The MI Challenge

As I said in this post, I was skeptical that Mark Brewer–the MDP Chair–would be able to make a strong case for the 69-59 split.

I was wrong.

The key to Mark Brewer’s success was in stating clearly that there was no way to measure the "fair reflection" of the intent of the voters who participated in the presidential selection process because, as he pointed out, there was no primary, convention, or caucus, that actually measured it.

And that’s the fundamental truth that made the Clusterfuck the Clusterfuck it was.

By starting from that premise, Mark managed to undercut the legal problem with the challenge–that the RBC doesn’t have the authority to arbitrarily impose a result. Because if the RBC seats a delegation based on the result of the January 15 Clusterfuck, then it will be violating one of its key principles.

This was the first time I’ve heard anyone from the MDP state that the Clusterfuck was not a measure of the will of the voters. I wish they had said so earlier. But I’m glad they’re making that point now.

For those wanting a primer on the fun ironies of those presenting MI’s case, btw, don’t miss this DHinMI post:

Opening the testimony will be Michigan Democratic Party chair Mark Brewer.

[snip]

I know Mark loved the process we used in 1996 through 2004, which was called a caucus but essentially worked like a closed primary. I’m quite certain that if it had been his decision alone, that Michigan would not have jumped the queue and created the mess that’s ensued. As party chair, he has to take strong cues from the governor, and much of this mess goes to Governor Jennifer Granholm. And since Jennifer Granholm has been so strongly supporting Hillary Clinton, it’s impossible to think that the Michigan mess wasn’t partly attributable to the Clinton campaign.

After Brewer will be Democratic Senator Carl Levin. Levin has been pushing to break the duopoly of Iowa and New Hampshire for years. In the past, Michigan threatened to go early in the process, but it never did. This year, with support from Granholm and other players in the state (who were with Clinton), Michigan finally jumped the queue.

Then, after Levin, we’ll have the advocates for the two campaigns, and this is where the dynamics between the players gets fun. In 2002, After three terms of ruining the state, Republican governor John Engler was finally term-limited, and there was a three-way race in the Democratic primary to succeed him. The winner was Jennifer Granholm, who went on to win in November, and is now in her second term as governor.

The second place finisher was Democratic congressman, and recent number two Democrat in Congress, David Bonior. The third place finisher was James Blanchard, the former governor whose horrible, arrogant campaign for reelection in 1990 gave Engler the way in the governor’s mansion.

Update: At this point, James Blachard is throwing loads of flying horse shit. He claimed that no one was saying our primary would not count. He must have been on vacation for December and January, because I sure heard–over and over–that the vote would not count.

image_print
339 replies
  1. Petrocelli says:

    ((((( Marcy )))))

    The best thing I can say about Mark is, hearing his comments, I couldn’t decide which side he’s fighting for … I hope there are more like him willing to be objective and garner a fair result.

  2. emptywheel says:

    One thing Mark did was to note that the Dem Party has used exit polls in the past to set up targets for affirmative action.

    Mark’s a total geek–but it really served the process well.

    • Petrocelli says:

      I liked Levin framing the two sides, effectively throwing out the notion that Obama should get zero delegates …

      • emptywheel says:

        I will. One of the things I’m realizing (after some discussions with folks who have been closely involved in this) is that the gang of four have been seriously under-covered. And the party did a stupid thing–which is keeping a lot of this secret, which exacerbated the suspicions and anger on both sides.

        There still was a big problem, because people like Jennifer Granholm were almost as bad as Terry McAuliffe in treating the primary as if it were valid.

        But one of the biggest problems is that there was not this open acknowledgment–on the part of all involved–that it was a clusterfuck.

        Incidentally, Debbie Dingell used the term “fiasco” last night. I’d be willing to give up the term clusterfuck if we agreed that everyone–from Terry McAuliffe on down–had to use the term “fiasco.”

        • Petrocelli says:

          Nooo … clusterfuck is a better description of this mess and I hope it makes ‘the people’ confront those who went along with this stupid idea …

        • siri says:

          I’m sorry, but McAuliff is going to use either and likely BOTH terms if “hil” doesn’t get the nomination. If she gets it, he’ll be touting the organization and fairness…..
          nothing clusterfuckery about it!!!!!

          • bmaz says:

            You don’t seem to get it, this is over; he will be saying exactly what he needs to say and should be said exactly as EW indicated @17.

              • bmaz says:

                Apologize, did not mean to be rude in the least. Quite frankly, I should have paid attention better to whom I was responding. I am kind of used to the regulars here, and I think (hope) they me, and our discussions are pretty free and direct normally. No offense whatsoever meant.

              • Petrocelli says:

                bmaz is many things, “rude” isn’t one of them. He is one of the best minds on this or any other site and speaks frankly, but never disparages (no, I’m not a D’Backs fan *g*).

                • bmaz says:

                  In fairness, I am a little blunt and argumentative sometimes. It is, sometimes unfortunately, what I was trained and conditioned to do. I pretty much love and respect anybody that has the passion to be involved here, even if we disagree every now and then.

            • Petrocelli says:

              Many people feel that Hillary will use her small gain from today to insist on taking this further …

              I hope that this plays out as Marcy noted @ 17 but I am a little skeptical …

  3. eyesonthestreet says:

    EPU’d, as I said before, go ahead and give her the 4 extra delegates, 73-69= 4, then she can claim a “moral victory.

    Ickes: “fair game” stuff – not really fair, since the “uncommitted” where told by the party to vote that way, so he is WRONG. He is a weak presenter.

    WOOHOO, Leahy, Ickes is once again mocked.

    • bmaz says:

      I’ve seen Ickes live before, although was a long time ago, I think that is just his affect. He is a relentless junkyard dog; great if he is yours, infuriating ass if he isn’t. Heh, pretty much describes trial lawyers eh? He is very smart though.

  4. FormerFed says:

    Marcy,

    As always, thanks for your insight. I thought Brewer made a reasonable compromise. Sen Levin certainly gave me more background on the Iowa/NH has to be first issue. I have always thought this was an unfair process.

    The question I have in my own mind is why should the MI delegation be seated in whole with full voting privilege? If (as it seems) the FL delegation will be penalized for not following the rules by seating everyone but giving each delegate only a half vote, then why shouldn’t this be the case for MI as well. And this question applies no matter which HRC/BO allocation you choose.

    • bmaz says:

      And to Petrocelli – I want to clarify, I was not commenting on Levin’s content (and his background arguments re: IA and NH I have always agreed with, not to mention what NH did this year which was also a technical violation); rather, I was simply talking about the effectiveness with which he presented. Kinda shocked considering that it is “some dude” versus a seasoned Senator, but I kind of thought Brewer was more compelling somehow or another.

      • FormerFed says:

        I agree, Brewer was a better presentation – but then, he probably prepped a little harder than Sen. Levin. I actually thought Sen. Nelson and Rep Wexler were the best presenters.

      • Petrocelli says:

        I agree that Brewer was more compelling and quite objective, given the atmosphere. Levin’s disposition reinforced what many of us, including you feel … the campaign is over, now let’s seat the delegates and fight the General.

        I thought that Levin framed two pragmatic options of dividing the vote. What I disagree with is giving the Michigan delegates full votes while the Fl delegates will get 0.5 votes.

    • emptywheel says:

      What will happen is that the FL will be seated in half today, and the RBC will do who knows what today (though I think it much less likely, now, that they’ll seat the existing vote).

      Then on Wednesday or Thursday, Hillary will concede, based on the new number that comes out of today.

      Then on Friday, Obama will seat both at full strength. Obama’s camp came very close to accepting the 69-59 split already, which is why (I think) the MDP is going for everything–because they know they’ll probably get it by the end of next week.

        • bmaz says:

          Heh, I am pretty sure she has it just about right. And you are right, this is the best joint on the web (of course, I may be a bit biased).

  5. dosido says:

    Marcy (and Jane)

    I’m so glad your media passes came through. Thanks for all you do. Truly.

      • eyesonthestreet says:

        But that is later, why not let it be concilliatory now? Would 19 FL + 10 MI Clinton be enough to tip the outcome?

        • PetePierce says:

          Nothing that happens today is going to change that Obama wins the nomination no matter what kind of math you apply. It’s not about taking the nomination away from Obama–the Supers are gonig to show you that in spades on Tuesday night and Wednesday morning. It’s about trying to make the people of Florida and Michigan whose elected officials, just like the Congress don’t give a flying frig about their constituents and screwed them to get a little more limelight for themselves.

          Just as the killing goes on in Iraq; Iraq has been politicized first by Bush to achieve “greatness”–that’s one part of Scott McClelland’s book where he’s not lying, and then by your Congress and Senate for their political purposes. With very few exceptions (yeah I know Webb has a son and McBush/McSame/McSugarmama has two) no one in the Congress or the Senate has any skin in the game and they aren’t about to have any sons and daughters in Iraq.

          And if generous concessions from Obama allow Clinton to claim some false metric that she won the popular vote that didn’t actually happen, everyone with a brain more evolved than a newt will know this is one more false claim.

          This is about the voters in those states, and basically about the DNCs fear that if they don’t do something they might tip needed votes in these two large electoral states to McCain–that’s the only reason this thing has replaced “To Catch A Predator” on MSNBC or whateer else would be on C-Span today.

          I frankly hope that Clinton wants to try to go to the convention, because it will stimulate the Super D’s to end it Tuesday and Wednesday–and that’s what’s going to play out.

            • PetePierce says:

              None of my comments was intended to be incidiary Bmaz, I am happy to turn my attention to McCain. I do believe this thing though is because the DNC is afraid of alieanating Michigan and Florida not because anyone feels the Super D’s there did anything right.

              I look forward to learning things from you about McCain I didn’t know, because you have been in the catbird seat to watch him during his career or most of it in the Senate.

          • JMorgan says:

            With all due respect, you have no earthly way of knowing that.

            This nomination is going to be decided by SDs, and unless Clinton drops out, she and very powerful forces are working to get both SDs and those delegates who are already pledged on her side.

            This will go until the end of August, at the convention (and conceivably beyond, but that’s another story). And how it ends, really, is anybody’s guess.

            I do believe, however, that unless Hillary Clinton drops out in the next two weeks, Democrats can kiss the White House (and conceivably Congress, if Democrats don’t bother going to the polls) goodbye.

            • SouthernDragon says:

              I am so sick of hearing the meme that the Democrats are not going to go to the polls in November. I’d like to know where these magic crystal ball prophecies come from and what empirical evidence supports them. I hear it from every right wingnut pundit so I guess that’s supposed to mean it’s true. Horseshit.

              • NorskeFlamethrower says:

                1,859 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ IS STILL GOIN’ ON AND ON AND…

                Citizen SouthernDragon:

                “I’m so sick of hearin the meme that Democrats are not going to go to the polls this November…Horseshit.”

                Yeah boy…it’s the whistlin’ past the grave yard while they hope that the entire leadership of the national Democratic Party will lose its mind and be bullied by a petulant and completely irrational losing candidate. What concerns me more ,however, is that all those dedicated M*Clinton followers who are goin’ over the cliff for her are bein’ taken for granted and alienated from the new Democratic Party movement that will advance women’s rights far more than all the years and lip service Mrs. M*Clinton has spent tryin’ ta make it into the old American oligarchy.

                But I really think this whole drawn out process is servin’ to convince folks all across the country that we as a people can move on into the 21st Century and beat the fascist beast without the junior Senator from New York.

                KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, WE’RE GUNNA LEAVE THE DUSTBIN BEHIND!!

              • JMorgan says:

                No, it’s probably true for some groups (that make the threat) and not so true for others (that make the threat not to vote, if...).

                I think whether they go to the polls or not, the predictions about them boil down to common personality types within those groups, past practices (have they made similar threats in the past and have they followed through on them), etc. You can break it down even further to some other models, e.g., the Rove-Ralph Reed model of church-goers — Which of these women’s groups meet regularly, are easily located for working on, etc.

                There is science to it. What we don’t actually hear much of are the models on the other side (potential voters for Obama who are at risk) because Obama’s campaign is playing it so close to the vest, of “playing by the rules”. It’s admirable, but the problem is, as we’re seeing with what this committee is probably going to do, he can’t count on anyone else playing by the rules. Even the rule-makers aren’t playing by the rules.

                That’s not a great place to be. Yes, it’s noble, and honorable, it’s “heaven”-worthy. But heaven is filled with also-rans, [See Al Gore.]

                • PetePierce says:

                  If you turn on any black/urban radio station from February to today and forward, you’ll hear that if Obama isn’t the nominee, they are staying home in droves. And in many southern states where no Democrat has ever won the WH without a sizable black vote, and I can show you the stats and have linked them from Kerry’s loss, there are an average of about 600,000 black voters who still need to be registered for November.

                  • JMorgan says:

                    Absolutely, everything that you’ve just said is spot on, and you’ve just stumbled upon what’s really going on, and why the Clintons have been fighting so hard, at what seems like a fool’s errand.

                    You have to step back to see the overall. This is a battle that’s been coming on for a long time, that’s been kicked down the road since the 1980s when the DLC was created, and refused to defend the word liberal. This is the fight for the Democratic Party, between the DINOs (the DLC, the centrists, who I think are more accurately moderate Republicans) and the liberal base (all of the individual interest groups, from women’s issues groups, African-Americans, labor, Hispanics, etc.), but particularly the activists of the people’s groups.

                    This is the Clintons, the DLC, trying to purge the party of us, drive us out, to become independents, scatter our power (that which we have) to the four winds, and replace us with the moderate Republicans who have been pushed out of the Republican Party by the fundamentalist Christians.

                    The Republican Party elites are fully aware of this and are struggling to hang on to those moderates, while also trying to hold onto the evangelicals (who they need for their sheer numbers), but move them to the side. But, everybody is hedging their bets, and keeping their assets, well, let’s say, liquid.

                    I think it’s important to realize that the only people who are loyal to a political party are us. The politicians of today aren’t really loyal in the sense of having an abiding respect for the history of the parties and an allegiance to the parties’ planks. These politicians see political parties as vehicles, for their own success.

                    Before you respond, just let it sink in.

        • MrWhy says:

          In negotiations you start with your strongest argument, not the position you think will be accepted as the final compromise. 50-50 is actually fair, but it isn’t a compromise that Clinton is likely to accept.

  6. joejoejoe says:

    I give Levin a lot of credit for bringing up NH and IA’s priviledged status and basically calling it a joke. If there is an argument to be made for campaigning in a small state first then there is no reason Maine cannot stand in for New Hamsphire, no reason that Kansas cannot stand in for Iowa, no reason that ONLY NH and IA meet those requirements. That rationale will never fly again.

  7. PetePierce says:

    I find it amusing that Howard Wolfson and a couple of Clinton’s advocates had the chutzpah in arguing about Michoogigan or is it Mishoogigan that the reason Obama took his name off the ballot was that he was frightened of running against Clinton in Mishoogigan (but was not afraid to run against her in every other state). One thing I take away from Hillary Clinton and I’m not sure if it was Emanuael Kant, Judge Jackson of the Supreme Court, or Judge Brandeis who coined the phrase:

    “Chutzpah Knows No Bounds.”

  8. siri says:

    sorry if i jumped the gun too bmaz. i AM struggling here, but am getting it all pretty well, i think. it’s frustrating to keep up and i think i reacted in that frustration, not at you personally.
    and i’ve been regular here for a long time, just stopped lurking a few months ago.
    thanks,
    pax

  9. RevDeb says:

    still working on my sermon but I have CSpan on in the background.

    I have to say this is far more of a food fight than I wanted to see. So far it looks like it isn’t doing much to heal anything. I hope I’m wrong.

  10. phred says:

    Blanchard appears to be into revisionist history, excepting of course for his sainted mother.

  11. eyesonthestreet says:

    Okay, I get it, Obama is conceding FL, allowing a 19 add for Clinton, but to prevent any sort of overblown meme about “victory” by Clinton they are holding their ground on MI.

  12. dosido says:

    Love ya, bmaz. I don’t often converse on EW’s posts, but I lurk often. your input is much appreciated here!

  13. emptywheel says:

    BTW, Blanchard has made what I consider a couple of false claims. Most disturbing, to me, is the claim that the Hillary campaign didn’t tamper with the Convenions. At least in mine, there was a solid blog of people who were trying to win Hillary votes on the uncommitted line. (They didn’t succeed, at least in our district.)

    • PetePierce says:

      I still wish I could understand the dynamics and resons for this large uncommitted vote unless it was that these people were saying “Look we passionately wanted to participate in this process” and it’s been totally wrecked and so the only way we feel we can be heard, is to not back away so we’ll vote uncomitted.

      Before this year, I would have failed the question on a multiple choice quiz that people could vote uncomitted in a primary or caucus (Michigan had both if I remember correctly).

  14. neurophius says:

    Blanchard said something I agree with for a change–the Democratic Party should rotate which states vote first

    • emptywheel says:

      Incidentally, if I’m reading Carl Levin’s face correctly, he’s not so happy with Jim Blanchard’s contention that there were no representatives from the Hillary campaign in the execuive committee that approved this compromise.

  15. siri says:

    i’ve not been impressed with ANYONE from “hil’s” campaign. Not even Nelson, and I LIKE Nelson. And this is not cause I’m not a Clinton fan, it’s cause these people there for her have been wrong and disingenuous. imho. but my o is supported elsewhere in live comments elsewhere today.

  16. masaccio says:

    Blanchard blaming Obama for a flawed campaign adds nothing to the discussion, but he keeps doing it.

  17. phred says:

    I don’t know EW, Blanchard is sure making it sound like Hillary is not going to concede by the end of the week. Sounds like she’s planning to work the supers until the bitter end. Emphasis on bitter.

    • dosido says:

      My mama is bigger and badder than your mama!

      loving it.

      rules vs. cheating! wowwwww!!!!!!!

  18. TheOtherWA says:

    Would somebody please turn down the governor’s mic when he’s not talking? His heavy breathing is really annoying.

  19. Kathryn in MA says:

    Whoa –
    Donna Brazile – My momma taught me to play by the rules and changing the rules int the middle of the game is called cheating.

  20. PetePierce says:

    One thing I’ve noticed about MSNBC vs. CNN and C-Span today–if you watch MSNBC you’re going to get a huge dose of Tweetie and if you watch CNN you’re going to get the banal high school level analysis of Wolf Blitzer.

    That’s like a choice between castor oil or raw asparagus.

  21. neurophius says:

    Wolfie does indeed love his voice

    I wonder if he is unhappy because CNN is showing so much of the actual meeting proceedings and not interrupting it enough for him to talk much

  22. FormerFed says:

    Am I the only one who is repulsed by Iches?? I was raised to dress for the occasion. Seeing him in shirtsleeves (but with French cuffs) at this kind of meeting just turns me off. If the senators can put on a tie, then surely Harold can.

    But then I am very old fashioned about some things!!

    • siri says:

      no.
      no.
      that’s not “old fashioned”, it’s about respect and REAL/TIME fashion and tradition and all that’s decent.
      it’s just RESPECT.
      u r totally right!

    • dosido says:

      yep. many comments about ick about ickes.

      Although I think not wearing a jacket is sorta cool in that it breaks up the image of Suits in the Backroom. Wish someone else had done it.

    • eyesonthestreet says:

      I commented on this in earlier thread, my first impression was it was a white and blue striped jacket, almost like what a clown would wear, but then later I saw it was a shirt, which is even worsse, and if you try to think through his decision process earlier today:

      Ickes picks out what to wear:

      I want to appear friendly- okay I will wear a striped print
      I want to appear like I will “work” to a resolution- okay, no jacket, just a shirt
      Well, I can’t look too casual- okay, shirt needs to look more formal, so the french cuffs with links
      I am a rebel, screw the coat and tie monkey outfit
      This is going to be a circus anyway, what does it matter what I wear?

      or something like that….

  23. phred says:

    EW, how big is the room and how many people are there do you think? It’s hard to tell from the live stream. Oh, and go have a yummy lunch!

  24. nonplussed says:

    fwi Calls being taken on C-span Obama Supporters call 202 585-3886 Clintonians 202 585-3885 All Others 202 585-3887

  25. RevDeb says:

    Call in time on the Span:

    202-585-3885 CLinton supporters
    202-585- 3886 Obama supporters
    202-585-3887 Others

    Any takers?

    • masaccio says:

      PetePierce: I get that you don’t like HRC. Leave Chelsea out of it. Emulating Rush Limbaugh is bad behavior.

  26. siri says:

    i KNEW donna brazille was going to rock the house when i first saw the look in her eyes before she spoke one word, referring to her “mama comments”.
    hehe
    she sooooo rocks.
    after we get our White House back, I’m gonna throw some money at her.

  27. wangdangdoodle says:

    Is there a way to make the CNN stream float on top like the CSPAN stand-alone option?

  28. FrankProbst says:

    Okay, for those above who have said things along the lines of, “Obama’s going to win anyway, so why not just set the delegates from Michigan?” The answer is simple: Because we don’t have to have to have stupid displays like this on national television every 4 years. I will immediately agree that the rules regarding delegate selection are stupid and arbitrary. But those are the rules. And the time to change the rules is BEFORE a colossal clusterfuck, not AFTER one.

    • PetePierce says:

      At least we know if one of them were President, you’d have the rules of the NBA finals and the Superbowl changed several times during the games.

    • JMorgan says:

      Frank, anybody who furthers the meme, “Obama’s going to win anyway, so why not…” is, 1) misinformed and misguided, and 2) helping to put Hillary Clinton into the nomination.

  29. wigwam says:

    Per Sam Stein at HuffPo:

    The Democratic Party’s Rules and Bylaws Committee is close to reaching a deal to seat the entire Florida and Michigan delegations, each with half of its vote, according to multiple sources.

    Sen. Hillary Clinton would gain a net of approximately 28 delegates – not enough to seriously threaten Obama’s national delegate advantage. Sources said both campaigns were willing to hammer out an agreement along these lines.

  30. Linfalas says:

    Pure spectulation here, but if Sen. Cliton had removed her name from the ballot (and so all the delegates were uncommitted) would MI been able to argue that their first determining step would have been the district conventions and those being in the window they should be seated with no penalties? Of course that didn’t happen, but could the RBC just make the whole delegation uncommitted now?

  31. dosido says:

    mccain supporter on cspan is embarrassed by this display of discussing rules and what it looks like to other countries. “we’re just as mixed up as they are”.

    oh dear, our slip is showing!

  32. Rayne says:

    Damn, that was intense.

    I didn’t believe Brewer could make the case, either. He did okay, but I think my fundamental problem with this is that they could have done more upfront to fix this trainwreck.

    Blanchard totally pissed me off. The man acts like there is no such thing as the internet. And it’s a lie that we did not hear about Clinton’s comments about Michigan not counting — we heard it again and again, because of the toobz. What an old man.

    • PetePierce says:

      Blanchard is typical of the old school that will never realize in their lives that most everything is on tape and sites like You Tube now–the Huey Long School of Demagogory.

      If they say it, they are so enamoured with their own thoughts and voice, it must be true.

      I’m glad Blanchard is there. He’s going to hurt Clinton in Michigan.

    • JMorgan says:

      Absolutely, and did you catch his comment confirming that Clinton isn’t giving up, but will be working on poaching delegates through the summer up to the convention in August?

      Anybody who thinks Obama can rest on his laurels and that Clinton is down for the count, is deceiving themselves and may very well wake up after the Denver convention to find Clinton as the party’s nominee.

      • PetePierce says:

        The Super D’s are going to end any hopes of that and they’re going to do it this coming week. You can take that to the bank. Pelosi, Gore and the Super D’s ain’t letting this go to the convention. If you think that’s happening start putting on your McCain bumper stickers.

        • JMorgan says:

          It ain’t over until they cast their ballots at the convention. The SDs and the pledged delegates can announce all they want, but until they actually cast that ballot in Denver in August, their minds can be changed.

          That’s the truth of this matter, which doesn’t give me any joy in saying at all.

          Unless Clinton concedes, unless she quits, we’re talking about 3 months of mischief-making.

          • Twain says:

            Mischief-making is really a good way to state the case. That’s exactly what it is but if she really can’t pull this off (and I don’t think she can) what is the purpose of all this. She is piling up enemies by the day and I don’t think she will ever have any credibility left.

            • PetePierce says:

              The purpose of all this is best explicated in two places and I’m dead serious. John Gunderson’s new book on Borderline Personality or his 20- years of publications in the two major psychiatric journals.

              It’s about the Clinton ego. It’s the ego that allows their daughter to pick up $220,000 a year when her co-workers say she doesn’t even understand her job description, and live in a $3.5 million Manhatten apartment she didn’t earn a penny to buy.

              They believe they are entitled to do what indulges them. They could give a rat’s ass for the Democratic party and the downticket candidates who will profit from Obama being on the ballot. And we are going to get that half million black deomcrats registered and to the polls in November. We aren’t having a repeat of Ohio in 2004 and the dynamics of 2000 and 2004.

              • libbyliberal says:

                Amazing to see such power and control addiction laid out for us. I see a lot of things in terms of dysfunction and process-addiction and co-addiction. Disheartening and scary to see so many “enthralled” by an authoritarian and righteous spin by the ego-driven-”entitled” personality. Disheartening and scary to see those NOT enthralled BUT intimidated by the political enmeshment and its potential power. The secret is not in “winning” their game (you can’t… they are making their rules and denying empathy or even rationality) but in “NOT playing.” The Dem party has chosen to play and is dragging the rest of us behind them. Is it me, or is this very much crazymaking? There are power-addicts and they don’t go quietly. You expect them to walk rationally away from their fix? And then you have the ones codependently addicted to them. Oy vey.

                • PetePierce says:

                  I agree. What you say is accurate. And it has even more strength and resonance if the RBC leaves Michigan undecided today or tomorrow at the Wardman.

                • dosido says:

                  I share your perspective. I was impressed when Levin (i think?) called out Ickes by saying okay, you’re picking apart everyone’s solutions and proposals, do we not agree that we all want to come to some resolution? What is your proposal? IOW stop playing hard to get and playing in bad faith. Put up or shut up.

                  • lukasiak says:

                    the problem is that there is no authority for the rules committee to change the outcome of the vote. none at all.

                    the CREDENTIALS committee could reassign delegates in this fashion, but that is NOT THE FUNCTION OF THE RULES COMMITTEE.

                    I personally would be quite happy with the Levin proposal, because it is, in fact a good faith effort to reflect the will of the voters. BUT IT CANNOT BE DONE BY THE RULES COMMITTEE.

                    • dosido says:

                      OK. that’s fine. Mypoint in bring up the Levin/Ickes exchange was in response to the psych dynamics that Libby brought up. We all know people who like to shoot down other people’s ideas without risking offering any of their own. It’s counterproductive. that’s what I was trying to say.

                    • lukasiak says:

                      the thing is that under the rules, the best that anyone can do is give Michigan half its voting strength — those are the rules.

                      Both Clinton and Obama are ignoring that rule — everyone is so far — in the name of party unity.

                      One of the things that BTD and I have discussed at Talkleft is the fact that the Clinton campaign’ arguments make no sense WITHIN the rules. What is going on today has had nothing to do with the rules.

                      But, the issue of delegate allocation is not part of the delegate selection process — something that changes every presidential cycle, and something that everyone intended to ignore in terms of violation of the timing provision after super tuesday, because everyone thought it would be over. At that point, in the name of party unity, Michigan and Florida would have been seated in full regardless of the rules.

                      The ALLOCATION question is part of the party charter — and the rules committee does not have jurisdiction to waive anything about the charter in any fashion.

                    • dosido says:

                      Again, I feel you are talking right past my point.

                      But let me ask this: what is your bottom line?

                    • PJEvans says:

                      Did she or did she not agree to the rule that said MI and FL got no seats if their primaries were scheduled before Super Tuesday?

                      The states broke the party rules, all the candidates knew beforehand what the party rules were, and all except Clinton played by them in MI. She’s in the wrong on this and she knows it.

                      She’s lost this race. I would have voted for her with few questions, if she’d been less of a sore loser. Now I’d write in Obama before I’d vote for her.

                  • libbyliberal says:

                    To become so up to your eyeballs in a campaign, it must be hard to keep your psychological balance. After sacrificing so much and investing so much… but it is a test of mature statesmanship to put principle over personality needs. And not to slip into grandiosity that one is the only one who knows best and demonize your opponents. And to lose sight of the common good, in the name of your own best scenario. A tough but necessary test for authentic leadership. I hope Obama’s got that strength. I was convinced Edwards did. I don’t think Hillary does after all this.

          • PetePierce says:

            Get back to me on Friday JMorgan and let’s assess your concept of over. We’re not letting this thing wreck the Democratic chance to stop McCain from continuing Bush’s killing. And if you want better odds than Clinton for VP put your money on Miley Cyrus unless it’s on McCain’s ticket. I welcome her to end up there.

            It’d be like the Kamikazi talk Blanchard just delivered.

    • siri says:

      VERYVERY worth the look-see.
      He was THE show stealer today!
      I’m a huge fan of him!
      Thank you for that link, selise.

  33. libbyliberal says:

    Rachel Maddow pointed out that Hillary Clinton is in a post-rational period. And now it seems that the Party is joining her out of respect/intimidation for her and her support system.

    I loved Edwards. I like Obama. I am a middle-aged woman who doesn’t get or like the feminist-spin on all this. There was not a level playing field for all the Democratic candidates, so why should Hillary be entitled now when she wasn’t back then?

    Here is an amusing video of “young hillary” from americablog that illustrates the childish-ego-powered willfulness that frankly makes me question what is happening to OUR party in tiptoeing around it?



    • phred says:

      That youtube link was a hoot — thanks! And fwiw, as a 40-something woman I have had it with the everyone-who-doesn’t-vote-for-Hillary-is-sexist schtick. I had the misfortune of a double whammy of a Kate Clinton routine the other night where she went off on the sexist rant and managed to follow it up with a rant that bloggers are a bunch of pj-wearing basement dwellers. Kate Clinton. What the hell happened to the hilarious progressive comedian I once knew? Oh well, times change I guess.

      • libbyliberal says:

        Thanks, phred! We are drowning in “gamesmanship” in this country. Power over principle. Ends justifies the means. So Hillary is using a kind of blackmail and the party is volunteering for the game. Are we so spooked by the spectre of “losing” we are willing to not bother with true justice and integrity? So the polls and the pundits continue the horse(ass/rat) race… and we pj-wearing basement dwellers (hurray for us) feel our stomachs turn … and wonder… back to the least of evils choices once again? Gandhi’s philosophy… we can’t make change… we must be the change. Hillary and those in her thrall OR humoring her… are not BEING the change. So not being the change. We are living in “contingency manana” mode… postponing behaving with integrity and moral authority. Just one more game? And then when the Dems are in charge. Oh… you mean the spineless Dems? God, I hope not. But geeeesh. The Repubs lowered the bar… but we can do so much better… and now I am worried.

        • phred says:

          Hear hear, well said! Although I differ on one little thing — I am not now worried, I’ve been worried for quite some time ; )

          • libbyliberal says:

            Yeah… I agree with the worry. But hope springs eternal… and then there it comes… the latest “fresh hell”. And when they are springing up so earnestly from the Dem dimension…. oy vey.

        • dosido says:

          We are drowning in “gamesmanship” in this country. Power over principle

          well said. this is what has turned me off completely and forever to certain candidates. ahem.

          great comment.

          • libbyliberal says:

            Thanks.

            On the good side, this is a profoundly revealing situation. And I would like to know who among our government servers are willing to put their ego-driven-personality over principle … and the common good. With the amorality of the press, who always puts power over substance, sometimes hard to really do a reality check.

            I remember the old movie, the Bridge on the River Kwai… where Alec Guinness as POW gets so caught up in perfecting a bridge, he forgets the bigger picture… not to enable the Japanese oppressors. I see a similar theme running here.

  34. wigwam says:

    The Obama campaign is carefully weighing the following tradeoff:
    – The more concessions they make to Clinton the more likely that she can somehow manage an upset victory.
    – The more concessions they make to Clinton the better the chances of a unified Democratic party during the general campaign.

    So, they’re asking themselves how much conceding maximizes the chances that Obama ends up in the White House.

    • PetePierce says:

      And the answer ought to be no concessions. I can’t wait for the Super D’s to end this Tuesday to Friday.

  35. RevDeb says:

    from Joe at Americablog:

    After the Florida portion of the meeting was finished, I watched an impromptu press conference in the lobby of the Marriott that included Jon Ausman, Senator Nelson, former Senator Graham, Rep. Wexler and a couple other Florida Democrats. The theme was one of unity. Ausman said he could accept Rep. Wexler’s proposal for seating the Florida superdelegates with 1/2 vote each. Generally, the theme was one of unity. The speakers gave the sense that they feel there will be a resolution from the Rules Committee today that will make satisfy most of them. Avi Zenilman has a similar report.

  36. neurophius says:

    Howard Wolfson is arguing, count all the votes including Florida and Michigan, then apportion the delegates accordingly (regardless of the fact that each of the 50 states has its own rules for delegate selection)

    what a load of crap.

  37. PetePierce says:

    It will be terrific to see Wolfson’s face off TV forever after next week. They ought to make a network for him called Delusional TV.

  38. neurophius says:

    Wolfson is outrageous

    If we are ever to have party unity, Clinton needs to get a better spokesman

    • NorskeFlamethrower says:

      We CAN have party unity without Mrs. M*Clinton, that’s the bluff she’s been runnin’ on the entire country but particularly the Democratic Party. It has become crystal clear to this old Norwegian that she isn’t gunna accept ANY compromise for unity because she has been told by her corporate bosses to run this thing over the cliff.

  39. Rayne says:

    Did everybody else let out a yelp when Brazile played the “your mama” card and used the “C” word?

    Holy crap. I still can’t believe how she took that smile-faced white boy to the woodshed and back by the scruff.

  40. lukasiak says:

    what I love is how Obama supports treating Floridians as HALF-PEOPLE, but wants Michigan delegates to get full votes — but disregard the results of the primary election.

    I mean, Obama is trying to not merely change the rules, but to regard Florida as less than the founding father regarded slaves.,…

      • lukasiak says:

        no twain, you give me a break.

        That is exactly what Bonier and Wexler want.

        Clinton want everyone seated at full strength based on how the votes were cast.

        And if you had a clue, you would know that not only is Obama’s michigan proposal completely ridiculous, there is NO basis in the rules that would allow the RULES COMMITTEE to do anything but honor the outcome of the vote itself.

          • lukasiak says:

            tell that to twain…. if you want to insist on people being polite, don’t blame the person who responded to provocation.

            blame the provocateur. He doesn’t know what he is talking about. He hasn’t read the rules. He hasn’t discussed the rules over at TalkLeft where the rules have been discussed.

        • emptywheel says:

          p luk

          With all due respect, using the logic of the “fair representation” would require, in MI, that they count the outcome of the District Conventions, not the primary. That’s true because 1) the people who participated in the January Primary did not believe they were participating in the Presidential selection process, and 2) the primary was ruled unconstitutional.

          If that were to happen, then Obama would get 2/3 of the votes, at least, based on the turnout at the district conventions.

          Of course, that’s an absurd idea, but no more absurd than counting the result of the MI primary.

          So you’re left with a problem: what do you do? Simply not resolve MI. Perhaps–the credential committee has more authority here than the rules. But seating based on teh primary is nin fact a worse solution–and no more legally defensible, based on teh fair representation that Fowler keeps talking about–than the 69-59 compromise.

          • JPL9 says:

            Thanks emptywheel for the comment. What is it like sitting in the audience and watching the proceedings?

    • PetePierce says:

      Let’s be crystal clear. Obama isn’t treating Floridians as anything. Their fuckhead SuperDelegates got them their clusterfuck phony election. Obama abided by the agreement that both over 21 law school graduates (one who flunked the DC bar and never returned to have the guts to take it again–a quitter) signed.

      You seem to neglect that we don’t play games or have contracts in this country where you change the rules in the middle of the fucking game.

      • lukasiak says:

        lets be crystal clear.

        Obama has two people representing HIS CAMPAIGN..

        And OBAMA wants to treat Florida voters as worth HALF of what voters in other states are.

        That is the OBAMA campaign proposal.

        • PetePierce says:

          I don’t want to keep arguing with you. I know you don’t recognize the agreement that both people signed. I also know that like Blanchard you are pretending it doesn’t exist, and that Clinton isn’t all over You Tube saying that the election in Florida isn’t valid.

          Clinton only got interested in getting “full votes” for Florida and LOL the people in Michigan who didn’t even vote because it was nullified, when she realized that she would not be corronated during Super Tuesday.

          I’d say Clinton has gotten more cold showers in the last few months then she got when she came out of Yale law school after always being the little girl who made good grades and got an “F” when she took the D.C. bar.

          Sure no one appreciates better than I do, that classes, bar exams, medical board exams, and National Board Exams (doctors have to take them, lawyers play games with them and never take them in each state because too many of them fail national exams when they test them) that exams have little to do with your talent, skill, and constructive success in medicine and law. But besides what she’s done on Senate Armed Services committee (nothing) you’ll never hear a Clinton commercial saying “All my life I got good grades until that “F” I don’t talk about on the D.C. Bar.

          • lukasiak says:

            both candidates DID respect the agreement. You obviously haven’t read the agreement. I have.

            Actually, Obama did not respect the agreement — he campaigned and ran ads in Florida.

            • marymccurnin says:

              “Both national cable networks told us it would be impossible for us to run advertising nationally that excluded only Florida. For that reason we consulted with the South Carolina Democratic Party chair, Carol Fowler, who told us unequivocally she did not consider this to be in violation of pledge made to the early states,” said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

            • JPL9 says:

              Obama bought ads in GA that were run in FL where the GA station is picked up. He also bought national ads. Because of the lack of campaigning by both candidates, she had a higher name recognition. I haven’t read the rules but AP news sources seems to think that the 1/2 vote was the only option. Talk Left gives one side of the argument imo.

              • PetePierce says:

                Jeralyn is a hoot at Talk Left. She has nebulously and vaguely told her faithful who are of course in her view children at her feet who would neverbe able to understand a contact or a code section that this meeting of the RBC today is not a courtroom and if there were a legal proceeding “certain arguments could be made.”

                What’s funny is that Jeralyn never details those arguments and the lawyer in her knows damn well that if this contract signed were aired in a courtroom Clinton would have had her clock cleaned long ago.

                I find it halarious that Jeralyn intimates a courtroom would be different but doesn’t dare to get into the legal aspects of the contract as it would play out in a courtroom. Too funny.

                Jeralyn needs a late night TV show. She drifted into comedic territory months ago.

              • JMorgan says:

                I don’t understand what the story is with Jeralyn and what seems to me to be a fanatical pro-Clinton position.

                  • JMorgan says:

                    Count the “lawful” votes, lukasiak. That’s the American way.

                    Hillary Clinton only wants to count the votes that were cast for her. It’s remarkably reminiscent of the 2000 election, the Bush position.

                    But since I have you, a Clinton supporter, here, can you please tell me how you explain her lies to yourself? I’d like to know, after 8 years of being deceived by a treacherous administration how you can support handing Unitary Executive power and all that comes with it (governing through executive orders, signing statements which overturn congressional legislation) to another person with such a casual regard for the truth, and no respect for the rules?

                • PetePierce says:

                  I have the highest respect for Jeralyn’s abilities as a lawyer. She has worked tirelessly in countless organizations to teach law, and to advance ACLU type causes. She is an excellent attorney and a very nice lady.

                  I can only assume that Jeralyn is like many woman who is congealing all their unfortunate and for some women terrible experiences at the hands of men or women who supported those methods in different situations who see Senator Clinton’s campaign to the White House as a vindication for what they have seen that are gender violations in the past.

                  I don’t really know the reasons why Jeralyn has turned her blog into a battle to the matresses for the Clintons. I wonder what she’s going to do with it soon.

                  • lukasiak says:

                    I can only assume that Jeralyn is like many woman who is congealing all their unfortunate and for some women terrible experiences at the hands of men or women who supported those methods in different situations who see Senator Clinton’s campaign to the White House as a vindication for what they have seen that are gender violations in the past.

                    what a pile of sexist offal.

                    seriously…. you think the only reason that an intelligent, accomplished highly professional woman would support Clinton over Obama is because she has a vagina and is frustrated by it?

                  • JMorgan says:

                    I have thought the same as you, of Jeralyn, over the years.

                    I have been reminded of something during this campaign season that I knew, but forgot I knew, and that is how no matter how well we think we know people, during times of trial we often find that we have been completely wrong. Sometimes pleasantly, other times, not so much.

                    One on my “Surprise, surprise, surprise”-List:

                    Lanny Davis (what a schmuck).

            • JMorgan says:

              Back up there, buddy.

              Obama had some ads that ran in FL as part of a national ad buy.

              Clinton was in and out of FL repeatedly in the weeks before the primary for fundraisers which got mega-TV coverage.

        • phred says:

          Ah PJ, that’s a reference that warm’s my heart, alas the link doesn’t work, but working a Star Trek reference into a political thread, sure adds a little needed levity : )

          • PJEvans says:

            You might could look at ‘Memory Alpha’ for it. I beieve they have a copy of what passes for rules … at least on the fifth Saturday of May in an election year. Now it might be different if the moon was full or if it was only the fourth Saturday ….

            • phred says:

              You might could

              BTW, any chance you grew up in the greater vicinity of Pittsburgh? Just curious… The hubby is from northern WV and he says that all the time.

          • nomolos says:

            How ya doin today Marymc. Hope all is well with you and yours. Seems like the waters of the lake are a little choppy today, no? Just remember what my sainted mother said to me many a time. “Consider the source and take deep breaths”

              • nomolos says:

                Reeling and stealing a peek at the comments above and wonder just where things started to go wonky. As much as this whole confab seems like a kabuki it is actually a form of Democracy in action. Reasonable people will come to a reasonable conclusion with compromise on both sides. It is nt easy for the DLC to see that no matter what compromise she cannot be compromised into the nomination. It is too late and it is the demise of the DLC and it is not easy for the previous group of power brokers to go quietly into the night.

                • dosido says:

                  I’m loving this debate. I love how messy it is and after seven and a half years of secrecy in the WH, watching it for myself is balm for this battered citizen’s soul.

                  • NorskeFlamethrower says:

                    BINGO Citzen dosido, you hit it right on the head and as long as we fight it out in the open and call a spade a shovel, we don’t need Mrs. M*Clinton and that’s becomin clearer and clearer to her dedicated followers who she’s leadin’ right out of the Democratic Paryyu and marginalizin ‘em again!!

  41. neurophius says:

    Noron: “After Tuesday, isn’t the Democratic Party really facing Armageddon?”

    Somebody remind me, why did we nickname her Noron?

    • PJEvans says:

      Because we can call her that in public without other people feeling like we’ve insulted the mentally challenged?

  42. bmaz says:

    Alright now, the foaming at the mouth Clinton haters and bashers, and you know who you are, need to get a grip. Obama is going to be the nominee, you have won, have a little class. You should also keep in mind that you are viciously insulting and demeaning pretty much 49% of the Democratic electorate, at least of the electorate that is still attached to one of these two candidates. To keep up with the holier than thou condescending belittling of effectively half of the brothers and sisters in your party, people you will need to win in November, is unseemly, ugly and counterproductive. Grow up and win with a little class please.

    • bmaz says:

      And what I said goes for the converse of any Clinton supporters too. Take the results gracefully and treat others here with respect. It really is possible to disagree and be passionate without either side being chippy and making asses of themselves.

      • PetePierce says:

        Ya now Bmaz if you can ever tell me what Clinton is doing if she tries to continue to get in the way of the Democratic party facing McCain after June 3, I’d respect and be very interested in your analysis. Because for the life of me, I don’t see anything positive coming from that for us to get the WH and you don’t ever need to hear from me why we have to get it back and the downticket people too. Things have gotten crazy beyond any novel I’ve read as to this government. You only have to talk to one parent who has lost their child in this chaotic thing in Iraq that is about the ego of some very twisted minds.

        Tell me what you think is positive about the Clinton’s trying to get a roll call vote on the floor of the convention. And that’s where she’s headed. There is nothing remotely approaching gracefully or respect in that. Tell me what is going on with Clinton and this move to drag into the convention.

        • bmaz says:

          I have told you many times, and you either don’t listen or don’t care. Either is fine I cannot, nor would I want to, shape your view. But I can, and do, demand a certain level of discourse here. And to be honest, you are talking out of the wrong end with the ranting about the nuclear convention crap. You not only don’t know, but I can almost guarantee you that you are flat out wrong and full of it with that bunk. You keep demanding that Clinton loose gracefully, but refuse to give her the freaking room and opportunity to do so. If, by this time next week, I am wrong, I will gladly stand and take your best shot. In the meantime tone it down; this is going to work out just fine if the screaming supporters on both sides will chill out and give it the air to do so.

          • PetePierce says:

            I have told you many times, and you either don’t listen or don’t care. Either is fine I cannot, nor would I want to, shape your view.

            I absolutely do listen and I do care and I do learn or I wouldn’t be here.

            How in the world do you believe I am wrong to be concerned with the Clinton campaign going beyond June ?. They have given every indication of doing just that. And how in the world can you swallow all these evolving metrics?

            I can predict what you would say if the NFL Commissioner came on the field in the Fourth Quarter when the Packers were going to win a conference championship and changed the rules to try to take it away from them.

            I’m more than fine with the room for her to finish the primary Bmaz. It’s the way she has conducted it that bothers me. What has blown me away and you haven’t missed any of it, are the things that she has said. Sure campaigns are tough but when you are in the same party, and one of you is going to have to brook the 527s that are going to appeal not to people like you and your friends, but to the most primitive prejudices in this country, it is hurtful to your opponent’s chances if he has to campaign against those sound bytes.

            And the claims that were patently not true, but people with no education who don’t read at the level that you do were exploited in things like the gas tax holiday scheme. The best thing that’s happened as to gas is the $4.00/gallon price tag (unfortunately the same as milk and many pills and capsules).

            Exploiting those people (many in West Virginia and Kentucky) because they don’t read and don’t see through these schemes has been nothing but predatory, pure and simple.

            I’m chilled. But it is incredible not only what the Bush administration has done, but how many Republicans think it’s been superlative.

    • Twain says:

      I certainly don’t hate Hillary but I am so puzzled by what she is doing. She will have to go back to the Senate and deal with all those she has made life difficult for, to say the least, and try to show that she is a team player, which she has not shown in the campaign. One way or the other life has to go on for her. She is doing stuff that is against her own best interest and that I don’t get.

    • selise says:

      You should also keep in mind that you are viciously insulting and demeaning pretty much 49% of the Democratic electorate,

      i dislike senator clinton. that does not mean i dislike her supporters. when i criticize senator clinton, i am not criticizing her supporters.

      same thing goes for senator obama and senator obama’s supporters.

      since when did criticizing a politician equate with criticism of the people who have supported that politician?

    • NorskeFlamethrower says:

      1,859 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…

      Citizen bmaz:

      “…the foaming at the mouth M*Clinton haters and bashers…need to get a grip…you have won, have a little class.”

      Oh you mean “have a little class” like Mrs. M*Clinton and her stooges who continue to attack the nominee and split the party base? Is THAT the class yer talkin’ about? It seems to this old war horse that Obama is the ONLY one in this whole fiasco who has shown any class…and that’s plenty!! In fact, all those folks who care about the Democratic Party have got to fight these right wing corporatists or they will succeed in bringin the winnin’ candidate down because his backers wouldn’t stand up to the bastards. You and the rest of the M*Clintonistas would LOVE for us real Democrats to shut up so your candidate can win the fall election for McCrazy and walk away with another 100 million or two for her effort.

      KEEP THE FAITH AND GET THAT SORRY SHIT OUTTA MY YARD!!

    • PetePierce says:

      You mean the class where Clinton said that she and McCain are West Wing material but her Democratic opponent is an empty suit or where the moron tried to tell me that $28 in gas savings that the Blue Dog democrats would spit on and would never get through Congress and would help build bridges like the one that killed 13 people in Minnesota and permanatly severely injured many more others so she could pander to really illiterate stupid people?

      You’re not using class and Clinton in the same sentence with a straight face are you Bmaz? Come on–you’re terrifically bright and you can’t have been fooled by her campaign. This woman is not helping the Democratic party and she is harming every scintilla of what you care about.

  43. Phoenix Woman says:

    I’m shocked that Carl Levin actually smacked the taste out of Harold Ickes’ mouth:

    ICKES: Fair reflection of uncommitted status stands in the same shoes and is given the same protections and the same rights as a named presidential candidate … to take those delegates and convert them to Obama…does enormous violence … Delegates that are put into those [uncommitted] slots are fair game for any candidate who wants to go to persuade them to join his or her ship.

    LEVIN: You’re calling for a fair reflection of a flawed primary. And what we’re trying to do is keep a party together so we can win a critical state in November. You’ve got two candidates still standing, one of whom was on the ballot, and one of whom wasn’t. … You can’t say that a ballot where you have got one candidate named and the other candidate not on the ballot should be reflected.

  44. MrsK8 says:

    Hi guys!

    Am late to the discussion, per usual, and can’t stay either, much as I want to.

    I just thought I should offer you a link to an absolutely hilarious summary of the morning’s DNC committee session. Having seen it on my teevee first, reading this summary had me lol such that I scared the pupster.

    Love to all the Firepups!

  45. MrsK8 says:

    Whoa! I don’t know why the link thingee didn’t work, so I’ll paste it in here myself rather than use the box’s link icon:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/…..726/526082

    Read it and weep (with laughter — and couldn’t we all use a little levity?!)

    • NorskeFlamethrower says:

      Whoa…hey there Mrs. K8, I gotta go get some sleep so I’m passin the ammunition to you…keep the right wing DINOs and DLC stooges on the run here for me and don’t let any of that equivocatin’, prevaricatin’ bullshit from Mrs.M*Clinton to go unchallenged.

    • phred says:

      That was hysterical — thanks! I’m gonna choke every time I see Ickes shirt for the rest of the afternoon though…

    • dosido says:

      Hi MrsK8, nice to see you on this historic day.

      thanks so much for the link! funny funny stuff.

  46. lukasiak says:

    Did she or did she not agree to the rule that said MI and FL got no seats if their primaries were scheduled before Super Tuesday?

    here campaign did not take an official position.

    and with Obama saying now that the delegations should be seated in whole (in Michigan…If he gets half) and Florida (where he want tto treat the jewish and hispanic voters of that state who provided clinton with huge margins as “half” people), the question is moot. BOTH want the delegations seated.

    • JPL9 says:

      That comment is over the edge. Floridians knew that their vote did not count when they voted for presidential candidate but they did know that their vote for a lower property tax would count. It has nothing to do with nationalities and by writing that it does you show your true opinions.

      • lukasiak says:

        Barack Obama wants to cut Clinton’s delegate advantage in half by counting floridians as worth LESS Than our founders counted slaves.

        Its a simple fact. And while Clinton won the state 50-33, she won Jewish voters by 60% to 26%, and the hispanic vote by 59% to 30%.

        and the simple fact he that he wants to give FULL delegate voting stregth to michigan….and he wants the VOTES in that state completely ignored.

        Obama is happy to have the overwhleming number of jewish and hispanic votes in Florida treated like they are only 1/2 of a person — but want michigan voters to be treated as full people AS LONG AS HE ISN’T PUT AT A DISADVATAGE.

        You candidate is pretty damned sleazy — I don’t like everything Clinton has done, but in this instance at least her position is consitent.

        • dosido says:

          As Colbert said, she’s consistent in that she’ll adopt any position on any particular day in order to win.

          I’m feeling the Unity, I really am.

        • JMorgan says:

          4.2 million registered Democrats in Florida.

          1.7 million showed up to vote after being told that their votes won’t count, in a state where nobody campaigned, but where Senator Clinton has a decided advantage due to the “snow birds”.

          Including any of those votes not only disenfranchises the 2.5 million registered Democratic Floridians whose preference isn’t being counted, but also all other Democrats in all of the other states who abided by the rules and waited their turn to vote. Like me. In California. Whose first preference candidates had to drop out of the race before I could vote, because in spite of the fact that Florida’s and Michigan’s elections didn’t count, they sure affected the fundraising and influenced others’ votes.

          • SouthernDragon says:

            1.7 is 40 percent of the registered 4.2 million Dems. That’s a far higher number than normally turns out for any election, much less a primary. The snow birds are seasonal residents and the state has taken pains to ensure that they’re no longer able to vote in FL while also voting in their home state. Wasn’t ever a big problem but enough people complained about it that the state cleaned its procedures up. Retirees, a majority from the northeast, are indeed Clinton supporters and are consistent voters. Their numbers, however, were somewhat offset by the youth vote, which increased tremendously here. That said, the main reason for the high voter turnout, of all stripes, was the ballot initiative to ease property taxes. The prez primary was secondary and received far less attention than the tax issue.

  47. nomolos says:

    Suggestion from my wonderful wife. Seat all the delegates from MI and FL but free them all and allow them to vote how they would like. 100%, no previous obligations need be lived up to.

  48. Ann in AZ says:

    Now I’m really pissed. MSNBC just had ALL of their commentators get the Al Gore/Howard Dean story all wrong, starting with Noron and including Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews! Even Chuck Todd didn’t correct them! Noron said that Dean quoted Gore and saying to Dean, “Howard, it’s not about you; it’s about your PARTY!” Of course, we here all know that Gore said, “Howard, this is not about you, this is about your country.” Seems these people can’t get anything right. They missed the point entirely!

    • dosido says:

      Good Lard. this is why i am watching cspan. that’s inexcusable. they keep telling us the dems won’t turn out. I’m sure voters are as tired of MSM as they are of Bush.

      don’t tell me what I’m going to do. you don’t know me!!!

  49. lukasiak says:

    Both national cable networks told us it would be impossible for us to run advertising nationally that excluded only Florida.

    well, whoever said that was lying….because you can buy “national ads” and exclude certain areas. It would be impossible to run “national ads” that would run in georgia but not be seen in Florida. but its very easy to exclude stations in Miami from an ad buy.

  50. MrsK8 says:

    Norske, sweetie! So good to see you, and nighty-nite. I got lousy sleep last night, thx to pain. So I can’t hang around here much longer either (must lie down to relieve swelling), but will be back.

    Thanks for you confidence, and I hope all is well with you — I’ve missed you and every single other member of the Lake community as well.

    • RevDeb says:

      Mrs. K8. Been missing you too—though I’m not here as often as I used to be myself.

      Be well and take care of yourself.

  51. lukasiak says:

    But since I have you, a Clinton supporter, here, can you please tell me how you explain her lies to yourself? I’d like to know, after 8 years of being deceived by a treacherous administration how you can support handing Unitary Executive power and all that comes with it (governing through executive orders, signing statements which overturn congressional legislation) to another person with such a casual regard for the truth, and no respect for the rules?

    The exact same ways that you explain Obama’s lies.

    The difference between us is that I am willing to admit that all politicians lie — and all of them do so for the same reasons. You’re not, you have a double standard — Obama’s lies are “explained” and “justified” and W.O.R.M.’ed away to the point where you convince yourself that they aren’t lies at all. They are lies.

  52. Petrocelli says:

    Let’s not waste our energy fighting each other … that the reason why the Neocons have ruled for 20 of the last 28 years.

    Taking a hint from bmaz, can we all hold our fire until next Friday ?

  53. lukasiak says:

    I can predict what you would say if the NFL Commissioner came on the field in the Fourth Quarter when the Packers were going to win a conference championship and changed the rules to try to take it away from them.

    do you have ONE clue about the rules governing the nomination process.

    Obama failed to get the necessary supermajority of available pledged delegates that would allow him to win a first ballot victory. So did Clinton. Obama just failed by less…but he won NOTHING.

    in the event that a consensus is not reached that givss the a candidate the necessary supermajority, its up to the superdelegates — whose votes are not cast until the convention.

    Obama has lost 7 of the last 11 primaries — and by HUGE margins in some states, and very large margins in swing states that “look like America”.

    Hillary Clinton lost because of a less effective, flawed campaign strategy through February.

    Barack Obama lost — despite having every advantage from February on — because he’s a badly flawed candidate.

    • phred says:

      I’m just curious, you’re on a bit of a tear today, so IF Obama gets the nomination, what will you do in November?

    • PetePierce says:

      I’m beyond your cheap rhetoric or trying to denigrate whether I understand rules, or law. I’ve posted enough here to get that accross and I’ve never seen your name.

      I understand that when the Super Delegates push Obama over the top later this week, the rules are that Clinton is done. I don’t care what she does or says, she’s done.

      The rules are that if you can get to the polls whereve you vote, that you can vote for McCain in November or earlier by absentee. The rules are that McCain can put Clinton on his ticket.

      Obama won’t be doing that.

      Obama has lost 7 of the last 11 primaries — and by HUGE margins in some states, and very large margins in swing states that “look like America”.

      That’s wrong on its face. He won the delegate vote in Texas. Get someone to explain the rules to you. All these bullshit metrics like popular vote don’t count and they aren’t and haven’t been particularly extrapolable to the general.

      Without the black vote turning out heavily, you’re looking at McCain and maybe that’s where you want to and ought to be exerting your energy. They aren’t showing up for Clinton in a general period.

      In the event that a consensus is not reached that givss the a candidate the necessary supermajority, its up to the superdelegates — whose votes are not cast until the convention.

      If you think that Clinton is going to change the flood of Super D’s that happens next week at Denver, provide your city and I’ll give you a list of some of the best clinical psychiatrists in your area. It will take me a second.

      Hillary Clinton lost because of a less effective, flawed campaign strategy through February.

      Hillary Clinton lost because her arrogance which is a congenital quality in all 3 Clintons–her 29 year old daughter was afraid to take a question from a third grader representing My Weekly Reader and won’t take questions from the press because she’s been sheltered all her life and will go to her grave in that vein. M

      Obama has lost 7 of the last 11 primaries — and by HUGE margins in some states, and very large margins in swing states that “look like America”.

      The only metric in the rules you invoke is Delegates. That’s Delegates and did I mentioned it’s delegates and Clinton lost the Delegate vote in Texas.

      I’ve advocated a clarification of the byzantine rules for months before I saw your name here, and rotating regional primaries that would have avoided the Michigan clusterfuck that has people in a room right now knowing that they will make fools of themselves if they don’t come out with a decision.

      Clinton lost because her arrogance didn’t believe Obama had the ghost of a chance. They thought he would be another Jessie Jackson as Bill said explicitly.

      And like Howie Wolfson, you continue to conflate the margins in big states which weren’t landslides. Kentucky (I grew up there, you didn’t) outside of Louisville and Lexington is comprised of poorly educated bell shaped curves of people who are deeply racially biased and wouldn’t know 4 cert. votes in the S. Ct. from 4 cert. mints. That’s the case in West Virginia. They have very few electoral votes. West Virginia has but 5.

      Your logic is flawed as are your facts. Be sure and tune in to tell me what Clinton is doing on Friday. I guess you think she didn’t flunk the D.C. bar–did you pass her?

  54. dosido says:

    Obama has lost 7 of the last 11 primaries — and by HUGE margins in some states, and very large margins in swing states that “look like America”.

    I find this remark offensive. Especially coming from the “all 50 states” camp. And what about caucus states?

  55. JMorgan says:

    How do you explain Clinton’s vote to authorize Bush to attack Iraq? She admits that she didn’t read the NIE, even after she was urged to do so by Bob Graham. She is in the Joe Lieberman camp of the Iraq war, that it wasn’t a mistake, only how it was executed. That was the mistake. Is that how you feel?

    How do you explain Clinton’s vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment? Is it okay with you if Bush now attacks Iran? She gave him the go-ahead.

    How do you explain Clinton’s vote to ban flag-burning? (I’d love to hear Jeralyn Merritt’s justification of it.)

    How do you explain Clinton’s weasely behavior on the Bankruptcy Reform Act? Now that’s pure Clintonian cowardice and deceit.

    How do you explain her vote for the Patriot Act?

    How do you explain her exploitation of racial hostility, of any divisive politics, which is what is fueling you and I right here?

  56. lukasiak says:

    With all due respect, using the logic of the “fair representation” would require, in MI, that they count the outcome of the District Conventions, not the primary. That’s true because 1) the people who participated in the January Primary did not believe they were participating in the Presidential selection process, and 2) the primary was ruled unconstitutional.

    Marci, the District Convention have to abide by the “fair representation” that comes from the election results. There was a little collogy about this with Brewer, who had to admit that his plan — to give delegates that were WON by Clinton to Obama — at the district level represented the “fair representation” based on the outcome of the primary.

    The Michigan plan is to have the delegates that are selected through the districts reflect the “fair representation” rule (except that the “uncommitted” are really Obama supporters), but to ignore that rule when it comes to the selection of state at large delegates — and switch four of the states “at large” delegates that would be awarded to Clinton based on “fair representation” to Obama.

  57. marymccurnin says:

    The Rev. Wright “controversy” was not an advantage. And Clinton used every code word for the n word that she could think of in West Virginia.

  58. egregious says:

    New thread, and a request from Marcy to keep the flaming down please.

    She is out there doing the heavy lifting for us, and we can help her by keeping it a little calmer here.

  59. dosido says:

    Hillary is incredibly flawed in her own very special way. Obama is also flawed.

    McCain is more flawed.

    Hilary is not a person I want to vote for because she is not in any way shape or form for the integrity of any process that is called democracy. She has changed her tune on the rules as many times as Mitt Romney has on his policies.

    sniper fire?
    mccain is better suited as cinc?
    rfk tragedy invoked many times?
    I can win white voters, O can’t?

    talk about flat out lies. but OK. what. ever.

  60. RevDeb says:

    swing states that “look like America”.

    To people in Montana, they “look like America.” To people in New York, they “look like America.” To people in California, they “look like America.”

    What exactly are you implying? I agree with dosido. I find that remark offensive.

  61. dosido says:

    Hey guys you really should check out the kos diary that Mrs. K8 posted. heehawlarious.

    sampling:

    Update 36 – Levin: Did you know Michigan cheated in 2004? McCauliffe was all “OMGNOES!” They had hearings and debate. People were PISSED. There were teeth on the floor! Respect the blood! New Hampshire and Iowa were bullies. They suck, yo. Michigan accepted a compromise because they were #######. New Hampshire is EVOL.

    Did anyone else know states were so bitchy? Man, New Hampshire and Iowa are like, the popular girls. Michigan is totally a member of the chess club. And Florida? No one will even sit with Florida at lunch anymore.

    Update 37 – The Black guy just pulled Brewers card. He knows everybody and is well connected. Black people like unity, too! Someone’s cell just went off. I bet it was Jerome. Jerome, Hillz is on the phone. She wants you to pass Ickes a note telling him to change his shirt.

    Update 39 – Unity, Unity, Unity. Affirmative Action. Fair reflection. People in the audience are grateful he isn’t going to go into the history. Lunch is getting cold. there will be a Fair Reflection/Unity deathmatch later. Icke’s values are being assaulted with a baseball bat, apparently. If we give Obama any delegates, he will feel raped of his freedom.

    Respect the blood!

  62. Audrey says:

    I am so sorry I stopped back. Geez. Pete, Paul is a long timer. You may not have seen him here, but he’s around and respected.

    You, on the other hand, seem to get your talking points about Clinton from the Drudge report. Do you really like Obama or just hate her so much it sets your teeth on edge. You make me want to defend her when I don’t even like her. What’s wrong with this campaign is for people like you, it’s all about Hillary is Satan. Check into Obama’s history. Look at what he’s doing to the 527’s that are needed for the downticket races. Look at what he’s trying to do to control the Democratic Party and the message we’ll be allowed to send. Compare his rhetoric to Lieberman’s. It’s just the same. Argue, for goodness sake, what’s good about Obama (using facts) instead of demonizing a woman and you’ll get a lot more traction.

    For anyone else who thinks it’s the over 50 feminists who support her: It may come as a surprise to you, but women aren’t voting for her just because she’s a woman. Saying that is an insult.

  63. Audrey says:

    Pete,

    BTW: You say that Clinton lost the delegate vote in Texas. Funny. They’re not finished wrangling the votes yet. Where do you get your information?

Comments are closed.