Apologies for a short diary, but I think this is an important point that I don't want to get lost as a comment.
It's important to point out the RBC choices for Michigan were 69 Clinton - 59 Obama or 73 Clinton - Zero Obama - 55 Uncommitted (setting aside the 50/50 option). Team Obama did not have to choice to give Clinton the full 73 and get 55 pledged and done. The price for giving Clinton the full 73 was giving up (at least for the moment) all 55.
So again, the choices for Obama were 59 pledged delegates or Zero pledged delegates. There was no choice to get 55 and give Clinton 73. If your choice was 59 or Zero, what would you choose?
In short, the driving factor wasn't "let's 'steal' four delegates from Clinton." My guess is Team Obama would've been more than happy to give the full 73 Clinton if they could've had 55 Obama. That wasn't a choice.
For some reason 4 lousy delegates either way is the BIGGEST OUTRAGE EVER!!!
Even though it would blow the party apart if a Soviet-style Michigan primary became the margin to make a Clinton nomination -- which is very unlikely to occur anyway -- fighting to reflect the exact result of that ridiculous primary is the BIGGEST THING EVER!!!
If it really doesn't matter for the outcome, why are we fighting about this?
If it really DOES matter for the outcome, can we really have a flawed, one-candidate-on-the-ballot primary determine the nominee?
Taking Hillary Clinton at her word that every vote should count and the will of the voters should be respected one inescapable conclusion is readily apparent: 238,168 Michigan voters in the Democratic primary who had the choice to vote for Clinton affirmatively voted for Uncommitted instead. They said "No, I don't want Clinton, I want someone else."
Under the Clinton rules it's clear: Uncommitted delegates should represent the will of the voters. They must not vote for Clinton at the convention.
If Clinton intends to go Nuclear to obtain a prize that, should she actually get it, will be a hollow, shattered, dripping-with-bad-blood shell of the real thing, she should at least present a coherent rationale for the Nuclear delegates. Arguing that Uncommitted delegates should be free to vote for her just further twists the knife she sticking into the heart of the party.
(Preface: I am an Edwards supporter who voted for Obama after Edwards dropped out. As you can see from my DKos page and comments page I've stayed out of the online Clinton-Obama wars. I'm not 'trolling' over here to stir the pot.)
As an a Obama supporter I just have to make this clear to Clinton supporters and the Democratic party: If a disputed Michigan delegation provides the margin for a Clinton nomination, that is simply a bridge too far for me. An election with only one name on the ballot is no way to choose an nominee, let alone be the determinative difference.
As I see stories of how supposedly Michigan is becoming Clinton's secret weapon, with Clinton trying to get some of the uncommitted delegates in addition to her tainted, one candidate election, pledged delegates, I say this in candor and sincerity to my Clinton supporting friends -- Be very careful, because you're playing with fire. Michigan cannot provide the decisive delegate votes.
Whatever media firm did this ad should be fired immediately. If the entrenched Democratic consultant class in Sacramento can't see that this race should be about Governor Pothole, not George W. Bush, they should all be fired.
If this is the best the CDP I certainly hope some heads roll if we lose this November. Rank and file Democrats deserve better.
(If someone in comments could how to embed Youtube in these posts I'd appreciate it. Placing the embed code alone in the post didn't seem to work. Thanks.)
I didn't see (haven't read the transcript of) the voice vote approving the lynching apology bill, but usually votes are followed by a motion to reconsider made by someone on the prevailing side, followed then by a motion to table. Both motions are routinely agreed to by unanimous consent.
Here's the question: Couldn't any Senator make a motion to reconsider the bill and request a rollcall vote? If so, why not do that and make the pro-lynching faction declare themselves? It really is an outrage there wasn't a rollcall vote on this measure.
"My view is FOX News is a propaganda outlet for the Republican Party and I don't comment on FOX News," Dean said. That was in response to vice president Dick Cheney calling Howard Dean "over the top" on Fox News on Sunday
When Democrats and their supporters appear on Fox they only enable Fox to perpetuate the charade that they're "fair and balanced." Democrats never get anything close to a fair shake, so other than a craven need for publicity I don't know why they continue to enable and empower Fox. As I written before, why don't we just cut them off?
This raises the question: Why do we participate in this charade?
The conventional answer is we need to avail ourselves of whatever opportunity we have to cut into the Noise Machine. However, perhaps we're looking at this the wrong way. They need us -- our token representation -- to maintain their charade that they're playing it fair. If destroying this charade and this bias is a critical element in returning Democrats to power, why are we continuing to enable it?
Why not attack it directly, call them on the bias and refuse to participate until they correct it? Why not cut them off?
Dean's on the right track here. I hope he'll seize on the example of the behavior of Fox's Brain Wilson the other day to convince other Democrats to follow his lead. Let's show we have some balls. Let's cut off Fox News.
Before you all hit the comment button to flame me give me a little room to make a principled, non-mushy-DLC-type argument about why Howard Dean's loose lips are hurting the progressive/netroots cause. Please, hear me out...
The netroots/progressive wing of the Democratic Party has over the past months been developing a narrative that the GOP leadership and elected members are corrupted by big business moneyed interests, out-of-touch with average Americans and under the control of radical Christian clerics. It's a narrative designed to separate the GOP electeds from moderate segments of their constituency -- to illuminate the GOP agenda and its leaders as radical and divorced from the values of moderate America - so that we can move the middle to us, rather than the DLC strategy which requires us to move to them. Let's be clear: The strategic objective is to separate independents and moderates from the corrupt, radical GOP electeds.
Now let's look at Dean's two recent "controversial" statements: "Republicans, I guess, can do that because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives" and Republicans are "...a pretty monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party." In the rush to spin the truth of these statements as a defense of Dean we lose sight of their negative impact on the larger strategic objective. Truth is not an adequate defense -- true or not, the both of these statements equate Republican voters with Republican electeds. Rather than divide and separate, these statements conflate and insult. This is completely contrary to what we in the progressive netroots, who help put him in power, are trying to accomplish.
Whether the filibuster has been preserved -- that is, did we win or lose in the compromise -- depends on Lindsey Graham and Mike DeWine. So here is the poll that will show whether we really believe we came out ahead: