home

DNC Rules Committee Meeting: Live-Blog With BTD and TL

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:34:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Big Tent Democrat and I will be live-blogging here.

This is thread one. Please comment below as usual if you want to live blog along with us or post comments. If you use the commenter screen in our live-blogging software, no one will see the messages but us.

We'll start new threads when comments reach about 200.

The live-blog is below the fold so that we could make it larger than the front page allows.

< FL/MI Rules Hearing: Reader's Open Thread | DNC Rules Meeting: Review of Morning Session >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    DNC Rules Committee Meeting: Live-Blog With BTD and TL | 271 comments (271 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    unity? (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by debbie f on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:05:33 AM EST
    its alitle late isn't?

    I hope not (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:06:03 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Hopefully its not too late..... (none / 0) (#97)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:42:03 AM EST
    ...but if this is the approach they are going to take, its clearly not enough.

    [ Parent ]
    Really. (none / 0) (#239)
    by ghost2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:46:42 AM EST
    Dean attacks sexism now?  Where the f has he been during this whole primary campaign, where he should have screamed at media shills, and everyday?

    Too late, buddy.

    [ Parent ]

    respect the voters who did not turn out? (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:06:21 AM EST
    WHAT the heck does that mean?

    and sorry BTD, I understand why Dean is doing it, but its pure (and puerile) grandstanding...

    not to mention the lies Dean just told.  Those lies are a crucial part of this charade....

    I was puzzled by that (none / 0) (#7)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:07:28 AM EST
    sentence from Dean as well.

    [ Parent ]
    I answered you in the live blog (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:09:06 AM EST
    Iowa and NH and SC broke the rules? Swept under the rug, thanks to Harold Ickes and the Clinton campaign.

    This was my point yesterday.

    Now you see how it plays out.

    But Clinton's strategy was BRILLIANT, or so I was told.

    [ Parent ]

    BTD... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:13:11 AM EST
    I agree with you about Ickes et al,...remember?

    my complaint is that you are praising Dean for a speech which sets up for the people who don't read this blog the big fat lies that will be the foundation for today's atrocities...

    [ Parent ]

    My complaint is with the (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:14:13 AM EST
    Clinton Campaign who threw FL and MI under the bus.

    [ Parent ]
    Half FL and MI. (none / 0) (#269)
    by oculus on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:05:35 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    heh (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:10:28 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I beg to differ (none / 0) (#48)
    by PamFl on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:23:05 AM EST
    FL. voters turned out in record numbers. We had an entire year to hear and see the candidates on TV. In normal election years, many states NEVER get to see the candidates. In fact, most voters don't get to see the candidates in person in any election year.
    People in FL. did not stay home, they voted.

    [ Parent ]
    Dean attacked (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:09:05 AM EST
    sexism as a media thing and racism as a global thing.... I didn't like they way he put tht one.

    Plus, it's too late to make me feel better. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Teresa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:11:26 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    And so late in the game! Where was his calling out (none / 0) (#26)
    by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:14:48 AM EST
    of anyone, MCMer or politician, on the sexism...until now? Sheesh. Too little too late, imho. Well, angry opinion.

    [ Parent ]
    I got the sense he was trying to scold (none / 0) (#102)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:44:11 AM EST
    both sides equally:

    Clinton for racism
    Obama for sexism

    Noting that the media and bloggers and people were more responsible, but not detached.

    The fact is Obama's campaign, media, bloggers and supporters have been responsible for both.


    [ Parent ]

    If roosevelt think that the protesters (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:10:42 AM EST
    are going to be knocking on doors if Obama is the nominee, he's crazy
    DNC (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by melro on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:13:45 AM EST
    You got that right!

    [ Parent ]
    I laughed at that too (none / 0) (#25)
    by tnjen on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:14:44 AM EST
    ...there out there because of the way the DNC and media have behaved. IOW, they want just and they support Clinton.

    [ Parent ]
    Herman is sweeping under the rug (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:12:02 AM EST
    the fact that states other than MI and FL violated the rules.

    indeed and that GOP legislatures (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by nulee on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:13:58 AM EST
    changed the timing.... frankly I find her nauseating.  I also hate the clapping - why did they allow this hoopla?  is this american idol?

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary clinton swept it under the rug (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:13:10 AM EST
    Clinton supporters have no complaint to day about this. YOUR CANDIDATE swept it under the rug.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, I disagree with them (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:15:53 AM EST
    and my concern remains with the voters.

    Meanwhile, I think Herman just made a misstatement: that because of the 100% penalty, candidates COULD campaign in MI and FL. I think that's wrong.

    [ Parent ]

    I think it was reality (none / 0) (#42)
    by Step Beyond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:21:13 AM EST
    I've been saying that all along that only the voluntary pledge kept them from campaigning. It is why I don't accept the argument that not campaigning altered the outcome of the election. They chose not to campaign. Heck even Obama admitted the DNC didn't say he couldn't campaign when he was in Florida earlier this month.

    [ Parent ]
    Clarification (none / 0) (#47)
    by Step Beyond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:22:52 AM EST
    I should say, that if they go with the rules are the rules and can not be bypassed then the no campaigning rule was NOT able to be bypassed and anyone who violated it would lose their delegates. So if they MUST remove 50% delegates then the MUST remove ALL delegates from anyone who campaigned.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, DNC gave Obama a pass early on, (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:26:01 AM EST
    before the primary and as he had made his "press availability" comments and had the "national" ad buy.

    [ Parent ]
    Pledge writers (none / 0) (#77)
    by Step Beyond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:33:40 AM EST
    But when those happened, people turned to the pledge writers not the DNC to see if he would be punished. Obama also asked permission for the national ad buy not from the DNC but from one of the pledge writers.

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry. Stupid question. What's a (none / 0) (#220)
    by derridog on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:39:46 AM EST
    pledge writer?

    [ Parent ]
    Never a stupid question (none / 0) (#226)
    by Step Beyond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:42:10 AM EST
    The people who wrote the 4 state pledge. They are the Dem party leaders of the 4 early states.

    [ Parent ]
    the rules... (none / 0) (#76)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:33:36 AM EST
    not the DNC, said he couldn't campaign

    [ Parent ]
    Those silly rules (none / 0) (#84)
    by Step Beyond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:36:21 AM EST
    Ah but the rules say they'll lose delegates. Without any delegates to lose it became moot. And at no time have I ever heard the DNC position stated as disallowing campaigning.

    The rules also said 50% delegates. They didn't go with the rules. Which is why saying they can't do less than the rules state should be a problem in regards to campaigning.

    [ Parent ]

    I retain the right to disagree with my candidate! (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Burned on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:23:20 AM EST
    And that's all I have to say about it! :)

    [ Parent ]
    Claims that (none / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:14:13 AM EST
     the "maximum penalty" was 100%.

    Show me, Ms. Herman, where that appears in the rules????

    [ Parent ]

    She said CHOSE to make it 100%--Broke the Rules! (none / 0) (#30)
    by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:15:51 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Clinton gave them a pass yesterday (none / 0) (#34)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:18:01 AM EST
    on bringing up all the rules!  I am still frustrated about that.

    [ Parent ]
    The pre-window concept is her crutch (none / 0) (#67)
    by ruffian on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:30:41 AM EST
    I thought there was no mention of these windows in the rules?  She's essentially saying that the states already allowed into the pre-window were allowed to move around.  I guess that is what Clinton agrees with.

    [ Parent ]
    Dean decrying sexism now (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by RalphB on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:16:45 AM EST
    is utter BS.  Where were any of these gutless windbags when it counted?  If you're not there when it counts, you should just STFU.

    Just words, indeed (none / 0) (#169)
    by Practically Lactating on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:19:10 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Is it too early (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by stillife on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:18:57 AM EST
    for a drinking game?  Take a shot every time they mention "the roolz" and be flat on your a$$ by 11 a.m. EST.

    Frankly BTD (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:19:03 AM EST

    But he is stating the CLINTON posiition on this so you Clinton supporters have no complaint.
    I think that's not fair. If what he's saying is false and unfair, the Clinton campaign's position on this is irrelevant.

    Excuse (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:20:02 AM EST
    He IS stating the Clinton positon. Harold Ickes told me so yesterday.

    [ Parent ]
    So? (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:21:15 AM EST
    I said yesterday that the Clinton campaign was absolutely wrong. I'm not bound by what they say.

    [ Parent ]
    So? (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:23:21 AM EST
    So once the Clinton campaign DISAGREED with the truth, the fight was over.

    [ Parent ]
    Assuming that only the Clinton campaign (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:25:09 AM EST
    can fight for the Florida voters. Perhaps that's true. . .

    [ Parent ]
    But no one expects anything (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by RalphB on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:27:09 AM EST
    from Obama.  That would not be fair  :-)

    [ Parent ]
    Clinton has no standing here (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Cream City on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:35:36 AM EST
    for pity's sake, and that's the crux of it.  We have seen for months that the states are divided within about what to do; remember the revote debates?

    Of course, both candidates are in the wings on this -- but neither candidate has any standing in this hearing.  Only state parties do.  So I find the attacks on Clinton here -- "why isn't she here?"  "why didn't she do this or that?" -- not only tiresome, if darned revealing of some here, but pointless and as clueless as the RBC, although at least it gets this point.

    [ Parent ]

    I think it's insulting to the voters (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:37:02 AM EST
    that her campaign has accepted that Florida has no safe harbor.

    It's also stupid for her politically.

    [ Parent ]

    BS (none / 0) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:37:29 AM EST
    Clinton has intervened in this matter and YESTERDAY Clinton agreed that Florida and Michigan violated the rules and the RBC has done nothing but wonderful things.

    I can not believe that you are going to give Clinton a pass for that.

    I am disappointed in ALL of you Clinton supporters on this.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh please.... (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:40:22 AM EST
    She has been fighting for the voters for months.  Obviously, the FL people want to accept a deal.  Jesus, you can't blame Hillary for that.

    [ Parent ]
    I damn sure can (none / 0) (#94)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:40:53 AM EST
    and do.

    [ Parent ]
    That's ridiculous. (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:43:25 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Agreed (none / 0) (#105)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:45:34 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I think your view (none / 0) (#117)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:56:05 AM EST
    is ridiculous. You criticize Obama, rightly, for it, but you give Clinton a pass. Look in the mirror at how you accept everything Clinton does but scream bloody murder at what Obama does.

    Hypocrite.

    [ Parent ]

    I am not giving anyone a pass. (none / 0) (#121)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:58:01 AM EST
    It's in Hillary's interest to seat all the delegates.  Obviously, the rules committee has already told them that won't happen.

    [ Parent ]
    What!!!! (none / 0) (#124)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:59:23 AM EST
    You are totally giving Clinton a pass.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, this is unbelievable. (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:02:08 AM EST
    Please tell me why Hillary wouldn't want all the delegates seated in full?

    [ Parent ]
    What is unbeleivableis your (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:04:27 AM EST
    ability to be disingenuous.

    Clinton cut her best deal and threw Florida and Michigan under the bus.

    I can not stand the hypocrisy.

    [ Parent ]

    Cut her best deal? (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:05:31 AM EST
    Absurd.  Her best deal is for all the delegates to be seated.  

    [ Parent ]
    You can only have a deal when (none / 0) (#191)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:27:55 AM EST
    opposing sides agree. That was her best case scenario, not the best deal she could make.

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    I agree with you about that (none / 0) (#138)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:05:29 AM EST
    I wish you would put away your broad brush, though.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, I'm disappointed, too (none / 0) (#103)
    by Cream City on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:44:21 AM EST
    as this is a blog by lawyers, after all, and I would think that the issue of standing would be addressed as commenter after commenter called for Clinton to speak for Florida or Michigan or, heck, why not for American Samoa?  If New York was involved in this, she couldn't even speak for it, unless asked to do so by the state party -- as it is an issue between state parties and the national Dem organization.

    There are plenty of cases in which I would like to speak before the judge and jury, but I don't have standing.  Heck, TL and BTD would like to speak before the RBC, I bet, but you don't have standing.  Nor can you, or Clinton, make these very divided state parties take your stance.

    Actually, she and her campaign and super-delegates have less ability to do so -- as the DNC can do nothing to you, but it can strike fear into them.


    [ Parent ]

    Excuse me (none / 0) (#126)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:00:26 AM EST
    Layers like me know that the right to intervene allows you to make all the arugments you wish to make.

    Please do not lecture me about the law. You look foolish.

    [ Parent ]

    An intervenor (none / 0) (#134)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:03:24 AM EST
    is a PARTY to the action. But suppose it was just the right to file an amicus brief, then file the best damn amicus brief you can put together.

    I am dismayed at the way Clinton supporters are giving Clinton a pass on this.

    [ Parent ]

    Are oyu hearing Aussmann? (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:26:54 AM EST
    On his knees begging.

    [ Parent ]
    Jeralyn is right, all they care about (none / 0) (#63)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:28:35 AM EST
    at this point is getting the Florida vote count included, officially.  I guess that is okay, but I would still like all the truth told.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, and it's disgusting. (none / 0) (#64)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:28:36 AM EST
    This is wrong.

    [ Parent ]
    They have decided not to (none / 0) (#69)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:30:52 AM EST
    have a fight, just make nice, kissy kissy! Bleck!

    [ Parent ]
    This is not a surprise (none / 0) (#66)
    by Step Beyond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:30:24 AM EST
    Ausman has been talking about only asking for 50% all along. Plus he has always supported the opinion that Florida violated the rules. I've never expected much from him.

    I really hope Graham is going to speak. My hope lies with him.

    [ Parent ]

    what a joke (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by debbie f on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:19:04 AM EST
    the dnc states it was the fla state goverments fault and they are going to punish the voters -- unbelievable!!!!!!

    Alexis herman is lying... (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:19:23 AM EST
    the rules forbid candidates from campaigning in states that have violated the sanctions...

    A presidential candidate who campaigns in a state where the state party is in violation of the timing provisions of these rules, or where a primary or caucus is set by a state's government on a date that violates the timing provisions of these rules, may not receive pledged delegates or delegate votes from that state. Candidates may, however, campaign in such a state after the primary or caucus that violates these rules.

    You don't allow something with a "however" unless its forbidden under other circumstances

    Rule 20 C 1 b

    Have RBC members just made up their own rules (none / 0) (#51)
    by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:24:28 AM EST
    all along?

    Weird.

    So, rules state SD's cannot be penalized? Hhhmmmm.

    MSNBC seems to taking narrative line that this is somehow "unfair."

    [ Parent ]

    yeah.,... (none / 0) (#70)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:31:12 AM EST
    there is no "pre-window" in the rules, for instance.  Yet, it is the existence of some kind of defined "pre-window" that Alexis Herman talks about.

    There are two ways to read rule 11.  Either it requires all states to abide by the timing in the rule, OR it permits states who are not allowed to go prior to February 5th to do so IF one of the early states goes before its designated date.

    Either Michigan was permitted to move its date after NH announced it was moving its date, or NH, SC, and IA were in violation of the rules, and required to MORE proof than Florida (because Florida's was inadequate) of "positive, provable" actions of their efforts to stay within the timelines

    [ Parent ]

    No commercials on C-SPAN (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:22:28 AM EST


    C Span (none / 0) (#54)
    by melro on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:25:27 AM EST
    Thanks. No Wolf Blitzer either.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh noh (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:27:17 AM EST
    he said Healing process, which means "give up and shut up"

    Ausman accepts that the penalty is appropriate (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:27:48 AM EST
    WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Yeah - that is totally weird (none / 0) (#72)
    by nulee on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:31:48 AM EST
    any background on this guy? What's his angle?

    [ Parent ]
    If CNN (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Emma on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:29:52 AM EST
    and MSNBC are problematic, I'm watching on C-Span.  no commentary no commercials.

    Seriously (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:35:48 AM EST
    Whoopdeedoo, he is fighting like hell for the Super Delegates!!

    He's throwing Florida voters under the bus.

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Step Beyond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:38:22 AM EST
    I've been under the bus so long I'm no longer three dimensional. :D

    [ Parent ]
    but if they accept SDs they have to accept (none / 0) (#89)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:38:40 AM EST
    popular vote...the DNC will have to accept the votes.

    [ Parent ]
    grrrr.... (5.00 / 7) (#90)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:38:44 AM EST
    But he is stating the CLINTON posiition on this so you Clinton supporters have no complaint.

    I find the idea that my support of Clinton for the Democratic nomination means that I have to agree with whatever the Clinton team does really offensive, BTD.

    We don't insist that you 'have no complaint' when Obama does something stupid.  Please show us the same respect...

    Absolutely..... (5.00 / 5) (#95)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:40:56 AM EST
    I have the utmost respect for Hillary Clinton. The strategical decisions made by her campaign....not so much.

    [ Parent ]
    oh my gawd... (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:46:21 AM EST
    we have an idiot saying thzt there is no language in the charter saying "delegates = votes"

    a delegate is someone to whom authority is delegated to act on the behalf of others -- if they can't vote, they don't have the authority delegated to them.

    Except in the U.S. Congress (none / 0) (#107)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:47:55 AM EST
    where "delegates" don't have votes. . .

    [ Parent ]
    Literal interpretations of the 'rules' (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:50:16 AM EST
    are what drive me crazy about religious fundamentalism.  

    Literal interpretations are not always a good thing.

    Obama's propaganda campaign (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by Josey on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:58:07 AM EST
    was on full display this morning on Wash Journal.
    Obamamite callers stating Hillary "broke the rules" by leaving her name on the MI ballot.
    There was no rule stating candidates couldn't be on any state ballots!
    Oh - and she "broke the rules" by holding fundraisers in FL.
    All candidates were allowed to hold private fundraisers!

    Obamamites don't question why - since both FL & MI broke the 4 state rule, Obama's name was on the FL ballot and never asked for it to be removed.

    8 years of Bush propaganda promoted by Repubs and the media - and now we're nominating a candidate with the same tactics. And it's no more acceptable from a Dem than a Repub.
    Scary!

    I hope and believe that Bill Nelson (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:00:49 AM EST
    will talk about the voters.

    And he is (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:01:22 AM EST
    Thank god.

    [ Parent ]
    I wish I could be there to clap! (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:02:14 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I clapped and hollered in my living room (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by lobary on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:18:38 AM EST
    My cat is giving my funny looks.

    Nelson has been fantastic.

    [ Parent ]

    Neson just got re-elected -- for life. (none / 0) (#180)
    by Cream City on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:22:49 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The subject of the voters (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by talex on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:03:11 AM EST
    will come up with another presenter. They each have their role.
    Bill Nelson (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Radiowalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:05:08 AM EST
    is making a powerful argument.
    Tip of the hat to Senator Nelson!

    I'm a little surprised (none / 0) (#145)
    by Step Beyond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:06:56 AM EST
    His comments lately have been more in support of the 50% reduction. So I had expected he would be less about the voters. I'm very pleasantly surprised.

    [ Parent ]
    Nelson (none / 0) (#146)
    by melro on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:07:03 AM EST
    What he is saying...Ditto for Michigan. We had the 3rd largest turnout ever.

    [ Parent ]
    "One person, one vote" (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by joanneleon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:06:49 AM EST
    Bill Nelson:

    They committed no crime.  They did not move the election forward.  And yet they would be the ones who are punished.  They do not deserve to be punished.  They deserve to be heard.

    We're pretty sensitive to our votes being taken away.  We were disenfranchised in 2000... divisive and disruptive acts by the Republican party..

    the 24 hr news cycle repeatedly kept telling floridians that their votes would not count.. yet when the polls closed, democrats had voted in record numbers... and that vote was certified by the SoS.. vast majority of dems said that they went to the polls in FL despite what they had been told that their votes didn't count... they wanted to cast their vote for a pres nominee.. there was a democratic silence in our state, a state that is accustomed to high profile campaigning.. fl voters took it to the streets

    Nelson, wow! I had not expected to be so impressed (none / 0) (#183)
    by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:23:40 AM EST
    He made a very political argument.

    Who is this MacDonald?

    [ Parent ]

    Bill Nelson!! (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:07:34 AM EST
    My senator is doing me proud today.

    BTD was right yesterday (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:07:47 AM EST
    when he said that Bill Nelson would be the best speaker. So far, he has been.

    You say to those voter..... (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by zfran on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:12:08 AM EST
    Hillary wanted to have a re-vote, Obama refused!!!

    Ms Griffin (Obama supporter) (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by joanneleon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:12:41 AM EST
    "Not all voters are created equal?"

    What the heck is she saying?

    She was ridiculous. (none / 0) (#157)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:15:52 AM EST
    Who the hell was clapping for her?

    [ Parent ]
    Well, at last, somebody says (none / 0) (#163)
    by Cream City on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:17:30 AM EST
    what has been clear from the start in the DNC machinations.  Amend that:  Prima Donna let it slip, too, but on CNN.  Now an Obama supporter has said it on the record of the DNC, for posterity -- and for the historical record of this atrocity of a Dem campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    Fu*&ing A! GO Bill Nelson!!! (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by nulee on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:15:32 AM EST
    Tell them the RULZ!!

    What's with all the "uncommitted" (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by joanneleon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:16:28 AM EST
    committee members?  Mr. McDonald's name is followed by "uncommitted" but he doesn't seem too neutral to me.

    How many of these committee members are supposed to be uncommitted or undeclared when they really aren't?

    nasty piece of work this McDonald (none / 0) (#164)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:17:48 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Do not attack a southerner (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by Step Beyond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:19:53 AM EST
    What a mistake for the RBC to question Nelson. Nelson has been involved all along and tried repeatedly. He has been repeatedly frustrated by the RBC. This could get really interesting.

    Nelson is a "Professional" (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by cdalygo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:20:12 AM EST
    Party hacks take note. This is HOW you win elections

    As a proud Hillary supporter, BTD, I'm glad to see it. He's getting the facts out that the Rulz committee tried to smother. Plus he's doing it in a way that the public CAN understand.

    Which is what the Clinton camp (none / 0) (#182)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:23:11 AM EST
    should have done.

    [ Parent ]
    Some of the DNC argument is looking (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:21:33 AM EST
    like this has been a contrived effort to force MI and FL into a caucus from the very beginning.

    That was their same effort when the discussions of getting a "re-vote" in both states, as well.

    Nelson certainly made a solid argument for the voters and against the DNC's efforts to change the FL process to an Obama-friendly caucus.

    Wow, he was great (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Democratic Cat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:22:05 AM EST
    I love Bill Nelson.  Never thought I'd say that.

    Nelson v. McDonald (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by Kensdad on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:22:22 AM EST
    Sen. Nelson kicked the butt of that pompous turd, mcdonald...  it was nice to see him tuck his squirrely little tail and run for the hills after Nelson put him in his place.  maybe now he'll shut up?

    i'm surprisingly impressed ... (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:22:26 AM EST
    by Nelson..he put both of the committee Obots in their place... and the third Obot was afraid to even ask a question

    Indeed (none / 0) (#184)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:23:53 AM EST
    And he proved that BTD was right yesterday about which challenge the Clinton Campaign should have gone forward with.

    [ Parent ]
    Right--I've always seen Nelson (FL) as milquetoast (none / 0) (#196)
    by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:30:59 AM EST
    But, here today, defending his state's voters, he had true fire in his belly. I could vote for this guy.

    This was a campaign speech--he used personel anecdotes, named individual Dem voters (probably both a Clinton and an Obama supporter?), appealed strongly and emotionally to the need to Count Each Vote and Value Each Voter.  

    Then he laid out the nefarious dealings of Repubs in enough detail, but with strong enough narrative that even the MCM (mainstream corporate media) should be able to understand it!

    [ Parent ]

    Roosevelt and Herman don't look happy (5.00 / 4) (#179)
    by joanneleon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:22:41 AM EST
    as Nelson finishes speaking and the crowd stands up whistling and clapping.  Roosevelt has kind of a bitten lip, twisted look on his face.

    Roosevelt "hearts" Obama (none / 0) (#190)
    by Kensdad on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:26:36 AM EST
    he has commented privately that Obama is the most inspiring and charismatic democrat EVER...  including his great (or is it "great, great"?) grandfather, teddy...

    so, he's not in the tank for anyone, eh?

    [ Parent ]

    I am starting to understand Jeralyn's (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:24:08 AM EST
    argument better now.  I can see how legalistic challenges would not have gone over well in this setting.  They are trying to get the votes counted but an adversarial approach would have left Clinton open to accusations of "stealing" the election or trying to anyway.

    Exactly. (none / 0) (#187)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:25:17 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Except that the Florida Democrats (none / 0) (#188)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:25:31 AM EST
    have an iron-clad argument. They should have put forward their best argument.

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly. And the DNC can exact (none / 0) (#193)
    by Cream City on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:28:41 AM EST
    tremendous punishments on FL and MI super-delegates.  (So can Obama, for that matter, with his money.)  It's how politics, she is played.

    [ Parent ]
    The Charter's SHALL means nothing to the RBC? (none / 0) (#202)
    by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:32:10 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The RBC SHALL (none / 0) (#261)
    by Cream City on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:56:43 AM EST
    read the "just words" of the rules as it pleases; isn't that clear yet?  Of course, the word shall SHOULD mean what it means, but so SHOULD have many other words and clear -- to me -- provisions and proscriptions in the rules.

    [ Parent ]
    Nonsense (none / 0) (#197)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:31:00 AM EST
    Nelson's argument with McDonald, perhaps his best moments, were entirely legalistic. That is the argument the Clinton camp threw away.

    [ Parent ]
    Isn't Nelson also part of the ongoing (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by zfran on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:39:53 AM EST
    lawsuit on behalf of FL. So of course, legalities enter the realm. There are legal arguments and political ones. Each, carry their liabilities.

    [ Parent ]
    His legal arguments were made in politically savvy (none / 0) (#213)
    by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:35:49 AM EST
    way -- electrifying.

    And, again, maybe the MCM will now report the role of the Repubs in messing up FL's Dem primary.

    Faint hope...but he made it a good story. And the MCM loves conflict, which came about from MacDonal's (sp?) questions.

    The story of the paper trail on electronic voting machines is, or SHOULD be, a compelling story for every Dem, every voter, every member of the DNC.

    C'mon, Howard! Make the COUNT THE VOTES happen. Seat the delegates.

    Boy, Nelson got me right fired up.

    [ Parent ]

    Nelson was great (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by stillife on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:25:06 AM EST
    Joyner is good, too.  I like how she's bringing up civil rights.

    DK hates Bill Nelson (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Josey on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:25:58 AM EST
    because his comments conflict with Obama's propaganda.
    Yup, they are trashing Nelson (none / 0) (#217)
    by Radiowalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:38:05 AM EST
    big time over at the ObamaOrange.

    [ Parent ]
    What will the Obama side do after (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:29:26 AM EST
    her?  say NO?  

    will they deride (none / 0) (#198)
    by DFLer on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:31:31 AM EST
    her comparisons to apartheid?

    [ Parent ]
    Not sure (none / 0) (#200)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:31:39 AM EST
    how Obama presents against this and comes out looking like anything other than self-serving.

    [ Parent ]
    she is good! (none / 0) (#201)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:32:07 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Wouldn't be the first time (none / 0) (#203)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:32:11 AM EST
    they showed a preference for themselves over the people of this country.


    [ Parent ]
    Arthenia Joyner for President! (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by stillife on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:31:35 AM EST
    Is it just me, or are the pro-Clinton speakers more interesting?  They're talking about people, rights and votes while the others are talking about the roolz.

    They are on the side of the people.... (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:34:03 AM EST
    ...as opposed to the side of the roolz. That's always a more interesting case to make. Remember the impeachment hearings and how the republicans impaled themselves of the roolz of law?

    [ Parent ]
    of the people, by the people, for the people (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:33:05 AM EST
    good line...

    Arthenia channels Maya Angelou (5.00 / 2) (#207)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:33:08 AM EST
    "You think you may not be heard. Speak anyway."

    Chills from this Joyner's words. The committee may (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:40:06 AM EST
    want to go all Roolz, but it's going to be much more difficult now.

    Hope others will play up the Repub role in all this mess.  

    Dems must not let the Repubs frame the issues, and they d%mn well should not permit the Repubs to ruin our primaries.

    And the house went wild after her speech!!!

    [ Parent ]

    Man (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by Steve M on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:34:26 AM EST
    This is a real stemwinder by Joyner.

    Arthenia Joyner (5.00 / 3) (#214)
    by joanneleon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:35:51 AM EST
    Arthenia Joyner:
    "As Maya Angelou said: 'You  may think you may not be heard.  Speak anyway.' The voters in Florida spoke..."

    I really like this woman.  She exudes strength and confidence.  She's not going to give up.  I like her a lot.  It makes my heart feel good to hear her words.  It eases the frustration and pain I've felt over this rotten primary process, and I can physically feel the difference in my body as she speaks.

    Arthenia is speaking to SDs (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:36:45 AM EST
    right now.  

    wow... (5.00 / 2) (#216)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:37:14 AM EST
    she's tossing Dean's words back at him and the DNC.

    There are hundreds of Arthenias (5.00 / 3) (#218)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:39:41 AM EST
    in state and local politics.  They have worked for decades and they have alliances and have done tons of work, some in the Obama campaign have tried to diminish these leaders for aligning with Hillary. Arthenia is not unique or unusual--people from the Civil Rights and boomer generation.  

    I disagree with Jeralyn on Joyner (5.00 / 2) (#219)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:39:46 AM EST
    I thought she was supremely effective. She and Bill Nelson put forward Flroida's best argument. The Florida voters are the angels of this situation.

    Arthenia! (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by BoGardiner on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:40:47 AM EST
    Yes!

    She staked out Hillary Clinton's position as the moral high ground in a truly inspirational way.  I am proud.

    I want it ALL (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:42:33 AM EST


    UGH! Donna Brazile (5.00 / 1) (#229)
    by vicsan on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:43:31 AM EST
    is asking a question. Thanks to her, we're here today.

    took a long time (none / 0) (#235)
    by DFLer on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:46:15 AM EST
    to get to the question!

    [ Parent ]
    The committee Obama supporters (5.00 / 1) (#240)
    by vicsan on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:46:52 AM EST
    keep trying to use the argument that some people didn't vote because they thought they wouldn't count. AND who's fault is that? 1. Donna Brazile's and 2. the people who chose to stay home! BOGUS argument..

    Brazile is so STUPID (5.00 / 1) (#241)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:47:02 AM EST
    I wish they would start talking about the revote now, and who blocked it

    Gosh (5.00 / 1) (#242)
    by Steve M on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:47:08 AM EST
    I totally do not understand what it means to represent people who didn't show up, but it takes a lot of chutzpah to demand justice for people who didn't show up when it was your own fault (yes, you, Donna!) that so many people didn't show up!

    This much I know: Penalizing the Florida delegation will not give those "people who didn't show up" any additional representation whatsoever.

    Brazile is nervous--wonder why (5.00 / 1) (#243)
    by kempis on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:47:10 AM EST
    And I guess "those who didn't show up" to vote were all Obama supporters.

    And what the hell is she implying--that Joyner doesn't care about diversity?

    WTF?

    Brazile fighting for the NON-voter!!! (5.00 / 1) (#246)
    by Emma on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:47:25 AM EST
    Brazile fighting for the NON-voter!!!

    WTF else is new?  You didn't vote, your non-vote is the same regardless of whether the delegates are seated.  What, we're supposed to count your non-vote twice, first in the primary and second by not counting anybody else's votes???!?  How does that make ANY sense?

    Two points (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:03:38 AM EST
    First, Dean's speech has gotten better. He just had some annoying puffery at the beginning.

    Second, the right side of the liveblog box is cutoff for me.

    cutoff for me too. (none / 0) (#2)
    by Teresa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:04:32 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I told Jeralyn (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:06:22 AM EST
    I hipe she can fix it by the time we have the meat of this meeting.

    [ Parent ]
    I can read almost everything, so it isn't (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:07:39 AM EST
    too bad. You might break your lines early, but it doesn't really matter.

    [ Parent ]
    No problem using Mozilla (none / 0) (#28)
    by DFLer on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:15:40 AM EST
    shows all....I have my puter set to tab to IE too, so I see what you see....

    view thru Mozilla, no problem,

    [ Parent ]

    It was broken in Safari (none / 0) (#78)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:33:48 AM EST
    Now fixed.

    [ Parent ]
    happy to hear that (none / 0) (#80)
    by DFLer on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:34:49 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Quick reminder on how to stop the scrolling (none / 0) (#86)
    by standingup on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:37:04 AM EST
    or automatic refresh of the live blogging box.  Look to the bottom right hand portion of the box, just to the right of "Cover It Live" are 5 buttons.  Click on the second button (just to the right of the speaker) to stop the auto scrolling.  

    If you hold your cursor over the button, you will see "Toggle Auto Scrolling" pop up.  Click on the button to stop the auto scroll and the circle will    be outlined in red with a cross through the center.  

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks!! n/t (none / 0) (#93)
    by Emma on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:40:36 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    What's going on with the protests? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Radiowalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:10:37 AM EST
    I got up at 6:30 to watch, but neither CNN nor MSNBC had any shots of the protests, only CSPAN had a split-screen showing some of the people marching with signs.

    I saw some coverage (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by joanneleon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:32:41 AM EST
    but they were only close in shots of people along the streets.  I saw no wider views and could get no sense of how many people were there.  I really wonder what's going on.  It was played down, big time, IMHO.   Kinda like the peace marches.  "Nothing to see here"

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah but Dean and Brazile can see it. (none / 0) (#91)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:39:26 AM EST
    Hopefully its enough people to give them a big healthy dose of reality. Tepid calls for "unity" are not going to cut it.

    [ Parent ]
    DNC (none / 0) (#16)
    by melro on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:13:00 AM EST
    What? The first to break the lineup was NH!!! Where do they get their convuluted thinking.

    Not according to the Clinton campaign (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:13:30 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    BTD. I'm sorry (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by felizarte on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:42:28 AM EST
    but must you keep repeating this?  It makes me think/feel that no matter what the outcome of this meeting is, it's the Clinton camp's fault!.  You covered this in your diary yesterday and you keep adding it as a tagline to your responses.

    Please don't take this as an attack on you.  It is a complaint to someone I know has prime position in this site.

    [ Parent ]

    But you agree BTD o NH, no? (none / 0) (#24)
    by nulee on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:14:44 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Of coruse (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:19:19 AM EST
    But no one will argue for FL and MI from the Clinton campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    Herman (none / 0) (#27)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:15:35 AM EST
    seems to be putting forward the position in the Clinton letter released yesterday.

    DNC (none / 0) (#29)
    by melro on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:15:42 AM EST
    Different standards--is that what they call their lopsided justice?

    DNC (none / 0) (#33)
    by melro on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:17:17 AM EST
    What a time to take a break!

    They sure are telling the press they only (none / 0) (#40)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:19:53 AM EST
    did what they had to do, they are the good guys! Yuck!

    Are they going to reslove Obama (none / 0) (#44)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:21:36 AM EST
    of blocking revotes?

    RBC demanded FL Dems hold its own event (none / 0) (#45)
    by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:22:18 AM EST
    Huge state of FL, Dem Party not in power, WOW.

    But he is mentioning that FL State caused the date change. Did he mention it was Repubs in total and complete control of the state levers of power?
    $880,000 of DNC money toward alt. event?? State Dems concluded impossible to implement.

    Is Roosevelt giving all facts?

    Chuck todd explaining (none / 0) (#52)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:24:35 AM EST
    the SDs cannot be penalized. Will maybe take magic number to 2131.

    Roosevelt (none / 0) (#55)
    by joanneleon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:25:27 AM EST
    (pseudo transcript)

    will begin with setting background wrt the florida challenge.. following that we'll take up michigan

    florida: last summer they came to this comm w/ impassioned plea for jan 29.. FL asked for this comm's consideration b/c of a republican action and repub gov.. comm acted in the only way it could.. found it in noncompliance b/c of jan 29 date.. finding of noncompliance meant that the imposition of the auto sanctions, 100% loss unpledged, however in effort to show comm's seriousness in enforcing the window.. and to recog the compliance of other states who wished to move fwd but didn't.. decided 100% loss.. important to remember the context... candidates.. rumors of other states going to violate.. in media news that some primaries might start in december or around thanksgiving.. to avoid loss of delegates this comm was very clear that FL could and should conduct it's own state party primary on feb 5.. SD did that in 1998, AZ, MI, DE did that in 2000.. this was not some theoretical possibility.. should also remember that the DNC and its leadership had conversations with FL leaders about date before feb 5 would violate the rules and would face no penalties if held after feb 5.  after found in noncompliance last august, DNC continued to discuss, at one time even offering to pay the cost of alt event, 880K.. ultim FL party decided it would be logistically impossible.. that's the background.. we have john osmond.

    Correction: John Ausman (none / 0) (#61)
    by joanneleon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:27:43 AM EST
    not Osmond (but it's pronounced like "Osmon")

    [ Parent ]
    T/U, I'd missed most of Roosevelt's comments (none / 0) (#68)
    by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:30:50 AM EST
    Big breakdown seems to me to be the ad hoc and new rule of 100% just bcz they could and wanted to!

    [ Parent ]
    Elsewhere - WSJ reporting no Tues end (none / 0) (#57)
    by nulee on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:26:17 AM EST
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121219668684234615.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_topbox

    GO HILLAR!!!!

    thks for ray of hope, nice read. (none / 0) (#140)
    by dotcommodity on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:05:35 AM EST
    All the way to Denver, for me.

    [ Parent ]
    I am coming away from this with a different (none / 0) (#71)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:31:33 AM EST
    impression than some of you. Interesting.

    what is it? (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:32:32 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Charter: They SHALL be delegates (SD's) (none / 0) (#75)
    by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:33:35 AM EST
    I like this argument!
    BUt what's he going to say about the unpledged delegates?

    How many SDs would each candidate (none / 0) (#79)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:34:23 AM EST
    get from FL, have any gone public with support?  Clinton must think she will get the lion share.

    You can find the details here: (none / 0) (#125)
    by minordomo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:59:48 AM EST
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29_superdelegates%2C_2008#Uns eated_superdelegates_from_Florida_and_Michigan

    Of the ones who have declared support one way or the other (25 out of the 55), 15 declared for Clinton, 10 for Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    Please do not trust Wikipedia (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by kenosharick on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:30:30 AM EST
    It is an open site where anyone can post anything. I woul use it to settle a bar bet maybe, but NEVER for anything of importance. I am currently in the academic world where wikipedia is considered a joke.

    [ Parent ]
    thank you (none / 0) (#130)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:01:27 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Ausman (none / 0) (#83)
    by melro on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:35:56 AM EST
    Is he heading for totally stripping all delegates and not half?

    Ausman fighting like mad for the FL SDs bcz that's (none / 0) (#96)
    by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:41:52 AM EST
    his strongest argument.

    Then, when they have to follow the Charter, the RBC will look atrociously bad by taking away the right of FL to have its voted-for delegates cut totally.

    Now, he's on the FL leg moving primary date. He agrees timing rule was violated--not in dispute. But Rule states violation of timing "shall" result in 50% reduction in pledged(?) dels.

    Can't use Rule to justify greater penalty. Additional violations? Totally disagrees: Timing cannot result in additional penalties.

    DNC (none / 0) (#99)
    by melro on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:43:08 AM EST
    Omagawd...I'm lost. No wonder nothing got resolved last night.

    How did someone manage to (none / 0) (#101)
    by nulee on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:43:40 AM EST
    interject a comment into the live-blogging thread? Is that BO supporter hack?  Jesus H Christ!

    SDs (none / 0) (#104)
    by Step Beyond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:45:11 AM EST
    There are 26 Florida superdelegates.

    Who was that first questioner? (none / 0) (#108)
    by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:47:57 AM EST
    Don Fowler now saying Ausman totally incorrect!

    Nothing says Charter delegates (seemed to be term used by Ausman) have greater protections, etc.

    No response allowed from Ausman?

    No rules for delegates (none / 0) (#109)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:48:05 AM EST
    What the he!!.  No right to vote in rules?  Is there a rule to deny them a vote?  What are they talking about. ok, I'm not a lawyer, I will wait to have this explained.

    as a florida DNC member (none / 0) (#115)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:55:18 AM EST
    he can't vote on an appeal which affects him...

    conflict of interest -- perfectly reasonable

    [ Parent ]

    So if they are the same (none / 0) (#110)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:48:28 AM EST
    does that mean they can't take regular delegates either?

    DNC (none / 0) (#112)
    by melro on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:50:25 AM EST
    I'm glad this is an attorney's website so they can decipher all of this for us.

    What's really odd about Clinton accepting (none / 0) (#113)
    by kayla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:52:41 AM EST
    the cherry picking of the rules is that it was so obvious that she was planning on calling out the DNC on their unfair treatment.  In the CNN interview, after she won WV and the day Edwards endorsed Obama, she even briefly mentioned "other states" who had broken the rules, but she was cut off by Wolf Blitzer who wanted to go on to some other topic.

    I just don't understand what the Clinton Campaign is doing here.

    everyone has obviously agreed to (none / 0) (#114)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:54:33 AM EST
    make nice, I think there is already a deal....this is just to convince us all that FL and MI should have been punished but we all still love each other...blah blah

    [ Parent ]
    What's really odd (none / 0) (#119)
    by melro on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:57:47 AM EST
    Quit listening to CNN for one thing.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, (none / 0) (#116)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:55:59 AM EST
    BTD -  You know who has not been mentioned once today, except by Dean? The voters. Frankly, the Dem Parrty looks like a bunch of officious, annoying people who do not care about the voters.
    In principle, that's what they are.

    Voters (none / 0) (#118)
    by Step Beyond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:56:35 AM EST
    BTD, You'll recall that in the first meeting the voters were ignored as well. I think only 1 person even considered them at that meeting.

    Yep. Don Fowler. (nt) (none / 0) (#123)
    by Cream City on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:59:19 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Powerful ending (none / 0) (#120)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:57:50 AM EST
    "Florida has been well and truly punished. We are responding to a republicans game and it needs to stop."

    Tells them they have the power to restore ALL the delegates. Gets a large round of applause.

    The (none / 0) (#127)
    by Hope on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:00:30 AM EST
    Florida guy was good. I liked the touch from 1870 or whatever it was
    1876 -- that actually was an allusion (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Cream City on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:14:39 AM EST
    to the 2000 travesty, for those who know the history of the 1876 travesty.  Rove does, as he used it as a roadmap in the similar mess in 2000.

    [ Parent ]
    Did Donna B clap? ;-) (none / 0) (#136)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:04:53 AM EST


    Don't want to jump in on anything (none / 0) (#141)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:05:55 AM EST
    that I have not been following, but there are some things the state DNC has to fight for, and somethings Hillary has to fight.  

    Sez who? (none / 0) (#143)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:06:34 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Says politics and (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:10:47 AM EST
    political perception, she will then be accused of going nuclear and trying to destroy the Party's credibility.  So, she does have to cherry pick and the states should not and must not.  

    [ Parent ]
    Oh well (none / 0) (#151)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:12:00 AM EST
    If that is your calculus, then Hillary should have dropped out months ago.

    Sorry, I am angry with the Clinton supporters today.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm waiting for (none / 0) (#181)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:23:01 AM EST
    the HBO movie to made about this....then the truth will be known! LOL!

    [ Parent ]
    McDonald was fishing for a loophole (none / 0) (#142)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:06:23 AM EST
    "Where does it say that a delegate gets a vote?"

    To me, this suggests he thinks Ausman's analysis/argument carries weight and is dangerous to the consensus.

    Nelson said nothing about half votes. (none / 0) (#150)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:10:54 AM EST
    it was an impassioned speach about the voters.

    enlighten me, please! (none / 0) (#274)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:28:29 AM EST
    what was Nelson proposing?

    [ Parent ]
    Finally, some good stuff!!! (none / 0) (#154)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:13:54 AM EST


    McDonald opens up the 'safe harbor' waiver window! (none / 0) (#159)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:16:27 AM EST
    Nelson leaps thru it like Batman! (Who plays Robin?)

    I wish someone would mention (none / 0) (#162)
    by Josey on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:17:06 AM EST
    that Obama discouraged FL voters from exercising their right to vote because "FL wouldn't have any delegates at the convention."

    Hope the protestors have umbrellas (none / 0) (#167)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:18:47 AM EST
    thunderstorms are headed in their direction.

    Nelson came 'in the spirit of unity' ... (none / 0) (#168)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:18:56 AM EST
    ... but now he's kicking RBC ass!

    you mean AND he is kicking RBC ass (none / 0) (#172)
    by nulee on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:20:57 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I like that Nelson (none / 0) (#173)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:21:20 AM EST


    Bill Nelson is a mench!!!! (none / 0) (#175)
    by zfran on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:21:41 AM EST
    His passion shows and I appreciated it.

    what does this mean...in live blog ? (none / 0) (#192)
    by DFLer on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:28:22 AM EST
    Roosevelt admonishes Nelson to answer the question asked. Nelson asked if he supports Ausman challenge and he says he does.

    thanks

    Ausman made his (none / 0) (#204)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:32:12 AM EST
    argument and Nelson was asked if he agreed with it.  Roosevelt is an Obama supporter... I imagine he was trying to talk Nelson off his game.  Didn't work.....Jeralyn is typing as fast as she can to capture the pertinent point and discussion is going on here.  I'm sure the attorneys on this site will be able to explain more of the rule arguments (not that they agree the correct ones were argued)

    [ Parent ]
    thanks (none / 0) (#225)
    by DFLer on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:40:55 AM EST
    I look forward to a summary of all this,later, so as to understand it better.

    Please can you remind me of Ausman's position, briefly. If that's inappropriate now, I'll await summary diaries.

    It's hard to and get my chores done at the same time!

    thanks

    [ Parent ]

    Yikes, some AAs on the DNC don't look (none / 0) (#205)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:33:01 AM EST
    happy with the speaker, too bad!

    I for one am heartened to see.... (5.00 / 2) (#212)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:35:46 AM EST
    ...a passionate African American speaker on behalf of Hillary Clinton. It kind of puts a lie to the racist crap that's been going around without even having to mention it. Arthenia Joyner is no sellout.

    [ Parent ]
    2209 delegates need when MI & FL (none / 0) (#210)
    by vicsan on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:34:47 AM EST
    are seated.....

    If FL's delegate are seated in full, does that change the total delegates need for the nomination? Hillary's 2209 # - MI delegates? What's this do to that requirement?

    The magic number is half plus one of the (none / 0) (#256)
    by Joan in VA on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:54:34 AM EST
    total delegates. So however many ending up being seated (inc. SD's) will determine the number needed for the nomination.

    [ Parent ]
    Delegates are important (none / 0) (#211)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:35:26 AM EST
    for Clinton.  Some delegates said they would consider it a tie IF she was within 100 and then the popular vote could be used as a criteria.  She wouldn't be able to get those few people to support her is she can't meet their threshold.

    This is a travesty. (none / 0) (#223)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:40:39 AM EST
    Count the votes.  All the votes.  No deals.

    Great answer (none / 0) (#228)
    by stillife on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:43:03 AM EST
    "I've been taught that when you want something, you ask for what you want.  I want it all!"

    Go, Arthenia!

    OMG, here's Donna Brazille.  I wish people would boo her.

    Brazile (none / 0) (#230)
    by Hope on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:44:18 AM EST
    is for Obama

    Please, Donna is still "uncommitted" (none / 0) (#248)
    by zfran on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:48:20 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The obama (none / 0) (#231)
    by Hope on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:45:44 AM EST
    line seems to be that there weren't enough floridians.

    Brazile is such a hack. (none / 0) (#232)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:45:45 AM EST
    The voters who didn't show up?  Give it up.

    Those who didn't show up deserved to have (none / 0) (#233)
    by Teresa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:45:57 AM EST
    exactly what counted Donna? Their non-vote?

    I'm gonna do that in November (none / 0) (#245)
    by stillife on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:47:25 AM EST
    and not vote for Obama.

    Read my non-vote, Donna!

    [ Parent ]

    Donna brings up rules (none / 0) (#234)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:46:12 AM EST
    with regards to the diversity of the delegation?

    Eh?

    What is Donna Talking about? (none / 0) (#236)
    by LibOne on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:46:19 AM EST
    I truly don't get her point.
    WTH is Brazile saying? (none / 0) (#237)
    by stillife on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:46:23 AM EST
    Speaking up for those who didn't vote (who of course in her mind, would have voted for Obama)?  I suppose she can read their intent.

    Brazile (none / 0) (#238)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:46:38 AM EST
    poor Donna what a joke.... represent those that didn't vote... she could care less about counting those that voted for Clinton.  She is a disgrace.

    comment at DK (none / 0) (#244)
    by Josey on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:47:13 AM EST
    "Josh Marshall had a good point - about who exactly stands to be disenfranchised- the numerous citizens who did not vote because they were told they wouldn't count."  

    geeez - and of course they don't know that Obama discouraged his FL supporters from exercising their right to vote.
    Hillary encouraged Floridians to vote! promising to fight to count the votes and seat the delegates.

    inaction is still an action... (none / 0) (#250)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:51:10 AM EST
    when you don't show up to vote, you give up your own voice.

    [ Parent ]
    What is Donna Brazile saying? Give delegates on (none / 0) (#247)
    by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:47:56 AM EST
    basis of diversity? 50% female? What? Percentage of pop, X% Cuban, etc? Black? Choctaw (may be wrong tribe)?

    Gotta have a vote and count it, Dems!

    Uh,...who told them to not (none / 0) (#249)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:50:52 AM EST
    vote, the moronic stripping of the votes DNC rules committee.  What fools they are.  She was shaking, Donna was.  

    Brazile very confrontational (none / 0) (#251)
    by joanneleon on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:51:26 AM EST
    She started out calmly, complimenting Ms. Joyner.  But that didn't last long.  Now she's got very angry eyes, raised voice and shaking a pointed finger at Arthenia Joyner.

    She got a round of applause when she was first introduced but Joyner responded to much crowd applause.

    It sounds to me like Brazile has a small, vociferous group of supporters and Joyner has a much larger group of supporters.

    many Members of the Committee (none / 0) (#252)
    by PennProgressive on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:52:06 AM EST
    look disinterested. While the HRC supporter may have been little too emotional, the committee members looked by and large patrionizing, just waiting for her to finish. But even when Se. Nelson was responding to McDonald a committee member, the second person to the right of mcDonald was yawning! Sems like they have better thinngs to do! It is disappointing.

    many Members of the Committee (none / 0) (#253)
    by PennProgressive on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:52:07 AM EST
    look disinterested. While the HRC supporter may have been little too emotional, the committee members looked by and large patrionizing, just waiting for her to finish. But even when Se. Nelson was responding to McDonald a committee member, the second person to the right of mcDonald was yawning! Sems like they have better thinngs to do! It is disappointing.

    As a Florida voter (none / 0) (#254)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:52:44 AM EST
    I am really disappointed in Wexler and I am sure his district is as well.

    many Members of the Committee (none / 0) (#255)
    by PennProgressive on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:53:05 AM EST
    look disinterested. While the HRC supporter may have been little too emotional, the committee members looked by and large patrionizing, just waiting for her to finish. But even when Se. Nelson was responding to McDonald a committee member, the second person to the right of mcDonald was yawning! Sems like they have better thinngs to do! It is disappointing.

    But BO DID campain in FL! (none / 0) (#257)
    by nulee on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:55:00 AM EST


    Wexler (none / 0) (#258)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:55:26 AM EST
    is shaming himself with how big the kiss is he is giving the RBC.

    He sure is coming across hard-core in favor of the rules, but he's lying about Obama not campaigning in the state. I hope someone on the committee challenges him on that.

    I wonder if more FL voters turned out BECAUSE they (none / 0) (#259)
    by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:55:51 AM EST
    were upset about being disenfranchised by the DNC?

    There is nothing to prove that the turnout would have been double. Indeed, just having the chance to vote in any form for the First Black or First Woman president was probably motivating, even with threat of not being seated.

    (Hey, Wxler--Obama advertised and held one, count it, one!, press conference. And he got a pass.

    Like Hillary did not respect the DNC's policy?? Up yours, Robert.

    Untrue that Obama camp had any fault in there not being a redo primary.

    Obama and his surrogates are a joke. (none / 0) (#260)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:56:19 AM EST
    How can people applaud not counting the votes?  Absurd.  A total joke.  i will never view Obama as legitimate.

    The first Obama speaker is the first (none / 0) (#262)
    by bjorn on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:57:15 AM EST
    adversarial speaker

    So Obama is supporting Ausman (none / 0) (#263)
    by andgarden on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:59:29 AM EST
    which is one reason why Hillary should have asked for more.

    I wonder if more FL voters turned out BECAUSE they (none / 0) (#264)
    by jawbone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:59:43 AM EST
    were upset about being disenfranchised by the DNC?

    There is nothing to prove that the turnout would have been double. Indeed, just having the chance to vote in any form for the First Black or First Woman president was probably motivating, even with threat of not being seated.

    (Hey, Wxler--Obama advertised and held one, count it, one!, press conference. And he got a pass.

    Like Hillary did not respect the DNC's policy?? Up yours, Robert.

    Untrue that Obama camp had any fault in there not being a redo primary.

    No unity (none / 0) (#265)
    by Emma on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:00:43 AM EST
    from Wexler.  This is awful.

    horrible (none / 0) (#266)
    by Cal on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:01:08 AM EST
    Wexler's screaming style.  Clueless, dude.

    bizzaro world (none / 0) (#267)
    by Kensdad on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:01:27 AM EST
    i never thought in my life that i would see an american politician break a sweat arguing that votes should not be counted (and to wild applause yet)!  nice job wexler.  i'm sure you'll go down in history...

    Wexler (none / 0) (#268)
    by Spike on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:03:19 AM EST
    He was well spoken in making a gracious concession on behalf of the Obama campaign. This is a big step toward unity in Florida.

    Damned by faint praise from the CA (none / 0) (#270)
    by gish720 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:06:51 AM EST
    idiot...she says we Floridians came out to vote in droves for the property tax...oh shut up!!!

    Germond's sickening mockening of Florida (none / 0) (#271)
    by BoGardiner on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:08:57 AM EST
    To Floridians: "when you had your," [pause, smirk] "e-VENT..." [pause, smirk]..."  [Obama supporters laughter...]

    Way to bring Florida onboard for November!

    Lord, lord.

    That was supposed to be "mockery" (none / 0) (#272)
    by BoGardiner on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:20:59 AM EST
    Typo.

    [ Parent ]
    Looks like Katz tried to mop up (none / 0) (#273)
    by ivs814 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:25:57 AM EST
    after Wexler.  Not quite successful IMO.

    DNC Rules Committee Meeting: Live-Blog With BTD and TL | 271 comments (271 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment