Reflections on the RBC outcome

I'm of mixed thoughts regarding the RBC outcome.

First, this needed an outcome, we got one, and whatever it is, it is. There is at least a sort of agreement on the amount of delegates needed to win the nomination between the two camps. There's no more pretending that only 48 states belong in the delegate count. To get that sham behind us is a big step in the right direction.

But second, the 'solution' for Michigan was the worst possible outcome of the three choices the RBC had to choose from in settling the matter. It's true, that the Obama supporters had more votes on the RBC, and that dictated the outcome.

Yes, that they halved the amount of FL and MI delegates, had a basis in the rules (though the pragmatic solution would have been to seat them all now instead of waiting till the convention and thus not have headlines like Hastings boycotting Democratic convention).

They had the votes to do the 50-50 split of MI, not recognizing the caucus. That decision would have had a basis in the rules.

They could have went with a 73-55 seating, giving Clinton the seats she got from actual votes, leaving the uncommitted delegates to go to Obama, which would have also had a basis in the rules.

They went instead with the MDP's 69-59 solution, which had no basis whatsoever in the rules.

In giving Clinton more delegates than Obama, the RBC does so on the basis of their being a vote in MI that Clinton won, yet by not honoring the amount of votes she got, they make not actual votes, but some other measurement the basis upon which to divide delegates. What measure would that be? Polling? The disenfranchised that didn't vote? Irrevocable harm? It's a disastrous precedent. Either it counts or it doesn't, where's the basis in the rules for this decision! And if its not rules, then what is it? If the actual "votes" factor into the decision, but are not at the top of the list, then what kind of democracy does this ruling represent?

No doubt, it was a pragmatic move, but one that was the worst choice to make by a committee devoted to rules. And even the pragmatics of it are suspect.

This decision needlessly gives the Clinton argument ammo, by taking away 4 delegates from votes she earned. Why? Obama, as far as I calculate it, needs about 10% of the remaining SD's for the nomination majority, 4 less PD's from MI would make the amount about 12%. Unless the Obama camp really doesn't know if they have the SD votes by a 1:9 margin, this makes no sense on their part to have had their supporters on the RBC go with this decision.

But its good to officially settle the number that counts 50 states.

2117 is the total. Obama needs 65, Clinton needs 240.5, to get a majority (Clinton supporters not recognizing the RBC's MI decision will argue that the numbers are really that Obama needs 82.5 and Clinton needs 238.5 with 22.5 others as uncommitted but it is highly doubtful that this ruling will be overturned).

Tags: 2008 election, RBC (all tags)

Comments

362 Comments

Let's here it for da Todd!

by Al Rodgers 2008-06-01 02:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's here it for da Todd!

The Democratic Party just lost all moral authority by deciding, Soviet style, to allocate delegate votes according to Party power plays by the Obama campaign on the RBC. It should be an outrage to all Americans who believe in democracy for a primary election result to be overturned by party powerful.

This is the most divisive type of power play by the Obama camp, and Clinton supporters will not ever forget this. Driving the wedge ever deeper between the two factions of the Democratic party is a special talent of the sneering Obama campaign. It guarantees failure in November, and rightfully so.

by 07rescue 2008-06-01 02:52AM | 0 recs
on that note....

by Al Rodgers 2008-06-01 02:59AM | 0 recs
Re: on that note....

What a video!
Whenever I hear people talk about "soviet-style" in this primary season, I expect them to soon launch into General Jack Ripper's diatribe in the film.

Can't you just hear them saying,
"Outrage! Obama and his soviet thug boyz are robbing America of it's precious bodily fluids!"

by catilinus 2008-06-01 03:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's here it for da Todd!

Soviet style!  That's a laugh... when you wanted to include an illegal election that had only one candidate on the ballot!

I'm glad that they restored some semblance to those who were severely disenfranchised by this "election"... told to stay homoe... told an election didn't count.. and then... surprise!!!  oh, yeah, suckers... we lied to you... it does count!

Now, that's some pretty sweet voter suppression by the Clinton camp!  I'm sure the Republicans are taking notes.

by LordMike 2008-06-01 03:02AM | 0 recs
One candidate elections (American style)

Guess you're a little ignorant of history, eh?

by Regenman 2008-06-01 03:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's here it for da Todd!

I won't complain, but I'll tell you this. Howard Dean (and Harry Reid too for that matter) have got to go, the sooner the better.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-06-01 03:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's here it for da Todd!

Hell, no, he won't go!  the reason why we are competitive in Mississippi is because of him... how many DLC'ers were mad that he hired supposed "nosepickers" in MS... and now, we have a shot at a democratic governor, senator and a couple of congressional seats.

The 50 state plan, ridiculed by the Clintonite DLC'ers, is the new plan for victory.  After a decade of continuous losses by the DLC, it's about time for a  change...

by LordMike 2008-06-01 04:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's here it for da Todd!

Who's going to tell Howard Dean to go? The dozens upon dozens of new Democratic Congresspeople, Governors, and local officials who have benefited from his 50 State Strategy? No. The man who will be elected the 44th president of the United States under his watch, Barack Obama? No.

The only people that want Dean out are centrist, DLC-types who are bitter that their shitty management of the Democratic Party is about to come to a merciful end. No more triangulation and shifting the goalposts to the Right in order to win by 1%. No more Republican majorities. No more abandonment of traditional Democratic values.

This is now the party of Dean and Obama. Like it or not, you'd better get used to it.

by mikeplugh 2008-06-01 04:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's here it for da Todd!

I think Obama's rise has saved the 50-state-strategy.

Everybody knows the Clintons had Howard in their sites and were ready to lop of his head as soon as they had the nomination clinched. And, worse, were ready to replace him with the same hacks who lost congress and the governors mansions in the 90s.

Frankly, until Bill got involved, I was fairly neutral on Hillary, but I leaned toward Obama because I thought he would be better at party building.

Nothing I've seen has dissuaded me from that view.

by Bush Bites 2008-06-01 05:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's here it for da Todd!

"Howard Dean (and Harry Reid too for that matter) have got to go"

Why? I'd rather have the Democrats be the majority party.

by laird 2008-06-01 09:08AM | 0 recs
Really?

You would rather have the Democratic party become the majority party by whatever means it takes? Even if it means trying to out Republican the Republicans?

by GeeMan 2008-06-01 01:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's here it for da Todd!
Spot on.
by Caldonia 2008-06-01 05:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's here it for da Todd!

Okay. So now the 5 Clinton supporters who voted for the compromise are somehow in Obama's pocket? Please reintroduce yourself to reality.

by jadegirl 2008-06-01 05:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's here it for da Todd!


Oh, you have no idea how widespread the conspiracy has become!

In fact, I think my mail man is one!

They're everywhere!!!!!!

by Bush Bites 2008-06-01 05:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's here it for da Todd!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/1/7 2643/08080/210/526590

Great post on this topic.  

4) No votes were "stolen"

In his vociferous arguments, Ickes claimed that the RBC had "stolen" 4 delegates for Clinton and "given" them to Obama

However, in order for ANY delegates to be `stolen', those delegates must have been approved in the first place.

According to the RBC ruling in effect during the period of the 2008 primary elections in MI & FL, no allocation of delegates whatsoever could be sanctioned.

Therefore, the only time that any delegate in either state could possibly be recognized as valid was AFTER yesterday's acceptance of a majority vote by the RBC to amend its sanctions against MI & FL.

As has been shown in (2) above, the decision to allocate MI delegates in a ration of 69 to 59 in favor of Clinton was made by the state party officials, not by the RBC.

The RBC carefully considered the arguments placed before it by those officials as to their `best efforts' attempt to deliver a representative (arguably a Fair Reflection) allocation of delegates according to the preferences of the members of the Democratic Party in MI.

According to the only measure that counts, the DNC rules & bylaws, Clinton never `had' 73 delegates in Michigan to be taken away. Therefore any claim by Ickes that the allocation was altered can only be valid in the sense that the RBC voted to allow Clinton to receive 69 delegates more than she had before.  Also, without an acknowledged `fair count' in MI, since that figure is higher than the 59 to Obama, any concern over bias (given the invalidity of the election) would be in favor of Clinton, not Obama.

Furthermore, now that the delegate allocation has been sanctioned by an RBC majority vote, any adjustment of the allocation that might be considered by future committees could be considered as the very interference that Ickes decries.

by nextgen 2008-06-01 05:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's here it for da Todd!

And somebody tell Ickes to quit dressing like a dandy when he's arguing serious issues.

by Bush Bites 2008-06-01 05:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's here it for da Todd!

Someone needs to put Ickes out of our misery. Isn't there a junior high school in Iowa that's missing it's Earth Sciences Teacher.

Or perhaps as a character on South Park?

by Rationalisto 2008-06-01 05:50AM | 0 recs
Carl Levin

Who is a powerful member of the Democratic Party was correct.

You can't have a fair valuation of a flawed election.

The WHOLE point of the meeting was compromise in the name of unity.

I dare say some Clinton supporters are not interested in unity by any measure.

240 delegates for Clinton to win. 240 240 240 240 240 240

Do the math. It aint' gonna happen.

Stop whining and move on.

by missliberties 2008-06-01 05:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Carl Levin

Your trash talk is not going to help them move on. Just sayin'.

by itsthemedia 2008-06-01 01:27PM | 0 recs
Trash talk?

I never heard Clinton supporters call Obama supporters cultists or anything.

Get over it.

by missliberties 2008-06-01 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Trash talk?

You certainly never heard me calling anyone a cultist.

"Get over it" is an excellent example of unhelpful trash talk. To Dems who remember the 2000 recount, it brings up some bitter memories of Republicans saying those exact words, over and over, like a mantra.

The answer now is the same as it was then - if you want someone to "get over it", you give them a reason to "get over it". There are a lot of things Obama and his supporters could do to help clinton supporters to "get over it". Coldly, angrily commanding them to "get over it" is not one of them. Try a little empathy, a little respect. It will work better, and in the long run it will make you feel better than the anger you appear to be nursing.

by itsthemedia 2008-06-01 05:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Carl Levin

Well, that was certainly immature!  

by BillCat 2008-06-02 07:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's here it for da Todd!

Absolutely true.  It looks like a total fix.  Even yesterday, a few people I met out in Philadelphia who knew little about politics said succintly,

"I really have no idea why they have to stop counting the votes in Florida in Michigan in order for Obama to win."

For us political junkies, it's fundamentally unfair (unless one happens to be an unwavering results-oriented Obama supporter).  For people outside of the loop, it looks even stranger.  It looks like the system was tempered to give an advantage to the less experienced candidate.  

by BPK80 2008-06-01 05:32AM | 0 recs
Actually very amusing...

...considering that this primary structure, being front loaded, actually favored the more well known candidate (HRC).  I guess being a more capable candidate won out in the end.

Which is a good thing actually

by xenontab 2008-06-01 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's here it for da Todd!

Hmm, the Michigan ballot only had her name on it.  Now what was Soviet style?

Your paean to democracy is tiresome.  Michigan and Florida knowingly violated the rules.  Anything they got was charity.

by Bob Fenster 2008-06-01 05:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's here it for da Todd!

Word.

Why this continuous claptrap about "disenfranchising" the two states that broke the rules? Do people even know what that word means? Or why rules exist? Or what someone who wants to chage the rules actually is? Or--ow, I'm getting a migraine.

by Rationalisto 2008-06-01 05:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's here it for da Todd!

Simple.  

While the state legislatures may have broken the rules, it is the voters in those states (and those voters did not break any rules) who are being punished.  Also, you might want to do a bit of checking as to which party controls those state legislatures.

Also, it appears clear that, while a number of other states also broke the rules, MI and FL are being singled out for punishment.  Hardly a model of consistency, IMHO.

The primary process is, once again, broken.  It will need to be fixed before the 2012 election.  

by BillCat 2008-06-02 07:27AM | 0 recs
Lets not go overboard

I agree with Jerome on this (and I'm an Obama supporter), they should not have awarded those four extra delegates to Cliton.  It is just makes it harder to put the contraversy to bed.  That said, the number involved is just not likely to be decisive, so hopefully people will not loose their heads over this.  We need to sort this mess out, both now and for the future, but we also need to keep some perspective on the larger goals of defeating the neocons.  Lets try and have this debate without deepening the division within the party.

Peace

by protothad 2008-06-01 06:21AM | 0 recs
Everybody calm?

I see Jerome is feigning ignorance this morning of where the numbers came from. The Michigan delegation came up with their numbers as a compromise between the positions of the two candidates. Obama wanted a 50=50 split, and Clinton wanted it all. This was a compromise between the two positions. Obama could have forced the 50-50, which I find it odd that Jerome would have somehow considered "better", but he did not, for the good of the Party, and out of respect for the Michigan delegation.

by Travis Stark 2008-06-01 06:24AM | 0 recs
Ack, I just noticed my typo...

where I botched Clinton's name.  It was a total accident, but I can just see the TR's comming.  Is there any way to edit or delete a comment after the fact?

by protothad 2008-06-01 07:10AM | 0 recs
Shame on you, protohead

for not previewing your comments! ;)

by Roberta 2008-06-01 08:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's here it for da Todd!
Driving the wedge ever deeper between the two factions of the Democratic party is a special talent of the sneering Obama campaign.

Color me surprised! Not only did Ickes vote for a far worse punishment originally, but Clinton supporters on the RBC voted for this compromise as well. Which was suggested by the MDP. And -- wait for it -- it's all the sneering Obama's fault!
by randomscientist 2008-06-01 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's here it for da Todd!

No one complained when the DNC stripped FL and MI of their delegates last year. Not one single peep. FL and MI violated the DNC rules. If voters from these states felt disenfranchised, they should have voiced their concerns at the time of disenfranchisement. The actual act of moving the primary was a political move by state politicans. If you are disenfranchised, your best recourse is to vent your anger with the politicans that allowed this to happen not the DNC. Protests and complaints only occurred after one candidate, who was losing, wanted to play the last card she had. This is manipulation, don't give in to it. The decision of the RBC, although perhaps flawed, was a form of resolution. This is a democracy and we have compromises.

by prajna 2008-06-01 07:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's here it for da Todd!

Funny, Jerome didn't mention that FOUR
Clinton Supporters on the Rules and Bylaws Committee voted FOR the Michigan Party's compromise too.

from Jerome's Salon link:

But politics is ultimately about votes, and Clinton -- even though she had 13 supporters on the rules committee -- did not have them. When the committee took test votes over lunch (and holdouts like Donna Brazile, Al Gore's 2000 campaign manager, finally chose sides), there was a surprising 14-to-13 majority for evenly dividing the Michigan delegation between Obama and Clinton.

That would have been the fairest solution and the one I would have liked to see, but the Oboma people were willing to seek a broader based consensus and bring some of the Clinton supporters on board by going with the Michigan State Party's proposal.

It was the Michigan State Party that is responsible for this mess, and it also is the Michigan State Party that is responsible for this messy solution. But make no mistake, committee members from BOTH SIDES signed off on this.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-06-01 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

The words of John McCain, Feb. 18, 2007, Spartanburg, S.C.

"I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned," the Arizona senator told about 800 people in South Carolina, one of the early voting states.
McCain also vowed that if elected, he would appoint judges who "strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States and do not legislate from the bench."

John McCain will not make that decision for me.

I support Barack Obama.

by MissVA 2008-06-01 02:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

No worries. A strengthened Democratic congressional majority, with the will of most Americans behind it, would determine what McCain does, and what he does not.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-06-01 04:00AM | 0 recs
Broken Record, But Here Goes...

We'd lose the Supreme Court for a few decades. Wonder if that might change some interpretations. Oh, what the heck - Hillary lost 4 delegates, let's find out!

I agree - the rules need to be GUTTED and CHANGED! But that won't happen this election cycle - time for real Democrats to heal and come together.

by RNinNC 2008-06-01 04:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Broken Record, But Here Goes...

And once we do, we'll have a good 6 years to get things right before the 2016 primaries.

by nathanp 2008-06-01 04:14AM | 0 recs
Any Supreme court appointment

will have to be approved and ratified by a strengthened Democratic congress after Nov.

McCain dosen't scare me in the least.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-06-01 04:16AM | 0 recs
Sorry, But

you're gonna put all that responsibility on Pelosi and Reid? Yeah, they've been pillars of strength over the last couple of years...

If you're a Clinton supporter, then McCain holds EXACTLY the opposite position from you on every major issue. THAT is what makes him a Republican who should be stopped. Obama was not my first choice either, but since he is THE CHOICE of the Democratic Party, he should be getting ALL of our support.

by RNinNC 2008-06-01 04:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry, But

If and when he provides an adequate explantion for his long relationship with Rev. Wright and the church which up until yesterday he was a member of, I won't have any trouble supporting him.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-06-01 04:44AM | 0 recs
You Can Blame Your Move

on whatever you want. If you don't support the Democratic Party, you are supporting McCain's vision. Four more years of Bush, with weak-kneed Pelosi and Reid as the stop gate. There's just no sense in that whatsoever, and thank god most people in this country seem to understand. But you'll do whatever you want, and then deal with the consequences if you and yours manage to succeed. Won't you be so proud.

by RNinNC 2008-06-01 04:52AM | 0 recs
Excuse me

While I don't support McCain and won't, at least I know where he stands, and it's about as far as you can get from "God damn America" and other similiarly abhorrent views. They are not and never have been Democratic Party values.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-06-01 05:08AM | 0 recs
Republicans Have Been

"God-damning" America for years. They won't stop.

I'll ask you what I asked Juno - what do you hope to accomplish here on MyDD with this? If this is an end for you with the Democrats, then why do you even care how we elect our future nominees?

by RNinNC 2008-06-01 05:10AM | 0 recs
Re: what do you hope to accomplish

Good question, and one I've been asking myself recently. I'm not at all happy about the position I find myself in, and am feeling somewhat lost actually. I'll continue monitoring things and participate alot less, hoping for something unexpected to happen. I've strongly believed in and been in favor of a unity ticket almost from the beginning of this campaign when Obama's nomination was anything but certain. That would go a long way toward helping me believe that Obama has the party's best interests at heart, but after he refused to go along with Clinton regarding Florida & Michigan, at a delegate cost to him that would have been negligible and help bridge the party divide, I'm not holding my breath.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-06-01 05:42AM | 0 recs
I'll Take You at your Word,

but I think no matter WHAT happened yesterday - short of Clinton getting ALL of the delegates while Obama got none - there would have been howling. And even then, I highly doubt that the issue would have been put to bed. This is a fixed dynamic, and nothing is going to change that. Especially our typing onto the internets (BOTH of us, just in case you were thinking I was slighting you - I'm sorta slighting us both equally!)

I hope you'll come around. I hope you'll participate in bringing Obama's candidacy up to a level that you and yours can support. Because, as I've said, NO ONE wins if McCain wins. Under ANY circumstances, America and Americans will suffer if that evil man is put into the Oval Office.

by RNinNC 2008-06-01 05:50AM | 0 recs
Thank you, and nice chatting

For the record, I thought Chuck Todd had an excellent idea regarding what to do about Florida & Michigan, and an equally realistic assessment of why it wouldn't happen:

"Why not consider punishing the party leaders and not the voters? Couldn't the committee take away the states' superdelegate votes? After all, it wasn't the voters who demanded the states break party rules, but rather the leaders of the respective state parties. Of course, this is too logical."

by phoenixdreamz 2008-06-01 05:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you, and nice chatting

Ditto - and for the record, that's a reasonable idea (for NEXT time...  ;) Sorry, couldn't resist (and DON'T leave here)

by RNinNC 2008-06-01 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Excuse me

I'm sorry, but condemning Obama for his association with Trinity is simply blind bigotry. I'm not saying it's racist, but it is unquestionably bigotry. I sincerely doubt you took the time to watch any of those sermons in their entirety, or to view the tens of thousands of hours of other sermons from Trinity. I'm sure you never bothered to consider Trinity's leadership on progressive social issues such as GLBT rights, AIDS care, and it's fight against poverty. I'm certain of this because an objective assessment of Trinity could not have led to your conclusion.

I can understand your hesitation with senator Obama because I had similar misgivings with Senator Clinton. However, I made up my mind that, were Senator Clinton the nominee, I would vote for her. I was willing to do that even given all the negatives I knew about her. I accepted that she happily served on the board of Walmart for years while they busted unions and exploited there workers. I gave leeway that she was simply mounting a vigorous defense when she eviscerated a twelve year old victim on the stand in defense of a child rapist. I considered the remaining litany of very Clinton scandals and highly questionable associations. I accounted for it all and weighed it against one simple truth that, even for all her flaws, Clinton would be a far better president than John McCain. While not being my ideal choice, her positions still put her head and shoulders above the Republicans.

Now, if you lack that same objectivity, and commitment to Democratic ideals (Senator Clinton's ideals), I suppose nothing I can say will convince you. But don't blame your bigotry on a misrepresentation of Senator Obama's former church, because that's insulting to you and everyone else.

by noop 2008-06-01 06:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Excuse me

Well said bravo. Thank you thank you. When the primary came to Va I was torn. I really liked both Clinton and Obama and knew in my heart whoever won I would be happy with. I voted for Obama because when he spoke at convention in 2004 I saw something I wanted to dream in. I wanted to see a country no longer so divided by the great divider Bush himself. And so I voted for Obama. But in the end I did not care which of the two great Democratic candidates was challenging the GOP. I knew both of them would be better for our country.

Mojo for you my friend for putting this in perspective. I hope others see like we have.

BTW my first choice for the past two election cycles was John Edwards, see where that got me :)

by John a Va Dem 2008-06-01 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: You Can Blame Your Move

A Century of War!

A Century of War!

A Century of War!

by Bush Bites 2008-06-01 05:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry, But

I find it interesting that Hillary supporters are all about "fighting for the downtrodden... giving them a voice"  unless they are black, of course... then they should just be quiet and never complain about their plight...  only white poor people are allowed to "rise up" and have their voices heard.  If you're black and poor, shut up and don't complain.

by LordMike 2008-06-01 05:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry, But

Move to the back of the bus.

by Bush Bites 2008-06-01 05:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry, But

And what about those who were told their vote wouldn't count, so they didn't? Perhaps not downtrodden, but certainly ushered out of the system? Clinton's supporters aren't all that concerned about them.

by Rationalisto 2008-06-01 05:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry, But

Ok This is a stupid comment and has no purpose here.

by yitbos96bb 2008-06-01 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry, But

It's about as stupid as the posts about his "hateful" church, when it's nothing more than downtrodden people expressing their desire to live a better life... something the hillary supporters are should be empathetic towards.

by LordMike 2008-06-01 07:24AM | 0 recs
do you really believe HRC cares

about poor "White" folk in Appalachia?

She grew up privileged in suburban Chicago.

What has she done for poor "White" folk in her career? What has she accomplished?

by Carl Nyberg 2008-06-01 11:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry, But

So you are responsible and believe in the same things every person in your life does as well?  Please provide some family back ground, because this is the stupidest, easily eviserated argument on the history of the planet.  

by yitbos96bb 2008-06-01 06:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Any Supreme court appointment

Then you really don't know your history at all.  Go read up on the BUSH and Reagan Nomination Fights.  

by yitbos96bb 2008-06-01 06:47AM | 0 recs
John McCain's New Campaign Co-Chairman NYC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE 3s
by minnehot1 2008-06-01 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

The American soldiers and citizens of other countries who will die in the wars McCain will start are no doubt relieved that American women will still have the option of choosing abortion.

by bosdcla14 2008-06-01 04:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

You really don't understand politics or the way it works.  Conservative Judges get appointed ALL the time and passed in Dem Controlled congresses.  The worst of the worse might fail, but you are still going to get some bad ones.  

The POINT YOU MISS are three fold 1) By giving McCain a chance, you set him up to be popular enough to win re-election regardless of the nominee against (a popular incumbent McCain is going to tear apart Hillary, Bayh or any of our other posssibilities)...  Just look at Bill Clinton for that lesson.  2) You play defense with SCOTUS appointees instead of offense.  Defense gets you AT BEST a moderate like O'Connor which might be ok for R  v W but is trouble for other cases (Remember the 2000 Recount was decided on party lines).  At worst you get a conservative who can lie well, such as Roberts.  3) Yes Congress can try and pass Universal Healthcare.  But McCain will veto.  And we don't have enough votes to overturn that veto.  You are talking 4 years of deadlock.  We need to control ALL 3 areas to undo the BUSHIES... we have 4 years at best to do it with  (Given Senate Election numbers, fightable seats, etc in 2008 and 2010)  before WE have to play defense in Senate Elections.  

So before making comments like that you really need to understand the results of that action.  Just like all the people in 2000 who thought Bush and Gore were the same and voted for Nader... helping to give us Bush.

by yitbos96bb 2008-06-01 06:45AM | 0 recs
If feminists are willing to spite the rest

of the Dem coalition in the Obama-McCain fight, you should not expect the rest of the Dem coalition to hold on a filibuster of McCain SCOTUS nominees.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-06-01 07:53AM | 0 recs
Re: If feminists are willing to spite the rest

Don't put this on feminists.  There are plenty of feminists who are willing to support Obama in the GE.  This is about hyper-partisans who are willing to put their own desire for revenge before the good of the nation.  Fortunately, the vast majority of Hillary supporters do not fall into this category.

by Captain Bathrobe 2008-06-01 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: If feminists are willing to spite the rest

I'd like to see some polling on the demographics of the HRC supporters who are threatening to vote McCain.

I live inn the Chicago area--admittedly a biased sample on issues pertaining to Obama. In my experience, the hardened HRC supporters are older "White" women.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-06-01 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Not scaring me.  Please stop with this, it doesn't work and it won't make Obama get enough votes to win.

by Montague 2008-06-01 06:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Great job at learning from Bush in 2000.  How'd that turn out.

by yitbos96bb 2008-06-01 06:52AM | 0 recs
LOL

Gore won.  Obama can't.

Please take your snark elsewhere.

by Montague 2008-06-01 07:32AM | 0 recs
"can't"

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

by semiquaver 2008-06-01 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: "can't"

Are you stalking me?

I got  a perfect score on my English SAT.  How about you?

by Montague 2008-06-01 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: "can't"

I was quoting a childhood movie, so I hardly think test scores are relevant, but I did get a 36 on my ACT, which is equivalent to a 2400 on the SAT.

by semiquaver 2008-06-01 12:43PM | 0 recs
► P.S. - First

by Al Rodgers 2008-06-01 02:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

If it is true that Obama had more "supporters" on the RBC, then what does it say about the political skill candidate who in the course of two and half years has managed to negate the influence of two of the most important Democrats of the last 20 years?

by JENKINS 2008-06-01 02:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Yeah, that's what Chuck Todd was saying.

Nobody realized Obama had an inside game too.

And the smooth thing about it was that you didn't even see any Obama people around.

The Clinton people were making asses of themselves everywhere--including Lanny Davis heckling the Florida delegation in the hotel lobby.

Obama's people didn't make a scene, but quietly got the job done.

I was impressed.

by Bush Bites 2008-06-01 05:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Plouffe was at the meeting, I saw him walking around. He even had a friendly chat with Wolfson for 10 mins or so.

by nwodtuhs 2008-06-01 08:01AM | 0 recs
Clinton had more supporters on the RBC.

Jerome's claim is spurious.  Clinton had 15 supporters out of 27.  Only in Clintonland is 15 less than half of 27.

by lojasmo 2008-06-01 06:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton had more supporters on the RBC.

The claim on the votes is all over the news.  They may have been Clinton supporters but they supported the voter resolution.

by yitbos96bb 2008-06-01 06:54AM | 0 recs
If this sets a precedent, my uncles a monkey

Really, states breaking the calender, front runners being absent from the ballot and a complete lack of campaigning... this shouldn't happen again once there is reform of they system, so the precedent argument is bullshit.

I am a little concerned that the Clinton camp is going to continue arguing over 4 extra pledged delegates, but I feel they've expended all political wealth and can now just watch where the chips fall.
 

by grass 2008-06-01 02:44AM | 0 recs
Re: If this sets a precedent, my uncles a monkey

The precedent arguement for assigning uncommitted delegates is very real.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-06-01 02:52AM | 0 recs
Re: If this sets a precedent, my uncles a monkey

There's barely any modern precedent for having "uncommitted" delegates. The best way to avoid this being any sort of precedent is to never have a situation where candidates are removing themselves from the ballot because they've signed pledges not to participate in a state's election.

If anything, the RBC ruling concludes a process that is going to make it very unlikely we'll see this again. In future elections, if a state jumps the queue, that state is going to lose half it's delegates, but it's not going to be shut out entirely.

by nathanp 2008-06-01 02:59AM | 0 recs
Re: If this sets a precedent, my uncles a monkey

AND like Florida, they will NOT be able to remove their names anyway.

by yitbos96bb 2008-06-01 06:55AM | 0 recs
Are you saying Bush is your uncle?

by Al Rodgers 2008-06-01 03:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Are you saying Bush is your uncle?

No.  Grass is saying that Bush is his/her uncle.

by Montague 2008-06-01 07:34AM | 0 recs
A Monkey's Uncle

by grass 2008-06-01 07:56AM | 0 recs
Jerome, I don't believe you

I think your dominant way of seeing the conflict is as a HRC partisan.

I don't believe you care about protecting the sanctity of uncommitted delegates or anything else. You want Clinton to win the big conflict. You want her to win the little conflicts.

There are conflicting rule-based arguments. The committee had to decide on a compromise because the rules conflicted with each other.

The simplest rule-based argument would be for the DNC to stick to the rules and not seat the delegation.

However, your fellow HRC partisans were going to scream about disenfranchisement.

So, b/c your political camp--and spare me any claims your not in the HRC camp--threatened to do something exceedingly destructive to the party. Your side got a generous deal.

And you're still whining about the deal you got.

This coupled with Clinton supporters threatening to vote McCain makes me suspect that no amount of compromising and sucking-up to Clinton supporters will be enough.

I'm sorry you bet your political and blogging career on a loser. But it probably wasn't a good judgment call to turn your blog into a ghetto for the disgruntled HRC supporters.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-06-01 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: If this sets a precedent, my uncles a monkey

> I am a little concerned that the Clinton camp is going to continue arguing over 4 extra pledged delegates

And I am concerned that the Obama camp is so intent on "winning" every encounter with the Clintons that they couldn't bring themselves to throw her a freaking 4 delegate bone on this issue. They seem to want to alienate her supporters for some reason.

I tend to shy away  from sports analogies, but if you are ahead by two touchdowns in the last minute of the game, and you have the ball deep in your opponent's territory, you just take a knee and run the clock out, or you run up the middle and try for a touchdown. You don't kick a field goal - that just comes off as petty and dickish.

by itsthemedia 2008-06-01 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

There is no way to seat Michigan's delegates by the rules. There aren't any rules to cover the assignation of delegates in a one-candidate race in a state whose primary is supposed to receive no delegates. Strange but true.

If the party were to follow the rules set beforehand by the committee and approved by all of the candidates, Michigan's delegates would not be seated. Politically, however, the party didn't want to make that move for reasons I assume we all understand. But it is a political decision, based on expediency, that is getting these delegates seated at all. When the decision to seat the delegates at all is one of political expediency, it's pretty pointless to argue that the politically expedient compromise reached isn't based in the rules.

by nathanp 2008-06-01 02:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

This decision needlessly gives the Clinton argument ammo, by taking away 4 delegates from votes she earned. Why? Obama, as far as I calculate it, needs about 10% of the remaining SD's for the nomination majority, 4 less PD's from MI would make the amount about 12%. Unless the Obama camp really doesn't know if they have the SD votes by a 1:9 margin, this makes no sense on their part to have had their supporters on the RBC go with this decision.

Actually, I agree--give her all the delegates she "earned" while granting Obama the rest seemed like the most logical solution.  I think the point of splitting them is to illustrate the inherent unfairness of the Michigan primary.  

One might hope that Hillary and her folks would choose to hang their hat on a "victory" here (although we all know these delegates will get full votes at the convention, by unanimous decree, and would have with or without further RBC insertion).

It's not about whether the delegates were going for Clinton or Obama--it's about whether Michigan and Florida would have voice at the convention.  Now they do--

--and now, hopefully, we'll get a little respect for the DNC rules in the future.  Even rules with which we disagree.

by AK Democrat 2008-06-01 02:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

To remedy this situation. We should give 4 Pledge Delegates that went for Obama in Texas and give it to Hillary.

by nkpolitics 2008-06-01 03:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

A better solution is to give Hillary Clinton all of the 55 Puerto Rico Pledge Delegates. Half of the pledge Delegates in Montana and South Dakota.

by nkpolitics 2008-06-01 03:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

On the one hand, an 'Is this snark?' joke is neither original nor very funny.

On the other hand, I can't say this 'theory' merits either a serious response or even a moderate effort at humor.

by nathanp 2008-06-01 03:48AM | 0 recs
nathanp

is a GAY ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT TERRORIST FACIST THUG.

by nkpolitics 2008-06-01 05:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

She should take her name off the ballot in Montana and ask the RBC to do another "Chicago style" allocation of that state's delegates.

by BPK80 2008-06-01 05:36AM | 0 recs
Only after they tell her

it won't count anyway.

by Neef 2008-06-01 05:51AM | 0 recs
Remember what Colonel Trautman, said...

"It's over, Johnny."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083944/

by Al Rodgers 2008-06-01 02:53AM | 0 recs
Didn't we know this already?

It's true, that the Obama supporters had more votes on the RBC, and that dictated the outcome.

Didn't we know this a LONG time ago, like, after Wisconsin in February?  Or if not then, then after TX/OH, and if not then, then after PA, and if not then, then after NC/IN?  We knew this was going to happen.

And yet we have had months of happy horseshit about how FL+MI as if Hillary was going to get to count it any way she wanted.  The talking point became internalized to the point that some people here seem shocked that things happened exactly as might have predicted.

In fact, if Obama had been further behind in the elected delegate count, the RBC might have been even less generous than they were, offering FL and MI delegates be seated as 50/50, or with no vote at all.  Oh, there would have been an outcry, but how could it have been worse or more extreme than the apocalyptic silliness we experienced yesterday, with people like Larry Sinclair being feted and ushered around like royalty?

This whole thing has been one big circle jerk.  I am sure some here may be angry to hear this, just as they were angry before, and I say, fine, act surprised by the results.  You have only fooled yourselves.

That's why I wrote a diary saying that Hillary's assassination comment was the first sensible victory plan I've heard her make in a long time.  Gaffe or not, as repulsive as it was, at least it had a (ruthless) real-world logic to it.  

by Dumbo 2008-06-01 02:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

She didn't "earn" any more votes than she did in my office pool, except that my office pool was a much more valid election (to which, I am insisting the popular vote totals be adjusted to include them.... after all, if they include the michigan "election", they should include mine, no?)

by LordMike 2008-06-01 03:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Hillary had 13 votes on the committee... all she needed was 3 more votes for a majority, yet this compromise was approved by 5 of her own supporters and introduced by one of them.

Hillary has little ground to stand on here... her own people introduced and approved the MI plan.

by LordMike 2008-06-01 03:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

It has no basis on the rules...but if we were going entirely by the rules. we could have ignored these two states altogether. Their getting any delegates at all is basically Obama gift-wrapping delegates to Clinton in an attempt to get some part unity. The Michigan results were tweaked to decrease the legitimacy of a one-candidate election - the whole point is that the RBC basically pulled a number out of thin air, in effect saying "this really was an entirely meaningless election, but we're going to assign you an arbitrary number of delegates because we're nice, and we're going to give slightly more to the candidate who 'won' your election - but we're just being nice. It doesn't actually mean anything."

by really not a troll 2008-06-01 03:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

> Obama gift-wrapping delegates to Clinton in an attempt to get some part unity.

The problem is, it comes off like handing someone a gift and saying, "Here, I didn't want to give you this, but my mom said I had to." Stiffing her of 4 measly delegates when he has a lead of 150 is just needlessly petty.

by itsthemedia 2008-06-01 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

The RBC was generous to Clinton.  In Michigan's illicit primary, in which hers was the only name on the ballot, she received 55% of the vote.  Yesterday's vote gave her 54% of the delegates.  

by ChgoSteve 2008-06-01 03:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

For the elventy billionth time.  Michighan did not hold a valid election.  As a result there is no fair way to divvy up the delegates.  

Get over it or get out of the way.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-06-01 03:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

For the elventy billionth time.  Four Michigan delegates are not going to change the lead or determine the outcome. Obama's campaign had a chance to mend fences with the Clinton supporters and they could not bring themselves to throw her even a tiny bone.  

> Get over it or get out of the way.  

I am sure Obama would never say that. This kind of arrogance is not helpful. If Clinton's supporters decide to "get out of the way" by not showing up to the polls, Obama will lose.

by itsthemedia 2008-06-01 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Clinton's behavior in this delegate dispute, and the behavior of her campaign which she fully endorses, is just another perfect example of why she lost so badly, and why she cannot be allowed to be president or vice president.

The only thing unfair about todays ruling is that not one single delegate from Michigan and Florida should have been allowed to be seated. Anything else is a travesty.

And any democrat with a conscience and a sense of ethics should turn their backs on Clinton, Ickes, McCauliff, and all the rest as her campaign does its level best to sabotage democrats in the general election.

It is shameful and disgusting.

by mattjfogarty 2008-06-01 03:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

so Obama is going the Bush route of NOT counting the voters.

got it.

And where's all that Obama inspired unity crap? I don't see it.

by Juno 2008-06-01 03:55AM | 0 recs
What Exactly Do You Hope to Accomplish

with all of this? Honestly, what do you want to happen here on MyDD?

by RNinNC 2008-06-01 04:39AM | 0 recs
Re: What Exactly Do You Hope to Accomplish

People are just speaking their minds.  That's the point of a forum like this.

by BPK80 2008-06-01 05:41AM | 0 recs
Yes, But

the point of these blogs is to get Democrats elected into office. Nothing short, nothing less. I'd love to hear what Obama could do to RISE to whatever level Clinton supporters wanna see. Truly. But threatening a McCain Presidency - at times with something approaching great zeal - is counterproductive.

So, while I am expressing my opinion, it is with the endgame of putting Democrats into power. I wanna know what the endgame is for people like Juno who appears to be defecting in an ugly fashion.

by RNinNC 2008-06-01 05:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, But

The social and discussion aspect of a site like this isn't so easily excised.  

Clinton supporters now have every right to feel the game was fixed against them.  These voters have no outlet for their frustration because the party wants to shut them up and force them to be "good little boys & girls" and support the nominee in the name of unity.

"I just kicked you in the face, but now we have to be amicable."  

Politically, this RBC meeting was a disaster.  

by BPK80 2008-06-01 06:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, But

To be fair though, McAullife set up the system for this year in Hillary's favor.  Big picture wise, she lost this think when she ignored all the Caucuses and small states during Feb.  Obama's big wins in places like Kansas helped to negate her medium or small wins in places like New Jersey.   Even with Florida and Michigan seated as is, Obama still would have won this.    Many Clinton supporters are under this false impression that the SDs would flock to her if they were sat accordingly.  They wouldn't have.

by yitbos96bb 2008-06-01 07:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, But

> Even with Florida and Michigan seated as is, Obama still would have won this.

I agree. That is why I am baffled as to why Obama's campaign felt the need to rub salt in the wound with this "compromise". They seem incapable of making any gesture of conciliation at this point. Piling onto the silly RFK flap, nickle and dime fighting over MI delegates that won't affect the outcome. I hope they change their approach soon.

by itsthemedia 2008-06-01 02:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

You don't count the votes, when you can't count ALL the votes. Counting one contender's votes and not the other's is worse yet.

by Neef 2008-06-01 05:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

You know that if it was Bush v Obama in 2000 in Florida.
That Obama would fight all the way and never back down.

All the lessons of the past have been learnt.

All democrats should be proud.

Obama will protect my right to choose,

I support Obama

by MissVA 2008-06-01 03:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

To call MI a flawed primary is too charitable. As an election it could not pass the smell test in any country that pretends to be a democracy. So the party rules that apply to elections do not apply here.

Better if they had just thrown it out as an undemocratic travesty and just awarded the delegates without trying to discern anything from the primary. It sets no precedent for any normally run primary.

An election where there are some spoiled votes is flawed. An election where the candidates can't campaign and their names are not on the ballot and the voters are told the votes won't count is not an election.

And spare me the canard that Edwards and Obama didn't have to withdraw their names. Hillary signed a pledge that committed her to:

I pledge I shall not campaign or PARTICIPATE in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window

Having your name on the ballot is participating. Hillary's lame excuse was as everyone knew the votes would never count it didn't matter. The Obama proposal was closest to adhering to the rules. Accepting the MI party's proposal was a fair compromise in a situation where there were no good solutions.

by hankg 2008-06-01 03:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Where Obama lost any sympathy from me over MI is when he fought to prevent a re-vote.

He should not have any delegates since he opposes elections.  The guy has run and won by attrition his entire life.  He thinks he should just be handed what it is he wants.

He runs when it gets too hot.

The General should be interesting.

by Juno 2008-06-01 03:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Where he has been consistent is in supporting enforcement of the rules.  Makes sense in a constitutional law professor, no?

BTW, that rules on signatures and the ballot are there to prevent such things as having dead people vote, as they have been known to do in Chicago.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-01 03:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Since we know you're voting Republican, I guess it would be interesting, from that perspective.

by Massadonious 2008-06-01 04:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

You sound like a Republican. And you definitely do not sound like someone supposedly inspired by Obama to a higher and more civil politic.

You know I'm voting Republican despite my having argued here with Clinton supporters who say they will not vote for Obama or will vote for McCain by telling them that, as hard as it will be to vote for Obama, we can't let McCain get in.

Okay. But you know I'm voting Republican.

Again, I'm just not seeing this change of which Obama speaks.  I feel exactly the same way I do when  debating Republicans.  

Ick.

by Juno 2008-06-01 04:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Oh, you've got me all wrong there buddy. I've more than been inspired by Senator Obama's message. I practice it and preach it every day.

However, it's hard to be civil with DINO's who continue to speak lies and mistruths, and parrot Fox News talking points about my canidiate on a regular basis. You really expect me to kiss your ass? Sorry, doesn't work that way.

But, it's nice to know where you really stand. Perhaps it's time for you to regularly visit a site which upholds your principals....which is, not this one.

by Massadonious 2008-06-01 04:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Well, no you don't actually.

Your deliberate attempt to insult me by calling me a Republican and FOX watcher, etc., simply because I do not support Obama and support Clinton belies your claim here.

Obamans always have an excuse for their incivility.

So where's the change?

by Juno 2008-06-01 04:35AM | 0 recs
No..

I'm calling you a Republican because for the limited time I've seen you post here, you've invoked George W. Bush's name more times than I thought was humanly possible without projectile vomiting.

And, there is that whole Fox News talking points thing. Blah blah trintiy church blah blah nonsense.

So, I think my assement was fairly right on, and no, I still wont kiss your ass.

by Massadonious 2008-06-01 04:42AM | 0 recs
Re: No..

Right, because I see a lot of similarities between Obama-style politics and Bush-style politics, which SHOULD tell you that I do not LIKE Bush.

Be sure to not invoke McCain's name at all because merely invoking a name means you support that person.

Good grief.

No, it's just that now-famous Obama hubris, that it is simply inconceivable that anyone could possibly be less than enchanted with Obama, and outright criticism, well, that is just a call to arms and clear evidence that someone is a troll or a Republican!

by Juno 2008-06-01 04:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

He should not have any delegates since he opposes elections.

Didn't he just win most of the elections?

by politicsmatters 2008-06-01 04:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

A revote would have disqualified a lot of Obama's independent voters who voted in the Republican primary since their candidate was not on the democratic ballot. I'm sure you know this already, but why let facts get in the way of "righteous" indignation.

5 of Hillary's supporters crossed over and voted for the compromise. It's over.

by jadegirl 2008-06-01 05:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

we'd probably be the same if we lost so just try and remember how you'd feel if the supers had given this nomination to Hillary.

by anasky123 2008-06-26 11:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

The media decide our candidates now.

Obama has no business running for or being president.  Neither did George W. Bush.

I smell disaster.

by Juno 2008-06-01 03:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

The media didn't decide our candidate.

I switched from Clinton to Obama and I did so because he liked his message and his ideas. I also thought he has a greater ability to be a transformative president because of his impact on down ballot races.

At the same time, I maintained my respect for Hillary Clinton.

I have been active in politics for over 35 years. I am no dupe. I made up my own mind on this.

Part of why I supported Clinton in the first place was because I wanted a woman in the WH. Ultimately that was not enough for me to stick with her.

The media didn't decide that -- I did -- and so did millions of Democrats.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-01 03:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Bushies also deny the media treated Bush differently than either Gore or Kerry and they also decided for Bush totally independently and were not influenced by the media.

Hogwash.

How has Obama delivered on his message at all?  The Democratic party is more divided than ever.  It took him a matter of weeks to turn tail and run from his church of 20 years when the political heat got too much.  I can't tell the difference between his supporters and Republicans on blog with their viciousness toward Clinton and her supporters, let alone McCain.

So what's the change? Where's the unity?  Where's all this inspiration?

He's a fraud. a Very smart guy with a great philosophy, very good at reflection, but who doesn't have the substance yet to run for president so is running on this vapid BS.

by Juno 2008-06-01 04:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

LOLs. Obama - with the ability to get 50/50 in Michigan - instead chooses a solution advantageous to Hillary. His campaign nips the RFK comment in the bud in one news cycle, and he personally accepts her explanation, with no questions asked or innuendo raised. He ignores the 47 just-add-water Clinton-related scandals he could've raised to drive up her negatives this election.

But where's the unity?

by Reeves 2008-06-01 04:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Total BS.

by Juno 2008-06-01 04:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Which part?

by interestedbystander 2008-06-01 08:59AM | 0 recs
Thank you

If sent the Clinton camp Beemers they would lambast him for not buying American.

by Neef 2008-06-01 06:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

So true.  What really sickens me is the way the media surreptitiously got more than 500,000 young voters onto Obama's Facebook account a whole year ago.  Also, how they found 1.5 million people to contribute to his campaign--did they fund them?  And: How did those mean media get Clinton to lie about Bosnia and Northern Ireland?  How did they force her to pander on the gas tax?  

Really freaky, and very mean.

by deminva 2008-06-01 04:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Juvenile.

The media also gave us Bush.  If you deny that the media are influencing election outcomes, you are not dealing with reality.

Just as Bush's case for war was a fraud, so is Obama's hope/change/inspiration meme, as you prove with your contentious sarcasm.  The media gave Obama a free ride and have been brutal to Clinton, and the result is that Americans are not voting based on adequate criteria.

by Juno 2008-06-01 04:08AM | 0 recs
So, what your saying is..

17 million of us are just dumb and uniformed.

Did I read that correctly?

Oh, dear Juno, how could we be so naieve? Please continue to enlighten us with your faux outrage and Fox News talking points. As a matter of fact, forget it, I'll switch my vote right now!

/snark

by Massadonious 2008-06-01 04:11AM | 0 recs
Re: So, what your saying is..

I bet you liked that headline from Britain after the '04 eletion: "How can 59 million Be So Dumb" though.

Huh?

Yes, I think those 59 million who voted to give Bush a second term were DUMB.

You must think they were Einsteins.

by Juno 2008-06-01 04:27AM | 0 recs
Re: So, what your saying is..

Juno Juno Juno, Sign #48 you're talking to a GOP troll is when they bring up the headline from the Guardian. No Democrat gets riled up over that. We're all embarrassed that the country re-elected Bush, (or, more properly, elected Bush the first time), not angry that people in other countries are daring to mock El Presidente.

by nathanp 2008-06-01 04:35AM | 0 recs
Re: So, what your saying is..

I'm sorry if the point of my post was over your head.

by Juno 2008-06-01 04:40AM | 0 recs
No, your point was pretty clear

by nathanp 2008-06-01 04:51AM | 0 recs
Re: No, your point was pretty clear

Not to you, it wasn't.

But, like Bushies, you know better what I meant than I did.  Cool.

As for your troll picture, just more evidence of Obama hubris, that anyone who dares challenge, criticize or disagree with Obama MUST be a troll or a Republican.

I ask again, having yet to get an answer, where is all this inspired change?

by Juno 2008-06-01 05:01AM | 0 recs
Re: No, your point was pretty clear

You've already been told upthread, but you dismissed it.  So here it is again:  1.5m individual donors most of whom are not tapped out; massive ground game and building more networks of full-time campaigners in all 50 states; huge voter registration drives; ability to motivate young first time voters; ability to attract independent and Republican voters; brilliant election strategists and messaging; appeal to the media....

And that's just a start, but go ahead and dismiss it all.  

by interestedbystander 2008-06-01 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: So, what your saying is..

Uh, maybe Bush got a little help from Dad? Hmmmm?

by catilinus 2008-06-01 04:54AM | 0 recs
Re: So, what your saying is..

You're really not making much sense, and don't seem able to stay on topic.  

by interestedbystander 2008-06-01 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Wow, you bestow on me a great power--to undercut Obama's message with my lone voice in a single post.

by deminva 2008-06-01 04:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

You're hardly alone in undercutting Obama's message.

by Juno 2008-06-01 04:26AM | 0 recs
Yeah,

and I TOTALLY wish you'd just stop it RIGHT NOW!

(/snark)

by RNinNC 2008-06-01 04:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah,

Sort of like the guy in Airplane who unplugs the runway lights.  To the tower, Rapunzel!

by deminva 2008-06-01 11:30AM | 0 recs
we're not just media victims

A more reasoned analysis of why Bush won would be helpful, including considering the approaches taken by our Democratic candidates and the constituency building and targeting by both campaigns.

If your whole analysis is "the media did it," then how can any candidate or campaign put together a winning strategy? With your approach, we're all victims and we might as well not bother because the media decides everything.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-01 04:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome
Brutal?  I say any other candidate would have been BRUTALLY forced out after losing 11 contests in a row ... I think she has gotten a pass because of her background and last name.  
Please point to the blatant sexism you have seen in the media, with examples.  
I can also make an argument Obama is MUCH more feminist in his governing style than Hillary - more collaberative, more inclusive.  It seems folks are more concerned about electing gender, versus a candidate who represents feminism in a brighter light.
by stryan 2008-06-01 06:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Ummm... Bush won... twice!!  So, I hardly see disaster!

by LordMike 2008-06-01 06:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

guys they slowly have to come to grips that Hillary lost, if we thought the last month was bad, I fully expect the next week to be REALLY bad as they lash out at Obama supporters for their candidate losing.

we'd probably be the same if we lost so just try and remember how you'd feel if the supers had given this nomination to Hillary.

they will come around eventually.

by TruthMatters 2008-06-01 03:52AM | 0 recs
You have to compromise in this world

Part of growing up is realizing that you have to live with others and to do so, you have to make compromises.

You have to compromise with loved ones.

You have to compromise on the job.

You have to compromise in organizations you belong to.

And, in politics, you have to compromise on how to run things and what should be in a policy.

If you don't compromise you get nothing done.

Mydders -- This was a compromise.

Does everyone think it's perfect? Of course not.

That's the nature of compromises.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-01 03:52AM | 0 recs
Re: You have to compromise in this world

If the compromise is halway between two poles, you can influence the outcome my making the pole representing your desired outcome more and more extreme.

"Allocate the delegations per the primary" (Reasonable)

"Give me half of the delegates" (Unreasonable)

Result

69-59 Split (Half-Unreasonable)

Clinton's strategic error was for asking for something reasonable rather than promoting something far more extreme to temper the midpoint of the compromise.  She should have asked the he be penalized for "campaigning" in Florida.  

by BPK80 2008-06-01 05:46AM | 0 recs
Re: You have to compromise in this world

Sometimes though, one side can afford to be generous, especially when victory is assured and comity is desired. Obama's campaign forced this "compromise" to get 4 extra delegates they did not need. The 4 delegates are not worth the extra bad will they have engendered to get them.

by itsthemedia 2008-06-01 02:40PM | 0 recs
flawed election

Imagine if Hugo Chavez called an election and said that no one could campaign and his would be the only name on the ballot, but that would be OK because the votes were not going to count anyway. It was just a beauty contest.

Then after the election he said well a million citizens voted so we have decided to honor their votes and count the election after all. It would be undemocratic to not respect their votes.

The condemnation would be universal. Trying to pass off MI and FL as 'elections' is a joke.

by hankg 2008-06-01 03:57AM | 0 recs
Re: flawed election

Hillary Clinton didn't call for the MI primary.

She didn't announce that she could be the only person on the ballot (she wasn't).

She didn't force Obama to take his name off the ballot.

She didn't convince Obama to fight to prevent a re-vote.

She was smart enough to keep her name on the ballot, thinking perhaps that every vote counts...or should.

Your analogy is a bad one.

by Juno 2008-06-01 04:03AM | 0 recs
Re: flawed election

"Every vote counts" assuming the ballots are legitimate. Michigan didn't have a legitimate ballot, so it's a sham.

by Reeves 2008-06-01 04:11AM | 0 recs
Re: flawed election

So why did Obama fight a revote?

that's where he lost me.  That was  Bush 2000 stuff.

by Juno 2008-06-01 04:25AM | 0 recs
He didn't fight a revote

he asked for certain conditions and was refused. He wanted a true revote, not a revote minus everyone that had voted Repub, etc.

by Neef 2008-06-01 04:35AM | 0 recs
Re: He didn't fight a revote

No, he sent aides out to stop a re-vote.

I'm sure he was saying one thing publicly, but his goal was to prevent a revote, for obvious reasons. This is typical of Obama's good cop/bad cop style of politics.

by Juno 2008-06-01 04:39AM | 0 recs
I am not convinced

That you can read his mind.

At that point he had a significant amount of Repb crossover, and its perfectly legitimate to want those people to have a chance to vote for him.

by Neef 2008-06-01 05:26AM | 0 recs
Re: flawed election

Obama did not prevent a revote. The Republican state legislatures were never going to allow one and Hillary knew it, she stalled at first and then when it was already to late advocated for something she knew was not going to happen as a publicity stunt.

Hillary broke her pledge "not to campaign or PARTICIPATE" keeping her name on the ballot constituted participating under every definition of the term.

by hankg 2008-06-01 04:38AM | 0 recs
Re: flawed election

by Juno 2008-06-01 04:38AM | 0 recs
Re: flawed election

I forgot about how people who voted in the Repub primary couldn't  re vote.

This has always come across as Clinton trying to count Clinton votes--count all the votes--always stuck me as bad dinner theater

by susu1969 2008-06-01 04:43AM | 0 recs
Re: flawed election

YOu keep saying this but where is your evidence that he fought a revote?

The reality is that it the court who stopped a revote and Clinton who objected to holding caucuses.

SO if you are going to continue to repeat this smear can you at least back it up with a citation from a credible source?

by Skex 2008-06-01 04:43AM | 0 recs
Re: flawed election

The Clinton team was the first to oppose a revote, because they didn't like the proposal. From March 7:

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

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

The caucus was more likely to happen than a second primary, simply because it was cheaper.  But team Clinton had a problem with the caucus solution, for what are probably obvious reasons. (Note that Clinton's response wasn't "No, we need another primary," it was "No, the results should stand.") The Clinton campaign then proposed a solution that would exclude everyone who hadn't voted in the non-binding primary, which the Obama camp had problems with, for what are probably obvious reasons.

Both teams blocked revote proposals that they didn't like.

by jere7my 2008-06-01 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: flawed election

Um, I was addressing a really bad analogy.

Interesting how Obamans have flip-flopped on voter will and now sound like Republicans in 2000, though, huh?

by Juno 2008-06-01 04:38AM | 0 recs
Re: flawed election

That's a wee bit silly.

And quite simplistic.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-01 04:43AM | 0 recs
Re: flawed election

Really. Were the candidates prevented from campaigning and were the voters told their votes would not count in 2000? I missed that.

The problem is not counting votes it's counting an election that was a sham and did not meet the minimum standards of a democratic election. The problem in Cuba is not that the votes are not counted accurately it's that the elections are not fair and democratic. Counting votes becomes an issue when you have an election that meets the minimum standards for a democratic contest.

by hankg 2008-06-01 04:53AM | 0 recs
Re: flawed election

MI pulled the same shit in 2000.  They got what they deserved.

by susu1969 2008-06-01 04:33AM | 0 recs
Exactly! n/t

by Neef 2008-06-01 04:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Maybe Obama should start proceedings to not have a General Election and see to it that he is just given the presidency.

by Juno 2008-06-01 04:04AM | 0 recs
So..

How's Operation Chaos faring?

Be sure to give Rush my best!

by Massadonious 2008-06-01 04:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Maybe you should troll harder. They ain't just giving those McBlogger points away.

by nathanp 2008-06-01 04:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Never fails to amaze me just how inspired Obamans are to a more civil politic.

Not.

Where's the change again?

by Juno 2008-06-01 04:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Yes, because he was "assigned" or "bestowed" more money, superdelegates, and big time party support than anyone else...

No, wait...that's actually Hillary, who started the race before ANYONE COULD VOTE with a 100+ superdelegate lead.

Yeah, that sort of advantage sure is democratic. Nothing "backroom deal"-ish about that. Will of the voters, I say...

by Reeves 2008-06-01 04:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

So were Bush and the GOP.

I'm not discussing the American Electorate's really dumb choices here.

by Juno 2008-06-01 04:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Translation: People are dumb because they didn't vote how I wanted them to.

Nothing wrong with you thinking that, but just be honest about it, and let the other BS about fairness go.

by Reeves 2008-06-01 04:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Bad translation, and unObamalike.

by Juno 2008-06-01 04:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

You're right - Obama doesn't think people are dumb.  

by politicsmatters 2008-06-01 04:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Of course he does, and bitter.

by Juno 2008-06-01 04:53AM | 0 recs
Let the Rules Committee decide

An alternative is to just have the Rules Committee decide how the people would have voted, and assign electoral votes accordingly.

Elections are expensive, after all, and the Rules Committee knows better than the people anyway.  They are amazing.  They can even create votes for people who didn't even show up at the polls!

I say we just let them decide.  What the heck.

by joanneleon 2008-06-01 04:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Let the Rules Committee decide

Amount of these complaints when "the party" gave Hillary a 100+ superdelegate lead before voting took place: ZERO.

Because, you know...that was "the people" deciding, not party elders....

by Reeves 2008-06-01 04:35AM | 0 recs
We don't need no stinkin' elections

We have a Rules Committee who takes popular votes cast in an election and they do with them what they like.  They know better than the people.

You cast your vote for Clinton?  No no no.  We'll redo that vote for you.  We'll take that vote out of the Clinton box and put it into the Obama box.  Eighteen thousand times.

Don't worry, we'll take care of everything.  We're the ROOLZ Committee.

by joanneleon 2008-06-01 04:49AM | 0 recs
Re: We don't need no stinkin' elections

A child it is, then...

by Reeves 2008-06-01 04:50AM | 0 recs
Re: We don't need no stinkin' elections

working' toward that unity via Obama inspiration, I see.

by Juno 2008-06-01 04:59AM | 0 recs
Re: We don't need no stinkin' elections

The ROOLZ Committee may be in for a surprise a few months down the road, no?

by Caldonia 2008-06-01 04:51AM | 0 recs
Re: We don't need no stinkin' elections

It will be up to the ROOLZ committee to decide what surprises are allowed, and what surprises are not allowed.

If you plan a surprise, it could be reassigned to another candidate, after all.  So hold onto your surprises.  

Actually, heck, just make it an uncommitted surprise.  Then nobody will know who you're planning the surprise for.  That might work.

by joanneleon 2008-06-01 04:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome
Personally, I would have spotted her the extra 4 delegates in Michigan, just to take away a whine point. But then I would have supported her losing some delegates in Iowa and New Hampshire since she would not have won them if the Democrats there knew she did not support the calendar and their 1st in the nation status. She had campaigned there supporting the DNC Calendar and against recognizing the MI and FL outside the rules efforts.
No matter what, I don't think we should seat Gov Granholm and Sen. Levin and other Dem leaders in MI who came up with this. 48 states have seen massive increases in democratic voter registration and huge investments in the party infrastructure. Only MI and FL have failed in that regard. Both states, if they had been in,say March, would have had $20 million apiece spent by the campaigns with huge enthusiasm and massive turnout. They would have had incredible say in who the nominee was(and probably would have locked it in for Sen. Clinton!) They have failed leadership in the party and that shouldn't be rewarded.
by Skipster 2008-06-01 04:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

The number of dems turning in their badges over this will be interesting. The local meme is that the DNC has been in the tank for Obama from the get-go. In other words, screw HRC every way possible because the fix is in. Taking those 4 delegates from Hillary  proved how petty and imperious the O camp is. Independents are already bolting the Unity Pony Express- they don't like their votes traded like basball cards.

Another theory, that goes hand in hand with the other meme, is that the corporations who rule the two parties know HRC is the only candidate who would push for real UHC, unlike the McCain-lite Obama package. It becomes clearer why Hillary has been so demonized all these years by our callow media.

Once again, the media elects the candidate the Elite desire ala GWB.

by bird52 2008-06-01 04:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Bingo.

by Juno 2008-06-01 04:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

So, "the media" or "the DNC" or "the Man" manufactured 1.5 million donors, made Hillary basically give up after Super Tuesday, and also forced her to pander on the gas tax?

Sure. Meanwhile, her STARTING THE CONTEST with a huge advantage in fundraising, superdelegates, and big name party machine runners (e.g. Rendell) was COMPLETELY DEMOCRATIC AND FAIR.

My heart goes out to you guys for the cognitive dissonance you're going through now.

by Reeves 2008-06-01 04:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Yes Mark Penn, Bill Clinton and Patty Solis were DNC plants on the take to sabotage Hillary's campaign. Also all those voters in states that don't count, more DNC stooges.

by hankg 2008-06-01 04:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Don't forget the grassy knoll! Won't anyone remember the grassy knoll?!?!?

by Rationalisto 2008-06-01 06:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Indeed, I see no difference between a guy who's mom was on food stamps and a guy who's dad was President.  As opposed to a woman whose husband was President, who's a commoner fighting the two aforementioned elites.

Also, I find it amazing that you have reliable polling on the feelings of independents to the RBC decision, since it was just announced today.  Who had this remarkable insta-poll?    SUSA?  Rasmussen?  Your ass?

Also, when you demonize the media, are you including Rush Limbaugh and Scaife, who were her chief haters for years until they became her biggest champions this year?  Or are they the good guys now?  

by bosdcla14 2008-06-01 04:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Also, I find it amazing that you have reliable polling on the feelings of independents to the RBC decision, since it was just announced today.  Who had this remarkable insta-poll?    SUSA?  Rasmussen?  Your ass?

Ha!

by CanuckinMA 2008-06-01 07:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Sure.  One major flaw is that Hillary Clinton hasn't proposed a universal health care plan.

There's never been universal health care achieved in a country by requiring people to buy private insurance.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-01 04:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Yeah, the poor Clintons were underdogs from the very beginning...  they had no money, no name recognition, no hundreds of superdelegates in the bag, nothing!!!

Poor Hillary.. disadvantaged in every way from the beginning!

by LordMike 2008-06-01 05:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

See this diary for my theory as to why they went for 69-59 rather than 73-55

by nathanp 2008-06-01 04:18AM | 0 recs
What happened to those Rules anyway?

The thing that amazes me most is that some members of a Rules committee, who preached and preached at the Clinton campaign about following Rules voted for a solution in Michigan which was based on no rules or precedents whatsoever.

What happened to those Rules again?  

For months Obama supporters threw out the "Rules are Rules" smackdown at the Clinton supporters.   One supposedly uncommitted Rules Committee member was the most vocal proponent of that argument.    But now, all of a sudden, rules are not important, somehow.  Now that it suits their purpose, the Rules are thrown out the window.

Hypocrisy is rampant in this election.  I thought the Republicans were the supreme hypocrites in this country, but apparently not.

by joanneleon 2008-06-01 04:24AM | 0 recs
Re: What happened to those Rules anyway?

You do realize the Michigan delegation fashioned this compromise, and though Obama had the votes to get a 50/50 one, he went with this to his disadvantage to be nice to Hillary, right?

by Reeves 2008-06-01 04:27AM | 0 recs
Re: What happened to those Rules anyway?

I realize that the Rules committee voted for a solution that was based on no rules or precedents.

They arbitrarily assigned votes to Obama that were cast by actual voters for Hillary Clinton.  There is nothing in any rules that allows the Rules Committee to do this.  There's no rule and there's no precedent for this.  In fact it goes against the very core principles of democracy.  You can't take people's votes for one candidate and give them to a different candidate.

Do you realize that the Obama camp's main argument about not counting these two states were "Rules are Rules"?  Do you realize that after making this argument vehemently for months, they easily tossed those rules out the window when it suited them?

by joanneleon 2008-06-01 04:40AM | 0 recs
Re: What happened to those Rules anyway?

I don't get this. They followed the rules for Florida, and had they followed them for Michigan, it would have been 50/50.

Instead, they said screw the rules, but not for advantage, but rather for OUR OPPONENT.

In other words, they broke "the rules" as a sign of goodwill, and Hillary supporters are complaining about it.

Aside from dropping out of the race, and publicly begging on bended knee for the VP slot on her ticket, nothing Obama does will satisfy you lot.

All this talks of assigning "Hillary's votes" assumes that the election was legitimate. It wasn't. Hillary could hold an election with her name on the ballot opposed by only "Scooby-Doo" and "None of the Above." If it isn't recognized as legitimate by the DNC - you know, the party she is representing? - the results do no stand. Why is this so hard to understand?

by Reeves 2008-06-01 04:46AM | 0 recs
Re: What happened to those Rules anyway?

If folks want to to to barbecues and such this summer and tell people that they're going to support the Republican agenda because they disagree about how 4 delegates were allocated -- in a process in which some Clinton committee members voted for it and it was more than required under the rules -- I say, go for it.

You're going to feel pretty silly as the summer goes on.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-01 04:51AM | 0 recs
Re: What happened to those Rules anyway?

I have never said I'd support a Republican agenda nor have I ever said I'd vote for a Republican candidate.  Stop making shit up.

by joanneleon 2008-06-01 05:08AM | 0 recs
Re: What happened to those Rules anyway?

Have you noticed that, for Obamans, anyone who has the gall to criticize Obama or defend Clinton MUST be a Republican because it is simply impossible for them to believe that any Democrat could POSSIBLY think less of Obama than that he is the answer to everything?

I'm so sick of hubris.  

by Juno 2008-06-01 05:32AM | 0 recs
Re: What happened to those Rules anyway?

50/50 applies to how many delegates are allowed to be seated at the convention.

There is no rule that says you can take votes cast and reassign them from one candidate to another.  None.

You're getting confused about what 50/50 applies to.

The Rules Committee can cut the total number of delegates but they cannot determine the allocation of those delegates.  That's what they did yesterday.  

by joanneleon 2008-06-01 05:07AM | 0 recs
WHO tossed out the rules?

Since when did the RBC become the "Obama Camp"? Clinton's camp was the one wanting to "count the vote" despite the rule breaking. The MDP is the one that came up with 69-59. The RBC made the call.

The ACTUAL Obama team's choice, 50/50, IS consistent with the rules.

by Neef 2008-06-01 04:53AM | 0 recs
Re: WHO tossed out the rules?

The Rules Committee tossed out the rules.

The Obama camp used the argument for months that "Rules are Rules" and that's why Michigan and Florida shouldn't count.

50/50 split of the votes cast was not part of any rule.  I think you're confusing that with the 50% penalty rule, which penalizes the state by giving them only 50% of their delegates at the convention.  That has nothing to do with how the delegates are apportioned according to the actual votes cast.

by joanneleon 2008-06-01 05:02AM | 0 recs
Quoting Jerome

They had the votes to do the 50-50 split of MI, not recognizing the caucus. That decision would have had a basis in the rules.

But my main point is that it wasn't Obama who decided to ignore the rules, which seems to be the current talking point.

He has been consistent (and I STILL think counting the contests was a bad idea).

by Neef 2008-06-01 05:31AM | 0 recs
Re: WHO tossed out the rules?

Harold Ickes informed the panel that they had the powers to go outside the rules if they wished... so they did... against him... whoops!  careful what you wish for, Harold!

by LordMike 2008-06-01 05:33AM | 0 recs
Re: WHO tossed out the rules?

Once again, with feeling...

There were 13 people on that committee who have publicly endorsed Clinton. Only 26 people voted on the Michigan resolution. The final result was 18-8.

This means that 5, or if you prefer, 38.5% of the Clinton supporters sitting on that committee voted for the resolution.

But somehow, in your mind, Obama was in the back room, magically pulling all the puppet strings, meanwhile calling all his minions in the media to control the spin.

Chuck Todd of MSNBC (of course after being instructed by Obama himself) posted the story that Obama had the votes to force a 50%-50% delegate split. This, of course, would have required the defection of at least 1 of the Clinton supporters to get a 14-12 vote. Of course all of the 'independents' were secretly in the bag for Obama.

So, after viewing the awesome powers of Obama, who can control the media and get his political enemies to cross over and support him without even being in the room, why would you want any other person for president? Handling the likes of your typical mid-eastern despot ruler should be child's play for him.

by tysonpublic 2008-06-01 08:10AM | 0 recs
The rules were: Michigan doesn't count

Same with Florida. They moved up their primaries, which automatically stripped them of half their delegates. They played chicken with the DNC, so the RBC made a ruling that was signed off on by every candidate's campaign that Florida and Michigan's delegates weren't going to be seated.

Those are the rules.

They are the only rules that apply.

Strangely enough, there are no rules for assigning delegates in a one-candidate race in a state that's not supposed to be receiving any delegates.

The only reason delegates are being seated at all is political expediency. Why does it bother you that delegates seated solely for political expediency are being assigned on the basis of a politically expedient compromise?

by nathanp 2008-06-01 04:30AM | 0 recs
Show me the ROOLZ

Rules are Rules.  Can you cite something in the Rules that gives that committee the authority to take actual votes cast in an election from one candidate and assign them to another candidate?

Rules are Rules.  That's what we were told.  And this is the Rules Committee for God's sake?  I just want to see something that proves they can reassign votes cast in an election.  That's all.  So where is it?  Show me those ROOLZ.

by joanneleon 2008-06-01 04:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Show me the ROOLZ

So you back the 50/50 proposal instead, then?

by Reeves 2008-06-01 04:47AM | 0 recs
Cite the rule

that allows that committee to reassign votes cast in an election.

Come on.  Rules are Rules!!1!!

by joanneleon 2008-06-01 04:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Cite the rule

This was the Michigan Democratic Party's compromise. If you'd prefer that MI got fewer delegates than the compromise allowed, maybe you should start a petition drive to get that done.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-01 04:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Cite the rule

Show me the ROOLZ that allow them to do this.

by joanneleon 2008-06-01 04:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Cite the rule
They don't have to, they're the mighty kewl-kidz-make-it-up-as-we-go-along-Demo cracy-be-damned ROOLZ Committee!
by Caldonia 2008-06-01 05:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Cite the rule

If you're allowed to insult Obama's supporters by calling us "kewl-kidz", does that mean we get to call you retarded hick-brained sociopath?

Just askin'  

by Rationalisto 2008-06-01 06:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Cite the rule

no. caldonia can say what she wishes about candidates, etc, including, in this case, the rules committee. it's insulting other commenters, as you have done, that creates a problem.

by campskunk 2008-06-01 07:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Cite the rule

No.  But I would suggest brushing up on those reading comprehension skills.

Just answerin'

by Caldonia 2008-06-01 07:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Cite the rule

Hard to read caption: "Hit the bird, Ruth-he's stuck.
by nathanp 2008-06-01 05:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Cite the rule

That's what I thought.  You can't cite the rule, because it doesn't exist, because nobody would allow a rule to be made that takes votes away from one candidate and gives them to another.  Because what this committee did was against every principle of democracy.

If you were a lawyer, like Wexler, you'd be pounding the table (since you have neither the facts nor the law on your side.)  Since you're not, you're posting pictures.

Next, I expect I'll get a YouTube video.  Cue the YouTube video, Johnny.

by joanneleon 2008-06-01 05:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Cite the rule
Nikita Wexler was tres entertaining in that shoe-on-the-table kind of way.
by Caldonia 2008-06-01 05:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Cite the rule

It was drinking game fodder, for sure.

How many times do you figure he pounded that table yesterday?

If we had to take a drink everytime he jabbed the finger and pounded, we'd be under the table by the end of that manufactured outrage rant of his.

by joanneleon 2008-06-01 05:17AM | 0 recs
How about

nobody would allow a rule to be made that takes votes away from one candidate and gives them to another

The Clinton proposal was to take Obama votes and give them to Uncommitted. Then Obama could campaign and hope to win some of them back. Where's THAT rool?

I will agree that recognizing the contest at all was a sham. But they had to deal with all the "count meee!!" unrest that was fermenting.

by Neef 2008-06-01 05:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Cite the rule

RBC, drunk on its own power.  I predict the hangover is gonna be a nasty one.  Good thing they have a "doctor" in the house.  ;)

by Caldonia 2008-06-01 04:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Show me the ROOLZ

Heh.  :)

by Caldonia 2008-06-01 04:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Show me the ROOLZ

Can you cite something in the Rules that gives that committee the authority to take actual votes cast in an election

An election?

I thought we were talking about Michigan!

(And don't complain about taking your words out of context, either. You clearly ignored everything I wrote. I hardly owe your repetitions any excess consideration.)

by nathanp 2008-06-01 04:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Show me the ROOLZ

"Can you cite something in the Rules that gives that committee the authority to take actual votes cast in an election from one candidate and assign them to another candidate?"

OK, here's what just happened, broadcast on national TV for all to see.

The vote in Michigan was thrown out as being completely invalid. Clinton and Obama never got any delegates from the Michigan primary. So as a baseline, there were zero delegates for Michigan from the primary.

The Michigan Democratic Party then used whatever information they could find (the flawed vote, exit polls, negotiations with the candidates, etc.) in order to work out a compromise that everyone could live with, and asked the RBC to please give them some delegates beyond those (zero) awarded under the rules. The RBC then adopted the MDP's proposal. All by the rules.

by laird 2008-06-01 09:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Let me get this -- Jerome now wants the rules enforced?

I guess MI got a pretty good deal then!

by politicsmatters 2008-06-01 04:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Maybe he thought the punishment should have been to take away Michigan's rec/rate privileges?

by nathanp 2008-06-01 04:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

I disagree,

This solution is pretty smart in that it set's the MI primary aside as flawed expression of voter intent and gives Clinton extra votes.  

Once the primary is set aside as a flawed vote the popular vote argument is invalidated so they kill two birds with one stone.  

50-50 would have been "hardball"
75-55 would have left the primary vote in tact
69-59 does is not hardball and does not leave the vote counts in tact.  

by nextgen 2008-06-01 04:39AM | 0 recs
The Clinton camp could also have been realistic

and offered 73 Clinton 55 Obama.

If I'm not mistaken, 73 Clinton 55 Uncommitted means  exactly that, the 55 dels are pledged to the candidate "Uncommitted". That is the position that Obama had NO support in MI, and it was never going to fly.

The problem with any postmortem is this: rules were going to be broken. 73C/55U is not, by any means, fair reflection. 69-59 is pulling a rabbit out of a hat.

50-50, of course, would further infuriate the Clinton half of the party.

I have seen a lot of criticism of the decision. I have not seen a better solution offered.

by Neef 2008-06-01 04:46AM | 0 recs
My understanding is that the 4 delegates.

were a reflection of 30,000 write in votes for Obama, which recognized that the election was clearly tainted.  This represented a good faith effort to approximate that support.

Obama did not clearly have more supporters on the panel, there was simply enough support to (by one vote) halve MI's delegation.  In fact, there were more declared HRC supporters on the RBC than Obama.

by Pragmatic Left 2008-06-01 04:48AM | 0 recs
Re: My understanding is that the 4 delegates.

Exactly. How many more advantages can she get? The media treated her as viable when she had no chance to take the pledged delegate lead. The party bestowed her with 100+ more superdelegates than anyone else. She had an advantageous calendar that her supporters help construct. She had Bill Clinton, Ed Rendell, and so many other big names in her corner from the jump. She had big fundraising AND a $109-million personal fortune to draw from. She weas allowed to REPEATEDLY ENDORSE JOHN MCCAIN over Barack Obama with no rebuke.

Aside from personally giving her the nomination during a coronation ceremony, the world couldn't have bent over backwards more for her. She blew it anyway.

by Reeves 2008-06-01 04:53AM | 0 recs
Re: My understanding is that the 4 delegates.

he weas allowed to REPEATEDLY ENDORSE JOHN MCCAIN over Barack Obama with no rebuke

really?  REPEATEDLY ENDORSE in caps lock?

I believe she made ONE statement about the CIC threshhold, no?  In whose world does this translate into "REPEATEDLY ENDORSE"?

by colebiancardi 2008-06-01 05:32AM | 0 recs
Re: My understanding is that the 4 delegates.

http://www.americablog.com/2008/03/hilla ry-again-says-three-more-times.html

Since you like caps lock, SHE REPEATEDLY ENDORSED MCCAIN. Click the above link for proof.

by Reeves 2008-06-01 05:36AM | 0 recs
Re: My understanding is that the 4 delegates.

nope, stating that comment is not an endorsement.  Did ya miss her comment, over & over again, that no one should vote for McCain?

or did that pass you by with your hatred?

move on.  She didn't endorse him and she has stated(REPEATDLY) that we should not put McCain in the WH

this isn't dailykos or huffpo.  You'll find that most people hear ignore that smear-spin

by colebiancardi 2008-06-01 05:40AM | 0 recs
Re: My understanding is that the 4 delegates.

were a reflection of 30,000 write in votes for Obama, which recognized that the election was clearly tainted.

bullshit.  Obama and others were asked by MI to submit the paperwork so that write-in's would COUNT.

they refused.  I am sorry, but it is the candidate's fault - those who took their name off the ballot to pick up brownie points in NH & Iowa and also refused to submit the paper work to have write-in's count.

the election was not "tainted" or "flawed", imo.  Hillary didn't petition to get Obama & Edwards off the ballot and she certainly didn't steal the legal paperwork for them to submit the write-in's.

Obama and Edwards did that themselves.  

by colebiancardi 2008-06-01 05:03AM | 0 recs
Re: My understanding is that the 4 delegates.

just a clarification - when I mean the election wasn't "tainted" or "flawed" - I meant that in the respect of who was on the ballot.  Those folks made their choice and they were not forced to do so.  They did it for their own political reasons, just as Hillary left her name on.

It was flawed in the respect that I do recognize that MI folks didn't come out and vote or they jumped to the republican party to vote

by colebiancardi 2008-06-01 05:05AM | 0 recs
Re: My understanding is that the 4 delegates.

COUNT THE VOTES!!!  COUNT THE VOTES!!!!

yeah, right... the Clintons don't care about any votes or voters other than their own.

by LordMike 2008-06-01 05:36AM | 0 recs
Re: My understanding is that the 4 delegates.

just as Obama doesn't care about any votes or voters other than his own.

by colebiancardi 2008-06-01 05:41AM | 0 recs
Re: My understanding is that the 4 delegates.

interesting... he gave her extra delegates contests that should have been disqualified... he let her run essentially unopposed in WV and KY to give her a chance to save face...  Obama gave you guys a lot more votes than you deserve, and he always congratulated her when she won them.

by LordMike 2008-06-01 05:51AM | 0 recs
Re: My understanding is that the 4 delegates.

I am sorry, but it is the candidate's fault - those who took their name off the ballot to pick up brownie points in NH & Iowa and also refused to submit the paper work to have write-in's count.

It's not the candidates faults. The candidates were told the primary would not count. How then can you judge them as if that assurance had not been made? How can they, or their voters be penalized, as if specific guidelines hadn't been set?

"hey, this primary won't count"
"ok, taking my name off"
"HAHA, lol got you! It does count!"

And it's the candidate's fault?

by Neef 2008-06-01 05:44AM | 0 recs
Re: My understanding is that the 4 delegates.

Obama & Edwards were on the ballot - they chose to take their names off.  And MI asked them to submit the legal paperwork.

Obama & Edwards had surrogates prior to the MI primary, urging their supporters to vote "uncommitted" because they wanted those votes to go their candidate.

so, they already knew ahead of time these states would be contested.

by colebiancardi 2008-06-01 05:46AM | 0 recs
It doesn't follow

That they would just throw away votes, IF those votes were going to be counted. In fact, it's more likely that O&E wanted to keep Clinton's totals down, to avoid just the sort of perception war she fomented.

Nonetheless, by every objective measure, the contest was not supposed to count. Decisions based on that fact are invalid decisions.

by Neef 2008-06-01 06:13AM | 0 recs
The MI ELECTION should not have counted

The only source bullshit here is those pretending Hillary didn't get much more that what she was entitled to from the RBC meeting.

by Pragmatic Left 2008-06-02 05:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

For once i agree with Obama.  They should have gone with 73/55 or 50/50 split, but for some reason they went with the Levin proposal.  I wonder if it was the only proposal Levin would accept?  Oh well, its behind us now and Clinton has to know The Credentials Committee will not overturn this if she takes it to the convention.  The race will be over Tuesday most likely.

by Bobby Obama 2008-06-01 04:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

I think they preferred to satisfy the Michigan party over BO or HC. If you have to make two unhappy out of the three, it might as well be BO and HC. This makes sense to me. Remember they need the State party  to organize and do all the groung work neccessary to win in the GE.

by eddieb 2008-06-01 05:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

> For once i agree with Obama.

Huh? You mean Jerome?

by itsthemedia 2008-06-01 03:32PM | 0 recs
Kudos on a good diary

The four votes puzzle me - an Obama supporter - as well.  I think I understand the logic behind it, but it raises the same 'so what?' question.

It is good to have it done.

-best

-chris

by chrisblask 2008-06-01 04:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Kudos on a good diary

Why the four votes.

by nathanp 2008-06-01 05:06AM | 0 recs
It's not 4 votes

It's 59.

The Clintons were offering 73 Clinton, 55 Uncommitted, and 0 Obama.

"Uncommitted" is treated as an actual Presidential candidate, with pledged delegates. Obama can campaign for them, just like he can campaign for Clinton pledged delegates. Clinton can also campaign for them.

by Neef 2008-06-01 05:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Dems are blowing it yet again because they're not thinking critically, as usual:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun /01/barackobama.uselections2008

by Juno 2008-06-01 05:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

What's the exchange rate on Clinton talking points?

Lessee here....

Referencing how Clinton is "winning" since March 4, an arbitrary, pulled-out-the-ass talking point date? Check.

Barely sourced article with quotes from ONE "analyst"? Check.

Plenty of "some say"-type innuendo? Check.

Ignoring Gallup data showing Clinton constituencies eroding? Check.

Which one of you MyDD peeps wrote this anyway?

by Reeves 2008-06-01 05:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

You trivialize it at your peril...and the country's.

Your post proves it's all about Obama hatred of Clinton, not about Democrats beating McCain.

That is going to sink Dems in November.

by Juno 2008-06-01 05:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Hatred of Clinton? Please. I would hate someone who tried to harm my child. Hillary is a once-respectable politician who has become a mild annoyance.

Anyway, my point stands. That article is a typical MyDD rant with spell-checking. Same points have been made and debunked here 30,000 times over. Meanwhile, empirical data (like Gallup's exposure of her eroding constituencies and the superdelegates continuously moving toward Obama now moreso than ever) contradicts the core assertions.

by Reeves 2008-06-01 05:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Spare me.

Reading left-wing, Obama supporting blogs is like listening to Republicans throughout the 1990s.

by Juno 2008-06-01 05:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Those facts debunking the article are a bitch, huh?

by Reeves 2008-06-01 05:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

'cause you say so.

More Bushism: creating reality.

I don't think Obama can win.  His naivete, which has shown up a lot, is going to do him in.

by Juno 2008-06-01 05:49AM | 0 recs
"Naivete" was enough

To fight a Clinton to a standstill.

McBush won't fare nearly so well.

by Neef 2008-06-01 06:17AM | 0 recs
Re: "Naivete" was enough

Hogwash.

1) Obama had the media. He won't in the General;

2) He hasn't beaten Clinton on anything resembling what will be needed in the General. Quite the contrary, in fact.  He beat her by bullshitting people, esp. young people, who are idealists, with his vapid hope/change/inspiration meaningless tripe that substituted for substance.

That in fact is a bad omen for the General.  

by Juno 2008-06-01 07:12AM | 0 recs
Re: "Naivete" was enough

1) He will always have the media. He understands what makes them tick. The media loves a narrative, the large crowds and eloquent speeches play right into that. He's photogenic, with a good voice. Attractive wife and two cute kids. The Media is falling over themselves to witness another "Camelot".

2) This is the year for a "Change" candidate. That's the point of the message. It's not supposed to be pithy, it's supposed to push the "Tired of Bush" button. It's not the year for a "Same" candidate, and McCain is hopelessly entangled with Bush.

I doubt McCain is underestimating Obama as much as you do. I really do doubt it.

by Neef 2008-06-02 09:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Their campaign has been nothing but spin and whining since the end of February.  They've had nothing else.

by LordMike 2008-06-01 05:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Obama-inspired unity/change/hope huh?

I guess it's different when Obama and his supporers whine about treatment he's getting, huh?

Obamans win like Bushies too!  Very ugly, classless, and graceless.

So much for unity.  Obama's message is clearly either fraudulent or a failure.

by Juno 2008-06-01 05:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Jerome you left out one small but important factor. The fact that now you will have to accept the reality Hillary's lost the primary (Unless like Bobby Kennedy, Obama is assassinated). You could have spoken about how it is now important for all of us to set aside our anger and let our disagreements go! You knew and never acknowledged this entire battle was an exercise in futility! There was and is no chance Hillary was going to be able to win this battle. She was never going to get the vast amount of super Delegates to over rule the elected delegates. So making such a ado over nothing and inciting her base had no real value other than created more and more anger among that base that now we will now have to overcome. So what was the point. Do you, deep down in your heart  really want Obama to loose the GE? I have the feeling that is you agenda because it will justify everything you have said and done so far. I hope you make a liar out of me, I really do. I look forward to hearing you take the lead in calling of the wolves!

by eddieb 2008-06-01 05:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

really, was it really important for you to add that zing in about Bobby Kennedy?

seriously.

by colebiancardi 2008-06-01 05:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Bobby Kennedy

I'm sorry I thought it was HRC who put that little zinger out there. Am I wrong? Should I make the same "I didn't mean what I said" denial. But you are correct I should apologise " I'm sorry if I offended any of the Kennedy's"

by eddieb 2008-06-01 06:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Bobby Kennedy

no, she never mentioned Obama and she never wanted her comment to be used for the purposes you are using it for.

most Obama supporters here get that.  Sorry you don't.

by colebiancardi 2008-06-01 06:12AM | 0 recs
The Outcome Was Politicized

because one candidate chose to use Michigan and Florida as political footballs, completely contradicting the her own previous statements and the rules she agreed to and many of her staff actually developed.

If she hadn't attempted to change the rules in her own favor in the first place there would have been only the rules, but she chose to try to game the system--and lost.

by steampunkx 2008-06-01 05:21AM | 0 recs
Re: The Outcome Was Politicized

there is a bigger picture here.  I would have wanted MI & FL to count even if Obama or Edwards had won those states and they were fighting for them.

MI & FL are two huge swing states.  We need them.  I know that there is this "new" electoral map, but until that map is proven historically, I think it is sheer arrogance to ignore the historical maps.

We can fight for a new map, but don't ignore the other states that have been purple states in the past and have gone blue in the past

by colebiancardi 2008-06-01 05:24AM | 0 recs
Re: The Outcome Was Politicized

Who's ignoring them? If you hadn't noticed, there has been much energy, time, and expense expended to try and cater to these two states and their delegations despite them crapping on the DNC calendar.

by Reeves 2008-06-01 05:27AM | 0 recs
Re: The Outcome Was Politicized

That was the Bush argument in 2000 too: unbending rules are more important than the will of the voters.

by Juno 2008-06-01 05:30AM | 0 recs
Re: The Outcome Was Politicized

only because Hillary, rightly, made the effort to get them seated.

crapping on the DNC calendar?  If you watched the meeting yesterday, you would also note that NH also crapped on the DNC calendar & was not punished.  FL had the little issue of getting a paper trail attached to their voting procedures and the dems tried to change the date, but they were denied.

so, I think it is a little bit more complicated than just "crapping" on the DNC calendar.

by colebiancardi 2008-06-01 05:30AM | 0 recs
Re: The Outcome Was Politicized

Sorry, Charlie. NH got a waiver, hence that canard having no validity.

The FL legislature, Dem and Republican, went right along with the date change with no objections.

And the funny thing is, after all of the noise, they will be seated in full anyway once the convention happens.

They just lost the chance to be difference makers.

by Reeves 2008-06-01 05:34AM | 0 recs
Re: The Outcome Was Politicized

sorry, but because NH got that waiver, AFTER they had all voted and agreed that NH would be THIRD, that is why MI got pissed off.

I don't blame them

by colebiancardi 2008-06-01 05:42AM | 0 recs
Re: The Outcome Was Politicized

And do you think Hillary would have expended an ounce of effort or spend a second of screen time arguing that they should be seated if she had lost those states?

by nathanp 2008-06-01 05:34AM | 0 recs
Re: The Outcome Was Politicized

Do you think Obama would have fought a re-vote if he'd won?

by Juno 2008-06-01 05:40AM | 0 recs
Re: The Outcome Was Politicized

Obamans, like Bush, want to disenfranchise voters in order to win.

Spreading democracy.

by Juno 2008-06-01 05:36AM | 0 recs
Re: The Outcome Was Politicized

Yes, by giving Hillary votes from an illegitimate election in MI and agreeing to Florida's similarly illegitimate results as is (with 1/2 votes for the delegates), Obama clearly is out to disenfranchise voters.

by Reeves 2008-06-01 05:40AM | 0 recs
Re: The Outcome Was Politicized

missing the point.

sigh

by colebiancardi 2008-06-01 05:42AM | 0 recs
Re: The Outcome Was Politicized

I know, I know. I can't make it any clearer to you, tho...

by Reeves 2008-06-01 05:44AM | 0 recs
Re: The Outcome Was Politicized

Right, like I said, like Bush in '00.

Same arguments.

by Juno 2008-06-01 05:44AM | 0 recs
Re: The Outcome Was Politicized

Yup. Bush and Obama--exactly the same.

And the world has the nerve to call America "dumb"!

by Rationalisto 2008-06-01 06:04AM | 0 recs
I think the political capital

should have been spent calming MI & FL down, rather than getting them frothing at the mouth. It should never have been allowed to deteriorate into public outrage.

I am one that thinks the states were simply used as pawns in a gambit.

by Neef 2008-06-01 06:21AM | 0 recs
Dean falls into RBC trap on "This Week"
On ABC "This Week" Dean just said that RBC did great job by ACCEPTING MI proposal, regardless of legitimacy of it.
So MI said stupid thing, RBC accepted it, Dean blessed it and you think it is end of it?
The answer is absolutely not, all you doing is a committing a crime against voters and it will be consequences for it
by engels 2008-06-01 05:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Dean on "This Week"

Holding a primary that - in Hillary's words - everyone knows isn't going to count, then saying it counts after the fact? Not a crime.

Ignoring the rules (50/50 would work) and crafting a compromise that benefits the losing candidate? That's a crime.

Actually, you're right...it's a crime against Obama, but he's nice enough to accept it and move on.

by Reeves 2008-06-01 05:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Dean falls into RBC trap on "This

Well, voter suppression... which is what the Clinton camp was authorizing here... telling people that the election was meaningless.. don't go to the polls... and then afterwards saying, "Sorry suckers! We fooled you! It counts!"  especially one where Obama wasn't on the ballot, so the voters had no real choice...  and then the 30,000 Obama write-ins that the Clinton camp dismissed... as well as all the caucus votes in the midwest.

It seems that in Clinton world.. all votes are equal.. only some votes are more equal than others.

by LordMike 2008-06-01 05:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Dean falls into RBC trap

States each decide how to run their elections, seat delegates, etc.  There are lots of stupid rules and inconsistencies across the country, as Jerome has correctly pointed out.  Unless each of those is addressed (next election) you can't say Michigan ought to be subjected to some sort of logic the others aren't.

The facts are clear, many voters stayed home because their candidate wasn't on the ballot.  I believe Obama would've won Michigan.  We'll never know.  But if he'd have won and he gave Michigan to Clinton to attempt to bring some peace, Clinton supporters ought to be satisfied.

Dean's failure was back when he didn't provide the leadership to steer the DNC to set the penalty to 50% of the delegates back when they could've done so, avoiding this mess entirely.  That would've allowed both candidates to run campaigns there and the elections would've had much more legitimacy.  As it stands, Clinton just got a lot of delegates from states she agreed didn't count before this all started.  Frankly, if you're the Clinton campaign, you ought to take your ball and go home now before you make yourself look even more hypocritical.  Obama already gave your something you didn't earn.

by SpanishFly 2008-06-01 06:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Dean falls into RBC

Yes, actually, I do think this will be the end of it.  Most of the electorate doesn't give a flying crap about this stuff, but political insiders do, and Hillary is a smart person - she can't afford to alienate masses of political types, her colleagues, and the future president of the United States by continuing what 99% of rational observers see as a lost cause.

If you mean that this will spur some serious soul searching and discussion regarding future primary seasons, I certainly hope you're right.  The system is definitely flawed.

by travelerkaty 2008-06-01 06:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Gore supporters not recognizing the electoral college believe he was sworn in as president in 2001.

by kitebro 2008-06-01 05:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

I think this diary misses the entire post.  This decision was Clinton V. Michigan not Clinton V. Obama.

All the RBC did was accept the MI request, nothing more nothing less.  

by nextgen 2008-06-01 05:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

I meant to say misses the entire point not post.

Sorry...

by nextgen 2008-06-01 05:50AM | 0 recs
Re MI

Hillary got far more than she had any right to hope for. She snuck her name back on the ballot after everyone took theirs off. People did not show up to vote understanding the primary would not count. Many Democrats crossed over into the Republican primary to make mischief and vote for Romney (which I would have done had I still lived in Michigan). You cannot possbly call the Michigan primary legitimate under any circumctances and Debbie Dingell should be kicked off the DNC next year for her actions.

by RandyMI 2008-06-01 05:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Re MI

your first sentence is incorrect.  Please do some searches first before stating such misleading information.

by colebiancardi 2008-06-01 05:57AM | 0 recs
Jerome - You still owe

A comment on Hillary's "supporters" there acting like complete fools.  Your post was probably the best (most balanced) you've made in months but yesterday you still took your shots at Obama supporters while completely ignoring the obvious.

An apology is due.

by SpanishFly 2008-06-01 05:53AM | 0 recs
Also

You can now take those ridiculous Delegate Counters off the front page.

by SpanishFly 2008-06-01 05:56AM | 0 recs
Zero. That's what had a basis in the rules.

It wasn't a real contest. It was a Soviet-style contest. A banana-republic contest. Clinton got a gift by getting ANY delegates.

by heresjohnny 2008-06-01 05:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Zero. That's what had a basis in the rules.

only because Obama & Edwards made it such.

Obama was on the ballot before he removed his name when he realized he was going to lose by 20 points.

by colebiancardi 2008-06-01 06:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Zero. That's what had a basis in the rules.

That doesn't make any sense and has no basis in logic or fact. As you can probably tell Obama camp knows it was a delegate race so all delegates mattered. With proportional allocation even losses bring you closer. Al Gore did the exact same thing in 2000 for the exact same reason.

BTW: John McCain voted to filibuster the minimum wage. John McCain doesn't support the troops. John McCain agrees with Bush's Iraq strategy. John McCain wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. John McCain supports NAFTA. John McCain is a puppet for the lobbyists. John McCain is fine letting our troops rot in Iraq for 100 years.

by heresjohnny 2008-06-01 06:23AM | 0 recs
Then why didn't he

Remove his name from:

Kentucky
West Virginia
California
etc?

It's just coincidence that the ballot he removed his name from is the state where the primary was invalid?

by Neef 2008-06-01 06:25AM | 0 recs
Obama got some of what would have been

Edwards' delegates and then they also gave him some of Clintons' actual delegates?  Considering how the Obama side has it nearly wrapped it anyway for the nom, why are they still acting petty and spiteful?  This badly damages the notion of unity, as Ickes said.

Also?  That teacher is right.  In 40 years, the Dem Party bosses have given us two presidents, only one of which was even able to get reelected to a second term.  I guess it'll be two in 44 years until we get our next shot at the WH.

by Montague 2008-06-01 06:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama got some of what would have been

The Obama campaign could have split MI 50-50 if they'd wanted to. Considering the vast number of irregularities in this election (voters told it wouldn't count, only one major candidate on ballot, DNC having ruled it a non-primary), really counting anything at all is absurd.

Obama just gifted Clinton delegates. I'm sorry if you think he wasn't generous enough.

by really not a troll 2008-06-01 06:16AM | 0 recs
Gee, since they are neck and neck

in popular vote, I find this so-called geneorosity SOOOOO kindly.

As the teacher said in the video, the Democratic Party bosses have given her TWO presidents in FORTY years.  They've shown their incompetence over and over.  Here they go again.

http://firedoglake.com/2008/05/31/clinto n-supporter-shows-bruises-she-received-b eing-ejected-from-meeting/

by Montague 2008-06-01 06:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Gee, since they are neck and neck

These would be the bosses that gave Clinton a 100 superdelegate lead before voting started?

by really not a troll 2008-06-01 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama got some of what would have been

I'm sure that Obama unity and inspiration and hope and change and ending of divisiveness and negative politics will commence as soon as Obama is officially nominated.

Okay, well, as soon as he beats McCain.

Okay, well, as soon as Republicans stop attacking him while he's president.

Seems his message has fallen on deaf ears. Republicans were also petty and spiteful winners in '00 and '04.

So much for change.  The only people, in fact, who've shown any grace have been the losers: Gore, Kerry and Clinton.

by Juno 2008-06-01 06:17AM | 0 recs
The worst outcome...

would've been to not seat the delegates at all.  As a Michigan voter I'm glad that this is behind us.

by djtyg 2008-06-01 06:14AM | 0 recs
is the conflict "behind us"?

I strongly suspect that Clinton supporters will be nurturing a grudge and encouraging MI and FL voters to feel cheated for awhile?

Has Clinton made a clear statement that she feels the outcome is fair and reasonable and she expects her supporters to embrace it?

by Carl Nyberg 2008-06-01 07:49AM | 0 recs
I agree with Jerome for once

about the 69-59 versus 73-55 split. In the big picture the extra 4 net delegates Obama has gained from this switch are immaterial, and by taking away a few delegates from Clinton it gave Ickes something to froth about and a perceived "injustice" which can be used to threaten an appeal. Of course the Clinton camp would in any case have whined that poor Mr. Uncommitted has been deprived of his votes, but I don't think that argument was ever really going  anywhere. If I were Obama I would certainly have preferred to cede those extra delegates to Clinton just to shut her campaign up. But I'm not sure if he had much of a say in this - my impression is that the party wanted to punish Michigan and did not want to grant legitimacy to their flawed primary, but this way they've just created something of a fudge which as Jerome says is very hard to justify by any principles. Ultimately though the numbers involved are so small that I can't see this being taken to the convention. Obama will end up with way more than a 4-delegate lead, so this is going to be no more than a footnote to history.

by al1 2008-06-01 06:15AM | 0 recs
Re: I agree with Jerome for once

The analysis of Jerome is way off.  

It ignores the fact that all the RBC did was accept the request of both the FL and MI democratic parties.  

Second, if Clinton chooses to fight the question which will be asked (as it already has this morning) are you really going to go to the convention over 2 votes. (4 delegates x .5= 2 Votes)

by nextgen 2008-06-01 06:21AM | 0 recs
Your post is right,

but your math's off. 73-55 vs 69-59 is an 8-vote swing. One candidate gains four, the other loses four. 8 / 2 = 4

by nathanp 2008-06-01 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Your post is right,

they're 1/2 delegates now, though, that's why I said 4.

by al1 2008-06-01 07:45AM | 0 recs
It's not just 4 delegates

He would have gotten zero under the Clinton plan.

The rest would have gone to Uncommitted, which is treated exactly like a candidate. He could campaign for their support, but so could Clinton.

by Neef 2008-06-01 06:30AM | 0 recs
Re: the extra 4 votes-- a respectful explanation

It seems pretty simple to me, Jerome. And it seems rooted in a respect for the core wishes that Hillary has been fighting for regarding counting votes.

30,000 people came to the polls January 15th and cast their vote for someone other than Clinton by writing in a candidate's name. When you adjust the totals, she no longer claims the same win %, and is therefore not alloted the same number of delegates.

Although my personal view is that this primary should not have been considered a fair guide for determining delegate allocations at all, if one camp is going to argue that counting all votes is more important than following rules, then the committee needs to count all the votes- including those 30,000.

by glopster 2008-06-01 06:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Lets bring this circus to other countries after we bomb the crap out of them and then occupy them.

Insane.

by gotalife 2008-06-01 06:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

This is something that is not worth arguing about at this stage.  It is time to move on.

by strings 2008-06-01 06:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

How stupid, you give Hillary 69, when she won 73?  W.T.F?????

by nzubechukwu 2008-06-01 06:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

i agree that the outcome is less then acceptable. Not one delegate should have been awarded. The only way I would accepted the outcome (although flaws still existing) would have been through a revote.

also, has anyone looked at what the results would have looked at without the caucus system in place? Seems to me that Hillary could have run away with the primary without the popular vote.

by alex100 2008-06-01 07:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

There is no way to know but while the margins would have been narrowed in %-age there is no doubt Obama would have still won most of those caucus states anyway - and would have netter more raw votes which means he probably would have a much neater popular vote lead.

by Benjaminomeara 2008-06-01 07:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome
Btw those 30 000 MI write-ins completely undermine that Popular vote count talking point.
It shows how unreliable the RCP count is.
by Benjaminomeara 2008-06-01 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

The Obama supports were not the majority on the RBC.  The RBC simply would not and could not tow the silly Hillary line that the Michigan primary was not flawed.  The basis in the rules should have led to a 50-50 split of MI, period.  I wake up this morning shocked at what i am reading in the press and i can not understand how the Clinton supporters reacted to the RBC decisions.  

DISGUSTING:


by Avandi 2008-06-01 07:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Actually the rules committee had more Clinton committed people than Obama but even some of them saw the fairness of a compromise.

by DemoDan 2008-06-01 07:14AM | 0 recs
In an mostly uncontested primary

She received 55% of the vote.  

She got a pretty good deal.  Personally, I appreciate the Obama campaign's 50/50 split proposal.  

Or, I would also have supported a 73 delegate award for Clinton.  

Even if they seated everything for Clinton and nothing for Obama, it still wouldn't have changed the face of the election.  

It would only have given the campaign the opportunity to confuse some voters about the possibility of success.  

by ottto 2008-06-01 07:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Well, I can't say that I'm surprised that people are expressing OUTRAGE over the decision - I was pretty sure that that would be the case entering Saturday's meeting, anyway.  As many have said, and which some keep ignoring, is that the R&B Committee was asked to retroactively validate two invalid elections.  That's an unprecedented situation.  Did they handle it as well as they could have?  Possibly not, but then they haven't handled it optimally since this dispute began.  Neither candidate is entitled to any delegates from those contests, in my opinion, and so the fact that Clinton received the lion's share of delegates yesterday, and succeeded in moving the delegate bar for victory, are wins for her.  To now complain about uncommitted delegates, or about four delegates "taken away" from her (neither candidate was entitled to them, so there was nothing to take away) is just sour grapes.

The Committee approved Michigan's plan, which was cobbled together by Clinton and Obama supporters.  Clinton supporters on the Committee approved the plan.  It is what it is.

by rfahey22 2008-06-01 07:35AM | 0 recs
Jerome, I'm sorry but

you have little, if any credibility, as a judge of matters in this issue.

You have shown yourself to be a dedicated partisan, bordering on a hack.

It's appropriate to have a thread to discuss this. Unlike some of your other recent threads it's actually important enough to justify being on the front page.

But your opinion? Your judgment? Sorry, I just don't care. It's just pro-Clinton spin from a blogger who has the audacity to hold himself out as being "objective".

by Carl Nyberg 2008-06-01 07:42AM | 0 recs
Complaining and sowing rancor

is all that left for Hillary.

I had hoped she would put party above self, but I didn't expect it.

by Freespeechzone 2008-06-01 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Complaining and sowing rancor

Competing in a primary that is still going on is dividing the party, but mocking millions of voters and a candidate, even when it looks like your guy has got the nomination, isn't.

You Obamans are pieces of work.

Try winning graciously.

For that matter, try listening to Barack Obama.

by Juno 2008-06-01 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Complaining and sowing rancor

Straight from McCain's mouthpiece who loves nothing better than to help Hillary sow division.

But when the remaining primaries are over, and the supers have put Obama over the (new) top, what will be Hillary's excuse to carry on with her selfish and quixotic death march?

by Freespeechzone 2008-06-01 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Complaining and sowing rancor

Lol.

The Obama hubris is breathtaking.  

You can spit out all the venality you wish about Clinton and her supporters, and it's not divisive. I simply point it out, and I'm a mouthpiece for McCain  (more party division, btw, accusing fellow Democrats of being like McCain).

And again, totally classless, graceless, REpub-like winning ethos.

At any rate, all you do is make it harder for us to come over to Obama, and I'm a staunch anti-Republican.  I'm having a hard time because of Obama supporters like you (telling me to shut up. Good grief).

Imagine how easy it'll be for Independents to forget it.

YOu do your cause no favors.

by Juno 2008-06-01 08:50AM | 0 recs
You revealed yourself

when you said it was unfair to criticize McCain's crazy preachers.

I do the Democratic cause every favor by exposing you at every opportunity.

by Freespeechzone 2008-06-01 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Any vote that gave any credence to a sham, invalid election would have been an equally bad precedent.

By not removing her name from the ballot, saying it didn't matter, then flip-flopping and saying it did matter, Clinton is the one who created a situation in which there could be no good solution or precedent.

by KyleJRM 2008-06-01 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Obama seems to think it matters.  If he thought it mattered, why did he take his name off the ballot?

by Juno 2008-06-01 08:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Umm, that's sort of bizarro world thinking at it's best.  I honestly don't have the slightest idea how you could write that and think you were making a coherent point.

Election matters = no name on ballot in your world?

You just made logic cry.

by KyleJRM 2008-06-01 08:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

To add to my point, if all the candidates had kept their names, it would have had a small amount of legitimacy (though not much, because there was still the heavily dampened turnout from people told it wouldn't matter).

But Clinton's choice to act differently, say it didn't matter, then change her mind on whether it mattered or not is what created the need for a bad solution.

If Clinton removes her name, as all the other candidates felt was right to do, then we don't get put in this situation where only bad solutions were possible.

If Clinton sticks to her word (hard thing for a politician to do, apparently), then we don't get put in this situation.

All the chances to avoid a bad situation were in Clinton's court, and she flubbed each of them.

by KyleJRM 2008-06-01 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Let me see if I can explain it, then.

First of all, she was not the only name on the ballot. Chris Dodd chose to remain on the ballot.

It was the choice of the candidates to remain on it or take their names off of it.  What they agreed to was no campaigning there, and Clinton did not campaign.

SEcond, the issue here was who thinks Michigan matters.  If Obama thought Michigan mattered,why did he choose to take his name off the ballot?

So he didn't.

But now he clearly does think it matters since he sent a coalition of supporters up to argue his case to get delegates.  

Clinton clearly always felt Michigan mattered.  It's Obama who's changed his mind here and now wants to play in MI.

by Juno 2008-06-01 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

That's not the question. That's a false question.

The question is "whether Michigan's primary election, which was declared to not count and had only a small percentage of the candidates on the ballot, matters."

Not "Whether the voters of the state of Michigan count."

by KyleJRM 2008-06-01 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

But second, the 'solution' for Michigan was the worst possible outcome of the three choices the RBC had to choose from in settling the matter. It's true, that the Obama supporters had more votes on the RBC, and that dictated the outcome.

Only problem here with Armstrong's statement is that the article linked to support the "Obama supporters" statement in fact contains no such assertion.

by joeldanwalls 2008-06-01 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

To address the claim that "the Obama supporters had more votes on the RBC", Clinton had 12 supporters on the RBC, and Obama had 9.

In reality, the RBC was dominated by people (29) who voted for the penalty that stripped all delegates from Michigan for breaking the rules. That fact dictated the outcome, which is that while they might give delegates out to make the state's voters feel included, they certainly weren't going to distribute those delegates in a way that could overturn the results of the votes of the states that followed the rules.

by laird 2008-06-01 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Grammar, Jerome.  Go back to fifth grade and study your English grammar text.  It's not "they could have went .... "; it's "they could have GONE ...."  Jeez. How can one respect a blogger who can't use the language properly?

by Faithful Correspondent 2008-06-01 08:04AM | 0 recs
The delegate allocation came from the

State of Michigan (it's what they asked for) and the RBC granted it.

Moreover, in order for votes to be taken from Hillary, they would have had to sanctioned in the first place. They were never legally sanctioned. No votes were "stolen" and to claim that they were . . .

It is sad to see how far Jerome and others on here have gone in blind loyalty to a candidate. I honestly don't understand it. What, as a human being, do you have to gain by doing this?

The real story of this race is how so many Clinton supporters simply blindly accepted, without any critical judgment or reflection, her completely irrational, flawed, and disturbing claims. It scares me that this is what has happened to the Democratic Party (and the race baiting is part of this). I fear that we have become a nation that is thoroughly prepared to be ruled by an authoritarian figure. If the figure says it, it must be true. This, Jerome, is why people on this thread are calling you a hack. You're just parroting whatever you've gotten from Clinton and you've actually internalized her outright lies and distortions. Clinton is aware that she's lying and distorting. You see, there is no such thing as "truth" (and, technically, she's right on that score), so it's not really lying. What frightens me is that her supporters are not nearly as smart as she is. They don't seem to know what is going on . . .

by DrPolitics 2008-06-01 08:07AM | 0 recs
President Barack Obama...

That is something I don't mind reflecting on.  The RBC meeting was a bit of political theatre, as indicated by the lack of actual debate after their extended lunch.

The 100% for Florida solution was thrown out there by Clinton's 12 supporters (who were the only ones who voted aye on it) simply to show that they were being loyal.  The comments on the 50% solution indicated that they realised that rules were in fact rules, and that they needed to abide by them.

The Michigan solution was a bit more sticky, as there's no end to arguments here...personally, I would have been fine with a 73-55 split, as it was only 4 delegates (divided by two)...though I don't think that would have made Clinton's more ardent supporters happy.

President Barack Obama.  I have a lot of hope that he'll be as good as he promises.  I think he'll return us to being a voice in international diplomacy and not just a strong-arm superpower cop.  

by darthstar 2008-06-01 08:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

The only resolution that was based purely on the rules was the resolution that the RBC (dominated by Clinton's people, and following the rules written by Clinton's people) voted to impose last year, with Michigan and Florida losing all of their delegates because they refused to follow the rules. This punishment has happened many times before (e.g. 1996, 2000, 2008).

This means that none of the candidates earned any delegates in Florida and Michigan. Any delegates that they might be given by the RBC would be unearned gifts.

What happened yesterday is that the RBC was talked into ignoring their own vote from a few months ago and giving some "relief" to the two states, and awarding some delegates to the candidates in the interests of "party unity". But they made clear in advance that they weren't going to allow their complaints to overturn the results of the primaries in the states that followed the rules, because that would disrespect the 48 states (plus territories) that played by the rules.

Realistically the only two options that the RBC could end up with were either to not provide any "relief" (i.e. grant no delegates) or grant symbolic "relief" that didn't change the results of the elected delegate contest (which Obama has won). Yesterday's result was about as good as Clinton could hope for - her people got to make a few speeches, and yell a bit.

by laird 2008-06-01 08:21AM | 0 recs
Stop Feeding Jerome

This is getting old. Jerome makes some outrageous statement showing his bias towards Hillary. Obama supporters responds with  that he is biased. Clinton supporters say that Obama supporters are sexists and to not hurt there feelings or they will vote for McCain. Jerome responds again that he is smarter than us and we just don't get it. Rinse and repeat.

Jerome is obsessed and is similar to a Republican voter who still think the war in Iraq was a fantastic idea, but somehow the Democrats screwed it up.  We cannot change him. It was fun the first few times. But, in the end, this is getting boring.

by erlin 2008-06-01 08:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Feeding Jerome

"It was fun the first few times. But, in the end, this is getting boring."

It's fun every time.  There is always a moment where denail will no longer cut it, where cognitive dissonance will no longer allow you to trick yourself about the way the world really is and how you were wrong.

The struggle to avoid that moment, and the moment when it actually hits, are great entertainment.

by KyleJRM 2008-06-01 08:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Feeding Jerome

Show me one post of someone accusing Obama supporters of being sexist.

There have been far more accusations of racism and race baiting directed directly at the Clintons.

I will say this about you Obma supporters, you are in contention with Republicans for being the worst at winning.  You are behaving exactly as Republicans did in 2000, only you're directing your poor winning at fellow Democrats.

You also don't represent Obama well.

by Juno 2008-06-01 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Feeding Jerome

Juno, your problem is that you are using Obama supporters on this blog to influence how you feel about Obama.  Don't do that.  Go to the man himself. He has conducted himself well.  

The same can be said of anyone using Clinton loyal supporters to construct their opinion of Clinton.  She is not her supporters.  She is her own woman, and is a loyal Democrat.  Unlike many of you who won't accept reality, Clinton will.  ANd she will do everything she can to get Obama elected.  As much as many of you want an "I told you so" moment, where Obama loses to McSame, Clinton doesn't want that.  She wants a Dem in the W.H.  Her and Bill's campaigning will be of big help to Obama.  She is a true Dem.  Are you?  Or would you prefer that "I told you so" moment?

by citizensane 2008-06-01 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Stop Feeding Jerome

Sorry, but Obama is running on inspiration and change.

Who's he supposedly inspiring and changing?

I've been on a lot of blogs, and Obama supporters are vicious, which indicates to me that Obama can't even inspire his own supporters to change the tone and unite.

It's BS.

And I have paid attention to the man as well, and I'm not impressed.  

I supported Edwards until I listened, not watched, to a debate.  Clinton was clearly and by far the strongest of the candidates on substance.  Obama is easily rattled.  He has good instincts and is smart, but his campaign meme is BS.  I also think he's incredibly smug and arrogant, even narcissistic, and I've had enough of that.

But if you look at a candidate who is professing to be able to influence people to change, I don't see it.  I've only seen his supporters change to sound more like Republicans did in the 1990s toward Clinton and toward her supporters.

To me that says Obama is ineffective.

by Juno 2008-06-01 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

As usual, Al Giordano at The Field says it best:

Essentially, all that the DNC's Rules & Bylaws committee did yesterday was ratify the consensus proposals from the two state Democratic Party organizations, and then ratify their own mission - with an eye on being able to set the 2012 and future primary schedules - by halving the votes of each state. The Sunday morning quarterbacks that say "well, they should have done it my way instead" seem oblivious to the larger consideration: these were the grassroots solutions proposed from the bottom-up by the parties in each state. To do anything else would have been a "top down" imposition, compounding, in lieu of solving, the problems.

Florida was the easy call because its beauty contest at least had each of the candidates on the ballot; Michigan, the rub, because it did not. Those who opine that the Obama campaign should have been still more generous by offering 36.5 Michigan delegates to Senator Clinton instead of 34.5 (a difference of two delegate votes) overlap considerably with those that have pushed the bogus "popular vote math" arguments. They need to look in the mirror and see that they are the ones that made that particular nuance necessary. Their obsessive suggestions that a fixed contest in which Obama wasn't on the ballot should be counted toward some kind of uber-national "popular vote" metric were precisely the simulations that made it mandatory for the committee to do something concrete that expressly did not ratify the bogus results of what Senator Carl Levin and the other Michigan leaders acknowledged was "a flawed primary." Had the committee based its conclusion entirely on that January 15 beauty contest, those same people would be out there with all-new "popular vote" claims that defy common sense and democracy itself. What happened yesterday is that those claims now have no leg to stand on: the bogus results have now rightfully been put in their own dunce-cap corner, away from the rest. Some will still try to include them in with the grand total, but few are going to consider their claims legitimate.

by tysonpublic 2008-06-01 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Most popular ever.

"Hillary Clinton has gotten 17,652,848 votes, compared to Barack Obama's 17,600,517. Which means she has become the most popular vote-getter ever in the Democratic Party process. Today's win in Puerto Rico is expected to add at least 100,000 more votes to the total."

She wins in a real democracy.

"Obama's unfavorable rating at 53%:

53% of voters have an unfavorable view of
Obama, while 45% like him."

D'oh!

by gotalife 2008-06-01 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

You'll notice Obamans have gone silent on the popular vote thing in recent weeks.

I don't think Obama can win in November.

by Juno 2008-06-01 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

I'm sorry your candidate didn't get the nomination.  I was for her originally, but have since changed my loyalty.  However, to think that anyone who believes in Democratic principles, in particular females, will move to John McSame-- the man who agrees with: tax cuts for the rich, overruling Roe vs. Wade, union busting, is not thinking clearly at the moment.

I understand deep seated emotions.  It is hard to get over them.  But there are 4+ months left to get over the emotional loss of Clinton's campaign and come to grips with what a vote for McSame means.  Pres. McSame?  I don't think so.  It might be hard for you to say "Pres. Obama" right now, but it will be much more desireable than the former.  Also, when Clinton puts her muscle behind getting Obama elected as President, she'll end up convincing you and other loyal followers that for the sake of the country, President Obama will be a reality!

by citizensane 2008-06-01 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Who said anything about females voting for McCain?

Now you're saying Clinton will get behind Obama. Well, your fellow Obamans are still posting that she endorsed McCain over Obama.

It's not about my candidate winning or losing.  I started out just wanting a Democrat to win.

I am so turned off of Obama by his supporters. I was never thrilled with him; he was always my last choice, but really for pretty neutral reasons.  I don't think he's ready to be president. And what has gone on in this primary makes me very nervous.

I don't think he can win the November election, and women have nothing to do with it.

by Juno 2008-06-01 09:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

For my part, it's because I'm tired of making the same argument over and over.

There is no popular vote total, because you cannot, mathematically speaking, add the various vote totals we have.  You cannot add primaries to caucuses, closed primaries to open ones, give one candidate zero votes in one state, and throw out the unreported results in four others and expect to end with a number that has any meaning whatsoever.  You do get a number, but it has no meaning.

For the popular vote argument to work, you have to explain why Puerto Rico (zero electoral votes) should have as much influence as three or four average primary states, or ten or twelve caucus states.

by jere7my 2008-06-01 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

You can easily argue that the four extra delegates were NOT taken away from Clinton, so long as you include the write-in votes, which drops Clinton's percentage from 55.2% to AT LEAST 52.6%.

The MDP looked at several factors, and came to the conclusion that this was the best solution for THEIR VOTERS.

They have no reason to listen to a bunch of people from New York spouting faux outrage.

by RussTC3 2008-06-01 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

the only reason hilllary supporters care at all about michigan and florida is to help her.

even if they had seated both fully she still couldnt have won so i can see through this transparent and faked outrage being used as some excuse why she got screwed over here.

they were always going to be halved and that was punishment for moving up primaries. it should have been done from the start and we'd have never had a problem.

sorry but all that phony outrage from Ickes and Hillary supporters on the RBC yesterday was pretty transparent.

they reassigned the MI delegates to try and be most fair to voter intent in an election that was so incredibly flawed that the "real" totals were nearly meaningless.

it still helped her ultimately as a real election in MI obama would have won, and been much closer in FL.

in the end were arguing over 4 delegates and obama will be the nominee by a much more comfortable margin.

hillary supporters are just disappointed once again because even though they really did know that this wasnt going to change anything, they really did hope deep down that somehow this could turn things around for her.

by falseintellect 2008-06-01 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Hey Jerome, now suddenly the rules are sacrosanct?

First, the rules are important says HRC, Ikes, et al and MI and FL won't count.

Then they are not important since they would disenfranchise the voters of MI and FL and that's a travesty on the level of Zimbabwe. They are wholly undemocratic and need to be changed and hey, why not change them in the middle of the race. Its not about the rules, its about fundamental fairness.

Now, the rules are sacrosanct again. Changing the rules is wholly undemocratic and a terrible precedent! Oh the humanity of it all!

I am convinced of two things:

1. Many of HRC's most strident supporters like Jerome will never be happy, never satisfied unless HRC is the nominee. Not saying anything wrong with that...

2. No one outside of the blogosphere and DC insiders actually cares about the arcane rules of the DNC, RBC, or the Snoop D.O. double G.

You say this sets a bad precedent not following the letter of the law re: the rules, but these are the same rules that you've argued should be scrapped and redone. So by next election cycle our nomination process and the rules that govern it should be different and this will all seem like a bad dream.

by bigdaddy 2008-06-01 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Reflections on the RBC outcome

Hey Jerome, now suddenly the rules are sacrosanct?

First, the rules are important says HRC, Ikes, et al and MI and FL won't count.

Then they are not important since they would disenfranchise the voters of MI and FL and that's a travesty on the level of Zimbabwe. They are wholly undemocratic and need to be changed and hey, why not change them in the middle of the race. Its not about the rules, its about fundamental fairness.

Now, the rules are sacrosanct again. Changing the rules is wholly undemocratic and a terrible precedent! Oh the humanity of it all!

I am convinced of two things:

1. Many of HRC's most strident supporters like Jerome will never be happy, never satisfied unless HRC is the nominee. Not saying anything wrong with that...

2. No one outside of the blogosphere and DC insiders actually cares about the arcane rules of the DNC, RBC, or the Snoop D.O. double G.

You say this sets a bad precedent not following the letter of the law re: the rules, but these are the same rules that you've argued should be scrapped and redone. So by next election cycle our nomination process and the rules that govern it should be different and this will all seem like a bad dream.

by bigdaddy 2008-06-01 10:41AM | 0 recs
Stolen Edwards votes

This isn't about the 4, but about allocating the Uncommitteds. I haven't really seen this discussed from the point of view of actual voters.

At the time of the MI primary, Edwards was my first choice. Obama was, and still is, easily my last. I hadn't really thought carefully about Clinton, but I had certainly rated her higher then Obama. I don't think I'm an unusual demographic.

Had I lived in Michigan rather than Washington, I would have voted uncommitted. Now I find my vote has gone to Obama. How DARE the MI party steal my vote and give it to my last choice candidate?

If I lived in MI, I'd be spitting with fury right now and looking for someone to sue.

by UncleDavid 2008-06-01 03:27PM | 0 recs
EXACTLY....

Either it counts or it doesn't, where's the basis in the rules for this decision! And if its not rules, then what is it?

by canadian gal 2008-06-01 05:35PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads