the pledged delegates from Michigan and Florida.

In the end even if she got every delegate she's been angling for it won't make any difference. This is the futile end-game of a lost campaign.

Next week enough supers are going to move to Obama that he'll clinch the nomination regardless of Hillary's totals here today.

She might win the battle today, but she's already lost the war. Her efforts to rally support around these pointless arguments reminds me of Hitlers' last doomed offensive in Hungary in March 1945 when the Soviets were on the outskirts of Berlin.

by Cugel 2008-05-31 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Cynical Ploy In Michigan

wrong. the ONLY ONE who did any campainging in either of those two states ran ads in Fla and held a press conference there. And his name was not Hillary.

by trytobereal 2008-05-31 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Cynical Ploy In Michigan

I see you're still sticking with those tired old distortions.

Sad.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-31 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Cynical Ploy In Michigan

did the ad's play there? did he lead the reporters off to the side to have the press conference, then play coy "don't you guys want this?" when faced with the question? Keep on lying to yourself if you like, but don't expect anyone else to pander to your stupidity.

by trytobereal 2008-05-31 04:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Cynical Ploy In Michigan

yep

crickets

as expected when you are faced with your basic dishonesty you run away.

by trytobereal 2008-05-31 05:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Cynical Ploy In Michigan

I know. I know. It really sucks when your hero turns out to be an unethical narcissist. Don't be sad. There's always Obama. And he's already won, so you don't even have to do anythng hard.

Like think.

by Rationalisto 2008-05-31 10:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Cynical Ploy In Michigan

Attitudes like that aren't going to help get any Democrat elected, and I state this as an Obama supporter.

by noop 2008-05-31 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Cynical Ploy In Michigan

That is both true and untrue. Unrelenting bitterness won't get us/me anywhere. But someone's gotta get through to the deadenders. And sucking up to people with no sense of fairness, reality, or purpose does no one any favors.

My theory: Call people on their shit. Over. And over. And over...

by Rationalisto 2008-06-04 06:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Cynical Ploy In Michigan

Well, this all comes down to how you want to interpret the phrase "not to campaign or participate." You can very reasonably argue that intentionally leaving your name on the ballot constitutes participation. You can also argue the contrary, and that Obama and the other three candidates removed their names simply as a show for the early state voters. I see both arguments as having merit. However, since the primary had already been ruled invalid, none of the candidates who removed their names should be penalized for following a strategy based on the rules. As such, reinstating the Michigan primary at this stage would be the height of unfairness.

by noop 2008-05-31 11:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Cynical Ploy In Michigan

And it wasn't unethical for Obama to vigorously campaign for people to vote "uncommitted" ?

That is still campaigning and now he is trying to grab more than his share of delegates.

by wblynch 2008-05-31 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Cynical Ploy In Michigan

PS Biden, and Richardson, removed their names too.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-31 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Cynical Ploy In Michigan
Cynical Ploy or astute political move?
Anyway weren't the other candidates telling the voters to go uncommitted as a way of voting for those who removed their names for what ever reasons?
by usedmeat 2008-05-31 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Cynical Ploy In Michigan

Using that logic you'd probably be satisfied with the fairness of the recent Russian election too.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-31 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

Sorry, Levin. I call bullshit. Michigan was so selfless that it felt someone needed to take a stand against NH. Yeah, that's it, its not that Michigian just wanted to be one out in front.

Levin should have taken this to the DNC, and if he lost, try again. But there's no way that moving Michigan up would do anything to stop NH from moving up.

by BlueGAinDC 2008-05-31 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

his point was that NH went against the rules committee who agreed that another state would be inserted between Iowa and NH.

he has a point that NH wasn't penalized for making this move

by colebiancardi 2008-05-31 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

of course he does, but he had no authority to remedy that himself.

He can work through the DNC to get the reform he wants. Moving up the Michigan primary had much more to do with wanting to be out in front than with principles.

by BlueGAinDC 2008-05-31 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

did you listen to him?  He DID work thru the DNC to get reform.  But NH defied it the new rules and jumped ahead anyway.

by colebiancardi 2008-05-31 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

Then he should have tried to get their delegates stripped.

by BlueGAinDC 2008-05-31 09:34AM | 0 recs
I agree with Levin, tired of this NH and IA

 crap, thoses states arent even representative.

by rigsoHC 2008-05-31 09:20AM | 0 recs
If find 64-64 odd...

There were more candidates than two at that point. Even the 73-55 ignores the four that Kucinich/Dodd won.

If my memory is correct, four withdrew their names (Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Biden), three were still on the ballot (Clinton, Kucinich, Gravel). Why not split the delegates 18-18-18-18-18-18-18-18?

I'm not advocating that the pledged delegates be allowed to swing to the candidate their candidate endorsed after dropping out, since that would favor Obama (Edwards=Obama, Richardson=Obama, Biden=no one, Kucinich=Obama, Gravel=that rock he threw at the pond).

But giving Kucinich or Biden, for example, some delegates could give them acknowledgement and validate the importance of their efforts and the topics they pushed. Ignoring them means that the second tier is a waste of time.

by TCQuad 2008-05-31 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: If find 64-64 odd...

I agree. I thought that was odd as well. Clinton was not the only name on the ballot.

by grlpatriot 2008-05-31 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: If find 64-64 odd...

LOL! If Kuchinich and Dodd were allocated delegates they would all support Obama!

Needless to say this "solution" isn't acceptable to Hillary. No solution that doesn't award her all the Michigan delegates is acceptable to her.

I say let her have her tantrum. Give her all the Michigan delegates and then have the supers move in a block to support Obama and end this fiasco.

