A Recap of the RBC Meeting

I don’t mean to beat a dead horse, but I thought it worthwhile to post a recap of the RBC meeting yesterday.

First, the outcome: The Committee decided FL and MI will be seated–with both elected and super delegates seated at half strength. The FL delegation will be based entirely on the results of their January primary. And the MI delegation will be based on what the MDP thought would be the best approximation of a fair reflection of the will of the voters–which works out to be a 69-59 split (though each delegate votes at half strength).

A review of the importance of "fair reflection" may help folks understand why the RBC chose to accept a seemingly arbitrary number from MI.

Article Two Section 4 of the Democratic Party Charter requires that delegations to the National Convention "fairly reflect the division of preferences expressed by those who participate in the Presidential nominating process." That means you’ve got to make sure the delegates to the Convention actually match what people who "participate in the Presidential nominating process" want. This is a concept that Hillary’s top advisor, Harold Ickes, emphasized when he argued that MI’s delegation should be based on our January 15 Clusterfuck–he said repeatedly that this principle was as fundamental a principle as the First Amendment. And basically, Ickes’ arguments were all premised on his judgment that the Clusterfuck was a meaningful measure of the preferences for President.

But it was on the basis of this "fair representation" concept that the MI presenters, Mark Brewer and Carl Levin, made their ultimately successful arguments. Brewer (who is a big numbers geek) basically looked at several reasons why the Clusterfuck could not be considered a "fair representation:" because Obama’s and Edwards’ names weren’t on the ballot, because an exit poll showed that Hillary and Obama would have taken something like 45% and 35% of the vote (the results of the Clusterfuck were 55% Hillary, 40% uncommitted), and the high number of write-ins that were thrown out that reflected a desire to vote for Obama or Edwards. In other words, Brewer threw out a load of data that proved that the Clusterfuck did not measure a "fair reflection" of the preferences of those who participated in the Clusterfuck. And given the results, this argument must have been persuasive to the RBC committee.

I’d add one point that Brewer did not make. The Clusterfuck can’t be said to be a fair reflection of the preferences of those participating in the presidential selection process because Michiganders largely understood that the Clusterfuck was not part of the presidential selection process. We were told–even by Hillary–that our vote wouldn’t count, and whether people went to the polls or stayed home, we based our decisions on that understanding. So to retroactively declare it part of the presidential selection process when, by reasonable estimates, Democratic performance was around 15% lower than what we should expect it to be this year (based on Dem performance in all the other primaries run before McCain had sewn up the Republican nomination), would unfairly leave those voters out. In other words, if 15% of the people who would have participated in the presidential selection process didn’t, you can’t really then declare it part of the presidential selection process and pretend it measures real preferences.

Anyway, like I said, Brewer’s presentation must have convinced RBC members that the Clusterfuck results, by themselves, were not a fair reflection of the preferences of the voters of Michigan, and on that basis, they did not accept Ickes’ argument that the delegation had to be seated based on the Clusterfuck.

There have been arguments–with which I have some sympathy–that the RBC exceeded its authority in then choosing to accept MI’s 69-59 compromise. But even if you accept the argument that the RBC didn’t have the authority to do what it did, that does not mean the delegation should have been seated based on the results of the Clusterfuck. If the RBC had determined they did not have the authority to accept MI’s 69-59 split, then they should have deferred the decision to the Credentials Committee, which does have the authority to make such judgments. But it’s important to note that even Hillary’s campaign did not choose to pursue this option yesterday, though Hillary has reserved her right to do so in the future. The entire RBC–including Harold Ickes–decided that MI’s delegation should be seated (indeed, Hillary’s campaign has been most aggressive in calling for the RBC to seat the MI delegation). Call it a politically expedient solution. But once the RBC decided the MI delegation should be seated and once it agreed with Brewer’s argument that the Clusterfuck was not a fair reflection of the preferences of MI voters, then they were bound to come up with what observers might find to be an arbitrary solution.

You’ll hear lots of arguments about how the RBC took delegates away from Hillary to give the primary to Obama. But the real issue–the real disagreement–is over whether our Clusterfuck results can be considered a "fair representation" of voter preferences. Harold Ickes after the fact declared them so, largely by ignoring both the circumstances of the election and the data showing it was not a fair representation. The leadership of the MDP–relying on a lot of data and a close understanding of what happened during the Clusterfuck–disagrees with Ickes. Any dispute comes down to whether you think Ickes or the leadership of the MI Democratic Party was right about whether the Clusterfuck was a "fair reflection" of MI’s preferences.

And frankly, I think a large number of MI voters agree with the MDP leadership, not Ickes.

297 replies
  1. Kitt says:

    Fine review, Marcy. That is why it’s so strange and frustrating to watch and hear some of the Hillary Clinton supporters who seem to be using the ‘hands over the ears, la, la, la I can’t hear you’ method of logic.

    • danny says:

      Kitt – We as Hillary supporters have our eyes wide open. Our ears are wide open as well. I watched the whole meeting and all the speakers at yesterday’s meeting. It was a farse – in a backroom dinner that took five hours of head banging by the Obama supporters of the other people on the RBC and more than a 2 hour arm twisting and back room deal making and breaking the DNC rules and bylaws committee stole the election of FL and MI for Obama.

      Now I know you don’t see it that way. But how will you see Michele Obama
      s rendition of Preist Pfleger that will be coming to a UTUBE near you.

      I’ll never support Obama. He is not electable in November – But as the teacher form NY points out the Democratic party hasn’t give us but two elected democrats to the White House in 40 years. And it was Ted Kennedy that screwed it up for Jimmy Carter.

      • KayInMaine says:

        After eight years of George Bush & Dick Cheney breaking the rules & ignoring the laws of this country, the Hillary camp did the same thing in the MI/FL delegates situation.


        And you support this? Breaking laws/rules to get what you want?

  2. DefendOurConstitution says:

    While I agree that 73-55 was not a fair reflection, I don’t understand why the Committee didn’t give it to Clinton (with 1/2 vote of course). That way, Ickes would have had to shut up about the 4 ”stolen” delegates (2 really after you give each 1/2 vote) and Clinton Campaign would have had no leg to stand on in terms of appealing to Credentials Committee. Now wouldn’t that have done more for unity?

    No, 73-55 with 1/2 vote each would not have fairly reflected MI preferences, but it would have forced most of 8 that voted against motion to support it, thus giving the Clinton Campaign less to quibble about. I know that they were already bending over backwards and, even if MI went 73-55, Clinton Campaign could still find a reason to appeal and continue marching toward Denver (although I have believed for the last month or two that this is going to happen regardless of any outcome).

    • MrWhy says:

      If the only consequence of the RBC meeting was appeasement of HRC, then they might have done as Ickes suggested. But this also sets precedent for future clusterf^@ks. So you want to set a precedent you can live with, not one you’ll regret the morning after.

    • emptywheel says:

      Because the point is to establish unity WITHIN MI.

      I can promise you, had they sat a 73-55 delegation, there would have been a whole bunch of MI voters who felt–correctly–that their vote had been robbed.

      Ultimately, it will not affect the election (which was also an understanding all of us Michiganders had going into the voting book on January 15). Hell, maybe when Hillary concedes Obama will magnanimously shift the delegation to be 73-55 again. But the 69-59 numbers were about MI voters, not about Hillary’s advisors.

  3. nonplussed says:

    Good Morning, Emptywheel! I am so deeply worried by the surprisingly large number of Clinton supporters claiming they simply do not care about the SCOTUS, the type of Government we will have for nexy four years, or anything else and they will vote for McCain in lieu of Obama out of spite. Their blanket claims of rampant misogyny are really freaking me out and to be frank it seems they just hate everyone at this point. I hope it is just their understandable disappointment at being on the wrong end of a hard fought contest, but I can easily see a United States for Clinton Party in our immediate future, for I doubt for some strange reason that Hillary shall go gently into the night.

    • TheraP says:

      What you are describing is explained by Otto Kernberg (psychoanalyst, may no longer be alive) as “regression in groups” – particularly under certain types of “leaders.” Yes it’s scary to see. (hate to say this but it helps us understand what happened in Nazi Germany and other places). If anybody has the time and mental energy and is willing to plow through some chapters despite lack of training in psychodynamics, you can get an excellent overview of the pathology in Kernberg’s book Internal World and External Reality. The chapters in the last third of the book deal with what is concerning you, chapters such as “Regression in Groups,” “Regression in Organizations,” and “Regression in Leaders.”

      I am also relieved to tell you that Obama is already receiving the advice and assistance of mental health experts who have trained and worked with Kernberg and who are focused on community mental health.

      If you look at the two current Dem campaigns, it’s like a textbook case of what can go wrong and what to do to try and prevent that.

      I myself am extremely concerned for these hillary supporters who clearly are in need of help, but apparently won’t get it from their candidate. Very worrisome.

      • Funnydiva2002 says:

        Thanks for this, TheraP!
        What still staggers me is that these folks are so angry they (say right now that they) would rather vote for McCain.
        Does Dr K have a chapter on cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face? Can I even ask that without being invalidating?

        • TheraP says:

          Basically when this kind of thing happens, it’s like the group itself loses the ability to monitor behavior and particularly to monitor and channel aggression. Instead of aggression being channeled in constructive ways, toward reachable goals and objectives (through non-destructive means), you get “regression” and a loosening of ego controls. And yes… shooting yourself and others in the foot is a good description of part of what can happen. We’re talking an inability to “think clearly” due to being overwhelmed by these primitive feelings. Which is particularly dangerous when it occurs in a group. Bad enough you have a mass murderer. But in a group, where that dyscontrol begins to feel “normal” or “sanctioned,” it is difficult for even mature and wise individuals to maintain ego control. And for bystanders, who aren’t part of the group, it’s excruciating to watch.

          • Funnydiva2002 says:

            Ah. That makes sense. Thanks.
            Sounds like the molten core of this angry group is well beyond any individual or campaign’s ability to “reach out to.” Not that Obama doesn’t need to acknowledge the issue. I think he can and will. Just observing that blaming him and his campaign for not bringing them back into the fold (because a significant number may indeed vote McCain or sit out) will be illogical as well as unjust.


            • Adie says:

              I must be crazy, I suppose, but I hope the division is not permanent, and that a number of currently very angry folks soon recognize the wisdom of working together. The alternative is facing us from the bigwhitehouse on a daily basis, and it is unbearable to contemplate the possibility of leaving things as they are.

              Please let there be healing and positive methods, and a total lack of gloating or prideful stomping. Whoever “wins” in November will be facing a monstrous task just trying to mend and clean up after the previous tenants, much less making any substantial progress on a huge wish list of worthy, desperately needed projects.

            • TheraP says:

              Yes. And that is what has me concerned. And that is why HRC’s comment about RFK’s assassination was so dangerous.

              How to help these HRC supporters….. Hmmm…. Again, my concern here is that many of the ones who are most vociferous may have so much emotional baggage of their own. And, if so, they may be projecting their anger onto anyone who has not supported HRC.

              We need national health care. And national mental health care. And even then…. Not everyone is treatable. I hate to break it to you. But there it is! “Molten core” – you put your finger on it.

      • PetePierce says:

        Some of what we’re seeing is not only described by Kernberg–it’s explicated by
        Heinz Kohut’s concept of psychology of the self.

        Heinz Kohut and John Gunderson capture this behavior in their books although their theses analyses, and treatment modalities are different.

        Gunderson’s concepts, analysis, and treatment are captured well in Borderline Personality.

        This is particular apt to the regressive behavior of a borderline when faced with a disappointment or rejection of some goal they thought they were entitled to, and that this entitlement was beyond question.

        I’ve seen a lot of these symptoms in the Clinton campaign, and they are going to be exacerbated and showcased this week.

        • TheraP says:

          I personally find Kernberg’s analyses more clinically interesting – but you are correct.

          Kernberg views the biggest problems here as inherent in narcissim. I would concur, especially since that is also the core of sociopathy.

          Monica was likely a borderline. I don’t see borderlines as getting into politics. But they sure make good followers, if you catch my drift! So, yes, that’s what we’re seeing. Decompensation as the denial fuels more and more projection.

          I hasten to add. And I hope you would agree, Pete. This does not mean, in any way, that all of her supporters have these characteristics. Unfortunately those that do seem to be making the loudest noise right now.

          Another important point here is that Obama, from the start, has talked about his awareness that he is not perfect. This actually defuels people putting him on too high a pedestal. Additionally, he has emphasized that the campaign is “our campaign” and the work of change is “our work.” This prevents pathological dependency on the part of supporters. Both of these work together to promote greater acceptance of responsibility and striving for doing inner work on oneself in the service of our greater good.

          • PetePierce says:

            Absolutely Thera, I would never be so foolhardy as to broad brushstroke all of Clinton’s supporters as borderline personalities. The vast majority of them are thoughtful supporters who backed a candidate in a long hard fought primary.

            I would hope that people who decide to vote for McCain given his atrocious political history abd plans will think long and hard beyond their lashing out in anger.

  4. joejoejoe says:

    The secretary of the DNC Alice Travis Germond wouldn’t ever allow herself to refer to MI & FL as “primaries” or “elections” and instead called them “events”. Ickes may well have a point about fair representation of an election but the fact is neither Michigan or Florida held a sanctioned DNC election. That crucial distinction allowed room for the Brewer/Levin plan, which I support.

    OT: Tim Russert is a dope. Ickes is on MtP now and Russert said both Michigan and Florida were seated with full delegations with with 1/2 strength when that is NOT what happened in Michigan. Russert can’t even explain big news accurately, let alone ask cogent questions.

    • MarieRoget says:

      Tim Russert, like any actor, is only as good as his lines. Another news reader masquerading as a journalist IMO. Was he personally paying anything like close attention to what happened yesterday? Doubtful. Nor apparently were the writers of his copy.

      Many thanks to you & Jane, ew, for the exceptional play-by-play of the meeting, yr. walk-through of the process & its results. Excellent coverage of this.

      OT- Universal Studios Hollywood back lot area engulfed by a huge fire this morning. It’s threatening the old film vaults where I have worked for several yrs. for AMIA viewing & cataloging prints for restoration & conservation. History might be going up in smoke over there. Shit.

      • Funnydiva2002 says:

        Oh, no, Marie
        I hope the fire isn’t as bad for the archives/vault as you fear.

        • MarieRoget says:

          Hard to tell what’s what from the aerial views on tv coverage, but it looks grim. Some old standing sets in the “New York Street” area have burned down; vault building is close behind them.

          • Funnydiva2002 says:

            Oh, poop. I’m sorry. Not because I’m a huge film/Hollywood buff, which I’m not, really, but because you and others have worked hard there and care about what might be lost, and I really do understand that.

            • MarieRoget says:

              Thanks, FunnyD. It’s not just movies in that particular vault- there are newsreels, travelogues, documentaries from a lot of sources around the world. Not just Universal’s output. Other studios have been sending older & deteriorating films & their negs to Universal’s vault for yrs.

              Local tv coverage of the U. fire has now stopped to make way for the talking head shows, our pal Russert among them. Net coverage continues. I’ll bet Howie Klein can see the smoke column from his house, if he still lives over near Griffith Park.

              • PJEvans says:

                The Times says it took out the ‘Kong Kong’ area too. (I think they mean ‘King Kong’, but I sure wouldn’t bet on it.)
                They’re using the water-dropping choppers on it. The studio says there was filming going on last night, implying that something might have shorted or sparked.

              • Funnydiva2002 says:

                Wow. This is just cosmically unfair “piling on” by the Universe. Or maybe a reminder of how really bad and sad things happen even when not facilitated by “man’s inhumanity to man.”

                I just remembered my department secretary in the 1990s during the Yugoslavia disintegration when the animals in the Sarajevo zoo were dying of neglect: “I can give to planned parenthood and red cross, but, bloody hell, this sucks and I hate not being able to do anything about it.”

                OK, it’s my paraphrase, but that was the gist of that conversation.

                So, let me say for the record how much I appreciate, esteem and value all of you, my “friends in the computer.” Not only do you keep me informed, at times like this you also keep me human. Thanks.


  5. wavpeac says:

    Thanks for the calm explanation. It seems a balanced solution without any ill will or unfairness intended. I can’t wait to move on. It will feel so much better when we are all focusing on Mcsame.

    I also hope that Obama will graciously validate all those women who may have been in the trenches fighting domestic violence and sexual assaults, fearful to go out and make it on their own. I think if he can validate their struggle, reassure them that he will fight to end domestic violence (by federal help for community response teams). But the emotion is coming from victimization. The anger is irrational, but the reason for the anger (feeling unrepresented, invalidated already) is understandable. Wome are still dying. Domestic violence is the number one cause of accidental death for women. And still one in three girls are sexually assaulted.

    We do need a leader who is sympathetic to these issues and a strong fighter. In that regard alone, Clinton was far more the champion of those women who continue to be victimized than Obama ever has been. He needs to validate that pain, take them into the fold, reassure them that he understands the political issues under domestic violence, the need for shelters, counseling.

    The welfare to work program under Bill Clinton had a HUGE domestic violence counseling provisions. The Clintons understood that the reasons women on welfare don’t go back to work right away aren’t just about “dress for success” issues. If he can make this part of his platform, validation does more to de-escalate this kind of emotion than any behavior I can think of. (and still so many women I worked with WANTED to work, despite the complicated issues that made it difficult for them.)

    Thanks for the explanation, the best one I have read. I am ready to start focusing on Mr. Mcsame!!

    • greenwarrior says:

      Domestic violence is the number one cause of accidental death for women.

      Maybe this has been adressed already. I’m coming in late to the thread, but it seems strange to me that death from domestic violence is counted as “accidental”.

  6. Funnydiva2002 says:

    Thanks for this, Marcy
    Coming from you, this is a great de-brief, not abuse of a deceased equine.

    If you’re still here, and one exists, I’d really appreciate a definitive link to what the candidates agreed to and when vis a vis MI (and FL). Someone keeps posting “but what proof is there that the Clinton campaign agreed to _anything_?” blah blah blah. Since this is an FDL regular, I’d like to give them the benefit of the doubt that they actually want information and be armed with more than “gee, really reliable people who should know, like EW and Rachael Maddow and others, have been saying so from the very beginning of this clusterf*ck fiasco.” As much as I want to tell this person and others that the burden of proof is now on them to back up their claims of “HRC was ROBBED”, this seems like something factual enough that I’ll be able to just post a link and ignore the rest of the whining.

    nope, don’t have a strong opinion on the poo flinging. not me!

  7. Adie says:

    Thanks a thousand-fold Marcy.

    Your play-by-play, and as much analysis as you wish to share, are incredibly valuable for us non-pros.

    I suspect I’m not alone in being asked, “what happened?!?!” by many contacts. Without your untangling of the huge web of information that peaked yesterday, and will shortly rise again, people like me would be lost.

    With your shared insight, instead we are enabled to help counter whatever is served up by russert et al.

    I know the road still looks pretty bumpy at the moment, but I feel much better about our party than I did before yesterday’s meeting.

    btw, in case no one else has mentioned it, Sara has a fascinating description of meeting-related tidbits and historical context downstairs.


      • MarieRoget says:

        Thanks, Loo Hoo. A colleague just sent me an email- vaults may in fact have gone up. Universal PR flacks being very close-mouthed about it. Just got out my 2nd set of worry beads.

        On topic- HRC must lead the Dem party healing process, must show her supporters the way. This could be her shining moment, her finest hour, in a way she didn’t anticipate @ the beginning of her run- taking the lead in healing us, helping all Dems speak w/one voice in Nov. Let it be.

        • TheraP says:

          Marie, I pray she has that capacity within her. But I fear she may not. I fear it may be very late in the game – and would need some kind of conversion experience and tremendous courage. I would rather be proved wrong on this point, but it’s not looking hopeful – from my perspective.

        • PJEvans says:

          AP report, summarized:
          They’re reporting it as ‘contained’ – it’s the county fire dept fighting it. Only one building lost, not otherwise identified. Streets burned because of the timber framing on the facades. There was one explosion – if the vaults went, could that have been it?

          • MarieRoget says:

            Thanks for the update. I can’t get any credible info from Uni yet on what’s gone. Re: explosions- they certainly are a possibility when large amounts of film heat up to flashpoint, esp. the older & nitrate based ones.

            PJEvans @ 28- I read that, too. A team is assembling to going over there; in contact w/USC & UCLA archivists also. Have to go now.

          • SouthernDragon says:

            Those old films are nitrate based and would indeed cause an explosion if engulfed. That would be really sad.

            • PJEvans says:

              From the latest version of the Times story -it’s top of teh page on their site, too:

              At 9:30 a.m., the fire was burning in a cavernous video vault containing television video and copies of television film, some dating to the 1920s. At one point this morning, firefighters were hastily removing canisters from the building by hand, but Universal officials said that the archives were copies.

              MarieRoget would know far better than I if that’s true about the stuff in the vault being copies. After the last several years, my first reaction is to think of CYA.
              I also think they really ought to have moved the vault away from the production area.

              • MarieRoget says:

                Posting this on the fly- travelling over to UCLA in a little bit. All I’m going to say @ this point is yr. 1st instinct is right, PJEvans. Plenty of CYA in the presser I’ve now had time to see. There are two vaults in that area behind the NY Street facades, the vid one that is totally lost & the one housing film archives. Heat/cinder, smoke, & water damage in film vault (across from the one that is destroyed) due to open venting on the roof. Both should have been moved out of that area, into the front lot near the Universal offices, a long time ago.

                Also, most of what was stored in the vid vault won’t be replicated- only if it could generate bottom line $$$ in some way do they generate copies of any of that stuff. And not all of it can be termed “copies”; many vid originals from early vid days & the copies of same stored there. I guess nothing is “irreplaceable” if all ever calculated is the dollar signs it might generate. The term for this stuff is “product” throughout Hllywd.

                Read you all later.

        • PJEvans says:

          from the LA Times story:

          Los Angeles City Councilman Tom LaBonge, who raced to the scene early this morning, said it was depressing to see part of Hollywood history go up in flames.

          “Firefighters are handing out the film cannisters. It’s very sad,” he said. “Ever since the movies came to Hollywood, there have been studio fires. And this is a big one.”

          It sounds like they were trying to save what they could reach.

    • Rayne says:

      Thanks much for that link to Sara’s comment, completely missed it — and it is a gem.

      There is so much context and subtext that we can’t readily access, so nice to have more of it to enlighten our understanding.

  8. LisainManistee says:

    For the most part, I agree with your assessment of the Michigan delegate situation Marcy. The 69/59 split was probably the best of all the bad possible solutions (although I still the supers should have had their voting privileges removed).

    But, I don’t think it was a case of the majority of Michigan’s Democrats agreeing with MDP leadership on this issue.

    I think you have it backwards and the leadership of the MDP at long last decided to listen to the Democrats of Michigan – the majority of which never believed the January primary was a legitimate contest to begin with.

    I don’t think people outside the state that were not involved in Democratic politics in Michigan ever really understood what was really going on in Michigan. They got their information from campaign surrogates and the MDP, all of which had their own agendas to represent and presenting the true state of the Democratic Party in Michigan was definitely not on their agendas.

    The Democratic Party of Michigan was deeply fractured by this mess and something had to be done to try to heal the rift… It wasn’t in the MDP’s interest to tell the world that gigantic chunks of their party apparatus were seriously angry with their state party leadership over this matter or to tell the world that the MDP’s county parties all over the state were bleeding membership left and right over the MDP leadership’s mishandling of the primary fiasco.

    The campaign’s both had a dog in this fight, so while it was in their interest to acknowledge the rift, it wasn’t in their interests to accurately represent the cause of the rift…

    So the media and the rest of the country ended up thinking that the Dems of Michigan were either supportive of the MDP’s decisions concerning the primary or were against the primary, because it was unfair to their candidate of choice.

    In the end few people outside of our state ever got the real situation… Which was most of the Dems of our state were raging mad about the January primary and were mad about it because it happened without our consent. Nobody asked regular party members if they wanted to gamble with their right to vote by moving up our primary date. No one asked us if we wanted to vote in a primary that wasn’t going to count and only had one name on it anyway… No one asked US anything.

    As early as last year, back when it the possibility of the MDP ignoring the DNC primary schedule was not yet a concrete fact, but merely a whisper campaign; county parties, district committees and activists groups sent letters of protest and petitions against such a primary change to the MDP… and nobody listened.

    We tried to follow party procedure to make our wishes known by attending State Central Meetings and such… and we were told before the meetings started that the primary was not to be discussed and anyone that brought it up would be asked to leave.

    So not only were the regular Democrats of Michigan not asked by our party leaders what WE would like to do, when we offered up our opinions unsolicited to the MDP we were ignored and when we tried to follow party protocol to voice our displeasure we were told we weren’t allowed to speak.

    The regular Democrats of Michigan were literally ignored at every possible juncture by our party leadership.

    That was the real situation and THAT is what so many people don’t know and don’t understand.

    This admission by the MDP that the January primary wasn’t legitimate was the only thing of value to come out of this whole mess… To me it was the MDP FINALLY listening to the will of the Democrats of Michigan that they’re supposed to represent.

    • Rayne says:

      Thank you for that, Lisa. There are a few people whose roles in the clusterfuck are unforgivable; I feel for Levin, knowing that he was likely used by them, since they knew he’d been pushing since before 2004 and possibly earlier for a primary process that was more representative of a diverse country.

      The entire process has revealed how very opaque operations are behind this democracy, even to those within the Democratic Party. I shudder to think what it’s like on the other side of the aisle where authoritarians find comfort.

      • LisainManistee says:

        Yeah, I’ve wondered about that myself.

        I know how very undemocratic our party leadership can be, so it actually scares me to think of how the repubs must run their party.

    • phred says:

      Thanks for your excellent comment. Since the MI party leadership was so dismissive of the opinions of the party regulars, do you get a sense that the party regulars are likely to remove the MI party leadership? Do you anticipate primary challenges to those who derive their leadership positions from their elected offices (e.g., Granholm, Levin, etc.)? Just curious…

      • Rayne says:

        As someone explained it to me in the last two weeks, certain members of the state party have incredibly strong skills at keeping their job(s).

        Let’s just say they are going to get a workout of those skills next January.

        • phred says:

          Thanks to you and Rayne both : ) It will be interesting to keep an eye on what transpires out your way…

      • emptywheel says:

        It would be hard to hold this leadership accountable.

        Carl Levin is up for reelection this year. But aside from his passion about the voting process and his passion for taxi meters, he is a very good (though by no means perfect) Senator–I much prefer him to Stabenow, for example, and during the lonely days of the early war period both Levin and Stabenow were two of the standouts in teh Dem caucus. Because he is a very good Senator, Levin will be re-elected with very large margins.

        Debbie Dingell is both a DNC member and a member of Wayne State’s Board of Governors. The former will be up this year, the latter in two years. She is tremendously powerful in the state, largely because for votes that matter, the UAW will still swing elections.

        Jennifer Granholm is a term-limited governor. Had Hillary won, she would have been assured, certainly, of a cabinet position. I think that’s less likely now, and she may one day run for Senate, but there wouldn’t be a Senate position available anytime soon in any case.

        Mark Brewer is, by many measures, one of the more effect party chairs in the country (and one of the most powerful). THe most likely replacement for Mark is a close ally of his, and I can’t think of any other credible challengers. Also, as with Dingell, if Mark were seriously challenged for the Chairmanship, the UAW would certainly deliver the election for him.

        We might be able to legitimately challenge Joel Ferguson, but that’s about it.

        • phred says:

          Thanks EW. From what I understand between you and DHinMI yesterday, Brewer was caught between a rock and a hard place about jumping the primary date. And to be fair to Levin, he made an excellent case yesterday for why they did jump — out of frustration with the IA/NH stranglehold on the process.

          Still, from what Lisa pointed out above, I have big problems with the leadership sacrificing the public’s right to participate in a meaningful vote, without their consent, much less active participation. For that, it would be nice if they paid a price for their hubris.

          • LisainManistee says:

            Oh, we’ll try to hold them accountable… but as emptywheel states above, there’s really only one person left that we could hold accountable and it’s highly unlikely we’ll be able to succeed in those efforts.

            Probably the best outcome we can hope for as far as punishment or accountability for those responsible for this mess is to make a point… because I don’t want to replace Levin, Granholm is basically already gone and it’s unlikely Brewer’s going anywhere (no matter how much I wish that weren’t so).

            There are other options available that would enable us to have more say in how the state party runs that don’t require the nearly impossible ouster of Mark Brewer.

            However, these options are much more likely for us to achieve if we have the element of surprise, so I am hopeful you won’t mind if I don’t discuss them in such a public forum just yet.

            • Rayne says:

              I think we actually do have a chance to change things this time — because some of the angriest people were UAW.

              If we were to put it to the UAW that they must pick someone who was NOT UAW but union friendly, someone who was a populist and NOT Brewer, I think we could change leadership.

              And there’s also the AFL-CIO and SEIU — could just as easily go to them and ask them to look for somebody else that is part of the next generation of activists who can fight in this internet-mediated and outsourced world for them in a way that the old school folks can’t grok.

            • phred says:

              Mum’s the word ; ) Best of luck to you! I really do like Dean’s 50-state strategy, but only if it empowers local party members to exert greater control over their own party. Simply farming out the current ills of DC power brokers to 50 sets of power brokers, while an improvement, is not sufficient. Good luck!

          • FrankProbst says:

            And to be fair to Levin, he made an excellent case yesterday for why they did jump — out of frustration with the IA/NH stranglehold on the process.

            Though I in no way support the clusterfuck, Levin now has a much stronger position to knock IA and NH out of the “first in the nation” slot. The rules committee (or whoever is in charge of the calendar) can now set the voting schedule however they want to. IA and NH will, of course, move their caucus and primary ahead of everyone else, regardless of what the committee does. But now there’s a precedent for what happens if you do that. And Levin can say, “Look, we took our lumps in 2008. We want to have a fair vote, and we want to have it earlier in the calendar”.

            In the interest of sanity, however, I would encourage the party to try to keep the voting until later in the year, though. Starting in January is just plain silly, especially if you have a protracted race.

            • Rayne says:

              You know what’s ironic? Obama as president may actually ensure that the greater diversity in primary scheduling happens.

              Which is what Levin has been pushing for since before 2004.

            • phred says:

              I agree both in terms of Levin may have finally pushed the issue to the breaking point, and that a more compressed and sane primary schedule is in order. There are much better ways to handle the primary season. I like the idea of a few regional primaries over the course of a couple of months, with regions rotating to be first. However, there are lots of ways it could be done that would be both fair to the states and to the candidates (especially lesser known ones) to get their message out before they are shut out of the process. I was a Super Tuesday voter and by then the Dems were down to 3 choices, which is pretty ridiculous that early on.

              The other day a friend mentioned to me that one reason she hates the absurdly long campaign season (2 years — is that really necessary?!?) is because it drives the insatiable quest for campaign dollars. A shorter campaign requires less money, less money suggests grassroots donors have a better chance to compete with the big donors. It’s all about the money, in the long run we have to find a way to break the cycle of endless fundraising.

              • emptywheel says:

                I spoke with Levin about this today (he was on my flight back) and he pointed out that, no matter what happens next year with the Presidential, you’re either going to have a candidate who owes his presidency to NH or to IA. And he pointed out that we don’t know what kind of promsies get made.

                • phred says:

                  You rock my friend. Glad you had a chance to chat with Levin on the way home. So Levin thinks the rotating primary calendar is DOA? That’s a pity. I wonder if the other two states that are now supposed to join IA & NH (this time it was NV and SC) will be fixed or rotate. If it is fixed, then the rust belt is screwed for the forseeable future and I can’t see Levin being happy about that.

                  • emptywheel says:

                    He didn’t say that. He was talking more about the pragmatic politics of it.

                    Didn’t talk to him for that long–as long as it takes a fit 70-year old man and a 40-year old woman in sandals long past their sell by date from gate 50 to gate 30.

                    In any case, he didn’t say a moving primary was DOA or anything more than pointing out how this is impacted by having party heads who owe their position to either NH or IA. Howard Dean might have been the chance to change it. And look how that worked out.

                    • phred says:

                      Thanks for the clarification. Glad it is not dead on arrival, but I do see what you mean about party heads that are beholden to IA and NH. Still, I wouldn’t use the past tense on this yet. Not yet ; )

              • PetePierce says:

                Very good points. I hope that we can have rotating primaries or some type of system that 1) doesn’t front load so that so many exceleent candidates are out after only a 2-3 states have voted in a caucus or primary

                2) Doesn’t string this season out so long for the money raising reasons you spelled out so well.

                If Senator Levin doesn’t think that a better system will happen, I’m not sure why. I sure believe it needs to.

                • TheraP says:

                  Here I guess I’m showing my political naivete. But when Levin was speaking yesterday I really thought he was also laying the groundwork for a revamping of primaries in future. That was my take at the time.

                  • PetePierce says:

                    There were a lot of savvy experienced people around that table and in the wings yesterday. And they drew bloggers like Marcy with her background and talent in applying that background for analysis. You would think that one elephant in the room could have/should have been that there has to be a restructuring of the compressed front loaded primary schedule and the bad feelings it musters.

                    I understand that many of these states see the limelight as a chance to drum up valuable tourist dollars, although I probably don’t understand the full significance of being on TV for a short time and how it extrapolates economically.

  9. Adie says:


    I’m hoping the Univ. folks’ silence is just exercising an abundance of caution. Oh sigh.

    On topic- I very much like your thoughts in re HRC. Would even suggest you e-mail her directly. Sounds like a very reasonable way for her to save face. She’s a very talented lady. This has to be an excruciatingly hard time for her.

  10. Adie says:

    Thank you all for the info, and good company(!)

    I must go get something tangible done around here. Moving is heQQ, even when you theoretically have plenty of time, and look fwd to the move.

    Can you read tw’ the lines? my forte is definitely NOT organization, heh…

    I wish the best outcome possible for you (((Marie))).
    PJEvans: thanks for the updates…

  11. Starbuck says:

    This reminds me of a fee dispute I had years ago, in which the client stated something like: I know I agreed to the figure, but I didn’t think I’d actually have to pay it.

    Are we a nation of laws or what?

  12. PJEvans says:

    Over at the Big Orange, Meteor Blades is taking into the HRC supporters who plan to vote for McSame if she isn’t nominated.
    One word summary: Ouch.

  13. barbara says:

    I sneak back with hat in hand (well, I would if I ever wore a hat), Marcy, to apologize for my bloggery yesterday. I totally misunderstood that your thread was finished and another was up at the FDL main site. So I took it upon myself (dangerous, always dangerous!) to kinda live blog what was going on at the Dem-o-lition Derby. Duh.

  14. perris says:

    I want to repost a point I made downs stairs regarding seating these delegates;

    the primaries are not an election, they are not democratic, methhodology are not part of the constitution, the process is part and parcel to the rules of the party the way they see fit, those candidates that compete in the primary sign on to those rules

    just like a tennis match, it’s not democratic at all, it’s a competition

    when the rules seem outdated, the rules can be changed, no big deal but everyone needs to get out of their heads that the primaries are representative of democracy by wrote, they are not

    the primaries are not set up to run the candidate that gets the most votes they are set up to run the candidate that is going to be best for the party or that’s the intention of this process

    now, running the candidate that’s best for the party or the country is a pretty subjective task and I am not sure I agree with how we go about it, but I do agree with this;

    the primaries are not part of the election, it’s a selection process not an election and whatever process is set up by the party, it needs reflect nothing but what the party agrees it reflect

      • perris says:

        I agree/disagree

        if you can make everyone happy without changing the results with a compromise then compromise away

    • Starbuck says:

      We still come back to rule of law. Skirting the issue because it isn’t actually an election begs the question, which is one of leadership. I cannot support a candidate who blows by the rules because she is losing. I cannot trust her to lead from integrity, to both her country and herself.

      • barbara says:

        That’s been my problem with this all along. Rules are rules, unless my candidacy is in peril, and then rules are made to be interpreted after the fact. I’d like to believe I’d be fair-minded about this were it Obama in Hillary’s shoes. Thing is, Obama walks a totally different path. That said, I confess I’m not certain I’m being objective.

  15. rwcole says:

    Dems split the baby in half- but probably resolved the problem as well as they could under the circumstances.

    Obama’s got the nomination and Hillary has enough delegates to play the understudy which is the best she could have done anyway.

  16. KayInMaine says:

    When I was at Maine Democratic State Convention this weekend, the topic of MI & FL came up. We all agreed (Obama supporters, of course) that THOSE VOTERS who did not participate in the primaries of these states DID NOT PARTICIPATE BECAUSE THEY KNEW THE RULES…which were…IF HELD EARLIER THAN SCHEDULED THE DELEGATES WILL NOT COUNT.

    The American voters in these two states WHO FOLLOWED THE RULES are the ones who were REALLY disenfranchised now that it’s been decided that the votes should count. Did the Hillary supporters ever think of them? Nope. Selfish. And what about the voters who did participate who have now changed their mind about Hillary and wanted to vote for Obama instead? The Hillary supporters definitely didn’t think of them either!!! Again. Selfish and self-centered.

    Here’s the post I did about my experience at the Maine Democratic State Convention. It was my first time participating and I have to say…I was proud to be an Obama delegate and to cast my vote for him!


    Enjoy! I talk about the Hillary supporters and how they acted yesterday. They reminded me of the Gathering of Eagle neocons who are just looking for a fight and who have nothing intelligent to say.

    • rwcole says:

      I don’t think that the rule specified the punishment- that was up to the committee to decide and they just did.

      • KayInMaine says:

        That’s not what I heard on news report months ago. Didn’t Howard Dean and others at the Committee hold a vote a couple months prior to the primary season that any state holding their primaries/caucuses early would have their delegates stripped?

        • rwcole says:

          My recollection is a bit fuzzy- but as I recall, the threats came not from Dean but from some members of the rules commitee (or perhaps another committee.) They threatened Florida and Michigan but many said at the time that the delegation would probably be seated in the end- that the committee in question was just “making a point”.

  17. PetePierce says:

    This is good analysis by EW, and it has always been apparent that a significant number of people in Michigan who were clearly told their vote was not going to count due to the penalty stayed home–EW estimates it at 15%. If I were told that my state had been penalyzed by the DNC, and my vote was not going to count, I wouldn’t have voted in my state’s primary.

    But the real issue–the real disagreement–is over whether our Clusterfuck results can be considered a “fair representation” of voter preferences. Harold Ickes after the fact declared them so, largely by ignoring both the circumstances of the election and the data showing it was not a fair representation.

    And that’s been the main problem with the claims as to Michigan by Clinton, Ickes, McAuliffe, and Wolfson.

    As Donna Brazile said on ABC This Week, Obama had an RBC margin to defeat any proposal Ickes proferred by two votes, and could have had a more favorable outcome to Obama in Michigan (not that it would have changed the result of this primary), but he still offered concessions to her in Michigan and Florida. Senator Clinton rejected the olive branches that the Obama campaign held out to her.

    I fully expect Senator Clinton to try to take this to Credentials in Denver.

    • SouthernDragon says:

      I fully expect Senator Clinton to try to take this to Credentials in Denver.

      I expect her to lose that appeal.

      Now if we can just get Obama to abandon the DLC influence.

  18. perris says:

    oh, think progress has scott saying the president should have fired rove

    that was nice to see

  19. where4art says:

    About Kagro’s post that Marcy refers to (asserting that the RBC exceeded its authority yesterday), which worried me when I saw it last night…

    This morning I was relieved to see this thoughtful diary on the subject. The whole thing is really worth reading; it’s a good legal analysis of why the RBC’s rulings were actually in keeping with its authority.

  20. Knut says:

    I think most of Hillary’s supporters will come back to the fold in five months. Those who don’t are probably A*PA*I*C types like Lieberman for whom only one issue matters. This is certainly the case with some of her larger donors, and they are quite rightly miffed at being out in the cold and probably feel their project is now better pursued by backing McShame. There’s money involved, but not a lot votes except in FL, which is probably a lost cause anyway.

  21. rwcole says:

    The Hillary/Obama flap is about over- three more primaries and there is no more “campaign”.

    Obama has the nomination. Now it’s about finding a way for him to get competitive in Florida and winning Ohio,Pennsylvania, and Michigan….and that’s not going to be easy.

    • jayt says:

      Now it’s about finding a way for him to get competitive in Florida and winning Ohio,Pennsylvania, and Michigan….and that’s not going to be easy.

      I forgot to mention thaqt on the night of the May 6 primary here in Indiana, while I was with the Obama legal team, one of them asked me what I thought of (the Governor of Ohio, spacing the name) as a V.P. choice.

      Granted, it was just one guy, but at least somebody over there is thinking about him….

      • rwcole says:

        Don’t know much about him- but if he can deliver the state- TAKE HIM- PLEASE.

        I suspect that we will learn again that Ohio is the key state on the road to the White House.

        • jayt says:

          I still think HRC is the perfect V.P. candidate. I’ve heard all the arguments about her being the Obama-antithis, that they could never work together, they don’t like each other, HRC would never accept the position, etc., but:

          a) the ticket would be an unstoppable electoral force, and guarantee the White House, and

          b) HRC may have short experience in the Senate, but she’s a player. Let Obama be the idea man, and Hillary can be in charge of the political arm, ram-rodding much-needed legislation through. Boy, could she help her country by accepting the Veep slot.

          • PJEvans says:

            jayt, I can’t see her being a good VP. She wants too much to be in the driver’s seat.
            I’d rather have someone who can work for the president’s goals, and can also tell the pres when it’s time to compromise on an issue.
            Not another Darth, dear Ghu.

            • jayt says:

              I can’t see her being a good VP.

              Me either.

              And yes, I can – I just don’t know what she would do, or how she would respond.

              The next V.P. will be in a pretty good spot politically, I think. For if the next president aggressively goes after all of the horrendous developments and results of the Bush administration, I can quite easily see that President as being a one-termer, ’cause he/she is gonna piss off one hell of a lot of people.

  22. rwcole says:

    In the next month, Obama and McBush will start moving towards the center- claiming it as their rightful property…McBush has started staking it out already.

  23. JoFish says:

    If HRC is seen dragging her feet to embrace Obama when this is over, whether he wins or loses in November, that’s The End of the Clintonocracy. Rank and File Democrats (except her most rabid supporters) won’t IMHO embrace her or the Big Dog again.

    Disagreement is one thing, Disloyalty quite another.

    • barbara says:

      I see Obama supporters (I am one) between the old rock/hard place. If we extend the olive branch to Hillaryites, we are being disingenuous, too-little-too-late conquerors of the misogynistic wing of the party. (sigh) If we do nothing, we are lousy winners. Where is the delicate line here and what do “civilians” do about this?

    • rwcole says:

      Hillary will embrace Obama.

      There is no Clintonocracy to protect.

      This was their last shot (unless Chelsea runs in twenty years)

  24. libbyliberal says:

    Both Clintons need to show some grace. This is an opportunity for them.

    Ego-need vs. genuine compassion for their COUNTRY.

    We will survive if they choose wrongly, but I hope they embrace acceptance and the higher ground.

    It hurt when Edwards suspended his campaign, but I felt confident Edwards would be available to give his best which is a lot in the next Dem administration. I trusted Edwards for that and the Party.

    I felt frustrated that Gore and Kerry gave up the fight too readily. And I accepted Hillary wanted to push farther and not give up prematurely. But, when it turns to irrational demonizing of your opponent, and encouraging that in others as political leverage, that is crossing a line.

  25. maryb2004 says:

    Good summary Marcy. I’m with the people who don’t think the committee had the actual power under the Rules to do what it did but I do think that because it was a good compromise and supported by the MI Dem Party no challenge to it will succeed anyway.

    And good analysis of the ‘fair representation’ rule and how it impacted the result. I’m one of those people who have always felt that neither the FL or MI election could be used to determine a ‘fair representation’ because neither could truly be relied on to reflect the will of Democrats in either state since Democrats were told their vote wouldn’t count AND relied on the fact that nobody else’s vote would count either.

    I’m glad a decision has been made and we can move along. And let’s all support reform of the system for the next nominating process.

    • rwcole says:

      Yeah- the rules and by laws committee voted not to seat the delegates after the state of Florida moved up the primary-

      At the time, I seem to recall that there was a discussion to the effect that the committee in question was just firing a shot across the bow and that the whole thing would probably get decided later- and that the delegates would probably be seated (as they are)..

      But my memory is a bit dim on the subject.

      • KayInMaine says:

        That may have been said but the actual vote was not changed. That’s my jist of it. Anyways, as all neocons are, the Hillary supporters are sore losers and will take this all the way to the convention now with the argument, “Hillary has the most popular votes!” even though that isn’t the case either. Working to help John McCain win in November is hahd werk!

        • rwcole says:

          Calling Hillary supporters “Neo Cons” is not only just plain false- it is VERY bad politics..

          You won- cool down. Be a little gracious.

          • KayInMaine says:

            It’s true. Read the post I did on the Hillary supporters at my state’s convention this weekend. They acted like all neocons I’ve seen at protests I’ve attended.

            You may think they’re sweet, cute, and purely innocent, but until you’ve witnessed them in real life you will find out very quickly how they really are.

                • rwcole says:

                  What IS a neo conservative and what do all of the HILLARY supporters in the universe have in common with them?

                  • KayInMaine says:

                    THEY DON’T FOLLOW THE RULES OR LAWS.


                    THEY’RE THE BULLIES OF OUR NATION.




                    THEY LOVE KARL ROVE.

                    Should I go on?

                    • rwcole says:

                      No- that’s enough- so you are saying that Hillary supporters love Karl Rove?

                      That’s a VERY strange position to take. Is this based on some EVIDENCE?

                    • PetePierce says:

                      At one point two weeks ago Senator Clinton bolstered her case by invoking Mr. Rove. I remain puzzled why Pat Fitz failed to indict Rove but could indict Tony Rezko.

                      If you make a criminal law analysis, Rove has committed an exponential number of crimes compared to Tony Rezko and his cronies. He certainly has had a hand in helping to kill thousands of Americans, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and displacing millions of Iraqis who can now barely eat with thousands of women turning to prostitution in Arab countries to feed their fatherless children thanks to Karl Rove.

                      Pat Fitz keeps a Special Counsel Office staffed and open at taxpayer expense so that the staff can say “No Comment” when inquiries are made as to what precisely they are doing open.

                    • KayInMaine says:

                      Yep. Rove is behind the scenes along with Terry McAuliffe orchestrating the champaign. Hillary supporters know this, but yet, they’d vote for John McCain instead of Obama, because:

                      HE’S NOT BLACK
                      HE HAS A DISGUSTING REVEREND
                      IS CORRUPT
                      HAS MORE LOBBYISTS AROUND HIM THAN THE WHITE HOUSE “cafeteria”

                      Yep! They’d rather throw out their core beliefs and what they’ve been against for the past 8 years all because Hillary lost the nomination to a black man!

                      You’re all pathetic. I’d rather than you not vote at all than vote for McCain, but you crazies wouldn’t do that because YOU LIKE AIDING, ABETTING, AND NURTURING THE NEOCONS RIGHT NOW!

                    • TheraP says:

                      I agree with you that the clintons and their advisers have likely learned from Rove’s playbook. They’ve analyzed and learned how to use emotions and illogic and bend our neurons into pretzels.

                      And I can see your mad as heck here! But see if you can set aside your anger or make use of it as fuel in some constructive type of action. Letting it fester may not be helping you right now. Forgive me for the advice, but I’m concerned about you.

                    • Twain says:

                      I don’t think there will be many who vote for McC. Not all Hillary supporters are like Harriet and I rather doubt that Harriet is as she appears on the video. Hillary’s supporters are Dems and most of them will vote for Obama IMO

                    • KayInMaine says:

                      Yes, why would you vote for John McCain who voted originally to send our troops into Iraq and not for Barack who was against it from the beginning and had the foresight to know that the Bush admin was lying to our nation? Huh? Why would you do this? All because Hillary isn’t on the ballot this year??????? Yep.

                    • Twain says:

                      Kay, aren’t you trying to look into the future a bit? These Hillary supporters haven’t done anything yet. They haven’t campaigned for McC or voted for him. They are upset and depressed and loud but they haven’t DONE anything yet.

                    • KayInMaine says:

                      Well, from what I witnessed yesterday and listening to them, they’re not on the Democrat’s page at all. One thing I didn’t mention in my post was a moment when me and two other Obama supporters went into the bathroom. We were talking about the Convention & Obama and there was another woman in the stall next to me who didn’t move. Her feet were perfectly still. When I finished, the other two women were washing their hands and we were still carrying on our conversation. Well, the woman in the stall didn’t move still! She was listening. It was truly weird behavior. I know she was a Hillary supporter (by the way, we didn’t say one negative word about Hillary when we were in there), because she came out with the normal scowled look on her face that almost all the Hillary supporters had on their faces.

                      The Hillary supporters yesterday were just like the Gathering of Eagles people I’ve seen at protests in Maine and in DC. They stand there with their arms crossed over their chests hating the Democrats. That’s how they were yesterday and I’m still pissed off about it.

                      I doubt the majority of them will vote for Obama when the time comes. If they do vote for him, I will be shocked….very shocked.

                    • bmaz says:

                      Listen here, you are WAY out of bounds. Quite frankly, I am on of the few here that has had thopportunity to vote in every election that John McCain has every run in; I have not only never voted for him, I have actively worked against him. I respect your passion, but you can flat peddle your vituperative pile of crap somewhere else if that is the attitude you insist on conveying. Take a step back and have a little respect for fellow humans and Democrats please.

                    • KayInMaine says:

                      I do have respect for the Democrats. Because I’m pissed off at the Hillary supporters from yesterday, I can’t talk about it? Is that what you’re saying? That sounds like the debate about the MI/FL delegates. Hey, as long as Hillary and her crew are being heard and being catered too all is fine, huh?

                      Well, guess what? I was originally a Kucinich supporter. I couldn’t believe how my FELLOW DEMOCRATS online said they could never vote for him because he has funny ears and isn’t tall enough to be president. Nice huh? I didn’t want Hillary, Barack, or Edwards after that. After Edwards dropped out and I had Hillary & Barack to choose from, it quickly became apparent to me that Hillary was running as the neocon (gun toting, whiskey swilling, $100 million dollar commoner who hunts ducks) in the race and it was a complete turn off to me. I realized all the years she and Bill have been hanging out with the Bush family, the family had rubbed off on her. I can’t vote for her now and the fact she went against the rules and now believes the delegates in MI & FL should be awarded after she broke the rules, I’m sorry….but I’ve lost all respect for her!

                      But yesterday was a real eye opener of how the Hillary supporters think and are. I’m grossed out by them.

                    • TheraP says:

                      Reasons 1-5 describe a character disorder. Not a philosophy. And the next two tell us the person with the character disorder is part of the 28% that still likes bush (and rove).

                      But I’m glad rwcole asked the question, because it helps us understand what’s eating at you right now.

            • Cujo359 says:

              Frankly, from a behavioral standpoint, there’s precious little difference between neocons and the more obnoxious supporters of Obama. More recently, that’s been true of Clinton supporters, as well. All seem to me to be impervious to reason. Only the political stances differ. I think blueracine’s caught the spirit of it pretty well at #95.

              It’s been painful to watch. I have better things to do with my time than watch this sort of petty crap, but feel free to continue if it pleases you.

              • KayInMaine says:

                You’re wrong, but then again, you’re a Hillary supporter. Yesterday summed up the Hillary supporters for me. I’m tired of all of them. They start the fights online and in our lives and then act like the victim to all of us when we call them on their bullshit. Neocons do that too.

                Here’s an example (taken from the post I did on my experience at the Maine Democratic State Convention):

                Want to hear the best story of the day? Bah hahahahaha! Oh gawd. It still cracks me up. The Hillary supporters are insane neocons and here’s why….

                When myself and other Oxford County Democratic delegates left the Augusta Civic Center to go to the off-site location, we found 4 yellow school buses sitting out front of the building. Each bus had signs in the window stating the various counties in our state. The people I was with saw “Oxford” on one bus, so we went up to it and asked the bus driver if we could take the bus instead of driving (much better for the environment to take one bus rather than tons of cars). He was fine with it. Well….from out of the shadows came this spleeny looking guy who was a Hillary supporter. He came up to us squeezing his butt cheeks together like he had a crowbar up his ass and yelled like a big asshole, “These are Hillary buses! They are for Hillary supporters only!!! They are paid for by the campaign and no Obama supporters are allowed on them!!!!”. I looked at him and said, “We not republicans for crying out loud…we’re on the same page!”. He refused to let us on the bus.

                Anyways, here’s where it gets good…

                Our county caucus had a delayed start as you know (another view is below), so as time ticked by apparently the Hillary buses that were used to take ONLY Hillary supporters over were coming up on their deadline to be returned. So late in the afternoon the same spleeny little Hillary supporter asshole says to the Oxford delegates (paraphrasing) in the room, “For anyone who came over on the bus who is a Hillary supporter, the buses have to be back at the Civic Center by 5:30pm, so you have to leave now on the bus if you want to be able to pick your car up to come back here, otherwise, YOU WILL HAVE TO BUM A RIDE FROM SOMEONE HERE TO GET BACK TO THE CIVIC CENTER”. I immediately leaned over to Mary who was sitting next to me (also an Obama supporter who was refused access to these buses as were most and who got the jerky treatment of this little spleeny asshole), and said to her, “If one of those assholes needs a ride from me, I’m peeling out and leaving with just me in the car!!!”. Then the guy immediately says to the Obama delegates in the room, “I would like to take this time to apologize to anyone who wanted to get on these buses and weren’t able to. Please know that we didn’t have the room and it wasn’t because you didn’t support our candidate”. Yep! He’s now apologizing to us after treating us like we were republicans or something, BECAUSE HE NOW KNOWS THAT NONE OF US ARE GOING TO HELP HIM OUT NOW! Loved it. isn’t that interesting? They hate us unless they need us. Bah hahahahahahaha!

                It was the Hillary supporters yesterday who walked around like they had “billy clubs” in their hands. Is that unity? Nope! Again, these same supporters would vote for Hitler if Barack gets on the ballot. Disgusting who they are.

                • drational says:

                  Hey Kay-
                  Not to be a jerk, but you might get more enthusiastic support (unfortunately) if you took your capital letters and “hillary is neocon” over to DKos…. EWs comment threads have not been so vapid or antagonistic since Jodi was around. by the way…..

              • Twain says:

                This is not petty crap. It’s good to talk about all points of view – if we can do it without anger. There’s been enough of that already. Discussing things helps us all get a fix on where we are in all this.

                • neurophius says:

                  I am an Obama supporter, and I am not angry (except at Bush/Cheney/Rove/McSame). But I see nothing to be gained by discussing the absurd proposition that all Clinton supporters are white racists who would have supported Hitler.

                • Rayne says:

                  Yes, ditto, as long as it’s constructive, not destructive. We all of us have to get through this together, or we’re all of us going to fail together. The stakes are enormous, bigger than in 2000 or 2004 based on the economic and environmental fundamentals.

                  It concerns me that we don’t see how very much like the opposition party we are right now; this is how the right-wing fundies have been talking about McCain, and how the Wall Streeters were talking about Huck’s and Paul’s supporters, and how Paulists are still talking about the rest of their party. We are much closer on issues than they are, we are better than this.

                  And I say this as an Edwards supporter in Michigan.

                  • Fern says:

                    Thank you for saying this. Because there are days when the tone of the comments on “left” wing and right wing blogs is distressingly similar.

                    Certainly there have been comments on this thread that, had they been spoken rather than written, would have sounded a lot like Harriet Christian.

                    And certainly I’ve seen the same kinds of arguments coming from Clinton and Obama supporters.

  26. Cujo359 says:

    Thanks for summarizing this, Marcy. I don’t think the decision about Michigan was unfair. One could probably argue that it was arbitrary, but at this point I can’t imagine there being a decision here that wasn’t. I’ve never believed that the results of the primary reflected what voters wanted in that state, so I don’t think there’s much point in arguing about a couple of delegates.

  27. blueracine says:

    You want Hillary supporters, like myself, who are people who not only go out and vote but also volunteer for campaign work and contribute money, to come over and support Obama now? But, some of you suggest we need psychiatric treatment if we don’t?

    You talk about not only HRC but her supporters as if we are somehow not as “bright” as BHO supporters? But, we should see the light now and just fall in line.

    Mockery via snaky comments like “This is just cosmically unfair “piling on” by the Universe”. But, I’m supposed to work along your side come this fall?

    The Democratic party leadership of MI can be manipulating but the idea that the DNC is manipulating is crazy?

    There is a bumpersticker I saw once that said “God, Save me from your followers” That’s how a lot of us Hillary supporters feel about the Obama followers. When we do phone banking and the ugliest remarks come not from the GOPers but from fellow dems supporting BHO it’s pretty difficult to “just let it go”. Sort of like telling a woman who’s just been called a f*cking ignorant bitch(my personal fav used by several BHO people when called) by her co-worker to just let it go–don’t complain to management! Keep it quiet, sweetie…….we will still let you fetch coffee and doughnuts.

    Perhaps if Obama supporters were not constantly insulting those of us who support Hillary this might not have gotten this bad? Anyone ever hear of nipping things in the bud? Where was your glorious leader when all this acrimony and hate started? Taking advantage of it, that’s where he was.

    btw, my 42 yr old nephew lives in MI and he knew to go out and vote. He tells me a whole different story than I’ve read on here about why people did or did not vote. Maybe those who stayed home did so because they didn’t care whether it was HRC or BHO on the ticket? Maybe they used to be okay with either? Maybe not so much anymore thanks to all the brouhaha and attacks?

    • rwcole says:

      I never did care which of the two won- so I have watched this play out objectively..

      Pretty bitter stuff for a campaign in which the two candidate’s positions were nearly identical….but it’s over now and I hope we can all come together and defeat McBush…

      The cost of him is too much to bear.

    • KayInMaine says:

      Did you know that Bill Clinton is still helping George H.W. Bush fundraise and Terry McAuliffe is buddies with Karl Rove? I think most here would say we liked Hillary in the 1990’s and over a year ago, but when she started acting like a neocon in her campaign, it was a turn off.

      Why is that hard for the Hillary supporters to understand? And why is it Obama supporters will vote for Hillary if she’s on the ballot because they can’t stand the idea of a 3rd term of John McCain? And also why is it that Hillary supporters are willing to be like Joe Lieberman now in throwing away their core beliefs just to go after the Democratic party? Huh?

    • KayInMaine says:

      The insults online were started by the Hillary supporters I hate to tell you. Nice try in blaming Obama supporters ONCE AGAIN. Do the Hillary supporters take any blame for anything or are they righteous like the right wingers in the White House too? You couldn’t believe women were not voting for a woman and they (Hillary supporters) just can’t believe that blacks are voting for a black man this year as well as whites voting for him. Hell, it’s lost on the Hillary supporters that blacks & whites have always had to choose BETWEEN WHITE MEN ONLY since the inception of our country!

    • emptywheel says:


      Are you responding to someone in particular? I don’t think I’ve done the things you say, so if I have, please point out. I certainly did not intend anything I said here to impugn Hillary supporters and apologize if it was taken as such.

      As to what I’m reporting on what happened in MI? First, I’m reporting a lot of anecdotes. Yes, people voted (though MI had by far the worst turnout of any state this year). Some crossed over, having made a very rational choice based on teh fact that those votes weren’t going to count, whereas the GOP side they did. Some did not understand that to vote for Obama or Edwards, you could only vote uncommited. Some voted for Hillary with full support. Some voted for Hillary though they supported another candidate. That is what the data show all the anecdotes add up to, which is the point and that is the basis of the reason why a large majority of RBC members voted to seat MI differently. The fact taht some people successfully expressed their preference does not negate teh fact that 15% who would have expressed a preference did not do so, and that many who did vote, did not believe the vote expressed their preference.

      While I’m glad your son had his vote recorded (presumably in a way he believe reflected his vote), there is abundant hard data that a lot of people did not, which is why that vote could not legally be considered a fair reflection.

      And incidentally, I have donated money to Obama. But when this began, I was genuinely split, believing Hillary was better on domestic issues and Obama on foreign issues. The sole reason I became an active supporter of Obama (and again, I’ know of anecdotes similar to this) was in response to Terry McAuliffe making claims about MI that were simply not based on facts.

    • MrWhy says:

      There’s a bit of a difference between saying “I will support the nominee of my party”, and saying “I’ll vote for McCain rather than Obama”.

    • Funnydiva2002 says:

      Mockery via snaky comments like “This is just cosmically unfair “piling on” by the Universe”. But, I’m supposed to work along your side come this fall?

      This was not a snarky comment and had NOTHING to do with you or HRC or any of her supporters which you’d know if you’d read it in context of the early part of the thread when I wrote it. That you take it as an example in your diatribe says far more about you than it does about me or any issue you’re trying to address.

      And, no, frankly if this is still your attitude after we’ve all had some time to grieve and cool off or whatever we need to do, then I won’t be asking you to support Obama’s campaign. Please note that I am not using “we” as code for “you, bluer”. I mean it. We all need to cool off, me included.

      I’m sorry you’re feeling attacked. I think I would, too. There are too many folks who are too quick to say that _ALL_ of the other supporters are (fill in the blank: irrational, etc, etc) and too many who are too quick to decide that anyone criticizing part of their group is intentionally smearing and insulting them personally.
      Get a grip, everyone (this means you, FunnyDiva), and in the meantime think really hard about your own behavior and responsibility before knocking someone else’s.


  28. rwcole says:

    Bit of a bio on Strickland- dem gov of Ohio:

    After Ted Strickland was first reelected to Congress, he placed a plaque in his office with the following quote from Scripture:

    “And what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?”—Micah 6:8

    Throughout his service as a minister, a psychologist, a professor and a Member of Congress, Ted worked to exemplify those simple, powerful words. That same plaque is now in the Governor’s Office, where those same words guide Ted each day.

    As Governor, Ted believes that Ohio government must live within its means while investing in what matters. Brought together by a sense of common purpose, legislators from both parties have worked closely with the Governor to strengthen Ohio.

    Ex preacher and son of a steel worker…That might work!

      • jayt says:

        We psychologists have a lot of respect for the guy!

        Well, if Obama is gonna choose a male for V.P., he sounds pretty good. I wonder whether he can afford to *not* appoint a woman however.

        • TheraP says:

          I think you may be correct. But I hope he chooses a woman who is not going to “outdraw” him in the media – if you catch my drift.

          I kind of like Sibelius for that reason. And I’d rather that we not deplete the Senate at this point.

          • bmaz says:

            I did not know much about Sebelius in spite of having heard her name for a while now. We just don’t get much substantive information on her out here. A few weeks ago, Marcy gave me a primer, and since then I have studied up a little. Sebelius is indeed pretty commendable. That said however, I still think she would make a poor VP choice. For one, I am not sure I have ever seen a weaker and more ineffectual SOTU Response than the one she gave; it was literally a pitiful presentation (in spite of the content actually being okay). I am of the opinion that Obama will need to pair up with someone that can not only draw in the Clinton camp, but also exude a fair amount of toughness and experience. McCain is totally full of dung on about every front, but notwithstanding that fact, the Republicans will be able to make a ton of hay if they are able to paint both ends of the Dem ticket as weak and effete. To some extent, this applies to Strickland as well, although maybe not quite as much. I would suggest something more along the lines of Jim Webb, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Ed Rendell and, yes, maybe even Hillary Clinton.

            I also strongly urge the dedicated Obama supporters that I have seen so vociferous here to take a step back, draw some fresh air and reorient your wrath. I voted for Obama, have defended the viability and worthiness of Clinton, think they are both qualified, compelling and worthy, and neither one was, nor still is although that no longer matters, even in my top four choices for the Democratic standard bearer. However, I find the holier than thou, condescending and graceless attitude of many of the Obama folks to be appalling. Obama has won, but it was by a damn thin reed. He has many compelling strengths; but he also has a few substantive weaknesses. Blathering about the need of mental health care for Clinton supporters, casting them as neocons intent on blowing everything you care about up, etc. is both belligerent and delusional. There is an awful lot at stake in the months ahead, and from my perspective, your attitude is every bit as much a threat to our overall success as anything the Clinton camp can bring.

            • WilliamOckham says:

              You know who I think would make a good VP? Patrick Murphy, first term Representative from Pennsylvania. He’s an Iraq War vet with a Bronze Star. He’s a Blue Dog, but he hung tough on FISA. He’s just barely old enough to be a candidate.

              • bmaz says:

                Interesting suggestion. And very much along the general lines or whatever that i am kind of picturing. He may be a little raw yet; although I am having a hard time figuring out why, other than age and time on the general scene, that he is any more so than Webb, who I earlier suggested. I think I would prefer someone a tad more battle tested so to speak, but I like the thought.

                Phred – No, I probably should have included Richardson. He has a couple of decent skeletons that could be a bit more problematic than most people realize if he was really placed on the firing line; but i don’t know that they are disqualifying.

                • WilliamOckham says:

                  The Democratic party can’t afford to lose any US Senators. Furthermore, the most important, and most overlooked, fact about this election is that it is a generational election. McCain is my father’s age. Obama is my age. This is a lot more important to the general election voter than it is to folks like us. I’m taking a long term view of this.

                  I’ve studied voting patterns in U.S. presidential elections. If a majority of an age cohort votes three times in a row for a party, that cohort is generally locked in for life, excepting the rare realigning events (like the civil rights struggle). Voting participation goes up as you age. Younger voters have been trending more and more Democratic for the last 12 years. I think the Democratic party has a change to lock a real Presidential election advantage this year. Believe it or not, that was the main reason I switched my support from John Edwards to Obama.

                  • bmaz says:

                    I agree pretty much with all of that. I think you are especially right about being careful with poaching Dems out of the Senate. In that regard, Webb and Clinton are a little easier to use because of the Democratic control of the Governorship of their two respective states.

                    Phred @205 – Exactly. We are discussing an arena where perception is sometimes very much reality and the medium often the message.

                  • masaccio says:

                    Interesting. I’m HRCs age, she was my second choice after Edwards, but my daughter changed my mind. “I’m sick of baby boomers”, she said one day early this year, and it dawned on me that I am too. Particularly older boomers, stuck with bitter memories of the politics of the Viet Nam War. I believe that the best of my generation burned out in the war or in opposition to the war. The best part of this generation took sides, and the experience was debilitating. The left couldn’t stop the killing. The right couldn’t win the war. The politicians of my generation are the second raters who ducked the war, and who ducked opposition to the war, content to put their heads down and ignore the whole thing.

                    Obama offers a new start. He wasn’t formed in that cauldron. I’m with my excellent daughter who is the future.

                    • TheraP says:

                      I agree about the future. Plus a younger brain can really ingest and manage much more information. The presidency today requires have so many facts going in and so many decisions going out.

                      I’m happy to pass the torch. (and I’m just a bit older than Hillary)

                    • PetePierce says:

                      To quote MoDo, who I know for some reason infuriates many people who comment on these blogs (but I’m not sure of all the reasons why) we can’t get out of Iraq because we can’t get out of Iraq.

                      Cult of Deception Maureen Dowd

                      And I hope everyone reads Frank Rich’s column this morning because he nails Rove and McCain.

            • phred says:

              Any reason Bill Richardson didn’t make your VP list? He’s more of a local to you than me, so perhaps you know stuff about him that I don’t. Seems to me Richardson would be helpful geographically, with Hispanics, and with those who think Obama has too little experience in foreign affairs.

              • Twain says:

                Richardson was terrible in the debates but would make a great State Dept person IMO. I am liking Biden more and more – he has really stepped up and whacked the Repubs.

                • phred says:

                  That’s true, he was awful wasn’t he. Ok, I take that back. And I have to agree Biden is already shouldering the attack dog mantle. IIRC he actually called “bullshit” not too long ago. Ya gotta like that in a Veep ; )

                    • Twain says:

                      And he is really good on foreign policy – experience which Obama lacks. Might be a good ticket.

                    • KayInMaine says:

                      No one needed foreign policy expertise to figure out going into Iraq back in 2003 was a bad idea and a huge mistake. As a housecleaner, I knew it for crying out loud.

                      The “foreign policy experts” have brought us:

                      DEATH SQUADS IN SOUTH AMERICA
                      THE RAPING OF NUNS
                      DEALS WITH CHINA
                      ARMING OF IRAQ/IRAN
                      And on and on and on.

                      Barack Obama like the rest of us have read the newspapers for years now and he knows what the problem is. It’s our government and how we treat the rest of the world. We keep fanning the flames of hate. Barack is going to try to change this. I hope he’s successful.


                      The neocons of the current White House are drumming up another 9/11 on our country after Barack becomes the president. Why? “To show that a Democrat” can’t protect our nation. This is how the neocons are. After Bush Sr. lost in 1992, “al-Qaida” bombed the WTC. Funny, Bush Sr. & Reagan never mentioned al-Qaida when they were in power, but yet, when he lost that election in 1992, they bombed us on our soil.

                    • phred says:

                      The one drawback, ok two, that I see are geography (Biden is yet another member of the east coast elite) and Obama does appear to need help with hispanics and I don’t think Biden helps there any (not sure who does, aside from Richardson, so perhaps I shouldn’t obsess about that).

                    • Twain says:

                      you’re right about Biden geographically but honestly, I could go with any of our previous candidates – except Gravel – for VP. We had a great field this time – made me proud. You have my permission to obsess all you want to

                      Wobbly – can’t see that Hillary has any foreign policy experience. That “I have experience” thing got pretty stale.

                    • phred says:

                      except Gravel – for VP

                      Oh I don’t know, a VP who spends his time making weird videos for YouTube would be a marked improvement ; )

                    • Adie says:

                      ESPECIALLY foreign policy. I’d LOVE to see him in the cabinet. Not sure about Veep (shooter has forever taken the luster off that pearl egad!). The only “down side” I see would be not having him in the Senate, where he is very very valuable imo. Glad it’s not my choice to make(!)

                      Re Obama’s relative strength & experience, I wouldn’t discount the superb experience available at excellent institutions of higher learning – for an Obama, as opposed to a total flake like, well, u heard of that “junior” fella.. Further, I get the feeling Obama’s not only very very smart and savvy, but realistic and confident enough to be comfortable choosing strong people to fill positions that would make up for any current perceived weakness. I like what I perceive of where both his head and his heart are, if that makes any sense.

  29. Rayne says:

    btw, my 42 yr old nephew lives in MI and he knew to go out and vote. He tells me a whole different story than I’ve read on here about why people did or did not vote. Maybe those who stayed home did so because they didn’t care whether it was HRC or BHO on the ticket? Maybe they used to be okay with either? Maybe not so much anymore thanks to all the brouhaha and attacks?

    Care to share any more anonymous demographics about your nephew, blueracine?

    The folks in Detroit didn’t vote like the folks in Grand Rapids, and neither of them like Marquette — we know that, happens every election in some varying flavor. Your nephew’s experience could very well be quite different than that of folks in Ann Arbor, Manistee or Saginaw.

    But your nephew’s experience doesn’t negate the experiences that Marcy in southeast MI, Lisa in northwest lower, and I in eastern mid-Michigan had. (Lisa, which district are you in — 4th or 1st? we might have had the same convention.)

    His experience also doesn’t negate the raw anger that I heard from union people, particular union leadership, who were furious at not being able to have a caucus where they could electioneer against a crappy ballot proposal, as well as support their preferred candidate (Edwards). Those people picked what they saw as the least wretched of choices, including voting across party lines for Republicans in order to influence which candidate they would run against in November.

    Your comments about the nastiness of Obama supporters against Hillary supporters is also highly subjective; in my locale, the strongest Democratic organization is comprised of supporters of Hillary, Obama and Edwards, and all of us work together as friends in spite of our different choices because we were all of us friends and collaborators in 2004 when we were unified in our anger at the direction of our country. This Wednesday, for example, we will work on our first group phone bank — a Clinton-supporter is running for state house, an Edwards-supporter will be handling the technical infrastructure requirements, an Obama-supporter will be training folks on gathering data and entering it into a database, and we’ll be supporting a team of phone bankers who are just as mixed as we are in our support (I know at least two of the phone bankers are Kucinich people, and at least two more are Green Party).

    Paraphrasing what Howard Dean said yesterday, we do this because it’s not about any one of us, or the candidates we support. It’s about our county, our district, our state, our country — and every single one of us in our group has been committed since we first joined our efforts in 2004 to take our country back. I’m very sorry you haven’t see this kind of effort so far, because such collaboration between camps can and does happen.

    • LisainManistee says:

      I’m in Manistee, which is in the frozen tundra of Northwestern Michigan.

      My district is MI-02 and hoekstra is my rep… and yes, I know you pity me for having crazy pete as my voice in Washington D.C.

      • Rayne says:

        OMFG. My sympathies to you on being MI-02. Being in NW MI, I didn’t know if you were in same district as TC (which is gerrymandered into MI-04 with me in Saginaw — Dave “Rubber Stamp” Camp’s district.)

        I may need some help with a profile of the 2nd district — you game?

    • SouthernDragon says:

      Paraphrasing what Howard Dean said yesterday, we do this because it’s not about any one of us, or the candidates we support. It’s about our county, our district, our state, our country — and every single one of us in our group has been committed since we first joined our efforts in 2004 to take our country back

      Nuff said.

  30. rwcole says:

    A good VP is one who goes to funerals and is seen and not heard. The VP HAS no constitutional responsibility except to preside over the senate when he or she feels like it.

  31. PetePierce says:

    It seems that the talking heads are neglecting the fact that Peurto Rico cannot vote in the general election, and I don’t seem to remember any US Senator or member of the House of Representatives leading the fight for Puerto Rican statehood.

    I do remember John McCain’s claims in March 2003 to Tweetie Mathews that Americans would be “welcomed as liberators” in Iraq, and that the deadly fiasco in Iraq would be “one of the best things that’s happened to America” as the battle cry for McCain’s failed cheerleading in the buildup to the slaughter of Americans and Iraqis in Iraq nailed extremelywell by Frank Rich this morning. It renders McCain’s criticism of the Democratic candidates on Iraq totally disingenuous.

    McCain’s McClellan Nightmare

  32. rwcole says:

    Clinton mentioned a poll analysis done by Rove–which is a far cry from “LOVING Rove”….then it takes a wild flight of fancy to move from that to “All of Hillary’s supporters love Rove”

    there are some missing steps in the logic of the argument.

    • KayInMaine says:

      One month ago, Bill Clinton was on stage in the South with George H.W. Bush & Barbara Bush fundraising. In fact, the Clintons & the Bush family have been buddies for years. If you support Hillary you’re also supporting the Bush family. If you don’t see it that way, then the hell with ya.

      Would you support Hitler’s best friends? If so, get yourself some therapy. Because of my core beliefs, I would not thrown out my beliefs by voting for “Hitler’s friends” because I was mad at my OUR BROTHER! Oh, but Hillary supporters would.

      • rwcole says:

        Wait a minute- weren’t Bill and Bush Sr. raising money to help starving millions in the world? Do you find this WRONG? I guess I don’t understand.

        • KayInMaine says:

          Oh I get it…you think banning with the Bush family is good as long as it has a nice cover on it. The Bush family financed the Nazis and there isn’t much they can do in my book that cancels that out. And don’t even get me started on how the Bush brothers have had their many Savings & Loan scandals throughout the past decade or so or how they’re connected to the Saudi Royals, 9/11/01, and the bin Laden family!

          But hey, if you cancel all that out because you like Hillary, then so be it. Continue to be part of the crowd who is clueless in this country.

          I heard a caller this morning on C-SPAN stating that she doesn’t like the “shady” people Barack Obama is connected to. Oh please!!!!!! You’d all ban with Hitler and wouldn’t care what his connections were as long as a black man like Barack Obama didn’t win or get the nomination!

      • MrWhy says:

        From Wikipedia:

        In the aftermath of the Asian tsunami and Hurricane Katrina, Clinton established, with fellow former-President George H. W. Bush, the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund and Bush-Clinton Tsunami Fund, for which they were awarded the 2006 Philadelphia Liberty Medal on October 5, 2006.

        Fundraising with Bush Sr. is not the same as fundraising for Bush Jr.

        • KayInMaine says:

          By the way, has Bush Sr. and his wife ever denounced their son? If they have, then I’d be okay with Bill Clinton, Hillary, and Chelsea hanging out with the Bush family, but since that hasn’t happened there is nothing either family can do to get me to support them. Is that okay with you?

          • Adie says:

            okay… apologies folks, but imho, there has been a line crossed here. I am not a pro so smack me down, anyone who wishes, if you believe it is important that you do so.

            has Bush Sr. and his wife ever denounced their son? If they have, then I’d be okay…

            Kay. I hope you revisit this thread some time. I did that with one of mine that was particularly troubling some time ago. It wasn’t easy, but I am glad I took time and endured the personal discomfort to do so.

            You might want to bookmark this one and save it for scrutiny sometime down the road. Alternatively, you could curse me to the heavens for daring to presume. I’m quite likely to be officially “out of line” in your eyes, just for making such a suggestion.

          • MrWhy says:

            I understand your disgust with Shrub. I even understand your dislike of Hillary and Bill. I don’t think you’re convincing anyone of the case you’re putting forward with the tone you’re using.

            • KayInMaine says:

              I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything. I am sharing what I witnessed yesterday at my state’s Democratic Convention. I don’t see many open minded individuals in the Hillary supporters.

              • Adie says:

                I don’t see many open minded individuals in the Hillary supporters.

                Maybe, given a chance to calm down, and to be coaxed into having some good discussions, they will become more open-minded.

                I’m not being deliberately naive, or dismissive of the problem.

                I’ve seen stranger things come to pass, handled in a careful manner.

                One of our close neighbors told us some time ago they would NEVER EVER, under ANY circumstances, vote for Obama. Now, I am quite sure they will indeed vote for him. They were not coerced. Their decision, I believe, is all the more firm because they made it themselves after considering more evidence than they had previously.

          • phred says:

            By the way, has Bush Sr. and his wife ever denounced their son? If they have, then I’d be okay

            I would never be ok with any parent who denounced their child anytime anywhere. Not ever.

            • bmaz says:

              I agree. Of course, I, very much like BB King expressed, can say “Nobody loves me but my momma, and she might be jiving too”.

            • KayInMaine says:

              Really? So if your child gunned down and murdered a school yard full of children you’d be okay with it and wouldn’t denounce his actions? And if the same child started a war based on lies and sent our soldiers overseas to kill people who did not attack us on 9/11 and where no wmd were found, you’d be proud of that?

              I guess I’m different than you are.

  33. rwcole says:

    Rove is running the Hillary campaign behind the scenes? If you have proof of that- it’s worth millions to you. If you’re just making that up- then you are pullin shit out of your ass and callin it insight.

    I, by the way, am NOT a Hillary supporter OR an Obama supporter. I was an Edwards supporter and I will vote for the nominee of my part cause I want to beat the goopers.

  34. WilliamOckham says:

    We’ll all be better off if we stop demonizing other folks in our party. And when somebody ventures in to obvious troll territory, just ignore them.

      • Adie says:

        I for one appreciate your comments. They’re succinct, informative, well-worth pondering, without appearing pompous. That’s not easy.
        Are you a professor, practicing, both?

        • TheraP says:

          Private practice – very part-time now. Semi retired.

          I’ll split the difference between your compliment (thanks!) and bmaz’ cautions (though I wasn’t sure he meant all of them for me).

  35. Rayne says:

    TheraP — might be about time to look at Chris Cowan and Don Beck in regards to their work in Spiral Dynamics. We’re going to need their work in order to heal the breach.

  36. KayInMaine says:

    By the way, Joe Lieberman is a neocon. He’d rather vote for Hitler (or hang out with Reverend Hagee, John McCain’s crazy Reverend) than vote for a Democrat! See?

  37. KayInMaine says:

    As we all know, Rev. Hagee loves the idea of Israel being wiped off the map and understood what Hitler was doing with the Jews back then, but yet, Joe Lieberman is okay with this and would rather ban with this guy & John McCain rather than the black man who has a reverend who says, “God Damn America”!

  38. drational says:

    If I was the RNC, KayinMaine is exactly the kind of blogspam I would be paying for right now….

    “As we all know, Rev. Hagee loves the idea of Israel being wiped off the map and understood what Hitler was doing with the Jews back then, but yet, Joe Lieberman is okay with this and would rather ban with this guy & John McCain rather than the black man who has a reverend who says, “God Damn America”!”

    Perfect framing choice:
    Clinton supporters= Hitler supporters
    Obama= “The Black Man who has a reverend….”

    • KayInMaine says:

      Sorry, but it’s the Hillary supporters who have framed it that way (well, not the Hitler comment, but the “black man” for sure) and was throwing it back in their faces. Whenever they say, “That’s it! I’m not voting for Barack! I’m voting for McCain instead” tells me they would rather throw out their core beliefs against the Iraq occupation, torture, and the rule of law. Yep, they’d rather vote for McCain who is all for that rather than the black man.

  39. KayInMaine says:

    Yeah, I have morals. Illegal wars, killing, raping, and torturing (or the allowing of it all based on lies to begin with) is something I don’t like, but if one would rather vote for John McCain because Hillary Clinton is not on the ballot, then they’re NOT DENOUNCING THE ACTIONS OF MCCAIN.

    • KayInMaine says:

      And I should point out, because George H.W. & Barbara Bush haven’t denounced the actions of their son Georgie publicly, it tells me they’re okay with what he’s done. The drowning of our fellow Americans after Katrina hit was also fun and rewarding too, which tells me, the Clintons are okay with all of it too. With Karl Rove helping the Clinton team behind the scenes, I’m sure of it now!

  40. wobblybits says:

    seriuos question. i have heard the argument about forien policy experience or lack therof. what exactly is hillary’s foreign policy experience?

    • phred says:

      I can’t answer your question about Hillary, but I should point out that I did not mean to imply that I think Obama is not up to snuff on foreign policy (I think is is fine there). The problem is politics is all about perception and Obama is gonna get hammered on experience, if for no other reason than he is not old.

      So in contemplating VP candidates, one needs to fill perceived (if not real) gaps in the Presidential candidate’s resume. In the grand scheme of things, no one cares about what I think about possible Veeps, I just enjoy playing the home-version of the game ; )

      • wobblybits says:

        Oh, my question wasn’t prompted by anything you posted rather a question that has been sort of swimming around my mind for some time. When it comes to foreign policy among the dem candidates, Obama is seen as lacking ‘experience’ and I just am curious as to what is Senator Clinton’s foreign policy experience

          • wobblybits says:

            she has seen what done? seeing something makes for experience in a particular area?

            • Fern says:

              Sorry – meant to be a joke. No – sseeing it done is not a qualification!

              I was involved in a program for foreign trained welders. Most of the applicants were great, but a few of them could talk a good fight, but when you put a welding torch in their hands, it was a bit of a different situation.

              Our joke was that “they’d seen it done” but couldn’t do it themselves.

              • wobblybits says:

                ahh gotcha. i just wonder what is considered foreign policy experience and from where she gained said experience.

                    • Fern says:

                      Well, it’s partly about how people learn, and the nature of what is to be learned. Also natural aptitude in different areas.

                      I have (successfully) done all sorts of things for which I had neither training nor experience – but I’m a hell of a quick study, I know how to learn, I’m smart, I ask questions of people who know, I build on related things I’ve already done. Also I make shit up as I go along. And don’t go into situations where I know I am totally in over my head.

            • bmaz says:

              Well, actually, yes sometimes seeing things done up close and personal really does lend some experience and knowledge. To the best I can tell, she was close enough and involved enough during the Clinton Presidency that she probably should be given a little credit for exposure in this regard; but not a whole lot, certainly not enough to be superior on that issue.

              • wobblybits says:

                I have a small issue with that because I have watched my husband replace the fuel injection wires on my old VW bug but could hardly claim to be experienced in replacing fuel injection wires. I guess I differentiate between knowledge about something and actually having working experience in doing something.

                i appreciate the input. I’m just trying to get my mind around this.

                • bmaz says:

                  Well, see, that is precisely why I said “sometimes”. To give an example to the contrary, in the time period between graduating school and taking my professional entrance exams and being admitted to practice, I was the protege of a truly gifted person. I tagged along at his side through two huge lengthy trials during which I listened, watched and absorbed everything closely. Three weeks after being sworn into the bar, I was the lead and sole plaintiff’s attorney on a month long jury trial, with an extremely favorable verdict, pretty much based entirely on the skills and tricks I picked up from my time at his side. So sometimes yes, sometimes no; it depends on the situation. I just think it should not be completely disregarded, no more than it should be given too much emphasis. It is not necessarily all or none.

                  • wobblybits says:

                    guess we have experience on the one hand and ‘practical’ experience on the other hand

                  • PetePierce says:

                    “See one/do one/teach” one was always thrown around hospitals. A lot of procedures are like that, but of course don’t remotely approach the complexity or the demands of a month long or day long trial or a wide variety of motions.

                    Sometimes it works, and sometimes you better do a couple hundred of them. It just depends on what.

        • phred says:

          Well, I don’t consider myself qualified to answer, but I never thought she had any to speak of, and certainly not more than Obama. I have always thought domestic policy was more her strong suit. I really do think “experience” foreign or otherwise, tends to be code for someone being too young. The we-can’t-vote-for-a wet-behind-the-ears-kid argument.

          • wobblybits says:

            that very well may be it because I don’t see via google how she has any foreign policy experience

      • PetePierce says:

        Considering McCain’s terrifically poor judgement in so many areas, I don’t see how age can be considered a legitimate metric of the much bandied word “experience.” And despite foreign policy advisors and script writers, McCain not only has trouble sorting out the different religious sects in Iraq and the middle east, he positively cannot count to ten there, and has bilateral blind spots when he equates young soldires being blown to bits as “success and stability.” McCain who adopted a refugee as a daughter, seems to forget the 2 million homeless peniless refugees, many women, who are roaming around Middle Eastern countries having to resort to prostitution to feed their fatherless children.

        This is the experience of a 72 year old John McCain as described by Frank Rich this morning in action:

        McCain’s McClellan Nightmare

        This transcends denial; it’s group psychosis. Nowhere is this syndrome more apparent than in the profuse punditry of Karl Rove, who never cites Iraq as a problem for Mr. McCain (if he refers to it at all) and flatly assured George Stephanopoulos last Sunday that Mr. McCain has no need to make a “clean break” from Mr. Bush.

        Mr. Rove is to the McCain campaign what Bill Clinton was to the Hillary Clinton campaign: a ubiquitous albatross dispensing dubious, out-of-date political advice and constantly upstaging the candidate he ostensibly supports. Like Mr. Clinton, Mr. Rove is a camera hog who puts his need to vehemently defend his own administration’s record ahead of all else. So what if he’s under subpoena by the House Judiciary Committee? He doesn’t care if he reminds voters of administration scandals or of Mr. McCain’s association with Iraq any more than Mr. Clinton cared if he reminded voters of his continued ties to suspect financial donors and the prospect of an out-of-control co-presidency.

        Mr. McCain’s record on Iraq is far worse than Mrs. Clinton’s. He didn’t just cast a vote but was a drumbeater for the propaganda Mr. McClellan cites, including the neocon fantasies of a newly democratic Middle East. On “Hardball” and “Meet the Press” in March 2003, Mr. McCain invoked that argument, along with the promise that Americans would be “welcomed as liberators,” to assert the war would be “one of the best things that’s happened to America.”

        To cover up these poor judgments now — and questionable actions, including his public boosting of Ahmad Chalabi, then a lobbying client of the current McCain campaign guru, Charles Black — Mr. McCain is hoping that the “liberal media” will once again be complicit enablers. We’ll see. He’s also counting on the press to let him blur his record by accentuating his subsequent criticism of the war’s execution — as if the war’s execution (also criticized by countless Democrats), not its conception, was the fatal error.

        His other tactic is to try to create a smoke screen by smearing Barack Obama as unpatriotic. Mr. McCain has suggested that the Democratic front-runner is the Hamas candidate and has piled on to Mr. Bush’s effort to slur Mr. Obama as an apostle of “appeasement.” A campaign ad presented Mr. McCain as “the American president Americans have been waiting for” (not to be confused, presumably, with the un-American president Al Qaeda has been waiting for).

        Now Mr. McCain is chastising Mr. Obama for not having visited Iraq since 2006 — a questionable strategy, you’d think, given that Mr. McCain’s own propagandistic visit to a “safe” Baghdad market is one of his biggest embarrassments. Then again, in his frantic efforts to explain why he sided with Mr. Bush to oppose an expanded G.I. bill that the Senate passed by 75 to 22, Mr. McCain has attacked Mr. Obama for not enlisting in the military.

        Besides making Mr. McCain look ever angrier next to his serene opponent, this eruption raises the question of why he chose double-standard partisanship over principle by not applying this criterion to the blunderers who took us into Iraq. Unlike Mr. Obama, who was 7 years old in 1968, Mr. Bush and company could have served in Vietnam as Mr. McCain did.

        By the way if Hillary Clinton is such an experienced politician, why is she refusing to talk to the press and running from them right this minute in Puerto Rico. Perhaps the Spanish word used in Puerto Rico algarete would be appropriate to describe her demeanor.

  41. TheraP says:

    An astonishing record of 23+% of posts by one person. And countless replies to that same person!

    From the time of beginning… and had to rework the stats when I posting this!

    Is it a record?

    • Adie says:

      Oh hey, while u got that calculator out (oops, just dated myself), do a run of # comments vs. # of specific thots expressed. I GUARRANNTEEE it’ll be a record also, if yer 1st one was.

      • TheraP says:

        That reminds me of my husband’s view of some professors’ publishing. He thinks they have one idea and then they break it up into tiny bits… so one journal article, one idea “particle.”

        Particle physics! Particle something!

        • Adie says:

          heh. – um – a not-too-wild guess: said habit is aided and abetted by the “publish or perish” policy at many universities and colleges?

          • TheraP says:

            Correct. Whereas in Europe, for example, people are not pressured to publish so many article or whatever. As a consequence professors are left more free to do in depth research and thinking and then the resulting product is often far superior. But I’m not lumping! It all depends. Some people have extremely fertile minds. And, for example, EW is one!!!!

            • Adie says:

              apologies for my whining. it was not directed at you. i’m just sick of the practice some have of using a howitzer to swat gnats. It’s hard to rise to the occasion and have a conversation with someone who starts a fight with all equally and refuses to converse, then complains people won’t talk.

              EW!!! A brilliant super-nova of a gift to this world!

              • TheraP says:

                No need to apologize. I was simply following your advice, which I think is good advice.

                EW has a gift. I agree. And she’s much younger than me. I cannot keep up with her!

                That’s what I meant above about the value of a younger brain. An older brain has its values too. You can be more reflective, I think. And you can cross domains, making use of the mental structures you’ve evolved in other areas. But it’s much harder to take in novel facts. And boy is that needed in the presidency! For that reason alone, McCain should be bypassed. (also he defies research in not getting calmer as he ages)

    • KayInMaine says:

      Not sure what you’re getting at. Are you saying I need to decrease my percentage of commenting to fit into the group here? LOL If so…wow! You should see me in my real life. I love to talk.

  42. hazmaq says:

    One key point you left out of your analysis, that I hoped to see mentioned yesterday but was not, were the words of the two ‘dis-enfranchised’ non-complying parties at the time.

    Both of them weren’t worried about being punished at the time. Why?

    Because the ‘nominee” would see to it that they were seated – ‘later’!

    And the parties said that, because they thought they knew who the ‘nominee’ would be, and what ’she’ would do to correct the punished delegates..

    So the real ‘game’ here played by Clinton and her supporters is that they got caught in their own scheme because they were likely not going to be the mother f***ing nominee. So to try and still win anyway Team Clinton demanded and got a free handicap -by forcing the delegates to be seated now, before the ‘nominee’ was even chosen to see what benefit they personally could gain over Obama beyond what the ‘voters’ said.

    Now these same motherf***ers use words like ‘gall’ and ‘chutzpa’ when they still aren’t winning??

    F*** them -and good riddance!

  43. Adie says:

    bmaz 153 KayinMaine ###

    would you people kindly cease dumping all the rest of “us” either commenting now or in the past, or to be doing so in the future, all parties, races, opinions, plans, personality traits and eating habits..

    PULEEZE refrain from dumping us all into the same gunnysack and tumbling us about willy nilly. We’re all individual hoomin beings, with feelings and different backgrounds and families and future plans, hopes and dreams.

    Let’s discuss till we’re blue in the face, but stop LUMPING!

    This is a plea. Follow your own muse.

    • bmaz says:

      I deny “lumping”; and affirmatively assert that I indicated fairly clearly which ones I was referring to, short of specifying names, which I felt inappropriate and inconsistent with the thought I was trying to convey. Crikey, I actually thought I had been pretty restrained….

      • Adie says:

        you probably were. ignore my whine. thanks.

        this had struck a nerve.

        I also strongly urge the dedicated Obama supporters that I have seen so vociferous here to take a step back, draw some fresh air and reorient your wrath. I voted for Obama, have defended the viability and worthiness of Clinton, think they are both qualified, compelling and worthy, and neither one was, nor still is although that no longer matters, even in my top four choices for the Democratic standard bearer. However, I find the holier than thou, condescending and graceless attitude of many of the Obama folks to be appalling.

        I started out an Edwards supporter, but quite readily and willingly switched to supporting Obama when Edwards dropped out. I would support and vote for Clinton if she becomes the nominee. I do not regard any candidate as perfect. I respect Edwards and Obama both, in part because they do NOT seem “holier than thou, condescending and graceless.” I had been unaware that many Obama supporters are considered to be so. I’m still not convinced that they are any more-so than supporters of other candidates.

        I have confidence in Obama partly because of his own apparent abilities, commitment, and dedication to service, and also because I think he would put good people in the Executive Branch on their merits. There are many other reasons, but that’s a core of sorts. I do not sense one whit of elitism about him. If you were to meet us on the street, I doubt elitist would be your 1st impression. Maybe I read your description as being more broad than was intended. Apologies.

        Little guess: at this point, especially after the long tense day yesterday and thots of those to come, most of us are probably getting a little ragged around the edges.

        P. E. A. C. E.

      • Sixty Something says:

        Exactly. Tell that to the Hillary supporters who are using the tactics of the neocons in this country. Thank you.

        I’m assuming that you did just that. That you told the Hillary supporters, you thought were so rude exactly what you thought of them. Yes or no?

        Given any thought that all Hillary supporters are not like those you experienced and resent being lumped into that category?

        Why not focus the anger and energy toward the real ememy, McSame?

        • KayInMaine says:

          Exactly. I told the Hillary supporters on a few occasions yesterday that WE (Obama supporters) are not republicans so stop treating us this way, but that didn’t stop them from being assholes all day long. They’re fighting against us and will vote for John McCain instead if Hillary is on the ballot. Yep, they’d rather “vote for Hitler” than vote for a black Democrat!

          Until you walked in my shoes this weekend, you can’t be upset by what I’m saying. I’ve posted links above (YouTube and from my blog) about why I’m taking this position today. Read/view them.

          • Sixty Something says:

            If that is the case, then there is nothing you can do to change their minds. Their minds are closed. Refocus your efforts elsewhere where it can do some good.

            In my humble opinion, it does no good to waste time and energy on these people. Go to people who you have a chance of diplomatically (hint)changing their minds.

            With all due respect for your experience, you must admit that going about this so headstrong didn’t get results. Stop banging your head against a wall. Go in another direction.

            • Petrocelli says:

              “Stop banging your head against the wall when you can calmly walk through the door !” – Trademarked,
              A La Colbert … *g*

              • Sixty Something says:

                “Stop banging your head against the wall when you can calmly walk through the door !” – Trademarked,
                A La Colbert … *g*

                Absolutely love it!

                • Petrocelli says:

                  Thanks, it comes from 22+ years of yoga/meditation … somewhere along the way, I walked through the open door …

      • Adie says:

        consider them told.

        Keep concentrating on the damaging effects of certain types of tactics, and I think we’re making some progress. Add the idea of how much more powerful a message can be if it concentrates on something positive, rather than negative. Then we’re really getting somewhere. I’m not being glib. These people you’re talking about are not going to be easy to work with. It might not hurt to let them simmer down a bit before stepping boldly fwd. No need for you personally to absorb all the hostility they feel toward the “political machine” right now.

        In my experience, people who are in the process of recoiling from what they view as an attack, are not apt to listen to whatever message I might be trying to give them. I also have found it really effective to try to be low-key enough that people think of ideas themselves, rather than me trying
        to insist that they agree with something I propose.

        Sorta like painting a picture. Paint in some of the background and some of the edges, and maybe something farther in the distance, and let the person you’re trying to convince think he/she dreamed up the subject and path.
        YMMV, especially since every person you work with is different.

        Now if that’s elitist, what’s all this garden mulch doing under my fingernails? dang…

        P. E. A. C. E.

  44. KayInMaine says:

    And by the way, Hitler has been dead for quite some time if you hadn’t noticed. By me saying Hillary supporters would vote for Hitler rather than Barack is the same thing as saying they would rather vote for George Bush or John McCain than Barack Obama.

  45. Adie says:


    Sixty Something at 256 speaks from wisdom.

    Try picking your own path tw’ different methods.

    One of my favorite “recruitment” methods is simply to “plant a seed” of an idea, and then drop the subject. – e.g., her idea just to go away from the angry ones. Only my variation would be not to dismiss them or harangue or scold them.

    Entice them with some positive thought, &/or ask them if they were aware that McCain [pick any one of a huge number of scandals he’s been involved in; his notorious, unpredictable temper & the thot that he, if elected, would be the one with his finger on the proverbial button; his seeming inability to grasp/accept? the FACTS of what is happening in Iraq, Iran, etc. etc.; the urgent necessity of of tending to all the awful problems bushco has caused/neglected for all these years; lack of any apparent ideas for addressing global warming, health care, banking crisis, housing, Katrina…..]

    caution: try to have solid references to back up what you say. FDL can help there; lotsa knowledge on those threads; just give a holler & i’d be willing to bet help will be prompt.

    [i hope this makes sense; just babbling while cat marches back & forth over keyboard; & i’m too pooped to proofread]

    Good Luck Kay. These are very difficult times for all of us. Don’t let the calmer-appearing ones fool you.
    Thank you for caring.

  46. lukasiak says:

    You’ll hear lots of arguments about how the RBC took delegates away from Hillary to give the primary to Obama. But the real issue–the real disagreement–is over whether our Clusterfuck results can be considered a “fair representation” of voter preferences.

    no marci, the real issue, if you would stop cherry-picking the rules, is that the Rules Committee only has power to approve plans IN ADVANCE that assure fair representation, and to PENALIZE states and candidates for violations of the rules.


    To pretend otherwise is to lie. Stop drinking the fucking kool-aid.

    • Petrocelli says:

      Paul, most if not all here think Marcy has more intelligence in her Pinky than you possess in your entire being and we have patiently allowed your diatribe.

      But if you continue to insult her, we will remain silent no longer. Might I suggest that you return to your band of wise friends and leave us Kool-aid drinkers to our foolish endeavor.

    • emptywheel says:


      As I said yesterday, I’m not arguing the move the RBC took was necessarily within their purview. See this bit?

      There have been arguments–with which I have some sympathy–that the RBC exceeded its authority in then choosing to accept MI’s 69-59 compromise. But even if you accept the argument that the RBC didn’t have the authority to do what it did, that does not mean the delegation should have been seated based on the results of the Clusterfuck.

      To accuse me of then saying that the RBC DOES have within its purview the ability to apportion delegates is simply a false accusation.

      Read the post–you’re completely misreading me. I’m arguing that:

      1) Ickes–along with the rest of the RBC–agreed that MI had to be seated even if it wasn’t within its purview (Don Fowler was the only one who disagreed with this principle)
      2) Ickes–along with the rest of the RBC–agreed that the delegations have to be a fair reflection (in fact, Ickes insisted it had to be the MOST important pricinple)
      3) 19 of the people on the committee believed that the January primary was not a fair reflection and therefore sat something else

      It may not have been within their guidelines. In fact (if you read the post), I’m saying that Ickes and Hillary made a critical mistake in not stating that this had to go to Credentials. They had a parliamentary reason to do so, but instead ceded that principle when Ickes agreed to point 1.

      The Clinton camp made a strategic error when committing everything–RBC rules or not–to treating MI as a fair reflection and a very serious tactical error in coming unprepared to refute Brewer’s points.

      You see, you seem to be missing this part of the post:

  47. lukasiak says:

    I have confidence in Obama partly because of his own apparent abilities, commitment, and dedication to service, and also because I think he would put good people in the Executive Branch on their merits.

    What abilities? To bring people together by race-pimping?

    What dedication to service? a short an undistinguished career as a community organizer?

    And Barack Obama is part of the Daley machine in Chicago. His best friends include Tony Rezko. His mentor is Jeremiah Wright. His campaign co-chair is race-pimp Jesse Jackson Jr.

    The man is George Bush in blackface. Bush got where he is thanks to his father’s name. Obama got where he is because of his father’s skin color.

  48. lukasiak says:

    Paul, most if not all here think Marcy has more intelligence in her Pinky than you possess in your entire being and we have patiently allowed your diatribe.

    when marci shows me where it says that the Rules Committee is empowered to REAPPORTION DELEGATES BETWEEN CANDIDATES, I’ll be happy to apologize. Until then, she’s a liar.

  49. Funnydiva2002 says:

    Mods, I strongly second Petrocelli @269. Bad enough to personally attack other commenters. Unforgivable to personally attack the blog owner.


    • Petrocelli says:

      … and someone who has consistently stayed non- partisan and detailed the viewpoints of all sides with breathtaking depth and simplicity …

  50. newtonusr says:

    Starved of air and light and replies, it whithers and falters, and just plain goes away.

    Get a grip – this is part of the ongoing attempt to derail one of the most worthy, cogent and vibrant information sources we are likely to see. Everyone here knows exactly what this is, what is being attempted, and still, we nourish it.


    • Petrocelli says:

      That’s usually my advice but he has been relentless for far too long and getting worse …

      ((( newt ))) … why does hugging strange men seem so … um … nice ? *g*

      • newtonusr says:

        … ((( newt ))) … why does hugging strange men seem so … um … nice ? *g*

        I’m sure there’s something in the official “yoga manual” that covers this.
        As for strange, you couldn’t be more right.

        • Petrocelli says:

          Actually, there is:

          Yoga Manual, Page 420 – hugging your boss = KissHisAssana … *g*

        • bobschacht says:

          Acceptable hugs:
          * the shoulder hug (nothing below the shoulder touches)
          * the “three tap” hug (ca. 3 seconds)

          * the full body embrace involving both arms of both men, especially if long.
          * long hugs (i.e., > 5 seconds)

          Of course, YMMV (*G*)

          Bob in HI

    • Petrocelli says:

      Normally I agree but personal attacks against Marcy or any other woman is intolerable in my book …

  51. Sixty Something says:

    I seem to remember a frontpage post made by Paul Lukasiak which if I am not mistaken was on FDL. When the greater audience reading seemed not to comprehend the rational behind the statistics being presented and voiced their opinion, Paul seemed to take great offense.

    Either what Paul says hold up or it doesn’t. I can’t say that I honestly know.

    What I can say is that an obvious attack on Marcy Wheeler is uncalled for.

    Go back to the drawing board, Paul, rehone your point and attack the message, not the messenger.

    • Petrocelli says:

      Sadly, many of us will never be able to erase that out of our memories … *g*

      ((((( Loo Hoo )))))

  52. bobschacht says:

    Some people just get overly hung up about being RIGHT, and neglectful about maintaining good relationships. BTW, I hear men are from Mars when it comes to such things.

    Marcy can handle it, either way. I’ve been called worse things than a liar.

    Bob in HI

  53. lukasiak says:


    There is no question that the rules were violated. “some people say” after providing the rationale without mentioning AS FACT that the Committee violated the rules is so dishonest it deserves to be called a lie.

    The fact is that the committee had two choices:
    1) Accept the primary results as a fair representation of the will of the voters. It is, IN FACT, a fair representation of the will of the voters — unless you think that every state where people might hav thought that Al Gore should be president should have their delegates re-allocated to Al Gore.
    2) not seat the delegation at all.

    Now, I would not be sitting here arguing about the RULES if the committee had chosen not to seat the delegation at all. They had the power to do that.

    But absent pursuing that disasterous option, the only choice they had was to accept the results of the Primary as a “fair reflection”

    I cannot emphasize the following point enough….


    Only 997 people were interview in the exit polls — thats less than 67 people per district — and those people were NOT CHOSEN TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF EACH DISTRICT, but rather to represent various constituencies within the state. Given that each district MUST BE ASSUMED to be a fair reflection in order to give out those delegates, how is it possible to assume that the statewide totals are not the fair reflection in the aggregate?

    Also keep in mind that the exit polls were split 46 Clinton, 35 Obama, 19 SOMEONE ELSE. We have NO IDEA who those people would have voted for as a second choice, and thus the only way that the exit polls can be used rationally is to use the proportion represented by the exit poll normalized to 100%….which gives clinton 56.8% to Obama’s 43.2% of the 32 at large delegates. In fact, because michigans delegate strength was cut in half, its at large delegate strenth is only 16 (as opponsed to 32) delegates….and the outcome is actually no different using the primary results — you might have to reassigned 1/2 of a delegate vote.

    And while I’m not ABSOLUTELY positive, exit poll numbers would have included people who had submitted “write in ” votes…thus the write in question becomes moot absent evidence that the pollsters did not include anyone who said they’d written in a candidate.

    The decision to steal four votes from Clinton was a POLITICAL compromise in Michigan that INCLUDED that each delegate get a full vote — (and one that probably would have been acceptable to the Clinton camp had both Florida and Michigan both received full strength delegations– it still would have been against the rules to IMPOSE that solution, and it could have been achieve only by Clinton releasing four of her pledged delegates to vote for Obama — which she had the right to do.) It was a compromise that was possible to reach — but was unacceptable to Obama. And Obama controlled the committee — and preferred to disenfranchise Michigan and Florida voters. (The original compromise would have left Clinton with a net gain of 10 delegates in Michigan, instead of 18…but seating michigan with full voting right would have meant giving Florida’s delegation full voting rights as well..and that would have netted 38 more delegates for Clinton…and seating both at full strength would have made it nearly impossible at this point for Obama to lie about having the majority of the delegates some time next week.)

    “Fair representation” doesn’t mean “voter preference”, it means “fair representation of the outcome of the process. It means “voter intent” ONLY insofar as the results reflect the intended ACTION of the voter — in Michigan, there is no evidence that people who intended to vote “Uncommitted” did not do so.

    If someone takes their name off the ballot, he doesn’t get any votes under “fair reflection.” Obama took his name off the ballot to curry favors with voters in Iowa and New Hampshire — and giving Obama delegates because of “who the voters would have voted for if Obama’s name had been on the ballot” would, in fairness, require that a bunch of Obama and Edwards delegates in New Hampshire and Iowa be assigned to Clinton.

    As I noted above, the Michigan compromise was a political compromise that did NOT require the rules committee to reallocate delegates provided it was acceptable to everyone. What came out of the meeting was NOT the michigan compromise, and DID require the committee to completely ignore its own rules. It was NOT a “fair reflection” of anything — not the Primary results, and not the exit polling data.

    It was a completely corrupt power play by Obama that violated the rules — the same rules that the RBC insisted had to be followed when they decided that the overwhelming percentages of Latino voters, women, Hispanics, and a host of other demographic categories be treated as half-persons.

    • emptywheel says:


      This will probably be my last comment, because you continue to misread both the meaning and the content of my post. I’m not trying to persuade you that the Clusterfuck was a fair representation–you’re not going to agree. I’m trying to point out that a majority of people in the room believed it was not a fair representation, and certain possible outcomes necessarily follow from that, none of which is the seating of MI’s delegation at 73-55.

      1) You are making an argument about “fair representation” that a large majority of the RBC found to be uncompelling. What you think and what I think is completely irrelevant. What matters is what a majority of the people in that room thought. Harold Ickes said the most important principle was fair representation, everyone on RBC agreed to that principle, but Harold Ickes’ argument failed to win the most votes about whether or not MI was a “fair representation”–failed by a large margin. Your declaring it a fair representation does not make it one; eventually a vote will do that and neither you nor I have a vote. Perhaps Ickes could have made a better argument, or perhaps most people who look at the facts of the MI primary believe it does not reflect fair representation. But for some reason, a majority voted against treating it as a fair reflection, including at least 4 Hillary supporters. (And of course, of those who crafted the compromise in MI, most were Hillary supporters; only one was an Obama supporter.)

      2) I’m happy to say they should have just punted to Credentials (as I said, both in the post and my comment). I can agree that would have been the most appropriate thing to do according to the rules. I’m assuming that, since you think RBC didn’t have the authority to do what it did, then you agree it should have gone to credentials once it determined by a large majority that MI’s primary was not a fair reflection.

      So where would that have put us? First, it would have added uncertainty to the process because it would be unclear when a candidate had to cross the win threshold, though probably Obama would have crossed the threshold in the next week anyway. Then, a month after a candidate presumably passed the threshold, a committee would get together and (unless Ickes had improved his argument about fair representation), cast a similar vote and then try to craft a fair solution. At that point, if the committee came to the same conclusion, they might have just said 50-50.

      And in the process, MI would continue to be a political football, with people who have little understanding of the facts on the ground making claims that have no basis in reality and that ignore that, when people had a choice to select people to fill uncommitted slots, they overwhelmingly supported Obama explicitly. In the process, we would remain distracted from getting the coordinated campaign going.

      Now, I can see both sides of this argument–the pragmatic one that implements an arguably flawed solution, or the principled one that puts MI at further risk come November. All I was trying to do with this post was point out that–as soon as a large majority of the RBC concluded that Mark Brewer was making a more persuasive argument that Harold Ickes, then those are the only two choices you’re faced with. A bunch of people who have been around Democratic politics longer than I–including Don Fowler, who obviously recognized it was a flawed in terms of the rules–decided to go with the pragmatic, arguably flawed (per the rules) decision. I take that to mean they believe the political football that MI has been for the last 5 months is a worse evil than a solution that may overstep the RBC authority.

    • PetePierce says:

      I looked at your site. I agree with you that Bush dodged military service after his dad got him to the front of the line in the National Guard, and the records that can’t be found were in all probability intentionally destroyed.

      Although a good portion of it has been recently dismissed, Dan Rather’s suit against CBS still has enough viable discovery to potentially uncover much of the swiftboating content and CBS’s complicity in blocking information on Bush’s fraudulent claims as to actual military service, particularly in the Guard in Alabama where his dad manuevered for him to trin for a plane never going to Nam and where he failed to show for a physical exam when he was assigned to train for a plane that was. Marcy has done a blog on this subject, and Bmaz, Mary and others made some excellent comments.

      Nearly all chickenhawks in Bush’s administration or his supporters in the Senate dodged military service as you know from your time spent researching.

      Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Saxby Chamblis are three prime examples. The children of Cheney and Chambliss have shown no interest whatsoever in supporting the Iraq fiasco by serving there because they are afraid to go as were Cheney and Chambliss in the Viet Nam conflict.

      What bothers me though, besides attacking Marcy for things she definitely hasn’t said, who has given you well written serious answers and spent time doing it, is that I read your claims a thread or two ago, and wrote this to you:

      You never butress your broad claims with facts

      Your candidate and your points for her are in the should, woulda, coulda territory.

      Marcy doesn’t want debates about the relative merits/positives/negatives of candidate x on her blogs, and as I said to you in the first link, I’d be happy to counter your claims somewhere else.Cliff’s blog has a context for that and a tab here. Maybe you have a blog with a comment area for this type content. I know that distinction may be a little difficult when there are threads on the DNC’s process in this primary, but I understand it.

      If you do want to debate your sweeping comments on Obama/Clinton on another space, you have to provide facts to butress claims that go “Candidate X is losing voters as time progresses” or “Candidate X has many negatives or Candidate Y has positives that you like.” It’s impossible to respond to you by reading your mind.

      As to my second link, without getting into a debate here on a candidate’s relative merits or lack of them, because Marcy has requested that not happen on her blog, you have been advocating for Senator Clinton it seems.

      Marcy has parsed in detail why the clusterfuck wasn’t a legitimate primary vote, and why Ickes is simply full of it. His collegues on the RBC proved they thought this with their votes, and Obama had the votes without conceding anything besides 50-50 had he wanted to. He’s been generous. I personally i don’t believe there is anything graceful or classy about Clinton’s exit conduct thus far, nor that she plans to exit on Wednesday.

      That’s why what has been organized is to exit her swiftly and finally this week. This election is vitally necessary for Dems and we don’t have the luxury of allowing a candidate to play make believe for two more months to September. It’s not going to happen. What I’m trying to tell you in the most respectful way, is that Senator Clinton is no longer in the driver’s seat for this primary. She doesn’t have any real choice. She can concede or she will be exited. She’s not in a driver’s seat–the train long ago left the station and she’s not on it.

      Senator Clinton could be very helpful, but many of us expect her to be anything but. She has been hurtful in many ways to the Democratic candidacy for November 2008 in ways that haven’t advanced her chances, and I believe speak to her personality.

      Obama only needs about 20 Super D’s and he’s going to get something like 4 times that many Wednesday to Friday if not some sooner. He has at least a two gain today.

      Obama only needs about 20 Super D’s and he’s going to get something like 4 times that many Wednesday to Friday if not some sooner. He has at least a two gain today. He has Nevada’s Yvonne Gates and will have Maryland’s Donna Edwards since Al Winn is resigning this weekend.

      Come Wednesday, you’re going to be in the world of shoulda, coulda, mighta but Clinton will be gone whether Senator Clinton recognizes the reality or not. There is a good chance she will not.

  54. lukasiak says:

    Normally I agree but personal attacks against Marcy or any other woman is intolerable in my book …

    does that include Hillary Clinton… because you’d probably spend all your time going “INTOLERABLE! INTOLERABLE! if it did.

    • Adie says:

      how conveeeeeenient! yer right there.

      As a self confessed, borderline-useless heathen, I object to you attributing my mild, ill-informed speculations to, and using them to attack the leader of this blog.

      Find the door on your own. Enough heads have been thumped during the last few days to last till 1/09.

  55. MarkH says:

    I’d like to hear Harold Ickes or Hillary Clinton argue that if she were to win the nomination that the results of the general election with a ballot having McCain and Other would fairly represent the voter’s will.

    They’re fighting hard, but acting like spoiled babies.

    Same goes for Hillary’s argument that she has the popular vote when she knows she’s leaving out the caucus-goers.

    • lukasiak says:

      I’d like to hear Harold Ickes or Hillary Clinton argue that if she were to win the nomination that the results of the general election with a ballot having McCain and Other would fairly represent the voter’s will.

      If she tried to argue that after removing her name from the ballot voluntarily, I’d laugh at her myself.

      Obama chose to remove his name from the ballot. His supporters should be question HIS judgement, because nothing required him to do so.

      • PetePierce says:

        I can link several places where Hillary Clinton said prior to the Michigan vote that it didn’t count. It matters not a scintilla that he took his name off the ballot.

        Tim Russert asked Ickes point blank this morning about her many appearances on television, talk radio, and conference call representations by Howard Wolfson, and in the national and international print media stating explicitly that Michigan was not a valid primary when she wanted to satisfy four states who crafted an agreement. Ickes gave an imperious wave of his hands, and mumbled that that was then, and now is now. Indeed.

        Clinton signed this agreement. She was over the age of consent when she signed it, and her parents paid her tuition to Yale law school and she completed it. That made her a law school grad when she signed the document.

        Many of us who treasure our votes dearly, have a ton of other things to do besides vote when the vote is make believe. Unfortunately, until the RBC met yesterday, at the time when Michigan conducted the clusterfuck, potentially 15% or more (and Marcy is in the catbird seat to arrive at this figure) did not turn out.

        40 percent of Michigan voters (236,723 in total) opted to declare themselves “uncommitted,” many in protest of the DNC’s decision to withhold the delegates. By a huge margin, most of them would have voted for Obama. There were grassroots organizations like Detroiters for Uncommitted.

        Trying to float the hypothesis as Ickes and Clinton’s supporters (Super D’s in Michigan made that their first proposal yesterday) for restoring the entire vote in Michigan to Clinton that no one in Detroit would have voted for Obama is like trying to float the proposition that no woman has ever put Babyface Edmonds’ tunes on their ipod. It’s a claim that’s false on its face (no pun).

      • PetePierce says:

        His supporters have organized a super delegate flood that is four times the 20 votes Obama now needs to clinch the nomination on Wednesday that will exit Clinton from the Presidential primary or general for the rest of her life.

  56. lukasiak says:

    1) You are making an argument about “fair representation” that a large majority of the RBC found to be uncompelling. What you think and what I think is completely irrelevant. What matters is what a majority of the people in that room thought.

    Marci, will all due respect (and I’m serious about that) you really can’t say what people thought in that room. That was a poltical power play accomplished by supporters of Barack Obama — those people were not acting in good faith.

    Nor can you say that they thought that the election met the technical definition as I described it of “fair reflection”, which is not “what I wish I could do”, rather it is “what I will do within the option available to me.” Finally, as I noted earlier — in order for this to have been acceptable under the rules of the party, there had to be an implicit assumption that the district level delegates represented a “fair reflection”. So I don’t really think that you can say that the people in the meeting thought it was not a “fair reflection” as used in the rules.

    Your declaring it a fair representation does not make it one; eventually a vote will do that and neither you nor I have a vote.

    Marci, that is not the point. At NO point did anyone argue that the results of the primary election did not reflect the ACTIONS taken by the voters. They may have said “if Barack Obama was on the ballot, he would have gotten votes”…. but that is not relevant to the question of “fair reflection.”

    (And of course, of those who crafted the compromise in MI, most were Hillary supporters; only one was an Obama supporter.)

    and as I noted, the compromise was a political one, and included the provision that the delegation be seating with full voting power. Team Clinton was willing to compromise by tacitly allowing all the uncommitted delegates to vote for Obama, and by releasing four of her own delegates to vote for Obama — but only if she recieved the BENEFIT of the compromise in full. That is why Ickes was upset.

    2) I’m happy to say they should have just punted to Credentials (as I said, both in the post and my comment). I can agree that would have been the most appropriate thing to do according to the rules. I’m assuming that, since you think RBC didn’t have the authority to do what it did, then you agree it should have gone to credentials once it determined by a large majority that MI’s primary was not a fair reflection.

    no. I would have accepted the FULL compromise, because the primary results represented a “Fair Reflection”, and the compromise could have been achieved (more or less) within the rules if you decide that an ambiguous provision of the rules meant what it said, rather than what it was clearly intended to say.

    While one option would have been to accept the michigan delegation as voted in the primary with a recommendation to the credential committee that would have reassigned four of Clinton’s delegates to Obama with the agreement of all parties, that didn’t have to happen as long as Clinton named four Obama supporters among those eligible to serve as delegates for her.

    So where would that have put us? First, it would have added uncertainty to the process because it would be unclear when a candidate had to cross the win threshold, though probably Obama would have crossed the threshold in the next week anyway. Then, a month after a candidate presumably passed the threshold, a committee would get together and (unless Ickes had improved his argument about fair representation), cast a similar vote and then try to craft a fair solution. At that point, if the committee came to the same conclusion, they might have just said 50-50.

    while they could have… but the point is that it would not have happened, because politically, it was suicidal for the Party (and Obama) not to have this resolved. Team Clinton could have made it clear that a compromise was possible that was acceptable to the leadership of the Michigan democratic Party, and that Obama supporters on the committee had made it impossible to reach that compromise.

    Marci, the real problem here was the overreaching of the Rules Committee in the first place. It should have been settled in the rules committee, but that settlement should have been achieved under the rules.

    And in the process, MI would continue to be a political football, with people who have little understanding of the facts on the ground making claims that have no basis in reality and that ignore that, when people had a choice to select people to fill uncommitted slots, they overwhelmingly supported Obama explicitly. In the process, we would remain distracted from getting the coordinated campaign going.

    Just to clarify, YOU (plural) would have been distracted from getting the co-ordinated OBAMA campaign going. I’m not part of that “we” you’re talking about here. See, I think its far more vital to this nation that Hillary Clinton be elected President than that the Democratic Party settle on a nominee. And the longer the resolution remains in limbo, the better it is for this nation. I’m an American first, and (soon to be former, I suspect) Democrat second, and I personally don’t think that Obama is fit for the office of President — anymore than I thought George Bush is fit for the office of President.

    Now, I can see both sides of this argument–the pragmatic one that implements an arguably flawed solution, or the principled one that puts MI at further risk come November. All I was trying to do with this post was point out that–as soon as a large majority of the RBC concluded that Mark Brewer was making a more persuasive argument that Harold Ickes, then those are the only two choices you’re faced with.

    Marci, you do realize that there is a sunshine provision in the DNC rules, don’t you. You also realize that an hour lunch took well over three hours, that the agenda that was announced at the beginning is NOT the agenda that occurred after lunch, and that there were dozens of reports that deliberations were expect to last for hours, don’t you?

    This had nothing to do with people operating in good faith being persuaded by one person or another. This was a political power play, worked out in secret in violation of DNC rules. (According to Katz, Obama had the votes for a 50-50 split….tell me that has ANYTHING that could possibly be called a fair reflection in light of this polling data.)

    No one operating in good faith could have approved this outcome. People operating in good faith would have seated Florida in full with full voting power, because the rules are very vague with regard to what consitutes “positive provable” steps to stay within the timing rules, and all they had to do was say “oops, we made a mistake, and after further consideration realize that you qualify for a waiver.”

Comments are closed.