A Recap of the RBC Meeting

/297 Comments/in /by

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.

Read more →

Some Thoughts

/95 Comments/in /by

As a Michigan voter, the most important thing that happened today was the recognition–on the part of Mark Brewer and Carl Levin–that our January primary was not a real vote. That meant more to me as anything else that happened today–it was more important to me than the numbers that came out of the process.

The outcome makes me profoundly sad. But it was the least worst outcome.

The votes–in the end–were actually strong majorities. Democracy can be ugly. But as they say, it’s the least worst process. 

RBC, the Early Evening Edition

/302 Comments/in /by

We will deal with Florida first, then Michigan. Limited debate.

Alice Huffman is speaking in support of her proposal to seat all of Florida. She got so much mail in support of seating Florida.

David McDonald opposing this motion, because it asks to go back to a time before it was complicated by campaign interests. The standard for FL getting a waiver is more complicated now than it was, given the documents produced (not sure what that means). This is not a problem that the voters in FL caused. It is a problem that impacts both those who went to the polls and those who did not.

Yvonne Gates also opposes. This is about respecting the rules. We’re not trying to penalize those individuals. When you have rules, they must be followed. If they’re not followed, you have chaos. I won’t be able to support the motion.

Hartina Flournoy. It saddens me that this motion has no chance of passing the body. I thought what drove these rules was being a party of inclusion. I’m sad about the fact that we will take a vote that does not bring FL back in. (She confuses MI and FL twice.)

Alice Germond. We told the voters the beauty contest had no meaning. Raises MLK. And Geraldine Ferraro.

Ickes. Want to associate myself with Tina Flournoy and Alice.

Mona Pasquill. Thanks for the gifts of food. There are sometimes when you have to revisit the rules. We talk a lot about respect. I want to be responsible to these voters.

Motion fails by 15-12. Chants of "Denver, Denver" throughout.

Ralph Dawson. Consider reduction of penalty to 50%. In view of offer by Obama’s campaign to afford certain delegates. 1) All pledged delegates be restored, at .5 vote. In addition, all pledged delegate positions shall be allocated Hillary 52.5, Edwards 6.5, Obama 33.5 delegate votes. Unpledged delegates cast one-half vote at the Convention. Fill delegate positions including right of approval.

Alice Huffman. Not the motion I would have liked. I also know that we cannot leave here and not do something, for Florida. When you can leave with unity, what this party needs is unity. We will leave here more united than we came. This is about finding a way to make whole, to some degree.

Lipstick on a pig, someone calls.

Alice Huffman. Do you believe in Democracy? That vote failed. Please conduct yourselves like proper men and women. Read more →

When You Break for Lunch at 3PM…

/213 Comments/in /by

You gotta believe you’re going to be here for a while. I’m hearing estimates that this may go till midnight.

Joy.

We’re still waiting in the RBC members to return. Remember–they had lunch together, and there’s the sense that they’re close on at least FL, though probably not MI. But there’s also the question of whether they decide the FL challenge before deciding the MI one. After all, if they seat MI at full strength, they’d have to seat FL at full strength … wouldn’t they?

I’ll do a little bit more live-blogging as we go forward this PM, since the feds sound like they’re crummy. Let me know if that’s still true, once we get started again, alright?

Update: Just a heads up. Things are likely to get contentious here (that is, at the RBC meeting) this afternoon. So in an effort to keep things here (at EW/FDL) polite, we’re going to moderate threads as we would do at FDL.

The MI Challenge

/339 Comments/in /by

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

I was wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[snip]

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

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

Then, after Levin, we’ll have the advocates for the two campaigns, and this is where the dynamics between the players gets fun. In 2002, After three terms of ruining the state, Republican Read more →

More from the RBC Meeting

/198 Comments/in /by

Bill Nelson spoke on behalf of FL, supporting the Ausman challenge.

He did one thing that–as a voter from the Clusterfuck state–I found very important. He told the stories of the activists who have been working hard this election, registering new people and expanding their local parties. He described two women who have been elected delegates and who, if FL’s delegation will be seated, will represent the state in Denver.

And that, IMO, is what has been missing from this debate on all sides. Those women in FL–and a lot of the people here in MI, particularly the Obama supporters who got elected in District Caucuses–are what this process is about. Making sure those activists who will get a Democrat elected this fall go to join their colleagues from across the country.

Too often, in these debates, the activists in FL and MI have been forgotten. Thanks to Bill Nelson for remembering that this party lives and dies on the backs of activists like those two women.

Update: AZ Matt asked me whether the MI challenge has been presented yet. No. There’s one more speaker–Robert Wexler, representing the Obama camp–to speak on the FL challenge. Then the speakers on the MI challenge are, in order:

  • Mark Brewer (the challenger)
  • Carl Levin (representing the state)
  • David Bonior (representing the Obama campaign)
  • Jim Blanchard (representing the Clinton campaign)

Update: Here’s a diary from one of the two activists Nelson mentioned.

Senator Nelson just used my name to argue a position that I do not support.  Anyone who knows me or has read my diaries, knows that as a Florida grassroots organizer, I understood that Florida broke the rules. I played by the rules. I organized Tampa Bay area Obama supporters to help elect Senator Obama as our next president by fundraising, online networking and rapid response as well as phonebanking to and canvassing in other states. In fact the week before the January 29th primary, I was otherwise occupied getting out the vote in South Carolina.  I also traveled to North Carolina and phonebanked to Texas, Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina, etc.

I ran for pledged Obama delegate in Florida CD 9 to make sure that IF Florida’s delegation is seated, Senator Obama would be represented by a loyal supporter in my district.

Howard, This Is Not About You, This Is About Your Country

/233 Comments/in /by

Howard Dean has kicked off this meeting with a great speech. He emphasized the superb turnout Democrats have had this year. And he emphasized how strong we are to be able come together and disagree.

He condemned the sexist and racist statements made over the course of the primary. When he said, "on the part of the media" there were some grumblings.

He then told a story about when he was running for President. He was really really angry at what the Democratic Party had done. And he was ranting. (I imagine it went something like Argghhhhhh!!) And then Al Gore called. It took him about 20 minutes, but finally, Gore said, "Howard, this is not about you, this is about your country."

The speech made me proud to own a orange cap from Iowa.

Oh, and then he said, "we have to honor the voters who turned out, and also those voters who didn’t turn out in MI."

I got a lot of stares, up here in the media seats, for clapping loudly.

It was a good speech. We did good when we elected that man.

The Rules and Bylaws Committee Meeting, a Primer

/2 Comments/in /by

So, Jane and I are at the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting this morning, expecting to see a day of high tension and cranky moods. While we’re waiting to begin, I thought I’d explain what’s going on–and what to expect, both today and as we go forward.

As you no doubt know, MI had a clusterfuck (that is, a primary which only half the candidates attended) and FL had a primary in which neither candidate won. From the beginning, the stated rules said that neither state’s delegation would be seated. At the same time, the expectation has been that MI’s delegation would be seated, but in a way that it couldn’t affect the election.

So now we’re at the point where the party has to decide how to seat both delegations. But the problem is that the decision, arguably, could have an effect on the election–precisely what wasn’t supposed to happen.

The Two Plans

Today, a muckety muck from FL (Jon Ausman) and a muckety muck from MI (Mark Brewer) will present their proposal for how the delegations should be seated.

Ausman will argue the FL elected delegates should all be seated, but with half a vote each. He will argue that all the super-delegates should be seated with a full vote. There’s a technical reason for this seemingly arrogant stance: the DNC rules say that charter members shall (must) be seated, though Ausman expands the reading of the rules so as to argue that ALL the supers–and not just the DNC member supers–should be seated, where as the DNC rules say that only the DNC member supers, and not the elected official supers, shall be seated. In any case, Ausman’s proposal essentially boils down to halving the delegation.

Brewer will argue that MI elected delegation should consist of 69 Hillary supporters and 59 Obama supporters (currently, 55 Hillary supporters and 36 "uncommitted" supporters, most of whom are Obama supporters, have been selected). The 69-59 number is the halfway point between seating the delegates based on the results of the January 15 Clusterfuck and seating the delegates in a 50-50 split. But it also is just about what a number of other solutions would work out to be. In addition to the 69-59 split, he would seat all the super-delegates. Read more →

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

/129 Comments/in /by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more →

A Return to Zapruder in the Live-Stream World

/83 Comments/in , /by

Last fall, Jay Rosen wrote a post and I wrote a follow-up, both of which elicited much discussion. Jay quoted a member of the White House press corps explaining why the press corps continues to attend the White House press events even though they’re staged spin, rather than news. Here’s the exchange between Jay and the anonymous reporter.

Well, there are two phrases that I’d like to pass along to your readers. They mean more or less the same thing. “Body watch” means covering an event that will produce zero news on its own because you need to make sure the president doesn’t collapse. The other is SSRO — “suddenly shots rang out” — which is basically equivalent, just a bit more dramatic.

[snip]

When I emailed this to my friend, he asked whether we were responsible for the president’s safety, so I assume that others will have the same question. What we are responsible for is making sure that, if he collapses, or is shot at, we are in a position to get that information to our viewers/listeners/readers.

From what I know, a correct and concise statement of what the body watch is.

Think about how much JFK, RFK, MLK, Wallace, Squeaky, and Hinckley have shaped the logistical reality of White House coverage. The history of journalism is littered with stories of reporters who called it a day a bit too early, like the guy from the New York Times (if memory serves) who decided to head back to NYC hours before Wallace was shot. [my emphasis]

Basically, the press corps continues to attend all of Bush’s–or Presidential candidates’–events out of fear that something newsworthy might happen and they wouldn’t be present.

When I read this account of how the reporters covering the Hillary campaign learned of her RFK assassination comment–not to mention the fact that John McCain had a squamous cell carcinoma removed in February, in the middle of a Presidential campaign, without anyone reporting it–it made me want to further challenge the notion that the press corps has to follow the President–and Presidential candidates around–to make sure they, and not some random citizen with a video camera–reports on serious things that happen to the President.

Read more →