Then what's she going to claim is "unfair" as an excuse to drag this out to the convention?

by Cugel 2008-05-31 10:18AM | 0 recs
Re: If find 64-64 odd...

My exact quote:

I'm not advocating that the pledged delegates be allowed to swing to the candidate their candidate endorsed after dropping out, since that would favor Obama

What I'm actually advocating is giving them 18 people who will acknowledge their contribution to the campaign, not turning Kucinich or Dodd into Super Mega Ultra Super Delegates with the equivalence of 18 extra votes.

Let's give them some acknowledgement and some thanks for their part in inspiring and motivating the party.

Heck, if we're counting votes that people were told wouldn't count, we're just making it up as we go along anyway. Might as well make a nice gesture out of it.

by TCQuad 2008-05-31 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

I may like Levin's advocacy of Primary reform, but DEAR GOD, He needs to learn how to make a fucking point.  It was like listening to a bad professor lecture for hours, droning on.  I like his passion, but he is a terrible rambling speaker, very Kerry like.  He needs to take lessons from either Obama, on putting some passion and tone in his voice, or Hillary in learning to get to the fucking point.  

I think we will see the end of the SDs by next Primary season.

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-31 09:22AM | 0 recs
Strip the supers

I don't care what they do with pledged delegates.  The supers are the ones that should be punished.  Strip their votes completely, jackasses.

by fwiffo3 2008-05-31 09:22AM | 0 recs
But the supers are the ones speaking today.

Of course they wouldn't advocate that they get less influence...

But I agree with you, at least in part; any superdelegate who had any influence on the decision to move up a primary should lose his/her vote at the convention.  Some MI supers, like one of the heads of the College Democrats (I think), shouldn't be punished because they had nothing to do with it, but Granholm et al. should lose their votes at the convention for attempting to muscle the system.

by mistersite 2008-05-31 09:25AM | 0 recs
It seems unfair to make FL 50%

and give full vote to MI delegates even if the tally is changed.  I'm not OK with giving the supers a full vote in Florida while the pledged delegates are halved.

by Renie 2008-05-31 09:27AM | 0 recs
The RBC should explain to Levin that this

situation is partly his fault. Not that it would shut him up since he doesn't really care about anything but more power.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-31 09:27AM | 0 recs
What makes this so stupid

Is that none of this is going to change the outcome of the primary. There is no seating that will give Clinton enough delegates to credibly compete. No outcome, even if you gave them everything they asked for, will make them happy.

They're still going to the convention no matter what, because they're pursuing a 2012 strategy.

by fwiffo3 2008-05-31 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: What makes this so stupid

Another mind reader able to discern Senator Clinton's motives.

by usedmeat 2008-05-31 09:50AM | 0 recs
Well that makes more sense at least

than any explanation coming out of the Clinton camp.  When someone bullshits constantly you're kind of forced to try to read motives rather than go on what they're saying.  

by Sun Dog 2008-05-31 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

The reason why the Clinton campaign doesn't want the 69-59 or 64/64 split is that they can't claim a popular vote victory because those numbers wouldn't match up with Hillary vs. Uncommitted.  That is why they won't agree to the state party agreement.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-31 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

do we elect presidents on exit polls?  That solution is horrific.

by colebiancardi 2008-05-31 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

We don't elect them on sham elections either that everyone is told won't count.

There is no good solution at this point. Only bad ones.

by KyleJRM 2008-05-31 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

It's not about exit polls. The Michigan folks have gone on record saying the primary was flawed and illegitimate. Carl is currently saying this. He wants to just split the delegates IGNORING the results of the flawed primary.  The Clinton camp doesn't want that because she can't "legitimately" claim that she is ahead in the popular vote without people disputing it publicly. That is all that this is about. She wants an illegitimate primary to count so that she can claim a popular vote victory. You can't do that if the pledged delegate count is split in half as it wouldn't correspond with vote tally.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-31 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

Hillary's Campaign was all for stripping ALL of Michigan's delegates last August when she was ahead in the polls by double digits.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-31 10:11AM | 0 recs
It will soon be over n/t

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-31 09:35AM | 0 recs
Wake me in November n/t

by fwiffo3 2008-05-31 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

So undemocratic!

Why is there no one at the RBC arguing on behalf of Uncommitted? Uncommitted deserves rights. Hillary fights for uncommitted.

by BlueGAinDC 2008-05-31 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

If BO voluntarily took his name off the ballot AND refused to be part of a re-vote, then why should he get ANY delegates?

Furthermore - how is this any different than when HE challenged the IL state senate to have Alice Palmer and ALL his oppenents REMOVED from the ballot?

This is BO's fault because he should have left his name on the ballot - there was NO rule that said he HAD TO take his name off the ballot.

if you troll rate me, i'll troll rate you back

by nikkid 2008-05-31 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

"If BO voluntarily took his name off the ballot AND refused to be part of a re-vote, then why should he get ANY delegates?"

If everyone agreed that it wouldn't count, and Clinton herself agreed it wouldn't count, why should anyone get any delegates?

by KyleJRM 2008-05-31 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

because otherwise the people of michigan will not have a say in this process. last i checked they were still a state.

by nikkid 2008-05-31 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

Why didn't anyone make that argument before?

by KyleJRM 2008-05-31 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

The people of Michigan won't get a say no matter what.

There is no mechanism in place to reflect the will of the people of Michigan.  Any seating of delegates will be arbitrary at best.

by KyleJRM 2008-05-31 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

Just like Puerto Rico!  Oh wait...

by ProgressiveDL 2008-05-31 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

I don't have a problem with Obama getting all of the uncommitted.  But I DO have a problem with Obama getting some of Hillary's delegates based on fucking exit polls.

by colebiancardi 2008-05-31 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

And I can see that as a legitimate argument.  In the end, I think you might see the 74-55 split if it comes down to that and an all summer fight.  Although I think if we here Clinton say she will go for a floor fight, the Supers will step in and end this.

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-31 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

You lose your credibility every time you claim those were the results of a fair election, and Hillary is entitled to 55%

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-31 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

If they gave merely half a vote to the Michigan delegates then the 73-55 split would be transformed in essence to a 36.5-27.5 split. That's a mere 9 delegates difference.

A 69-59 split is a 10 delegates difference, and as such in comparison offers one more delegate to Clinton while simultaneously (but falsely) seeming to do Obama a favour.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-05-31 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

Ah, I see your mistake.  Those aren't "Hillary's delegates".

They're just delegates, and we don't really know how the folks in Michigan want them split up, because we never had a valid election there.  Trying to guess at some ratio makes a mockery of democracy, and is insulting to every other state that actually held an election to determine the popular will.

The only reasonable solution is to admit that we don't know how MI would have gone and split the delegates 50/50.  That way the delegates at least get to participate in the Convention, but don't affect the outcome at all.

by ChrisKaty 2008-05-31 10:11AM | 0 recs
50-50

That has always been the only solution.  We need MI and FL delegates at the convention.  But it's unequivocably wrong for a candidate to gain net delegates based on an election where people were told by the party and the candidates that their votes wouldn't count.

Pushing this issue so dishonestly as the Clintonites are doing is an absolute assault on reason and decency.  I find all of this despicable because of the way they couch it in terms of sticking up for democracy.  It's really vile.

I think the mistake from Obama came when they agreed to any level of compromise on this.  Placating unreasonable, dishonest people isn't going to make them reasonable or honest.  It just opened the door for them to try to grab even more.  

The rules going in are the only thing you have to go by legally.  If there was a rule stating that a compromise could be made by seating half, so be it.  Other than that, Levin is blowing smoke up everyone's butt.  

Of course we need to reform this system.  That has nothing to do with resolving this.  This is just Clinton's team gaming a confusing situation in the interests of overturning the nomination.

by Sun Dog 2008-05-31 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

"Troll rate me and I'll troll rate you back"  - Wow, how very 12 years old.  

I would say that if you engage in Retalitory troll rating, especially when you deserve it (and no I do not feel your above comment deserves troll rating but some of your past comments do) you'll either lose your rating ability or be banned.

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-31 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

No, he/she's a Clinton supporter.  They are safe.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-05-31 09:50AM | 0 recs
TROLL

if you troll rate me, i'll troll rate you back

Threats?

If you don't troll rate me you're just hot air. I'd TR you just for that if Jerome hadn't already silenced me in favor of you.

You don't care about the intent of the voters whatsoever, by your explicit admission.

Phantom TR for you, I promise to give you real one as soon as I get my ability back.

-chris

by chrisblask 2008-05-31 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

Clinton was the first candidate in Michigan to block a revote.  From March 7:

'Some party officials are suggesting caucuses as an option to get the delegates qualified--but that doesn't pass muster with Clinton. "I would not accept a caucus," she told us. "I think that would be a great disservice to the 2 million people who turned out and voted. I think that they want their votes counted."'

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/camp aign-2008/2008/03/07/clinton-says-no-to- a-caucus-do-over.html

by jere7my 2008-05-31 09:53AM | 0 recs
re:

She did not accept revote for a caucus because voter turnout becomes extremely suppressed as a result.  That isn't hard to figure out.

by Double Standard 2008-05-31 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: re:

And I'm sure the fact that Obama does better in caucuses had no influence on her decision.

Obama supporters then blocked her revote proposal because it wouldn't let anyone vote who hadn't voted in the first primary, thereby disenfranchising everyone who'd stayed home or voted Republican because they were told it didn't count.  And, of course, more Clinton supporters voted the first time, so this served their interests.

Both camps have both self-serving reasons and altruistic reasons for rejecting the proposals they've rejected.  Neither was a good solution; both could be (and were) quibbled with on grounds of fairness.  My point here is that Team Clinton rejected a re-vote first, and any claim that only Obama blocked re-votes in Michigan is simply wrong.

by jere7my 2008-05-31 01:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

Grow Up!

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-31 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

TROLL RATE.

by blue2008 2008-05-31 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

Give Hillary and her followers exactly what they ask for in FL and MI. Then tell them the surprising news.

They will have this choice in November:

Democrat or Republican.

by xdem 2008-05-31 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC
As long as it is within the rules it works for me.
Oh and BTW it won't be Dem or repub it will be whom do I trust in the White House.
by usedmeat 2008-05-31 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

 You can either give in to Hillary's demands OR abide by the rules. I propose a surrender to Hillary's demands - and taking the consequences. That's the kind of 'compromise' which has kept my marriage unified for 25 years, when either I or my spouse finds it necessary (for whatever reason) to take a strong unilateral and uncompromising stand, the other backs down and we both get it behind us.

by xdem 2008-05-31 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

The Democratic Party can decide on their nominee in any way they see fit.  There is no constitutional right to vote in a primary.  And if so-called democrats are threatening not to vote for the democratic candidate in the fall, then to be honest, I don't really care if they don't get to help choose our nominee.

by NeverNude 2008-05-31 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

..and then the Clinton folk will go to the convention screaming that they have the "popular vote" and that the elections have been stolen from the people.

However you slice it, it ends in a floor fight, and 2012 for Hillary.

by rhetoricus 2008-05-31 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: I would love to see

Hillary would NEVER win 2012 if she does drag it to the floor. People would hold this against the Clintons for eternity, especially black America.

by rhetoricus 2008-05-31 12:18PM | 0 recs
I am *so* biased, but Ickes makes me crazy

This of course is the guy who admitted that the PA strategy was all about Race and Religion.

"Enormous violence" my ass,Mr. Ickes.

You really care about the voters, don't you Mr. Ickes?

Moron.  Make a valid point for a change.  Maybe one that isn't overwhelmingly crass, self-serving and insulting.

by chrisblask 2008-05-31 09:39AM | 0 recs
Oh, and talk over the Chair, to. Twit

by chrisblask 2008-05-31 09:40AM | 0 recs
Fair Reflection

is the new Harold Ickes buzz phrase.  He tried it on Wexler... now he's using it again on Levin.

What an ass.

Woot!  Levin just floored him

Poor Ickes - he's just getting hammered today.

by JulieinVT 2008-05-31 09:41AM | 0 recs
Poor Ickes - he's just getting hammered today.

There are probably a lot of politicians who have been hammered by him (in behalf of the Clintons) enjoying a cold dish of revenge today.

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-31 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

Ickes is now arguing about jurisdiction re: allocating uncommitted delegates, despite the fact that the DNC's lawyers have said the DNC, at this juncture, has no jurisdiction to award full voting rights to the state slate (which Ickes just said he favors).  Honestly, his duplicity boggles my mind.

by rfahey22 2008-05-31 09:41AM | 0 recs
Why does Ickes get more time

than anyone else?  How is that fair process?

by Renie 2008-05-31 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Why does Ickes get more time

Its not a fair process. Ickes isn't suppose to be representing Hillary Clinton, but he is. He is supposed to be representing the RBC. Its disgraceful.

by BlueGAinDC 2008-05-31 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Why does Ickes get more time

It's gross.  Someone who is that big of a figure on one of the campaigns should either keep quiet or step down completely.  I would say the same about Axelrod if he were on the committee.

by Renie 2008-05-31 10:04AM | 0 recs
Well, if the last name fits....

Harold Ickes is looking more and more like a huge asshole by the second.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-05-31 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

It would be a terrible precedent to set to count a flawed election as if it was and unflawed election.

Again, this is all about Clinton winning, nothing about fairness.

by BlueGAinDC 2008-05-31 09:48AM | 0 recs
Ickes does not make good points

He's a conniving snake. Fair reflection of a primary that's a complete joke. Fair, my ass Mr. Ickes.

Could he have a more fitting name?

Wake up Jerome, you're making a fool of yourself.

by Bee 2008-05-31 09:48AM | 0 recs
"Precident"
This would be a terrible precedent

It would be a terrible precedent to let these two states go unpunished. Without consequences for violating the calendar, there is no way for reform to actually be enforced in the future.
by fwiffo3 2008-05-31 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

"Ickes makes good points."

Would that be today or a year ago?

by rfahey22 2008-05-31 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

Jerome, I pity you that you have to take the position you did, but let me sum it up:

Since Obama took his name off the ballot after being told the primary wouldn't count, the RBC should punish voters who wanted to vote for him because Obama was naive enough to believe the RBC.

Fair?

by Deadalus 2008-05-31 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

Weren't they instructed to vote uncommitted as a way of voting for Obama?

by usedmeat 2008-05-31 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

By Supporters in the state.  There is no evidence of a direct campaign by the Obama Campaign to do this.

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-31 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

Yah, but the HRC position is that Obama shouldn't get uncommitted delegates.

by Deadalus 2008-05-31 10:44AM | 0 recs
Why did Ickes Vote for stripping the delegates

in the first place? Now he cries foul?

by sarge in seattle 2008-05-31 09:51AM | 0 recs
The fallout from having this hypocrisy

thrown back in his ugly face is less significant than the possible benefit of pushing his current position.

What other calculation could he have made?

Asshole.

by Bee 2008-05-31 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

by Caliman 2008-05-31 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

Hey Jerome, how about a non-Clinton sentence every once in a while.  The lack of them completely destroys your ethos.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-05-31 09:52AM | 0 recs
"uncommitted" delegates

Giving uncommitted delegates to a candidate is certainly not the right way to go. If MI is fully reinstated those uncommitted votes should become uncommitted delegates. Those uncommitted delegates would then be able to select (Obama) a candidate.

by grlpatriot 2008-05-31 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: "uncommitted" delegates

Well, since those votes were for "Not Clinton," it's not clear to me that she's entitled to any of them.

by rfahey22 2008-05-31 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: "uncommitted" delegates

Two ways to go. Assign the uncommitted delegates according to the polls to the candidates who took their names off the ballot. Or assign them as unpledged and let go as they see fit.

by usedmeat 2008-05-31 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: "uncommitted" delegates

Agreed.  If we're going to follow the rules, then I don't see how you can just arbitrarily award delegates.

I'd rather just see the whole delegations stripped, but that's me.

by KyleJRM 2008-05-31 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: "uncommitted" delegates

Agreed.  The delegates can show up, but none of their votes should count since those were the rules from the beginning.  I find it disengenious that Hillary wasn't fighting for this from Day 1.  If she had been, her position would have a lot more creedence.

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-31 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

Ickes has been turned into the clown snake that he is.

by MissVA 2008-05-31 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

On the Flip side, Hillary is being rewarded because she had higher Name Recognition AND was still on the ballot of states that were said WOULD NOT COUNT.   These states were not included in the number of Delegates needed to win this thing.  By Adding them, you reward Clinton by changing the rules.  No one can pretend that either result was truly legitimate.  There was no campaigning in either state... Dems voted for GOPers, etc.   So rewarding Clinton for the RBAC fuck up is as ridiculous as your statement of rewarding Obama for not being on the ballot.  So we either need to follow the original rules and suffer the consequences or we have to come up with a COMPROMISE!

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-31 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

Name recognition? Then why didn't Edwards do better?

by usedmeat 2008-05-31 10:03AM | 0 recs
No Unity Here

And you, Jerome, haven't been very helpful in that regard.  

On fair reflection....

by JulieinVT 2008-05-31 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: No Unity Here

While you are oh-so helpful.

Your comment shows that you think the unity line is BS. Why not try posting with a little integrity next time?

by souvarine 2008-05-31 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: No Unity Here

F' off.  Seriously. Your candidate LOST.

by JulieinVT 2008-05-31 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: No Unity Here

You sure sound like a winner.
by killjoy 2008-05-31 10:27AM | 0 recs
Re: No Unity Here

You can put it where the sun don't shine too bud. You people are getting on my last nerve.  I don't CARE if you decide to vote for McBush.  I am sick to death of the threats and nastiness from the Clinton fanatics.  I will not pretend otherwise for the sake of trying to get you to do the right thing.  

I've HAD IT.

by JulieinVT 2008-05-31 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: No Unity Here

Well, I've had it with the endless resentment and arrogance of the Obama people myself.  I thought there was a chance that the reign of Stupid was coming to end this year, but congratulations at making sure that we'll have to wait until 2012.
by killjoy 2008-05-31 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

Unity? (FL)

Obama's being insincere!

No unity? (MI)

Why doesn't Obama want unity!?

Thanks, Jerome.

by BlueGAinDC 2008-05-31 10:00AM | 0 recs
Obama didn't have to remove his name

Why should Hillary be penalized because she kept her name on the ballot?

A 50-50 split makes about as much sense as awarding "uncommitted" delegates to Obama. Let the uncommitted votes become uncommitted delegates. Then let those delegates select Obama.

by grlpatriot 2008-05-31 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama didn't have to remove his name

This is a childlike view that misunderstands the nature of "rewards" and "penalties."

Awarding any delegates to any candidate for a sham and flawed election would be an undue reward.

Withholding an undue reward is not a penalty.

by KyleJRM 2008-05-31 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama didn't have to remove his name

Well, you have your opinion. But Sen. Levin is advocating for a full seating. I guess he is just playing in the sand box.

by grlpatriot 2008-05-31 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama didn't have to remove his name

It's just a matter of who is unduly rewarded the most, unfortunately.  But no one is being unduly penalized.

by KyleJRM 2008-05-31 10:08AM | 0 recs
it's called a concession

and unfortunately it seems as though all the concessions in the world won't mean jack unless clinton gets the nomination.  sad day in democrat politics.  this blog truly points out the joke we've become.  

by ab03 2008-05-31 10:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama didn't have to remove his name

But do you punish Michigan for breaking the rules or let it slide?

Do you give Hillary and uncommitted half their delegates and then let it play out as you describe?

by CAchemist 2008-05-31 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama didn't have to remove his name

Yeah, at this point, we might as well give her her magic pony (you know: a win on a ballot that wouldn't even be sanctioned by the UN, if this was a third world country). She's been wanting to change the rules as they suit her all along.  Might as well let this be it, and she can walk away with her little victory and the knowledge that she's done all she could to tear apart the party and still lose.

by mikeinsf 2008-05-31 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

 I'd like Obama to cave in 100% and take the victory. Disarm the Clinton camp. If they invent new arguments after a total cave in to their unreasonable demands, then they expose themselves for all to see. It has never been about fairness for them - it's been about cheating, when that beame necessary, to win.

by xdem 2008-05-31 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

The problem is that to legitimize false elections opens a slight crack in the door to legitimizing a wildly insane view of the popular vote.

by KyleJRM 2008-05-31 10:05AM | 0 recs
Crazy

Crazy how anyone can argue that MI should be 1) counted as a normal primary 2) that all MI delegates should go to Clinton.

Crazy how the candidate who agreed to the rules is being portrayed as making "backroom deals" and is penalized, and the one who only started caring about 'disenfranchisement' after she lost Iowa is rewarded.  Guess the squeaky wheel will get the oil.  What crap.

by mikeinsf 2008-05-31 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

Obama is going to be in Michigan again on Monday. I imagine Clinton will be in South Dakota.

Probably because one candidate has moved on to the general election and the other is trying to keep him in the primary.

by fbihop 2008-05-31 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

Uhh. It's not over until the fat super delegate votes. So far Obama hasn't the requisite number of delegates to be the nominee. If he wants to pretend that's fine with me.

by usedmeat 2008-05-31 10:09AM | 0 recs
Pretend?

That's what ClintonWorld is indulging in. The woman lost.

Pretending she still has a chance is sheer pretense.

by Bee 2008-05-31 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Pretend?

The Seattle Mariners are still mathematically in it!

by fbihop 2008-05-31 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

Wasn't it Monica Conyers who instructed Obama supporters to vote uncommitted? If that's the case he should get a percentage that corresponds with his polling. Same as the rest what took their names off. An amount of delegates commensurate with their standings.

by usedmeat 2008-05-31 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

Using polling to assign delegates?  No way.

Unless you want to use that in New Hampshire too...

by fbihop 2008-05-31 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC
I remember New Hampshire, Senator Clinton won and the Obama camp followers played the "Bradly Effect" card until it was pointed out the results mirrored the polls taken leading up to the vote.
I think it reasonable that the uncommitted be awarded in numbers reflecting the poll standings.
by usedmeat 2008-05-31 10:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

I just heard that uncommitted means just that according to the MI rules. Those delegates don't factor into any candidate's count. So no matter the outcome Obama doesn't benefit. Works for me.

by usedmeat 2008-05-31 10:29AM | 0 recs
anyone who advocates credentials committee

wants mccain to win.  simple as that

by ab03 2008-05-31 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

Is it Flournoy who just ranted about cancelling the 2012 primary and dividing delegates?

Seriously, how do these people make such grandiose statements when they stripped all delegates in the first place?

by rfahey22 2008-05-31 10:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

"If I knew then what I know now..."

by asherrem 2008-05-31 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

It's takes a huge set of cajones to get up their and ask each of these campaigns to give you an explanation as to why you should fix a problem for them that you created.  If I didn't know any better, I would call it Bush-like.

by venavena 2008-05-31 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

I see why we are facing this current clusterfuck.  These people are damn joke.  No one knows how to ask a question without giving a testimonial, a smart ass attitude or "If knew then, what I know now."  I could've sworn when I turned to it, it was a Friars' Club Roast.

by venavena 2008-05-31 10:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

His position, reslating with a 50-50 split. Its hard to believe that anyone would try to say with a straight face

Just like the suggestion that Hillary get most of the "uncomitted" vote, eh Jerome?

by Massadonious 2008-05-31 10:25AM | 0 recs
Gov. Blanchard for unity

Gov. Blanchard said he would campaign for Obama and so would Hillary if he is the nominee. Good spirit of unity. I haven't heard that from Team Obama. Blanchard also said that MI wasn't a flawed primary, he said that Obama taking name off ballot "was a flawed strategy".  

by grlpatriot 2008-05-31 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Gov. Blanchard for unity

"Team Obama" regularly speaks of unity.

In fact, there was a diary dedicated to it last night, bascially telling Obama he can kiss off.

by asherrem 2008-05-31 10:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Gov. Blanchard for unity

Let me clarify. During these proceedings, I haven't heard from Team Obama today that they would campaign for Hillary should she become the nominee.

by grlpatriot 2008-05-31 10:36AM | 0 recs
ADMINS: Delete GOP TROLL dogking

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/5/31/8 4336/6714/54#54

This jerk has no relation with anyone who supports any ideals of any reasonable person in this country.

Shame on those who recced this bigot's words.  Unrec if you have any honor whatsoever.

-chris

by chrisblask 2008-05-31 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: ADMINS: Delete GOP TROLL dogking

Who are you referring to Chris.

by MissVA 2008-05-31 10:34AM | 0 recs
The user dogking on the rec list

who thinks the word "Mormon" is OK to use as an insult.

Replace "Mormon" with any other religion in his comment (link in my first comment) and see how long he lasts as a user on this site.

Personally I think he is nothing less than an actual GOP troll, but regardles this sort of intolerance has absolutely no place in any Progressive discussion ever, anywhere.

-best

-chris

by chrisblask 2008-05-31 10:57AM | 0 recs
Gov. Blanchard is being intellectually dishonest

"The people in Michigan didn't know their votes wouldn't count" was the most blatant dishonesty I've heard yet. It was all over the news, everyone knew it, and there were newspaper polls, etc. constantly going around asking if Granholm should be blamed, etc.

This is getting ridiculous - these political games are mindnumbingly depressing.

by pacopoolio 2008-05-31 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Gov. Blanchard is being intellectually dishone

But they had hope, don't you know? Hope that their voices would be heard when saner heads prevailed. Isn't Obama the candidate of Hope?

by usedmeat 2008-05-31 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Gov. Blanchard is being intellectually dishone

Democratic Party: This election isn't going to count.

Voter: Okay, I won't vote.

Democratic Party: Surprise! The election is going to count after all.

Voter: But I didn't vote!

Democratic party: That was your choice. You should have known better than to believe what we said earlier.

Voter: Fuck you, Democratic party.

by Angry White Democrat 2008-05-31 10:40AM | 0 recs
I believed what the DNC said

Don't want me in the party, don't want my vote?

OK, if those are the rules...

More fool me.

-chris - Florida Independent

by chrisblask 2008-05-31 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

I love how everyone notes that the campaigns agreed not to campaign, but nobody mentions that they also agreed not to PARTICIPATE.

Gov. Blanchard evidently believes that you can not participate but still leave your name on the ballot. Someone should get that man a dictionary

by BeekerDynasty 2008-05-31 10:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC
Taking the names off the Michigan ballot was requested by the states of Iowa and New Hampshire. Not the DNC.
The DNC has made it clear that the candidates that left their names on the ballot did not violate the pledge.
by skohayes 2008-05-31 10:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

I was pointing out the fact that nobody mentions the "participate" part of the rule. Why? Because anyone with any sliver of intelligence will conclude that leaving their name on the ballot is participating.

by BeekerDynasty 2008-05-31 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

Not according to the DNC, who wrote the rules.

by skohayes 2008-05-31 03:29PM | 0 recs
Stunning

It is stunning to me, just absolutely stunning that we have this much discussion and disagreement about something that seems as plain as day to me.

Who would have thought that we'd be arguing for honoring the results of an election where most of the candidates weren't on the ballot.  It's just absurd.

Since when in this country do we think that it's reasonable to count the votes cast in an election where we told the public that it wouldn't count?  Did I miss some point where everyone went insane and decided that holding fair and free and clear elections wasn't worth a damn thing?  Is this still the country that's supposed to be the beacon of democracy?  And we're deciding election results based on exit polls?  Based on votes for "uncommitted"?  Based on not hurting the feelings of states that broke crystal-clear rules?

These elections were invalid.  Their results cannot count for anything.  And if they do, we should all be collectively ashamed.

I cannot wait until this whole thing's been decided, so I can stop feeling like I'm living in a country where half of us have lost our damn minds.

by ChrisKaty 2008-05-31 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Stunning

I agree.  The exit poll thing is really over the top.  

by venavena 2008-05-31 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Stunning
Me too. The uncommitted delegates are just that. Nobody can claim them in their totals.
The primaries as held we a total C F but they're all we got to determine the nominee. If a candidate(s) took their name off the ballot too bad. Let there be sanctions commensurate with the rules.
by usedmeat 2008-05-31 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Stunning

Uh, somehow you missed my point.

No one can claim ANY delegates in those states.  Know why?  Because we have no idea what the popular will of those states is.  Know why?  Because we only held bogus elections where we told everyone the results wouldn't count for anything.  The fact that people are actually arguing for using the results to determine delegate allocation is an embarrassment to us all.

"All we got" isn't good enough.  We either have fair, free elections, or we don't.  And if we don't, we don't try to make up results.  We admit that we don't know the accurate results, and move on.

by ChrisKaty 2008-05-31 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Stunning

Then why is the RBC even having this meeting? They should have said no to the states that violated the rules. Not have a discussion on who and how many delegates get to vote.

by usedmeat 2008-05-31 11:03AM | 0 recs
Nods in agreement and shared boggledness

by Bee 2008-05-31 10:37AM | 0 recs
The primary was NOT flawed, everyone knew it WOULD

count, Up is Down, Right is left...

WTF? Are you kidding me? Come on Clinton campaign, at least don't insult our intelligence.

Then again, why would they start now?

by BlueGAinDC 2008-05-31 10:31AM | 0 recs
WOW, even more surrealism!

Now it was Iowa and NH that have decided this race! Seriously! What?!

by BlueGAinDC 2008-05-31 10:33AM | 0 recs
The primary was flawed, everyone knew it WOULD BE

They insult our intelligence every time they talk about popular vote as a way to shut out the caucus States.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-31 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: The primary was flawed, everyone knew it WOUL

The caucus states shut out Democrats that have to work for a living. So?

by usedmeat 2008-05-31 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: The primary was flawed, everyone knew it WOUL

Everybody who came to our caucus works for a living. So I guess you bought into a lie.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-31 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

Hynes asks, should their be rules of timing? Blanchard says yes, but I say no.

Then enjoy the Iowa caucuses when they happen in January 2011.

by mistersite 2008-05-31 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

Yeah, apparently the DNC has no say in the process used to determine its nominee.

by rfahey22 2008-05-31 10:39AM | 0 recs
Go Donna go!!!!

Yeargh!!!!

by Renie 2008-05-31 10:51AM | 0 recs
Donna Brazille

She is awesome.  

My mama taught me.... cheating is BAD... following the rules is GOOD.

by JulieinVT 2008-05-31 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

Ceding an advantage to a candidate for staying on the ballot is wrong, when no less than 4 of the Candidates complied with the DNC ruling and took their names off the Michigan ballot.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-31 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

donna brazile is so awesome

by Monolithic 2008-05-31 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

Donna Brazile:

My mama said, my mama said


You suck.

by alyssa chaos 2008-05-31 10:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

Oh, nice.  She speaks truth to power and you say she "sucks"?  

What an ass you are.

by JulieinVT 2008-05-31 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

No no. I should of put it all in quotes.

"my mama said, my mama said, You suck"

-it reminded me of waterboy. you know like where he says "my mama said, my mama said, aligators are ornery cause they have all them teeth and no tooth brush." what a classic.

by alyssa chaos 2008-05-31 11:01AM | 0 recs
Harold Ickes

gets smacked down again.  

He is becoming SO irrelevant.  

by JulieinVT 2008-05-31 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Harold Ickes

it's so great

now i actually look forward to him speaking just so i can hear him getting smacked down a few seconds later

by Monolithic 2008-05-31 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Harold Ickes

Exatcly. They said he is brillant. They said he was good. Well...oh my. The camera never lies does it.

by MissVA 2008-05-31 10:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

"It's kinda fun to think about these guys grandfathers having the same back and forth back in the 30's during the Roosevelt presidency."

Harol Ickes' dad was in the Roosevelt cabinet, not his grandfather.

by davisb 2008-05-31 10:58AM | 0 recs
The only rules: win at all costs

Blanchard replies, "Hillary Clinton did play by the rules... whatever it is, we'll try to win it."

by mikeinsf 2008-05-31 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

The DNC was less wise than the RNC. Because the Republicans set a proportional punishment that was acceptable to everyone, they never had a Michigan and Florida problem.

As a consolation, at least the Democrats know how to make a presidential primary race exciting. Today, is great theater. It may determine whether we have President Obama or President McCain next year. Unfortunately, McCain should have never had a reasonable chance of winning the White House. The trick for Obama is to give in without letting Florida and Michigan go unpunished, and still look like a strong bargainer. The electorate wants a president who knows how to make deals without being weak.

by Zzyzzy 2008-05-31 11:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

I am just disgusted by the party at this point. The local Democratic Party in Michigan, Dean's idiotic passiveness in the  beginning on this issue, Obama's cynical ploys, Hillary's shameless two facedness. Is there anyone not guilty in this mess?First of all, The DNC should tell both Clnton and Obama camps to go to hell. They have no say in this matter. Only the DNC should decide. The Clinton and Obama camps already had their say. They both should shut up now as both are not innocent parties.

by Pravin 2008-05-31 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

If only the DNC weren't made up of so many people from the Clinton campaign.

by BlueGAinDC 2008-05-31 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

Which makes the outrage by many Clinton supporters on this diary towards Obama on this issue all the more laughable.

by Pravin 2008-05-31 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

As Blue indicated right above me, the problem is that none of the people officially attached to either campaign has had the decency to recuse themselves.  This whole proceeding is an attempt by the state delegations to shift blame to the Committee and the Committee to pretend that they never voted to strip delegates in the first place.

by rfahey22 2008-05-31 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

good debating, the arguments for voters are strongest.  There was campaigning for 'uncommitted' in Michigan and they had four times the normal turn out. The uncommitted delegates are going to those who'll vote for Barack in August.  He can't count them earlier because he didn't win them earlier.  Both camps say they want full seating now, so that 'liar' thing about Hillary wanting them counted and Barack respecting rules and not wanting to change the rules to include them is officially bogus.  I mean, they're both liars?  Also, that argument that Barack took his name off the ballot to comply with the rules committee is proven bogus, no one ever asked anyone to do that.  He's on the ballot in DC and those votes don't count.  

Florida voted in record numbers too, and didn't listen to anyone telling them not to bother.  Even though she's now ahead of him in polls in Florida, she agreed to a revote and offered to pay for it.

The strongest argument is for the voters to have their votes counted just like they cast them.  

Barack wills still be ahead in the delegate vote, she's already ahead in the popular votes according to those rules his camp likes to talk about.  But, he won't be able to claim his mission accomplished moment tomorrow, when PR is voting. Their votes don't count either but Barack didn't take his name off the ballot and he's been campaigning there.

This is fun, she was right.  He's trying his smack down so he's right too, about himself.  

by anna shane 2008-05-31 11:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

Sen. Nelson himself said a re-vote in Florida wasn't feasible - a live re-vote wouldn't work because their machines were being replaced, a mail-in primary faced myriad problems.  A Florida rep. also agreed that turnout there would have been closer to 3 million than the 1.75 million that turned out, had the DNC not told people that their votes would not count.  I guess the other 1.25 people did in fact listen to those "telling them not to bother."

See, anyone can use the talking points from the hearing to justify anything.

by rfahey22 2008-05-31 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

he said Barack blocked the mail in option. The myriad problems were his.  He had a problem with doing a revote, and so a problem with each accommodation to his previous problem. It's true, you can like him anyway, but it's still true.

by anna shane 2008-05-31 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

Nelson's remarks on this issue, which begin at about 1:32:50 on CSPAN's video transcript, at no point mention Obama.  You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

by rfahey22 2008-05-31 12:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

got the wrong he, but the point remains.  

by anna shane 2008-05-31 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC
Also, that argument that Barack took his name off the ballot to comply with the rules committee is proven bogus, no one ever asked anyone to do that. He's on the ballot in DC and those votes don't count.

Proven? How? Here, check out the language of the pledge:

THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.

Do you see how it says campaign or participate. Note the or. To "not participate" thus means something beyond not campaigning.

she's already ahead in the popular votes according to those rules his camp likes to talk about

I'm calling this out every time I see it. This is the peak of intellectual dishonesty. You know why.

I agree with Kirk, the Obama supporter on CNN, who said basically "why are all of these Michigan people getting so worked up over counting the votes today? If they feel so strongly about counting the votes in their state why did they move the primary up? They knew, based on the rules, that that would reduce the impact of their votes."

And as a side note, I find it utterly disgusting that some people are pretending to defend the core principles of democracy while giving Obama zero delegates out of a state that clearly does not have zero support for him. That *is not* reflecting the will of the people. So get down off of your high horse.
by randomscientist 2008-05-31 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC
Oops, that was meant to be a reply to anna shane. Sorry about that.
by randomscientist 2008-05-31 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

I find it utterly disgusting that some people are pretending to defend the core principles of democracy while giving Obama zero delegates out of a state that clearly does not have zero support for him. That is not reflecting the will of the people.

Well, unfortunately, in a democracy we ordinarily assign value to how many people actually cast a vote for someone, not how many people we guess support a candidate.  Hillary is only getting 16% of the delegates in Idaho, and I can guarantee that doesn't reflect her level of support there (it was well over twice that in a recent non-binding primary).  But that reflects how many votes she got in the caucus.  Her fault for not campaigning there harder.  Obama's low (but far from zero--he'll end up getting the lion's share of the uncommitted) delegate count similarly reflects his campaign decision in that state.  He can no more claim that the vote didn't reflect his real support than Clinton can claim the Idaho vote didn't reflect her real support.

by markjay 2008-05-31 12:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Live Thread II at the RBC

This is all true enough, but I have to point out an inconsistency: in Idaho, it was Clinton's fault for deciding not to campaign there.  In MI/FL, the candidates were prohibited from campaigning.  Big difference.

by rfahey22 2008-05-31 12:19PM | 0 recs
Thank you for the liveblog

I gotta say that while I've disagreed with a lot of commentary presented on this site over the past six months, I really appreciate being able to come here and get your perspective, Jerome.

I don't have any preconceptions or hopes for the outcome of this RBC meeting except one -- that some solution is agreed upon, and the candidates can move forward to the convention in August because, obviously, they both have the will.

Thanks. Sincerely.

by wanderindiana 2008-05-31 12:04PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads