When You Break for Lunch at 3PM…
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.
I am about to have enchiladas for lunch!
I imagine the RBC will want their nappies now!
Midnight!? Yikes.
oh gawd, please NOOOOO!
CAN’T this party decide ANYTHING????
this is a “flawed party”, no wonder the candidates are accused of that!
sheeeeeesh!
Rememember, ‘we aren’t members of an organized party’?
It could be a lot worse. I’ve been at meetings where the only way things could be dealt with, was by tabling them – for 17,000 years. Or, in one case, 17,000 years and a week. (The rationale is that stuff that’s tabled for a specified period can’t be brought up before the end of that period without a special motion. It’s a great way to calm things down – if you have the time.)
oh, that’s EXCELLENT.
i gotta remember that and USE IT.
that rocks.
“I’m tabling this for 17,000 years and ONE WEEK!”
i LOVE that!
It seems Iowa and New Hampshire have to accept they will no longer be the 1st and 2nd contests in the country. It needs to rotate among other states.
nh
pop. 1,235,786 (wikipedia)
690,159 registered voters (2 years old)
ia
pop. 2,926,324 (wikipedia)
1,800,000 registered voters (3 years old)
maybe less than 3 million registered voters now?
why not one simultaneous national primary?
there are reasons, but i don’t know what they are.
To start with because:
A) No one candidate would get anywhere near the number of delegates needed for the nomination.
B) Name recognition would become one of the major factors. That plus
C) The candidate with the most money could saturate the airwaves with ads in the big media markets.
D) Candidates would ignore all the small states and any semblance of “retail” politics and go directly to the “tarmac” politics
E) We’d be back to the back room deal making.
As flawed as the current system may be, it still forces the candidates to meet directly with individual voters and address voter concerns. Single primary day would lose that completely.
a playoff system then:
tornament play;
double elimination;
best of seven series;
and
rugby rules.
(thanks: i knew there was a reason.)
Marcy~ CSPAN feed is good right now, but they are still taking viewer calls so aren’t live from the venue yet.
Is it still storming outside?
I don’t see any way around your conclusion on FL vis a vis MI
Hello everyone.. I was going to check my motorcycle helmet at the door.. However, I think I will keep it on today.
I have my phaser set to ’scroll’.
Two Star Trek references in one afternoon, politics doesn’t get any better than this ; )
And a shuttle launch to boot!
T minus 5 minutes.
Folks,
Anybody who has ever been involved in Democratic party conventions at the county, state or national level should know that folks make arguments to the rules committee all the time that simply can’t be supported by any rational interpretation of the rules. Sometimes they even get their ruling, either through honest mistakes or pure political power plays. It’s not pretty and I would prefer that it not happen. But, it happens almost every election cycle.
Based on my understanding of the rules, the RBC has a fairly limited set of choices. It can maintain the status quo (no delegates from either state) or it could award either or both states 50% voting strength based on the results of the primaries. I don’t see anything in the rules that would let the RBC tinker with the allocations between the preferences in Michigan.
I predict the most likely outcome is to seat both delegations with everybody getting 1/2 vote and let the credentials committee sort out the problems in Michigan.
William…
I agree with most of what you wrote — except that I think they can seat Florida at full strength by giving them the waiver they asked for back in November. Michigan does not qualify for a waiver, but there is sufficient evidence that Florida democrats made a good faith effort to keep their primary within the rules.
In theory, South Carolina is eligible for the same waiver under the same grounds (GOP controlled state government), but neither Iowa nor New Hampshire (which both should be denied 50% of their voting strength for violating the timing standards). The only way to justify giving Michigan full voting strength is to ignore the rules the same way they were ignored with Iowa and New Hampshire.
Any idea if Florida ever tried to make the “good faith effort” argument? It seems to me that if they really had a case, that would be a much easier route, since the delegates are automatically restored if they win that argument.
I don’t recall ever hearing or seeing that argument, Redshift.
Of course, Levin came pretty close to making that argument for Michigan.
yes. the video from the November RBC meeting is available on C-Span.com
AT LEAST we’re doing this rule/(baby laws?) debate/bending within party and not in the Oval Office like some people are doing!!!
i’m GLAD to be a democrat, in other words.
EW, your justin.tv link has been rock solid all day. Just sayin’…
glad to get away from that last thread. I hope that line of commentary is left there and not carried over.
Just read a commenter’s question at HuffPo that sounded interesting. Marcy, do you know, did Hillary sign up ofr the Michigan primary after losing in Iowa?
We have a personal request from Marcy to please keep the flaming down.
She’s out there working and wants things here to go smoothly, can we help her out please?
yes please.
of course. I have the utmost respect for what Marcy is doing. Thank you Marcy!!!!
No Pooh Zone in effect,
hard as it is,
For Marcy!
Get no argument from me. I like to pick my battles and that wasn’t one of ‘em. Just burns daylight and wastes our time.
Second! With thanks to you, siri, and all the others trying to settle things down.
I left a perfectly normal, interesting thread earlier in the day, then just cruised quickly thru the one immediately previous to this, to see what the kerfuffle was about.
Long day. Hard questions to address. No easy answers. Whole world at stake, literally.
Please cool it folks, those of you who look down at the keyboard and see your hands shaking uncontrollably, and notice you’re breathing a little faster than normal.
Ranting here will NOT, repeat NOT help one bit.
Momma called it. NO POO ZONE.
Marcy does not deserve our bickering. Take it outside.
Better yet, go stare at yerself in a mirror & rant. Not convincing so much as wincing evoked? Good. A start of sorts. Breathe. Again, slower and deeper. Of course I’m silly. That’s my job. I’m self-employed and occasionally used to be very good at what I do – um – with horses. I don’t use whips except to indicate direction, so you’re safe at the moment.
Oh, did I say please? AND apologies for the interruption…
48 comments await after I started this &, when I open them, I hope to see more level-headed comments from a few who triggered egregious’ timely warning, something she rarely steps in to do.
P. E. A. C. E.
Long day. Hard questions to address. No easy answers. Whole world at stake, literally.
well, iF that doesn’t sum up this whole damned thing and day and election, i don’t know what does.
that just says it alllll!
WELL done, Adie, WELL DONE!
awwww. that’s not called for and u know it, sweet thing. after all, apparently i’m just a pair of mis-matched sox, according to some. thank heaven for mods.
u have yerself a nice thread here, now. Too too weird to open up 40-something doodles in one swell foop and pop up next to, well, where i did.
baked beans & smo. sausage at our place. mebbe a lil salad if i have energy enuf. it ain’t the ritz but yer welcome.
you’re a sweetheart Adie. I hope you’ll be back soon.
hugz
back at ya ;->
Yes ma’am! I went to do some chores…even now I want to do some smacking down because I don’t want to let the crap fly by like it does on MSM.
But I’m behaving. I behaved. I will behave. (I’m doing verb conjugation practice for upcoming McCain debates)
please don’t fall for petey’s piffle. i don’t pretend to be, or try to act like, anyone’s mommy, except for my own kids.
egregious comes as close as it gets to that here today, if i read her plea correctly.
thanks, and carry on. ;->
Pete posts quite often on Emptywheel. You do not. Please stop using words like “piffle” when referring to regulars. Thanks.
Adie’s been around at FDL for a long time. We know her.
That might be true, but the standards are higher on Emptywheel.
Thanks PJ. Mebbe you could attest to the fact that I normally don’t set out to pick fights. I also don’t appreciate being picked on without reason (e.g., 96).
It’s hard to stay off someone else’s turf completely when the new system bumps us around among the various threads no matter where we log on. I assume it’s o.k. to follow the bouncing ball in the FDL game field.
peace to all.
I think we all are on the same page in wanting the Democratic Party to follow a just path and win in Nov. eh?
True dat!!
Oh I don’t fall for that piffle at all…it was another to which I refer, but I’m behaving…
Speaking of mommas, a commenter at the kos OMG SuperSerious LiveBlog of RBC suggested Donna Brazille’s momma for VP. hilarious.
Hey, everybody! I finally got a network connection in here at the meeting. I’ve said hi to Jane a couple of times, and I think I can see Marcy in the upper press area, but the lights are in my eyes up there.
Redshift, what’s your take on the feeling in the room there?
Do these hearings remind you of “The Trouble with Tribbles” too ? *g*
: ) Thanks : ) You too, wangdang : )
Now lets… Engage ; )
Shields up, Mister Scott !
Kepten, ah kant, da Di- Lithium kkrystals …
Dammit Jim, I’m a doctor, not a miracle worker!
I kenna change the laws of physics!
omg
LOLOL
i can’t stand it.
i LOVE star trek and this is GREAT!
You want the Hearings to go wild, let Uhura drop in and begin one of her dances …
Oh, hey Redshift–sorry I’ve missed you so far.
I tried to catch Jane as she was heading out to find you for lunch, but she was too quick for me, and they wouldn’t let me into the press area. *g*
Look for me if you’re going to be around for dinner!
Hi Redshift! Haven’t seen you in ages! How are you?
I’m doing okay. I’ve been really busy at work the past few months, so between that and organizing delegates for my district and state conventions, I haven’t been doing much other than occasional lurking here.
CSPAN switched to Discovery launch for a bit.
OKAY. Before we get any further on this thread, I am going to echo what Egregious stated at the end of the last thread when she sent you over here. Cut out the bunk. Cut out the junk. This is a reset; start over and be civil. Passionate discussion is encouraged; the vitriol and insanity of the last thread is not. Seriously. Marcy and Jane are doing you proud there; do the same for them here.
I agree. But unless people are fully cognizant of the rules governing the delegate selection process, I don’t think they should be using words like “cheating” and “stealing” and implying that Clinton or her surrogates are suggesting that she is doing anything inappropriate here — if they can cite a rule that Clinton is violating (that Obama is not — a key consideration here) fine. But I’VE READ THE RULES. I’ve DISCUSSED the rules with one of the few Obama supporters online who is able to look at this issue the same way I do — dispassionately.
Believe me, I understand. It is all good; no worries. There were a few minutes on the last thread where that was not the case however; and we just don’t want that bleeding over here and erupting again.
Thanks for moderating bmaz. I too could argue with some of the characterization that did carry over here, but I’m going to behave.
Are you nuts?!?!?! I wouldn’t let bmaz moderate!!! He’s not the, um, moderate type. We’ve got real, trained moderators just like normal on FDL.
Boy howdy. No kidding, I am just the bad cop…..
LOL.
Just had to mute the Span. Some chimp-like sounding idjut’s voice mumbling on and on.
OT Cubs Win! Again. (I love writing that)
yay, Cubbies!
LOL707!!!!
ROFL … attagirl … high spirits as always …
Damn, Raven and me are in trouble then.
while waiting for “lunch” to be over, here is the link to wexler’s presentation. i’ve made the adjustments to the link (i think/hope) so that it will start at the correct spot. enjoy.
(flash player from cspan’s archives)
I knew they wouldn’t be back on time after lunch (hey, it was a long morning session and it’s Saturday) but come on. It’s nearly 5pm et. Is anyone else wondering if there’s some back room deal being worked out?
marci, I responded to your “fair representation”/District Convention post in the previous thread…but here it is in short.
As the colloguy involving Brewer on this subject explained, the people coming out of the district conventions represent the will of the voters in those districts as indicted by the primary. (except that the “uncommitted” are really for Obama). And the distribution of the “district” delegates sent to the national convention will reflect the primary vote.
It has to be done that way under DNC rules. The way that MI will achieve its compromise is by give 4 of the states at large delegates that under fair distribution would go to Clinton to Obama instead.
I don’t have a problem with this in terms of a compromise (as long as Florida is fully seated with full delegate voting strength.) My only point is that the Rules committee cannot override the fair representation provisions — what michigan wants to do is a great idea, but it can’t be done under the Charter of the DNC.
It can be achieved in the credential committee — which does have authority over the question of “fair representation”. This is the Rules committee, however, and it can’t happen here.
Agree that, in theory, that the creds probably should be the proper venue. But I also recognize that few people here want to wait that long. So you’re dealing with the pragmatic sense that people want to establish a number, so a candidate can then reach that number, then magnanimously seat the whole delegations from both states.
That said, as I understand it, if you used the conventions, you’d have to look at actual sign-in numbers to measure the support, which is why you’d be at the 2/3 votes for Obama. Again, doing so would be ridiculous, but it is actually more defensible than basing the choice on teh primary.
marci…
c’mon. sign in sheets at district conventions as a stand in for votes?
It didn’t matter how many people signed in — but it looks to me like there was an organized effort by the Obama campaign to do what happened in Texas — overrun the caucuses. Thankfully, unlike the Texas caucuses, the district convention had state and district officials who can control them, and ensure that the procedures mandated by the party were followed.
I hope you are not implying that engaged Obama supporters who enthusiastically show up to support their candidate and their democratic (little d) processes are not “overrunning the caucuses”.
I personally found it disturbing that in spite of “winning” 55% of the vote in MI, that the Clinton supporters showed up at the district conventions in smaller numbers than the Uncommitted side. Are they not as engaged and excited about their candidate? Or do they believe that by virtue of the percentage they received out of a “flawed primary” that they are simply entitled to the fruits of democracy without any additional effort?
well, yeah. there is a ton of evidence that is exactly what happened in Texas, Washington and other states — but I figured out why uncommitteds showed up in force at the Michigan district conventions — and it wasn’t to do what was done in Texas at the precinct level. (see below).
There is no good reason to show up at district conventions unless you really care who represents your candidate at the state convention. The fair representation rules determine the NUMBER of delegates to the state convention that each candidate gets to send.
It was, however, important that Obama supporters show up to the district conventions in order to pretend to be “uncommitted”, and caucus with the “uncommitted” in order to send Obama delegates to the state convention — that’s actually NOT how the whole “uncommitted” thing is supposed to work, but I’m happy to accept it in the spirit of compromise.
p luk
Please refrain from commenting on things you have no knowledge about. You weren’t at those caucuses, you obviously don’t understand how “uncommitted” works in practice. I understand you have your opinion about it. But it is mistaken and profoundly undemocratic.
marci, I just read the rules. Tell me where I’m wrong.
The people who go to the state convention as “uncommitted” are supposed to be “uncommitted”.
marci, are you trying to tell me that the proportion of delegates sent to the state convention representing each candidate is NOT supposed to be run by the “fair representation” rules?
No. But thanks for playing!!!!
Thanks. Has been particularly difficult to get through to folks who haven’t been participants in the party process here how very flawed this whole mess has been from day one; still struggling to make sense of the conversation we had with Levin two weeks ago, and how disconnected his presentation today seems from that chat.
Still irks the crap out of me how many union folks likely crossed party lines because they were torqued off by the machinations of the superdelegates who were aligned with particular candidate that delivered this clusterfuck.
If we lose this state, it’s on their heads.
There was no “overrunning of the caucuses” in Texas. I’ve participated in the Texas Democratic Party precinct conventions for 20 years. Other than the fantastic turnout (including more than a few Republican Hillary-Haters who showed up to support her), there was nothing outside the norm this year.
William, while your caucus may have been orderly, Texas is a very big state….
I’ve got friends and relatives in most of the major metropolitan areas who attended precinct conventions. I was a delegate to my Senate District Convention and my son will be a delegate to the State Convention next week. If you want to read up on the Texas caucuses, I suggest the Burnt Orange Report.
well, I guess all those people who are saying that at their caucuses are lying then.
And I guess that the evidence that the Clinton campaign presented to the Texas Democratic Party on the day of the election of Obama supporters taking the caucus sign up sheets and getting people to sign them at the polls after determining who they had voted for doesn’t exist.
I don’t know how widespread it was William, but there were problems at the Texas precinct caucuses.
You see, that’s the problem when you can’t trust a candidate’s veracity, and the place where you’re hearing these stories is on the internet, from anonymous characters.
Nobody filed any complaints with state officials over the claims you’re making. That to me says that it’s propaganda that’s been put out by someone with a dog in the race.
One of the recurring problems in this campaign is that feelings are running so high that every time something messy happens (and lots of messy things happen in primary elections), there are shouts that someone is cheating.
I think that tends to happen when we stop listening to each other, and stop trying to mind the way that we phrase our thoughts. For instance, speaking of things that we know to be fact only, asking for information on those issues that we don’t know to be fact. Or making accusations instead of “I” statements – “You/Obama/Clinton did that because you/he/she is a ” versus, “When this happened , I thought or I felt it wasn’t true (or I know it wasn’t true because ___”.
We all have to take great care to communicate more effectively. IMHO.
J morgan…
no one filed complaints with state officials because challenges are submitted to county/district caucus officials first — not to state official.
And those complaints?
[A hephalump ate ‘em.]
i went to my state caucus and it was orderly,
and completely whelming if not overwhelming:
school employees who were participating in the caucus as civilians were surreptitiously accessing the school’s copier to make more ballots;
the place was packed, but everyone was friendly;
clinton and obama representatives cooperated fully in dealing with the not-nearly-the-crisis-it-could-have-been situation.
i voted for hillary in the primary
and i pledged to her in my caucus.
everything about it was fair and non-controversial.
i had a telephone call from the obama campaign and a very nice lady talked to me about why i supported hillary.
toward the end she asked if i would support obama if he were the nominee.
i said “oh goodness yes … “
and before i could go on i could hear her begin to cry.
i told her not to worry and i would let her go to compose herself for her next call.
at my caucus,in travis county, texas, i saw a lot of your non-participation types, hundreds, lower income, blue collar, came-straight-from-work and came-straight-from-construction-work folks, moms’ with their babies … everyone in the whole precinct practically.
my precinct caucus went 65% obama/ 35% hillary.
i support hill for vice-president now.
Um, first of all, yes, those VOTES cast at the conventions are actually based on those sign-in sheets, which are rigorously enough tracked that one of our local state reps got caught in the wrong CD (she forgot the boundaries have been moved).
And honestly, why don’t you ASK someone who was THERE before you make utterly ungrounded insinuations about Obama flooding the events. That was not even possible, as there are three Obama “groups” in MI, none of them connected to the campaign, as well as bunch of unaffiliated people. The OBama campagin didn’t even attempt to influence who could be eligible to be a delegate in MI–so why would they flood a caucus they had deliberately not exercised any influence over at the state level?
There isn’t going to be any determination from the Rules committee. It’s going to be over next week. It’s called Super Delegate rush.
if there is no determination today, this will probably be taken to the convention.
the best solution is really to just seat the delegates as elected in the primaries. Obama still keeps his lead, and just has to convince more Super Delegates — Clinton gets what she is demanding, voters aren’t punished for the stupidity of the RBC (if they had handled this properly, and done what the GOP did, this would not be an issue right now), and the process itself will play out the way it is intended to in cases like this…. with party officials making the decision about who would be the best candidate in the absense of a consensus emerging from the primaries.
I hope this isn’t inflammatory: Best I understand, none of this really will affect the outcome, which, again as I understand it, is that there is almost zero chance of Clinton winning the nomination at this point.
Is there some reason for going through all of this intense argumentation at the DNC concerning delegates other than the the determination of who wins the nom?
Yes, there is actually a lot of conflict, and has been for perhaps over a decade or more, between the sates over the timing of the various primaries. It may be hideous sausage making, but it is democracy, and is necessary.
Process is important. How they handle this will determine who decides to break what rules at what cost if we ever have to go through this nonsense again.
Please let’s don’t.
Cap’n, there be whales aboard.
Driven in from the real lake by thundershowers and intermittent hail. Sounds like that might be the last thread, too. Hear, hear for no poo-flinging. It’s stressful enough trying to follow action with two askeered spaniels trying to crawl under my hoodie.
Why is there an argument over what would be a fair rules committee decision when the predicate for this meeting is that MI and FL broke the rules?
I don’t have much sense of how the committee will act, other than that everyone understands that they don’t have a strong basis for any particular resolution for Michigan. Florida seems relatively straightforward — I’ll be surprised if they do anything other than keeping the delegates but giving them half votes. (That’s just a gut feeling.)
As for the mood, there are a few really obnoxious Clinton supporters, but other than that the mood is okay — each side clapping and cheering when someone says something they like. However, as far as I’ve heard, only Clinton supporters have booed or hissed for things they don’t like. (I’ve overheard a couple of press people saying the same thing, so I don’t think it’s just my bias.)
I think that’s true, too.
Thanks for that Redshift — gives those of us following along at home a better sense of the in-house spectators.
Redshift – Do you know if they were just random supporters or if they were officially attached to the Clinton campaign?
They’re not officially encouraged by the campaign, as far as I know. However, Ms. Redshift got an email from NOW, which has endorsed Hillary, encouraging members to go and participate to support her. (She got a similar one for the protest at DNC headquarters a few weeks back that the organizers claimed was not connected with any campaign, and was pretty annoyed in both cases.) Between that and other things I’ve heard, I suspect campaign staff didn’t do more than whisper an occasional private word of encouragement, but they definitely didn’t do anything to discourage them.
While watching the meting earlier this afternoon, I clicked on to Huffpost. Sam Stein had a post claiming the decision about Fl. was made last night! If true. this meeting is a sham. Personally, I am affronted by the prospect “super delegates” could over ride my vote if they decide to select a nominee other than the person selected by primary elections. And when is the Party going to do away with “super delegates”? It disgusts me their vote means more than mine. Democracy my a$$. If what Sam says is true we have the same behind closed door decisions being made again. Another thing, why do we have caucuses instead of “secret ballot” elections in some states? Fl. and Mi. should have their delegates seated and have full credentials to vote a full meaningful vote for the candidate their states have instructed. This is the fault of the DNC. Who the hell cares what state votes first? The Democrats are doing the predictable. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
speculating here but….
I think a tentative decision was made last night about Florida, but the lack of a resolution for Michigan last night made that decision tentative.
Florida isn’t a “crucial” state for the Dems… it doesn’t matter which new states a Democratic candidate picks up to get to 270…
But Michigan is crucial — dems won it in 2004, and they can’t afford to lose it this year. Seating michigan at half strength the only way it can be seated under the rules (the Clinton proposal) would be unsatisfactory to both Michigan democrats…and Obama supporters.
But they can’t keep michigan happy with a full seating and the Clinton proposal with a recommendation to the credentials committee that the compromise be adopted and give Florida only half its delegate strength.
And this is a subject for another day, but taking the lead from IA and NH for MI or whoever sounds like Chee-knee logic to me. You know, quaint, who needs quaint…until you do…
I can’t wait to learn who will be running on the Connecticut for Hillary ticket!
Several times this morning, RBC members raised points of concern about setting precident. What happens in 2012 or 2016 if some state, like say NH, breaks timing rules? I would think many of the same arguments we heard today will be replayed. Basically my point is that the Clinton campaign position on MI prevails, it means that there will never be a solution to the fairness issue of IA and NH always going first.
Yep. How they handle this will determine whether or not any state will feel compelled to follow whatever rules are established for future elections. A very weighty thought.
Well, if y’all are going to be whipping out your Trek analogies, I am throwing down A Piece Of The Action as the proper analogy.
Yeppers.
Great episode, too!
I beg to differ bmaz, this is definitely Arena…
Stop running Captain, I will be quick and merciful.
But no, the running goes on and on while we all look on in helpless horror ; ) ‘Course what’s not to like when the enemy is literally a cold blooded killer (of course, each side envisions a different lizard to battle their captain). Definitely Arena ; )
But where are the stinking Metrons when you need them???
Metron Sexuals.
bwahaha …
They are still waiting to see any signs of civilization ; ) In the meantime, I hope they are having lunch with Brazile’s momma learning about rules and playing nicely with others — hopefully it will give us a leg up with them in the end ; )
Don’t we really need Organians for this?
(Me, I want the Lalairu. Almost as effective if things are out of hand.)
Eh, I prefer Arda to Landrieu; she is teh hot
I think I went over-obscure there.
D Duane’s Rihannsu series (which I recommend for the humor in desperate situations, along with everything else: read the bit in Empty Chair with a fizzbin game the night before a major battle).
The Lalairu are neutral (and not all one species), have a very large ship, and the firepower to protect themselves if the neighbors try redefining neutrality.
Evil Spock was teh hot. Although, I admit that depends a bit on one’s point of view ; )
Is this the episode where Joan Collins dies ?
Nope, that’s City on the Edge of Forever.
That was an excellent episode … my fav was The Menagerie …
So many episodes, so little time… Yep, a few were truly awful, but most were really really good. Menagerie was great. I agree with PJ though, the Organians would be really really helpful right about now (globally, especially).
What really, really gets under my skin is the person on the sidelines who says after watching/listening to the meeting today, “Wow, I’m so glad I’m an independent voter.”
I damn near ripped the spouse a new bodily orifice for that.
I told him that democracy is messy, that he has a reasonable chance at a good choice this fall because some people do the dirty work required of democracy for him. Also reminded him this is no different than any business negotiation with the Big Three automakers he’s been involved in, where somebody is always trying to strong-arm more than you can reasonably give, but where they’d be stupid not to try to ask for more.
So stressed out watching and blogging this, but it’s got to be done, there’s too damned much at stake in this race and well into the future. Have no idea how EW and Jane and DHinMI are going to slog this out in DC because it sure looks like it’s going into 9 extra innings tonight. But somebody’s doing the dirty work — glad it’s them and not people who don’t take this seriously.
Meanwhile, one reason why this whole mess needs to be resolved sooner rather than later, in today’s Minneapolis Tribune op-ed page, this headline: Pawlenty thwarted effort to further stem-cell research.
Pawlenty on, if not at the top of, McCain’s shortlist for veep. We don’t need four more years of this.
So the important issue is the precedent that will be set, more so than the particular delegate allocation that is the result?
Jane and ew are Uhura.
hehe
Where ARE they. We’ll be here till midnight cause they won’t come back in!!!!
whine!
SouthernDragon, I saw your question about the protesters on the previous thread, and I don’t think it got answered. We started getting torrential rain around 2 or 3pm (no windows here, so I don’t know exactly when.) If I understood the story correctly from my friend who was on duty checking people at the door, they wouldn’t let the protesters into the hotel, so it kind of died out at that point.
Yep. Rain has a tendency to do that. Thanks for the info. No windows? Is that a prison or a hotel?
In case anyone missed it, Hunter shines again.
Following up on that: Lake Michigan deserves to be represented!!!
biased observation: This kind of Saturday is good for democracy! Messy. But hopeful.
(I hope)
OK time to do some ironing. Someone’s gotta do it.
one of the kabuki aspects of what is going on here is that the Clinton campaign is trying to bend over backwards in the name of “unity” and NOT argue that the RBC screwed up. I was really shocked by Bonier’s presentation, because while Wexzler’s proposal was divisive, at least it wasn’t framed in “divisive” language. Bonior was out of control in terms of his rhetoric. (not to mention that a statement made by Clinton on New Hampshire public radio isn’t telling Michigan voters that their votes won’t count).
OMG
how different eyes watching a same thing see something entirely different!
Did Juno get reincarnated or something?
You can Digg this post right HERE
Hi Petey. Funny to run into u here ;->
So, I’m getting the feeling all the intense debate is going on right now in the rules committee meeting. How come they don’t broadcast THAT? Why is it all of a sudden a secret?
I agree. It isn’t a Court that’s gone in camera. We have every right to those deliberations and that’s part of the secrecy that makes this government stink. BTW Alexis Herman got run out of a college assignment she had for financial improprieties.
Right now no one can give you a straight answer as to what’s going in secret as to FISA, not even Glenzilla.
Daylight is the best infectant, said by many, even by Christy Hardin Smith in a headline a couple months ago.
Those deliberations should be public.
amen!
i want to see the process. why should we be excluded?
You absolutely should not be excluded Selise. As a voter you have every right to every second of these deliberations in the open. Nor should you be excluded from FISA, nor all the redactions that have become replete in DOJ documents “released.”
Not to switch entertainment metaphors in mid-thread, but I’m thinking an Animal House level food fight broke out in the RBC lunchroom and now they are all out tidying themselves up a bit ; )
On a serious note however, I entirely agree. I thought that was the whole point of this dog and pony show — transparency, public participation, etc.
See if you can guess what I am NOW!
LOL! I can’t think of an occasion when I’ve gotten so silly on one of EW’s threads, but it certainly helps pass the time and breaks a good bit of the tension ; )
I’m especially ticked off because just last week our DTC old guard made a behind-closed-doors decision on the nominee for our State Rep, who happens to be retiring CT General Assembly Speaker Jimmy Amann. I’m peeved about them not needing my vote or input on the decision, yet they’re already asking for my help.
I’m trying to be a team player here, but I’m so pissed off right now I’m tempted to blast the entire local establishment on my blog and in print. We have a shitty, weak candidate because the fossils who run our DTC want her. Ugh.
not enough little “d” democrats in the big “D” Democratic party. pisses me off too – i don’t like the idea of being a “team player” if that means i’m only a member of the team when it comes to doing what i’m told.
and i haven’t had to deal with your experience with the bs re your state rep. wow.
Trust me, it’s awful. I’m being placed in the unenviable position of having to help a known conservative Liebercrat and anti-women’s-rights woman win in November. It sucks.
don’t do it.
It’s a real quandary.
I’d hate for a Republican to take that seat. But this woman is awful. If I had known it would have turned out like this, I would have run and threatened a primary. She would have dropped out because she has no stomach for a fight, then I could have supported one of the other, younger and more progressive candidates.
Hee! Apparently our old pal Lanny Davis was here being an ass again. Sounds like a good show; I’m sorry I missed it!
Is this a conceivable outcome?
Pete don’t do it……
I’m leaving for a party Bmaz. Keep the home fires burning. I’m only sorry that you and Marcy are not on that committee or hell for that matter in the U.S. Senate. I’ll contribute and campaign for both of you.
Enjoy.
Cheers and enjoy! But man, even I wouldn’t vote for me for elected office….
Pete, I’m really glad that you’re here with your viewpoints and not only because I agree with them.
As a yoga/meditation teacher, might I suggest that aggressive language is counter productive to your points making their intended impression. In fact, I would venture that they dilute your arguments, valid as they are.
I always respect your comments and views Petrocelli. I look forward when I get home to reading the comments so I have a much better insight as to what happened, and Marcy’s continued blogging on this that is exponentially better than any print media I can buy or other blogs for my money.
I hope that this RBC can make sense, but I’ll find out when I come back here to read.
Thanks once again, I’ve learnt a lot from your comments and many others here …
No and Yes. No, because the Rules committee has to do something…even if its to defer its decision on the appeals. Yes, because they can defer their decision.
This is a high stakes poker game and the Clinton side is bluffing. If she really wants to take this to the convention, so be it. That’s where they don’t have the cards. So many of her delegations are poisoned with Obama supporters that she would lose at least a third of her pledged delegates on the second ballot. That sort of humiliating defeat would end any future consideration of her as a serious person. Ergo, her hand is empty. Ickes can sit in the corner and hold his breath until his face turns blue from now until doomsday.
The humiliation of beginning her campaign against McCain with dwindling press coverage and interest will be a very sad spectacle in itself.
But when this is your only chance, you might as well bluff.
(I see no chance of Clinton even running again if she isn’t the nominee.)
Personally, I see her Senate seat in jeopardy in 2012 as a result of this, but they probably don’t give a damn.
I have to disagree with you … voters have shorter memories than politicians …
EW, while we’re waiting… From what I can see in the very narrow view of the camera, only a handful of people are back in the room. Have most of the spectators returned or is everyone dawdling? If the spectators are all back are they getting impatient with our 1.5 hour delay thus far or are people milling about patiently? Just curious.
A lot of people are here, but everyone’s just chatting and socializing. Probably about half the people left by the lunch break (a fair number left when the Florida presentation was over; I think more people were here from Florida than Michigan.)
It’s an audience of activists, not just a random collection of people, so almost everyone has people they know to chat with.
Thanks Redshift — I appreciate it. It’s always hard to really tell what something is like when the camera shows so little. I’m glad you’re there and able to report back to the rest of us…
Hillary’s just playing out her hand- hoping that Obama makes a bidding mistake.
Of course she doesn’t want to take this to the convention- but saying that she is willing to strengthens her position…
She doesn’t really have much of a chance left- but there’s no downside to playin it out through the next couple of weeks.
Well, it’d be interesting to know exactly what sunshine rules the DNC has. I can understand that it may be easier to work out a deal if you can do all the shouting in private, but I can’t imagine they’d risk breaking the rules on a decision this closely watched (which unfortunately implies that they don’t have a rule that business must be conducted in public.)
Redshift.
Can you do all of a thread and stand up, and in your loudest voice, start chanting “Smoke-Filled Room. Smoke Filled Room”?
Please?
All this talk of smoke-filled rooms has me jonesing for a stogie!
Heh. Sorry, I promised the Obama campaign I’d be here to try to avoid trouble erupting.
Pretend you’re Colbert and ask inflammatory questions … like concern trolls do at the Lake …
And to BobCT too – I agree the sausage making needs to be done mostly in public. It is all for show and to get everybody back on the same page at this point anyway. The best way is for people to see what is happening and at least feel part of it, even if they really are not.
well, since i’m not a voter in either MI or FL, i don’t feel a big need to be part of this decision. but i do want to understand what is going on and i especially want accountability – and i don’t see how we get that with all the important decisions being done behind closed doors.
here’s a short funny read, i was in stitches.
WHILE WE’RE WAITING….. and turning into mummies…….
*sigh*
Pessimist.
He’ll do fine, if certain people would stop trying to sabotage the system (such as it is).
Hey! We have a great new guest poster at EW!!
AWESOME!
I left a comment on the new post …
… tee hee hee …
Michelle Obama has already put the kabosh on that.
And who can blame her.
In case you haven’t read this, treat yourself:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..04332.html
Dream on.
What are you going to do facing a Barack Obama ballot?
I only hope they do what they can to make sure the voters of these two states are not punished because of decision making that was out of their hands.
OT while we’re waiting:
CSpan aired Bush’s radio address. On top of his usual lies he used a new, to me, talking point about telecom immunity. He said that congress needs to vote for the bill to include telecom immunity and stop the “abusive law suits” against the phone companies “who helped us”. “Abusive law suits”? As I said, I hadn’t heard it put that blatantly bad before.
They mentioned on MSNBC that Bill Clinton has another letter out today. Does anybody know of it, have a link?
Is there a Bush crony running NASA ? They spend a Bazillion Dollars building the space Station and no one thought of an additional toilet ?
That’s ’cause they figured it would only be men up there and they could just go in the bushes… oh. wait a sec. Maybe they shoulda thought that through a bit more ; )
Actually, a survey showed that most men pee in the shower, so they decided they could omit one toilet. Only later did they remember the lack of showers on the space station.
I never thought of this before, but it must really smell fucking horrible up there!
For more on the smell issue, talk to people who have served on submarines.
I’d rather keep it speculative than confront any hard facts!
LOL — never thought of the shower.
p luk
You’re actually misreading me.
I said I think it would be absurd–but more legally justifiable–to use the numbers from the conventions (and there is language to support this in the rules). So in fact, I was not being partisan–I was saying the same thing you were–that the fair representation in MI is meaningless, though my comments about what WOULD have been fair representation are in fact based on the circumstances in MI–based on my actual experience there, not any assertions about how things are supposed to work that are completely false.
Obamma resigned from his church because of the media assholes per MSGOP.
Does FDL have to have its own server to have live-blogging?
I guess you weren’t around for the Scooter Libby trial.
No, what does that mean?
The entire trial was liveblogged on FDL, and FDL was the place for information on the trial. Jane and Marcy and a few others got press credientials to be in the courthouse liveblogging. Even the MSM was going to FDL for the skinny on the trial.
I know that, but I don’t know what that means in response to my question.
YES, they can liveblog at FDL!
And, we’re back.
Finally!
They aren’t *my* standards; they are EW’s.
I hope you have a nice evening, too.
Let me clarify.
Does FDL need to have its own server (hardware) to be able to live-blog?
I have a family/friends blog on Blogger, and I’m wondering what it takes to be able to do with my large brood.
Not sure about that. Only know they can liveblog.
Interesting. Most Democrats don’t agree with the idea that some banks are “too big to fail.” But here’s a Democrat arguing that Florida is too big to not seat at 100%.
Maybe these two things are not parallel, but it still struck me as odd.
An astute observation.
Dang! I missed the lull in the meeting.
But in any case, pups, don’t forget to check out Book Salon at FDL when you get a chance. good discussion of “The Trillion Dollar Meltdown”
FunnyDiva
On one hand, I’m sympathetic to the idea that “rules ought to have meat.”
On the other hand, I can’t stomach this coming from the same committee that gave a waiver to NH for breaking the exact same rule.
“We don’t play loose with our rules.”
But you do sometimes pardon people for breaking them.
current live blog thread is here.
Oh what a lovely bunch of coconuts.
Here’s the thing, I was trying to sort it all out in the shower. The reason there isn’t one easy solution is because there isn’t one easy problem. There are at least four.
Group One’s Problem. Lets give them the name (and why not?) Hilly. They represent the people who came out and voted for their candidate whose name was on the ballot. They want their vote to count, which makes perfect sense. It’s a democracy and they did what democrats are supposed to do.
but then we have Group Two’s Problem. Let’s call this group Obi. They represent the people whose candidate was NOT on the ballot that day, so they either wrote him in or voted for someone else or took a republican ballot in order to make the other side weaker. They didn’t have a chance to make their vote count, so they don’t want the primary to count and this makes perfect sense too.
Next we have Group Three’s Problem. Lets call them Abstainy. They didn’t vote on primary day because they thought their vote wouldn’t count and/or their candidate wasn’t on the ballot and they excised their right to choose by not choosing. They don’t want other people’s choice to count more than their no-choice choice, since they didn’t get their choice. This makes perfect sense also.
Finally we have group four. Lets call them “no opinions”. The N.O.’s didn’t vote on primary day because they really didn’t care or have a preference. Their lack of vote is an ACTUAL lack of vote, not a demonstration of the flawed primary. They don’t think their failure to vote should be counted as anything. And who can blame them? This makes perfect sense.
So what would make, Hilly, Obi, Abby and NO happy? Not the same thing. Hilly and Abby would be happy if their votes and NON votes counted with equal weight. Obi and NO want nobody’s votes to count since theirs can’t be accurately reflected. What is the solution? Is one of these groups more important then the other? Its theoretically possible that everybody’s voice is more important than NO’s, since doing something for a decision should probably matter more than doing nothing. But each group has to be respected in this, or the solution is not really a solution.
Finding the right solution hinges on correct identification of the problem. And the problem here is how to deal with the hurt feelings of a primary fiasco. I think there can only be one solution, which is to let the losers decide. If the contest isn’t actually at stake (and everything I’m reading says its been decided) the winners should let the losers decide, and do what would make Hilly Happy. It isn’t fair to three other groups, but its a solution, and it would allow us to go forward which is far more important than standing here.
Remember when your mom would make one of you cut the piece of cake and the other one choose which they wanted?
That won’t work now, but wasn’t that cool?