Did MI’s April 19 District Conventions Just Become a Clusterf^#k Too?

There’s something disturbing in the Rules and By-Law Committee Meeting Materials handed out for Saturday’s meeting: the distinct possibility that the RBC will overturn the results of MI’s April 19 Convention, the only thing approaching a real exercise in democracy this year. It’s the problem of how to assign uncommitted delegates as supporting Obama.

First, the document pretty much throws out the possibility of doing a 69-59 split, which is what the MDP recommended.

If the RBC determines that any of the pledged delegate positions should be restored to the MDP, the first question presented is whether the results of the January 15, 2008 primary should be used in any way in allocating the results.

On the one hand, if the RBC does determine that Michigan should be allowed to send some pledged delegates to the Convention, there must be some basis for allocating those delegates among presidential candidates (preferences). A fundamental principle of delegate selection is expressed in the provision of the Charter requiring that delegates be chosen through processes which “assure that delegations fairly reflect the division of preferences expressed by those who participate in the Presidential nominating process.” Similarly, Rule 13(A) of the Delegate Selection Rules provides that, “Delegates shall be allocated in a fashion that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the primary voters….” In this case, it can be argued, there is no basis for ensuring “fair reflection” of presidential preference other than to use the results of the January 15 primary.

On the other hand, it can be argued that the primary as a whole could not possibly have served as a “fair reflection” of presidential preference because most of the candidates then running for the nomination were not on the ballot.

It then proceeds by considering a whole bunch of possibilities pertaining to the original Clusterfuck, the January 15 primary, apparently believing the RBC can only address those results. It rules out categorically giving all the uncommitted delegates to Obama.

Nevertheless, there is no specific authority whatsoever in the Delegate Selection Rules or the Call for the RBC to award delegate positions won by the “Uncommitted” preference to a particular candidate or candidates.

It continues to consider whether there’s a way to at least give the candidates who were not on the ballot (and therefore covered by "uncommitted") the ability to influence who gets picked as an elected delegate.

On the other hand, it can be argued that the voters expressing the “Uncommitted” preference were expressing a preference for at least one of the candidates whose names did not appear on the January 15 ballot, rather than rejecting the entire field. Therefore, following the principle of fair reflection of presidential preference, it can at least be said that the “Uncommitted” delegate positions should be considered as being allocated collectively to the candidates whose names did not appear on the ballot: Senator Barack Obama, former Senator John Edwards, Senator Joseph Biden and Governor Bill Richardson.

ased on this logic, a strong argument can be made that in awarding delegate positions to “Uncommitted” status in the unusual circumstances presented by the Michigan challenge, the RBC would at least have the authority to make special provisions for the exercise of candidate right of approval in the selection of delegates to fill these pledged “Uncommitted” positions.


At the least it would appear that the RBC could grant to those candidates—the ones who withdrew their names from the January 15 primary ballot — collectively the right to exercise candidate right of approval with respect to the eligibility of persons to be considered to fill the “Uncommitted” pledged delegate slots. It is possible that these candidates—only one of whom actively remains in the race—could work out among themselves the mechanics of approving the persons to be considered for the “Uncommitted” pledged delegate positions.

This is a legalistic way of suggesting that maybe those candidates not on the ballot could decide, together, who should be eligible to become delegates (it doesn’t say so, but of course all the people not on the ballot in January–Biden, Richardson, Edwards, and Obama–are either supporters of Obama or are Obama).

But here’s the problem. To do that–to give the uncommitted delegates to Obama (which they sound inclined to do), they’d have to redo the District Conventions.

As noted, the MDP is in the process of completing the selection of delegates as if no sanction had been imposed, filling all delegate positions originally provided by the Call, and allocating those positions based on the results of the Jan. 15 primary. If a determination is made to award the positions originally allocated to the “Uncommitted” preference collectively to the candidates whose names were not on the ballot and to allow them to exercise candidate right of approval, then the RBC presumably would have to require the MDP to undertake a new selection process, including filing by delegate candidates and candidate right of approval, to fill those positions. [my emphasis]

Wonderful. Not only is our January primary the biggest clusterfuck in the nation. But our April District Conventions are on their way to becoming clusterfucks too.

129 replies
  1. darclay says:

    I still have a problem with the whole thing, either you have to follow ALL the rules and sanctions or you ignore them. I say if you are not going to honor the sanctions split them 50/50. NO ONE was suppose to run as I understand it, correct me if im wrong on this.

  2. bmaz says:

    Marcy will fix this if I bugger it up; but i think you are wrong. The deal was that there would be no campaigning there; most candidates removed their names from the ballot on their own out of subservience to the churlish states of Iowa and New Hampshire. There was absolutely nothing compelling them to do so. Furthermore, there are modalities within said rules, although different actors interpret them differently, to reach an agreement on what should be done and how delegates should be allocated; the problem is lack of consensus on anything.

    • Funnydiva2002 says:

      I thought it was Florida with the “no campaigning” agreement. But, you’re right, we’ll let Marcy straighten us out.

      • emptywheel says:

        No, both. The difference, as I’m beginning to understand it, is FL has a rule that says if you’re not on the ballot YOU CAN”T run. Whereas, in the absence of a rule like that, a bunch of people wanted to take their name off the ballot so they didn’t run by default.

        But there wasn’t supposed to be campaigning. A bunch of Hillary supporters did send out some flyers. And Conyers did radio ads saying, if you want to support Obama, vote uncommitted. But that’s it.

    • JTMinIA says:

      Whether the candidates thought that Iowans are “churlish” has little or no effect on whether we are. I, for one, couldn’t give a clusterf*ck whether we are first or last. Just keep pushing up the price of corn. That’s what matters.

      Selfish? Sure.

      Churlish? I think not.

      tee hee

      • bmaz says:

        I know literally hundreds of Iowans. Lived with four of em for a couple of years in college, one of which is still probably my closest friend. None of them have ever said diddly squat about the primary timing, but, as with the party powers in Michigan, I think it is at the state political level and party bigwigs that are so protective. Again, I think there are cool things about having Iowa and New Hampshire as the first two, but I’ll be damned if i think it is worth the clusterfuck we now have. I dunno, but i didn’t really mean individual Iowa citizens. I mouth off and I get in trouble; you think I would learn, but nooooooo.

        • darclay says:

          +My personal opinion is that we have Iowa caucus NH primary and on super Tuesday all the other states and protectorates vote. But that would make too much sense.

    • PetePierce says:

      Well I guess that fixes things–what will happen on Saturday is Hillruh will stomp in, everyone else will just lie down and say “how stoppid of Obahhhhhma to have done taken his name of the ballott==we’ll just give Mishoogigan and Florrridadebbiewassermanshultzisamoron to Hillruhhh right? ‘Cause she’s not only delectable she’s just so electable.

      Are you planning to do a late night comedy routine Bmaz?

      Have you read the agreement that the Flunk the Bar Yale law graduate signed with her own fat little hand?

  3. Hmmm says:

    This is probably hopelessly naive, but why not do the following?

    First, only seat 50% of the delegates for MI and 50% of the delegates for FL, as the penalty for violating national D party rules by running their primary/caucus so frickin’ early.

    Second, how to apportion those delegates between Hil/Barry? Well, in FL both candidates at least sorta ran, so apportion FL’s reduced set of delegates between Hil and Barry in whatever proportion the votes came in. I don’t even know what that split was. In MI, by contrast, only Hil ran so there was no real race and so there is no reasonable basis available upon which to apportion delegates Hil/Barry… so for MI simply split the reduced set of delegates 50%/50%.

    The penalty reductions thus reduce the net effect on the convention ballots of any unaviodable unfairness in the Hil/Barry apportionment, by a factor of half. Who doesn’t win?

    • emptywheel says:

      THe point of this post is that RBC says it can’t do anything like that. It can tell you how to interpre the results of an election. But it can’t tell you to ignore the election and seat on some other means.

      • Hmmm says:

        Sure, but if their untenable choice is either to seat based on the results of hopelessly dodgy elections, or else to go hardball — as originally threatened — and not seat at all because of the state party rulebreaking w/r/t election dates, don’t you think some sort of rule change is likely to be forced to enable some middle way out? The unviability of their two options seems pretty obvious, so I jumped ahead to What Next?

          • strider7 says:

            you mean that valerie/brewster jennings’, cover was blown before the trip to niger was discredited by cia?

            • bmaz says:

              Yep, I think that is what she is saying; i.e. that the Madsen stuff is not right. That info is also inconsistent with what Fitz was arguing at sentencing.

              • strider7 says:

                but still all that stuff with Grossman,Feith,Pearle,APAIC,Riggs slush funds,Bosnian arms to Al Queda,Turkey intel and nukes,Sibel Edmonds stuff seem to work in light of all these BAE/Bandar discoveries.Hell, everbody’s in on it

    • FrankProbst says:

      Because Obama didn’t campaign in Florida. Hillary therefore got a lot of votes based on simple name recognition. In addition, a lot of voters–who were told that their votes wouldn’t count–didn’t bother to vote. Why should they have?

      • Hmmm says:

        Ah, thanks. (See? I said I didn’t know about FL!) So a 50/50 split of the reduced-by-have delegate counts in both MI and FL, then. If and only if the rules get changed. As I would expect to happen very soon. Though not necessarily before Saturday’s Committee meeting. More likely IMVHO that the Saturday Committee meeting results in the issue getting kicked upstairs. For re-examination of the rules.

  4. bmaz says:

    I posted an email from Rep. Wexler about impeachment on the McClellen thread. No huge news in it, but is is interesting nevertheless. I still think he probably pimps this issue as a fundraising tool mostly; and I still don’t care, he is about the only guy doing it and I appreciate that. Go Wexler!

  5. FrankProbst says:

    My personal solution–assuming Team Obama would sign off on it–would be this: Seat the pledged delegates with 1/2 a vote each. “Seat” the Superdelegates in the worst seats in the house, and force them to wear T-shirts saying, “Observer Only. I forfeited my voting rights by enabling a total clusterfuck and then refusing to fix it.”

  6. maryo2 says:

    OT – The Blackwater training facility in San Diego is headed to court. Please watch to see who is the judge on the case – will it be Laura Parsky?

    “Blackwater has been targeted by local anti-war activists since 2006, when the North Carolina company bought a defunct chicken ranch in the mountains about 40 miles east of San Diego with plans for converting it into a training camp for local and federal law enforcement, including Border Patrol.”

    7-31-2006: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today announced the appointment [of] Laura H. Parsky to judgeships in the San Diego County Superior Court.

  7. bmaz says:

    I am damn glad we can all have the chance to bust our butts keep all the Obama people and their single minded desires happy; because, you know, that is far more important than doing something right.

    • Hmmm says:

      I’m curious, bmaz — What from your POV would ‘doing something right’ entail in this highly cluster-fricked case?

    • FrankProbst says:

      I am damn glad we can all have the chance to bust our butts keep all the Obama people and their single minded desires happy; because, you know, that is far more important than doing something right.

      The “Obama people” aren’t the ones who fucked this all up. You can thank the state and local officials in Florida and Michigan for that.

      Here’s my simple-minded analogy of the whole thing: Bob wants to drive 80 mph to get to work tomorrow. He calls the police to ask permission to do this, and the police say, “Um, no.” Bob tells the police that he’s going to do it anyway. The police tell him that if he does, he’s going to be ticketed for speeding. So Bob drives 80 mph, gets pulled over, and gets a ticket for speeding. Bob jumps up and down, stomps his feet, holds his breath, and whines that the police are taking away his right to drive. The police roll their eyes, and they finally say, “Okay, look. If you’ll just get in your car, go home, and then drive back to work while obeying the posted speed limit, we’ll tear this ticket up and pretend like the whole thing never happened.” Bob’s house is only ten minutes away, but he spends the next 3 1/2 hours telling police that their plan is impractical and simply can’t be done. When he finally gets to work, his exasperated boss what’s to know why he’s so late, so Bob tells him the whole story.

      Now tell me, if you were Bob’s boss (the voters), who would you be pissed off at: Bob (the state and local officials of Florida and Michigan) or the police (the DNC)?

      • darclay says:

        The DNC,lol! WHY does the DNC think they have the right to tell a STATE when they hold a primary. (answer) To control who the nominee is, my opinion FWIW.

        • FrankProbst says:

          The DNC,lol! WHY does the DNC think they have the right to tell a STATE when they hold a primary. (answer) To control who the nominee is, my opinion FWIW.

          They don’t. States can hold primaries whenever they want to. Just like Florida and Michigan did. But the Democratic National Committee DOES control the Democratic National Convention, and they get to set the rules about who gets to vote there. As I said, it’s stupid and arbitrary, but those are the rules.

  8. bmaz says:

    Myself, I think Florida was a fair enough fight; I would take the proportions of the vote and roll with it. Probably would not seat supers and/or reduce the normal delegates proportionally to leave some semblance of a penalty. For Michigan, I liked Marcy’s plan. I think the 50:50 split is insulting and a cop out. There are certainly other fair solutions possible; but most people run their yaps without really knowing the true facts, mostly I think because they just don’t care about anything other than their particular candidate centric view. And I thoroughly detest arguments on this that are framed in terms of just another petty rant on Clinton. Obama people need to figure out that they have won and STFU with that crap so we can start to get the party together as a whole; and they are delusional if they think they are going to beat McCain without Clinton’s help and supporters. But hey that is just my opinion and it ain’t worth much.

    • Drumman says:

      bmaz I have to agree with on the fact the Obama can’t win with out Clinton supporters and hey how about this F1 season so far good ah

      • bmaz says:

        It has been a pretty compelling season so far in a quiet kind of way; I hope it stays close and unpredictable all the way through, the sport kind of could use that.

    • Hmmm says:

      Well, I for one appreciate hearing it. So thanks.

      I do think this thread illustrates very well that even without candidate bias, reasonable people can differ on what should be done here. I certainly don’t envy the party officers their position.

  9. maryo2 says:

    Michigan and Florida delegates should not be seated. What they decide to do in 2012 is up to them.

    • bmaz says:

      Interesting you don’t want to disenfranchise New Hampshire that also violated the rules; just two huge and critical states whose voters and activism we will desperately need in the general election. And what exactly do you base such a benevolent opinion on?

  10. maryo2 says:

    Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina should also not count.

    Unbelievable that any state’s Democratic party would choose to fuck up this year. But they did.

    Bush’s America, I guess, where rules are for other people.

    • Hmmm says:

      You’ve hit on an compelling framing there, and it applies both to the state parties back then, and to the national party now. Are the rules simply the rules, or are there circumstances where a sufficiently overriding need can justify breaking the rules? And if so, does a need to unify the D party in order to elect a D President this time rise to that level? Should the threshold be different for Federal laws (that BushCo have flouted) than for party rules? Are we consistent in our criticisms? Have to mull all that for a while. Thanks for the thoughtfood.

  11. maryo2 says:

    I base my opinion on a desire to live in a land of laws. Squirming when one doesn’t like the rules is so, … so Bush.

    • bmaz says:

      I generally don’t disagree with that, but this whole mess was, and is, all about kissing up to Iowa and New Hampshire. While I kind of like that quaint little tradition to some extent, not enough to disenfranchise people over.

  12. MrWhy says:

    If I interpret what EW says about the RBC correctly, they are saying the MI caucuses aren’t a legal way to divvy delegates up, only the cluster^#k can be used.

  13. nahant says:

    The lake is dammed screwed up! All threads have been closed for comment. Any one know whats up?

    • wangdangdoodle says:

      No, but thanks for confirming it’s not just happening for me!

      Sorry Marcy, back to your regularly scheduled thread…

      • bmaz says:

        No, it is a system malfunction. Things have been buggy for several hours behind the scenes; they are aware and working on it furiously.

      • nahant says:

        I checked the sister sites and they seem to all be just fine… so it is just the Lake itself…. Trolls? Or just NSA being cute??
        Sorry Marcy…

  14. WilliamOckham says:

    I would seat no superdelegates from either state. I would seat both delegations as is, but each delegate gets 1/2 vote (like Dems Abroad get).

  15. freepatriot says:

    we tried to warn you about those Michigan vegans

    that’s who you should be mad at

    this is clearly a Michigan vegan plot to disrupt the Democratic Primary

    it’s all a part of the leftistcommiefacistliberal plot to take over the world that has been funded by the tin foil industry (sales are up 250%)

  16. freepatriot says:

    BTW, YES, those michigan vegans are responsible for the clusterfuck in florida too I told you they were more powerful than you think, or they look, or the best testing would indicate …

    buy more tinfoil

  17. Hmmm says:

    Some more input to the RBC meeting, mainly on the subject of reducing the number of delegates or reducing their vote weighting to 1/2 — Florida and Michigan can only get half of delegates, DNC lawyers say. Headline’s a bit misleading as interpretation of the lawyers’ memo seems to be all over the map so far. However this does reinforce the idea that the national party is prohibited from making the call on how whatever delegates are seated get apportioned to the candidates.

    • Hmmm says:

      Wow, looks like all options are in play:

      “You can just as easily read that as permitting the rules and bylaws committee to fashion whatever sanctions it wants,” Ickes told reporters in a conference call today. “The rules provide for automatic sanctions in the event — and only in the event — that the rules and bylaws committee does not take jurisdiction and act otherwise,” he said.’

      Automatic sanctions seems to mean the 50% off option. So if the RBC decides it wants to act it can remove some or all delegates, impose discounts on the delegates’ vote weightings at the convention… or make them wear silly, embarrassing hats. (Oh wait, it’s a convention, they do that last thing anyway.) Or if RBC does not decide to act, the fallback outcome is the 50% off scenario. But if any delegates do get seated, it’s still a state party matter as to which candidate they get committed to.

      But then again, the legal analysis is only input, not direction, so it’s not binding. Anything could happen.

  18. bmaz says:

    Hey folks, if I didn’t convey @ 18 above the nature of the crap out there I perceive as being not only detrimental to the party as a whole, and the effort to prevent McCain from being elected, but detrimental to Obama himself, lookee here Pete Pierce @44 has provided a prime example. Very timely Pete.

    • masaccio says:

      Rants are boring. Rants about presidential candidates are feckless. Thank heaven it’s easy to skip over them on the internets.

      • bmaz says:

        On a more cogent note, the other day i saw someone reference Turindot. As I related back when you first mentioned the cool opera gig you are involved in, I saw this thing at the Huntington-Hartford in LA many moons ago (probably 1975). I always thought it was Turnidot. I am assuming i am just a hick and had it wrong all along?

    • masaccio says:

      Not that your comment was a rant, it wasn’t. I can live with that. Now I’m going to go back a couple of threads and continue with the OIG report.

    • PetePierce says:

      What has been detrimental to the party as a whole has been the racist crap from the Clinton campaign and Clinton’s delusional efforts to cling to this primary after June 3. That’s why the Super D’s are going to bum’s rush her out. She has assassinated herself in the foot Bmaz.

      I have always wondered how in the spirit of party unity/what’s best for the party you could have condoned Clinton’s words that she and McCain are qualified but Obama is not as the words of a “fine candidate” (those have often been your words to describe Clinton) and in fact she is not a fine candidate is what many of the Super Delegates are going to tell you next week.

    • FrankProbst says:

      I agree with you that this needs to be done in an adult manner, and I also agree that the rules are arbitrary and stupid. However, they ARE the rules.

      The 2000 election is a prime example. If Bush had actually won Florida (he didn’t, but just pretend for a moment), then he would have been the winner of the election, because the rules dictate that the winner is chosen by the electoral college, not by the popular vote. You can argue (convincingly) that these rules are stupid and have been totally obsolete since the invention of the telegraph line, and that the whole system should be changed, but you really can’t do that after the popular vote has been cast and you’re waiting for the electoral college to meet. Nobody seriously tried to do this in 2000.

      I see the Democratic primary in the same light. The whole system is absurd, and it needs to be reformed, but you really can’t do it in the middle of a primary season. Florida and Michigan were specifically told that if they moved their primaries up, they wouldn’t be recognized, and they would have to do them again. None of the candidates criticized this ruling when it was made. So Florida and Michigan both moved their primaries up, and they were told that they wouldn’t be recognized. It then became apparent that they had no plan to hold repeat primaries. Many were mildly annoyed at all this, but the general assumption back then was that one of the candidates would win an overwhelming majority of the delegates, and Florida and Michigan would then be seated at the convention. That would have been a win for both states, as they would have gotten to have an early influence on the dynamics of the race (which is what they wanted in the first place), AND they would have gotten to have their votes counted at the convention. And we would have to go through this whole drama again in 2012.

      What no one counted on was that this ended up turning into a down-to-the-wire horserace, and the candidate that received the most votes in Florida and Michigan might end up losing BECAUSE OF the antics of Florida and Michigan. In all likelihood, this won’t happen, because of ANOTHER piece of idiocy that’s built into the primary process: the superdelegates. They appear to be moving in bulk to Obama, and that’s probably going to give him the edge he needs to win the nomination.

      We’re now in a clusterfuck that has no good solutions. To make it even worse, people have suggested that the ALREADY ELECTED delegates are free to change their votes if they want to, and there are rumors that some of Hillary’s pledged delegates may defect to Obama. I really hope this doesn’t happen–it would be one of the few things that could make this race even more undemocratic than it already is.

      I agree with Marcy on her major point: Any good solution will involve stripping Michigan and Florida of all of its superdelegates. Beyond that, I really don’t have any good ideas.

      I do think that the whole system needs to be revamped by the next election cycle. I’m not optimistic, though. After eight years, we still haven’t done a damn thing about the electoral college. In fact, I don’t think anyone’s really even tried.

      • darclay says:

        I agree 100%. I’ve thought getting rid of EC would be the the best thing to happen to our system of government. Marcy’s oh so apt discription CF sums it up totally.

      • bmaz says:

        Can’t disagree with much of that at all. However, unlike the EC etc. in 2000, there are mechanisms (granted, maybe not clear cut ones, but nevertheless they exist) within “The Rules” you describe to still resolve this somehow or another if the Michigan and Florida powers that be and the candidates can just get on the same page, even if it is not the optimal page for any of them. Obama has won the nomination, lets get as many people happy as we can in those states, leave some penalty aspect because there should be some, play out the string until June 3, and get on with the task of beating McCain; and I think all of the former is critical to the latter.

        And I also agree with your take that the entire system is screwed up. I don’t know how much I have done it here, but I have all kinds of other gripes (I know Marcy has been subjected to some of my griping on them) regarding how a candidate can “win” a state and come out with less delegates, stupid timing of the various primaries, whether caucuses are still a valid exercise and if they are how they should be structured in regard to participation and hours you can participate and yada, yada, yada. You are right, the whole thing is abominable; which is simply unforgivable after 2000 and 2004.

        Darclay @54 – you may be right, I don’t know, but I have a hard time believing that. I think they are just idiots.

        • FrankProbst says:

          I still don’t understand why they don’t just redo the damn primaries, or at least have caucuses in both states. We have elections all the time in this country. It’s sort of what we’re famous for. We have lots of special elections, too. It really shouldn’t be that hard.

          • bmaz says:

            I wholeheartedly agreed with that for a while; I think it is too late now. Too many interests were still too petty and self interested to get it done in time.

            • FrankProbst says:

              I wholeheartedly agreed with that for a while; I think it is too late now. Too many interests were still too petty and self interested to get it done in time.

              Why is it “too late”? The convention isn’t until August. Is there some law that says we have to be done by June 3? On Saturday, they could tell Michigan and Florida they’ve got 3 weeks to hold some sort of repeat primary or caucus. Nobody gets to leave the meeting until they’ve hammered out the details of how it’s going to work. Everyone is allow to stamp their feet and hold their breath as often and as long as they want, but they don’t get to go home until they have an agreement.

              • bmaz says:

                Not to mention, I don’t think anybody is going to spend the money to fund it now that the nomination is locked up by Obama.

                • PetePierce says:

                  Speaking of funding, the DNC has until June 16 to raise a bunch of million dollars (I forget the amount at the moment and it’s going to be Obama that bails them out. Denver has appealed to “civic pride” and that appeal has been a bust. I don’t know if you knew but Clinton is so livid that she has refused to help them–how’s that for party unity and fparty spirit. She has fed money from the library contribution deals into her campaigns from very very anti-US sources by the way, and she is refusing to make any effort to help the convention although she is a hundred million to two hundred millionairess.

                  See this article by mMark Halpern on The Page:

                  Obama-DNC Fundraising Deal

                  • bmaz says:

                    I am really sick of your anti-Clinton shit; it is counterproductive and does not wear well, nor does it particularly make you look very good. Your efforts here could be far better placed.

                    • PetePierce says:

                      I’m sorry you are construing my comments that way here, because while they may be construed that way on Cliff’s blog, they aren’t anything but reporting the facts.

                      We need for the DNC to have funding. It’s ironic that the Republicans who I view on the same page as you have the funding for their convention and the Dems are sweating it. I reported correctly that Obama is going to bail them out. Clinton has refused to lift one finger to support them Bmaz as Mark Halpern reported and I linked.

                      I cannot see how someone as nuanced as you are could believe that it is helpful for Clinton to carry this fight to the end of August convention and make no mistake about it, that’s precisely what she is going to try to do. I leave it to you to figure out the result. I objectively think that although I have always supported her right to carry out the campaign to the end, but objected to her methods vigorously, I do not believe her efforts to go to Denver with this fight are anything but lethal to the Democratic effort to get the Presidency and to get the many talented downticket Senatorial candidates I have heard about including one I know as well as the House candidates.

                      What you have perceived as “anti-Clinton shit” of my making is not anti-Clinton shit of my making, it is precisely what is happening on the ground. I did not tell them to do and say the things they have done. I did not tell them not to support the DNC with their $200 million bucks and a license to print more. They made that choice this week. Clinton’s large money contributors have been threatening the DNC all month. They have money to burn made from ridiculously unfair hedgefund rules, and they are trying to use it as blackmail and it has not worked. They have witheld money from the DNC they would ordinarily have been glad to give because they want to force their way, and it has not worked. Fortunately the DNC has someone to turn to who appreciates unity.

                    • MadDog says:

                      Fortunately the DNC has someone to turn to who appreciates unity.

                      And I would guess that wouldn’t be you.

                      I reported correctly that Obama is going to bail them out. Clinton has refused to lift one finger to support them Bmaz as Mark Halpern reported and I linked.

                      A more normal take on Mark Halperin’s piece, would be that since the Obama camp believes it will have the Democratic nomination, it is moving forward to work with the DNC for the fall campaign on many fronts including funding.

                      And since the Clinton camp does not expect to get the Democratic nomination, it is not moving forward to work with the DNC on funding for her non-existent fall campaign.

                      But to hear you analyze it, Clinton must be the evil harpy who somehow is working to torpedo the presumptive Democratic nominee Obama.

                      A further word of advice, in addition to what Bmaz has already succinctly and honestly pointed out:

                      You do yourself no favor by both the tone, as well as the content of your non-stop, continual anti-Clinton tirades.

                      You do your candidate even less favor.

                      Such is the never-ending tone and content of your posts, that you leave me with no choice but to ignore everything you post, regardless of topic.

                      And that is sad.

                  • FrankProbst says:

                    In all fairness, Clinton has an 8 figure debt to worry about. Obama does not. He can afford to be generous. She can’t.

                    • PetePierce says:

                      Here’s the thing though Frank. It’s very difficult to assess Clinton’s real finances because there is a direct financial firehose from Bill’s “library contributions” to that campaign, and it is not trivial anti-Clinton pie throwing to piont this out. It’s really not accurate to say that she has a huge debt because the library contributors are funding her campaign, and you can be damn sure they aren’t going to dip into their fortune for the campaign.

                      They want to live in hundreds of millions of luxury for the rest of their lives, and my point is, like McCain’s lobbyist sources, many of the Clinton big doners are turning out to have made their money in very anti-American agendas. We’re talking the $31 million from the uranium Kazakhstan deal, Dubai and Kuwait funding, many of the mult-million dollar library donations, Abdul Jinna (now residing in the luxury of a BOP/DOJ concrete cube, $15 million from Ron Burkle at Yucaipa and the $3 million from Vinod Gupta. So it’s hard to objectively assess that the Clintons are in any significant debt whatsoever for that campaign. There is virtually a printing press of money available to them that’s a helluva lot better than Photoshop.

                      This financing is absolutley legit. Someone who wants to be President is taking millions of dollars from foreign sources, and the ones we know about are often very illegitimate and clearly anti-American interests.

          • emptywheel says:

            Because, in MI, there was an irreconcilable issue.

            What are you going to do with the good Dems who crossed over and voted in the GOP primary this year?

            The numbers might be as high as 5%–at least. (Basically, Dem performance was 15% below what it was in almost every state–save AK and UT–this year, so probably about 7% stayed home and 5% crossed over, but those are guesses). You might be able to account for those who didn’t vote. But I think the DNC forbids people to vote in their primary if they have voted in the GOP one. That, in spite of the fact that there is a robust tradition of cross-over voting in MI, and this was an obvious year to do so, since the GOP said MI’s vote would count 50% and the Dems said it would count not at all.

            So how do you resolve that? There were real logistical issues, as well, but how do you resolve that?

            • bmaz says:

              And much to EW’s dismay, I was willing to say “To bad, so sad” to those crossover people; but that was easy for a mope in the desert to say….

            • darclay says:

              maybe it was the choices that we had to vote for. I have many clients and friends who did not vote for Dem’s or Rep’s because of their choices. There again it is the timing of the primaries and EC that screw everything up.

            • FrankProbst says:

              What are you going to do with the good Dems who crossed over and voted in the GOP primary this year?

              I don’t really think that’s irreconcilable, given Michigan’s history. When I lived there in 2000, one party had a caucus, and the other had a primary, and they were on different dates. It was perfectly acceptable to vote in one, switch parties, and then vote in the other. So the solution is simple: Anyone can vote in the re-do primary. I know that you could argue that Republican “spoilers” could then vote en masse in the Democratic primary, but ever since McCain clinched the Republican nom, that’s been true of every open primary that we’ve had.

              • emptywheel says:

                Well, that (plus the impossibility of having county parties arrange for caucus sites on short notice) was the final straw that broke the recount’s back.

                Besides, if FL couldn’t manage it, then there was no way MI could do so.

        • PetePierce says:

          As long as these primarys and caucuses are structured so that someone who applies themselves a bit still can’t understand them, i.e. that their various rules are so abstruce and byzantine that you need to be a particular state insider who has been studying them for months or helped craft them, I agree with you they are absurd. If anyone didn’t know it before this primary, then they should realize it now.

          I would also advocate not only a uniformity and common sense reworking of the rules of the Democratic Primary vote, but also a revamping of the electoral college in the general as well because it creates the problems that Frank Probst described.

          I would differ with you though in this. If you take the large states Clinton won by popular vote, she did not win them by decisive margins. And per the rules, she lost the delegate vote–the metric that actually counts by the current rules in Texas. She did not win big states decisively overall, in fact, and the reaons that she won the states like Kentucky and West Virginia were purely racial. In Kentucky she did not win Fayette County where Lexington and the UK Wildcats are, and Obama won Jefferson County (Louisville and its surroundings) decisively–the city where I grew up. West Virginia has 5 electoral votes, and if blacks get registered significantly for the general in the South, and they are going to turn out, we can overcome states that go racial for McCain who are letting their racism outvote their pocket books. This is the way to overcome what Maureen Dowd called this morning the HillaryHuns–those people who have been strongly democratic all their lives and so feel like because they had invested in their backing of Hillary to right all the wrongs, real and perceived that they they have experienced due to gender bias or cruelty during their lives or both.

          I would say that those people who think they are going to express their indignation that Clinton lost by voting for McCain are the quintissential people who would be biting off their nose to spit their faces. If they did that actually to the tune of 25% of the Clinton population of popular votes, they have certainly tuned out the political reality of Bush, Libby, Rove, Addington and McCain.

          I predict that because Super D’s have already privately committed to Obama in droves (and although Obama actually has the majority of that DNC committee in his corner but they have kept it to themselves–not Hillary as the counters think)that he is likely to let her have her sandpail and just give her a generous deal which will enable her to say she had several holes in ones because she in effect got to carry the ball to the hole in stead of actually driving , chipping , and putting the way her husband often plays golf. She will claim she won the general if she is given somehow a significant amount of Michigan and Florida votes in the fake elections that weren’t real, and the result is still going to be the same–she is going out, and in the words of Tina Turner that great political and Presidential historian in her award winning political treatise Proud Mary:

          Y know, every now and then
          I think you might like to hear something from us
          Nice and easy
          But theres just one thing
          You see we never ever do nothing
          Nice and easy
          We always do it nice and rough
          So were gonna take the beginning of this song
          And do it easy
          Then were gonna do the finish rough
          This is the way we do proud mary

          It’s the Clinton’s call–I say they finish rough and I’ll enjoy every minute of it. They aren’t going to be able to go to the Convention and snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.

      • PetePierce says:

        I agree with the good common sense in Marcy’s continued proposal to strip the Super D’s but I don’t think that will play out that way. I think it should. But one thing I’d like to stress that Franks has underscored, is that there was no regret on Clinton’s part or her large array of supporters who are Super D’s from Michigan (I named them in the list above and left out a few) because

        1) No one including the Clintons expected Obama to do jack shit in this primary, raise any money, or mount a serious challenge. It’s very much like the big fight after school where people expect the bully to take the underdog apart and the underdog ends up throwing much better punches than the bully and decking him.

        2) Clinton being the thorough hypocrit and liar that she has always been didn’t give a rats ass for the people of Michigan and Florida–what the Clintons do care about is more better money for them–until they goofily figured out that one of their Michoogy or is it Michiganchoogy Metrics in their mind only and rabit people like Debbie Wasserman Shultzie Shultz and Carolyn Intrepid no matter what it says about dumping on her own African Americans Fitzpatrick (with the most pure strain of racism this country has been proud to produce) could put them over the top.

        In the purest terms, Michigan and Flordia broke an agreement and the message that should really be sent to them is it’s over–try to fix things next year.

        I have had it with all these threats from the Clintonistas, and the Super Delegates I’ve talked to told me they have to. There is going to be a rush and a bum’s rush come June 4.

        She’s not going to be allowed to continue to primary after that date. I expect it to be ugly for her the way she wants it to be. She is not very welcome back in the Senate and all these people who say “well she can have Majority leader” have to realize that’s not going to happen ever and Clinton tried her best to hurt downticket candidates in this race as well as Obama and that’s one reason why it’s going to be ended for her next week. Clinton has been a terrific allie for McCain so far in the primary and the general, and I don’t expect any help for Obama from her and bubbah.

        I thought that Modo’s article nailed them well this morning, as did many editorial opinions in the NYDNews, WaPo, and by

        Can He Take a Frisk?

        We need to know where that $11 million came from that you guys loaned your campaign. And the $15 million from Ron Burkle at Yucaipa and the $3 million from Vinod Gupta. And you must spill about any offshore accounts in the Caymans.

        But we won’t know for a while because she will leave the race next week,and maybe the Clintons will carry these secrets to the grave.

  19. PetePierce says:

    The superdelegate flood to Obama is going to bum’s rush Clinton out of the race in about 6 days. That’s the bottom line whatever happens Saturday on the Clusterfuckey

    Clusterfuck Charter Members Who Did the Voters of Michigan Wrong

    I’m just wonderin’ if the Tee-shirts that say in big block letters “We Bee Clusterfuckers We Fucked the People of Michigan and we turned it into Michoogigan” will be ready for the following Super Delegates? Will the people of Michigan have the guts to learn from this:

    1) Lesson #1 Vote the Michigan Clusterfuckers the hell out! They were warned soundly and they clusterfucked you anyway.
    2) Lesson #2 End this mornoic byzantine method of primaries and have rotating regional ones next time around.
    3) Get voting machines in this bananna republic of a country that have a frigging paper trail instead of ho humming like it’s no big deal.

    The extra large Clustefuck T-Shirt Wearers:

    Jennie the Jen Granholm, Governor of Michigan
    Debbie the Doofus Dingell
    Mark Brewer Michigan Democratic Chairman
    Carl Let them Gashogs get 8mpg Forever Levin
    Bart the Stupid Stupak, Rep. Michigan
    Dale Kill da Voters Kildee
    Debbie Stab the Voters Stabenow
    Lt. Gov John Cherry
    US Rep. Sander Levin
    Former Governor Jim Blanchard
    Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero
    UAW Legislative Coordinator Nandine Nosal
    Carolyn Big Cheeks Kilpatrick Michigan’s Lucky 13th
    AFL-CIO President Mark Gaffney

  20. Hmmm says:

    Obviously the EC is difficult. But moving off the EC would require a Constitutional Convention, would it not? Is this an opportune time to be opening the door to Constitutional changes? Pandora.

  21. bmaz says:

    I have nothing but mindless opinion to base this on, but I just don’t think you can get it done credibly in such big states that fast.

  22. FrankProbst says:

    Well, that (plus the impossibility of having county parties arrange for caucus sites on short notice) was the final straw that broke the recount’s back.

    I’m not buying that. That state can tell all of the public schools that they need their gyms for one night. They could even do them on different nights in different districts, if people really don’t want to cancel a high school volleyball game in the interest of democracy.

    Besides, if FL couldn’t manage it, then there was no way MI could do so.

    Not buying that, either. Florida has a well-known reputation for not being able to run elections. I’m a little surprised that Castro hasn’t offered to “help” them run a repeat primary, if they’re incapable of doing it themselves.

    Not to mention, I don’t think anybody is going to spend the money to fund it now that the nomination is locked up by Obama.

    And to top it all off, I’m not buying that. The Republican nom was clinched a while ago. Nobody is suggesting that we cancel the rest of the Republican primaries to save money, even though they really need the cash.

    • bmaz says:

      But those had to be held by law, these do not. One other thing; I’m not sure the respective legislatures are even in session to approve any plan.

      • FrankProbst says:

        But those had to be held by law, these do not. One other thing; I’m not sure the respective legislatures are even in session to approve any plan.

        You’ve made a lot of comments about how a do-over would be difficult, and I agree. I just don’t think it’s impossible. But of all your arguments, I have the least sympathy for this one. If these assholes could go to Lansing and Tallahassee to fuck everything up, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask them to hold a special session to come back and fix it all again.

  23. masaccio says:

    Turandot is Puccini’s last opera. It is set in China, and is the story of the beautiful princess who will only marry the guy who can answer three riddles, and if he fails, he is beheaded. I have sung it twice, and loved it loved it loved it, even though we wore plastic masks and fat suits, and sang on a raked stage, so raked that we were in some danger of slipping, and stood for 25 minutes during the big scene at the end of the second act. I have seen it several times, in Fiesole at a Roman Amphitheater, and at the Met, and have a DVD of a production in China outdoors at the Forbidden City.

    If you go to the Nashville Opera site, and click on the Sword Fight Scene from Romeo and Juliet, you will see and hear me and my friends.

  24. wavpeac says:

    Post 17, the baseball analogy. fitting except for one thing. I would change the anology to be that the car is a bus. The bus has 50 people on it. All 50 people lose their licenses…not just the driver. Because that is essentially what happened. Now if the people of Michigan had voted to hold the election early…we might have a different situation.

    That was the problem with the consequences in the first place. It was a consequence levied against innocent people. This is like a parent making a stupid punishment. You either stick with the punishment and find a valuable lesson in it for your kid, OR you modify the consequence.

    The consequence needs to be modified because it is a consequence to the wrong people. They, in a very Bushco manner chose to give the consequence to the innocent people of michigan rather then levy a personal consequence or business consequence against the folks who made the decision.

    • FrankProbst says:

      Unfortunately, a representative government means that elected officials sometimes do things that turn out to be very bad for the people they represent. The 4,000+ Americans who have died in Iraq didn’t have a democratic vote to go to war over there. Nevertheless, they had to pay the ultimate price for their government’s foolishness.

      • PetePierce says:

        Yep Frank and as Scottie Mac’s book on sale in some large cities now, and everywhere Tuesday is saying, because Bush felt that all those people dead and the thousands more that will follow were part of the expedient equation so that he could be perceived as a great President.

        As Ariana Huffington says it’s “Scottie Come Lately” but better come lately than never I guess. While McClelland didn’t have much in the way of experience to ever be WH press secratary carrying on a long tradition in this White House, his book raises the question as to why he did not leave in protest knowing what he knew, and should give Fitz some interesting reading as he sweats a mistrial going into week 3 of the Rezko jury.

        Too bad Fitzie isn’t blogging on Scottie’s book.

        • FrankProbst says:

          Is that more realistic?

          Only to an extent. The story was widely reported in the national press while the measures were being debated in both states, so I would assume the local media markets were covering the story. I don’t recall a popular outcry in either state. There wasn’t really an uproar until after Super Tuesday, when people started to realize that Florida and Michigan could tip the election.

  25. wavpeac says:

    I agree, I was just correcting the speeding ticket analogy.

    So, it would be more like this. The Bus driver was elected to drive the bus. The bus driver then chose to speed, but the people didn’t know that this was the decision this bus driver would make, they just had chosen the bus driver to make decisions. So the bus driver gets caught speeding and the result is that everyone else on the bus then lost their right to drive.

    Is that more realistic?

  26. rosalind says:

    ot: cia-on-trial update from italy re. kidnap of radical egyptian cleric in milan.

    “In his testimony, Megale revealed that one telephone number he recognized was that of Robert Seldon Lady, then-CIA station chief in Milan. Lady and Megale had worked together in counter-terrorism investigations. It was a number, Megale said somberly, that he and his team knew.”


  27. bmaz says:

    Bush/Cheney Terror Tribe screws good American Morris Davis:

    The former chief military prosecutor for terrorism trials at Guantanamo Bay thinks the Defense Department has punished him for testifying publicly that he faced political pressure to speed up the cases and to use evidence derived from torture.

    Air Force Col. Morris Davis said he was denied a medal for his two years of work building military commissions cases against terrorism suspects because he resigned and later spoke out about problems in the Pentagon’s Office of Military Commissions. Davis testified earlier this month at pretrial hearings for a suspected terrorist that the top legal adviser for military commissions had tampered with the prosecution and was using politics to drive critical legal issues.

    Davis wrote that Pentagon officials notified him that he did “not serve honorably” as top prosecutor and would be denied the medal. Davis said he fears other reprisals before his scheduled retirement this year, despite a military judge’s order that no one who testified on the matter face adverse actions. … “I’m very concerned about the chilling effect on the process.”

    Will Speaker Pelosi ever find the gumption to do her job and honor her oath? How much hell is enough for her to care about something other than her political election metrics? What would it take for her to actually honor and protect the Constitution?

    • WilliamOckham says:

      And let’s not forget Matthew Diaz.

      Diaz spent six months in prison and left it bankrupt and without a job. In addition to his sentence, the Pentagon is working aggressively to have Diaz stripped of his law license so he will not be able to practice his profession. The Bush Administration has sought to criminalize, humiliate and destroy Diaz. Its motivation could not be clearer: Diaz struck a blow for the rule of law. And nothing could be more threatening to the Bush Administration than this.

      • bmaz says:

        Good point. Sadly, there is so much of this junk, he had slipped my mind; and that’s not right. You know, when you keep seeing the casualties of doing little to nothing, including the very stability of our justice system and rule of law, it is hard not to consider Pelosi and other leadership in the same vein as the Bushies. She and they really are aiders and abetters at this point.

        • PetePierce says:

          Yes this is certainly true and tragic. The public is completely apathetic and almost completely well hell completely unaware of these tragedies from these bastards. So much for Mukasey one of the worst pricks to ever hold federal office. And Mukasey is a great example of the mutts on Senate Judiciary who confirmed him and the mutts who voted for him, and particularly the mutss and mutesses who praised him to the skies –can ya spell Schumer and Feinstein?

      • darclay says:

        replying also to bmaz @91
        May be letters or calls to Her Highness from people like you could move her to act. Wishful thinking maybe.

    • bmaz says:

      Not much of an attempt, but it’s a start I guess. There needs to be charges and/or warrants issued so that there is a proper foundation for detention when these clucks travel abroad.

    • skdadl says:

      Bolton also talked about Iran, which I haven’t seen mentioned anywhere but on Reuters:

      John Bolton, who was a leading hawk in President George W. Bush’s administration, told an audience at the Hay literary Festival that five years of “failed” negotiation with Iran over its nuclear programme had left just two options for dealing with the issue — regime change and use of force.

      Pretty cheeky of a guy like Bolton, who I guess has “written” a book (nudge nudge wink wink), to bask in the charms of a literary festival like Hay when in real life he probably regards most literary people as DFHs (not that far from the truth, o’ course). Why do these dreadful people like Bolton always end up wanting stamps of approval — honorary degrees, star turns at arts festivals — from groups they normally scorn and detest? They must know at some level that they are missing something in their greedy little power-obsessed lives. That is my fond fantasy, anyway.

  28. bmaz says:

    During a fundraiser in Denver, Obama says:

    …one of the first things he wants to do is ensure the constitutionality of all the laws and executive orders passed while Republican President George W. Bush has been in office.

    Those that don’t pass muster will be overturned, he said.

  29. PetePierce says:

    I have read every speech the Clintons made today and by any objective metric I can only conclude two things:

    1) They really have complete disregard for Puerto Ricans (and my) ability to read current events.

    2) They could not possibly believe what they’ve said about the popular vote or big states where she narrowly won the popular vote anyway.

    3) Bill does not remember electoral patterns in general elections whatsoever including his own or he remembers them and pretends not to. In March of 1992 Tsongas was bedridden and extremely ill, and Jerry Brown had already agreed virtually to stop campaigning. But you’d never know it if you listened to these two.

  30. PetePierce says:

    BTW, I hate to bring up law, but Puerto Rico does not have one vote in a general election. I don’t hear any promises to give them one either. I don’t see Congress busting their ass to do so.

  31. skdadl says:

    NAFTAgate seems to be unravelling: Toronto Star:

    WASHINGTON–Frank Sensenbrenner, the one-time Young Republican fundraiser now at the epicentre of a scandal over a leaked Canadian memo which wounded Democratic presidential front-runner Barack Obama, was always a poor fit at the Canadian embassy.

    The ambassador, Michael Wilson, didn’t want him there.

    The diplomatic corps on Pennsylvania Ave. didn’t want him there and ultimately were so distrustful of the son of a right-wing Republican congressman, they muttered that they wanted his door left open so they could hear who he was talking to.

    But officials in [PM] Stephen Harper’s office wanted him there and Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day particularly wanted him there, based on Sensenbrenner’s long links, dating back to school days, with the former Reform party, the precursor of today’s government in Ottawa.

    It wasn’t the first time a partisan posting trumped diplomacy at a Canadian mission, but his appointment was rare in that he seemed to work under the radar, having won the post by telling his buddies in Ottawa that he could do a better lobbying job of Congress than the diplomats already there.

    When the Toronto Star first looked into Sensenbrenner’s short-lived, no-bid contract last year, he had not registered as an agent for a foreign government, even though he won plaudits for opening some Republican doors on Capitol Hill.

    The Star’s national affairs columnist James Travers identified Sensenbrenner yesterday as the conduit that officials in Harper’s office used to leak a Canadian memo to the Associated Press in March.

    Yesterday, Sensenbrenner, 27, denied the charge.

    “I am dismayed at the allegations … that I had a role in the leak of a Canadian consular memo,” he said.

    The network which got him placed in the embassy has its roots in Ottawa, Toronto, Calgary and Washington.

    “It’s typical on the part of that far-right cabal of Tories and Republicans who have put together a network, trying to work below the radar, because they think only they can solve the problems of the two countries together,” said one former diplomat.

  32. Rayne says:

    Any of you online? Go to Today Show, Scotty McClellan is being interviewed by Meredith Viera in an exclusive, and he is really gushing.

    Kids making noise in background, would swear he said that Bush authorized the NIE leak, but I didn’t catch it.

    They are letting him have a HUGE chunk of time.

    Damn, they just broke for local news…didn’t catch if they would come back to him in 7-8 min when they are done.

    • PetePierce says:

      I’d kind of like to hear Gregory get off his butt and ask McClelland the damn questions he and the other sheep were too cowed or whatever word you want to use for being afraid not to have prime access to the WH press room to ask that they should have been asking Scottie, including why now Scottie–did your frigging loyalty outweigh the deaths of thousands of Americans, the breakup of their families, economic disaster for them and the same for hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and about 15 billion a month pissed away in Iraq?

      McClelland has written another partly derivative book, useful, but none of it is surprising excpt of course to all the Bushies who are “puzzled” my ass. They’re just pzzled that someone has started to spill only a part of their lying deception and moronicity.

  33. Rayne says:

    DAMN…they’re going to have someone from the admin rebut after the break.

    Have to scramble to find a blank tape.

  34. Rayne says:

    Dan Bartlett is on now.

    McClellan is still there, they are going to go back to him. This is taking over all their coverage.

    Oh man — they did a split screen, so you could see Scotty’s face while Lauer interviews Bartlett who is at a different site.

    • BayStateLibrul says:

      Thanks for the update.
      Finally, we have Countdown, not leading with the Obama/Clinton coverage,
      and getting back to what they do BEST!
      Impeachment should be back on the table

    • MarieRoget says:

      Thanks for the link, Rayne. Both McClellan & Bartlett rebuttal vids seem to be up now. Danny Boy’s repeating again the WH talking points on McC, which are already starting to sound stale. I’m sure they’ll be trotting out Phase 2 pretty soon- the personal attacks & effort to discredit Scottie as a normal, rational human being. A little of that in the mix already (”He’s not the Scottie we knew!”).

      First smears not getting enough traction-if the usual pattern is followed, they’ll be trying next to shred him personally in order to undermine his credibility. May start today using a phased media smear campaign from new faces telling us how wacked out McC has become, & the inklings of same when they worked with & knew him.

      BushCo running scared of little Scottie; must go make some more popcorn.

      • Rayne says:

        Based on the parsing of a response to McClelland’s book, Jeff Gannon (aka “man-whore”) said:

        Add me to the growing list of those who are having great difficulty understanding McClellan’s motives. I spent two years as a White House reporter, much of it during McClellan’s reign. At no time did Scott ever indicate, either publicly or privately, he had the misgivings he expressed in this book.

        What I hear about the book does not sound like the Scott McClellan I knew for two years. I can say without fear of contradiction, that I knew Scott better than any other White House correspondent or Washington reporter.

        Is he hinting at access McClelland granted him or McClelland’s sexuality? I’ll bet this is already being loaded in the arsenal.

        On the other hand, Gannon is the very best example of how abysmal the MSM was, never questioning the softball-lobbing man-whore in their midst in the White House gaggle. Maybe the White House won’t go there.

        • MarieRoget says:

          Dog whistle for possibility of outing McC’s sexuality IMO, plus veiled threat to Scottie that more may be revealed by Gannon or others. Ugly maneuver, & the WH will absolutely go there if Scottie doesn’t start backpedalling- it’s a Rovian tactic used many times in the past to discredit or silence.

          They’d better watch it, though. McC may have some ammo of his own to fight that with. I can’t believe he isn’t prepared for this.
          Or he could take the hint & back off the more inflammatory criticisms in his book.

        • PetePierce says:

          While there is no place the WH won’t go and nothing they wouldn’t do, witness the way they use the DOJ as a boy toy and all the Christies and LHPs there don’t say a fucking thing about it. They just soldier on just as McClelland did while DOJ ruins people’s lives like the countless targeted prosecutions mentioned here, by Horton, that we can all real off.

          I don’t care if McClelland’s favorite sex partner is a sheep as long as the sheep is consenting–I guarantee you if he is gay he’s thought that through before putting out the book. I don’t know if Scott McC is working now–he may need the money if the book sells significantly and can bring any.

          Also I’d take anything Gannon says with a huge grain of salt. He doesn’t exactly have a corner on the credibility market.

        • emptywheel says:

          Howie (or someone–maybe Aravosis?) was wondering yesterday why no one had accused him of being gay yet.

          It looks like they may be deploying their Gannon weapon.

  35. Rayne says:

    Wow, they must know there’s a lot of curiosity; MSNBC literally just posted a big green banner that says “Coming up: Video of complete TODAY interview with ex-White House press secretary Scott McClellan”

    Woohoo! The MSM is going nuclear on itself, this first salvo a frontal attack on FOX by NBC!!

  36. wavpeac says:

    It’s a sorry thing in a democracy when telling the truth is considered urinating on coat tails. Do you think we will ever put truth and the pursuit of it, in it’s proper place.

  37. SharonMI says:

    So Jeff Gannon is still on the payroll? Sheesh, so they CAN look long-term when they want.

  38. PetePierce says:

    BTW as Scottie McC makes the rounds, he’s featured on KO tonight where the questions may and probabily will be better than Meredith, and KO should invite Gregory although I imagine that you’ll be able to find Scottie on Oprah and even Rachel Ray and the reality shows soon, since the book is a type of reality show compared to the clusterfuck that we put up with in Congress and the West Wing.

    How about Big Brother Does Scottie stay in the House and Survivor Is Scottie staying on the Island?

  39. BayStateLibrul says:

    The CIA leak case has not been put to rest.
    Many are chagrined, if not outraged with the results.
    Doesn’t Congress or the Special Prosecutor have the “duty” to
    come clean and resolve this issue.
    Folks are mad at Scotty for waiting…
    I’d love to see Fitz or Congress come forward with a “profile in courage”
    This case is bigger than the legal entaglements and goes to the root
    of our democracy…

    • PetePierce says:

      Bay State that Special Prosecutor is Pat Fitzgerald. While the Rezko jury heads into its third week of deliberations soon, I imagine Pat Fitz has some interesting reading he is doing in Scottie Mac’s book. And his investigation on the CIA leak case is still officially open. Jane Hamsher blogged about it in April here–so stay tuned.

      Office of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald: Still Open For Business

      From Jane:

      I’m going to assume this is a bad paraphrase, because the investigation is not closed, not as long as the Office of Special Counsel is still open. I contacted Fitzgerald spokesman Randall Samborn on the matter who said, predictably, “no comment.” But if there was no Office of Special Counsel open, he couldn’t exactly be speaking on the matter, now could he.

      Commenter Jim White speculated on that thread that Fitz may have some emails that Rove thinks have been disappeared. Once Marcy has a chance to read McClelland’s book, I will be very interested to hear Marcy’s comments as to possible investigative avenues for Fitzgerald in the leak case, particulary as to Rove and Cheney.

      And the Special Counsel does not expire when we hopefully will have a Democratic President take the oath of office January 20, 2009 and that democratic candidate would not be pardoning anyone who is convicted if Fitz chose to indict Rove who has no immunity from the reopening of a grand jury and an indictment what so frigging ever.

      Maybe, just maybe, Fitz has privately had it with the pardon crap, and if Fitz waits until Bush is gone, then his work will stick if he indicts Rove. Libby can certainly be forced to testify as can Addington and Cheney who will be a private citizen hunting wingless birds and shooting them at point blank which is his participation in sports events (excellent cardiovascular workout for someone with a pacer).

      I haven’t seen Congress do an effective investigation in a time period well before Sandy O’Conner put Bush in the oval office with her 5-4 swing vote.
      O’Conner still has an office at the Supreme Court and just hired the Sandy O’Conner hires first blind law clerk who will brief for the active justices

      O’Conner is staying pretty active and she is sitting on 3 judge appellate panels now all over the country and firing questions and if you are interested and stay alert, you may be able to attend an oral argument where she is on the panel. That isn’t common, but she’s doing it several times a year. She can pick up the phone and although I’m sure she can’t choose cases, but who knows how they’re really assigned–theoretically by computer but hey–she can pick up the phone and sit on a panel in any circuit as long as she’s alive or they have been asking her to have the experience of pow-wowing and conferencing with a real live Supreme Court justice. As long as they are alive, they still can have input into cases although they don’t formally here them at the Supreme Court but her clerk does write memos and briefs and she can sure as hell influence him since she hired him and probably edit his briefs and memos when assigned (we’ll never know the answer to that).

      As to effective oversight by Congress, I have a friend who is running for the Senate (Saxby Chamgliss’ seat) and he has terrific experience in criminal law and on a state judiciary committee for years and if we can get people registered and get the Democratic turnout way up (there are many southern states who have an average of 600,000 black voters not registered and they would not be voting for McCain–they’d be voting Democratic, he would make a splendid replacement for Chambliss.

      You won’t see any more Special Prosecutors appointed now, and I really don’t know if Fitz could technically reopen his investigation–I believe he could, and maybe it’s not officially closed.

      This is the kind of apointments for investigation though that you’re going to see from Mukasey–he is not going to appoint any special prosecutors for current and future investigations as this administration winds down (probably a condition of his being appointed). Here is an accurate characterization of his appointment for investigatino into the CIA torture tapes case:

      Mukasey Seeks to Protect White House and DOJ With Durham “CIA Torture Tape” Appointment

  40. Diane says:

    Marcy, have you noticed this post got excerpted over at Raw Story? If so, please forgive – since reading your post I haven’t kept up with the comments.

  41. PetePierce says:

    DNC Lawyers Closing the Curtain for Clinton and Getting Ready to Shut It Down

    The legal analysis, sent late Tuesday to the party’s rules committee, is expected to guide a meeting this weekend where the committee will try to settle one of the most contentious issues remaining in the Democratic presidential race: what to do with delegates from Florida and Michigan, which violated party rules by moving up their primaries ahead of Feb. 5.

    Things are not looking rosy for Senator Raise Hell At the Convention Clinton.

Comments are closed.