Note to the DNC: Apply the rules equally & fairly

As a prelude to this diary, I am serving notice to anyone who may feel the need to opine about how the Florida & Michigan delegations should not have their voting rights restored at the Democratic National Convention; how Hillary is breaking the rules by seeking to have those two states' delegations votes count in Denver; and how the "super delegates" should not flog the will of the people by voting for the presidential candidate that they believe will best represent the Democratic Party of the United States in the November 2008 General Election; notice is hereby given that before you hit that "submit" button to post your comments, you better make damn sure that what you're saying is consistent with the Charter & Bylaws of the Democratic Party of the United States, the Call to the 2008 Democratic National Convention, the 2008 Delegate Selection Rules for the Democratic National Convention, and the Regulations of the Rules & Bylaws Committee for the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

Now that that's out of the way, let me begin by saying that this diary is a continuation of a comment that I posted in the February 10, 2008 diary "Hillary's new "Super Delegate" endorsements".

Ladies & Gentlemen, this whole mess surrounding the state delegations from Florida and Michigan is a result of the Rules & Bylaws Committee of the Democratic National Committee not strictly adhering to the 2008 Delegate Selection Rules for the Democratic National Convention by applying the rules equally and fairly to all states.

Rule 11.A. of the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention states the following:

11. TIMING OF THE DELEGATE SELECTION PROCESS

A. No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February. In no instance may a state which scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in February and the second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule.

We already know that Florida and Michigan violated Rule 11.A. by moving their primaries to a date before the first Tuesday in February.  There is no argument there, but what about Iowa, New Hampshire, and yes, South Carolina too.

Rule 11.A specifically set the date for the primaries & caucuses for those three states as "no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February" (Iowa), "no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February" (New Hampshire), and "no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February" (South Carolina).

Iowa held their caucuses on January 3rd.  That's more than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February.  New Hampshire held their primary on January 8th.  That's more than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February.  And South Carolina held their primary on January 26th.  That's more than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February.

Under Rule 11.A., five states were in violation of the Democratic National Committee's Delegate Selection Rules, and as such, all five states should have been punished under Rule 20.C.1.a.

Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state's delegation. In determining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the state's delegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next nearest whole number.
Yes, you read that right; under Rule 20.C.1.a., Florida, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, and South Carolina would have all lost their super delegates and had their pledged delegates reduced by half since they all violated Rule 11.A.  

However, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina weren't punished fairly.  In fact, they weren't punished at all.

And what about Florida & Michigan?

Well, we all know what happened to them.

Instead of strictly adhering to Rule 20.C.1.a. and reducing their pledged delegates by 50%, the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee decided to take it a step further.  The DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee exercised the authority granted to them by Rules 20.C.5. and 20.C.6. which allowed them to "impose sanctions the Committee deems appropriate." And what were those sanctions the Committee deemed appropriate?  Stripping two of the largest states in the union of their votes at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

Ladies & Gentlemen, this is what happens when the rules aren't applied equally and fairly.  And as I said before, this mess is a result of the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee not applying the rules equally and fairly.

So, the next time someone starts talking about the rules, might I suggest two courses of action:

1.)  Read the damn rules first!

-and-

2.) Let them know that the rules were bent to allow for Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina to keep their preferred first-in-the-nation status.

Tags: Delegate Selection Rules, Democratic National Committee (all tags)

Comments

43 Comments

Re: Note to the DNC: Apply the rules equally
Great article. Very thorough. If anyone is interested in speaking out on the MI and FL issue, there a petition at: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Give-Us -Fairness (currently at 3,000 signatures)
by weneedobama 2008-02-11 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Note to the DNC: Apply the rules equally

So now its obama that doesn't want Florida votes counted?

Reminds me of someone else who didn't want their votes counted...

by sonofdonkeykong 2008-02-11 10:22AM | 0 recs
Clinton herself said before the Michigan primary
that it would be pointless.
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101100859. html
by MILiberal 2008-02-11 12:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Note to the DNC: Apply the rules

This is fascinating

by DaveOinSF 2008-02-11 09:47AM | 0 recs
The DNC blew it. Dean's ego got in the way.

The Republicans did just what our rules suggest.  They cut the MI and FL delegates in half and said play on.   No fights squabble, nothing.  They held their elections and all parties seem happy at least outwardly.

Instead the DNC has engineered maddess that would leave one key blue states that is just Republican enough not to be taken for granted, and the key swing state, pissed off and on the sidelines, and threatens to damage party unity.

by dpANDREWS 2008-02-11 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Note to the Diarist....

You forgot to include a very important part of the rules and by laws of the DNC delegate selection process, particularly as it pertains to Iowa and New Hampshire.

In the event a state shall become subject to subsections (1), (2) or (3) of section C. of this rule as a result of state law,..  

I'm not sure about Iowa, but I know New Hampshire has very specific state laws that determine when New Hampshire will vote in relation to all other primaries and caucuses.

the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, after an investigation, including hearings if necessary, determines the state party and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith to achieve legislative changes to bring the state law into compliance with the pertinent provisions of these rules and determines that the state party and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith in attempting to prevent legislative changes which resulted in state law that fails to comply with the pertinent provisions of these rules, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee MAY determine that all or a portion of the state's delegation SHALL NOT be reduced.

Seems to me that the DNC followed it's rules perfectly appropriately and after investigating IOWA and NEW HAMPSHIRE, determined that those states clearly did what they could do to meet the DNC rules and primary calendar.

The case for FL and MI simply cannot be made that the did their best to circumvent or change state laws that might be in contradiction to the DNC rules.  Remember it was the state Democratic parties in FL and MI who clearly started this whole mess by initiating the calender changes that contradicted the DNC rules.

The state party shall have the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that it and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith to achieve legislative changes to bring the state law into compliance with the pertinent provisions of these rules and that it and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith in attempting to prevent the legislative changes which resulted in state law that fails to comply with the pertinent provisions of these rules.

by Its Like Herding Cats 2008-02-11 11:14AM | 0 recs
going, going, gonneee

you knocked that one out of the park - barry bonds style (ok maybe not barry, how about Aaron?).  

by highgrade 2008-02-11 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: going, going, gonneee

Well as a SF native, part time resident and Giants fan, I take no offense at all to the Bonds reference, but to make the "asterisks" crowd happy, we can just say:

you knocked that Roger Clemmons fastball out of the park - barry bonds style

by Its Like Herding Cats 2008-02-11 11:23AM | 0 recs
And what steps did those states...

...Take to remain on the dates given to them by Rule 11.A.

All of the news reports from 2007 showed that Iowa and New Hampshire were looking at ways to move out of compliance and in violation of Rule 11.A. than looking at ways to remain in compliance.

by Andre Walker 2008-02-11 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: And what steps did those states...

Well, as I mentioned New Hampshire has very specific state laws (constitutionally enshrined, I believe) that determine when they will hold their primaries.

Obviously the DNC felt that the state Democratic party of New Hampshire did all that it could do. For more specifics, perhaps you need to ask the Democratic party leaders of New Hampshire.

The main determining factor as it see it, is both FL and MI calendar changes were initiated and whole heartedly supported by the Democratic party leaders  of those states.  

Last time I looked IA and NH were Republican controlled.  MI was certainly NOT and FL the entire calender change was a Democratic bill so clearly FL and MI snubbed their noses at the National party where IA and NH did not.

by Its Like Herding Cats 2008-02-11 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: And what steps did those states...
Iowa is fully Dem controlled since the `06 election.
by jdeeth 2008-02-11 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: And what steps did those states...

Guess that is why the DNC didn't punish them for holding their caucuses 5 days before any other instead of the 8 days prescribed by law.

by Its Like Herding Cats 2008-02-11 02:28PM | 0 recs
you still haven't addressed SC

by JoeySky18 2008-02-11 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: you still haven't addressed SC

Another Republican controlled state, where obviously the state Democratic party leaders did what they could do, and it was enough to satisfy the DNC that they acted in good faith, and pursued every avenue they had open to them.  

It's not for me or you to prove, it's for the party leaders of each state, and obviously SC was successful.

Read the rules it is very easy to understand.  Just because you don't like the outcome doesn't mean any rules were broken or unfair actions were taken.

by Its Like Herding Cats 2008-02-11 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: you still haven't addressed SC

Nope.

Per The Hill


The South Carolina Democratic Party said Thursday it will not move its primary election date from January 29, even though the state GOP announced that it is moving its primary to January 19, triggering a widely expected but unprecedented early nominating schedule.

If you read the article you'll see the GOP didn't move the SC Dem primary.

Here's an article from WYFF (emphasis mine)


State Democratic Party chairwoman Carol Fowler said it is unlikely South Carolina Democrats will move their primary date earlier.

Party leaders can move primary dates without getting clearance from the state.

But Fowler says there are penalties from the national party associated with moving the date and candidates also get penalized.

I think the story is that they got approval from the R&B Committee. I vaguely remember reading about that somewhere although I can't remember for sure which state had approval.

by Step Beyond 2008-02-11 01:03PM | 0 recs
Re: you still haven't addressed SC

There you have it, they played by the rules of the DNC, so no punishment.

by Its Like Herding Cats 2008-02-11 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: lol

I don't see what is funny about rules, laws and facts?

If every state made the same laws as NH, we would never have an election because every primary would just keep jumping ahead and cause and effect we would never have a vote anywhere.

The DNC will follow it's rules and there is really no scenario where the delegates will be seated as they presently stand unless Clinton has the delegate lead going into the convention.

You obviously don't know me, as anyone who does will tell you I am and Edwards supporter. But I have come to recognize, after a good long period perusing this site, that Clinton supporters do tend to shoot blindly from the hip regardless of who is in their path.

by Its Like Herding Cats 2008-02-11 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Note to the Diarist....

I would be surprised to find any evidence whatsoever that the Democratic Party authorities in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina lifted a finger to attempt to bring their state law into conformity with the DNC rules.  Heck, you haven't even made a case that Iowa or South Carolina has a law which restricted their ability to comply.

You can't just say "oh, I guess the DNC must have done an investigation of New Hampshire and determined they did their very best."  You have to actually show some evidence that such an investigation took place.  Otherwise, you're just guessing.

From where I sit, it looks like New Hampshire run roughshod over the process and nobody said boo about it, just like every other year.  I don't blame states like Michigan for being pissed.

by Steve M 2008-02-11 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Note to the Diarist....

Clearly, you are not the DNC, you do not know what any state has done to comply with the rules and regulations so the entire thread of claiming IA, NH and SC broke the rules and should be punished just like FL and MI is, pardon me,  based on partisan Bullshit.

The rules are clear, FL and MI were blatant in the disregarding of those rules.

You can't just say "oh, I guess the DNC must have done an investigation of New Hampshire and determined they did their very best."  You have to actually show some evidence that such an investigation took place.  Otherwise, you're just guessing.

I don't have to show anything but the rules.  It is you who seems to think something is amiss, I dare say the obligation to prove that the DNC did not do an investigation falls on your shoulders, otherwise you are simply guessing.

As for IA, NH, and SC I suspect the DNC did their due diligence and determined that those states performed to the rules, regulations and by-laws that they were subject to.  Clearly FL and MI did not.

by Its Like Herding Cats 2008-02-11 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Note to the Diarist....

Ok, it's my responsibility to prove the absence of a investigation.  Gotcha.

by Steve M 2008-02-11 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Note to the Diarist....

Based on your claim that the rules were broken when you clearly have no such evidence,  yes it is your obligation.  

Or you might just re-consider feigning surprise about claims you cannot substantiate.

I would be surprised to find any evidence whatsoever that the Democratic Party authorities in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina lifted a finger to attempt to bring their state law into conformity with the DNC rules.

by Its Like Herding Cats 2008-02-11 12:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Note to the Diarist....

You're claiming to have debunked the diary by pointing out a rule that says "If A, B, and C are true, then the party can waive the penalties."  You haven't lifted a finger to show that A, B, or C are true, but you still think you've proven something.

by Steve M 2008-02-11 02:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Note to the Diarist....

I'm claiming, and proving, that the RULES, give the DNC the power to do pretty much whatever it damn well pleases. Whether you think it fair or not, is irrelevant. I'm claiming that all state parties are aware of and have agreed to said rules. Apparently they all thought the rules were fair too when they agreed to them.

You haven't lifted a finger to prove that it is NOT true, and yet YOU are the one claiming that it is not true.

Honestly,  You are approaching this  obviously from the point of view of a jilted lover.  You signed the pre-nup, your in divorce court now and despite the fact that there is no evidence your spouse cheated on you, you make that claim anyway.  

Unfortunately you have to prove the relevant claims you make.

by Its Like Herding Cats 2008-02-11 03:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Note to the Diarist....

The rules give the DNC the power to do as it pleases IF AND ONLY IF certain stated preconditions are met.  You'd rather assume those preconditions must have been met than actually look into it, and I guess I can't stop you.  It's a little silly how you keep asking me to prove a negative, though.

Regardless, when the issue comes up at the convention, all of this is going to be laid on the table.  The DNC is going to be asked to justify its refusal to punish any of the early states, and its decision to sanction MI and FL more seriously than the rules provide for.  Either they'll be able to or they won't, and if they can't, their decision will likely be overturned.  They're certainly not going to get to sit there, as you are, and say "prove we didn't do an investigation."

by Steve M 2008-02-11 03:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Note to the Diarist....

The rules give the DNC the power to do as it pleases IF AND ONLY IF certain stated preconditions are met.  You'd rather assume those preconditions must have been met than actually look into it,

I do assume that the DNC acts in the best interest of the party and the nation, and until someone proves otherwise, I also assume that they acted according to their rules at all times, including conducting whatever investigations were needed to sanction the delegate selection process of IA, NH and SC.  

Regardless, when the issue comes up at the convention, all of this is going to be laid on the table.  The DNC is going to be asked to justify its refusal to punish any of the early states,

Just who do you think is going to ask for other states to be punished?  Whose purpose would that serve and who could possibly benefit from such a ridiculous pursuit?

and its decision to sanction MI and FL more seriously than the rules provide for.

Just a point of order.  The rules provide for punishment to be determined by the rules committee and there is nothing within the rules limiting punishment to a 50% delegate reduction.  That was a minimum punishment not a maximum punishment.

Regardless, when the issue comes up at the convention...... The DNC is going to be asked to justify...... Either they'll be able to or they won't, and if they can't, their decision will likely be overturned......  

This simply will never come up at the convention.  The only issue that will come before the convention will be whether FL and MI will be seated.  I've said at least a dozen times already on this board that there are only a few ways that the FL and MI delegates will be seated.

1.  They will not effect the outcome, because either Clinton or Obama have enough delegates to win without FL and MI.

2.  Either or both FL and MI hold new sanctioned elections before June 7th

3.  In full compliance with DNC rules and By Laws the credentials committee sends a minority report to the floor that is voted upon by the floor delegates as rules allow, asking that the FL and MI delegates be seated as they stand.  The candidate who controls the delegates will decide the outcome.  If Clinton has the votes, then they will be seated.  If Obama has the votes, and seating FL and MI would cost him an otherwise assured nomination, they will not be seated.

4.  Some agreement between the candidates is brokered by the DNC prior to the convention.

No one, and I do mean NO ONE, should want this to become a drawn out floor fight in August.  It would not serve either candidate, our party or our chances in November.  I am certainly not opposed to allowing MI and FL to vote again, and I wouldn't even demand that the 4 million early California voters be allowed to vote again just  because their original ballots were cast prior to the last 5 candidates dropping out of the race. I believe however, the most prudent course would be to let the process play out and hope that the super-delegates line up behind one candidate or the other long before the convention and give them the necessary delegate count to claim the nomination whilst allowing both FL and MI to be seated.

by Its Like Herding Cats 2008-02-11 04:31PM | 0 recs
In Florida, the Repug state legislature...

were the ones to initiate and vote (they're in control) to move the primary date.  The Repugs cut FL delegates in half, the DNC decided to get rid of all of the Dem delegates.

by Shazone 2008-02-11 11:59AM | 0 recs
Re: In Florida, the Repug state legislature...

In Florida, the Repug state legislature were the ones to initiate and vote (they're in control) to move the primary date.

WRONG!  It was a Democrat who authored, and offered the bill to move the primary.  He did this with the full support of his state party leaders and when the bill came to a vote it was passed unanimously in the senate and with only two dissenting votes in the lower house.

http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/pol itics/broward/blog/2008/01/ring_views_fl orida_as_more_relevant_than_ever.html

Just the facts ma'am!

by Its Like Herding Cats 2008-02-11 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: In Florida, the Repug state legislature...

That article isn't all the facts. Deals were made no doubt. And we have plenty of idiot Dems in office in Florida. But it is never that cut and dry.

Miami Herald Buzz blog


The Florida Senate has cooked up a deal for the Florida House: You go along with the proposal by Gov. Charlie Crist to replace touchscreen machines in 15 Florida counties, and we'll go along with your push to move up the date of the 2008 presidential primary.

Sen. Lee Constantine has drawn up an amendment to be considered this afternoon in the Senate Ethics and Elections Committee that would move the date of the presidential primary to the last Tuesday in January _ a move that would put Florida ahead of other large states that recently moved their primary dates to early February.

The head of the Repub state party was encouraging moving up the primary, while the head of the Dem state party was telling them not to move before Feb 5th.

To me it doesn't matter if every elected official dressed like a cheerleader and screamed the joys of moving up the primary. You don't disenfranchise the voters because of the actions of politicians.

by Step Beyond 2008-02-11 01:41PM | 0 recs
Re: In Florida, the Repug state legislature...

What is cut and dry is it was a Democrat who authored and offered the bill that moved the primary.  Yes there are idiot Democratic leaders in Florida for sure, and just as I have to accept the stupid actions of Dianne Feinstein, so do the Floridans have to accept the actions of their elected officials.

Sounds to me like Florida democrats would serve themselves better to worry about their own elected officials in legislative offices, instead of worrying about the DNC.

Don't elect a bunch of morons and then tell me I have to give you a pass because you elected  morons to represent you.

by Its Like Herding Cats 2008-02-11 02:39PM | 0 recs
Re: In Florida, the Repug state legislature...

Why do you ever complain about Iraq? FISA? Or any other thing that your elected officials do?

When the general election comes around and people are yelling about machines miscounting votes, they should shut up because they elected the officials who put those machines in place.

I don't get to even vote on the majority of the Florida House and Senate. One rep and one senator. They are both dems supported by the DNC and the FDP. I've voted against them before and will every time they are up for reelection. But since they are dems (even the convicted felon) the DNC and FDP have no problem with them. They don't even get primary opponents. And my gerrymandered district means a Repub can't get elected because the Repubs in control have squished as many Dems together as possible.

So don't tell me that it's my fault. Apparently if I want a party not to screw me over, your answer is join the Repubs.

by Step Beyond 2008-02-11 03:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Note to the Diarist....

Iowa and New Hampshire did ABSOLUTELY nothing to work within the rules. I heard talk about threats to have a primary in December.

And I heard talk about Martians landing in Time Square.  That doesn't mean it is so.

The FACTS remain:

The DNC has in it's by-laws the rules that allow them to hand out whatever punishment they deem appropriate.  Ranging from no punishment at all, to complete eradication from the party.

Everything they have done is within the framework of their rules.  Rules by the way, that every  state party agrees to, it's how clubs are run.  Pay your dues, abide by the rules and you stay in good standing.

As for what each individual state did to conform to the rules I'm afraid that you are obviously not the final arbiter and it's rather presumptuous of you to claim some knowledge that you know they did absolutely nothing.

Again, it's not for me to prove that the DNC did their due diligence when approving the delegate selection process of IA, NH, SC, FL and MI.

You are the ones claiming they did not, so it is up to you to prove your claim.  I'm merely pointing out the rules.

by Its Like Herding Cats 2008-02-11 12:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Note to the Diarist....

You make assertions that the DNC did something that no evidence exists to show that they did.

I assert that the DNC followed their own rules since no evidence exists to the contrary.

 There are nagging little things called facts that people with integrity use to support their assumptions. And then there are innuendos that are used by others that have no frickin clue whether something is actually true or not, only they think it must be so.

EXACTLY!  If you are going to claim the rules were broken, and then you see the actual rules, (facts) and there is no way you can support your claim of said rules being broken because the rules allow for EVERYTHING that has transpired, Then your claim is the innuendo.

NO ONE in this entire thread, who has claimed the rules were broken can prove it!  PERIOD END OF SUBJECT.

You are the ones screaming that the IA, NH, SC and the DNC broke the rules, yet when the rules are hand delivered to you, proving, that no rules were broken by any of those parties you scream louder.

You may not like the rules, but just because you don't like them, that isn't proof that anybody broke them.

by Its Like Herding Cats 2008-02-11 02:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Note to the Diarist....
Iowa state law says Iowa shall be "eight days before any similar contest." Of course, we didn't follow that by going with five, and the whole concept is silly (what if 48 other states pass the same law?) but it's there. Funny thing is, this year LAST may matter as much as FIRST.
by jdeeth 2008-02-11 01:53PM | 0 recs
This is not good for Democrat Party

if they can't preserve their own rules and execute it fairly.  How can they preserve the rules of the country?

by JoeySky18 2008-02-11 11:38AM | 0 recs
Iowa, NH, and SC only changed primary dates

in response to MI and FL. Hence why they are getting a pass.

To use an analogy, it is illegal to arbitrarily punch someone in the face. It is not illegal to defend yourself if someone does that to you.

by MILiberal 2008-02-11 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Iowa, NH, and SC only changed primary dates

You should know better.  MI changed its date because the DNC allowed NH to change with no penalty.

Michigan Democrats, while disappointed our state was not selected as one of the four "pre-window" states, announced we would abide by the DNC calendar, unless New Hampshire or another state decided to ignore the rule establishing that sequence and that calendar.

On August 9, New Hampshire's Secretary of State, with the support of the state's Democrats, indicated that he was going to hold the New Hampshire primary before January 19, 2008, a clear violation of the DNC rules. This announcement was made at a joint public ceremony and in partnership with South Carolina Republicans who had announced that they would hold their GOP primary on January 19.

One of New Hampshire's purposes was to push the New Hampshire primary ahead of the Nevada caucus which the DNC's rule had scheduled for January 19. New Hampshire's transparent action reflected its determination to maintain its privileged position of going immediately after Iowa, despite the DNC calendar.

Those of us who fought hard to loosen the stranglehold of New Hampshire on the process saw you stand by silently.

by Steve M 2008-02-11 03:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Note to the DNC

I wholeheartedly agree. The DNC is out of line. Howard Dean needs to go, and so does anybody who agreed with his position!  I think that is why Hillary fired Patty Solis!

"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process," Patti Solis Doyle, the Clinton campaign manager, said in a statement.

I'm sure she was the one who made Hillary sign that stupid pledge too!

I don't know how to make this thing do links, but there is a whole article in the NYT about it!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/us/pol itics/02dems.html?ex=1346385600&en=e 280c05ad36488d3&ei=5090&partner= rssuserland&emc=rss

by AllergicToBS 2008-02-11 01:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Note to the DNC

I think it is important to note that it was the Rules & Bylaws Committee and not Dean that took away all the delegates. Whether Dean agreed or not he certainly wouldn't be able to change the rules to override their decision.

by Step Beyond 2008-02-11 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Note to the DNC:

Its Like Herding Cats,

Just to inform you on something. The DNC did not take up the move by IA, SC, and NH in the their meetings. They never determined anything one way or the other about those states. The way it worked out was that those states waited until after the DNC meetings on the matter, where they ruled about FL & MI, to make their move. The best case you could make, in their defense, is that it is still pending.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-02-13 03:40AM | 0 recs
What cats hear...

heheh and so much for Herd's "Obviously the DNC felt that the state Democratic party of New Hampshire did all that it could do" contention.  Troubling things, those facts (and assumptions).

I'm thinking, though, that "It's like Herding Cats" will act more like "What cats hear" when presented with this, and keep fighting the fight.

What's really important, though, is PERCEPTION of the rules.  No matter what, it's going to look like and be presented as Clinton trying to steal the nomination by the media, EVEN IF THE RULES FAVOR HER CONTENTION.  

Last night, for example, Wolf Blitzer was speaking to a former Clinton press secretary, and said to her, "It would be unfair for those delegates to count".  Katrina VandenHoovel (sp?) on MSNBC said any effort to seat those delegates would be akin to stealing the nomination.

I just don't see how she can make this case and not engender a huge media and public backlash in the process.  

The MSM and punditry are already on the Obama coronation train.  I just don't see the strategy as feasible, without severely hurting the Clinton brand in the process.

by DaTruth 2008-02-13 05:23AM | 0 recs
Note to DNC apply rules fairly

Andre - thank you for this great information. If the rules were applied fairly, have you tallied up where the count would be?  I'm guessing it would be even closer?  Which is fine...but at least it would be fair.  

Also - Obama did run tv ads during the Florida primary. After being confronted about breaking the rules, he later claimed 'he didn't know that was wrong." http://www.politico.com/news/stories/010 8/8019.html

Even with Obama's ads in Florida, Clinton still came away with a resounding win! 1.8 million dems turned out to vote.  They obviously thought their voice should count.  Approximately 860,000 for Clinton, around 530,000 for Obama.

Florida was a STATE-FUNDED primary. Where the h-e-double-l does the DNC think they can get off by dictating when state taxpayers are going to hold their primary? That should be up to the voters, not the DNC.  The DNC is arrogant and I swear the reason the dems will lose in November is because their leadership is CLUELESS.

Obama evades questions and is slippery in his response when confronted about his campaign breaking the rules, his incompetency in hitting the wrong voting button six times in the Illinois senate, and his taking a pass on 128 votes in the Illinois senate by voting present. Not no, not yes, but present.  Wow - sounds like Obama lacks judgment skills BIG TIME.  

On national TV Obama strongly implied he had minimal, MINIMAL, association with that controversial Chicago slumlord Rezko, that he only knew of him through his law firm.

The truth is Obama had known Rezko for 20 years, with Rezko raising around $60,000 for Obama, even helping him swing a sweet real-estate deal where Obama paid around $104,000 for a strip of land to enlarge his yard at Obama's $1.65 mansion.  (By the way, Obama's REALLY one of US - I have two $1.65 mansions - yeah, right.)

Obama claims he's above politics as usual, but he consistently breaks the rules, repeatedly plays the race card and doesn't take responsibility for making wrong or contentious decisions.  he's also sexist - quotes by Obama:

1) "You challenge the status quo and suddenly the claws come out," Obama said.

2) "I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2008/02/is-obama-using.html

Sounds like the same ole same ole to me!

Folks - this man is an outright liar. He claims he's not "detail oriented."  His background suggests he's "DOWNRIGHT INCOMPETENT."  

If Obama can't make decisions on the important issues facing Illinois voters, MAYBE he's not up to making the even tougher decisions facing the nation.  And if he can't tell the difference between a yes and no button, then by all means keep Obama away from the big "RED" button!

by cmc83 2008-02-17 06:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Note to DNC apply rules fairly

1.  Look at the dates in your OP-the whole primary situation has been re-done, re-voted, etc. The four states (NH, Iowa, SC and NV) are the only states allowed to have their primaries before Feb. 5th.  MI and FL broke the rules and knew they were doing so....it was clear they would be punished.  Get over it!

Obama aired a 'national ad' with the permission of the DNC, who said it would be okay, even if it could not be prevented from being shown in FL.  He took the ad off the air after the squabling from the Clinton camp.

Obama did imply 'minimal' contact with Rezko during the debate (the word 'slumlord' was carefully chosen by HRC, to get back at him for reminding her of her 'walmart days'-tit for tat)by saying that he spent five hours of work on a rezko case.  That is the truth, according to his law firm...he was not involved personally with the case on Rezko-someone else was handling the Rezko dealings.  He did certainly know Rezko for many years and admits that the real estate deal was 'boneheaded' - and he has returned the money (or most of it, I believe) his campaign received from Rezko.  Is this a shady connection, you bet it is....but if that's ALL HRC has on Obama, her campaign is in real trouble!! Let me first remind you that Obama is NOT being investigated by a grand jury over the rezko deal.  Let me then remind you of the following HRC/WJC connections:

1.  Mark Rich (pardon)

  1.  Peter Paul
  2.  Aaron Tonken
  3.  Norman Hsu
  4.  John Huang
  5.  Johnny Chung
  6.  Chatwal
  7.  Yucaipa/Ron Burkle (very recently, now extraditing himself from the partnership, after the HUGE Saudi connection comes to light)

As WJC would say ' Rezko, Give me a break...'

And since when can't a candidate be a bit wealthier than you and me???? Something wrong with owning a 1.65 million mansion?  And is it a crime to pay under-market prices for a strip of land?  Don't think so....

You HRC supporters (and I am not adverse to her at all...in fact may vote for her) are really desparate!!

by elizab1949 2008-02-17 08:35PM | 0 recs
Note to DNC apply rules fairly

obviously Obama's mansion price is $1.65 MILLION!!!!  sorry for the typo.

by cmc83 2008-02-17 06:09AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads