|
|
|
User loginNavigationAbout KnoxViewsUpcoming events
Other KnoxViews blogs
Who's onlineThere are currently 17 users and 330 guests online.
|
RBC reconvenes, ready to consider motions
Submitted by R. Neal on Sat, 2008/05/31 - 5:23pm.
UPDATE: Roundup of Tennessee blogger reaction at TennViews. The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee has heard arguments all day re. Florida and Michigan. They have just reconvened, and are ready to consider the motions. Developing... UPDATE: RBC votes to seat all Florida delegates, but give them one half vote. Now hearing motions on Michigan. UPDATE: Getting ready to vote on the Michigan motion that would take delegates away from Clinton and give them to Obama, and assign the "uncommitted" delegates to Obama. Ickes is furious, says they are "hijacking" the process. I don't blame him, and I'd say the same thing if the candidates were reversed. Ickes just said they will take it to the credentials committee. Guess they learned their lesson from Bush v. Gore in 2000. UPDATE: Michigan motion passes. Pledged delegates will be seated with 1/2 vote, but delegates are apportioned, 34.5 Clinton, 29.5 Obama. Pandemonium ensues. So there you go. FL and MI are settled, almost as we predicted earlier in the week. On to Puerto Rico, South Dakota, and Montana. COMMENT: What I watched of the process was open and fair to both sides in terms of hearing arguments. The Michigan decision, though, was bullshit. I don't see how this committee can take delegates away from Clinton and give them to Obama with a straight face. And I'd say that if the candidate's positions were reversed. Regardless, it doesn't matter as the delegate math stands today. Obama is the nominee. The superdelegates will decide it next Wednesday. But you haven't heard the last of the Michigan Motion. UPDATE: The committee also voted to seat Michigan's full 157-member delegation, each with half-a-vote. But because Obama had (along with John Edwards) taken himself off the ballot, figuring out how to apportion the delegates was much trickier. Following a plan endorsed by the Michigan Democratic Party, the committee voted to allot Clinton, who won 55% of the vote, 69 delegates, and Obama, who most believed was the overwhelming choice of the 40% of Michigan primary voters who chose "uncommitted", 59. If the delegates had been meted out based strictly on the actual vote Clinton should've gotten 73 delegates, and her supporters claimed, Obama should have gotten no delegates, at least until the convention when the uncommitted could state their preference. Mark Brewer, chairman of Michigan's Democratic Party, told the panel the best solution was a compromise, based on an assessment of exit polling and other data. Brewer said Obama was entitled to 59 pledged delegates to Clinton's 69, "a far fairer reflection of the Democratic preferences in Michigan." "I am stunned that we have the gall and chutzpah to substitute our judgment for 600,000 voters," Ickes said of the decision on Michigan, which grants four fewer delegates than the Clinton campaign would have received under her proposal. "I submit to you that hijacking four delegates... notwithstanding the flawed election, is not a good way to start down the path to party unity." |
Search    Free ClassifiedsLocal websites:
State websites:
Regional websites:
National websites:
Government websites:
Media websites: |
As I understand it, Hillary won 55% of the vote in Michigan. Michigan had 128 pledged delegates. 55% of 128 is 70. Which is only one more than she got in the compromise before they were halved. I realize she may have won more delegates by the way the congressional districts split the votes, or maybe by the reshuffle after Kucinich and Gravel didn't make the threshold, but since the whole vote was totally bogus anyway, I'm not convinced it matters, except as optics.
Since it was the Michigan Democratic Party which came up with the 69-59 split, I'm not sure what recourse the RBC had to arbitrarily pick different numbers, since the MDP was the challenging party in the proceeding.
Is this really decided or is it going to drag out in legal arguments?
I missed the festivities. How did the committee "take delegates away from Clinton"? I thought the controversy involved the awarding of uncommitted delegates to Obama. What does that have to do with Clinton's delegates?
Brian A.
I'd rather be cycling.
Florida, Michigan delegates will get half-votes
The truth is no one had a clue how the voters in either state would have voted if the local parties hadn't held them illegally (according to party rules), so the Rules Committee just went on assumptions that representatives from both the states could accept. Certainly Hillary's idea of counting all the votes was a totally ridiculous one. That had no chance of succeeding because it would have been totally unfair. Hillary herself had said publicly the votes wouldn't count. I think she did a dis-service to her supporters by making them believe anyone would count the results of those screwed up elections. If anything was clear yesterday it was the fact that those contests did not represent the actual feelings of all the potential voters in those states. The Rules Committee just tried to work with the numbers they had. Hillary came out of it with more than she could have. Her continuing to rally her troops at this point seems like a political kamakazi act, but she does have a right to keep on keeping on. In the end those votes won't be the deciding factor anyway.
The other thing that struck me was the Michigan Democratic Party's open defiance of the DNC.
They argued that they are an important state so they wanted to go early in the primary process and that's why they moved it up in violation of DNC rules, so there. There was no contrition at all, as in the case of Florida which was mostly the Republican legislature's fault.
Based on that, the DNC would have been well within their discretion to keep the Michigan sanctions in place and tell Michigan voters to take it up with their state party.
At one point in the proceedings the proposal to award the delegates 50/50 was passed, enabled by defections within the Clinton contingent..the same group of Hillary supporters who had voted in December to strip Michigan and Florida of ALL delegates.
Nobody stole Hillary delegates and gave them to Obama...There weren't any delegates to steal. If anything, by asking that the 50/50 proposal be held and then supporting the Michigan Democratic Committee's proposal of 69-59, The Obama campaign essentially GAVE Clinton delegates, not the other way around. It has to be noted that the Michigan proposal that passed did so with the approval of 5 of the 13 committed Clinton delegates on the RBC.
It's all meaningless blathering anyway since it changes nothing except that at least five Clinton supporters left Harold Ickes' platoon.
The chanting and yells of the Clinton supporters throughout the proceedings did not compare well with the quiet discipline of the Obama campaign. Having squandered a quarter of a billion dollars in a losing campaign (How much of it lobbyist money?), Hillary Clinton needs to take her opportuniy to graciously withdraw for the good of her country and her party.
Anybody want to take bets?
The Obama campaign essentially GAVE Clinton delegates, not the other way around.
Huh? Obama was handed 29.5 delegates that he did not earn. Four of them were Clinton's.
The "fair" way would have been to seat the MI delegates, give them 1/2 vote just like FL, and let the "uncommitted" vote for whoever they want (which would most likely be Obama) because that's what "uncommitted" means.
It was Obama's choice to not be on the ballot. If he was thinking this far ahead I'll have to give him credit. My guess is, though, that he didn't want his name next to a big "L" in MI.
He didn't have to be thinking "this far" ahead.
Link...
"Democratic candidates John Edwards, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden have withdrawn their names from the ballot to satisfy Iowa and New Hampshire, which were unhappy Michigan was challenging their leadoff status on the primary calendar."
He was looking toward Iowa, where he pulled off the true upset of this campaign season.
Link...
Iowa blew Hillary out and turned the whole election, even though she made a comeback in NH, after she "found her voice." Black folks in South Carolina, who had previously been skeptical that Obama could get white votes, came out in droves, got pissed off at Bill, and that was pretty much all she wrote.
And I doubt that the spectacle of Clinton supporters screaming and crying and confirming every anti-feminist stereotype, followed by Ickes and Lanny Davis snarling and cursing Saturday was very persuasive.
Original split 73 Clinton/55 Uncommitted delegates, 36.5/27.5 votes
Michigan compromise 69 Clinton/59 Obama, 34.5/29.5 votes
The difference in Clinton's vote total is two, not four.
This unrefuted story that Donna Brazile told Sunday has been pretty much overlooked:
Link...
"Brazile, who was taken aback at the lack of effort made by the Clinton campaign to "cut a deal" or otherwise "come to the uncommitted superdelegates" in the room, said: 'He also could have won on a crucial vote on this Michigan proposal to split the delegation 50-50. And rather than cause a ruckus they gave in. He had the votes. and the Clinton campaign never took the olive branch.' "
There was no Michigan Primary, in any legal sense.
Saying that Obama didn't earn any MI delegates would imply that Hillary DID earn delegates in a state her representatives voted to strip of delegates in the first place. The complicency of the Clinton campaign in creating this mess is exceeded only by their hypocrisy in claiming the mess they created was unfair to THEM.
Nobody stole anybody's delegates. The voting results were taken as "advisory" in awarding the delegates and no matter what the plan chosen would have made no difference whatsoever in the outcome of the Primary race.
Let me ask you this...Had the Obama faction simply decided to not say another word after the 50-50 split passed, what would you be saying? It was in the interest of unity that they asked for reconsideration.
And in the interest of unity, I hope that it's time to let the scales fall from our eyes and focus on our new mission of electing Barack Obama to the Presidency.
Funny...I am starting to hear a little voice say, "You're either with us..."
Funny...I am starting to hear a little voice say, "You're either with us..."
That's a really good way to make Clinton voters feel welcome.
Exactly! That's the whole point. Hillary didn't "have" any votes in a legal Michigan primary, so nobody could take any votes away. She did gather numbers in the fiasco that replaced a legal primary there, but they were not a legitimate reflection of the way all the voters in that state would have voted if the rules had been followed. The turnout was much, much smaller. That showed many Obama people and maybe others too just opted out because they were confused about the suggestion that was being pushed that they should just vote undecided or because they believed their votes wouldn't count at all.
I think those who insisted on holding an election against the rules should be held accountable for this mess. It sounded so petty yesterday for the Michigan spokesperson to keep whining about his state's jealousy of NH and Iowa's ability to go first. Me first, me first is a kindergarten complaint.
Was it really worth all this chaos and anger?
I believe if you re-read what I have written I make my position pretty clear and answer all your questions.
P.S. I don't think Obama and his supporters should be taking a "with us or against us" position. Obama has not won the nomination, and still won't have it after today's primary in Puerto Rico and Tuesday's final primaries. Neither has Clinton. Nearly half of primary voters prefer Clinton, though. As I have said (in this post and earlier in the week), Obama will clearly win. It is virtually mathematically impossible for Clinton at this point. But that doesn't mean that I am not allowed to have an opinion on the MI decision, which arbitrarily handed out delegates based on "exit polls and other data." You can spin that any way you want, but I don't think it's helping Obama's case.
ALL the candidates agreed to not campaign or participate in the both the Florida and the Michigan primaries. Hillary then broke with her promise to abstain and kept her name on the ballot after all the other candidates had removed their names and it was too late to get them back on the ballot (so they all stayed on the ballot in the Florida race..."fool me once..."). That in my mind was cheating, just like Lucy pulling the ball away from Charlie Brown at the last second.
She is LUCKY she got any delegates, she is LUCKY that the RBC decided to allow the delegates from both Florida and Michigan to be seated, much less cast even one vote for her. She could have been gracious and withdrawn her name from the Michigan ballot...she didn't. She could be gracious to accept the compromise offered by the MICHIGAN Democratic Party...she isn't.
The only thing for certain now is that she will NEVER be elected President...not this year, not in 2012...not ever. She may not even be a Senator for much longer. I used to be a big Hillary Clinton fan, that too is no longer true. She is acting like a spoiled, bratty, rich kid who finally met a nanny who would and could say "NO", and she is throwing an ugly little temper tantrum.
_________________________________________________
"You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White"
"I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali
All of them? Are you sure about that?
Gravel, Dodd, and Kucinich kept their names on that ballot. Look it up. Then start being honest - or at least start portraying the facts accurately.
Edwards and Obama weren't, in point of fact, the only other candidates in the race at the time, so no. Not "all of the candidates" withdrew.
I suppose that the voters of FL and MI (who by and large had nothing to do with how the party conducted the primaries) were LUCKY to have been awarded this little "3/5ths compromise" to have their votes counted at all, huh?
____________________________
"It's gettin' so a businessman can't expect no return from a fixed fight. Now, if you can't trust a fix, what can you trust?"
Oh, the self-righteous indignation of Mr. Axel – Of course the guys you listed had a snowballs chance of getting anywhere in the Dem primary (although I would have preferred any of them over Clinton or Obama). I think your being purposely obtuse and reactionary; you know what she meant.
I suppose that the voters of FL and MI (who by and large had nothing to do with how the party conducted the primaries) were LUCKY to have been awarded this little "3/5ths compromise" to have their votes counted at all, huh?
Ah yes count every vote.
This is something Clinton's people would have more credence stating if the had fought for it before the states where stripped of delegates and not after the it became politically convenient. Clinton clutching the constitution and crying count every vote is opportunistic, shallow and nauseating.
What’s next Andy - The popular vote should count! Hillary's white more electable. Caucuses are unfair! Obama -Cheater, cheater pumpkin eater!
No, I don't know what she meant. I was responding to what she said.
All means all. Not all means some. Not "all of the candidates that I was paying attention to" means all.
But if "I think" is the standard? Well, I think that you're projecting.
Maybe you can discuss what I said rather than what you're thinking that I might say, speaking of "self-righteous indignation."
____________________________
"It's gettin' so a businessman can't expect no return from a fixed fight. Now, if you can't trust a fix, what can you trust?"
'Maybe you can discuss what I said
I believe I did you just choose to ignore it.
No, actually, you attributed a bunch of stuff I wasn't going to say and pretended that it was part of my thought process. You made shit up and imagined that it was me saying it.
Sorry, but that's hack work. You can disagree with what I say, but when you start guessing about what I'm going to say or assigning imaginary motivations, we've got nothing to discuss.
____________________________
"It's gettin' so a businessman can't expect no return from a fixed fight. Now, if you can't trust a fix, what can you trust?"
1.Sen Levin has been for changing the nomination process
for years.The senator does not believe Ia & NH should have special
status & argued both had gotten waivers this year.
However,Sen Levin after some table pounding
offered the MI compromise.
Therefore,I think the by laws & rules committee thought
it was important to support the MI Democratic Party compromise because they were not as worried by a Clinton floor challenge as they were a MI democratic party floor challenge lead by Levin.
2.I agree with those that disagree with the MI compromise.I dont see how the Party can rule uncommitted delegates are Obama delegates.But as has been pointed out many times on Knoxviews delegates can vote as they please .
3.Betty's right the DEAL with the candidates about MI/FLA was ALL about winning Ia/NH.Which I think is Levin's point also.
4.From now till Obama hits the magic number is like watching Tiger
roar down the back nine on Sunday up by 5 strokes.
Something COULD happen BUT not bloody likely.
It really boggles the mind to see the disingenuous arguments proffered by Ickes and the Clinton campaign on the issue of both the Florida and Michigan primaries (note-- they were primaries held under the auspices and authority of the Democratic Party). Clinton signed the pledge and publicly acknowledged the decision to decertify the two primaries in the fall of 2007. She was for the decertification before she was against it.
The primary process is bounded by rules-- rules that were followed yesterday. And, in point of fact, the apportioning of delegates in the Michigan situation was itself proposed by the Michigan Democratic Party, not by the DNC or the Party's RBC. The RBC accepted and approved a motion proffered by the MDP. If anyone was "stealing" delegates from the Clinton camp, it was the MDP. But more than that technicality, the recognition of any of the delegates from these states, which held what can only be described as deeply flawed primaries, is a compromise in favor of the Clinton campaign. To interpret it any other way is to suggest that the RBC's willingness to overturn what was a publicly acknowledged and accepted (by all campaigns) ruling is somehow vindictive towards the Clintons.
This is not a voting-rights issue, because there is no constitutional issue of participation in the nomination process.
The petty, vindictive display by Ickes and Lanny Davis yesterday demonstrates a real lack of state(wo)manship in their camp that must become a remnant of the past if Democrats have any hope in capitalizing on the shifting electoral landscape that is at hand. Personally, I hold Bill (and Hillary too) responsible for much of the implosion of Democratic Party politics in the course of the past 20 years. The politics of triangulation gutted the party as a true, coherent alternative to the neo-con assault.
As the neo-cons have shown their true colors, the moment is at had for a real realignment. Clinton wouldn't, can't, and won't make that shift happen. Will Obama? I don't know. But at least he provides the only opportunity we have right now to make that happen. And his message of hope and engagement MAY motivate people to build a new politics. I'd rather take that risk than return to the the dearth of progressivism that 8 years of Clinton brought us before.
OK, how about this...
There may still be some cards in the deck but Hillary is drawing dead into Obama's Ace high straight flush. It's time to let it all roll off and work together to elect Barack Obama President.
It's time for Hillary supporters to see Obama through some lense other than Clinton Campaign spin and to retarget their guns against John McCain...And for Obama supporters, me included, it's time to be nice.
After all...Obama has become the presumptive nominee without taking lobbyist money, making nice to Rupert Murdoch or Richard Mellon Scaife, and is sitting on a positive bank account and a massive donor list for the general election.
And the Reading assignment, just in case you think Obama can't handle the job...
Link...
I understand that it will take a few days to get over it and realize that we share the common bond of wanting a Democratic President...And this election cycle, that means Barack Obama.
And for Obama supporters, me included, it's time to be nice.
After all...Obama has become the presumptive nominee without taking lobbyist money, making nice to Rupert Murdoch or Richard Mellon Scaife,
Good start there at the making nice thing.
Look, I voted for Hillary, but to call me a Hillary supporter is a large stretch. In other words, I've always been of a divided mind about the candidates.
And it's been clear for sometime that Obama would be the nominee. I will support him wholeheartedly.
So if comments like this (and the one earlier about "for us or against us") rub me the wrong way, just think how they sound to a strong Clinton supporter.
I agree we all need to pull together. As the presumptive nominee, Obama has to be the leader in this effort. I expect him to do that well, and I hope his supporters will follow suit.
Ask yourself why those comments rub you the wrong way...It has been a perception of many observers that the Clinton campaign has been attempting to poison the well in subtle and not so subtle ways throughout this whole process so that it becomes more difficult for Obama in the general election.
I keep searching for some other answer to the question of why Hillary continues her campaign, but I can't see one. Hillary Clinton is a rather intelligent person. It is not because she actually thinks she can win in this election cycle...
We can all watch and see what she does after Wednesday, but her speech tonight was not one of reconciliation.
Ask yourself why those comments rub you the wrong way...It has been a perception of many observers that the Clinton campaign has been attempting to poison the well in subtle and not so subtle ways throughout this whole process so that it becomes more difficult for Obama in the general election.
I, along with many other observers (geez, do I hate unattributed accusations), find that perception to be b.s. And it's partly the b.s. (i.e., the evil bitch from hell Hillary) that rubs me the wrong way.
It's also listening to Democrats talk about one of the Democratic candidates using all the Republican talking points from the 90s.
Mostly, however, it's the implication that I don't have good, independent judgment that irritates me. Tthe fact that some Obama supporters can't give me credit for making a reasoned judgemnt to vote for someone other than their candidate is insulting. (And yes, there are Hillary supporters who act the same way about people who voted for Obama - they annoy me just as much.)
It's the condescension that gets me. If I voted for Hillary it means I must be stupid, easily manipulated, or deluded. Baloney. It just means I had a preference for her in a contest where there was very little daylight between the two candidates on issues.
Hillary isn't the devil. Obama isn't a saint. There were pluses & minuses on both sides of the ledger. Reasonable people could make a decision to support either. Reasonable people would respect others' decisions to support either. People who don't want McCain in the WH don't denigrate the judgment, intelligence, and good intentions of the people who should be their allies.
Enough already. I started out this conversation mildly irritated; now I'm just pissed off.
I wish I'd written this.
We'll see.
"Update: I should point out that Obama hasn't quite clinched and nobody should expect Clinton to concede until he crosses the finish line. I could be wrong, and she'll decide to take it to the convention like Jackson did in 88, Kennedy did in 80 and Reagan did in 76. But I doubt it."
If the addendum scenario -- and Ickes' threat -- come true, the outcome will mirror that of '80 and '88.
Nail, hammer, head. I was thinking about this today.
The first test of his Hope Ray / Powers Of Transcendence isn't going to be kumbaya with the Republican Party should Obama win the presidency. It's going to be circling the wagons with former Hillary supporters in the event that he wins the nomination.
And dismissing their complaints as illegitimate and calling them a bunch of crybaby losers is sorta not in the best interests of unity. The "You Owe Us Your Vote / Where Ya Gonna Go, Huh?" strategem failed with the Naderites and this is much, much bigger than that. We're not talking about just 4-5% of the vote that he stands to lose. Clinton and Obama are very close together on policy matters, and they speak to a couple degrees of difference within the mainstream of the party - but that said, it's a difference large enough to make the popular vote a statistical tie.
I reckon this is why the superdelegates have been super-wary. They don't want to alienate the Hillary Clinton camp, as their votes are just as legitimate as the votes cast for any other nominee, and her aggregate numbers (polling, turnout, delegates won) have been and continue to be pretty substantial.
Of course, I'm "just" a Hillary Clinton supporter so maybe my opinions don't count for much in the likeliest event of an Obama nom. Fair enough. I reckon my vote still counts for something, though - and I'm not just going to go bugger off with the concerns I have about Obama as a candidate (I thought Harold Ford Jr was a sucktastic candidate but it didn't stop me from toeing his line, albeit reservedly so).
____________________________
"It's gettin' so a businessman can't expect no return from a fixed fight. Now, if you can't trust a fix, what can you trust?"
Post new comment