RBC, the Early Evening Edition

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.

Ickes. Will vote for a half vote.

Alexis Herman. All delegates to be treated the same.

27 for Ausman position, Katz not voting. Qualifies as unanimous.

Allan Katz. While I wasn’t able to vote, it’s more pleasant than the last time I voted on a motion relating to FL.

Michigan Challenge.

Mame Reiley. One-half vote, pledged delegate. 69-59 delegates. All unpledged delegates cast one-half vote.

Fowler. Not my first choice. It is the result of a lot of discussions. In the best interest of the party and the best interest of electing a democrat in November. I say that to my friend Ickes. Harold, I respect and love you, but this is what I support.

Ickes. I’ve already stated my views and I represent Senator Clinton in this regard. We find it inexplicable that this body that is devoted t rules is going to fly in the face of–other than our affirmative action rules–the most fundamental rule in the delegate selection process. Analogous to First Amendment. That bedrock. This motion will hijack, remove 4 delegates won by Hillary Clinton, and most importantly reflect the preferences of 600,000 Michigan voters. This body of 30 individuals has decided they’re going to substitute their judgment for 600,000 voters. I’m stunned we’re going to substitute our judgment for 600,000 people. You bet your ass the process was flawed. This country has one of the lowest rates of participation. This is not an excuse. As Don Fowler pointed out, this is in the charter. Fair reflection.

Oops. Donna Brazile caught yawning on the screen.

Ickes. Not only will this motion hijack votes from Hillary, but it will assign 55 from uncommitted. Stripping those 4 delegates from Hillary is not the way to start down the path of unity. Mrs. Clinton has instructed me to reserve her rights to take this to the credentials committee.

(Ickes was not on the floor right after he came back. He must have called Hillary in the interim.)

Thomas Hynes. This does reflect a fair representation of MI. It is fairer it does fairly reflect the will of the voters of MI. By the testimony of Senator Levin and others, the primary on which Ickes basis is flawed. The state party went to come up with a conclusion that makes sense. I want to congratulate Senator Obama for his leadership.

Everett Ward. All of at this table committed to the rules. One of the reasons that I sit at this table is because of a person in this room. There’s a person in this room by the name of Lawrence Iyot. In 1964, along with a lady from NC by the name of Ella Baker formed what was called the MS freedom democratic party. When Fanny Lou Hamer and Ella Baker, it was because the rules of the Democratic party blocked people who looked like me out of the process. I do not come to this process to play games. I come bc there’s a linage and a history that says if we abide by the rules that we abide by fair play. There has been propaganda and words used by one of my colleagues that seem to suggest that the motion put forward by my colleague Ms. Reiley would hijack the vote. Not anywhere in this motion does it say the unpledged delegates will go to Obama. For a colleague that exercises selective amnesia, to suggest that it blocks voters and hijacks a process, I would encourage my colleagues, as we continue this process, that we continue to do it in spirit of Ella Baker. I hope we will end any further political posturing.

Liz Smith. Want to address this to my friends in MI. I cannot support the position fo the MDP on this challenge. The voters rule, they are the highest government of this country. I can’t allow a compromise that ignores the will of 600,000. We will have unity, but this is not the way to do it.

Brewer. Thank the committee for its very thoughtful consideration. I promise we will do everything we can to unify MI and carry the state of MI for the Democratic Party.

Motion carries 19 – 8. 

image_print
302 replies
  1. Redshift says:

    The Clinton mob have no frickin’ respect. Sneering at anyone who says they respect the rules, or cites their history with the party if it’s not someone who supports them.

    • Redshift says:

      They’re going to boo and hiss anything other than giving them everything they want, and they’re not going to get that.

  2. Redshift says:

    Jerk behind us on the full Florida vote motion yelling that anyone who doesn’t have their hand up voting for it isn’t a Democrat. Sigh.

        • Petrocelli says:

          This is an example of Dems shooting themselves in the foot … hopefully, they will get on board by November.

        • TheraP says:

          Is there any possibility that some of the rabble rousers (or this “disunity” rabble rouser) could be repub trolls?

          I realize that some Dems are really exercised here. But I can’t help but wonder about deliberate sabotage as well.

        • PJEvans says:

          I doubt they want to get that close to democracy. It’s so messy, after all, when you don’t have a Deciderator to tell you how to vote. [/s]

        • Redshift says:

          Could be, but I don’t think so. In my experience, Republicans aren’t very good at pretending to be Democrats, and this particular jerk seems sincerely misguided.

        • TheraP says:

          I happily withdraw my concerns then. But… in that case I’m stuck with Dem rabble rousers… Oh, well.

        • phred says:

          Maybe his unity memo got lost in the mail ; ) Seriously, what are such people thinking? Self-destruction makes a point, but you’re dead in the end — not what I would call an improvement.

    • Redshift says:

      It is sad. They’ve been whipped up for a false cause.

      However, the Clinton supporters on the committee are being very level and supportive of the committee’s actions.

      • bmaz says:

        I almost think it is good though. As long as the people actually cutting the deal are calm and even keeled, and can agree, giving an outlet for the shouters and screamers is a good thing. Nobody can say they weren’t heard. Classy and bright of Obama to restrain his folks from showing up in large numbers to egg on the pie fight. Again, this is sausage making (even if it is for show), but necessary.

        • phred says:

          I agree bmaz, let the people who are steamed vent a bit. The committee are big boys and girls, they can take it. And in the end, a reasonable compromise will carry the day.

        • Redshift says:

          Actually, the Obama campaign just told supporters not to show up outside. There are considerably more Obama people in here than Clinton people, but we’re specifically here to respect the proceedings, not to disrupt them.

          The great mass of Clinton people are now in the back of the room, because we organized during the “lunch” break after a bunch of people left, so we have all the seats in the front.

        • bmaz says:

          Fair enough, either way no commotion from the Obama crew. Appears to me that word came from the top down; most probably didn’t need to be told, they were bright and knew the score, for those that didn’t – they got the word. Irrespective, I think it was smart and classy.

  3. tbsa says:

    I just hope people realize what is a stake. We need everyone to vote for whoever the candidate may be. We CAN’T let the republics have one more appointment on the SCOTUS.

  4. dosido says:

    Alice Huffman schooling the children on respect. she’s a momma.

    unity, kids. Don’t make me pull this committee over!

  5. siri says:

    i can NOT believe the immaturity of these people in this room,
    when it would be such a privilege to me to be there!
    I’m appalled.

    and i’m EASY AND CHEAP.

    guess we’re star crossed Petrocelli.

  6. TeddySanFran says:

    Don’t the Denver-chanters realize they are on national teevee?

    Clinton campaign needs to get control of her people in the room, now.

  7. Redshift says:

    Mame Reilly (of VA, Clinton supporter) makes motion for Michigan compromise, but with half votes.

  8. katymine says:

    Mame Reiley needs to understand it is the Democratic Party…. drives me nuts when they start using wingnut words

  9. CTuttle says:

    Now, if the half votes aren’t agreed to, what then? Didn’t the DNC counsel say they couldn’t legally authorize more than the 50% threshold…?

  10. neurophius says:

    Ickes:

    I rise in opposition, but I will sit

    finds it inexplicable that this body flies in the face of a fundamental rule of the delegate selection process

    as fundamental as the Constitution

    will hijack delegates won by Clinton

    will misrepresent preferences of 600,000 Michigan voters

  11. Kathryn in MA says:

    Michigan – 100% of Michigan delegates split 69/59 Clinton/Obama wiht half votes. Ickes discenting – lamenting the gall and chutzpah.

  12. dosido says:

    you know. #### this. this is a primary, not a general election. what about the caucus states?

    ickes swearing now.

  13. JTMinIA says:

    I’m a tad confused. If the First Amendment requires that primaries be determined by open voting, why did we not have primaries until recently?

    • lukasiak says:

      Yeah Paul, Obama supporters are planning on losing in November …

      I’m sure they’re not planning on it, but they better start planning for it.

      sorry..this isn’t going to wash..

  14. JTMinIA says:

    I’ve never heard of the First Amendment coming up WRT primaries, so I guess Ickes and I are even.

    • Funnydiva2002 says:

      Sounds like the Senator needs a remedial 8th grade Constitution class (or is that just a California thing?)
      First amendment…
      establishment/free exercise of religion
      free speech
      free press
      peaceable assembly
      petition govt for redress of grievances

      Trying to figure out how primaries fit into this. I just don’t remember voting being a 1st amendment thing, but wtf do I know? I’m not a Senator…

      FunnyD

      • JMorgan says:

        The Clintons have been looking for their out, a backdoor, not to have to live up to her and their commitment to “work our hearts out” for whomever the nominee is. This was it.

    • Kathryn in MA says:

      Yes, he did sneer – “We’re going to wrap our arms around eachother?” Audience is unruly.

  15. Linfalas says:

    I missed what happens to the automatic and add-on delegates for Florida. Did they decide that too?

      • bmaz says:

        I will say again, there is no way to not reserve said rights and make any different statement until the voting is over; and it is not over yet. By end of next week, that will not be the case and this will be over. There is a method to this madness. If you will quit assuming the worst, I am darn near positive you will be pleasantly surprised. Heck, you will be either way; but it will save a lot of energy wasted on vitriol and loathing.

  16. Kathryn in MA says:

    Ickes protesting hijacking 4 delegates from Clinton and giving Obama delegates. This is not a good path toward party unity. **cheers** Final word; Mrs Clinton has instructed me of her rights to take this to the convention.”

  17. JMorgan says:

    And the gloves are off. Hillary has tossed down the gauntlet, she will NOT be “working her heart out” for the nominee after all.

    • FrankProbst says:

      And the gloves are off. Hillary has tossed down the gauntlet, she will NOT be “working her heart out” for the nominee after all.

      I’m SHOCKED! SHOCKED, I tell you! I’ll be over at the craps table if you need me.

  18. neurophius says:

    Ickes says Clinton told him to reserve her rights to appeal to the credentials committee

  19. Funnydiva2002 says:

    Sa-WEET Jeebus and his all girl combo on a leaky raft.
    Project much?!!!

    FunnyDiva.

  20. TeddySanFran says:

    I wonder if any cable gasbags will point out that this half-vote solution is EXACTLY what the GOPs did to their errant state delegations as well. Nice to see the sausage-making, it’s the Democratic party way — but it ended up just like the GOPs. Every delegate gets a half-vote.

    Better luck next time — especially the Michigan Democratic Party poobahs, who are serial violators.

  21. Petrocelli says:

    Shorter Ickes:

    Hijacking 4 delegates – bad

    Hijacking the party – perfectly acceptable

  22. tbsa says:

    I wish they would take all the spectators out of the room. Why do the dems seem hell bent on snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory?

  23. JTMinIA says:

    Ickes: “my candidate now against McCain or my candidate in 2012 vs McCain; you choose.”

      • JTMinIA says:

        Agreed. Ickes just begged every super-delegate to come out for Obama in the new few days. My only question is whether Obama will clear threshold before the remaining states have their say.

  24. lukasiak says:

    Florida was bad.

    Michigan is an atrocity. There is NO WAY that this committee can do this under the CHARTER of the Democratic party. They can’t talk about “rules” and say that’s why Florida has to get only half representation, then turn around and VIOLATE THE CHARTER.

    • FrankProbst says:

      Florida was bad.

      Michigan is an atrocity.

      Um, yes. That’s been one of the running themes of this blog for the past several months.

      Here’s my take on it: Florida and Michigan were told that they need to have primaries or caucuses within a certain time-frame if they wanted their delegates counted. They didn’t. They both had primaries outside that time-frame. They were then told that those delegates wouldn’t be counted. Since then, another 40-odd states have managed to hold primaries and caucuses. Florida and Michigan spent the whole time whining about how complex/expensive/difficult/etc it would be to hold another round of primaries or caucuses. They didn’t. The only other scenario I can think of that comes close to this would be if some state had just decided that it’s to complex/expensive/difficult/etc to hold a primary AT ALL, but they still wanted to send a slate of delegates to the national convention. The response from everyone else would be, “Um, no.” The fact that Michigan and Florida are having their delegates seated at all is generous. And if you want to be pissed off about it, contact your state government, including the Democrats who sponsored the move and voted for its passage.

    • JTMinIA says:

      The Convention is a completely different entity and can ignore anything and everything that occurred before it. Part of the Convention is the CC, which determines who can vote at the convention.

      Heck, the Convention could end up nominating Gore.

    • JMorgan says:

      Credentials Committee is the next step, end of June. An “appeal”. After that, it’s the floor of the convention.

      • Funnydiva2002 says:

        Hoo boy, I bet Rachael Maddow is not very happy to have been so right about where this is going. Hope she’s wrong about the delay in having an official nominee handing the election to McThuselah.
        FunnyD

    • lukasiak says:

      the credentials committee ensure, among other things, that the processes folllowed by the states to send delegates to the convention were done in a manner consistent with the rules of the party… they have more of the kind of power that the committee is now trying to exercise illegeitimately.

  25. Redshift says:

    Get a grip. They’re not cutting votes of voters in half. The formula from votes to delegates is not one-to-one. We’re talking about delegates here, and we’re talking about a process in which it was well-established that scheduling an early primary would result in half the number of delegates.

    The number of delegates varies according to past Democratic performance, and bonus delegates for scheduling a contest later. There is no basis for calling the delegate formula disenfranchisement.

  26. TheOtherWA says:

    Damn it. I wanted Rachel Maddow to be wrong about the Clinton plan to drag this out all he way to the convention.

    The 4 delegates that Ickes was talking about don’t decide the race. They’re an excuse to justify her never ending quest for the nomination.

  27. joejoejoe says:

    Four delegates my ass. 4 delegates is 0.00197% of the total to nominate.

    If the HRC camp is going to go ballistic over 4 delegates they are phony as a three dollar bill.

  28. JMorgan says:

    This was all predicted. I don’t know why anybody, particularly the media, has been deluding themselves that she’ll end her campaign this week. The only way that this will be over is if Obama quits. Hillary’s in it to the convention, and she’ll be spending her summer poaching both pledged delegates and superdelegates.

    This is nuts.

  29. bonkers says:

    As I’ve been saying since about 1995, The Clintons and fellow DLCers are not Democrats. They developed a plan with their BigMoney supporters to infiltrate the Party and make sure real Liberals don’t disrupt the Conglomerate control of this country.

    What more is it going to take for other Dems to understand this?!?! Jeezus. They do not care about the DemocratIC Party fer chrissakes…hello?!?!

  30. wangdangdoodle says:

    I need a smoke. Good thing I’ve got cable in the garage. In addition to having it on in the living room and streaming back here in my little den of iniquity.

  31. dosido says:

    In America voters rule!

    So why aren’t they screaming about caucus states?

    Voters rule in teh GE FGS.

  32. bonkers says:

    Paging Al Gore. Paging Nancy Pelosi. Hello President Carter?

    You can end this nonsense.

    • JMorgan says:

      They can’t end it. Only Hillary Clinton quitting the race can end it. If she doesn’t, it leaves it all open until the end of August in Denver.

      • bonkers says:

        Well yes, but if enough big names come out strong for the nominee selected by the VOTERS of America, and urge Hillary voters to come on board, Hillary becomes increasingly irrelevant.

  33. RevDeb says:

    It’s ALL about the Supreme Court. It always has been.

    My candidate was gone long ago too. I don’t much like either of our choices but to me there is no choice to be made. The choice is about who appoints justices to the courts—the Supreme and the Appellate.

  34. katymine says:

    There she goes again….. Mame Reiley….. IT has an IC at the end of Democrat…. grrrrrrrrrrrr

  35. joejoejoe says:

    Who is your favorite actor on Gilligan’s Island?
    Denver! Denver!

    What is your favorite omelet?
    Denver! Denver!

    Who sang ‘Rocky Mountain High’?
    Denver! Denver!

  36. Rayne says:

    Ickes. I’ve already stated my views and I represent Senator Clinton in this regard. We find it inexplicable that this body that is devoted t rules is going to fly in the face of–other than our affirmative action rules–the most fundamental rule in the delegate selection process. Analogous to First Amendment. That bedrock. This motion will hijack, remove 4 delegates won by Hillary Clinton, and most importantly reflect the preferences of 600,000 Michigan voters. This body of 30 individuals has decided they’re going to substitute their judgment for 600,000 voters. I’m stunned we’re going to substitute our judgment for 600,000 people. You bet your ass the process was flawed. This country has one of the lowest rates of participation. This is not an excuse. As Don Fowler pointed out, this is in the charter. Fair reflection.

    There’s no effing way I’d trust either Harold Ickes or Don Fowler to decide my Michigan-based Uncommitted formerly Edwards vote; I’d rather it was decided by the four-member working group, even if I don’t think they were acting with the purest of hearts.

    Grrrr…when is HRC going to catch an effing clue that if she burns down this party, there will be no party to support her for any race, even a race for dogcatcher.

    • dosido says:

      Indeed. For those who were calling for allowing her to bow out gracefully and to “save face” I say she doesn’t know she’s losing face and she’s not going to go gentle in that good night.

      It’s the Clinton Party.

    • dosido says:

      Thelma and Louise driving over a cliff . . .

      Fowler at least had some grace to thank the leadership of this committee. He also broke ranks which showed some fortitude.

      • Rayne says:

        Did you know that one of the key reasons Kerry won this so-very-Democratic state — as Blanchard would like you to believe — by a scant 3% in 2004, was that Don Fowler’s son Donnie was spectacularly crappy at organizing?

        I am NOT happy with the dynastic quality of the Dem machine politic; it’s long past time for populism to regen the values of the party.

        In other words, I have been waiting years now. Another week, particularly this week, is going to hurt like hell, but what choice do I have.

        As for p. lukasiak — your candidate and her team took the voice of those 600K voters out of play long before the early primaryhttp://www.michiganmessenger.c…..aryId=661. Seriously. She got less than she deserved, and I don’t mean votes.

        • lukasiak says:

          Departement of Hypocrisy…

          I am NOT happy with the dynastic quality of the Dem machine politic; it’s long past time for populism to regen the values of the party.

          Barack Obama’s co-chair is Jesse Jackson Jr.

          A person, by the way, whose only real job OTHER than be a congressman was working for his father’s (for whom i have a LOT of respect) “Rainbow Coalition” organization

          if you’re tired of dynasties, then you really shouldn’t be supporting Obama, because this guy appointed someone whose ONLY claim to fame was his father’s name to be co-chair of his election committee.

        • TheraP says:

          And I also know some mental health folks who are advising the Obama campaign. He’s a very savvy guy. And working on “community building” – which also includes mental health.

          But obviously you’re a fervent supporter and so you’re looking mostly at the Obama negatives, where you can find them or assume them.

          (and if I’m mistaken about you, then I apologize)

        • lukasiak says:

          I supported Hillary initially (when it came down to her or Obama — I started out as Anyone But Hillary) because she had a lot more positives than he did…. and he had a lot of potential negatives that could be disasterous. I didn’t “support” Clinton so much as favored her because she represented less of a risk as a candidate and a President.

          The reason that I focus on the negatives now is that other than being able to give a good speech, there are no positives that I can see in Obama. I don’t know anyone who can make a ration, wholly positive reason to vote for Obama. It ALWAYS comes down to “he’s better than Clinton/McCain”

          His negativea are huge — and yes, I know that Clinton has negatives, and i took those into consideration before I decided that she was a better choice than Obama.

          The problem with most Obama supporters is that they really didn’t know anything about him — even he admits that he tries to present himself as a sort of blank slate upon which voters can project their own aspirations.

          And because that is what happens, they stop seeing him objectively. They can’t tell the difference between a good idea and a bad idea — whatever Obama says or does is good …. unless he changes his mind or behavior, and then that becomes good.

          Its a nice trick, and is going to get you a core of support that is dedicated to you….but it doesn’t work on everyone. And its working with fewer and fewer people the longer this campaign continues

        • PetePierce says:

          lukasiak–

          I distinctly understand because she has explicitly said so, that Marcy doesn’t want candidate x’s pluses and minuses debated here so I won’t. I know that gets extremely difficult when there is a thread about the DNC deliberations or the primary process because the DNC makes the rules for the primary. It’s difficult for me but I understand the distinction that Marcy wants to make.

          The problem with most Obama supporters is that they really didn’t know anything about him.

          Actually I know quite a few of them in quite a few states, and they all know a great deal about Obama.

          Obama has a number of National co-chairs. Maybe 3 dozen or more. I could find the list. He has co-chairs for every state.

          If I picked a religion, Obama has over a dozen National Catholic co-chairs for example and several other people who do the same thing as they do with different titles:

          National Co-Chairs from One Specific Religion

          National Co-Chairs who are Catholic to name a few:

          Senator Bob Casey; Representative Patrick Murphy (PA-08); Former Congressman Tim Roemer, President of the Center for National Policy; Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas; Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia; Tom Chabolla, Assistant to the President, Service Employees International Union; Victoria Reggie Kennedy, President, Common Sense About Kids and Guns; Sr. Jamie Phelps, O.P., Professor of Theology, Xavier University; Sr. Catherine Pinkerton, Congregation of St. Joseph.

          If you keep doing super-imposed googles using the words “Obama Campaign National Co-Chair” you can come up with dozens of National Co-Chairs. Jesse Jackson Jr. is one of many and to quote Dickie the Cheney so….?

          The Democratic nominee for President on Wednesday isn’t going to be Jesse Jackson Jr.

          One thing I’ve noticed that you do is that you make declarative statements and never butress them. You’ll say Joe Schmoe or Norma Rae Jones has a lot of positives or negatives but you blithely avoid butressing your claims with any of the said positives or negatives.

          I would invite you though, to hit the Tabb for Cliff’s blog and make your claims where they can be debated because of the context of his blog, but can you please try something completely different for you.

          When you say Candidate X has positives or negatives that you have meticulously considered in your deliberations would you mind sharing them with those of us who can’t read your mind?

          That way we can examine your positives and negatives and perhaps offer a different analysis–on Cliff’s blog.

          From what you’ve written I’m not sure where you gather your information about the relative educational deficiencies of Obama supporters but with my humble background I’d love to tear into your generalizations with nothing to butress them on Cliff’s blog or some other blog where debating the merits of the candidates are appropriate.

          Your timing is curious because you are going through the mental exercise of making generalizations with no bullet points to butress them at a time when there are already not enough delegates Super or pledged left for your candidate to do anything with but concede.

          The Supers are all going to announce Tuesday night and Wednesday (that is those that aren’t trickling steadily hour by hour today and tomorrow and Tuesday before the polls are closed.

          Nevada’s Yvonne Gates, and Donna Edwards (since Al Winn resigns today in Maryland) are two more Supers he picks up today. Donna hasn’t officially announced yet, but she is going to since this weekend marks Al Winn’s resignation.

          I look forward to expecially hearing you on some other blog–you let me know where to meet you butress this mathematically false claim. If you can count to ten, the math doesn’t support your statement here:

          You wrote about Obama:

          Its a nice trick, and is going to get you a core of support that is dedicated to you….but it doesn’t work on everyone. And its working with fewer and fewer people the longer this campaign continues.

          I’m happy to see you butress this with specific numbers and voting districts, but just not here. I’m sure with your confidence and extensive knowledge of election dynamics and mastery of the numbers you are eager to debate me somewhere else.

          Let’s boogie. But you have to support your sweeping generalizations with specifics. You don’t prove anything with the generalizations alone.

        • joejoejoe says:

          How many times does the second Congressional District of Illinois have to send Jesse Jackson Jr. to the House before he’s his own man? He’s been elected SEVEN times to IL-2. So cut the “only claim to fame” crap.

        • lukasiak says:

          he hasn’t distinguished himself so far in the house. Now, I understand that it takes a long time to get enough seniority in the house to really accomplish anything… so I’m not going to hold that against him. But the fact remains that he got where he is because of his fathers name, and he’s from a district that is a “gimme” for Democrats in a city where machine politics reign– and he’s part of that machine.

        • Rayne says:

          Co-chair? A single co-chair? You have to be kidding me.

          None of the people I’ve met in the field here are seasoned party operatives; they are generally newbies to activism who plunged into organizing for Obama headlong. They remind me so much of the Deaniacs that I and EW were more than four years ago.

          Clinton, on the other hand, is supported by the likes of Lanny Davis, Terry McAuliffe, Carville…Christ, nothing but machine politicians. The Fowler men have the extra bonus of being family.

          Let me guess you also don’t get how the African-American community works, either. Of course there would be somebody that the community views as their own family as co-chair; they may not actually do much (Axelrod is the powerhouse), but there would be a nod to the history of the African-American Democratic community, someone on the team who confers the blessings of the senior members of the African-American community. This is not the same mechanism; Jackson Jr. has no amassed, familial power within the party save for name recognition, bringing only the conferral of blessings of the last generation.

          And with co-chairs like Daschle and Pena, you surely must realize that Jackson Jr. is intended to round out the diversity of the campaign team, as well as meet the needs of the African-American community for one of their own political families.

          (I really can’t wait until this country is half mixed-race, so I don’t have to explain this stuff.)

        • selise says:

          (I really can’t wait until this country is half mixed-race, so I don’t have to explain this stuff.)

          appreciate that you are willing to do it

        • Rayne says:

          Being mixed race, walking a foot in both worlds means I have a vested interest in it.

          But it still gets tiring when you can see that one or the other side is resolutely trying not to understand.

  37. TeddySanFran says:

    Thanks to all the firepups and ‘wheelers at the meeting today to keep us informed.

    (Present at the creation of a new media paradigm, etc.)

    • SouthernDragon says:

      Thanks to all the firepups and ‘wheelers at the meeting today to keep us informed.

      What TSF said.

  38. siri says:

    OK THAT’S IT

    Marguritas for the House. Who are takers??? I’m mixing, leave your car keys with the shih tzhu,
    i make em’ EL STRONGO!!!!

  39. Kathryn in MA says:

    Every one is thanking each other, and the audience is still heckling. We stand adjourned. Audience still heckling.

  40. JPL9 says:

    Marcy, Jane and Redshift wave to the cameras so we can see you. Thanks for the good work.

    • dosido says:

      Marcy, Jane and Redshift wave to the cameras so we can see you. Thanks for the good work.

      Yes we thank you and your mommas!! good work!!

  41. MrWhy says:

    No, RBC are telling the Parties of Florida and Michigan that they are being sanctioned for not following the rules. RBC might have chosen some fraction other than 1/2, but 1/2 was in the rules.

  42. jackie says:

    Watching this meeting and lurking/reading here today has been great… Open Democracy in action.. Very Cool.

  43. selise says:

    phew. big storm blowing in and i thought i was going to loose power before the voting was done. now hoping to make through a debrief. what does this all mean. will clinton really try to take it to the convention? will the super try to block that? can they?

    • sunny says:

      Someone from her camp has implied the Supers and even the pledged delegates can be “turned”.

      I’m telling you folks, she’s taking it to the Convention.

      • JMorgan says:

        Heck, I told you that back in March, when Hillary Clinton launched her race card negative campaign.

        • sunny says:

          Hmmph, don’t you know it’s all Obama’s fault that she had to pull the race card? /s

    • PhysioProf says:

      now hoping to make through a debrief. what does this all mean. will clinton really try to take it to the convention? will the super try to block that? can they?

      Yes. Please. Answers.

  44. joejoejoe says:

    Michigan didn’t have an election. It had an ‘event’ with an incomplete ballot, no clear instructions to voters in advance if the ‘event’ was legitimate or a beauty contest, and rules for the ‘event’ that prohibited people from expressing their preference by write-in ballot. The Michigan Democratic Party plan didn’t advantage Obama, it advantaged the voters of Michigan by being a good faith representation of voter intent.

    You want to treat the ‘event’ like it was a valid election, something that the Michigan Democratic Party did not submit to the DNC RBC.

  45. wangdangdoodle says:

    Thanks for having us at your place, Marcy.

    C’mom pups, be good guests and help clean up!

  46. bonkers says:

    From Al Giordano’s live blog:

    7:10 p.m.: Now the crazies are practically shouting “Don’t taze me, bro!” even without tazers in the hall.

    heh. And he ends with this:

    Oh, and by the way: “Denver! Denver!” is an ancient indigenous phrase meaning, “Obama is the nominee.”

  47. neurophius says:

    Wolfie predicts after Puerto Rico, S.D. and Montana, Obama will only need to pick up about 24 of the remaining 200 unpledged superdelegates

  48. bonkers says:

    Doesn’t the behavior of the Hillary yellers remind you of those paid Lieberman twerps that would follow Ned Lamont around, and try to disrupt his events by juvenile yelling?

    • JMorgan says:

      Did you know that the guy who was responsible for that, Richard Goodstein, is a Clinton supporter?

      He’s been on the cable shows stumping for her.

    • tbsa says:

      Not all Hillary supporters are yellers or like paid Liarman twerps. After the whole innuendo about assasination there is no way I could continue to support her. But please do not paint all of her supporters as nuts. It’s just the nutty type that seem to show up for these type of events. I’ve worked very hard for alot of candidates over the years. My whole objective is to help get good Dems elected. The republics have taken this country to the brink of disaster and farther. This country can not afford to have another republic in the white house.

      • JMorgan says:

        That’s all very well and good, but these were Clinton surrogate chosen. These were transported by the surrogates of the campaign. Women’s groups, coordinating with the Clinton campaign. Esprit de Corps, Susie Buell. This was political theater, created by the campaign.

        • tbsa says:

          I know what they were, and I can assure you there are people who support her that would never act in that fashion. As I stated above I can’t support her. I WILL vote for the nominee no matter who it is because this whole issue goes far deeper than your candidate or mine, it’s about the country we live in, the kind of world I will hand off to my child. It is not fair to paint every clinton supporter with the same brush as those you saw on teevee today.

        • TheraP says:

          And I wonder if some of her supporters who would never behave in that manner may end up changing their minds about whom to support – for that very reason. It’s disturbing to see certain things unleashed. It may hearten Hillary, but it may really unnerve some of her supporters.

        • tbsa says:

          Again, I can assure you there may be some… But don’t paint all of us with one brush. There is NO possibility I will change my mind. I hung in there far longer than some did. I will vote for Obama.

        • TheraP says:

          Fear not. I know some people supporting Hillary for completely personal reasons, which I respect. People who come from a hard-scrabble background and see in her someone they want to identify with. I can respect that. There are all sorts of reasons why people are attracted to a candidate and stick with a candidate. But what concerns me is when a candidate encourages the kind of disruptive behavior we saw today. (could have been worse, of course, so maybe we should be grateful on some level?)

          The vote is sacred. I support that.

        • JMorgan says:

          Oh lord no, I’m not painting all Clinton supporters with that brush. Sorry if it sounded like I was.

  49. TheraP says:

    Ironic how the younger guy wants his supporters to show maturity and the older woman encourages the opposite.

    I could make some shrink comments here, but I’ll refrain.

    • bonkers says:

      Obama’s been very explicitly doing this with his comebacks to Johnny Panama. Quite amazing how good Obama is at framing things. He’ll respond to a charge that he doesn’t know much about Iraq by first showing how that claim is wrong, and then insinuating that McCain’t is the immature one, thereby dismantling another perceived CrazyTrain advantage. All in one sentence! Fantastic.

  50. JTMinIA says:

    “Every Clinton supporter who watched this got the message sent by Ickes — this is NOT acceptable.”

    Well, then I guess it’s a good thing that C-SPAN isn’t preprogrammed on many TVs in Appalachia. tee hee

  51. PhysioProf says:

    I was already sitting it out in November, and more and more people were saying the same thing…. and this not merely makes it much less likely that I’ll change my mind, it is going to result in a lot of Clinton supporters doing the same thing….or worse, casting a vote for McCain.

    Is there something about the concept of a political party that you fail to understand? Sheesh.

  52. bmaz says:

    Paul, the deal was cut. The Clintons agreed to it. The outlines were already done before today’s festivities started. There is nothing sleazy going on here. Same as I say to the bomb throwers on the other side, chill out.

    • lukasiak says:

      the committee. they acted illegitimately. Clinton would bow out at the appropriate time, and do so gracefully, as long as she was treated fairly. This was such an obvious and utterly illegitimate violation of the rules designed to benefit her opponent that I don’t think she’ll stand for it.

      She won’t stand for it as a Democrat, and she won’t stand for it as a woman.

      There is the issue of fundamental fairness here — if you are going to simply ignore the rules in the name of “party unity” then ignore all the rules — don’t pretend that the rules are important, then completely ignore them, when in both cases you damage only ONE candidate’s prospects.

      When you are treated respectfully and fairly, you are far more likely to be willing to sacrifice your own ambition for the good of the party. when you are treated disrespectfully and unfairly, you are going to fight on not to win, but in defiance of the injustice — you continue on principle.

      • PetePierce says:

        The facts remain.

        Michigan was told there was no legitimate vote in the primary/caucuses. At least 15% of the voters stayed home. Obama’s name wasn’t on the ballot. Clinton repeatedly went on national TV and gave interviews with the major national and international print media and bloggers on conference calls saying that Michigan wasn’t legitimate contest.

        When confronted by Russert this morning, Ickes had no real answer–he just waved his hand and said this wasn’t a concern when she said it. I’m sure that the Patriots would have liked to make some rule changes in the Super Bowl–possibly to count some of the Giants’ scores but not others. That’s the way Clinton is conducting her continually evolving metric game. However that’s not reality, and it’s not going to fly on planet earth this week or this year or for the rest of the next two decades.

        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.

        She could be helpful, but many of expect her to be anything but.

        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.

        Come Wednesday, you’re going to be in the world shoulda, coulda, mighta but Clinton will be gone.

  53. sunny says:

    Clinton statement: We reserve the right to appeal this decision to the Credentials Comm.”

    And to those of you threatening to sit out this election or vote for McInsane:

    I think a Democratic President elected by and beholden to African Americans, young college students, highly educated leftist “elites”, and many, many left-minded “hard working Americans, white Americans” would be a very, very fine thing.

    • PhysioProf says:

      And to those of you threatening to sit out this election or vote for McInsane:

      Those who are threatening these things have a serious misunderstanding of what it means to be a member of a political party and what the function of a political party is.

      The entire purpose of a political party is for its members to collectively pool their political influence for the purpose of gaining power!! This means that sometimes you have to put your influence—votes, campaign efforts, donations—behind a candidate who is not your first choice!

      However, if you are a loyal member of a party you do this anyway! It’s what political parties are for! You don’t get to pick and choose which general election candidates you will support, and you don’t get to have litmus tests!!

      http://physioprof.wordpress.co…..hysioprof/

  54. BlueStateRedHead says:

    EW, you know your Michiganers. were they party operatives or general public? This is not idle curiosity, as I am wondering if there were any potential actual Denver-goers among them? Is this common in D-MI meetings?

    Anyone who was there, was one or the other gender dominant among the unrulies?

    If an insight is wanted on how the BO organized themselves–the 30 or so who are Kossacks/dailykos, read the diaries of Slinkerdink starting last weekend. the words was to do everything to avoid being drawn into conflict, and it there was to be a Pantsuit riot, it should not have been provoked.

  55. JTMinIA says:

    “count the lies
    1) Michigan didn’t have an election.
    Michigan had an election authorized by the state of Michigan and certified by the state of michigan. Its a lie to say Michigan did not have an election.”

    So, by your line of reasoning, China has been having elections for decades. Cool.

  56. JMorgan says:

    I am NOT happy with the dynastic quality of the Dem machine politic; it’s long past time for populism to regen the values of the party.

    In other words, I have been waiting years now.

    You said a mouthful, and well.

    Thanks!

    • phred says:

      It is a genial suggestion to scroll past comments that appear to be intended to pick a fight. I have been doing my best to follow wangdangdoodles sage advice ; )

  57. Adie says:

    Folks, scroll down this whole thread.

    Feel the energy.

    We CAN work together. EVERYONE wants to. We just have to work out the finer details.

    Thank You Marcy!! I do hope you personally can get some down-time to recoup the energy spent during this incredible effort. This was a biggie, and perhaps hard for you to see beyond the moment as you transcribed & translated your heart out.

    Strong suspicion here: the overall effort will pay off bigtime. Incredible energy boost to the party from this, even including the “rocky” times. Heck. This is democracy at work…

    Thanks again, BIG TIME!

  58. 4jkb4ia says:

    I am very satisfied to see all these fine EW folks telling p.luk that he is full of crap.

Comments are closed.