DNC Rules & Bylaws Pre-Thread

by Todd Beeton, Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:53:57 AM EST

I may not be online when the festivities begin so here's a thread to discuss the upcoming Rules & Bylaws Committee Meeting. I believe Jerome will be there.

CNN's coverage begins at 9am EDT, CSPAN at 9:30am. I understand it will begin with a statement by Howard Dean. Then will come arguments. Per Talk Left, the Obama campaign will be represented by David Bonior and Robert Wexler. The Clinton campaign will be represented by FL State Senator Arthenia Joyner. Sen. Bill Nelson will speak on behalf of the Florida Democratic Party, Sen. Carl Levin on behalf of Michigan.

Marc Ambinder says to watch Levin:

The big unknown tomorrow is a man whose primary interest has nothing to do with the electoral success of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. Sen. Carl Levin will be speaking on behalf of Michigan; he wants the entire delegation seated and given full votes, and if he does not get his way, he will likely challenge the RBC's ruling when the credentials committee convenes unless the rules and bylaws committee promises to strip Iowa and New Hampshire of their privileged status in 2012.

What that means is that the debate about the size of Michigan's delegation will not be settled tomorrow.

Votes will then be taken in the afternoon. Majority rules.

Let this be an RBC pre-thread. What do you think is going to happen? Anyone going?




Tags: dnc, rbc, michigan, florida (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 99 Comments :: Post a Comment


1/2 vote for every delegate (none / 0)


by FLS on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:37:01 AM EST

Re: DNC Rules & Bylaws Pre-Thread (none / 0)

 I despise my Senator Bill Nelson. He was cast in the same mold as Joe Lieberman, only they left out the personality. Those 2 and the get together along with all the other 'conservative Democrats' and form a turd party. Watch him today, and then tell me if you think I'm wrong.


by xdem on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:48:35 AM EST

Re: DNC Rules & Bylaws Pre-Thread (2.00 / 2)

The important thing about the entire situation is to NOT MENTION OBAMA OR CLINTON. While the outcome may ultimately be affected by the decision of the committee (though numerically it appears that it will not be), the individual candidates are not relevant to this situation. The matter needs to be determined as a matter of precedent so that states do not break DNC rules at will in the future because there is no enforcible penalty for doing so, and so that no candidate is punished for following the rules, and so that candidates who don't will realize that they can't change the rules mid-course or undermine the process knowing thay get away with it. The DNC must impose some penalty on violating states and simultaneously not undermine candidates following the rules to have any credibility to oversee this process in the future. The precedent set is separate from the candidates and the committee should make it clear that the positions of the candidates in this matter is not relevant because they will be arguing from the passionate position of their own campaigns, not from the reasoned position of ensuring that punitive measures are enforced sufficient to give weight to the rules and authority of the DNC and to ensure that states in the future see it in their best interest to follow those rules and recognize that authority.


by Reality Bites Back on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:50:37 AM EST

The problem (none / 0)

The problem is that the DNC issued a punishment that was in essence cutting off its nose to spite its face.  Future deterrents must be more narrowly tailored to the agents capable of making these decisions: legislators & governors.  There should never be a penalty for states' legislators and governors that gives those officials the leverage of the states' entire Democrating voting base with which to play hardball.  

The punishment doesn't need to involve voting rights.  


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:11:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The punishment never did involve Voting Rights (none / 0)

another very false spin.

The punishment involves a country of laws and rules.

Michigan and Florida simply chose to have beauty contest votes instead of binding contests which fit larger rules.

By your logic, if their rule-breaking is given any legitimacy (sort of like giving legitimacy to assassination), Michigan and Florida can, without consulting any other states or the federal goverment, set their General Election for October in order to influence everyone else.

Clinton has cut her own nose, and as a result, weakened, not strengthened her thirst for power.


by Eman on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:28:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The punishment never did involve Voting Rights (2.00 / 1)

Mostly agreed. The currency in primaries is delegates - any punishment therefore has to involve a reduction in those.

I'd rather they went after superdelegates first though. A total stripping of superdelegates and a halving of pledged delegates BEFORE the primary might have worked.

Any solution that comes out of today is going to be awful though, since there haven't been real elections in either state. Any results based on an "election" citizens were told wouldn't count is obviously extremely undemocratic, not to mention the fact that candidates were barred from campaigning.

I'm all for stripping NH and IA of their special status, though. Unfortunately, the DNC is extremely unlikely to concede that point in response to these heavy-handed primary-screwing-up tactics.


The primaries are over!
Focus on McCain
by really not a troll on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:26:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, I've always said punish Supers the most (none / 0)

They (all in-state elected officials, Federal or State) were the ones (and the only ones) who had influence over this in the beginning.

They either didn't speak out at all, or in the case of Florida, made jokes out of what they were doing.

Also in the case of Florida, when a realistic re-vote solution was agreed upon (and supported by Team Obama, contrary to current spin), it was the Florida Congressional Delegation which unanimously objected to any form of sanctioned primary.  Members of that delegation should NOT be at the convention.  Period.

Interesting thing in Michigan.  Doesn't surprise me that Senator Levin is for a compromise.  His brother Sandy (MI-12) has long proposed a rotating regional primary system.  Perhaps it will get more attention once this all cools down.

But also in regard to Michigan, two current Clinton positions are so far beyond laughable that they are even beyond childish:

  1.  NO ONE in Michigan supports Senator Obama because he, like Edwards and Richardson, took his name off the ballot.  He should get NO delegates.
  2.  Hillary should be given 55% of the 44% who voted "none of the above" because they obviously would have voted for her in a contested election.  HUH?

To even suggest these as adult solutions shows the desperation of her position.


by Eman on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:27:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, I've always said punish Supers the most (none / 0)

Proposition 2 is farfetched but Proposition 1, that Uncommitted delegates be seated as Uncommitted is pretty straightforward.  


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:27:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What punishment do you recommend? (none / 0)


by semiquaver on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:49:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What punishment do you recommend? (none / 0)

The prohibition against campaigning was huge.  Lots of economic boots and attention to local issues were sacrificed.  


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:24:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's a punishment? (none / 0)

So what would be the penalty for candidates be if they campaigned anyways?

Why doesn't the DNC have authority over state parties?  It sets the rules.  You're asking for nothing more than the lightest slap on the wrist.  


by semiquaver on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:23:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The problem (none / 0)

This is not about voting rights. It is about Sen Clinton forcefully 'passing the plate' for more votes. There is an obvious difference.

This is not about femisism, Zimbabwe, or the Soviet Union. The DNC MUST somehow enforce its rules or it will have no power in future primary and caucus affairs. Untenable.

Although it doesn't matter from a rules perspective, Clinton undermined her current arguments by per pledge not to participate in Florida or Michigan; and her assertions that: "florida and michigan do not count" (October); "...this is a delegate race" (Jan.); etc.


by tfitznc on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:14:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The problem (none / 0)

It seems to be a heavy PR price to pay for what could easily be accomplished by more targeted means.  


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:23:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Levin (none / 0)

Levin was a signatory to the proposed Michigan plan of 69/59 split.  Right?

I don't think he is going to be as strident as you expect.  


by aimeeinkc on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:32:56 AM EST

It's irrelevant (none / 0)

the committee can't give Clinton what she wants, so no matter what happens today, there's an excuse for her to take this to the convention.  Unless the superdelegates come together as a group to slap her down, we're screwed.


I'm only a click away
by juliewolf on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:38:11 AM EST

Re: It's irrelevant (none / 0)

It sounds like Levin will do it anyway. But if the states themselves accept the 50% hit, HRC should accept that, since the wishes of the state(s) will have been honored as they finally chose to state them, and the rule also, to keep order in the party.The one I think she really wanted was FLA anyway, and their state chair sent an email out last night that they would take the 50% hit.  If Levin is the only one going to the Credentials Committee, he will get what he deserves.

I do wish something could be done about the supers, though since so many of them got their voters into this mess, deliberately. The Fla response was hardly a good faith attempt by the supers to overturn the decision. And the party did give each state 30 days to fix it, which neither did, and did offer and offer to pay for something else in the caucus line which would also have avoided this - the demand for a primary and nothing ele was a partisan thing which was used to avoid settling until it got this far.

What I hope doesn't happen is that they use the half vote rather than the half delegate method, and then somebody other than Levin goes to Credentials to get the full votes reinstated, and does a floor fight that way.


by Christy1947 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:32:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's irrelevant (none / 0)

Pretty much everyone connected to the party has said that that will not be allowed by elders.  I don't understand this fatalism.  Why do people think they are better informed than Nancy Pelosi?  


by semiquaver on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:54:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Carl Levin is an asshole (none / 0)

He should be stripped of his credentials to the convention.  His state party cheated and has to pay the penalty.  If you break the rules, there are consequences.

This is another really good reason to give the voters half say, and to give the politicians absolutely NO say.


by monkeyga on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:42:52 AM EST

Re: Carl Levin is an asshole (none / 0)

We do that and then expect him to caucus with Democrats in the senate?


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:12:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Carl Levin is an asshole (2.00 / 1)

Is that "Carl Levin is an asshole" thing an example of the Obama Inspiration, change, hope, unity, and end of negative politics we can look forward to?


by Juno on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:43:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Carl Levin is an asshole (none / 0)

Helloooooooooooooooooo?

this was not a rhetorical question.  I want to know where all this Obama inspired inspiration and change and unity is, dammit.


by Juno on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:10:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Carl Levin is an asshole (none / 0)


Congratulations Steny Hoyer! Our 2008 Chickenshit Leader Of The Year!
by RockvilleLiberal2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:19:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Carl Levin is an asshole (none / 0)

::invisible 2::


The primaries are over!
Focus on McCain
by really not a troll on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:27:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Carl Levin is an asshole (none / 0)

Juno-
Once again, you decide to bate and incite rather than move on and make a positive argument.  You ignore the positive message of hundreds of pro-Obama comments and focus on one comment from Monkeyga, thereby playing into the divisiveness game.  
Yet you cover up your vitriol by pretending to call out the hypocrisy of the Obama campaign.  Please, don't equate the posters on this blog with Obama and his beliefs or his message.  This is an anonymous blog!

This is also quite ironic given how you quickly slip into comparing Obama to Bush and call him out for arrogance.  Give me three examples of substantive arrogance that go beyond your general impression of the man.

Also, answer the following questions: 1. It is estimated that more people did NOT vote in MI and FL than voted because they listened to the DNC.  Hence, seating the delegates is a form of disenfranchisement.  Given this, how do you justify Clinton's comparison of the MI and FL vote to Zimbabwe?  2. How do you account for Clinton's changed position regarding the punishment of MI and FL?  

Answering those substance based questions will further the dialogue rather than simply egging on the anger of individual commenters.   Frankly, you're becoming what you so righteously denounce.


by chrispy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:50:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC Rules & Bylaws Pre-Thread (2.00 / 2)

We're about to put in yet another narcissist who talks about meaningless stuff, who may become president purely as a result of his own ego, and may do so by NOT counting votes...

AGAIN.


by Juno on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:55:39 AM EST

Gender wrong (2.00 / 1)

I think you meant to type her own ego, but not to worry, they won't let Sen. Clinton get the nod.


by monkeyga on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:58:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gender wrong (none / 0)

Agreed. It looks like Clinton has a very narrow path to victory.


by turtlescrubber on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:01:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gender wrong (2.00 / 1)

Again, just like Bushies. All they cared about was the win too, and look where that got is.

I don't care who wins. I care about what happens afterward.


by Juno on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:42:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't worry. Clinton is done after today. (none / 0)

Hell. She was done two months ago. So you can calm yourself down! I know how relieved you must be. And yes, she is everything you said in your post. I wish I could rec you.


I support our nominee President Barack Obama - and the Admins can't stand me, so I can't rec or rate. This is very mean if you were to ask me.
by TheFullBerry on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:08:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't worry. Clinton is done after today. (2.00 / 1)

I'm quit calm. You're the one using exclamation points and shrieking.

I'm simply making a note as to who wants votes to count - a la 2000 - and who doesn't - a la 2000.

Once again, we see Obamans deciding the Bush way is the right way.


by Juno on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:42:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't worry. Clinton is done after today. (none / 0)

LOL. You crack me up. One exclamation point and I'm shrieking? You guys are so not based in reality. But  when you got nothing, and you lost, (HRC and her supporters), I understand. :-) And yeah...clinton is like Bush, you go that right. Trying to steal the nomination from the rightful candidate who won. Thank you for pointing that out.


I support our nominee President Barack Obama - and the Admins can't stand me, so I can't rec or rate. This is very mean if you were to ask me.
by TheFullBerry on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:56:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't worry. Clinton is done after today. (none / 0)


Well, I figure if, with NO exclamation points you tell me to calm down, exclamation points must be outright hysteria.

Or is it more of those Obama double standards: Zero exclamation points from a Clinton supporter warrants being told to calm down while one exclamation point and multiple question marks from an Obama supporter are indicative of nothing?

Hmm....interesting.


by Juno on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:09:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't worry. Clinton is done after today. (none / 0)

Juno is not representative of Clinton supporters. Kindly to not insult the 17 million Americans who voted for Clinton, most of whom are pretty decent people.


The primaries are over!
Focus on McCain
by really not a troll on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:29:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't worry. Clinton is done after today. (none / 0)

Juno ain't so bad.
:-)
I support our nominee President Barack Obama - and the Admins can't stand me, so I can't rec or rate. This is very mean if you were to ask me.
by TheFullBerry on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:41:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't worry. Clinton is done after today. (none / 0)

Juno-
Comparing the 2000 election with today is a false analogy that is painfully ahistorical.  You can continue to spread spin or actually further the dialogue by clarifying what the parallels are.  

In 2000, the votes were not counted accurately.  
In 2008, the states violated the rules, the party stripped them of their delegates, and the votes, such as they are, were tallied.  The Democratic Primary does not hinge on these two states (unlike the 2000 election).  The amount of voters who actually listened to the DNC and did not vote may surpass the amount of people who did vote (especially in MI).  Hence, claiming that not seating the full delegations is a violation of civil rights is, at best, misinformed, and at worst, voter fraud.  If the states are not punished in someway than we set OUR party up for disaster in 2012 and beyond.  If states are not held accountable to the broader interests of the party than the primary season will be even more chaotic.  So, not only is HRC advocating for a solution which disenfranchisizes voters under the cloak of supposed civil rights (a Rovian strategy if you ask me), but she's pushing for even more primary complications in the future.  Her position not only threatens the Obama campaign but party unity and party success.  That is why so many in the leadership are frustrated (see Reid and Pelosi).  They recognize that HRC is no longer about the Democratic party, but her own presidency.  And you have the audacity to accuse Obama of arrogance?

It just doesn't jive with the facts as we know them!


by chrispy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:05:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC Rules (none / 0)

The DNC does not have any real room here and both campaigns know it

The Rules call for cutting the delegations in half and that's the best case scenario for MI and FL

MI cannot be sat based upon primary results so it will be a 50:50 split on a half vote status between HRC and BO

FL will be the same way except HRC will net a reduced delegate advantage (19 versus 38) over BO


by kmwray on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:56:02 AM EST

Re: DNC Rules (2.00 / 1)

It doesn't.  The rules give the RBC a lot of discretion to deviate from that 50/50% split.  The memo from the lawyers is pure propaganda.  See Rule 20.C.5 and 20.C.7.  


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:13:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Jerome is going to be there??????????? (none / 0)

For what?? To hook up with Larry Johnson at No Quarter who's always going to be there with all his thugs screaming "Obama is a liar, a racist, a drug addict, a scumbag...."?

All these quotes were taken from No Quarter, the cesspool of the internets. The site that rips Obama apart into shreds. That's more vicious and vile and disgusting and shamefiul than any GOP site. It's more damaging than Red State or Limbarugh's cesspool. It wants nothing more than to destroy Obama with any lie or smear it can muster up.

By the way, Alegra posts there now.  Here is her wonderful diary.
And you wonder why is is destroying this site with her GOP talking points of smear, slander and libel?
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/30/ want-unity-start-by-condemning-hate-spee ch/#more-2819

So Larry and all his thugs will be there. Screaming their vile b.s. of hate.

I hope this gets played over the teevee's for days. These screaming thugs who so resemble the thugs that the GOP sent to shut down the recount of 2000 in Florida.

Meanwhile, yet again, the Obama people and supporters take the high road and don't participate in this thuggery by registering new voters. Speaks volumes.


I support our nominee President Barack Obama - and the Admins can't stand me, so I can't rec or rate. This is very mean if you were to ask me.
by TheFullBerry on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:07:06 AM EST

Re: Jerome is going to be there??????????? (2.00 / 1)

No Quarter is no worse than Dailykos.  They just have different targets.  


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:14:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome is going to be there??????????? (none / 0)

No quarter is ten billion times worse than Daily Kos. Don't even try it. If they did to Hillary Clinton, a Democrat, what they do to Obama, I would despise and hate their republican vile shit just as much. I would condemn them just as strongly.

They are a cesspool of garbage. Larry and SusanHu (UnPC) claim obama is the following every single day:
A Muslim.
A terrorist.
He hates all white people.
He has affairs with Samantha Powers and all his female staffers.
He does coke.
He drinks.
He hates America.
He conspires with Terrorists.
He's addled and stupid. d
He deals drugs.
He will destroy America.
The list goes on and on and on and on.

And you cmpare this to Daily Kos? Are you for real?
Larry Johnson is a republican hate machine. His support for HIllary is false. Please, for the love of god, just because he claims to support HIllary, you condone his racist vile hate filled rants that claim Obama is out to destroy America? This is beyond the pale. And you claim Daily Kos says this about Hillary?????????

I would never say these things about mydd or any hillary supporting site. But that cesspool burns your eyes.

The site then advocates voting for the GOP. I would sooner burn in hell than would for McCain. I don't support HRC, but will vote and work my ass off for her if she wins, because she's a Democrat.

if you can't say the same, you are a Republican through and through.


I support our nominee President Barack Obama - and the Admins can't stand me, so I can't rec or rate. This is very mean if you were to ask me.
by TheFullBerry on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:21:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

but but but but OBAMA (none / 0)

keeps forgiving Hillary's lies.  

He keeps urging everyone else to move on every time she has done something stupid.

Don't you see?  That is how he is being sexist.  By brushing her off, by running a clean campaign, by saying its fine if she stayed in the race, by urging folks like Durbin and Pelosi to make forgiving remarks...

He has made her look worse by comparison.  He has made Hillary's lies, mis-statements, exaggerations, and over-tiredness look bad.  He didn't even bite on having a street riot outside the DNC.  Shame on you, Barack Obama.

We know Obama can attack.  Look what he is doing to poor old John McCain.  If only he had attacked Hillary like that or better yet, played dirty, then people wouldn't have seen through Hillary and Bill.

Yes, it is ALL BARACK OBAMA'S FAULT.


by Eman on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:38:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome is going to be there??????????? (2.00 / 1)

You're being very dishonest.

Clinton has been far more vilified than has Obama. Far more. And by Obama supporters, the supposed Inspired Ones who want change.

Spare me.


by Juno on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:40:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome is going to be there??????????? (none / 0)

I am not being dishonest. You are so blinded by loyalty to Clinton that you refuse to see anything else.

You guys came on here last year telling us all to shut up. That HRC was winning, was ahead in the polls, would shut down John Edwards and Barack. You told us that she was inevitable. She told us that. That after Super Tuesday, it was all over. Then Obama runs a brilliant campaign and wins.

Then she and her her minions, smear, slander, and libel and try to destroy him day after day because she lost.

The media crucified him once she started crying that everyone was picking on her. He went through hell, and came on out top.

She then had her minions call him the racist. She then whined that they all loved him. She then whined that FL and MI counted, even though she said she did not care about their votes back in November of 2007 when she said she would win.

whatever - she lost fair and square. She lost, period. She ran a horrible, miserable campaign, relying on Mark Penn and paying him millions upon millions upon millions to screw this up for her. And now you all cry sexism.  Too funny.  And very pathetic and sad. To now try to destroy him even further because she lost.


I support our nominee President Barack Obama - and the Admins can't stand me, so I can't rec or rate. This is very mean if you were to ask me.
by TheFullBerry on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:02:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome is going to be there??????????? (none / 0)

Nah.

Besides, have you heard of a "Clinton movement"?

No.

But we have heard of an "Obama movement".

And there is no doubt that the Obama movement far more resembles a cult than do Clinton's supporters.  

One difference is, Clinton supporters don't deny it when Obama is being grilled, on the one or two occasions when it's actually occured, but Obama supporers, such as yourself, outright deny the poor treatment Clinton has gotten.

That is more indicative of fanaticism.

Obama's win will be purely by band wagon momentum, not any reason.  That is very troublesome.


by Juno on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:07:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome is going to be there??????????? (none / 0)

Hopeless. It's sad that you just keep pushing that because we support a candidate, we are members of a cult. And your support for a candidate, is nothing more than support.

I would say the lunatics over at Hillary is 44, No quarter, and Taylor Marsh are the ones who need help. They call Obama filthy ugly vile names, they call him a Terrorist, A muslim, and hater who wants to destroy all whites, who hates his country, blah blah blah. Meanwhile, they say that HIllary is the one, the savior, a godness.

A recc's diary on here yesterday by Linfar, praised by most HRC supporters, said "I am Hillary, HIllary is me."

That says it all.
Talk about david karesh like adoration. It's scary, and is the reason they are in DC today trying to destroy our party, our nominee, and our chances for wining.

newsflash: Barack won. I"m sorry you can't accept that. she lost. I'm sorry you can't accept that.


I support our nominee President Barack Obama - and the Admins can't stand me, so I can't rec or rate. This is very mean if you were to ask me.
by TheFullBerry on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:17:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome is going to be there??????????? (none / 0)

I don't think the Obama movement resembles as cult because people support a candidate.

Sheesh.


by Juno on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:27:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome is going to be there??????????? (none / 0)

I apologize for stating that you said obama supporters are members of a cult.

I was a Dean supporter too. I was devastated when he lost to Kerry. I could not stand Kerry, and said I would not nothing to help him nor would i donate. I would only vote for him. Of course I was full of shit. I worked my ass off for him. Phonebanking. Cavassing and donating. And we all lined up behind him. I don't see that here at all. I see most of the HRC supporters still trying to destroy our chances, and our candidate.

I know how it feels to lose. But I would never have dreamed of trying to destroy Kerry because of my passions for Howard Dean.

And it's bizarre how no one called me a member of a cult back then - because I'll tell you - I was cultish like in my belief that Howard could save us. Nothing like my support for Obama.

But the reason no one called us cult members is because Hillarycrats were not throwing those disgusting ugly names around.


I support our nominee President Barack Obama - and the Admins can't stand me, so I can't rec or rate. This is very mean if you were to ask me.
by TheFullBerry on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:39:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome is going to be there??????????? (none / 0)

Um, you're the one who referred to your opponent as "pure evil."

But so long as you can't imagine trying to destroy...

Spare me.


by Juno on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:48:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

seriously now...WTF are you talking about???? (none / 0)

 I refered to her pure evil? christ, now i'm back to saying your seriously messed up in your cult like head. I gave you the benefit of the doubt...I said you were not so bad. You're  blinded by hate and can't speak rationally.


I support our nominee President Barack Obama - and the Admins can't stand me, so I can't rec or rate. This is very mean if you were to ask me.
by TheFullBerry on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:55:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: seriously now...WTF are you talking about???? (none / 0)

You need to listen to Obama more, I think.

Btw, will mistakes me allowed when Obama is president?


by Juno on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:54:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome is going to be there??????????? (none / 0)

And who said I can't accept an Obama win?

Like I said, cult-like.

I do find the vicious rhetoric toward Clinton by Obamans interesting considering they're supposed to be about unity and healing and all that

CRAP!

Do I think Dems are making a big mistake?  Yes.  I did when they went with Kerry over Dean too.

Your head is spinning and you are imposing your Obama-inspired hatred on things people are saying.  You need to calm down.


by Juno on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:29:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome is going to be there??????????? (none / 0)

I dot NOT hate Clinton. I always said I would vote for her if she won, and I would work for her. She is not my first choice, that is obvious. I did not want her to win. I wanted her to lose the nomination. And she did. But if she won, I would supported her one hundred percent. Why do you think I hate her?

Poll after poll after poll showed, and still shows, that Obama supporters WILL vote for her if she won, or wins.

Poll after poll after poll shows it's the HRC supporters who will not vote for Obama, period. They say they will vote for McCain or not vote at all.  Not all, but many.

But who is a member of a cult?
Not us.
And if you look at my dd and no quarter and hillary is44...it is they who despise and hate obama, who will only vote for HRC.

I am not saying this is you.
It's the majority of some posters who I think are GOP trolls anyway.
When I see Alegra posting over at No Quarter, I now include her in that category.

I support Obama because I believe he is the best person for the job. I resent being called a member of a cult because of that....


I support our nominee President Barack Obama - and the Admins can't stand me, so I can't rec or rate. This is very mean if you were to ask me.
by TheFullBerry on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:35:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome is going to be there??????????? (none / 0)

You don't hate someone you say is "pure evil."

Well, you're either lying or off your rocker.


by Juno on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:47:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

liar. (none / 0)

stop saying i called her pure evil. typical clinton supporter makes shit up to prove a point. I should have know you would resort to this classless kind of garbage.  Pathetic. But to be expected.


I support our nominee President Barack Obama - and the Admins can't stand me, so I can't rec or rate. This is very mean if you were to ask me.
by TheFullBerry on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:57:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: liar. (none / 0)

It was a mistake.

I misread your post.

A simple correction would have sufficed instead of assuming the worst and something nefarious.

I really don't see how any of you have picked up on Obama's main theme. YOu haven't.


by Juno on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:23:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome is going to be there??????????? (none / 0)

Clinton isn't pure evil.
Obama isn't pure class.

I think he ran a cleaner, better, more effective campaign than she did.

I think she's made an incresing number of regrettable decisions over the last few months.

But this comment's characterization is just overboard.


The primaries are over!
Focus on McCain
by really not a troll on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:33:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome is going to be there??????????? (none / 0)

Clinton is pure evil?????

You sound like a Republican.

Do you even know what pure evil is?

You call Hillary Clinton "pure evil" but get offended when I suggest that Obama supporters act like cult members? And you say Obama is all class, same thing????

It is this departure from reality that makes me say what I say.

And how does calling Hillary Clinton "pure evil" comport with Obama's hope, change, inspiration, unity BS?  All you do is prove it's BS.


by Juno on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:46:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

STOP LYING AND LEARN HOW TO FREAKING READ. (none / 0)

He just said SHE IS NOT PURE EVIL IN HIS POST.
You write  that he called her pure evil.
Are you freaking blind? A liar? A troll?
What the eff is your lying deal????
I support our nominee President Barack Obama - and the Admins can't stand me, so I can't rec or rate. This is very mean if you were to ask me.
by TheFullBerry on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:58:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: STOP LYING AND LEARN HOW TO FREAKING READ. (none / 0)

I made a mistake.

You Obamans need to work on that unity thing.


by Juno on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:22:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome is going to be there??????????? (none / 0)

You either need some coffee or lack basic reading comprehension skills.


The primaries are over!
Focus on McCain
by really not a troll on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:05:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome is going to be there??????????? (none / 0)

I totally misread the post and apologize.


by Juno on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:21:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome is going to be there??????????? (none / 0)

Okay. Just...calm down a bit. You seem pretty eager to assume the worst about anyone who doesn't support your candidate.


The primaries are over!
Focus on McCain
by really not a troll on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:42:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome is going to be there??????????? (none / 0)

Fullberry and Juno-

No offense to either of you, but the net impact of your "discussion" leads me to think that you are both the same, just inversed.  

In Fullberry's defense, I have consistently witnessed Juno trying to incite people by falsely quoting them.

I think we should monitor Juno's contributions and consider whether they are helpful or hurtful to the mmdd community.

On the flip side, Fullberry, it's never helpful to swear.  It only makes you and your candidate look bad (imho).


by chrispy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:14:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome is going to be there??????????? (none / 0)

I do compare No Quarter and Dailykos because they are both very shrill partisan extreme sites.  

The stuff I saw on Dailykos before I stopped reading the site was no more horrific or shocking than anything posted on No Quarter.  

The last straw was when a Kossack told me I had an "Oedipus complex" for supporting Hillary.  


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:14:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hmmm (none / 0)

I don't find surprise in much that is written on the internet.  So forgive me for not finding much with which to be alarmed on No Quarter.  I've personally seen worse on Dailykos.  Supporting Hillary = "Oedipus complex" takes the cake.  


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:35:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome is going to be there??????????? (2.00 / 1)

Just like Bushies: completely  un-self-aware.


by Juno on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:39:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome is going to be there??????????? (2.00 / 1)

You're referring to the thugs who went down to disrupt a vote count, ie: keep votes from counting.

That sounds more like Obama, only he's using a different kind of thuggery and coercion.


by Juno on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:45:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The Clinton thugs (none / 0)

are trying to steal the vote from the man who won fair and square.
Yup. Sounds like GOP trolls to me.
Thanks for pointing that out.
I support our nominee President Barack Obama - and the Admins can't stand me, so I can't rec or rate. This is very mean if you were to ask me.
by TheFullBerry on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:59:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton thugs (none / 0)

Yep.

Bushies thought counting votes was stealing too.


by Juno on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:20:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yup. Obama won this thing - (none / 0)

and Hillary and her minions are trying to steal it now because she is losing. Sounds like Bush and you have so much in common.


I support our nominee President Barack Obama - and the Admins can't stand me, so I can't rec or rate. This is very mean if you were to ask me.
by TheFullBerry on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:21:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yup. Obama won this thing - (2.00 / 1)

Lol.
she's trying to steal it by allowing millions of voters to have their votes counted.

Well, shame on her!


by Juno on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:53:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yup. Obama won this thing - (none / 0)

Reminds me of a certain Illinois State senator sending aides out to get names knocked off a petition for a female opponent to run against him so he could run unopposed.

Obama/Bush democracy I guess.


by Juno on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:16:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Limits of authority? (none / 0)

By its name, the R&B committee would seem to have full authority over the rules and bylaws; but I've been wondering in an academic way if those rules allow for one of the most widely suggested solutions to MI.

Certainly R&B can decide if MI broke the rules and what penalty may be imposed as to seating its delegates.  But here's the sticky part.  It was MI's primary, and I don't see where the R&B Committee of the DNC has any authority to alter state primary results.

In other words, can the R&B committee, under its own rules and authority, give any delegates to Barack Obama?  He was not on the ballot, he received no votes.  For R&B to arbitrarily award him delegates based on something other than votes or caucus results seems beyond its charter.  I certainly think it would be equitable, I just don't know if the rules allow it.

Its possible, I suppose, that the MI Dem Committee can declare the MI primary null and void then accept a new proposal thru Levin or others to be ratified by the R&B, but I'm not sure that would be within the spirit if not the letter of the rules either.

By way of disclosure, I'm a solid Obama guy, and I have not read the rules in detail (zzzzzz).  I'd hate to be right, but I'm curious how this will play out on this score.


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:14:40 AM EST

Re: Limits of authority? (none / 0)

Not sure that the legal conclusion is right. Since DNC can refuse to recognize the primary in its entirety, there is then no vote allocation to deal with. At which point, it then finds a way to put MI people in  delegate seats in a way that at once seats somebody from the state to vote on platform and like that, and does not use the phony primary results to do it. All the rules about whether you can allocate 'uncommitted' assume an otherwise valid primary. I don't make this argument for FLA because it seems there may be an agreement there about what to do. Agreement is GOOOOOD.


by Christy1947 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:39:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Limits of authority? (none / 0)

I'm pretty sure the RBC has authority over it's own rules and bylaws, but NO they can't arbitraily change the votes in a state and divy up delagates candidates didn't earn. They might try- but then the Credentials Committee at the Convention has final say.

One thing Carl Levin is effectively saying that he might be willing for a 'compromise' (on the uncommitteds) IF they strip the favortism of IA and NH in 2012. I think there are 48 states willing to see that happen. This could be signaling the beginning of the overhauling the rules for our nominating process beginning 2012. It certainly needs an overhaul.


by Justwords on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:42:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Limits of authority? (none / 0)

I'm pretty sure the RBC has authority over it's own rules and bylaws, but NO they can't arbitraily change the votes in a state and divy up delagates candidates didn't earn.
That's what I was thinking.  I read a comment elsewhere that suggested the entire MI delegation may be seated as uncommitted.  Given the way MI went down, that may be the least controversial solution within the rules.


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:54:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Limits of authority? (none / 0)

this would be terrible - we'd risk having no official nominee until the convention.


The primaries are over!
Focus on McCain
by really not a troll on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:35:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:" If I had (2.00 / 1)

some ham, I'd have ham and eggs (if I had some eggs)."

[Menu planner for the Hillary for President victory brunch.]


by xdem on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:21:22 AM EST

Re:" If I had (none / 0)

Obamans don't need to eat. They get nourishment from the pure joy of worshiping Barack.


by Juno on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:04:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:" If I had (none / 0)

Oh, burn. You've shown me the error of my cult-like ways. It's so obvious now - while I may of thought I was supporting Obama because of his judgement, positions on issues, and excellent campaigning skills, it's obvious that I've just been following a personality cult.

Thank you, Juno. You're a true hero.


The primaries are over!
Focus on McCain
by really not a troll on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:37:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:" If I had (none / 0)

Thank you.

As is always the case with cults, the members just do not see it, so I'm not expecting any Obamans to do so.


by Juno on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:44:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:" If I had (none / 0)

Okay, Juno, you win!

You've successful annoyed at least three Obama supporters.

Congratulations on a job well done.

What's next on your agenda?  

I guess my big question, after reading through your comments, is the following:

what is your goal?

Based on your behaviour, I would argue it is the following:
to spread false information
to annoy and incite Obama supporters

If that supposition is correct, than consider your goal met.  

If that supposition is incorrect, perhaps reconsider the tone and content of your comments.

You are sowing the seeds of the disunity you claim to object to.


by chrispy on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:24:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:" If I had (none / 0)

Eek!

Don't annoy Obama supporters!

Btw, if someone had misread a post of mine, I'd have simply assumed an error was made and told them.  But Inspired Ones here who want change and to end divisive, negative politics, every one of them, attacked me by calling me a liar, mocking me for not being able to read, etc.

Fine. Such is the state of politics in America. We do not give people the benefit of the doubt and mere errors are no long allowed, they are evidence of something dark and terrible.

But just spare me the inspiration, hope, change bullshit.  

Obama clearly cannot inspire his own supporters to a higher politic, as you all prove here.  HOw do you think he's going to convince Republicans and foreign adversaries to play nice????


by Juno on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:32:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC Rules & Bylaws Pre-Thread (2.00 / 2)

Good for Levin.  I really like his approach of tying this to 2012.  That gets to the heart of the problem--Iowa and New Hampshire's privileged position in all this.  If there were a fair and equitable system, where the right to go first was rotated, I would be in favor of strict enforcement of the rules, and I think there would be a much stronger consensus for doing so.  Wherever, when a couple of states have seized upon themselves the right to determine who our nominee is going to be election after election, it's only natural that others will want to jump the queue and have their say too, even if that privileged position has been sanctioned by a compliant DNC.

Check out this post by Poblano.  Even with a prolonged and highly competitive primary season, Iowa and New Hampshire blew every other state away in candidate visit days per delegate awarded.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/e arly-bird-still-got-worm.html


by markjay on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:51:38 AM EST

At some point... (none / 0)

...the "Count all votes" people have to acknowledge that there were some, err, irregularities in these primaries.  It's not like this election potentially not counting comes as a surprise to anyone.  


Beat McCain!
by thezzyzx on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:05:53 AM EST

Re: At some point... (2.00 / 1)

Florida should be fully counted.

Michigan should be as well since Obama declined a re-vote. He lost me on that one.

I don't like this Bush-like win-by-not-counting-votes. Didn't like it when Bush did it. Don't like it now.


by Juno on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:25:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: At some point... (none / 0)

Obama accepted one form of revote (firehouse caucus) that Clinton rejected.  Clinton accepted one form of revote (paid for by her supporters, restricted in a way that Obama supporters would be underrepresented in the revote) that Obama rejected.  With no party registration in Michigan, there was no easy solution.


Beat McCain!
by thezzyzx on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:33:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: At some point... (none / 0)

Of course he did so he could control the process like he attempted in TX and was caught red handed. Caucuses are not democratic.


by Iceblinkjm on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:37:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: At some point... (none / 0)

caught red handed

Citation needed.
The primaries are over!
Focus on McCain
by really not a troll on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:40:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: At some point... (none / 0)

Then our country is undemocratic.  If you're some kind of democracy purist, you should also have a problem with Republicanism in general.  We should do things like the Greeks, and let the first people to show up be that day's legislative body, and rotate the Supreme Court weekly based on random lots of everyone in the country.  That would be the only way to practice true democracy.  It would also be really stupid.  

A state party is not the government.  It has a right to choose how they allocate delegates, if only because elections are expensive.  I for one am happy the nominee isn't chosen behind closed doors anymore.


by semiquaver on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:15:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: At some point... (none / 0)


And all this time I thought Obama was so fair minded and not about politics as usual.

Well, no, I didn't.  


by Juno on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:03:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC Rules & Bylaws Pre-Thread (none / 0)

They will seat all of the Florida delegates.  In Michigan Hillary will get all of her votes and Obama will get the uncommitted.  If this does not happen we can write off Florida this Fall. Michigan is all twisted.


by nzubechukwu on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:32:56 AM EST

Re: DNC Rules & Bylaws Pre-Thread (none / 0)

Obama did not place his name on the ballot in MI and thus is not entitled to anything out of MI. Period.


by Iceblinkjm on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:37:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That's a terrible argument (none / 0)

and no one buys it (I doubt even you do).


by Slim Tyranny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:40:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's a terrible argument (none / 0)

I don't buy Obama or media spin. Roolz are roolz right?


by Iceblinkjm on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:50:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You know it's a terrible argument (none / 0)


by Slim Tyranny on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:51:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DNC Rules & Bylaws Pre-Thread (none / 0)

That is nonsense.  The primary was not sanctioned are we in a dictatorship  or a democracy?


by sweet potato pie on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:49:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Alexis Herman is not pleasant on TV (none / 0)

she is saying stupid things, pretending that current nomination process is good and has integrity.


Welcome to a Landslide without white Working class, Latinos, Women, Seniors and holding-on sweeties
by engels on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:17:38 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: