« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Donna Brazile Offers a Revelation
I'm watching This Week With George Stephanopolous, and Donna Brazile just made a very interesting statement. She said that she had been shocked yesterday at how uninterested the Clinton campaign was in coming to some sort of compromise. She said they could have tried to broker a deal yesterday, but they made no effort whatsoever. Then she said something that possibly gives us an insight into what happened during that closed-door meeting yesterday. She said (and I'm quoting from memory): "In contrast, the Obama campaign worked very hard to reach a compromise. If they had wanted to, they could have had half the delegates from Michigan. They had the votes. But they chose not to pursue that in the interest of party unity. And the Clinton campaign could have offered an olive branch, but they did not."
I suspected yesterday that the actual vote was little more than a public ratification of what had already taken place behind closed doors. This statement would seem to confirm that. It's also worrisome, in that it suggests that the Clintons may be serious about pursuing their own personal goals over the goals of the party. I sure hope not...
Comments (171)
I think the Clintonites are completely lost now. They just have no idea what to do.
Sure Hillary can take this to the convention, but that doesn't increase her leverage at all - on the contrary. She's painted herself into a corner.
June 1, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have no idea what you're talking about.
June 1, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gimme a hug.
I'm supposed to go around hugging Hillbots. So come here. Gimme a hug.
June 1, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many Hillary Clinton supporters do need a hug (and some, a good cry) right now. I think avoiding terms like "Hillbots" would be appreciated by a lot of them, too.
I know the poster you responded to can fit that description pretty well, but posts, of course, are not private. Many Hillary Clinton supporters who don't deserve that label are going to be offended by it. (I know how slurs like "Obamabot" insult my very individual support for Barack Obama.)
A serious effort is needed right now to draw the Democratic Party back together again. I think an end to name-calling is a very good place to start.
June 1, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very little depends on how we characterize Clinton's supporters on this site.
Party unity depends almost entirely on how Hillary Clinton decides to handle her defeat. So far, as the original post suggests, she is showing no grace, no class, no inclination to defer to the winner of this primary, Senator Obama.
She has a little time left to recover her legacy, to gracefully concede the election and start a sincere, concerted effort to help Obama be elected in November. One suspects that she is getting terrible advice from hubby, Mark Penn, Ickes and company. I've always liked her in the past, and I for one am hoping against hope that she wakes up, smells the coffee, and starts getting on with the rest of her life. Maybe start by kicking Bill out of the house, for example.
June 1, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Very little depends on how we characterize Clinton's supporters on this site."
Think about it. You're arguing in opposition to civility.
How we treat each other matters, face-to-face, on this site, and any other. Many are driven away or don't contribute due to the level of discourse. More civilized = More inclusive = More understanding. Many of the opinions held out there cascade out from sites like this one. Again, how we treat each other matters.
I don't argue with the fact that the behavior of the Clinton campaign has been and continues to be reprehensible. Many times I've voiced my outrage relating to it.
Obviously, Hillary Clinton has the most power to bring some healing in this situation. We're the ones who actually have to heal, though. It can and needs to start with us, right now. If we wait for her, we just might be waiting forever.
Again, all I'm suggesting is that we show each other the respect of refraining from name-calling/labels/slurs.
June 1, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, you can all give me hugs.
June 1, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hug, Hug, Hug, Ready!!!!
You know I like you really :) :) :)
June 1, 2008 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll throw in:
*hug*
June 2, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly support civility in all interactions, agree completely with you, and I don't engage in name calling. I guess my only point is to look beyond the angry comments here, at the RBC yesterday, and elsewhere, to the real cause: our leaders are manipulating the media and public discourse to try to arouse anger. The whole circus yesterday in D.C. was because of Hillary Clinton trying to change rules she had agreed to, and because of her inflammatory rhetoric about voting rights, and the like. Leaders can have a profound effect in the public square, and she is using her power in pursuit of ambition, no matter what the cost. That bigger picture, IMHO, is important to keep sight of.
June 1, 2008 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
From my perspective, your point is a long-standing given; one that I've preached myself on several occasions and in several forums (online and otherwise) over these past months. But it's also one that we have very little effect over. Hillary Clinton and her campaign have clearly demonstrated that they're going to do what they're going to do.
Consequently, my comment was specifically directed outside of that realm, to the grassroots, or in other words - *us*. Those who discuss these issues in public forums such as this one have an effect, and therefore, a responsibility. (This is not directed at you, Wilh*M, as it's my observation that you maintain a civil demeanor.)
"Angry comments" are certainly and often a problem (although in certain situations, anger is justified and proper, while still being civil), but my suggestion is more specific than that. Again - Let's take that step to end the name-calling. It's a pretty simple, cut-and-dry sort of step that I think will do much to encourage respectful discourse and hopefully help (even if it's just a little bit) to draw more mainstream supporters of both Democratic candidates into more discussions.
My overriding point in all of this is that *we* (the supporters of both Democratic candidates) have an essential role in healing the rift in the Democratic Party.
June 1, 2008 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only rule Hillary agreed to was to refrain from campaigning in Michigan. And, as it turned out, that was not even a legitimate rule once the DNC stripped 100% of the delegates. It only applied if the sanction was 50%.
June 2, 2008 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
What the hell are you talking about? The pledge not to campaign AND not to "participate" in MI (AND FL, BTW) was entered into after the full sanction was approved by Ickes and the rest of the Rules and Bylaws Committee on December 1, 2007. It would have made no sense for the candidates to agree not to campaign in those states if they were supposed to get half delegates instead of none. The Republicans campaigned in both states although they were getting half delegates.
June 2, 2008 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wilh*m,
You are flat wrong about that. Unity depends on having the maturity we should expect from other adults.
Name calling does indeed deepen the divide and make it more difficult to bring this party back together. As another commenter noted, we can't wait for the "leadership" to do what needs to be done--the irony of which is not lost on me.
Without any approval (expressed or implied) for HRC's flailing attempts to change the course of the primaries since 2/5 or her campaign's tactics, I extend a very sincere hand of friendship to all HRC supporters. We need you all.
Remember why these last seven + years have sucked so hard for us all.
June 2, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lisa, you cracked my up. Your comment goes so well with your avatar! %-D
June 1, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blow your gasket already and check into rehab.
I've written over and over that she lost this thing months ago in Wisconsin and people have just been being nice to her because she is who she is. She's done a George Bush and has used all of her political capital; she's in a downward spiral now and is only flushing politcal future further and further down the tank.
Donna Brazille is an honorable person, and when she speaks, she is more than likely speaking for Al Gore who I'm sure is taking as much pleasure as I am in watching Hillary make a fool out of herself-much like you gasket.
June 2, 2008 3:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would agree and take your argument a step further - they've NEVER known what to do next. Did you see Ickes on MTP? First he admitted that they all thought the campaign would be finished on 2/5. Later he said (and I'm quoting from memory) "I can't think past Tuesday let alone later this week."
I think this is indicative of a campaign - and a candidate - that is unable to think long term and is definitely unable to admit their mistakes.
Sound like anyone we know? No exit strategy, never admits to error? Really, do people want more of this in the White House?
June 1, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. There really was no plan B. I think it never crossed Hillary's mind that she might not get the nomination.
That alone should disqualify her from the presidency.
June 1, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the Clinton campaign has been living in a one day at a time state of disarray since February 5th.
I also agree that the parallels between the Bush administration and the Clinton campaign are striking. They're both in bubbles where "perception is reality" has been taken to the nth degree.
June 1, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been saying this for months about Hillary, and one of the reasons I began to think she'd be a terrible president: the Clintons move from one immediate political goal to the next immediate political goal, with no long term strategy, vision or assessment of consequences. They strike at their most immediate enemy and then lurch to the next one. It's why someone who made the remark about RFK's assassination and saw no reason to apologize for the anxiety that it may have caused the Obama family can so easily move to demanding that Obama renounce and reject Fr. Pfleger (even though Obama had) and use actual outrage that Obama knew this guy. On a dime, she turned, in full outrage mode. Strike at the immediate enemy in front of her -- no idea that people would connect the cognitive dissonance.
It literally began to scare me about her possibly being President. It's more than just making all decisions for political reasons instead of governance (of course that bothers me too). It's that I doubt she has the skills to assess her words and actions in any meaningful way.
June 2, 2008 7:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was one of the main downfalls of Bil;'s presidency as well. The DLC is all corporate and bottom-line focused. A progressive agenda, by definition, requires long-term goals and strategies that the "next fiscal quarter" tactics of the Clinton Administration couldn't or wouldn't provide.
June 2, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent point. And one of my big frustrations with the way they operate. They're way too smart for their own good.
June 2, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dee Dee Myers agrees with you - “It seems clear to me from watching her, and talking to people, that she doesn’t really know what she wants.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/democrats/2058907/US-Elections-Hillary-Clinton-to-be-offered-dignified-exit.html
That's what it looks like to me, too. There seems to no plan other than to continue on and fight the daily fight.
I don't know what she's ultimately going to do and I don't think she knows, either.
June 1, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting article, especially the part about how they are still wondering how she lost with all of her entrenched advantages. They are still looking back, not to the future, so it's no surprise that they don't have a plan.
At one point, I think, Rudolph Giuliani had a clear if not overwhelming lead in polls for Republican candidates. Surely they understood that at least some of Clinton's polling lead related to name recognition and not "real" support. I just think that many of her supporters are too quick to blame themselves or various strategic or tactical decisions, when, in reality, it's just probably the fact that anyone with her name recognition has support that is wider than it is deep. In other words, the lead really should have been heavily discounted, and they should have been more in fighting mode right from the start.
You know, I've been getting solicitations from Clinton for at least four years, and she has never, and I mean, not once, ever, mentioned Iraq. Why is that? Why is it so hard to recognize?
June 1, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her comment explains how Howard Ikes got so worked up over 4 delegates being "stolen". Especially when its only 2 as they only cost 50%.
It was the only issue he had left. Both states had already accepted the compromise, so he couldn't claim to be fighting for them. He just needed an angry soundbite to get his crowd riled up, and milk a few more days of "We'll take it to the convention." For 2 votes?
From watching Brazille, it sounded like everyone in the back room thought they had an acceptable deal, and Ickes sandbagged them with his tiride. I bet if they knew he'd act like that, they'd have given him the 2 delegates. He didn't want the delegates, he wanted the chance to grandstand.
Sadly for Hillary, while her side plays to the crowd, Obama plays to win. His main goal was to make sure those states only got 1/2 a vote. Once that was assured and accepted, the delegate split didn't matter, because it deprived Hill of any chance to get within 100 delegates.
The Puerto Ricans didn't help either by not showing up at the polls. That "I won the popular vote" ad in S Dakota must look pretty silly tonight. She can claim to the supers that she's running better, but all she's really done is win big with whites in Appalachia. Obama tied in Indiana, won in Oregon, North Carolina and in the rules committee.
She has no metrics left. Yet she fights on.
June 1, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her comment explains how Howard Ikes got so worked up over 4 delegates being "stolen". Especially when its only 2 as they only cost 50%.
It was the only issue he had left. Both states had already accepted the compromise, so he couldn't claim to be fighting for them. He just needed an angry soundbite to get his crowd riled up, and milk a few more days of "We'll take it to the convention." For 2 votes?
From watching Brazille, it sounded like everyone in the back room thought they had an acceptable deal, and Ickes sandbagged them with his tiride. I bet if they knew he'd act like that, they'd have given him the 2 delegates. He didn't want the delegates, he wanted the chance to grandstand.
Sadly for Hillary, while her side plays to the crowd, Obama plays to win. His main goal was to make sure those states only got 1/2 a vote. Once that was assured and accepted, the delegate split didn't matter, because it deprived Hill of any chance to get within 100 delegates.
The Puerto Ricans didn't help either by not showing up at the polls. That "I won the popular vote" ad in S Dakota must look pretty silly tonight. She can claim to the supers that she's running better, but all she's really done is win big with whites in Appalachia. Obama tied in Indiana, won in Oregon, North Carolina and in the rules committee.
She has no metrics left. Yet she fights on.
June 1, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's 4 delegates. They have 1/2 vote each at the convention but they count as 4 delegates now.
June 2, 2008 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Clinton campaign is still trying to instigate a fight. Best thing to do is not indulge them and move on. I hear Terry, Howard, and Harold saying the same things they were saying a month ago, with even more passion, but less reality.
It's hard when power brokers of the past are threatened with power brokers of the future. And that's what we're seeing here.
June 1, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
"... If they had wanted to, they could have had half the delegates from Michigan. They had the votes. But they chose not to pursue that in the interest of party unity."
Interesting, very interesting that Ickes & Co. showed no interest in compromise. Maybe Burows, on Huffington, was right in his "Briarpatch" article when he said they were going into the meeting with the sole purpose of having their solution rejected so they could cry foul all the way to the convention. So why not get that ball rolling, right away, by: a) complaining about the loss of four delegates (when HRC might have lost nine in a 50/50 MI split); and b) working up the post-meeting crowd with the phrases "hi-jacking" and "reserve the right to..."
It's a start, right Harold?
June 1, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ickes has been doing the morning political show circuit today, and he's really hedging. I've heard him tell both Tim Russert and Wolf Blitzer that he "hasn't spoken with Mrs. Clinton" (bullshit) but that it's up to her to decide whether she'll take this to the credentials committee. I think they're waiting to see if Obama wins both Montana and South Dakota. Then it's over. That's where my money is.
June 1, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
And he had an ugly jacket. Totally representative of a campaign that is stuck in the 90's - it never occurred to him that that pattern wouldn't broadcast well in HDTV.
Welcome to the 21st century, Ickes!
June 1, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I watched about 5 min. of Ickes on CNN today (It was all I could stomach). But I noticed something very peculiar: he never really looked into the camera when he gave his responses. At first I thought he was reading something, but his eyes didn't move like he was reading a script. He simply wouldn't look at the camera while giving an answer, which was contrasted sharply by the fact that he would look directly into the camera while taking a question. After watching that I'm left with the distinct impression that even he doesn't believe the crap he's spewing. That means two things: 1.) He's a sell-out (not surprising) 2.) It's over.
June 1, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I noticed that too. I figured he was reading off of cards or something. It was definitely odd.
June 1, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice avatar, by the way. Very tiny, but very elegant in its simplicity. :)
June 1, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure Hillary can take this to the convention, but that doesn't increase her leverage at all - on the contrary. She's painted herself into a corner.
On the silver lining side, this corner she's painted herself into makes it very unlikely that she could end up as Obama's running mate.
June 1, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't that the truth! Of course, you'd never know listening to Wolf Blitzer. I think he's gone bonkers - he's really pushing this Unity ticket in every stinkin' interview. It sounds like he has money on it.
June 1, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
She is, indeed, her own worst enemy. And that is fortunate for the rest of us.
June 1, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well it is hardly surprising that the Clinton campaign was uninterested in a compromise yesterday. They were engaged in their last desperate effort to pull off a come from behind miracle, and they clearly needed all they could get from Michigan and Florida to do that.
June 1, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting, but if they were looking to maximize what they could get, why not put up a bigger fight to count all of Florida? That's 19 more delegates. Instead Ickes went ballistic over the Michigan compromise plan "stealing" 4 delegates from Clinton.
I suspect the strategy was to leave with some point they can argue was wrongly decided, to keep open the avenue of a credentials committee appeal. The campaign needs some argument to continue past Tuesday's contests, other than just trying to change more SDs. An agreed upon solution, even on favorable terms to Hillary, wouldn't really do that. An "unfair" decision to "disenfranchise" 600,000 voters is a cause they can fight for.
June 1, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
My theory is that the Clinton camp conceded half votes for FL, hoping to get a better compromise for MI. Perhaps they have stronger party support in MI (Levin?) than in FL (Wexler). Also, they now seem to have a stronger legal argument for MI.
What Clinton succeeded in doing yesterday was getting the full delegations from both states seated. In making a big stink about seating those two "rogue" states, she will get the leadership credit for going against the party's harsh punishment and winning something for the voters. This will be a positive in the eyes of voters the Dems need in Nov.
Also, Clinton effectively moved the finish line, buying more time for her expected popular vote totals to come in this week. I'm disappointed she didn't get more delegates from the rules committee, but I think her ultimate strategy is quite shrewd.
Ickes probably would have threatened to fight almost any decision. But after this weekend, Clinton is much stronger going into the last two primaries.
Also, Obama may not win enough delegates this week. He was supposed to have enough delegates by now. The win for Clinton was to make Obama fight for every last damn delegate and vote.
Watching the rules committee meeting, it was clear to me that Clinton's argument (count every vote) has more perceived moral weight than Obama's (follow the rules).
You can tell how well Clinton scored yesterday by how incensed Donna Brazile is today.
June 1, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her "strategy" is in fact mind-numbingly idiotic. She can't win and she won't win, but she doesn't know it, or more likely refuses to admit it to herself. Pouting and inventing irrelevant metrics isn't strategy, it's sad.
She's committing a slow-motion political suicide. But hey, as far as I'm concerned, it couldn't happen to a nicer person.
If I was a conspiracy theorist (which I'm not), I'd say HRC is a secret Republican agent.
June 1, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not that simple. As Levin said, there were 30,000 write-in votes for Obama in Michigan that, according to the rules, should be simply ignored, and were. I didn't hear Ickes saying that those votes should count. Obama voluntarily took his name off the ballot, so the write-in votes don't count. According to Clinton surrogates, we have to follow that rule. But not the one (which all candidates agreed to last last year) which said neither Michigan nor Florida count at all.
For Michigan especially, there's no great moral stance here. You had an election which was known in advance would not count, and where several major candidates were not on the ballot. All candidates agreed in advance not to "participate". Some voters chose to vote in the Republican primary, many more chose not to vote in an election that they were told didn't count, and others, when their preference wasn't on the ballot, voted for a different candidate. There is simply no way to know what the voters would have done in a "fair" election.
Florida, at least, did have all the candidates on the ballot, so its results can be fairly said to reflect the preferences of those who went to the polls on that date.
I think that after eight years of signing statements, illegal wiretapping, and believing that the rules (like Geneva conventions) only apply to others, it's reasonable to consider which candidate shows greater respect for the rule of law, and rules in general.
Howard Wolfson in January said that the race was all about getting the most delegates. That's been the Obama camp's position all along. Yet once Hillary fell behind in delegates, her surrogates, and eventually Clinton herself, started arguing other things are what really "counts": the popular vote, big states, primary states not caucus states, swing states, hard working white Americans, 17 million voters, "electability" in November, etc. This election has been so close that technically the only thing left that matters is what can sway a superdelegate to support you. So Clinton isn't overtly wrong trying to make these many differing arguments to the SDs. But to do so in public, and to leave many of her supporters with the impression that the election is being stolen from her, when she is simply losing it, does undermine public confidence in the process. Ironically, I also believe it weakens her appeal to SDs, so I see it as another major strategic blunder by her campaign.
People can reasonably assess the two candidates and conclude Mrs. Clinton would make a better president, and/or she would be more likely to win in November. I disagree on both, but I certainly can respect that perspective, and I don't begrudge Clinton her right to campaign vigorously to win. But please spare me the claim that she's fighting to count every vote, or that hers is the morally superior position in Michigan. This is simply political hardball, not some high-minded crusade.
June 2, 2008 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fosberry said the Clinton forces wouldn't agree to the MI solution because they wanted to "leave with some point they can argue was wrongly decided, to keep open the avenue of a credentials committee appeal."
Bingo! That makes sense. Keep everything to a sound bite, appeal to those with the most elementary understanding of all this. Be able to say: "Votes were stolen, people were disenfranchised. They had voted for 'uncommitted' but those votes were given to Obama. That's piracy!! hijacking!! unAmerican!"
Fortunately, there is an equally simplistic answer that can be give: IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE.
As soon as Obama has 2210 delegates (the number he would need if MI and FL had been given full votes and if Obama was given none of the MI delegates), he will be "challenge-proof."
The 'disenfranchisement' had no effect, and there will literally be nothing gained by a challenge on the convention floor.
Right now, if the contests in PR, SD, and MD are evenly split (43 each), Obama will need about 20 delegates to clinch (at 2118) and 112 delegates to become "challenge-proof" (at 2210). There are roughly 213 uncommitted superdelegates (and a few Edwards pledged delegates who haven't committed). Since he's been getting about 3/4 of the endorsements, I think it's safe to predict that he will get at least half of those remaining. Perhaps very soon. (Two more today - so the 'needed' numbers are already reduced to 18 and 110.)
June 1, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
She wants the nomination, but she has never wanted to run for the nomination.
Winning is IT, whatever it takes.
June 1, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
QUESTION - I'm really wondering what the SECOND step would have been to their dastardly plan if they had in fact gotten everything they wanted yesterday. Even if she got the most favorable outcome from MI & FLA yesterday, my impression was that she'd STILL be mathmatically the loser.
So what would be the next step once "crying foul" would no longer be an option?
June 1, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was wondering that, too. Probably they'd then use the "too close to call" argument - she would've been within 120 delegates and close or ahead in the popular vote (depending on whose count you use). My guess is she'd take that argument to the super-dels and/or the convention.
June 1, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"They were engaged in their last desperate effort to pull off a come from behind miracle, and they clearly needed all they could get from Michigan and Florida to do that."
I'm not sure I would characterize it as an effort to pull off a come from behind miracle. I think what they were trying to do was steal the election process. Overturn rules regarding unsanctioned primaries in MI and FL --rules they agreed to--and Harold Ickes helped create.
"A come from behind miracle" is when the Red Sox, down 3 games to none against the Yankees in the ALDS, won four straight and went on to win their first World Series since 1918.
They didn't try to change the rules. They played by the rules. They won by the rules.
June 1, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
David Bonior just reiterated that Obama had the votes for a 50/50 split in Michigan, but chose not to pursue it in the spirit of comity and party unity.
I wonder how the Clinton supporters can possibly claim this was "stolen" from them, when it was so clearly a compromise.
June 1, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right. It went to the highest bidder, in other words.
June 1, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Quit being a sore loser. Clinton had a majority of supporters on the Rules and Bylaws Committee (13) going into the negotiations. Obama had 8. And she still lost on every point. Just quit being a sore loser, you big baby.
June 1, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Quit being a sore winner, asshole.
June 1, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The gasket's blowing...
June 2, 2008 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the Obama trolls on the RBC accepted full Clinton proposals, what's the worst thing that could have happened, to Obama, to his nomination, to party unity?
They would have silenced the protesters.
They could have removed the argument of cheating.
They could have shown they are not hypocrites when they talk about roolz.
They would have done nothing to damage Obama's parth to the nomination.
Instead, they were waiting for some backroom deal offer from Clinton. And when it didn't happen, they went ahead and stole her delegates MI anyway.
So much for party unity, the olive branch and other high minded lies.
Donna Brazile should have stuck with what her momma taught her, cheatin' ain't right. But I guess she's got her future job to worry about.
June 1, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo35adm - Although I think the results yesterday were fair, I'm wondering the same question above. What would be her second move?
(This leaves out the simple rule of negotiations, of course: Never give an inch if you don;t have to.)
June 1, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
She won't and shouldn't quit until there is a nominee who has secured the votes required.
If that happens on Tuesday - fine.
In fact, taking her proposals for MI would have set the stage for the most gracious exit from the campaign, because the votes would have been counted, democracy would have been respected and it would have been the most perfect possible message for party unity.
It would have allowed Clinton to back Obama with grace, passion and without losing face.
Now that he wiped his hungry ass with her and her supporters, i'm not so sure.
June 1, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo - So you're saying the most likely result wouldn't have been a new line of attack from Hillary, but a graceful exit?
If that's true, then why didn't they (Ickes and Lanny, et al.) offer a promise to concede on Tuesday night?
June 1, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you are so convinced that you won, why wouldn't you have the wisdom to allow the looser exit with dignity? Especially when you know it's your job to attract her supporters?
June 1, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo: That's part of my question, why didn't SHE sue for peace? Say: "I will concede, if you just let me have everything I want re: MI & FLA. We'll confirm it with an ironclad agreement, and Tuesday night, you can move on."
June 1, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to keep insisting that:
a) Clinton should beg for mercy, preferably on her knees
b) the right way for Obama to win is by humiliating Clinton and her supporters
It seems you think he should treat Castro better.
June 1, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo: That's unfair. I clearly have said nothing like that. I started my question with 1) What would she do next if she got all of MI & FLA? And it became, 2) What does she want? A) a Graceful, Face Saving Concession [Like you said], and/or B) a foothold to make a new argument that Obama doesn't anticipate yet, and, of course, prolong this thing indefinitely.
I'm trying to figure out her motivation with all this.
June 1, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. And it all goes back to my previous comment: does he REALLY think he has won? Everything else is a consequence of that.
And his position on yesterday's RBC comedy tells me that he doesn't believe yet that he has won, despite his campaign's spin.
Or, that he wants to end this is in a way that is the most humiliating possible for Clinton and her supporters.
June 1, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo: He has won. The problem is that, we're Democrats, and we went into this with no ironclad finish line. What we have now, is a perceptions game (as Ghengis recently blogged).
She's trying to undercut the perception that he's won, and he's trying to stand firm and maintain his strength position. He's clearly not trying to humiliate her (plus, she's a tough cookie).
June 1, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not worth the keystrokes to argue with Lalo. I think Lalo = Ickes.
June 1, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right. Until recently I didn't think that the fact that we're Democrats was a problem.
June 1, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you're trying to say Obama's extinguishing Hillary's remaining options so she'll exit the race, then you are correct. Sen. Clinton has made it quite clear that she will maintain an effort to secure additional delegates so long as no candidate has crossed the nomination threshold (which she may still define as ~2200). More time as the only contender is more time to unify the party and better chances come November.
Clinton's people understandably would not give an inch in the RBC because any compromise doomed her chances to make significant inroads into Obama's delegate lead from entirely unlikely to a hair's-breadth north of zero. This is not a situation in which Obama should feel any great magnanimity, or expect any if he was sitting on the other side of the ledger. Clinton would have done the exact same thing in his place.
June 2, 2008 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton should be trying to negotiate a compromise that gains her something out of the deal. Instead, she's trying to divide the party with her nonsense about how Florida and Michigan are somehow like Zimbabwe. It's ridiculous. Unfortunately, some of her more gullible supporters will buy it. Take a look at hillaryis44 sometime. Those people have seriously lost it, and they're buying everything Hillary is selling them. Even the stuff that's clearly crap.
June 2, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Lose with dignity". That's rich, after the undignified showing by her supporters yesterday.
June 1, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who cares?
June 1, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
readytoblowagasket, I have a suggestion: Put up a really nasty post about this. A venemous screed. Tell everyone on this site to go fuck themselves. Rip the process to shreds. Don't hold back. Get this out of your system. Stop the wimpy little sniper attacks and put it all into a single rage-filled post--pour in every last drop of poison. And when you're done, drop it.
You think you're angry now, but you're not. What you are is bitterly disappointed. I would be too. If McCain gets elected, THEN you'll be angry.
June 2, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Out of all the people at that meeting yesterday, Harold Ickes was the loudest, the bitterest, and the most divisive. And he failed to make his case. This wasn't some sort of conspiracy, so quit pretending it was. The Obama went into the meeting with a clear disadvantage among committee members. They had a better case and they carried the day. There was nothing wrong with the compromise that was reached. And as both Brazile and Bonior have stated, Obama COULD have had a 50/50 split in Michigan, but chose to concede the point. I know some of you Hillary supporters are never happy unless things go 100% in your way, but get real. Seriously.
June 1, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
You clearly don't get my point. Try reading my comment again.
June 1, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You clearly don't get my point. Try reading my comment again."
Once was too much. I've seen sharper points on cotton wipes.
June 2, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
hrebendorf: I really dislike Harold Ickes and Lanny Davis. Harold looked like an evil James Taylor yesterday, and Lanny.... I don't have words to describe his annoying behavior.
June 1, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
NO conspiracy? Please......Michigan and the results of that motion...was conspiracy to its finest. Congrats to the rules commitee for showing us what probably was happening in Florida in 2000.
June 1, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democratic representatives from the State of Michigan are the ones who came up with the plan.
June 2, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have such a way with words Lalo, you meat head. Red Foxx would probably have called you dummy, but I won't. There's no use in writing the same response to you over and over again. You can go back to my profile and enjoy.
Go wash your mouth out with soap, and then wipe well, you filthy little man.
June 2, 2008 3:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I, also, had thought that the 'cleanest' way to go about things might have been to give in to ALL her arguments so as to stop the protesting and simply quench all the arguments. But couple of problems with that, I think: (1) the perception it would have given to some that Clinton had great power within the party or was a better negotiator or what, (2) the - correct - perception it would have given to some that she was being patronized, and (3) delaying having a nominee. As it is (per my post up-thread) after these 3 contests he will need roughly 20 delegates to clinch and 112 to be 'challenge proof'. With the give-her-everything-she-wants resolution, he would have to get around 100 to clinch.
He could have and would have done it: the pool of superdelegates would be much larger and most 'uncommitted' would vote for him. But it would take longer for it all to work out and right now time is precious: they need to focus on the general election *and* every day HRC is in the race is another day that her negativity is poisoning the atmosphere and undercutting him (whether she means to or not - I don't think she can help herself, to be honest).
June 1, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo, this is the illogical position of the Clinton camp:
1) We have zero delegates from Michigan, which we acknowledged would not count, but we stayed on the ballot
2) Obama has zero delegates from Michigan because he knew it would not count and pulled out.
3) We need to change the rules so that Michigan is awarded delegates
4) Since we stayed on the ballot in the election that did not count, we should get as many delegates as if it did count.
I am sure hate Clintonistas are amazed that no one bought this hilariously self serving argument. Instead, you should look on the bright side, which is:
a) Both Hillary and Obama run even against McCain in Michigan
b) If you took a poll right now, Obama would beat Hillary in Michigan, just as he beats her nationwide, so
c) kwitcherbitchin, be happy you got a 10 delegate advantage when you had a zero delegate advantage going into the meeting, and s.t.f.u already!
June 1, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, according to you, Clinton and Obama should have each received zero votes & delegates in Michigan and Florida, right?
June 2, 2008 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
At least concerning Michigan, that was clearly one of the choices. The RBC could have simply held to the rules they set up in the first place and refused to seat any delegates. But they were looking for a compromise. Compromise: that's where everyone gets a little of what they want, but no one gets everything. As I said upthread, Brazile and Bonior both stated that Obama had the votes to get a 50/50 split of the Michigan delegates. Instead, he gave the majority to Clinton. He didn't have to. And the RBC (which had a Clinton majority) would have gone along with his demand.
You really need to get clear about what was happening yesterday. It was about reaching a compromise that gave everyone a little and gave no one too much. The RBC did an excellent job under extremely difficult circumstances.
June 2, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the Obama trolls on the RBC accepted full Clinton proposals, what's the worst thing that could have happened,
I refer you yet again to McAuliffe's comments when the same thing nearly happened in 2004. He explained quite clearly how the result would be chaos in subsequent years. But of course this was when he wasn't on the payroll of on of the interested parties.
June 1, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
It wasn't anywhere remotely close in 2004 as it is now.
June 1, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
So there are four hypothetical scenarios that you indirectly raise:
1. State votes early, influences final primary cycle outcome, vote is not close.
2. State votes early, influences final primary cycle outcome, vote is close.
3. State votes early, does not influence final primary cycle outcome, vote is not close.
4. State votes early, does not influence final primary cycle outcome, vote is close.
So three out of four should result in withheld delegates in your opinion. But in option #2, a state's calendar meddling is actually enough to significantly impact the designation of the nominee and skews the race early toward that nominee. This is the Holy Grail of primary line jumping, and, together with our current scenario (#4) these are the only cases you want to reward with full seating. Congratulations: there's now precisely zero downside to holding early contests. Yeah, that'll work out well.
June 2, 2008 1:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
whoops: above should read "two out of four."
June 2, 2008 1:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
My theory is that the Clintons aren't really trying to "get" anything at this point.
Does anyone remember a week or so ago, there was a buzz about VEEP talk, Bill saying Hillary should be asked, and then reports that there had been a discussion and Obama had said no?
RFK flap got that one off the front page, but it was actually a lot more interesting than the RFK nonsense.
My guess is that the Clintons said "Offer VP, or we can make this difficult." And he said no. So they're making it difficult. To show that they carry through on their threats, and to keep their supporters charged up through next week.
But after next week, I don't see this going anywhere -- at least, not if Hillary still wants a career in the Senate.
June 1, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alex39: Good points. So maybe she wants the VP slot still, I guess.
Although, I do see her continuing this beyond next week. I don't think she cares about her career in the Senate. Basically, Billary had about 90% of the juice of the party last year, and now they've got under 10% if you believe some of the articles about yesterday.
This is their Waterloo. And they appear to be determined to set the place on fire on the way out. (To mix a few metaphors...)
June 1, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
And what they have accomplished for all of their troubles is a hearty "Good Riddance!"
June 1, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Hillary really wants to be ASKED to be VP so she can have the public pleasure of turning it down.
June 1, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Makes sense. I can't believe she'd actually want the job.
June 1, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for more Donna Brazile bullshit, hrebendorf. I'm going to call her (and you) out for her incessant partisanship and awesome self-contradictions.
To give you the benefit of the doubt, I'll assume you missed Carl Levin's testimony. He specifically outlined how the rules committee could inject disunity into the MI Democratic Party, and that's exactly the route the committee chose. He stated it clearly and unequivocally about 10 times. Go look at a transcript. I watched his testimony twice.
For those who didn't watch, Levin said to seat the MI delegation in full with full votes. He explained why. He explained that that was what all sides—Clinton, Obama, and the MI Dem Party—could agree on.
He explained that if the committee didn't seat the full delegation with full votes, the unity that he and others worked to achieve in Michigan would be shattered.
He also presented 3 options for the apportionment of delegates. Apportionment is what the sides couldn't agree on.
But Levin asked the committee repeatedly to seat the delegation in full with full votes. He went back to that point over and over.
The committee elected to seat the full delegation at half votes and apportion the delegates at Clinton's disadvantage. It is Harold Ickes's job to protest such a move. He is doing his job. It is Clinton's job to protest such a move, and she is protesting it.
The committee voted for disunity and that's what they will get. Too fucking bad. Own up to what the committee did and don't characterize it dishonestly. It is what it is, and there will be repercussions. As there should be. Terrible precedents were set yesterday, giving authority to flawed decisions instead of correcting flawed decisions. Very Bushlike in setting a dictatorial tone and position for the Democratic Party moving forward. We've already seen how this mode doesn't work. It's not going to work for the Democrats either.
But anyway, it's contradictory for Donna Brazile to lecture us about the history of disenfranchising black voters when she holds an unelected position of power within the party and wields that power to disenfranchise voters. It's thoroughly destructive to the party and to democracy. You can't fix a wrong with another wrong.
But Brazile has a personal agenda, which I think must have to do with avenging her humiliating defeat in 2000 as Gore's campaign manager. You don't have to agree with that, but you do need to be honest about what transpired with the rules committee yesterday.
Don't misunderstand me: I don't begrudge Brazile her authority; I believe she has earned it. I do begrudge her the abuse of that authority, as I would any Republican.
But maybe all of this is too subtle for you, hrebendorf. You don't strike me as being the subtle type.
June 1, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The vast Brazile-ian conspiracy.
June 1, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're so full of shit it isn't even funny anymore. I actually pity you. That gasket is more durable than any of us would like. Blow already...
June 1, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're a pip squeak, what do you know?
June 1, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You forgot to use the neener neener neener attack.
June 2, 2008 5:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
readygoblowgasket -- I listened to the whole thing, Sen Levin's testimony twice. Yes he - and everyone from both states, in fact - said they wanted full votes, but everyone also knew that wasn't going to happen: DNC had to do some 'chastizing' and they knew it. (Anyway, once they are at the convention, the certain-to-be-nominee will propose that both MI and FL are given full votes, that will pass and they'll have them (unless HRC is making too much of a rucus). The full/half vote issue was a sideshow and I don't entirely believe that you didn't realize it.
The *real* tensions in MI were whether the "non-Hillary" delegates were going to go to Obama or to stay 'uncommitted' and how the delegates would be divided. Levin & Obama won one issue (votes went to Obama) and Levin won the other (the committee went with the 69-59 proportion he proposed, not 64-64 Obama wanted or the 73-55 Clinton wanted). --- Obama *could* have won and gotten 50/50 but graciously and wisely didn't push it (foregoing 4 delegates). Clinton wasn't gracious about anything and left breathing fire over both where the delegates went and the proportion (the 'theft' of 4 delegates).
So how was it again that the committee voted for DISunity?
June 1, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, as Democrats wehave rules....but they are only 1/2 rules?
June 1, 2008 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The DNC rules state that "uncommitted" is a legitimate presidential preference and those delegates should go to the convention as "uncommitted" and make their choice there. That was the primary complaint of the Clinton campaign and it is a legitimate one. It was not legitimate to give all of those votes to Obama (some of which were undoubtedly cast for Edwards, Biden, or Richardson) and then take an additional four delgates away from Clinton and give them to Obama. The votes cast for Clinton represented real people, some of whom might be appalled to know that their vote was changed from Clinton to Obama. That is significantly worse, I think, than disenfranchisement. I would certainly prefer to not vote than to vote for someone I truly do not support. The Clinton campaign has a very good case in taking this further. It would have been easy for the DNC to just allocate her delegates in accord with her votes. She was, in fact, offering a significant concession by agreeing to count "uncommitted" as Obama votes in her 73-55 proposal.
June 2, 2008 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some of the "Clinton voters" would be perfectly happy with their votes being switched to Obama; this was borne out by the exit polls.
June 2, 2008 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ready to blow, I think you need a hug.
(((*HUG*)))
June 1, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Brazille has a "partisan" agenda, but you want to put up Carl Levin's as the definitive position? The guy who's been trying to muck around with the Partys' control of the order of primaries for years? The guy that McAuliffe slapped down in 2004? The guy that worked with the Dem governor to put MI in this position in the first place--outsmarting himself, since MI could in fact have been very important on Super Tuesday?
How they could even put Harold Ickes up there to express his indignation, when he voted for the zero delegates solution, is entirely beyond me?
June 2, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, Levin was ridiculous and his argument was self-serving and shameful. This was NOT--in ANY WAY--a valid primary. It wasn't sanctioned by the party, there was only one candidate on the ballot, and even that candidate stated that it wouldn't count for anything. There is NO VALID ARGUMENT FOR SEATING A SINGLE DELEGATE FROM MICHIGAN. What the RBC did on Saturday is called a gift to the Clinton campaign. They could have stuck with their original decision. Instead, they gave a little in the interest of party unity. There was no case to be made yesterday. The Clinton campaign got away with murder.
June 2, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
"But Levin asked the committee repeatedly to seat the delegation in full with full votes. He went back to that point over and over."
He's been flogging that one for years. He chose this event to do a little more grandstanding.
Levin is completely and utterly full of crap, and the RBC let him know that on Saturday. And quite pretending that Obama had something to do with it. The RBC has 13 Clinton supporters and 8 Obama supporters. And Levin failed to make his case before the election, and he failed to make it after the election. Levin is FULL OF SHIT.
June 2, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!!!!!!!!!
Voters were disenfranchised!...blah blah blah...this is undemocratic!...blah blah blah...I know I'm an idiot and ignoring the reality that this is a primary not an election, so what?...blah blah blah and
blah blahety blah blah.
June 1, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You forgot-
sexism blah blah blah...
popular vote blah blah blah..
assassination blah blah blah...
June 1, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's acouple of days old, but worth a read...it's Donna's words on getting ourselves unified...
http://www.donnabrazile.com/viewNews.cfm?id=277
June 1, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link, and that's a pretty funny post.
Donna's an intelligent woman with a great sense of humor and a wide vocabulary. I've got to assume that her choice of words was intentional here. And here:
Zing.
The really sad part is, Donna was a solid Clinton supporter before the race began. Hillary has stained more than just the glass ceiling.
June 2, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely. One of our other astute posters pointed out that the manner in which one runs a campaign is a harbinger of the manner in which the candidate is likely to run their administration. I believe that the DNC saw that playing out yesterday. Obama is a reasonable man, who is willing to make reasonable concessions to resolve problems. Hillary...well, do I really need to say it? She's all about Hillary. The DNC, like most of us, is done with her - and that was apparent even for most of those who are supposed to be her supporters.
June 1, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Donna wants party unity then she needs to stop Hillary.
Hillary just released another ad - claiming victory by popular vote.
June 1, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. Just wait until she releases the add including the Puerto Rico vote. It's really sad to even watch her campaign at the end. I get that same look that I have when I see McCain give any speech. Like when I see an old lady drop her groceries in the street. It's just sad.
June 1, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah it is, except for this: it also is another little question mark she wants to stay out there - whether or not Obama really won the nomination legitimately.
That's why I'm pissed at this.
June 1, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
It won't matter, Tena. It will just come across as exactly what it is - sour grapes. Obama is a great leader and without the Hillary distraction, more of America will be seeing that. I'm excited to be moving forward now with the rest of this campaign. Ready to groove on some Barakarate!!
Stealing that from Bat Guano. :)
June 1, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're absolutely right on with that point. They have been on a campaign for the last couple of weeks (especially the last couple of days) to delegitimize his win. They got what they wanted yesterday, that's for sure. They were able to give their fanatics a narrative that they had been working on. That the Democratic Party cheated Hillary Clinton out of her wins in Florida and Michigan while disenfranchising voters. They spun yesterday's compromise to play beautifully into their already existing talking points. He didn't win this thing fairly.
So yeah. Pissed.
June 1, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can only win the nomination if the Supers want to step in and give it to him. So much for Democracy.
June 1, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
This will fall upon deaf ears, but we aren't a democracy. We're a democratic republic.
The founders were damn smart - straight majority rule just ends up being the tyranny of the majority.
June 1, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh?
June 1, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amazing how smart those Founding Fathers were, huh?
June 1, 2008 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ummm... You're an idiot.
That was HRC's argument 2 months ago.
BTW We won the popular vote, too.
AND we've won the elected delegates.
What now? You Lose.
Go flog yourself.
June 2, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
ad (damn!)
June 1, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
isn't it cute how readytoblowgasket is simultaneously becoming more acerbic and less intelligible in his posts?
besides, you've been ready to blow your damn gasket forever now. either get it over with or stop talking about.
June 1, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! Do you even know what "acerbic" means? Upthread was my least acerbic comment in days! That's because I'm looking forward to today's Puerto Rico primary results. :-)
June 1, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You'll agree, then, that it wasn't particularly intelligible? I mean, you did call Donna Brazile "partisan" which, the last time I checked, was the whole point... She's a DNC member. We want her to be partisan. Unless, of course, you're not a Democrat. Wait...
Are you Harriet Christian?
June 1, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
By "partisan" I meant she's in the bag for Obama, meaning, she's not neutral. She's an "undeclared" super delegate all this time and should have attempted to exhibit neutrality. She didn't succeed in exhibiting any the whole primary season. Maybe that's why you guys like her.
In any case, I meant "partisan" toward an individual candidate not toward a party.
June 1, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Puerto Rico has voted. Among the small number of people who bothered to give a shit, Hillary won.
June 2, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
In honor of all the Donna love going on today, here's a video... :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHPBObnlmuk
June 1, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would you be worried about what Clinton might do? If you think Obama is in such good shape, why worry about Clinton and her supporters? Unless perhaps you have doubts that Obama can pull off a win in November.
June 1, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
People keep forgetting that giving her 100%/full votes would be breaking the rules. What about those voters that stayed home? What about everyone agreeing to the rules? What about the pledges that the candidates signed? I mean great, there was a compromise, but in my mind, nobody should get anything. the fact that it is being split, to me, is the best option. it is a compromise.
June 1, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shortest book in the world--
"The Political Genius of Donna Brazile"
In fairness, none of our Democratic "leaders" have distinguished themselves in recent years. They couldn't organize a game of checkers.
I don't think Harold Ickes is too concerned about Donna dissing him.
June 1, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
LMAO!
June 1, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I beg to differ.
It's Winning with Shrum
June 2, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, *&^%#$&! Just heard a report that an uncommitted TN superdelegate said that he was contacted by Hillary herself last week and that she urged him to "keep an open mind UNTIL THE CONVENTION". Gag!!
June 1, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can just see it. After Hillary goes down in flames at the convention, she'll be asking people to keep an open mind until November. And then until 2012. And then until the next century. Because dammit, she deserves to win!
June 1, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, she's totally not going down in flames. I know you don't understand politics, but trust me, she'll be just fine.
June 1, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only she won't be fine, she isn't fine already. Hillary's biggest accomplishment this primary season has been to make lots and lots of enemies.
June 2, 2008 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't shock me at all.
June 1, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Hillary writes her memoirs, will she name it 'Diary of a Mad White Woman'?
June 1, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ano. followup to readytoblowgasket above. Just saw - belatedly - Carl Levin on Face the Nation. He confirmed that the only 'disunity' left is between MI and the DNC re: order in which the states' contests are set in a presidential year(totally divorced from Clinton or Obama).
As for the delegate decisions made by the committee, he's happy with everything except not getting a full vote for every delegate AND he's been assured by both Obama and Clinton that whoever becomes the nominee will see to it that MI delegates have a full vote. No problem.
June 1, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great, as long as Carl Levin is happy....I mean give a Candidate Delegates that he didn't get votes for.....Who could ever be concerned with that.
June 1, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the update, Elizabeth2, I was about to point out I think we're talking about several different issues.
Levin is adamant that the DNC reform NH's "first state in the nation" status. He has been working on this reform for years. He will not let go of it. So he wins if he gets the full votes for his state at the convention because it means MI wasn't dissed, which is all he really cares about besides getting a Dem in the WH in Nov.
That's a separate issue from what the delegates mean for Clinton.
Donna Brazile is an unreliable narrator (because she supports Obama but claims neutrality), so what she says has to be taken with a grain of salt. I can't watch her anymore because she is so divisive. She has spent the entire day today bad-mouthing Clinton. That's not going to help unite the party. She has to stop blaming Clinton for running for president!
June 1, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is that if Levin wants to reform the party's rules on primary order, then he needs to do it within the party, not by having Michigan thumb its nose at the party rules. If MI can do that, why not everyone else? If that happens, NH will be the least of everyone's problems.
June 2, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once again we are saved by the selfless, hopeful presence of Obama and his followers.
June 1, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
June 1, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is far, far too late for Hillary to concede the election with any grace or style. The trouble is I don't know how far back to go--to her saying Obama is a Christian "as far as I know"? To her repeated lying about taking her daughter with her to face sniper attacks in Bosnia? (and no, it is not a "gaffe" when it's repeated several times) To her becoming an honorary Republican in declaring both herself and McCain more fit to serve as CiC than Obama plus accepting the endorsement of rightwinger Richard Mellon Scaife? To her trying to have it both ways by saying vote for me as the first woman candidate but if you mention that I'm a woman you're a sexist? To her saying repeatedly that Obama can't win without the redneck white vote, yet he himself is a niche candidate because he is winning most of the black vote (and why does no one mention that she can't win without the black vote?)
And last but not least, her abominable, and thrice mentioned, assassination reference. To this middle aged white woman assassinations are serious business and not to be mentioned lightly. Her non-apology for that reference was unforgivable.
I repeat, any chance of her exiting the race with class was lost at least 2 months ago.
June 1, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or maybe it was lost with "Senator from Punjab", the first recorded character attack in this primary season.
June 1, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
And one made not by Obama himself and which he slapped down immediately.
June 2, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh huh. Where is the words uttered by Obama in Philly about his pastor AND his church now? Something tells me if he is so willing to throw away things as basic as church for an election he is liable to do anything. Save your silliness.
June 1, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look you piece of shit, Obama did what he was forced to do - and you and others like you forced him.
I've never seen an attack on a candidate's church before - that's a new low. It's the most anti-American thing I've ever seen happen in a campaign, hands down. Freedom of Religion is a basic constitutional right, but you and your ilk have trampled all over it and forced Obama through yet another test, another hoop. Well he made it through.
You can choke on your bile. That is over - and it was all of you who pushed it to a conclusion.
June 1, 2008 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, if he had any conviction of his religion he wouldn't have left. Plain and simple....But then again Mr. Empty needs to win a nomination so little details like God can be tossed out the door. Its as I expected.
June 1, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You didn't watch this speech either, did you?
He didn't leave religion. He left this particular church. He left it because they're being hassled by the press and exposed to unnecessary scrutiny, and because everything they do reflects on him. It's unhealthy for both sides.
In that situation, leaving is the MOST healthy thing to do. But he clarified SEVERAL times--he is not leaving religion, he is leaving that particular church.
June 1, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on....At least take the rose colored glasses off long enough to say its not his best move. I mean geez.
June 1, 2008 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm confused--half of the people who dislike Obama say he's a wuss to have left his church at all, and the other half say the problem is that he took too long to leave.
I honestly don't know what he could have done differently. He learned of the worst of Wright's sermons around the time he announced, but leaving the church then would have just brought them to everyone's attention--AND Wright was retiring anyway. But now that the press has been on a Trinity United Watch to the point that even obnoxious visiting Catholic priests are used against Obama, how could he have stayed?
Obama has his weaknesses. And I can see how this is one of them, in an Achilles heel kind of way. But I don't see it as a MISTAKE. Just, so to speak, a cross he has to bear.
June 2, 2008 7:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are fucking awesome!
June 1, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena-That was meant for you.
June 1, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
thank you.
June 2, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, yeah, that reminds me, I forgot to mention her shameless pandering with the so-called gas tax "holiday"--talk about wholesale rejecting of the core values of the Democratic party by encouraging higher gas use, less conservation, little if any impact on prices, and enriching the big oil companies at the expense of loss of jobs in highway construction.
June 1, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reposting part of what I wrote in "Obama Supporters Share Your Hillary Threshold"
But before I do, just want to mention that Obama has his on Tuzla. He's fond of telling how he spoke truth-to-power at the Detroit Economic Club and that no one applauded. Except he was applauded.
And as for Scaife, she was endorsed by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, which is owned by Scaife. It's the largest newspaper in Pittsburgh. Would you rather she say FU?
Of course, the question should never have been asked. How would Obama have responded if asked "Is Hillary a heterosexual?"
And if you're so offended by Hillary's response, why not tell Obama to start saying there's nothing wrong with being a Muslim.
“I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold,” the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant’s bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.
“I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy,” she said.
Sometimes, the worst thing a politician can do is tell the truth. She just won Ohio 54-44, but CNN's Ohio Exit poll had her winning the C-in-C question 60-37.
And this is inaccurate in some way? Do you get upset when people point out that approximately 90% of Black Democratic Voters voted for Obama?
See http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/in-defense-of-hillary-clinton
June 2, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
She - her campaign, as well as herself - needs to recoup financially, and has only between now and the convention to do so. It's the law. It's natural that she's continuing, in order to fundraise, because she cannot recoup campaign debt legally after either withdrawing or the deadline of the convention. It's understandable that she's not going to be blatant about that, since it would be completely counter-productive.
I'm by no means a fan of hers, yet I comprehend the rules of the road, thus, her options en route.
We need to gear up for opposing McCain 08 by comparing him to McCain 00.
June 1, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
so why does she have to be such a slime about it?
June 1, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
One thing most commenters seem to miss in analyzing who won, who lost and who made what concessions at the RBC:
The challenges to the original rulings were made by the state parties (or in the case of Florida, by an individual with the backing of the state party).
The two campaigns were merely intervenors in the dispute, not principals.
So once Florida conceded in its brief that the mandatory 50% vote penalty had been justified: END OF STORY.
Yes, a motion was put to a vote on restoring 100% seating -- but that was a set-piece, essentially for show. No tribunal ever grants an appellant more relief than it has requested.
And once Florida was granted virtually all it had asked for (except that its superdelegates as well as its pledged delegates were cut in half), there was no way the cttee could justify seating Michigan at 100%.
It basically accepted that state's proposed vote ratio (again, with each vote split in half).
In his remarks afterward, Ickes made no mention of objecting to the mandatory 50% penalty; he knows the rules made it, well, mandatory.
The one point he could find to focus on was the apportioning of the Michigan vote between Obama and Clinton.
But since that ratio was precisely the relief Michigan had requested -- as opposed to the penalty of ZERO delegates that the RBC had initially imposed -- Ickes can logically only appeal to the credentials cttee that the relief granted should be struck down as invalid.
Which would leave Michigan with no delegates, precisely the problem the Clinton camp had vowed it would fight to the bitter end over.
In other words, there's no way the credentials cttee can substitute a ratio more favorable to Clinton. Only one less favorable.
Any ruling can be appealed from the floor of the convention, of course. But those voting on the issue will have been chosen under the existing ruling, so the Obama camp will win.
Hillary can choose to fight all the way to Denver, but she'll lose and in the process destroy what future she might have in the party.
Her call.
June 1, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jean Chretien is that you?
June 1, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
And didn't Michigan Democrats essentially put forth the plan with the ratio that was accepted? It did surprise me a little that Clinton has "standing" to take this to the credentials committee, because it seems like the state party has the relevant interest. I found it interesting that Levin seemed to be disagreeing with Ickes et al. on some points. Although, Levin deserves to do time in the stockade with attendant public humiliation. It's my understanding that he's the one who seems to think that votes don't count unless they come early in the primary process. Michigan has had their delegates stripped at least three times in the last 20 years, and the only thing that made it difficult this year is that Clinton left her name on the ballot. In prior elections, every major candidate has followed through and removed their name from the ballot -- thus avoiding any possible contest over the delegates.
June 1, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep.
Both appeals made by the two parties asking for relief, the Florida and Michigan state parties got what they requested.
June 2, 2008 5:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am sure the argument to the credentials committee would be that the DNC rules clearly state that "uncommitted" votes be treated exactly the same as any other presidential preference. They would go to the convention in an uncommitted status and then vote their preference, most likely Obama. That is significantly more fair than arbitrarily deciding that all uncommitted voters voted for Obama. Taking 4 earned and pledged delegates away from Clinton and giving them to Obama is worse than disenfranchisement. It is changing votes.
June 2, 2008 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Presto,
I tried to reply to you, but it posted down at the bottom of the page. I think the allocation they came up with is predicated on the fact that there is no way to know the will of the voters based on the primary vote because Obama wasn't on the ballot. That might be why the RBC would have accepted a 50-50 split because it would have been a fairer allocation based on an illegitimate primary vote.
By accepting the Michigan Dem Party proposal, which was more generous to Clinton, Obama was offering an olive branch.
I think Hillary stands to lose if she takes this to the credentials committee. They could actually reduce her allocation of delegates from Michigan to a 50-50 split, truly a fairer proposition. She could also lose by engendering more divisiveness in the party when we need to be coming together; she would certainly be blamed if the Dems were to lose in November. I suppose that the credentials committee could also give Hillary what she was asking for, a 73-0 split, but I doubt very many objective persons could see that as fair. And would that even really help her win the nomination or the Presidency?
June 2, 2008 4:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks SO much Canuck -
Your clear explanation really ends the narrative that there are any stolen delegates.
The notion of stolen delegates makes no logical sense in the face of your explanation.
June 1, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
dont be an cornball otto...as if hrc would fair any better if she steals a nomination that she continues to lose by every metric-real and unreal!
if you think hrc can win w/o obama's base, then i totally understand why she is burning the house down.....
people just cant be nice to you people b/c you keep saying dumb crap..
June 1, 2008 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
are you really that unreasonable? you mean to tell me that it is totally acceptable to you that uncommitted voters who were obviously voting against the cheater, hrc, didn't cast any of those votes for obama? if you truly believe that then it stands to reason why you are an hrc supporter...she has lost it and so have you...you people must be living a different reality from the rest of us..
unfreakinbelievable!
June 1, 2008 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
HRC does in fact know exactly what she wants....the presidency.
Do you think for a moment that Obama wouldn't be doing exactly what she is doing if the situation were reversed? Trust me, he would take it to the convention. Why? Because, as has been noted over and over, ANYTHING can happen between now and August. And, if you have read anything about how Obama got himself into the Illinois Senate, you'd know that he is just as much or more ambitious than Clinton.
The only real concern Dems should have now is:
What are the 17M Hillary loyalists going to do in November... assuming, of course, that Obama does get the nomination. Without them, McCain wins. Hate to say it but racism is alive and well in America.
Also, Obama has a serious problem with blue collar workers, especially blue collar whites.
I know from my friends, colleagues and relatives that they supported Hillary and they will NOT vote for Obama. Sure, things may calm down but I know my friends/family. If they say they won't vote O, then they won't. Will they vote McCain? I don't know. I think they will most likely not vote.
June 2, 2008 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love the argument that Hillary should be given the Democratic nomination because while Obama supporters are true loyal Democrats, Hillary's supporters are just true loyal Hillary supporters. Yeah, sure, reward them for their short-sighted small-mindedness that would set back Democratic causes (including women's rights) for years and years.
Throwing around the 17 million is just ridiculous. Suppose Hillary got 15 million votes and clearly lost every possible way of measuring the popular vote. Wouldn't you still be able to say "What are the 15M Hillary loyalists going to do in November....Without them, McCain wins."
Yeah, so?
June 2, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can understand your argument, and that it is why I think a 50-50 split would have been better because it would have reflected the fact that the Michigan Primary was illegitimate. There is no way that the vote can be considered a true reflection of the electorate's will because Obama was not on the ballot.
I think that is why the RBC was willing to support a 50-50 split, because they recognized that no other way of allocating the votes would be fairer. Obama was generous to the Michigan Democratic Party which was trying to achieve a compromise that all sides could live with. He was generous to Clinton because he could have demanded more.
Hillary could fight on, but at this point I don't think she would have much to gain. I feel sad for her and her supporters, but I hope that we can come together to help elect Barack Obama. The healing is gonna be tough I know, but let's try because we really do have to fight together if we are going to have a chance to change the direction of the country.
Peace.
OBAMA 08!
June 2, 2008 3:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Based on all of the messages from the Clinton campaign today... they intend to continue their race and claim victory Tuesday evening based on the popular vote and then she will argue that any superdelegate that does not vote for her is 'overturning the will of the voters'.
The reason that they weren't willing to compromise is that they needed to validate the 'tainted' primaries of Florida and Michigan in order to legitimize their claim to the popular vote totals from those states.
This appears to be the current strategy. The Obama camp as well as the media is going to have to come out and refute her popular vote totals for the next few days. If they let her get away with this claim it will affect some public opinion. The superdelegates should declare not and the let the voters of Montana and South Dakota put Senator Obama over the top Tuesday night. Clinton will conceded that while the delegate vote was 'close'... she won the will of the voters and it should not be overturned....
This is the argument that they will make.
June 2, 2008 5:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
It didn't fall completely on deaf ears, and it's a very good point. The Republicans have been exploiting the tyranny of the masses for years, and this year I think we're finally get our chance to return the favor.
June 2, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment