« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Attend DNC Rules Meeting and say NO to Hillary's Desire to Break the Rules
Hillary Clinton is pushing to have a riot (a swarm of supporters) during the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting on May 31st.
We cannot allow her to do this without hearing the other side’s views. If you live nearby where this meeting will be heard (a Marriott in Washington DC) – I plead with you to show up with signs saying “We are a nation of Laws---Hillary – Obey Them”
She is performing a Bush administration action. This is the way they’ve ran their administration for the past 8 years. They’ve used the laws they ‘liked’ and ignored the ones they ‘didn’t’.
Enough already; American’s can’t afford another 4 years of an administration that ‘makes up the rules’ as they go. The DNC must not allow Florida and Michigan to avoid punishment for disobeying the rules of the Party. If they ignore the rules this time, others will do so the next time around.
Go to the DNC meeting in Washington DC and say NO to Hillary and her supporters -- what kind of President would ask Americans to disobey the rules/law?
Comments (18)
Greg Sargent did a Veracifier vid on this. I don't share his rosy outloook though. The problem is, as Rachel Maddow stated today, that once the rules meeting sits down, the nuclear option has begun. Whatever they decide, Hillary can, by the rules, appeal the decision. This starts off a snarly road, with more meetings with more and more subsets of the DNC. That will effectively drag this all the way to the convention.
The only way for this to end is if all the superdelegates Obama has in his pocket come out NOW!!!! Before the rules committee meeting, to push him over the top without MI and FL.
Then when the committee gets started and Hillary gives her "I want the votes to be counted as is" Obama can say "Fine". Case closed. No appeals. Obama wins!
Anything other than that will indeed condemn us to Hillary's nuclear option. History speaks for itself. If a primary fight goes to convention, that party's candidate looses the election.
Period. Voters hate infighting.
May 23, 2008 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I sincerely hope what you say happens. But will the supers come out?
I hear Obama has some other uncommitted votes that they KNOW is in the bag -- but will THEY come out in time?
If the DNC allows Hillary to do this (take it to convention) -- and Obama ends up being pushed out -- I will not vote Dem again. I will not be a part of what is about to happen with HER as the nominee.
May 23, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure he does have enough supers locked up to clinch the nomination - yet, anyway.
Because haveing those supers, and not announcing them at a faster pace and bring this process to a close, stikes me as a bit stupid.
And just don't think Senator Obama is a stupid man.
May 23, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think his slow release is needed to counter the anger of her supporters. He needs to let her finish the race and not stop it before she has had a chance to compete everywhere but then they need to declare in force.
May 23, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't claim that he HAS them, I just want them to DECIDE. They MUST stop this madness. We are headed for possible riots in Washington DC, Florida and Michigan over this.
Hillary's willing to allow ANYTHING to happen if it helps HER.
May 23, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
He is kind of caught between a rock and a hard place. I am sure the Obama stance was to try to hold out for the rest of the primaries to take place. Neither he nor the supers want it to appear as if the supers overruled the voters.
So to stop her rules meeting argument, the supers would have to push him over the top. Of course that opens up a whole new argument. Instead of her current meme "supers are supposed to use independent judgement" she will do a 180 and complain that the supers gave Obama the nom and not the voters.
What a convoluted mess.
May 23, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
How many other Democratic Primarys have been held that the Nominee was NOT given the needed delegates BEFORE all the States had voted.
From my history recollection -- all nominees reached the delegate count before all States got to vote. I don't have any statistics on whether or not supers helped them there.
Anybody?
If they'd rather have a civil war in Colorado -- then just sit back and let it happen.
May 23, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is evidence of divided party convention fights with GE losses.
from Rachel Maddow's article at the Huffington Post today. It is a good read. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rachel-maddow/clinton-to-the-convention_b_103078.htmlFrom the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/us/politics/01fight.html?ref=politics
May 23, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
This will go to the convention regardless if what Obama does short of giving her the VP slot with a lot of power. If you give her what she wants with Fla and Mi, though get all of the uncommitted vote in Mi, she'll have the pledged delegate count down to 100, and her next line of attack will be back to pledged delegates not being pledged and given there would only need to be a net of 50 pledged delegates switching to sher side, for the sake of Democracy she owes it to her supporters to take it to the convention. You can't give her that argument.
The only way she is stopped from going to the convention is if her Super Delegate supporters tell her it's over. They have careers they need to worry about as well, and if they support Clinton all the way to a brokered election it's quite possible that this support will come back to haunt them come their next re-election effort. If their support of Hillary's "by any means necessary" tactics leads to a McCain Presidency, you can be sure that in-state Obama supporters will remember this undying support of Clinton in this years Primary.
May 23, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is nothing stopping the Supers from declaring other than cowardice. Most have already declared. Each one declares independently so the fact that there are three primaries left is of no significance to declaring. The primaries will continue whether Obama is over the top or not. Clinton cannot win the pledged delegate count at this juncture, so the primary voting is already somewhat a moot point. Supers need to stand up and save the Party from anymore Clinton antics. All these tactics and all her misrepresentations about popular vote totals and MI and FL are hurting Party unity and our chances in November.
May 23, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is there is a list of who is on this committee?
People can contact the members and let them know their feelings if they cannot be there in person, no? yes?
Bodies are better, but any voice would be good.
May 23, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm curious if anyone knows the names of the folks in Michigan and Florida who chose to violate DNC primary rules and create this controversy in the first place.
May 23, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Back in 2005 the DNC set-up a commission to review the nominating process because Iowa and New Hampshire were no longer representative of our diverse population. The DNC looked to push NH back to a third place status instead of its usual second. On August 19, 2006, the DNC presented this calendar:
• Iowa caucuses held no earlier than January 14, 2008;
• Nevada caucuses held no earlier than January 19;
• New Hampshire primary held no earlier than January 22; and
• South Carolina primary held no earlier than January 29.
The rest of the states could then hold their caucuses or primaries afterward beginning February 5,2008.
Michigan and other states agreed to honor this new calendar as long as New Hampshire or any other state didn't violate the order. New Hampshire relishes its number two position and is unwilling to relinquish it. So on August 9, 2007, NH's Secy. of State along with the approval of NH Democrats announced its primary date to be January 19th, edging Nevada out of that position to maintain NH's number two spot. The DNC did absolutely nothing.
All bets were off so Florida announced its primary before February 5th. The DNC immediately threatened to strip their delegates. This is pretty lopsided justice. Michigan’s Democratic leadership then decided to elect their delegates on January 15, 2008, the date the Michigan legislature set for the Michigan primary. Sen. Levin and Debbie Dingell sent a letter to the DNC on September 4, 2007 of our intent to do so and why.
If the DNC didn't confront NH (and IA and SC), the rules aren't the rules. Just sometimes...
May 23, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
lil: is the Rules Committee also going to tackle the issue of candidates who, against the rules, ran TV ads in Florida and maybe in Michigan?
There should be no double standards! Rule-breaking State Parties and candidates should be treated equally. bluuuu.
May 23, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
is the Rules Committee also going to tackle the issue of candidates who, against the rules, ran TV ads in Florida and maybe in Michigan?
It is to laugh. The rules are the rules...sometimes... The so-called Rules are bullshit. NH broke the rules and the DNC whimpered. Wait! They didn't even do that.
May 23, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here are the members:
http://www.reliablepolitics.com/2008/04/dnc-rules-and-bylaws-committee.html
And, big surprise, a majority are Hillary supporters:
Co-Chairs - no endorsement
Alexis Herman (co-chair, Washington , D.C. )
James Roosevelt, Jr. (co-chair, Massachusetts )
Members - Clinton supporters (12)
Hartina Flournay (DC)
Donald Fowler (SC)
Harold Ickes, Jr. (DC)
Alice Huffman (CA)
Ben Johnson (DC)
Elaine Kamarck (MA)
Eric Kleinfeld (DC)
Mona Pasquil (CA)
Mame Reiley (VA)
Garry Shay (CA)
Elizabeth Smith (DC)
Michael Steed (MD)
Members - Obama supporters (8)
Martha Fuller Clark (NH)
Carol Khare Fowler (SC)
Janice Griffin (MD)
Thomas Hynes (IL)
Allan Katz (FL)
Sharon Stroschein (SD)
Sarah Swisher (IA)
Everett Ward (NC)
Members - no known endorsement (8)
Donna Brazille (DC)
Mark Brewer (MI)
Ralph Dawson (NY)
Yvonne Gates ( NV)
Alice Germond (DC) - DNC Secretary
Jaime Gonzalez, Jr. (TX)
David McDonald (WA)
Jerome Wiley Segovia (VA)
And as for Hillary claiming she "won Michigan":
In Michigan, Obama beats McCain, but McCain beats Clinton.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/michigan.html
But Hillary wants to count MI's popular votes for her, in a contest where Obama was NOT EVEN ON THE BALLOT because HE HONORED HIS PLEDGE TO THE DNC, HRC DIDN'T.
A detail she somehow neglects to mention when she crows that she "won Michigan."
May 23, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
#1 - a majority aren't Clinton supporters. Go back and do the math again and if you still need help then, I'll go through it with you.
#2 - In Michigan, Obama beats McCain... Uh...not according to the first link included in your post. Scroll down and look on the right. Glad to help.
#3 - Obama broke his pledge by running an ad in FL. And he never pledged to take his name off of the MI ballot trying to save himself from a headline where Clinton kicked his ass.
Your very first post and reply. Memorable.
May 23, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton just became radioactive to the superdelegates with her ghastly assassination comment. That did it. Nobody in their right mind will want to be associated with that.
May 23, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment