There is a little black curtain around the voting booths in my state. When we step in that booth we are nonpartisan. We will think of the misogyny. The death threats leading up to the RBC rally last week. The death threats against black supers supporting Hillary. Obama's connections to anti Semitic black liberation theology, Obama trying to disenfranchise Latino voters in TX and NV.
I do not want to see Obama and his McCarthyist supporters taking control over the Democratic Party.
Obama supporters keeps telling themselves the party is unified and there is no way Hillary will be VP or have any role in the party after 2008.
The party is not unified and people will not just coalesce around Obama. Just remember 1980 and 1984.
Back when she first made the statement she was referring to the popular vote. then it suddenly referred to arcane delegate math.
The supers including Donna Brazile completely threw out the will of the people of Michigan when they violated the DNC's very own charter and constitution by assigning an arbitrary delegate preference to the voters of that state.
As a "neutral" commentator on CNN she mislead viewers into thinking that any attempt to resolve FL and MI was breaking the rules.
Donna has little integrity left. She should resign from the DNC and CNN.
In my letter which I did send to people I know on the RBC, I did not argue that Florida or Michigan's State Parties and the Democrats in their legislature were innocent. They really screwed up and they deserve some punishment.
The issue is the 3 million rank and file voters of both states who are wholly removed from this fiasco. The Rules provide and intend for resolution for unsanctioned primaries. There were multiple ways this could have been resolved by a fair revote within the proper timeframe.
The RBC had the power to create an independent committee to work this out should the other parties not cooperate. It was incumbent on them to do so when it became apparent that the primary would be a tight race to the end. They did not.
It serves the nominating process well when states follow the timing and the other rules. However it also greatly serves the process when we let every state weigh in properly on the nominee.
The DNC is about to bite it's nose to spite it's face. The State PArty officials and the members of the state legislatures will eventually back the nominee regardless of what happens to their delegations. However a large portion of voters, probably the winning margin, within those states won't.
The MI and FL state parties were horrible. However will we punish the rank and file voters and also conceed the electoral vote in November to 2 important swing states?
Howard Dean lost momentum amongst his donors and volunteers. Dean HAD to exit the race as he could no longer continue to campaign. Edwards would have stuck it out longer as well but his resources dried up.
Hillary is still in the race as her supporters keep donating time and money and most importantly urge her to continue.
that Dean and Edwards dropped out early has nothing to do with being gracious. They had no choice.
From as early as last fall there has been many statements and declarations in the media and elsewhere that the MI situation would eventually be resolved and there might even be a later primary or caucus in compliance with the calendar. Although MI has an open primary, voters must choose to participate in either the Dem or the Rep contest but not both in any given election cycle.
Democrats knew this and by voting in the Republican contest they knew they would not have the opportunity to participate in a later Democratic revote. Also the brains at DailyKos decided to push their MI readers to vote for the unelectable Romney to put the Republican Primary into chaos. By playing these games they knew that they were opting out of participation in the Jan Democratic Primary or any later revotes.
It should also be noted that the Democratic Primary in MI had record turnout. Any suggestion that Democrats stayed home so the results were skewed are specious. Also Obama campaigned in MI by having surrogates tell his supporters to vote uncommitted. Hillary followed the DNC rules to both the spirit and letter. If anything there is an argument that gave Obama an advantage in turning out his supporters that Hillary hadn't.
This diary may not have broken the rules but it give misinformation on the "rules." I have spoken with seinor DNC people on this. The pledge (actually pledges as there were several versions) were written by the party chairs of Iowa and New Hampshire. The pledges are neither binding nor have the approval of the DNC.
Neither the DNC nor the "pledges" command or even suggested that candidates remove themselves from the ballot. Debbie Dingall a MI member of the DNC begged Obama not to remove his name as this contest was going to go forward.
What most of the MSM and even the blogs miss, Obama removed his name from the Michigan ballot WHEN THAT RACE STILL COUNTED. Obama removed his name from the Michigan ballot in October of 2007. The DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee did not discuss whether or not the MI plan was in compliance until December 2007. In other words Obama pulled his name when MI was still going to be electing delegates.
Even if one was to argue that the DNC Delegate Selection Rules have an automatic penalty, that penalty is a 50% reduction in pledged delegates. the penalty of reducing all delegates by 100% is an arbitrary penalty imposed by the RBC (Rules and Bylaws Committee). Even with a 50% reduction the race still counted. Most saw Obama's move as both an attempt to court favor with the Iowa Democratic Party that is very territorial about the early window and an attempt to blunt early momentum for Hillary in a a state where they knew she would blow away all of her competitors.
When the Dec DNC RBC meeting was called into session, both Iowa and New Hampshire had not been granted the privilege of being first and second in 2008. They were to go after NV and SC. However IA and NH violated the DNC timing calendar and moved their primaries to Jan 3rd and 8th. Both of these states were in violation as well yet Obama did not remove his name from their ballots. What's more interesting is Donna "nuke florida" Brazile fawned over both states which have been viewed as responsible for so much timing envy and the primary nonsense of this year. Donna moved that both states (Iowa was the only state in Dec that was polling Obama with a huge lead) waivers for their violations but MI and FL were both denied.
According to the DNC rules and the MI rules candidates are responsible for putting their names on the ballot and keeping it there. That Obama pulled his name for his own cynical reasons when the contest still counted does not impact on the MI primary being a legitimate contest. If Obama supporters in that state feel disenfranchised they need to take their grievances to their candidate not the DNC or the MI state party. MI was a fair contest.
Choosing a party nominee is not about democracy as is the general election. Therefore state parties can choose a very democratic system such as a state run primary or they can do an internal party process such as caucuses. We know from TX and Washington State which held both primaries and caucuses. In both states Obama did significantly better in the caucus while Clinton won the TX primary and lost the WA primary by 2 points. Caucuses automatically disenfranchise whole classes of voters who are unable to participate in a contest where they are required to physically be in a room within a narrow one to two hour window of time. Also with caucus participation of 2% considered high turnout in many caucus states, these contests can hardly be considered the best indication of how a general election is won. Caucuses do give party insiders and activists greater influence in deciding the nominee.
The actual DNC rules provide that superdelegates vote for the nominee they think would be best by whatever standard they choose. There is no command that supers follow either the popular vote or the delegate lead. Obama had put forth a strong but untrue narrative that supers MUST follow the will of the people. First he claimed "the popular vote" however after the Texas Caucus overturned the results of the popular vote in their Primary, Obama changed his mantra to "whomever has the lead in pledged delegates."
There is no official weight given to either caucuses or primaries. However the term popular vote simply refers to counting the total number of people who showed up to vote and not about tweaking those numbers by arcane primary math or filtering the actual turnout with adjustments from party rules or sanctions.
Yes in terms of delegates FL and MI did not count when those contests were held. However when figuring the popular vote, the total raw number of people who turned out to vote they do indeed count. To not count them is to use delegate math not popular vote.
Also state parties made the choice as to whether or not they held a contest that encouraged broad participation from all eligible Democratic voters such as a primary or to hold a contest that is weighted towards insiders and activists with very low participation such as a caucus. As such caucus state parties decided they they wanted greater insider sway over choosing the pledged delegates. However by doing so they would also be choosing to have low participation and therefore make a very small contribution to the primaries popular vote. Ironically by weighting insider influence heavily they made the popular vote influence weaker.
Obama was the first person to suggest that supers must consider the popular vote whereas Clinton suggested that the rules state they should use their best judgement.
When the contest is over there will be several metrics to consider. One very compelling measure will be the total number of voters nationally who came out of their homes and cast a vote for Obama and those who came out and cast a vote for Clinton.
Please don't whine and play the victim card because some states choose caucus contest that predictably lead to embarrassingly low turnout. That is unless the Obama supporters care to discuss the shortcomings of caucuses when holding elections.....
None of us can really speculate at this point. Gore unlikely. rice is a lesbian who co-habits with her partner. She won't want to be under such close scrutiny. Also after the 9/11 hearings she realy doesn't have a chance.
It is sexist and offensive to refer to a female candidate as "the Clintons." Hillary is her own person and is definitely her own senator. Terms like Billary and "the Clintons"are demeaning and imply Hillary is chattel.
Respect all professional women and refer to her as Senator Clinton, Hillary Clinton or simply Hillary. Bill is retired from office.
Do you know what the automatic penalty was for timing violations?
It is a reduction of that states delegates by 50%. In other words the primary still counts, it just counts less. Neither legislature considered that another faslsely neutral Obama surrogate, Ralph Dawson would make a motion to change the automatic sanction of 50% reduction to 100% thereby not seating them at all.
Also Florida had valid reasons for the timing violation. Such reasons are listed in the rules. Iowa and New Hampshire also moved their primaries out of the Rules and Bylaw Committees original calendar for no reason other than self serving ones. Yet the RBC granted them waivers.
Please read the rules and the RBC transcripts before pontificating on the rules.
Again we are talking about what the rules say and what they don't say. According to the DNC rules that Obama constantly invokes, telling your supporters how to vote is considered campaigning.
That's the rules. Obama broke them.
Once a candidate wins the primary, that is secures 50% plus 1 delegates they then control the convention and also control the decisions of the credentials committee.
Hillary said from the beginning that iof she wins and therefore has the power to seat Florida she will if the DNC doesn't.
If Hillary does not secure 50% plus 1 of the delegates the rules prevent her (or Obama) from being able to seat the delegates by their own executive order.
Before the first contest was held Hillary has consistently stated that those conflicts need to be resolved whether it be by the DNC and the state party or failing that, by the winner of the primary.
Good analogy. However if we use chess to compare to the electoral college states like Maine, Alaska and Utah are definitely pawns for the Democrats. States like California, New York, Ohio, Florida, Michigan, and Pennsylvania are the rooks, knights, individual votes which are equal to the individual votes of the pledged delegates (although the pledged delegates have an 80% majority) they will evaluate the race and decide as they will who will be ther better candidate. Trust me many will see the state Obama won as pawns while they see Hillary winning the valuable pieces. Also even if the delegates of FL and MI aren't seated (though the actual rules intend for their be an eventual resolution to timing violations), many supers will consider the will of the voters nationally. As Obama, his lawyers and his spin doctors like Axelrod allowed legitimate do-overs in both states instead of blocking every attempt, the January contests will be how many supers evaluate voter preference in both states.
Before the Obama people cal MI unfair as Hillary was the only candidate on the ballot, 1) there were other Democrats on the ballot 2) Obama won his first primary by knocking all of his opponents off the ballot when asked if his constituents deserves a primary chooice he thought things were fair 3) the MI Democratic Party him not to withdraw and warned him of the consequences, the DNC did not request or command Obama to remove his name 4) Obama removed his name BEFORE MI was ruled to be in violation and lost their delegates, even if you want to make the automatic delegate sanction arguement, the automatic sanction would be a 50% delegate reduction so the contest was still counting when Obama spoiled a race he would lose by removing his name.