T-man,

Dude, give it up. Vote for the Democrat. Stay involved with the process AFTER Obama wins the GE.

Lets bury Rusty McFart.

Help us shake up the FCC and get rid of MONOLOPY BROADCASTING. Save the whales and polar bears...and those who are busted with less than an ounce of weed...so to speak..

One World,

Domino49

PS.

Uh....considering the amount of domestic spying being done by the current administration...uh...a terrorist made me write the "weed" part at gunpoint.

Was it Democratic?- No. But it was run by the rules in place when the game started, rules Clinton supported until they started working against her. The Florida decision was as fair as it could be under the rules. Clinton got a good deal in MI - all of the delgates should have gone as uncommited since Clinto was the only one who didn't remove her name. There is simply no way to know what the outcome would have been if Obama and Edwards had been on the ballot. Many of their supporters simply did not vote or voted for Romney. What would have been unfair is to change the reules in the middle of the game. I was a Hillary supporter until January but I now have zero respect for her and will be the first to contribute money to have her loose her Senate seat next time around. Should the rules be changed? by all means, but not in the middle of the game.

Clinton got exactly what she wanted, just not what she bargained for. She thought the rules committee could give her the nomination and stated as much after Super Duper Toosday. The Clinton rules really didn't work out very well for her, did they? I wonder what her new rules will be tomorrow? Maybe it'll be like the Texas rules she tried to play in Texas?

Rule #1: Blacks and Hispanics who vote for Obama don't get to vote.

Rule #2: Disenfranchising Blacks and Hispanics who vote for Obama is not disenfranchising real people.

Hillary rules! Calvin ball played by an incompetent campaign and it's chief executive.

A Hillarist accusing someone else of Calvinball???

IT IS TO LAUGH.

first three comments, and all are wrong, and none addressed the point. and i will vote for obama, in november. i've always been clear that i will support whoever is nominated. tepidly. but the rules were changed today, and not one person who has been screaming about the rules will be able to explain why that's suddenly okay.

4 for 4. thanks spanky- now, you want to answer the question?

Clinton got a good deal in MI - all of the delgates should have gone as uncommited since Clinto was the only one who didn't remove her name.

I watched part of the proceedings. There were 8 democrats originally on the ballot in MI. Four removed their names and 4 didn't. Clinton, Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel were all on the ballot. I'd say plenty of the uncommitted votes were for Edwards, Richardson or Biden, not just Obama.

cg,

and there was nothing in the rules or the agreement that required them to remove their names from the ballot. they did it to pander to iowa. as even markos noted, at the time.

Turkana,

I have a prediction. Not a single Obama supporter will be able to answer your question.

But they will try to deflect, distort, lie and spin so as to cover up the fact that they cannot answer your question.

Not a single one of them will be honest about it.

Somerby's Rule exemplified.

And you were screaming for democracy last year, way back when the DNC made its decision to strip the states of its delegates? Or when the state parties moved their primaries up in defiance, knowing what the consequences were?

No, I thought not. Because it didn't matter. Your candidate was supposedly inevitable then, so FL and MI wouldn't matter.

If the situation were reversed I'm SURE all the diehard HRC supporters would be screaming about how unfair this undemocratic process is. Not.

To everyone who is licking their wounds, remember this. Obama never cheated. He did play by the rules, however flawed they were. He just played more effectively. He won because he understood that it would be a long race and that he needed to win caucuses. And he did. HRC did not. So she lost. Narrowly, but lost. And FL and MI wouldn't have mattered anyway.

Onward.

reality,

they're already proving you right.

thank you for continuing the unbroken streak, mr. larry. and you're wrong, actually. i was explaining why the process is undemocratic and absurd even before iowa, when my candidate was dodd. but keep trying. it's revealing. and amusing.

It is time for a nice honest third party. The Democrats have become Republicans.

Look. 13 members of the committee are avowed Clinton supporters...and they voted against her. Michigan's party floated the compromise adopted by the committee. It's that simple. She can go to the credentialing committee at the natty convention. Maybe she can get some more people to yell and act like asses.

No rules were broken, the Constitution wasn't shredded. I know you can't understand why this is so. Did you vote for Howard Dean to be chair? No. Why? Understanding this simple fact begins your quest for enlightenment.

kathy,

a third party won't work. i will continue to vote for what i consider to be a weak, centrist democrat over any republican, and continue to hope i will some day be able to vote for an actual liberal who can actually win.

phid,

you can spew all you want, but you still haven't shown me the rule that provides for what happened today. you clearly can't. but keep changing the subject. when you don't have the facts, you can always rant.

Turkana,

Yes, there is a lot lacking in the Democratic Party nominating process. To say that the process and/or outcome are undemocratic is to miss the essence of our pary democracy. Without rules there is chaos. Without a democratic process (however flawed) there is fascism. Dont't like the rules, change them.

It is clear from this primary cycle that there are many deficiencies in the process that may need to be rectified, e.g. caucus vs. primary vs, mixed-model approaches; the role of 'supers'; how too best handle violations in party rules; when to start the primaries, etc.

It is also clear that the electoral dynamics have changed and that some of the 'improvements' in the rules and bylaws that were made in 1974 and 1985 need to be revisited.

Obama will likely get 24-25 delegates from PR; and 16-17 from Montana and SD, combined. That leaves him around 20 which he will gain very quickly fom the supers by late next week.

Let's move on to the GE and fix what we need to in 2009-2010.

pp,

"Without rules there is chaos."

and what happened today happened without rules providing for it. the rules were changed- invented- on the fly. which is my point. and while i will vote for obama, in november, this was not the way to convince those who are wavering.

and continue to hope i will some day be able to vote for an actual liberal who can actually win.
Posted by Turkana at May 31, 2008 06:18 PM

Well, you better pack a lunch young man, because it is gonna be a long time before that will happen.

You have pulled the short end of the stick for this year but it will leave you better prepared for 2012...maybe.

Buy hey, what the hell...if you had won you would just have to lead and your party has proved it is not very good at that in the last two years.

Turkana, I can see your resolve for voting for Obama slipping. You do not have any power over the DNC or the SD's if you continue to say that you will vote for the party candidate no matter how badly they behave. You have to take a stand and put the party in jeopardy.
Sorry. This is the only way to make them turn away from the speeding train they're heading towards. You have to isolate the Obama supporters on one side and let the DNC count the votes. And you have to do it before Denver. After the balloons drop, they'll be ablet to get away with murder. If you really care about the party, you have to threaten to destroy it and then cover your ears to the guilt trips and tanturms that follow. Voting for Obama is not voting for the Democratic party. It is voting for a possessed version of the party. It isn't worth your loyalty.
Turn away from them until they yield. You will be in good company.
Call it tough love.

I cannot begin to tell you how disappointed I am in the Democratic Party and its Rules Committee's decision on how to seat the Florida and Michigan. How can you decide to only seat some of the delegation or to take away their votes? How can you decide to award delegates to people who weren't even on the ballot in Michigan? What on earth is the party doing? What message does the party send to its members and to other citizens in the United States when it strips away the votes its citizens? It DOESN'T matter that you warned the states not to move up their primaries!!! You don't punish the elected officials and state parties who made the BAD decisions by stripping away the votes of your party members!!! How does that make sense? How short sighted of you all - after the voting scandals in Florida in 2000, especially! I cannot see any way around this - I used to wonder why people voted against their own best interest - i.e. why poor people would vote for Republican candidates, etc? I am starting to understand. It becomes clearer to me every day that the party elite and their groupies who control this party are out of touch with reality and are more concerned with their own position and status within the party than they are with doing the right thing or caring for their party members. Bye! Good riddance. You won't get any support from me in the future - I've made that mistake for the last time. I will not reward your irresponsible behavior with support in any way, shape, or form - no matter who your candidate is.

riverdaughter,

my resolve is not slipping. allowing mccain to win is no answer. the dnc is not going to shift gears, and obama is going to be the nominee. the fight within the party will continue, but if we abandon the party now, we will have no voice to change it, next year.

the Party caved to the Clintons. The DNC should have left their decision as they made it last fall. FL and MI don't count, period. If Ms. Clinton wants to run unopposed, let her move to Cuba.

right on schedule, and right off point. you don't understand the rules, t2, and clinton is not to blame for those who took their names off the michigan ballots. and the rules do not provide for the dnc to award pledged delegates to someone who wasn't on the ballot. whatever any of us think of it, those are the rules. and florida wasn't actually in violation of the rules, as it met several safe harbor provisions, but it's easier to hate clinton than to actually understand what happened.

You're right, of course. The rules don't cover the situation. That's why the rules committee met today. To resolve a crisis where the crappy rules created a terrible, enigmatic situation. This is politics after all. Politics never has been democratic; it never will be.

I think that the process and outcomes of the Committee's decisions today suggest that the Party is moving forward. I say this for the following reasons:

- Obama apparently had the votes to push for a 50-50 split in MI. He did not. Many of Sen. Clinton's supporters voted for the candidate allocations.

- No members voted against the Florida proposal.

- Clinton could appeal; however the chairs of the R&B are also the chairs of the Convention credentials committee.

neal,

very good answer. and correct.

The answer to your question is that the DNC didn't allocate any delegates. The Michigan Democratic party put forward a plan for delegate selection; all the DNC did was approve the plan.

pp,

we'll never know what happened behind closed doors, but that still doesn't answer the question. and i think obama's best move would have been to accede to whatever clinton wanted. it wouldn't have given her enough delegates to overcome his lead, and it would have looked gracious and magnanimous, and it would have defused much of the anger from the hardcore clinton supporters. this was a bad day, in many ways. no matter what happened, it wasn't going to have any impact on who would be the nominee, but it could have helped heal some wounds. instead, it did the opposite.

Just to disprove an claim earlier in this thread, I am an Obama supporter--not an OBAMABOT as Turkana would insultingly have it--and while obviously not conversant with the ins and outs of the Democratic Party rules, I sure don't get it about the Michigan delegate decision. Yes, I understand that the 69/59 split was proposed by the Michigan Democratic Party, and take some confort in that fact, but that's the only way I can take comfort in the decision.

Basically I'm just worn out by the entire nomination spectacle. It sure looks as if Barack Obama will cross the finish line within about a week, and I hope that Hillary Clinton will have the good sense to acknowledge that when it happens.

wrong, nr. by approving that plan, the committee allocated the delegates. which was not anywhere provided for in the rules.

You are mistaken. They simply have not seen enough resistence. And as a woman Obama's age, I have nothing to look forward to with him in power. His election may have consequences for the careers of every American woman. It is my responsibility to work as hard as I can to prevent Obama's nomination. In truth, I would fare better under McCain, given my social status and income. As long as I work for downticket Democrats, I can ride out four years of McCain. But an Obama presidency will set women back 40 years. We need at least one party to fight for our civil rights and equality. With Obama, we lose that while preserving the illusion of Roe v Wade.
So, there you have it. It's Hillary or no one. I will absolutely not ever vote for Obama. He is inextricably tied to this version of the party and it is my intention to disempower both in any way possible short of voting for the Republican. But if it comes to that, well, so be it.

joel,

you are essentially right. but today was a chance to heal some wounds, and the committee, instead, poured salt in them. michigan's plan was not in accordance with any dnc rules.

*disclaimer*

This is the 1st time I have posted any response to this blog, so why start now ? Dunno. Am I an Obama supporter if I don't see things from HRC point of view ? Characterize me as you see fit.

* * * *
I did watch the Whole thing on C-span & I am from Michigan. What a Great Civics lesson. Regardless. Mr Ickes seemed, to me, to be advocating that an election in which Hillary essentially ran unopposed should be considered as the fair representation of the electorate. If I have mischaracterized his position I apologize. For the record I feel it important to point out that No Democrat running for state-wide office in Michigan has ever been elected without a high turnout from Detroit / Wayne County. In Fact Fmr Gov. Blanchard who spoke on Hillary's behalf lost his last election due to a lack luster effort from the very same region. Some said at the time that he was taking that vote for granted and it cost him. I would rather be in Florida's position trying to determine the "Intent" of each voter on the basis of dimpled chads than to estimate how a renegade election which discouraged participation should be interpreted. However to say that it accurately reflected the will of all the people who would have cast votes under normal circumstances can not be supported by an honest appraisal of the situation. You may take issue with my opinion as you wish but I offer it in the interest of this discussion and I am not trying to be argumentative per se.

riverdaughter,

you may be able to ride out four years of mccain, but plenty of people won't be. including innocent iraqis, and very possibly iranians. and the environment cannot ride it out. unless you're suddenly convincing yourself that bush hasn't been as bad as we all know he has been, there can be no excuse to allow bush iii.

"and i think obama's best move would have been to accede to whatever clinton wanted."

I see where you're coming from here, but I disagree. If Obama had given in and allowed the results from the sham January primary to stand, then Hillary would have claimed victory and used it to push ahead. She also would have said that since the DNC signed off on the election results, they agreed that the election was legitimate and thus, she was the undisputed popular vote winner. Never mind that the popular vote isn't the metric that determines the nominee (and that Obama would have run a completely different campaign if it were); she still would have pushed the argument.

Obama probably figured he had the high ground since the compromise was put forward by the Michigan Democratic party, which is run by Hillary supporters.

senorf,

your points are well taken, and certainly michigan is a total mess, but i was sticking very tightly to questions about the rules because many obama supporters have been screaming that hillary was trying to change them. well, the dnc just did, and the same people who were screaming that changing the rules was a veritable crime against humanity are just obfuscating and changing the subject. which is fascinating. but as a civics lesson, what really came through was that the committee literally just invented rules on the fly. it didn't have to be that way.

Well, McCain will count my whole vote in November. I've never voted for a Republican in my life but I can't vote for someone as sleazy as Obama. The Democratic party needs to be torn down and rebuilt with real Democrats.

i think obama's best move would have been to accede to whatever clinton wanted. it wouldn't have given her enough delegates to overcome his lead, and it would have looked gracious and magnanimous, and it would have defused much of the anger from the hardcore clinton supporters. this was a bad day, in many ways. no matter what happened, it wasn't going to have any impact on who would be the nominee, but it could have helped heal some wounds. instead, it did the opposite.

Turkana, I am trying to understand your argument here, but I guess I don't. Beyond that, what I find really frustrating is that once again, those "hardcore clinton supporters", as you put it, come off projecting a sense of entitlement. And please: it today's proceedings weren't "going to have any impact on who would be the nominee", then why on earth did they even go forward? There's a real internal contradiction in your commentary: you say the Rules Committee meeting had no point as far as the nomination is concerned, but then you get all worked up about how rules were improvised. So you seem to be saying, well, yes, this was like a show trial, but nonetheless it was an IMPORTANT show trial.

Those "hardcore clinton supporters": is there any outcome they would NOT have been angry with except for seating the full delegations as though the Florida and Michigan elections were completely legit? I think not.

nr,

even is giving clinton the popular vote argument, it's too late for that argument (which i did think was a valid one) to prevail. he had literally nothing to lose, and by doing it, he would have been so unifying that nobody would have supported clinton carrying on after tuesday. the superdelegates would have done what they will undoubtedly do, and clinton's hardcore supporters would have had to admit that they even got their way on fl and mi. not much left to complain about.

The committee approved the state's delegate selection plan. That is not the same thing as allocating the delegates themselves.

The Michigan Democratic party will allocate the delegates.

Turkana, are you saying that the rules do not allow for this meeting to have take place and the people at today's meeting to make a decision? I thought the rules explicitly allowed for this meeting to happen and for the states and the candidates to appeal to the party and to come to a binding resolution. Can you explain how today's events were in violation of the rules because as best I can tell, everything that happened today was explicitly provided for by the rules.

mr. larry,
"the state parties moved their primaries up in defiance..."

The Florida Democratic Party had nothing to do with moving up the primary. Check your facts.

riverdaughter,
Are you serious? Elect McCain and women lose everything. He could possibly get to appoint as many as three Supreme Court Justices during a four year tenure. I don't think our country, let alone women, could recover from the damage that could cause.

what happened today mattered more in the aesthetics than in the outcome of the race. give clinton all the delegates she was voted, give obama all his, keep the uncommitteds uncommitted, and she's still nowhere close to a pledged delegate lead. and no matter what happened today, the superdelegates appear ready to end this, next week, after the last people have voted. but the clinton supporters have been hearing for months that she was trying to change the rules, with those making the charges not even understanding the rules (as craig crawford and others have been pointing out), so having the rules actually changed, but to her detriment, is only going exacerbate the anger.

"but as a civics lesson, what really came through was that the committee literally just invented rules on the fly. it didn't have to be that way."

So am I to understand that "the rules" don't allow today's meeting to have happened and don't provide for the specific forum and format and outcomes?

Maybe I'm just confused, but there seemed to be a lot of "the rules" being played out today. If "the rules" didn't provide for today's appeals, votes, and decisions, then why did the meeting happen at all?

Powerlineblog.com

Obama's Iraq Dilemma

How many more days?

Enough said.

Turkana, I am perfectly aware of the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I have no confidence in Obama's ability to extricate our troops with their care and safety formost and in a timely fashion. I have a brother who will be shipped off there as soon as he is done with Officer's training. And do you know why my brother the sergeant in the Army reserves is getting a 5 month crash course in OTC to become a Lieutenant? It's because the Army can't keep them in uniform. I was brought up in the military and what Bush has done to it is a catastrophe. Please do not tell me about the screwed up war.
My brother is married and has two little girls and you are lecturing *me* about Iraq?
I have every incentive in the world to get Hillary elected. Now, my question for you is, why aren't YOU helping ME? Don't tell me it's impossible. I don't buyt it. If I can live to see the Berlin wall crumble, the overthrow of the Soviet Union and the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine, the toppling of this bastardized version of the Democratic party should be relatively easy. But it means we all have to stick together and not yield until the superdelegates get the message.

asa,

there are no rules that allow for pledged delegates to simply be allocated by the dnc. that today's meeting was held was perfectly within the rules, but the resolution also needed to adhere to the rules, which it didn't.

nr,

there is nothing in the rules that allows a state party to simply allocate delegates after that state has voted- however flawed the vote. the dnc could not, in strict adherence to the rules, approve such a plan.

Turkana,

I want to say that I admire you and your commitment to vote for Obama in spite of all the garbage that has gone on. I am very concerned about environmental policies, as you are, among other things.

Unlike you, I am struggling very hard right now to go against every shrieking brain cell I have and be able to support him. It really goes against most of my principles.

The last straw for me, really, was the way the Obama campaign fed that disgusting feeding frenzy about the RFK comments - ginning up the ridiculous implication that Hillary was lusting for an Obama assassination. For some reason, I found that spectacle to be particularly loathsome, even after so many many other loathsome events.

I am struggling very hard with this....

I have a lot of respect for your ability to be more dispassionate.

Turkana, that makes no sense to me. Today's meeting was provided for by "the rules." Today's appeals were heard because of "the rules." Today's votes were conducted under auspices of "the rules." And today's outcomes are binding per "the rules." But, somehow that's not allowed by "the rules."???

I'm dense sometimes and I really do want to understand what you're saying so perhaps you can lay it out for me in simple, easy to digest, terms that will permeate my denseness.

Thanks.

"...It is my responsibility to work as hard as I can to prevent Obama's nomination. In truth, I would fare better under McCain...an Obama presidency will set women back 40 years...".

- Riverdaughter

I think that you may have some issues that go beyond the mere dynamics of party politics.

I just can't understand your rationale to support McCain; directly or indirectly. Do you think that McCain (the one who called his wife a "c_nt" and Chelsea "ugly") is somehow going to defend or advance the civil rights of women?

riverdaughter,

i respect your right to keep pushing for her nomination, but if obama wins- as i believe he will- and mccain then beats him, your brother may end up in iran. obama will have good people working with him, and he wants the war to end. mccain doesn't even acknowledge that there's a problem with the war! if you want to keep fighting for the nomination, i respect that. but if you really think it's responsible to allow mccain to become president, i don't respect that.

Turkana, Kagro X over at DKos agrees with you. For whatever that's worth.

Also, MSNBC is reporting that Obama had the votes for a 50/50 split, but conceded the compromise in order to bring in more of Hillary's supporters.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/31/1091448.aspx

I agree with some of what you're saying, but I also think it was important for Obama to get the DNC on record as saying that the Michigan primary was not a legitimate election. I think that's why he went the way he did.

asa,

the committee could have ruled, in accordance with the rules, on a few different consequences for what happened in michigan- stripping the delegates, halving them, seating them as voted on. but there is nothing in the rules that says that a state party can simply arbitrarily allocate pledged delegates according to its determination, and in no relation to the outcome of a held election. there was no valid way for the committee to approve such a plan, because the rules to not provide for such an outcome. there are rules on the book, and this was not part of them.

Turkana, are YOU serious? There is nothing stopping the SCOTUS from overturning Roe right this very minute if it wanted to. O'Connor had to do some heavy leaning on Kennedy to make him see the light the last time it was in danger and she's gone now.
The issue has never been Roe anyway with the Republicans. It has always been commerce.
I have no idea who Obama would appoint but he has a lot of very wealthy donors on Wall Street to appease.
No, I do not think we would be in danger under McCain provided we elect a sufficient number of down ticket Dems.
Look, I am simply not going to vote for Obama. Period. I will not change my mind. I am not the only one. Our number is legion. We are sick and tired of the DNC and Obamaphile crap this year and don't want the country to be run by a bunch of cocky frat boys who stifle us with accusations of racism.
If they don't listen to us now, they will damn sute hear from us in November. And don't put it on OUR heads if Obama loses and the party disintegrates. YOU and everyone who is planning to vote for him have a choice, right now. You have the power to turn this around. If you choose not to do anything, then you have to live with the consequences. In any case, we are not going to tolerate this kind of behavior from our own party. They either get religion and do the right thing or they lose, badly, in November. We're not fucking around.

nr,

i greatly respect kagro. he's one of several daily kos front pagers for whom i have nothing but respect (the others, not so much...). 50/50 would have blown the party apart, but even this is going to cause further problems among the clinton hardcore.

If the DNC had followed the original "rules" none of the MI and FL delegates would have been seated at the convention. This was a compromise. Therefore, concessions had to be made. Levin's statement that MI had conducted a "flawed primary" nails the purpose of settling it fairly to BOTH candidates when when only one's name had been on the ballot, and voters there had been told it wouldn't count.
Do you really think that because of a technicality (Hillary leaving her name on the ballot after she had agreed to not participate in the MI primary), that Hillary should have been awarded ANY delegates at all?
Under these circumstances your logic for giving Hillary her due, while Obama would net nothing seems deeply and morally "flawed" to me.

I'm not sure I agree with you at all. She lost. She was a good candidate but she lost this in February. She used the "rules" to her advantage when she saw fit and they were used against her. She lost the popular vote, the delegates, etc. She failed to understand how caucus system worked. Wasn't she okay with unseating the delegates from Michigan and Florida before she was against it? I hate to be a stickler, but you sound like a sore loser. Get over it, she lost to a candidate who did a better job. That's not to say he will be a better candidate in the general election or a good President should he win; it is to say that he did a better job and has voiced a vision that she didn't. An African American with one term beat the former First Lady who's husband was a popular and good President. He earned it and she didn't. Sorry.

The last straw for me, really, was the way the Obama campaign fed that disgusting feeding frenzy about the RFK comments - ginning up the ridiculous implication that Hillary was lusting for an Obama assassination.

WHAT?

Obama explicitly stated that he accepted Hillary Clinton's statement that nothing sinister was meant. That is "ginning up" the idea that Clinton was rooting for Obama to be murdered? Good Gawd, get a grip.

Please, please, please distinguish between intemperate, impertinent comments made by anonymous commenters on a blog somewhere, and comments made by known individuals who are part of a campaign.

I'm going to go further and express my hope that Obama asks Clinton to be VP, because I believe that the two of THEM are adult enough to bury their differences, and that a joint ticket is the best chance to really kick the GOP's ass, and I mean all the way down the ticket, not just the presidential election. I want to see the wingnuts reduced in numbers big-time, and for political discourse in this country to steer definitively away from what it has been throughout my adult life.

Turkana, thanks for that explanation. I wasn't getting it in your original post.

So, it's as simple as "the rules don't allow for the rules to be changed during the game, under any circumstances, and today's results, though arrived at via a process provided for by the rules are a changing of the rules -- that being explicitly disallowed." Is that right?

Turkana, I agree completely. This was a bad situation all around.

The real damage was done last year, when the RBC made its FIRST ruling. If they'd gone with a 50% cut then, like the Republicans did, we wouldn't be in this mess right now.

In my opinion, everyone on that committee who voted for the initial sanctions (which I think was all but one member) should be sacked.

nr,

agreed. that bump to 100% sanctions was already a rules change, and many blame donna brazile for having pushed it through.

Turkana:

Simple question, simple answer:

We are the Rules and By-laws Committee. We are the rules, just as Judge Roy Bean was the Law West of the Pecos.

But hey, given some of the things said by the Committee members, it could have been even worse -- divining the intent of voters who didn't vote, for example.

Apparently I was more right than I thought, Turkana. You just stated, pretty much in agreement with kagro x over at dkos, that the rules do allow for a changing of the rules under this process.

Kagro X said "The point, though, is that the RBC had no mechanism under the rules by which they are entitled to make that decision. No mechanism, that is, except one: the prerogative of the rules committee to say -- provided it can muster the votes for it -- that the rules can go jump in the lake."

and you said "that bump to 100% sanctions was already a rules change, and many blame donna brazile for having pushed it through."

Ignoring who personally is blamed, it would seem that the rules committee may in fact change the rules if they have the votes to do so. That sounds like a flaw in the process/rules, not in the outcome, as you've suggested.

asa,

of course the committee can do whatever it wants, as it has proved. but the obamabots have spent months screaming about clinton trying to change the rules in the middle of the game, and the rules committee just did exactly that, to clinton's detriment. of course, they can do that, but the obamabots are supposed to be opposed to such happening, and donna brazile herself has been hypocritically whining about clinton trying to change the rules. well, brazile just did exactly that.

henry,

good answer!

cds,

wrong. the original rule was 50% sanctions.

Dean, Pelosi, et al. I have stated I will not vote for obama if FL and MI are not fully counted. They have not been. Fuck you, I will not vote for the Democrat in the GE. And when obama loses, I will remind you daily that it is your fault, over and over again.

Nothing in the rules but the DNC pretty well makes them up as they go along anyway. This does leave it open for the Clinton's to take it to the Credentials Committee...whatever that means. But it will drag it to the Convention.

This is the immovable object meeting the irrestible force. The Democrats will stop at nothing to nominate B. Hussein Obama. Regardless of how damaged and unelectable he has become. On the other hand, the ClintonMachine will stop at nothing to secure the Nomination and payoff the Chinese.

The Democratic powers that be are afraid to deny Obama because of the threatened riots by black "Leaders". They are also damned if they don't nominate Hillary by the Feminists.

The beat goes on...lol...

Turkana, ahhh. Thanks so much for clearing that up for me. It's not about the rules or the process, it's about pointing out hypocrisy.

What a waste of time.

markle,

is there a particular reason you use obama's middle name? is there anything wrong with it?

no, asa,

it's also about the rbc doing what it can to further divide the party. but thanks for playing.

Turkana,

I'm sorry.

I know I'm dense, but each time I asked for clarification, you responded with a different point. I'm still not clear what the point is you're trying to make?

Your first reply to me was basically that this was about the rules being broken.

Your next reply was that the rules weren't really broken, but that this was really aboutthe hypocrisy of some Obama supporters.

And now you're saying it's about the rules committee dividing the party.

I can't figure out which of those is your point and which are just supporting examples for your point.

I know and I've admitted that I can be dense at times, but I'm really struggling to figure out what's got you pissed off here. What is the wrong that was done? Was it a bad set of rules that allowed for rules to be changed? Was it hypocritical Obama supporters? Was it the rules committee following their rules to create division in the party?

Perhaps if you picked one of those and really drilled in on it without confusing it with the others, you'd communicate your point here more effectively.

Turkana,

I thought about responding to you point about the rules, and decided not to do so. Truly, no point would be served in taking issue with your argument (just as no useful purpose would be served at this point by we Obama supporters making demeaning comments about Sen. Clinton). Rather, I express my appreciation for your commitment to vote for Obama (and presumably whoever else the Democratic nominee might be).

Folks, we gotta win – I personally think the handwriting as to the nomination is on the wall, and for all of us, the time to come to grips with reality is now. Time to come together and move ahead.

asa,

i'll make it simple for you: the rule & bylaws committee used its omnipotent powers to change the rules in the middle of the game to benefit one candidate over the other.

Well, you're right, Turkana:

They should've just stuck by the rules and not seated any delegates from Florida or Michigan.

That was my preferred alternative. I'm fucking sick of states conducting arms races to be the first state to hold a primary/caucus. The length of this stupid primary season is Exhibit A.

If I had my way, Michigan and Florida would've been barred from having delegates to the 2012 Convention.

Jimbo,

"I will not vote for the Democrat in the GE. And when obama loses, I will remind you daily that it is your fault, over and over again."

Good point. Your local military recruiter is calling, and I'm sure with your vote you won't be standing by the wayside letting other troops fight MyCane's war in which you acquiesce. Best of times in Baghdad!

the rule & bylaws committee used its omnipotent powers to change the rules in the middle of the game to benefit one candidate over the other.

did they say this is a one-shot deal and doesn't represent any kind of precedent should this situation arise again? You know like the SCOTUS did a few years back?

Take home message: Rules are made to be broken.

Of course you're right. None of the delegates from Michigan and Florida should have been seated.

Turkana, so it's not about some Obama supporters being hypocrites and it's not about the rules being violated. Thanks.

So, why did you spend the bulk of your original post challenging people to point you to the rule that allowed for this to happen, only to concede in comments and later add an equally or even more forceful concession by kagro x on that very challenge

If it was clearly within the rules for the rbc to have done what it did, (though, a "bad" thing,) and you accept that it's within the rules, then why the challenge to your readers to prove that to you?

Turkana, you're not even going to have the opportunity to vote for Obama in November. He'll be done before Denver.

This man must think that most people will simply shrug when faced with the evidence of his outrageous racist associations. He is an astonishingly poor judge of character. Reject him.

oops. That last post was by me.

Reality said "the way the Obama campaign fed that disgusting feeding frenzy about the RFK comments"

I'm just curious. What did you think of Mrs. Clinton's comment that Obama is a Christian "as far as I know."

I want you to show me the rule that says a candidate who was not voted pledged delegates from a state can simply be awarded pledged delegates by the DNC.

Turkana, you have (repeatedly) been given an answer to your question. You simply "don't want to hear it."

There is no such rule. Therefore, Obama should not get any delegates. Unfortunately for you, Hillary should not get any either. Your question is flawed because it erroneously assumes that Hillary was voted pledged delegates and Obama wasn't. In point of fact, neither were.

My brother lives in Florida. He is an Obama supporter. He chose not to vote in Florida's primary because he was repeatedly told -- both by the DNC and by the campaigns themselves -- that the primary WOULD NOT COUNT. Now he is being told by Hillary's campaign that he should be represented in Denver by delegates for a candidate that he did not support and did not vote for. Try showing me the rule that permits that.

Riverdaughter, turn in you Female card if you vote for any Rethuglican who wants to appoint judges like Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito.

Get a grip, woman. The ReThugs are the enemy of women everywhere, here and throughout the world where they work against family planning and condoms.

OK, you don't like Obama. But I didn't like Clinton, and I voted for him. I didn't like Carter, and I voted for him (tells you my age.) Are you so young you don't remember when abortion was illegal? The ReThugs want to make contraception illegal. Get a grip. Be a woman. Swallow your pride and vote for the Democratic Party.

We'll get our woman president soon, and it won't be a warmonger like Mrs. Clinton.

Amazing as it sounds coming from an "Obamabot" but Hillary should have gotten all (73 right?) of MI 1/2 votes for a total of 36.5 delegate votes. The rest going uncommitted. Then let the remaining 1/2 votes decide at the convetion who to opt for.

Obama will still win on the basis of the superdelegate vote.

Hillary would then lose all her leverage for anything in the party. Along with Bill, they can ride off into the sunset. Or what Riverdaugter wants, start the new Clinton Party.

Toby: Don't you have a scarf boycott to go organize?

peter, must be on vacation. Markle and Toby show up.

actually, space, sticking to the rules- clinton was voted pledged delegates in fl and mi, and obama was in fl. if you care about the rules.

7o6,

i don't think i've ever referred to you as an obamabot. you're too sane. sorry...

kaleidoscope,

actually, the original rule was a 50% penalty. the 100% penalty was already a change of the rules.

I agree with Seven of Six: allocating the "uncommitted" was beyond the proper authority of the MI delegation, and the DNC shouldn't have approved it. They should have given Clinton half her delegates, and let all the uncommitteds cast half votes for whomever they chose.

cal gal,

not helpful to bring up the dishonest post-parsing of clinton's comment about obama.

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/012139.php#012139

you're too sane.

Actually Turkana, I'm technically certifiable.
You know that military stuff that Riverdaughter brags so much about. But thanks for the thoughts.

Congrats then, for your work on pushing democracy Turk. Work on changing the process for 20012. In 2008 Obama is the nominee. Suck it up.

Hey DJ, I'm listening to "Love Thing" by Joe Satriani right now. Ah... the good ole' days.

I got a question for you Turkana... do you think Hillary graciously bows out now or keeps on fighting to the convention?

I think her standing in the Party is important but if she's a sore loser it could have an adverse effect.

And to all HRC supporters who are having a tantrum and vowing to vote for Grandpa Bomb-Bomb, go ahead and do it. Who cares what you do? And if Grandpa Insane wins, then enjoy your coat hanger abortions.

7o6,

i have no idea, at this point. i'm sure what happened today will make some in her camp want to take it to the floor, but i think a lot of superdelegates will move after tuesday. if so, maybe she'll make her own move within a week or so.

BTW, I was watching and 5 from her camp did not vote with her, the other 8 did. Not that it matters.

Hey DJ, I'm listening to "Love Thing" by Joe Satriani right now. Ah... the good ole' days.

Is it 105 out by the pool, with a bucket full of Corona?

He, he... Only 100 today, but the buckets full!

Turkana,

It is unfortunate, but at the time everybody agreed that neither state would have those delegates seated in Denver with voting power.

Whether you want to say that she won delegates with no voting power or that she didn't win any delegates because the contests violated the rules is really irrelevant. The fact is that there was no rule allowing any of the delegates that she "won" to vote in Denver. Period.

I'm just getting a little sick of Hillary supporters acting the victims here. What about the thousands, like my brother, who chose not to vote because they were told the primaries didn't count? What about the thousands in Michigan who wanted to vote for Edwards or Obama or Richardson or Biden and chose "undecided" but Hillary supporters now want to ignore? What about the Democrats in Michigan who liked all the Democrats in the race and voted for Hillary only because she was the only one on the ballot? What about the rest of us, from states that honored the rules and are now being told that the rules don't matter?

The simple fact is that MI and FL were flawed races. The candidates didn't campaign there and MI didn't even feature Obama on the ballot. I utterly reject both that the results were legitimate and representative of actual Democrats' preferences.

Following the flawed primaries, the party leaders in FL and MI had three option: (1) Hold new primaries or caucuses that followed the rules, (2) negotiate a compromise of delegates to go to Denver, or (3) have no delegates be seated in Denver.

Hillary ignored the problem until it became obvious that she needed FL and MI, at which point option 1 was too late. You appear to reject option 2. Therefore the only remaining option is 3, i.e. FL and MI lose out entirely.

Turkana, michigan shouldn't have got a fucking thing. They broke the rules. Hillary played sneaky by putting her name on the ballot which was a validation of some sorts, all the other candidates SUPPORTED THE DNC BY LEAVING THEIR NAMES OFF. Why should hillary get jackshit for sneaking her name in. you are a moron. Hillary love have turned your brain to mush. Nothing makes you hillary supporters happy. Hope you fuckers like McSame as president. good job shitheads. love Joe

I agree with Seven of Six: allocating the "uncommitted" was beyond the proper authority of the MI delegation, and the DNC shouldn't have approved it. They should have given Clinton half her delegates, and let all the uncommitteds cast half votes for whomever they chose.

I agree with you dj...slightly. I have been watching/listening all day and am currently re-watching.

First of all, the RBC is voting on the challenges brought forward.

The RBC is not giving people or taking away from people, delegates. They are voting on the challenges brought to the committee.

The MI Democratic Party came up with the formula for the split that was put forward. The entire MI Democratic Party agreed to this. They used a lot of information to come up with the allocation. The MI Party determined that the "Primary" that was held was flawed and not valid/reflective of the true intent of the voters.

Their determination - not mine.

The rule that provides for this is:
13.A. Delegates shall be allocated in a fashion that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the primary voters or, if there is no binding primary, the convention and/or caucus participants.

They are using the district caucuses/conventions to help determine what was going on. There can be no "fair reflection of a flawed primary." (According to Levin)

I think that they should have left them uncommitted just to get the fucking argument off of the table.

I am really done with this.

If there were no challenges brought to the RBC re: MI & FL neither candidate would have received any delegates.

MI got agreements between Obama and Clinton supporters and feel that they are united in their proposal.

It would behoove everyone who has problems with this to watch the entire proceedings and to

read

all the rules.

And then, read Roberts Rules if you don't understand how committees and shit do things.

Then...if you still don't like it, get involved in your local Democratic Party and change it. If you stick with it you could be sitting on the RBC.

This was a compromise.

It was not perfect and it is messy; but that is democracy.

oops. first link above is a PDF, sorry.

DNC Statement regarding the decision.

um, no, joe,

you have no idea what you're talking about. obama and others took their names off the ballot to pander to iowa. even markos called that one. there was nothing in the candidates' agreement about that.

anjha,

the only fair reflection we had was that the uncommitted were uncommitted. the only way to have abided by 13.a would have been to leave them that way, and let them vote their consciences.

I think that they should have left them uncommitted just to get the fucking argument off of the table.
I am really done with this.

Anjha, Well said. That was my whole point.
Give it to the Hillary camp. Make her happy. Move on quickly and put this behind us. The sooner the better, for all.

Of course the radical Hillary supporters don't want compromise or understand what it is.

actually, space, the original rule was that the states would be docked 50% of their voting power. that was raised to 100%. a change in the rules. and although a lot of people don't understand the rules, there were safe harbor provisions that actually should have allowed florida its full voting power. not to mention that other states violated the letter of the law and were given waivers. calvinball, on many levels. today's change gave them back their 50% votes, but the allocation of uncommitteds to obama is absolutely not justified by the rules. if you care about the rules. which i'm sure you would, if they were changed to benefit clinton.

Here are outcomes that would have looked like rule-based outcomes (even if they don't coincide with Turkana's interpretation of the rules):

- MI gets no delegates; FL gets half

- MI and FL get no delegates

- MI and FL get half delegates; MI's uncommitted delegates free to be, you know, uncommitted

What the hardcore Clintonites are demanding -- fully seating both delegations, and even giving Clinton a portion of MI's "uncommitted" -- and what happened today, are just not really rules-based outcomes.

What was done today was more an attempt at "equity," rather than "law." (It's a lawyer distinction; if you're not a lawyer, it's probably not a good idea to get tied up in knots about whether it was, in fact, "equitable.") When the stakes are this high, it would have been better to go with something approximating the letter of the law.

Wow. This is like the death of the principles of the Democratic Party. I was wondering when they would catch up to the Republicans. Convention and/or nomination rules are one thing, but why didn't the DNC not bother wanking us off and just appoint who they had calculated to bring the most benefits to yet another quid pro quo, venal organization of politicians. The Obama campaign thoughtfully provided incessant observations and talking points (when you have money you can pay people to adopt whatever personality or position they are paid to take in the blogosphere) about the fact we do not have a Democracy of direct representation but a Republic. So the Obama campaign played the caucuses well and garnered enough of the low number of votes needed to snag a delegate in red states, while focusing their efforts on winning delegates at the expense of alienating and insulting a huge percentage of the traditional Democratic base. And the DNC didn't follow any rules, they interpreted the will of the people and voters who designated they were voting for someone else. Wow, do people have no say whatsovever in how this country is run. Leadership by dueling elitists who control most of the wealth and resources in this country. Wait in line for your Bread and Circus. You'll get it if we need you.

there was nothing in the candidates' agreement about that.

Turkana, the agreements that the candidates signed said that they would not campaign or participate in either state's primary. Obama, Edwards, and the others took "not participate" to mean that they needed to remove their names from the ballot. Now, regardless of whether or not you subscribe to that particular interpretation, surely you must at least agree that it is a valid one?

In 2000, when Michigan did the same thing, both Al Gore and Bill Bradley took their names off the ballot.

nr,
even markos once disagreed with that:

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/22/104022/253

Turkana:

The timing of the primaries violated the rules. You said it yourself, the penalty AT THE TIME THE PRIMARIES WERE HELD was a 100% loss of voting power. That's the rule.

Hillary's de facto position -- that she alone may determine an equitable outcome that should replace the rule or else she will fight this at the convention -- is an insult to every Democrat who has had to compromise in their candidate choices along the way and accept that the whole process is imperfect.

Now that they have gotten what they wanted, will the Obama operatives posing as progressives, liberals and supporters of the Democratic Party leave the blogosphere? Brilliant use of deceptive propaganda and outright lies. They have almost created a complete fictionalized candidate for President. Good thing people in this country really are desperate enough to believe Obama will actually sustain their spiritual beliefs because it is going to be a very nasty four years regardless of who gets elected President. It's way too late to see how the Supreme Court interprets the rules, because even if a few are replaced, Roberts and Alito and Thomas and Scalia are not going anywhere. So I don't see how having an Obama or McCain as President is really going to be a big deal to anyone in that regard anyway. The DNC is a private organization. They have demonstrated they will creatively interpret or make up whatever rules they like. Serious sexism and racial bias issues,too.

you're close to accurate, moonbat, although a strong case can be made that florida qualified for safe harbor provisions that should have allowed full seating of its delegates:

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/28/164638/636

Hillary was for the rules before she was against them.

What this episode has revealed, nay, confirmed, is the complete lack of ethics and integrity possessed by Hillary and her hacks. Including you.

Idiot!

Seating ANY delegates from Michigan and Florida is "magic pixie dust," you dissembling fool. Giving some to Obama is only equitable.

Go whine to a mirror, you might find someone who cares. Loser.

space,

the penalty was changed after the states announced their date changes. sorry. and, once again, if you want to abide by the rules, a) these two states were punished, while other states also violated the rules and were given waivers- again, a change of rules after the fact; and b) florida might actually have qualified for safe harbor, under the rules:

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/28/164638/636

Sorrt, Turkana, nr is completely correct. Markos was simply making the assumption that the race would be locked up long before the convention and that the party could afford to be gracious to FL and MI.

Had Hillary bowed out by this point, I'm sure that MI and FL could be seated with full voting power without objection from the Obama camp.

no, space,

markos was actually considering an actual horse race, and there was nothing in the agreement to suggest they had to take their names off the ballots.

Jeez, what a read. I'll bet this thread is burned out....

Sidebar for those who say caucuses are "undemocratic":

The town hall meeting is always held up as the epitome of democracy. A caucus is just a town meeting. There is nothing more democratic. You get a second choice if your first is too far in the minority. The side with the support of the majority gets the nod. (The active word is "majority.")

What you are disagreeing with is not the undemocratic nature of a caucus, but rather the unsuitability of a caucus to address a large population's individual preferences. You are bitching about those who don't participate--those who are unwilling to invest the necessary effort in order to be effective. Individual state parties are free to choose their method of deliverilng the vote. If you want a bigger base, make things easier.

There is no difference at the national level where the national party--the one recognized by the process--gets to choose the nominee.

It's not fair. It's not consistent. But must we continue to throw around the word "democracy" as though we know what it is? Or have we all lost faith in its ability to provide a workable government?

bmf,

thank you for giving us a fine example of a cds/oc obamabot. and incapable of even answering the question.

The thing that really gets me in all this is that the Hillary campaign acts like we are all just complete morons. It isn't like when Obama and Edwards pulled their names off of the MI ballot Hillary made a point of saying that was a mistake. She expressly said that it didn't matter whether she was on the ballot and that "It's clear. This election they're having is not going to count for anything."

There is simply no shame.

yes, space-

no shame in the rules committee changing the rules in the middle of the game.

BTW, Turkana, you have been a beacon of reason and integrity ever since I have been coming here. Thank You. I feel like we have been served a plate of lukewarm phlegm. But still better than Republicans or McCain. But still a bowl of someone else's lukewarm phlegm. This whole proportionality of worseness thing is becoming a bad habit in this country.

It was tough voting for Kerry last time around, but that was for reasons of image and behavior. It's really tough to have to pray that Obama is not as big of an asshole as most of his supporters and campaign staff have been, and that he doesn't bend over for the sake of "post-partisanship". That deflecting on the actions or words of Hillary Clinton, while doing exactly what Clinton was being criticized for, was clever but so tired and destructive. Thanks to the DNC rule making (or interpreting to resemble the spirit of the law), it's going to be a rough tow for either candidate in the GE. It is really a tragedy. I do hope that the Obama people at least recognize we would be as pissed off and nauseous if it was any other Democratic candidate that they pulled this crap on. But was post-ethical implied with all the post-partisan, post-racial, post-conflict with declared enemies pablum of the Hope We Can campaign?

Turkana,
I'm wondering if you heard the argument put forth by MI on why they came up with giving part of the delegates to Obama. That the MI Dem party as an institution, because Obama, Edwards and Richardson were not on the ballot, decided to inform voters that if they supported one of those candidates, that they should vote for "Uncommitted". That the Obama and Edwards campaigns in MI told people to vote for "Uncommitted" to support their candidates. Exit polls showed that Obama won 75% of the Uncommitted votes. Plus 5% of ballots (that's 30,000 people) wrote in someone, which didn't count at all.

I think the MI committee came up with their best guess as to what the outcome would have been had all the major candidates been on the ballot. What's that Ickes kept saying... "fair reflection"? But the Clinton campaign didn't want Obama to have any delegates. That sort of undermines Ickes argument, doesn't it? "Fair reflection of a flawed election" is about right.

Obama was not my first choice. That was John Edwards.

He is however the only remaining ethical choice.

Obama played by the letter of the rules and followed the spirit of the rules and WON. He BEAT YOUR GIRL FAIR AND SQUARE. Oh, I'm sorry that he actually had a plan for after February 5th and actually knew how delegates were awarded and actually ran a tight ship and didn't blow his wad of cash on money sucking pigs like Mark Penn. What a horrible man he must be to have done all of that! The horror! The audacity of him to have run to win!

Your cynical defense of Clinton's disgusting hypocrisy reveals you to be as bereft of integrity as she.

It's all good though. You can bitch and whine all you want over the next few months, I'll be watching Obama accept the nomination in my beloved Colorado with great satisfaction.

Oh, by the way...if you want to get into a contest of intellectual acumen, I'll drink your milkshake. I'll drink it up. Just say the word.

space has the essence of our frustrations nailed.

Hillary thinks we are morons. Her "arguments" insult the intelligence of anyone with an IQ over 80.

Since you, Turkana, probably have an IQ over 80, you're acting as an accomplice to insulting our intelligence. Have you no shame? Have you no integrity? Is not your integrity worth more than shilling for an unethical candidate bound for self-inflicted defeat?

We'd like to know the answer to THAT.

Oh, by the way...if you want to get into a contest of intellectual acumen, I'll drink your milkshake. I'll drink it up. Just say the word.

Yes, that's the sort of challenge super-geniuses lay down all the time.

Turkana,

I get a little sick of hypocracy arguments.

Why don't you just tell me what YOU think the outcome should be and why that outcome ISN'T changing the rules in the middle of the game.

good points wilson rivers

dj, you are correct

I am confused as to the people who are claiming that Obama "got what he wanted".

He compromised.

Obama argued for a 50:50 split in MI. Clinton argued to have all of the delegates (73) and none for Obama; leaving the uncommitteds as is.

The 69:59 was a compromise. Not proposed by Obama but not contested by him.

Clinton, OTH, reserves the right to contest and her supporters are contesting, loudly.

Obama did not even argue in FL for anything different. He conceded and gave Clinton a net 19 delegates.

So, is it true that the only thing that would make the Clinton camp happy is 100% of what she wanted?

She would have 73 delegates in MI, so she got 69 instead and everyone is flipping out.

They came up with a political compromise.

And Obama compromised.

Turkana, so why did you demand on your front page post that your readers defend the rule breaking that you now concede in comments was not actually rule-breaking but just bad politics?

It seems like intellectual dishonesty to start out demanding something only to concede the point and not withdraw the demand.

Also, what's with the name calling? Is it really necessary to continue stereotyping a candidate's supporters? Sure, trolls in comments is one thing, but you're an empowered voice of this website and it's really kind of childish a bullying to keep using words like "obamabots".

BTW, it is the Fucking Rules and Bi-Laws Committee.

They are the ones who write and enforce the rules.

They are also the ones who can waive and change them.

They listed to the arguments and came back and voted on the motions.

These are people who run for these positions. Vote em out if you don't like it.

s/b they listened

sorry for the typo.

I meant to say that your name-calling was "childish *and* bullying."

It really is and it not only doesn't help your arguments, it weakens and demeans both you and you and this site.

You're right; no one can answer your question.

But, where in the rules does it say that the FL and MI should get their delegations, despite the fact that they moved the date of their primaries up in violation of the rules?

The whole point of today's meeting was to change the rules.

I don't understand how people can argue that it's okay to change the rules in terms of seating the delegations, but that it's not okay to change them in terms of apportioning delegates.

anjha,

yeah- so, they can change the rules as they see fit, in the middle of the game. or tell the rules to jump in a lake, as kagro put it. how comforting.

bw,

the rules offered specific penalties. which were changed. then changed again. but even worse, this last change essentially interpreted the will of the voters without any proof that their change had anything to do with the will of the voters. not to mention that florida had a valid argument that it hadn't violated the rules, and other states that did violate the rules were allowed to get away with it with no penalty at all. how very calvinball.

asa,

learn to read. my post was about the committee making up the rules on the fly. of course they could do it, because they did it. but changing the rules in the middle of the game is not exactly fair or honest or democratic, is it? and what they did today was not in accordance with anything in the rules other than that they could do it.

as for the name calling, asa, i call them as i see them. i have no use for dishonest arguments.

bmf,

since you are incapable of arguing the facts, i won't bother with your drivel.

"obama and others took their names off the ballot to pander to iowa."

Wow, Turkana, you've repeated that charge about a dozen times now. What EVIDENCE is there for this? And don't say "Well, Kos wrote something along those lines." Talk about being a hypocrite. Since when do you care what Kos says about anything? Oh, that's right, when his opinion furthers your argument.

Evidence, not opinion, is what we need here, if you don't want to look like a sore loser. What evidence is there to support your allegation that Obama took his name off the ballot in Michigan in order to "pander to Iowa"?

hannah,

fair reflection does not include guesswork. uncommitted means uncommited, until, as kagro put it, pixie dust is sprinkled by the magical committee. there was nothing in the rules to grant that magical authority to overturn what was actually voted. except that the rules committee can do whatever it wants to do. party elders simply making decisions that are not demonstrably reflective of anything other than the opinions of party elders.

gee, naomi- then why didn't he try to get his name taken off the florida ballot? or new hampshire? or any of the other states that violated the rules? and kos's opinion was worth listening to, until he jumped the shark, right after the tx/oh primaries. and, yeah- i'm a sore loser. when the will of the voters is overridden by party insiders, i tend to think we all lose. but the partisans in this campaign never care much for the will of the voters, do they?

Hey, I am a strong Obama supporter and I agree with you on Michigan - I think the situation was SO unusual they should not have seated ANY of the delegates. It was a real mess.

I'm going to vote for McCain. And when I do, I'm going to proudly videotape the filling out of my bubble and mail a copy of the video to Donna Brazille, with lipstick kisses all over it.

I'm not going to let this kangaroo of an election result in a win....or if it does, it's going to do it without MY vote.

What a joke this party is. It is NO BETTER than the Republicans, just maybe full of better liars.

It's all crazy and over the top for me. But, it may be the first election decided by the 18 to 20 year old demographic!

Hillary may appeal!

"gee, naomi- then why didn't he try to get his name taken off the florida ballot?"

You know the answer to that, or you should. Florida did not allow the candidates to take their names off the ballots.

"or new hampshire? or any of the other states that violated the rules?"

Yeah, right. Obama is going to take his name of the ballot in New Hampshire and the other states that, unlike Florida and Michigan, had NOT been found to be in violation of party rules. Is that supposed to be a serious argument?

"Kos's opinion was worth listening to, until he jumped the shark, right after the tx/oh primaries."

I see. So Kos was kidnapped by aliens after March 4, but everything he said before that was okay. I think the hypocrite label stands.

BTW, you're not using the "jump the shark" reference correctly. It means someone whose popularity has declined and has to pull of some outrageous stunt to try and get attention, and regardless of what you think of him, that clearly is not Kos.

Anyway, as I thought, you have no evidence for the "pander to Iowa" slur. You just saw it and repeated it because it sounded good. Sad, really.

You know you Americans just make me sick. Why can't you see what we see hear - a broken country grasping to be more progressive and to become a better country. We want a country that will do right on its foreign relations. Obama at least wants to do these things.

Right now we have problems here with Gordon Brown but boy if McCain wins won't we be sitting here telling our leaders to be tough with the US as we'd have given up on you.

no, everything kos wrote before his "blacker" shark jumping wasn't accurate, but that one was. and for a now full-fledged obamabot to have seen it is pretty telling. and actually, other states were found to have violated the rules, but they were granted waivers by the calvinball dnc. and why didn't he take his name off florida?

sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about, and are just spewing for the sake of spewing.

john,

we're doing our best. but thanks for giving us tony blair to enable bush. made many of us sick, too.

South African perspective here (been following this American primary with interest):

My continent is famous for its one-sided elections in the last few decades. By way of a salient example I offer the previous 2 elections in Zimbabwe, where opposition politicians were denied the right to campaign and in some cases taken off the ballot in their strongest areas based on hastily made laws.

And reasonable people the world over did not call those elections legitimate. They called them sham elections. The primaries in Michigan were clearly sham elections, since the vote was suppressed (people stayed home thinking their votes wouldn't count), the contenders did not campaign and only one person was on the ballot. If you were talking about a general election in any other part of the world, that would be considered a sham election.

i.e. The results of that election are clearly not a reflection of the true popular vote.

They can't be. If I was an American, living in Michigan, I would not have voted given the circumstances. Conversely I would have voted if I knew the election was a legitimate one according to the rules. So, from the simple assumption that I am not alone in my way of thinking, I have to assume that a large number of people did not express their will in that election.

And those people who did not vote were disenfranchised by way of discouraging them from voting then seating delegates based on the votes of those that did.

The situation is only marginally less clouded in Florida. In Zimbabwe the prevention of opposition parties campaigning has on its own been percieved the world over as grounds to call previous elections illegitimate, on the basis of the fact that recognition and understanding of the policy positions of less well-known candidates is recognised as a requirement for legitimate democracy.

Clinton garnered votes on name recognition in a state where a considerable number of voters didn't know Obama or his positions. It cannot be claimed that the vote would have played out the same had he had the opportunity to campaign.

Finally, the meme that Obama stopped a revote is historically inaccurate. Clinton surrogates, IIRC, nixed that option before Obama did.

So by the standards of all reasonable people, the votes in Florida and Michigan are the result of a process sufficiently poisoned as to make them an illegitimate reflection of the popular will.

And Clinton supporters who loudly demand the acceptance of those results as-is are at best being illogical and at worst, disgustingly cynical.

I've little doubt that there are logic-challenged Clinton supporters who just haven't worked out the flaws in their position yet and are trusting in their candidate's judgement. But those who are aware that this position is fundamentally at odds with a reasonable standard of democracy, yet continue to cynically foster faux-outrage are undemocratic scum.

amused,

some basic flaws to your theory- first of all, when revote plans were put forward, clinton ended up supporting them, obama kept raising objections. the zimbabwe analogy doesn't work, because in zimbabwe the opposition parties didn't choose not to be on the ballots. and while the flawed primary may have suppressed turnout, 600,000 people did vote, and what happened today invalidated those votes. in florida, millions voted, and it's a state that's heavily demographically favorable to clinton in a race that has been all about demographics. but it ultimately all comes back to the rules. either the penalties are applied as in the rules, or not. for the dnc to simply allocate votes based on nothing but their guesses and biases is actually much more akin to what goes on in sham elections in your continent than the flawed votes that actually took place. it's ultimately about the rules- either they apply, or they're made up on the fly. the dnc decided to make them up on the fly.

"no, everything kos wrote before his "blacker" shark jumping wasn't accurate, but that one was. and for a now full-fledged obamabot to have seen it is pretty telling."

It is not "telling" at all, it is one blogger's opinion. You repeated it as though it were a proven fact, when actually you have no evidence to back up your allegation.

"actually, other states were found to have violated the rules, but they were granted waivers."

Yeah, exactly. Which is why it is ridiculous to ask why Obama didn't take his name of the ballot in those states. They received WAIVERS, i.e. their primaries were still considered to be legitimate elections. Obama and any of the other candidates would have been idiots to take their names off the ballot in those states.

"why didn't he take his name off florida?"

I already answered that. Florida law didn't allow it.

"sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about,"

Heh. Well, what I know for sure is that you just got busted for making a serious allegation without any evidence to support your claim.

The RBC voted to accept the delegate slate chosen by the official Michigan State Democratic Party district and state convention process. (with half a vote for each, as a penalty)

The 'uncommitted' delegates in Michigan, when they got together, counted noses and recognized they were all Obama supporters, and elected Obama delegates to the next stage of the process.

The national RBC acted within their mandate and within the rules.

Turkana

A basic flaw in _your_ logic:

The disenfranchisement of the voters who did vote doesn't offset in some way the disenfranchisement of voters that didn't, because the mere existance of substantial vote suppression delegitemises an election. Period. That's the standard for democracy in every functioning democracy in the world.

Simply reiterating the point that some voters did vote and feel cheated doesn't really legitimise the election, it just illustrates what a mess it was. An election is a contest between multiple candidates. Exclude a unknown but certainly sizeable proportion of the opposition out of the contest and the numbers that come out are meaningless. They do not represent a popular vote.

The correct course of action in such a scenario would be a revote or the votes not being counted at all, since they cannot be called, by any rational human being who understands democracy, a representation of the popular will.

Its justifiable to get angry about no revote taking place, but that anger doesn't logically translate into a valid claim to the results of an illegitimate vote, which is exactly the claim you're making. An illogical one.

And according to what I've read, it wasn't the Obama campaign that prevented a revote in Michigan (whatever their position), it was the state party:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/20/michigan.florida/index.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/19/nation/na-dems19

So a revote may have been the best solution, but the same state party that caused the whole mess prevented a solution, not Obama's campaign.

amused,

by that standard, we never have valid elections. as for the revotes, here's what i wrote- with links:

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/012178.php#012178

nice try, dems to win, but the uncommitted delegates didn't count noses and decide they were all for obama. were that even the case, they could have been seated as uncommitted, and simply voted for him. and yes the committee was omnipotent, and coulod do whatever it wanted, but what it did was to change the rules and award delegates that were not voted to be awarded.

yeah, naomi,

so, the rules were changed in the middle of the game to punish some states and not others, and obama, out of the purity of his heart, decided to remove himself from the ballot in michigan just because he's pure that way, and likes to abide by whatever rules are in place at any given moment, even if his actions don't actually have anything to do with the rules, and it had nothing at all to do with pandering to iowa. got it. and yeah- sorry i don't have an internal obama camp memo to confirm their reasoning, but axelrod forgot to mail me.

and btw- sam stein seemed to think the same:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/22/how-obama-ended-up-on-and_n_103132.html?page=11

Turkana,

There seems to be some cognitive dissonance on your part. If you read the links I provided above and google a bit for other news of the fiasco, you'll see that the Obama campaign's objection in Michigan was not to a revote but to a revote _with different rules_ to the original primary. Clinton supporters wanted to change the rules of the primary for the revote. Its murky, but the simple claim that Obama supporters stopped the revote doesn't wash.

RE valid elections. If your argument is that there is voter suppression in your GE so, since those results are accepted as legitimate these should be too, I think you should reconsider that. The sensible reaction would be "we shouldn't legitimise results in the GE where there has been considerable voter suppression".

amused,

check the links in my post about the revote. obama was balking for the sake of balking. even the dnc was on board.

"obama, out of the purity of his heart, decided to remove himself from the ballot in michigan just because he's pure that way,"

Straw man argument, Turkana. Nobody said Obama took his name off the ballot in MI because of his innate purity or any of that other nonsense you wrote.

"sorry i don't have an internal obama camp memo"

Or any other evidence. But that didn't stop you from making the claim.

"and btw- sam stein seemed to think the same:"

How quaint. A couple of bloggers sitting around musing about this and that, and then quoting each other.

Not even a shred of evidence anywhere in sight, of course. I guess that's what passes for journalism in the blogosphere.

The "rules" were agreed to well in advance by the DNC AND with the sanctions of ALL candidates, including Ms. Clinton.

QQ moar, get over it and let's put BHO in the White House this fall!

Riverdaughter, in case you didn't know this informtion, McCain is committed to appointing Supreme Court Judges who will overturn Rove v Wade, and he will certainly have that opportunity. So if you believe in women's rights, you better hope to hell McCain doesn't win the Oval Office.

Wow, 167 comments...and I've read maybe a quarter of them....all I know is that the headline on my hompepage says it all to me(sadly).

"Clinton defiant against party leaders"

No mention of the fact that the "party leaders" just friggin made up some "rulz" and rubric to majically allocate delegates to a candidate whose name wasn't on the ballot. My name wasn't on the ballot either, how come they didn't allocate some of those delegates to me?

Sigh...you're spot on turkana....I'm not sure after this the dnc insider party leaders have done themselves any favors for November. And then of course there's the Precious himself...who if he was so inevitable to win the nomination, would have said seat them all as voted....but no..that would have taken some gutsy leadership, and he doesn't possess that...he's just another spineless and classless politician, but he's the chosen one.(who from the sounds of it, will be reaping a bit of what he's sowed in the upcoming days).

You know, there is something truly liberating in the sudden revelation that you all truly think Hillary Clinton is a castrating she-devil, and those of us who are her supporters are totally deranged, and that the "New" Democratic Party neither needs nor wants us anymore.

During this campaign, for the first time in my 50-year-old life, I was called a racist and bigot, and people sought to have me fired, simply because as an historian I dared to defend Mrs. Clinton's accurate account about MLK, LBJ and the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Fine.

Have fun in the fall; California's lovely that time of year. Oh, what's that? You think California is a lock as a blue state? Guess again, dipwads. In all likelihood, you all just threw it into play tonight, using both hands and no brains.

Speaking only for myself, what the DNC's Rules & Bylaws Committee did tonight was, to be blunt, a true covenant-breaker. Your cheering them on to a commission of electoral fraud only sealed the deal for me.

I'm now through with all of you Obama people for the duration of this campaign. You're on your own, from here on out. You and your candidate have reduced your level of political stature to that of the GOP. While in all good conscience I cannot vote for John McCain or any Republican, I will not reward the Obama campaign's misogyny, race-baiting and religious mendacity with my support or vote in November. I'll vote (D) down-ticket, and leave the top blank, and really, that's the best I can promise you.

'Cause you know what? John McCain simply doesn't scare me the way your guy now does, because for all his foibles and follies, he comes across as affable, decent and somewhat reasonable. As for you and your now-hopelessly compromised political crusade, with all its well-documented arrogance and high-handedness, you act as though collectively possessed by the Holy Spirit to support some starry-eyed, silver-tongued political mystic who's on a mission from God.

And I have a sneaking suspicion that I'm not alone here.

DiSA, you're not alone, and MI is beautiful in the Fall too!

Judith and others:

Your threats of bloody coat hangers only drive women farther from Obama and farther towards McCain. It is simply ridiculous to pretend that women's rights are encapsulated in abortion rights. Women have watched their rights as basic human beings entitled to respect belittled during this campaign. And they have watched 'progressive' men AND women enjoy the sport of misogyny. If you care so much about women's rights, then you all should have to stood up against the horrifying sexism directed at Clinton and her female supporters during this campaign. Too late now to try the bloody coat hanger bullying - won't work. Do you think women are really that stupid??

Judith #1: "So if you believe in women's rights, you better hope to hell McCain doesn't win the Oval Office."

Well, Riverdaughter wouldn't have to "hope to hell", if we didn't have a nominee who's shown a marked professional penchant for ducking tough or controversial issues - like a woman's right to choose.

So how is what happened behind closed doors yesterday any different from what used to happen behind the closed doors of smoke filled rooms in years past?

Excellent logic by the committe, "we shall enforce the rules by ignoring the rules."

My God does the hypocrisy ever end?

No vote on the Prez/VP selection for me.

as for the name calling, asa, i call them as i see them. i have no use for dishonest arguments.
Posted by Turkana at June 1, 2008 12:16 AM

$$$$

Project much?

Your arguments are inherently dishonest and hopelessly biased. You are an insult to the reality based community.

Stupidest. Comment. Evar:

'Cause you know what? John McCain simply doesn't scare me the way your guy now does, because for all his foibles and follies, he comes across as affable, decent and somewhat reasonable.

Wow, amazing how fast the Clintonites have gone from 'will of the people' to 'the meaning of is'. You all swap out moral and legalistic arguments whenever one or the other sounds better for you, and you wonder why nobody takes you seriously. 1 month ago, you were all screaming that the RB Committee could do whatever it wanted in regards to these states, because the rules said they made the decision. Now your screaming that they had no right to do this, and had no choice but to do something you all said they had no right to do 1 month ago.

Get over yourselves. You argue that the popular vote is all that matters because of Democracy, then argue that the entire contest is null and SD's should decide to nominate the person who won this the most delegates and ran a campaign based on the metric that everyone use to agree mattered. You argue that Caucus's are bad because they are held midday, and many working people can't attend, yet you're fine with Primaries run from 8AM to 6PM, when... most working people won't be able to attend. 2 months ago, you all argued that Hillary would never take this to the convention because she was a good, loyal democrat. Now you're arguing that she should take this to the convention because you didn't get your way. You argue that we shouldn't punish the voters of Michigan and Florida for their leaders decisions, now you argue that we SHOULD punish Obama's supporters for Obama's decision to take his name off the ballot.

Really, where is the consistency in all of this?

In the end the Party imposed the same rules, same as the Republicans. Half.

The Michigan vote was more difficult. All candidates agreed and signed a pledge not to campaign or PARTICIPATE in both primaries. All agreed that the primaries would not count. After agreeing not to participate to leave her name on the ballot was at the best hypocritical, at worst a violation of her oath (and yes, Kucinich should have taken his name off the ballot too). H. Clinton should not be rewarded for violating her pledge, and Obama should not be punished for obeying his.

Since everyone was told that the primary was bogus and would not count and two of the three major candidates were off the ballot, and many Dems either stayed home or crossed over and voted in the Republican ballot, there is no way that the results in any way accurately reflected Democratic voters in Michigan.

Further, the election was declared null because it was too early in the primary season. In January Clinton had a huge advantage with name recognition, thus further inflating her percentage. A look around the country shows that Clinton's percentage versus Obama has generally gone down as the candidates and their positions become better known. For ex, in February H. Clinton beat Obama in California, but now leads Clinton among California Democrats and easily defeats McCain.

As far as Michigan goes, H. Clinton was given a majority as a consolation prize. It's over. If people want to vote for McCain, then they weren't very good Democrats.

The last straw for me, really, was the way the Obama campaign fed that disgusting feeding frenzy about the RFK comments - ginning up the ridiculous implication that Hillary was lusting for an Obama assassination.

WHAT?

Obama explicitly stated that he accepted Hillary Clinton's statement that nothing sinister was meant. That is "ginning up" the idea that Clinton was rooting for Obama to be murdered? Good Gawd, get a grip.

Please, please, please distinguish between intemperate, impertinent comments made by anonymous commenters on a blog somewhere, and comments made by known individuals who are part of a campaign.

I'm going to go further and express my hope that Obama asks Clinton to be VP, because I believe that the two of THEM are adult enough to bury their differences, and that a joint ticket is the best chance to really kick the GOP's ass, and I mean all the way down the ticket, not just the presidential election. I want to see the wingnuts reduced in numbers big-time, and for political discourse in this country to steer definitively away from what it has been throughout my adult life.

Posted by at May 31, 2008 07:14 PM

I don't know who was the gutless wonder who wrote this, but the Obama CAMPAIGN did in fact point out the 'gaff' to the press. They sent a fucking e-mail to the WHOLE PRESS CORPS.

When it blew up in their smarmy faces, then Obama 'retracted.'

Fucking Obamabots. I'm with Riverdaughter. Roe v. Wade can easily be over-turned with the Supreme Court we have, even if it hasn't happened yet. And Obama is a useless, spineless wimp who has repeatedly wimped out when he needed to support women's rights.

Sure, I can send my daughters to Switzerland for an abortion. If that's what they need and decide.

But not everyone can.

Add in his compromised health-care reform which will take the pressure off of the middle class, effectively destroying it for the poor, we'd be damned fools to elect Obama for that reason alone.

Seriously, once his self-indulgent country gets out from the worst of a crises, we go right back to our useless ways. We've proved it each and every time. No need to prove it again and destroy rational health-care reform permanently.

I really don't understand how anybody could be upset at either Obama or Clinton about any of this b.s.

The people who messed this up were the people in Michigan and Florida who decided to change the date of the primary knowing that they would be penalized. The other people who messed this up were the DNC who created the stupid protectionist rules in the first place. Be angry at the people who are responsible for the problems.

With respect to Michigan, in the end, the RBC had to try and discern the intent of the Michigan voters. That clearly couldn't be done. They had to reach a COMPROMISE to do it. It was, at this point, the only option if there were going to be any delegates from Michigan.

Why are we fighting about this? Seriously. Everybody knows that it was messed up and there had to be a compromise.

The DNC and the Michigan Democratic Party were responsible for the problem and now they have given their solution, which is both a compromise and comprimised. Turkana is right that we should be angry at the DNC. But there is no reason to be angry at either Obama or Clinton, regardless of how much their supporters tried to make this fight about them. They are both truly irrelevant to the problem here.

In the end, I really don't understand how any Democrat could say they won't vote for the Democrat in the Fall. It just makes no sense. There is only one thing to think about: the need to fix the country. And let's not forget about the future of the planet. Why should any of this ridiculous DNC b.s. (or any of the other complaints like how the media treated the candidates, or who is more electable, etc.) have any affect on how anybody votes in the Fall? There should be only one goal: to make sure that John McCain does not become president. There is nothing else that matters. If Democrats vote as one, we can end this 8-year national nightmare. It's that simple.

A couple of things.

1) Political parties are not the same thing as the entities laid out in the Constitution. They are, after all, voluntary organizations (spare me any you can always leave America arguments) unlike the United States that we all (voters) live in (except for those abroad of course!)

2) Counting every vote in Michigan 2008 is not the same thing as Florida 2000.

3) I think the Rules Committee can change the rules any way they see fit, if they can get the votes, that's why they're called the Rules Committee!! ;-)

4) What neal said: You're right, of course. The rules don't cover the situation. That's why the rules committee met today. To resolve a crisis where the crappy rules created a terrible, enigmatic situation. This is politics after all. Politics never has been democratic; it never will be.

5) None of this would have happened if the media provided a viable balance to politics, but they don't, so they fan the flames of hysteria you see with that absurd woman from New York, Harriet Christianson (?) foaming at the mouth about her "betrayal" by the DNC.

6) If the Clinton camp agreed so readily to the Florida compromise, how can they argue with such absolutism on the Michigan compromise?

7) Just remember, political parties aren't democracy, they are means to an end. They are not in the Constitution as enabled institutions, so they can do as they see fit to achieve their purposes, within the framework of public laws of course.

8) Laws are made to be broken if they do not adequetely address a situation. What would be a fair resolution of the Florida and Michigan delegations that factors in the fact that those citizens votes were tainted by a presumption of futility in their votes, and a lack of attention by the candidates to fully express their candidacy's validity or suitability?

9) Those who think that McCain is preferable to Obama, or that he is the next best thing to Hillary really and truly are giving her a slap in the face. By that argument they are saying that her values and ideals are close enough to McCain's. A lying, pandering, Bush loving republican conservative? Would Hillary embrace Richard Mellon Scaife the way McCain embraced the slanderers of South Carolina or the Swift Boaters? For instance.

10) Think about what you're saying, people. Obama is going to pick a lot of the same people as Hillary would to help him run the government, and that what this is really all about, who is running the actual government. The Lurita Doan's and Monica Goodling's and Abu Gonzales' of the world, or decent Democrats like Tom Daschle or David Bonior or whoever, pick your favorites, Richard Clarke or Valerie Plame.

Jeebus!

Laws are made to be broken if they do not adequetely address a situation.

This overstates things a bit.

I think the important thing to remember, when Clintonbots are spouting off about how this admittedly flawed decision does not in any way comport with the rules, is that what the Clinton camp was asking for also did not comport with the rules.

They would prefer that we all forget that they were asking for something -- full seating of a completely illegitimate delegation from both states -- that the party had announced in advance was simply unlawful.

So if I write-in "uncommitted" in November will the vote go to Obama without me having to actually vote for Obama?

So if I write-in "uncommitted" in November will the vote go to Obama without me having to actually vote for Obama?

They are unlikely to allow the DNC to count the votes, so no.

Amazing how many commenters that were talking up the sacred ROOLZ in the past months completely managed to miss the point of the post.

That the RBC has the ability to and did change the rules is entirely beside the post's point. ('Mid-game' as the they used to be oh so concerned about.)
What ever happened to the 'The Roolz are Unchangeable!' talking point?

Damn, Duckman. No need to throw rationality and an understanding of the process involved in allocating the votes in FL and MI into the mix. You'll confuse too many people and be accused of being an Obamaranian. Besides, you imply the Democratic party is a private party, not public, that exists to supply nominees for general elections. That uncomplicated truth sets you free but is missed by many here.

By that argument they are saying that her values and ideals are close enough to McCain's. A lying, pandering, Bush loving republican conservative?

Good point, though I think you'll find your point is lost on them.

So if I write-in "uncommitted" in November will the vote go to Obama without me having to actually vote for Obama?

The RNC vote operation is still in play in many States. It'll be counted for McCain.

So, on that same thought. If you voted "uncommitted" in MI was it a vote for or against Hillary? If the vote was against Hillary and the rules committee contacted all of those who removed their names from the ballot and those people agreed that Obama should get the "uncommitted" delegates because it was a vote against Hillary...and Hillary had to agree to it for it to be so...

Damn, the devil is in the details. Hillary agreed to it and shot all of her supporters in the ass. ROFLMAO!!

Space, your brother *willingly* disenfranchised himself by not voting - but *he's* the victim? Apparently there was a tax issue on the ballot that he could've voted for, as well, along with his chosen candidate, but since he heard that the election wouldn't count for his candidate, he didn't bother to go vote at all?

And I'm supposed to value his laziness over the action of people who went to the polls to vote. Got it - thanks for the democracy lesson.

How about this Question: for all who cheered the "uncommitted" Donna Brazile rant about her Mama teaching her that changing the rules in the middole of a game is called cheating.

Is this rule change cheating for Obama?

Turkana

I would like to commend you, first for devoting so much time and energy into responding to so many of the comments. And second for vigorously rebutting the foolish revenge motivated McCain-embracing of alleged Hillary Clinton supporters who would nevertheless prefer a Republican President merely because their preferred candidate didn't win the nomination.

In answer to your question, the "rule" which allowed the committee to reach its decisions came from the same place as the "rule" which would allow popular vote totals to be used as a means to support delegate selection - a perhaps unwritten but still valid reason to employ for making the case.

More precisely, the "place" is in the Rules Committee's authority.

Emptywheel offers a helpful explanation.
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/06/01/a-recap-of-the-rbc-meeting/

The short version is that the committee's authority was to determine a "fair representation" of voter preferences. And that's what they did. You believe that "uncommitted" must perforce be limited exclusively to mean only those delegates who have made no commitment. But the "uncommitted" delegates so defined derived from an illegitimate contest in the first place. The committee had to employ other data to reach its determination, and so that's what they did.

No disrespect, but your question is inherently flawed by its limited reliance on the results of an illegitimate primary vote as the sole basis to legitimize a delegate selection result.

The committee did not depart from its authority in making its ultimate determination. I dare say that the opposite of your question - "where in the rules does it say they can't do what they did?" - is a question that was certainly investigated by Senator Clinton's campaign. Because if there was no valid basis for that decision to be made, I do believe Mr Ickes would have forcefully called it to the committee's attention. He only employed argumentative hyperbole devoid of any explicit challenge to the committee's decision-making authority, so far as I'm aware.

I appreciate your preference for Senator Clinton, and your disappointment - even anger - that she was not able to prevail. I respect even more that you have kept your eye on the important ball, and will support the Democratic nominee in November.

I do suggest you might want to provide a little civics lesson to those Clinton supporters who in November will either vote for McCain or refuse to support the Democratic nominee who is not their preference. It is Congress that passes legislation, and a President can only sign or veto it. A Republican President is not likely to sign bills passed by a Democratic Congress. And if there is not a veto proof majority in the Senate (which isn't assured) then a veto cannot be overridden.

Moreover, there are Executive Orders and appointments to a variety of agencies which all would have a deleterious effect on our Democracy if a Republican is in the White House to make them. Alternatively, a Democratic President is rather more likely to sign legislation passed by a Democratic Congress, more likely to nominate Democratic favored judges and others who need Senate approval.

Neither Franklin Roosevelt nor Harry Truman nor Lyndon Johnson were "liberal" or "progressive" Democrats. They were all noteworthy moderates - who nevertheless oversaw much of the most liberal legislation ever passed in the history of the nation.

What was most important was that they were Democrats who had Democratic Congresses creating legislation for them to sign. It takes both a Democratic President and a filibuster-proof Democratic Congress to accomplish truly progressive legislation.

Turkana,

by that standard, we never have valid elections. as for the revotes, here's what i wrote- with links:

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/012178.php#012178

Isn't this really a moot point in the sense that a judge just a few days later (March 26?) decided that the MI primaries were unconstitutional, and that it was truly the judges decision, not Obama's camp, that finally put the nail in the coffin?

Furthermore, didn't Obama agree to a mail-in do-over primary, only to have Clinton balk at that idea? Why?

Additionally, I seem to recall a great many times that Clinton supporters have yelled "count every vote" and "disenfranchisement!!!" because Michigan and Florida weren't counted (only after the fact that Clinton was behind and that Clinton and her group fully supported the DNC decision and voted accordingly in Florida, but we'll keep putting that in the "selective memory" column). Well now that a compromise of sorts has been given to count the votes and delegates, you seemingly complain that the rules were not followed because according to the strict interpretation of the rules, Michigan shouldn't be counted at all.

Do you not see the slight contradiction here? Granted, I don't believe you were one of the more vocal ones yelling "DISENFRANCHISEMENT!" here, so I don't want to set up a straw man upon you specifically. But I am confused exactly where you stand here - should Michigan have been counted to avoid disenfranchisement, or shouldn't it? And if it shouldn't be counted according to the strict interpretation of rules, does anyone in the Clinton camp have any right to yell "DISENFRANCHISEMENT!", especially in lieu of her agreeing and signing a pledge just like any other candidate not to campaign or PARTICIPATE there?

As for Obama's name remaining on the ballot in Florida, I'm hoping you know the answer to that by now - it was Florida's law to keep their names on the ballot. If they took their names off, they would be disqualified in that state to have their names on the ballot for the GE. This was also explained in yesterday's meeting numerous times as well.

I get what your central message is - you are pinning some sort of irony on Obama supporters for yelling out "rules are rules", but then supporting the RBC "changing" the rules as they were and awarding Michigan delegates to Obama. You know as well as I how screwed up Michigan was, and that it was nothing shy of a false primary. There's no way to polish that turd of a primary at all - having 4 of the candidates' names off the ballot is not a good or fair election by any stretch of the imagination, and you cannot under any circumstances stretch our imaginations any farther. So clinging to the RBC "changing" the rules and giving Obama delegates to this mess isn't a very sound argument at all, because I cannot see how they could have sorted out this mess any better.

I suppose the only true alternative according to the rules is to not give Michigan any votes or delegates. But in doing so, how loudly would we have heard Clinton supporters ironically yell that "disenfranchisement" bullshit? IOW, the Clinton supporters simply cannot have it both ways, and you very well know that. It's either a bogus primary without all the candidates names on it and shouldn't count (and thus Clinton supporters should damn well acknowledge it as such), or a compromise of sorts had to be given. And let's also keep in mind that the compromise still favored Hillary, despite Obama having the RBC votes to split the delegates 50/50. But following the rules would have given Hillary ZERO votes, just as Obama would have received ZERO votes. If you're good with that for Michigan and Florida, then so am I, at least according to the rules.

bz @ 1018

A couple of items;

A) Turkana was not writing about the RBC dividing the UNCOMITTED delegates. He was writing about that PLEDGED delegates were being shuffled from one candidate to another. He was then asking where the outrage was for this 'mid-game' rule change.

and, B) Raising alarms about Senator McCain's Executive Orders and SC picks will only go so far. Given that Senator Obama's legislative record is rather sparse, supports of Senator Clinton will have to guess using his campaign speeches and other words. Given Senator Obama's words and actions compared to Senator McCain's, the consensus is building that 'Better the Devil you know than the one you don't.'

By the way, Ickes was a complete embarrassment yesterday, and the Clinton supporters should be ashamed of how he behaved. Having Levin (another Clinton supporter, right?) put him in his place yesterday was, well, hell I was even embarrassed for Ickes.

I've got another problem pertaining to Ickes and the Clinton supporters, and I really want you, Turkana, to help me out with this one. Ickes and Hillary were pushing hard that 100% of the delegates be seated in both states. How exactly could that have been accomplished, if we were to go by the strict interpretation of the rules? Let's just follow the argument of Ickes and the Hillary supporters to the logical end and pretend that the RBC granted them their wish of 100% delegate count, which of course heavily favored Hillary. Okay, how exactly did they expect the RBC to do that?

You know damn well how the RBC would have done that - by changing the rules, period. Both Florida and Michigan violated their agreement, and neither state were granted waivers, and both were warned well in advance that they would be penalized. The background that the RBC chair gave prior to the debate made it very clear, Florida and Michigan would be penalized. Now according to the rules, the RBC had discretion to penalize them more than 50%, which they did but ultimately backed off yesterday and went back to 50%.

So how exactly did Ickes and the Hillary camp expect to receive 100%? You see the irony here? YOUR camp was also relying heavily on the RBC changing the rules in midstream just as Obama was, only to hopefully favor her more by receiving 100% of the vote.

And IF you guys were relying on the RBC to do this that curries 100% of the votes in your favor, you automatically lose your Bitching Rights about the RBC's ability to change the rules, period.

The RBC did, in fact, make changes that favored Hillary, but it just wasn't as much as she wanted. So what exactly is the problem again?

And how exactly did Ickes and the Hillary camp expect the RBC to interpret the rules to give 100% of the delegates in Michigan, when 4 of the candidates' names weren't even on the ballot? Levin was absolutely correct to tell Ickes:

"You want a fair resolution of a flawed process."

Which, of course to Ickes, a fair resolution was seating 100%. How much more absurdity can be argued here on this? Ickes and Hillary wanted a different interpretation (i.e. CHANGE) of the rules too - just not the way it was made or compromised.

Well tough freakin luck, chumps.

Well, I was wrong about this thread dying....

I still don't understand WHICH rules we are objecting to. Didn't Hillary DEMAND the rules be changed?

This diary is a must read:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/1/72643/08080/210/526590

Note:

Judge Richard A. Lazzara agreed with the DNC, which said that it its practices are not discriminatory and political parties have a constitutional right to determine how delegates are selected in their nominating process.

Actually the entire diary counters most of the arguments posted here as well.

And like I said, if I were a Hillary supporter, I would have been embarrassed by Ickes yesterday:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39COrJsujUo&e

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PewIXrzzazo&feature=related

His hypocritical ass was handed to him on a plate a couple of times yesterday. What a twit.

strawman, misteropus. no one said the dnc couldn't do what they did. it was just wrong. and i'll take kagro's take on whether or not ickes was right.

turkana, you and the rest of teh whiners can just STFU.

i had nothing "against" hillary clinton, in fact up until this recent ad-nauseum bitchfest on the part mrs. clinton's "supporters," i have held the opinion that either clinton or obama would be a good choice.

but given this total crap that people like you continually drag around like a broken toy, flinging it in the face of anyone who you want to blame TODAY for the doll being broken, at this point i would not want to see hillary clinton on the ballot for DOG CATCHER.

this crap has got to stop yesterday.

hillary clinton certainly is a popular candidate, as is obama. that being said, that does NOT mean that she is entitled to effectively steal the nomination through tantrums and hissy-fits.

trust me, that is EXACTLY what her campaign and you, in the role of surrogate, are doing, and you're not doing her any good down the road because, believe me, this nonsense will be remembered and will negatively impact any chance she has of being nominated in any future presidential primary.

is that what you want? huh? because that's what you're going to get. set the time-machine to four years hence and you will find me, a lifelong democrat who has survived fifty plus years, speaking out against mrs. clinton's appropriateness for the democratic presidential nominee based on her "performance" in this process.

well, there's already a fork in your brain. another generic obamabot screed.

Turkana,

strawman, misteropus. no one said the dnc couldn't do what they did. it was just wrong.

How would it have been any more wrong for the RBC to do what they did than if they granted the Hillary camp 100% delegate count as they demanded?

more straw. i never said they should give her 100%. but people were railing on her for trying to change the rules, and the same people seem okay with the rules having been changed in obama's favor. people like the hypocrite donna brazile, and many an obamabot.

more straw. i never said they should give her 100%.

YOU didn't. But that's what Clinton's people have so volubly been demanding. Or haven't you heard?

and everyone went ballistic over the possibility of the rules being changedl, if it would help clinton. but the rules were changed, to help obama, and the same people are just humming along. it's been very revealing.

but the rules were changed, to help obama, and the same people are just humming along.

But that's just not true in all cases. Several Obama supporters, including myself, have said that the committee should have handled the situation differently.

I understand you have some grievances, but you really need to stop working in such broad strokes.

you're right, moonbat, and that's why i differentiate between supporters and bots...

Hmm. I must've been fooled by your use of "everyone."

but people were railing on her for trying to change the rules, and the same people seem okay with the rules having been changed in obama's favor

How exactly were they changed in Obama's favor? This is factually incorrect - Hillary maintained her delegate lead in both states, including a state that held a faux primary with 1/2 the candidates' names off the list. The fact that it didn't go more to Hillary's favor does not equate to it being changed towards Obama's favor. Rather, it simply means she didn't get everything she asked for, and she was asking for 100% seating in both states, including a state that didn't even have Obama's name on the ballot.

The rules had to change, as Levin explained for the reason that we're trying to win as many Democratic votes in November. And it's disingenuous to argue that the change was anything but a compromise that favored Hillary, because the change Obama was asking (if they got everything they wanted) was a 50/50 split in both states, which was a long ways from what was decided.

What Clinton was asking in the rule change was ludicrous - seating 100% in both states when not only should they have been originally allowed 50% tops, but a state that didn't even have a true primary. What Obama was asking from the start was a compromise, and neither got what they wanted but it's clear that it favored Hillary more. Once again, if however you are stating that rules are rules, then we'd have at least zero votes and delegates for one state, and we'd have a much bigger mess to deal with that would hurt our party much worse come November. Surely you're not arguing that, are you?

It was within the RBC to do what they did (as you've conceded), and their decision clearly favored Clinton more than Obama. I don't speak for Brazille, but I'm guessing she wanted a compromise of sorts as well in order to unify our party and move forward. That's a stark contrast to the divisiveness and hypocrisy of Ickes who voted to cut Florida out and now demanded they seat both states at 100%.

it's been very revealing.

Indeed it has, on both sides, in fact.

Lastly, to moonbat:

I understand you have some grievances, but you really need to stop working in such broad strokes.

Very much agree. The broad paintbrush Turkana uses seemingly cannot be used against him.

Hi Turkana,

Is this not his name? B. Hussein Obama?

He is dangerous. Can you name any other United States Presidential Candidate in history which has so many verifiable intimate connections to both domestic and foreign terrorists.

In addition to his Chicago underworld connections and financies, he has demonstrated time and time again terrible judgement.

Have a great week!

markle,

wow. um. to answer your question- you mean besides bush and mccain? other than that- um- wow. but that's what's great about tlc- we're open to right wing trolls.