Democratic Convention Watch: Open Thread

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Open Thread

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com

Who's going to win, who has a better chance against McCain, or whatever else is on your mind.

We have decided to stop allowing anonymous comments. Not because we don't like reading what people have to say but because Blogger has introduced a new "feature" that makes you go to a second page when the number of comments go over 200.

It's very easy to set up a Google account so that you can continue commenting.

And please be excellent to one another. We do not accept name calling or any attacks on our commenters. Any objectionable comments will be deleted. Try to be civil.

Thanks!

Previous Open Thread here
New Open Thread here

4317 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 3401 – 3600 of 4317 Newer› Newest»

suzihussein22 said...: Yeah, it's pandering on both sides, but it's funny to me-

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080531/ap_on_el_pr/obama_mount_rushmore; May 31, 2008 9:54 AM
Anonymous said...: Anybody else hoping for a Dean HYUHHHHH at the end of this address?; May 31, 2008 9:59 AM
ed iglehart said...: And, while we await the committee's deliberations, from my favourite columnist, a few words of acerbic wit....

xx
ed; May 31, 2008 10:12 AM
Bull Schmitt said...: Ed -

I think Sen. Clinton will be able to find something to be outraged by, if that's how she wants to go down in history, in this historic nomination race.

Sen. Obama will have the 2118 or so delegates he needs as of Tuesday night, Wednesday the latest, and I am pretty sure that he will pass 2210 within a week or so after. That should make all arguments moot, and leave Sen. Clinton no alternative but to suspend her campaign, and wait for "something may happen".; May 31, 2008 10:14 AM
greywolf said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; May 31, 2008 10:14 AM
greywolf said...: On to better things.

My gut feeling is the RBC will not beable to come to an agreement today. If you did not notice they met last night behind closed doors for several hours and still could not come to any agreement. I think they will be dead locked, which will be caused by the clinton camp and her pandering ways. From what I hear she is standing firm on everything my way or on to the convention for a final decision.; May 31, 2008 10:17 AM
greywolf said...: I am listening now and I do not see any thing going on except political maneuvering in their faces.; May 31, 2008 10:18 AM
Vicki in Seattle said...: actually, it's a nice summary of the events leading up to this point.

the good news is: I'm way more educated re: the democratic party's nomination process than I ever was before.; May 31, 2008 10:20 AM
Anonymous said...: One of the news networks were saying they believe there was an agreement already on FL, however MI was the holding point. I'm pretty sure they are just on a disagreement of how to proportion the delegates in MI, and it's probably the HRC supporters on the committee trying to give Obama none of the delegates.; May 31, 2008 10:26 AM
Bull Schmitt said...: greywolf -

If you want to talk conspiracy theories, consider that the committee might continue their discussions overnight, and then announce their decision late tomorrow afternoon. This would give the talking heads a "Obama has functionally clinched the nomination now that the final number is set" narrative ... over "OMG - Sen. Clinton is gaining more in the popular vote!!!" hysteria.; May 31, 2008 10:30 AM
ed iglehart said...: Greywolf,

"I have a roof over my head, and food on the table. So I am lucky compared to many others."

smile; May 31, 2008 10:38 AM
greywolf said...: Popular vote holds no more water that a glass with a hole in the bottom. It holds water only if you belive it to be capable of such by placing a finger over the hole. While placing a finger over the hole, one only gives temporary holding power, thus it still holds no merit.

Besides the DNC rules are hmmm how do they say, the winner shall be determined by the holder of the voted delegate lead.; May 31, 2008 10:47 AM
Bull Schmitt said...: greywolf -

My point only relates to the media narrative as the Puerto Rico vote comes in Sunday, and the willingness of certain commentators to advance the idea that Sen. Obama's nomination may be less legitimate if Sen. Clinton decides to push her 'popular vote' argument beyond the point when we have a presumptive nominee.

Before Obama reaches the number, I think you can wince, and allow it as an argument to the remaining Superdelegates. Once Obama is 'over the top', the popular vote argument becomes more of an attack on the party's nominee (IMO); May 31, 2008 10:54 AM
greywolf said...: If they follow John's comments, which by the way was polled to be accepted by the voting public by over 50%. Hillary looses her hold just by that voting public acceptance.; May 31, 2008 10:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Judging by the questions and comments by the RBC there I would say FL is looking at delegates being halved for both pledged and unpledged with HRC getting the net 19 delegates. Just a guess anyhow, since even the HRC supporter was in on the supers only getting half. I wonder if Nelson is going to toot the HRC horn here?; May 31, 2008 11:00 AM
apissedant said...: OK, I have a novel idea. Hillary Clinton keeps complaining that under Republican rules, she would have won. Why didn't she just run as a Republican? Why doesn't she just run as a Republican in 2012? If she doesn't like the Democratic method, then don't be a Democrat.; May 31, 2008 11:13 AM
greywolf said...: Now we have a hillary supporter touting Hillary's seat them all platform. This woman sounds like Clinton, very annoying I must admit.

Bull. I do not belive from my perspective the media has ever accepted the fact that Obama has the lead or is/was a viable candidate, especially if you listen to the clinton news network (cnn) or fox; May 31, 2008 11:30 AM
greywolf said...: What actually happened is Obama used the voting rules of each state, and tactifully turned the tables on her by accepting each state at face value, and then campaigning and or setting up a strong grassroots program in each state that basically kicked her hinney. Clinton and her campaign managers, underestimated the people, and the ability of Obama to appeal to them. They just ran a poor campaign that could not find its voice and stick to single message until the end was upon them; May 31, 2008 11:33 AM
greywolf said...: Gezzz State senator Joyner is irritating. She sounds just like clinton. She is not talking for all the people in florida that is for sure. Over half of them accept and agree to a penalty of 50% plus from my friends that live in Miami, she is way off base if she claims to speak for the voters.; May 31, 2008 11:35 AM
greywolf said...: apissdent...

I read a commentary last night that stated this is really not about hillary,or the voters. This is about Bill Clinton, who was the president that set up the campaign,managed the campaign,had his campaign staff come in then they ended up loosing. He can not accept or realize that he messed up. PLus it is the clinton theme song.. we never loose,we win by hook crook and any kitchen sink we can get our hands on.; May 31, 2008 11:39 AM
greywolf said...: talking about a poltical posturing state senator Joyner. Good gawd. she just read from hillarys last speach.; May 31, 2008 11:40 AM
Anonymous said...: Joyner was so grating. I felt like I was listening to Hillary speaking. She was definitely just looking to get the full delegation and obviously is not looking into a compromise whatsoever. At least the committee is letting her have it a bit. And while typing this... Brazile brings some clarity.; May 31, 2008 11:46 AM
RobH said...: "I understand the rules.
I understand the consequences if I break them.
I agreed to the rules.
I broke the rules.
Now if you levy the consequences, you're not being fair."

Huh? Isn't this the stuff that parents and children generally arrive at agreement on before kindergarten??? Why does this require a truckload of lawyers?; May 31, 2008 11:59 AM
greywolf said...: Wexler is dead on.; May 31, 2008 12:00 PM
RobH said...: Wexler's great!

Nice close.

This is a done deal.

If ALL parties endorse this solution, I don't see how Clinton can claim "voters rights violations."; May 31, 2008 12:01 PM
RobH said...: Just heard Andrea Mitchell say tha tBill Clinton said on the campaign trail today that Hillary will accept the rulings of the committe today.

(I just got goosebumps as I wrote that.)

If that's true, that signals the endgame. That's HUGE (and I trust Andrea Mitchell.); May 31, 2008 12:04 PM
greywolf said...: Just heard Andrea Mitchell say tha tBill Clinton said on the campaign trail today that Hillary will accept the rulings of the committe today.

(I just got goosebumps as I wrote that.)

If that's true, that signals the endgame. That's HUGE (and I trust Andrea Mitchell.)

Also if this is true, it signals that the Clinton camp is finally coming to grips and the reality that their position holds no water and that they did in fact mismanage their campaign thus resulting in their loss.; May 31, 2008 12:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Imagine that a Clinton supporter wanting to get Wexler to change the rules for HRC?; May 31, 2008 12:10 PM
greywolf said...: wow, those questions to Wexler, they are Hillary supporters trying to get a full seat. Such pandering so much political posturing.; May 31, 2008 12:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Oh boy here comes a complaining Ickes. This should be good.; May 31, 2008 12:12 PM
greywolf said...: I think Ickes just got slammed and put in his place.; May 31, 2008 12:15 PM
RobH said...: Wexler to Ickes:

LET US UNIFY !!!!

What a great line.
That's the core of this, isn't it?; May 31, 2008 12:16 PM
RobH said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; May 31, 2008 12:19 PM
greywolf said...: What is this... majority of questions from Hillary supporters on the committee. This is becoming to look as being very biased. Wexlers comments in return are so solid they have no grounds to try and pin either camp to committing to something that will not happen.; May 31, 2008 12:20 PM
greywolf said...: okay what is everyones gut feeling?; May 31, 2008 12:24 PM
Emit R Detsaw said...: I would say the 50% thing, where Clinton gets the 19 bump.

For FLA; May 31, 2008 12:31 PM
greywolf said...: I agree emit. As was stated a full seating is not up for debate. So no matter what, Senator clinton will not get her wish and throw the whole process into an ugly mess.

I think she knew that was the case but she was just pandering and political posturing in hopes that she would have a better chance of running later if she so decided. No matter what if Obama does well in his first 4 years, there will be no contest to keep him from going another 4 years.
Maybe then if all goes well it will go another 4-8 years under democratic control; May 31, 2008 12:38 PM
Bull Schmitt said...: greywolf -

There's going to be compromises on both MI and FL. Any compromise effectively ends the race in Sen. Obama's favor, due to his insurmountable lead going into today.

This whole process today is leading us to a point where Sen. Clinton will either suspend her campaign next week, and work toward party unity... or will she vow to appeal todays' ruling to the Credentials Committee in Denver, which will hurt the effort to convince her supporters from embracing the nominee, and would be profoundly selfish on Sen. Clinton's part.

I honestly couldn't tell you which way she's going to go with this...; May 31, 2008 12:39 PM
tmess2 said...: I think Florida is pretty close to a done deal. There are only three issues to decide

1) halve before allocation -- most likely the answer will be no and they will halve after allocation (making it 52.5, 37.5, and 6.5)

2) vote of superdelegates -- no deal but it will be a straight up and down vote which could go either way

3) reslate of Obama delegates -- it is looking likely which is a shame. I don't know enough about the current 67 delegates to say that Obama is wrong to do it, but I wish the campaign would reconsider unless there is a real problem with a significant number of the delegates.; May 31, 2008 12:43 PM
RobH said...: Bull,

See my post @ 12:17PM; May 31, 2008 12:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Look at that... another Clinton supporter trying to get more delegates in MI. This is so heavily biased by every Clinton supporter that has asked a question.; May 31, 2008 12:49 PM
RobH said...: Any objective observer is about to learn just how craven the Clinton campaign is, and how ridiculous their position.

Their only argument MUST be, "Obama should get nothing from Michigan."

What sane person can believe that.; May 31, 2008 12:51 PM
RobH said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; May 31, 2008 12:53 PM
Anonymous said...: I just can't get over how partisan this has become. First, the Clinton supporters try to push for full delegation from FL even though the state of FL is not asking for that and now, they are trying to get Clinton her delegates in MI and Obama none. It is really unreal. At least this mousy guy talking now is being realistic, at least the most realistic Clinton supporter. That was great to see Ickes get owned. And here comes Ickes with his crap.; May 31, 2008 12:54 PM
RobH said...: I just ran the math and saw, for the first time, that a full seating at 59:69 is a better deal for Obama than a pure 50% penalty.

Not withstanding the real need to levy some form of punishment, I'm now sure hoping the Obamaa campaign will endorse the MI Dem party proposal now being discussed.; May 31, 2008 12:56 PM
Emit R Detsaw said...: RobH

My thought is that MI should get 50% of the 69/59.

That would be a 5 point bump for Clinton - but we know her camp would never accept that.; May 31, 2008 1:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Robh,

I would imagine that they would. At least I hope they would. Losing 29 delegates between the two states is something the Obama campaign can live with I would expect. And this should draw to a close in a hurry after that happens. I think they realize this as well. But a very good point indeed with the math.; May 31, 2008 1:01 PM
Peter said...: I don`t see that? 69-59 gives clinton 10 extra delegates, 59/2 69/2 gives her just 5 extra.
So, i don`t see how 69-59 is better for Obama than 50% of 69-59.

But I could agree that 69-59 would be a good solution for Obama in a way to unite the party. However, how can you justify 50% penalty for FL and not 50% penalty for MI?; May 31, 2008 1:01 PM
Bull Schmitt said...: Rob H -

You can make an argument that 50% votes is a better deal for Sen. Obama, since most of the FL/MI Superdelegates figure to break for Sen. Clinton in the end.

But by tomorrow, there will be a ruling, including Michigan. And any compromise still effectively clinches the nomination for Obama. (Regardless of full votes, half votes, 50-50, 69-59.. whichever.); May 31, 2008 1:02 PM
RobH said...: The ultimate irony, of course, is that these people we're now hearing from, Carl Levin, and Debbie Dingell (if she speaks) are the ones who are actually responsible for this mess!!

I can understand the nominal position of FL Dems who say "It's not our fault, the Repubs did this to us." (even though some Dems in FL were enablers.); May 31, 2008 1:05 PM
Anonymous said...: I believe the difference between MI and FL is that MI realized that it was a flawed primary and FL never said that. So they are coming halfway between Obama and Clinton where FL is not acknowledging that. I think that is where the difference lies.; May 31, 2008 1:08 PM
Unknown said...: Jason in MD,
"So a blanket statement that agencies could use 'excess' money from one year to reduce the next year's budget is wrong, precisely because of annual appropriations, and the attitude of the legislative bodies."

First, WOW!
For you to be able to give your explanation with such details... at 4:00 in the morning. I'M IMPRESSED!

Well, it's exactly what I meant, it was just poorly said I guess. My statement was not that they could spend this year's money for next year's programs, but that such practice should be allowed. This way, agencies don't go on a spending spree to waste the over-budgeted money they've got, so thy don't to give it back.

My point was exactly about the appropriation that you were referring to. Agencies don't have that much control on their budget. All they do is submit a "budget plan" only to see it ripped off by the "appropriation committee," (it's not called that in most cases, but I wanted to refer to the body that that does the appropriation as such), then they go through some negotiations aimed at recouping some of the money that hasn't been allocated to their initial plan. These negotiations wouldn't go anywhere if they haven't shown the need for that money the year before.; May 31, 2008 1:09 PM
greywolf said...: Sen Levin's arguement for 100% seating is mute and he know's it.
Thus he should just stop; May 31, 2008 1:11 PM
RobH said...: Peter,

It has to do with the to-go number, and the presumption that in a 50% deal, Obama gets no uncommitted except the 22 Matt and Oreo have allocated to him. I took this straight from Scenario 5.

At straight 50% penalty, the new target is 2117, his new to-date actual is 2034.5, and his new to-go is 82.5.

At 69:59 full seating, the new target is 2156, his new to-date actual is 2085, and his new to-go number is 71.

He's closer to the "top" at full seating of 69:59, than a half seating of 69:22.; May 31, 2008 1:11 PM
greywolf said...: So what is Levin saying.. that if he doesnt get 100% vote that he will take the fight to the convention? If that is what I hear him saying, then he is way off base.; May 31, 2008 1:15 PM
greywolf said...: I am a bit blind on this folks. I have no idea what went on befor December 07, so does Levin's position hold any water as to NH?; May 31, 2008 1:25 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: apissedant said...
Mike,
You misunderstand Jason's statement.

Incorrect.

Jason stated So, if that agency didn't spend as much this year, (because they were trying to keep the money for some program they're planning on running the following year).

It was the "trying to keep the money for some program they're planning on running the following year" portion of his message I was attempting to clarify.

The way appropriations processes are currently set up, it is IMPOSSIBLE to use one budget year's money in the following budget year. So an agency CANNOT "keep the money for some program they're planning on running the following year". If they want to 'run a program', they need to include it in the budget for the year they plan to run it, and get the program approved by the appropriate authority. Otherwise, agencies would squirrel away all kinds of money whenever they could, and run programs that no one has authorized, except the administrators of the agency. Do you really want the Pentagon to decide what to spend money on programs without Congressional oversight? The Pentagon would skimp on every program they could to support Star Wars-type programs, on 'improved' bunker buster nuclear bombs, etc.

Spending by the government (ANY government) must be reviewed and approved before it is spent.

Mike; May 31, 2008 1:30 PM
Emit R Detsaw said...: Bottom line on MI is that they should have pulled the entire Democrat ticket off their ballot or been like FL where the candidates could not pull their names.

Are we finally going to see campaign reform?

Doubt it. ;o); May 31, 2008 1:31 PM
greywolf said...: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/31/sources-dnc-florida-compr_n_104456.html

states that the rules committe reached a deal last night to seat the whole fl delegation with 1/2 vote.; May 31, 2008 1:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Another Clinton supporter wanting Obama to get none of the delegates... impressive.; May 31, 2008 1:32 PM
Unknown said...: vwis and Mike in MD,
"The accounting firms were against Sarbanes/Oxley because it split up the accounting firms. Formerly, the accounting firms usually had two parts - one a management consulting part (advise the company on how to run the company, increase profit, rearrange the corporate profile to make more profit, etc.) which made the majority of the profits for the accounting firm, and the accounting side, which audited the books."

The "accounting firms" I guess you are referring to the BIG 6->5->4.
Those indeed had two entities, a consulting firm (managerial, IT, ... firm) and an auditing body (the "accounting firm"). (exple: Deloite&Touche was the acctg firm, but Deloite Consulting was the consulting counterpart, and the same was for Price WH, Arthur A., KPMG, etc).
Now, what happened with companies like Enron is that the company would hire the consulting counterpart of their auditing company (in this case Anderson Consulting) for multi-million dollar contracts.

In this particular case, Anderson Consulting did not have anything to do with the bad management /financial practices of the client (Enron). But those contracts were so important for the Anderson partners in Houston, that they were somewhat pressured to let some things slide (in the accounting side of things). They failed to report irregularities in the client's financial statements, in fear to lose the multi-million dollar consulting account with their client (ENRON).

So, the biggest problem with the big 5, now big 4 is that they're not public companies and therefore don't report their earnings or practices to any governmental agency (SEC). Offices are somewhat autonomous. THey also have partners, who share some of the income in each of their offices worldwide, and sometimes those partners have to show a certain level of earnings. They didn't have a "back-office" structure per se to control their business practices.

Finally, Sarbanes/Oxley put forward a lot of rigorous checks and rules to follow, and restrictions in every step of a company's reporting process. This was done to avoid inconsistencies before they reach the final stages of quarterly/annual reports (when it's usually hard to detect the source of such discrepancies).; May 31, 2008 1:35 PM
Unknown said...: apissedant,
Thanks for the clarification... I don't even want to re-read what I wrote. It must've been confusing!
Writing at 3 in the morning (or I guess any other time of the day) is really not my forte!; May 31, 2008 1:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Ickes is scum... that's all I have to say about him. Votes against Florida and Michigan and then completely tries to argue that Barrack should get no delegates whatsoever.; May 31, 2008 1:38 PM
ed iglehart said...: Icky by name, icky in character - Yucky in fact!

Take him out and shoot him!; May 31, 2008 1:39 PM
greywolf said...: Ikes is starting to sound very stupid, and borderline pathetic.
Especially if you read the last post I did. It states that there is document being floate that if signed by the three other candidates not on the ballot they would give those delegates to Obama; May 31, 2008 1:40 PM
greywolf said...: Wow, Ikes needs to know when to shut up. There is an old saying it is better to remain silent and look stupid then to open your mouth and remove all doubt.; May 31, 2008 1:41 PM
Emit R Detsaw said...: And it was icky that told MI in 2004 that if they moved up their vote they would be punished. LOL; May 31, 2008 1:42 PM
Peter said...: It seems to me that Ickes is EXTREMLY unpopular among both Obama-supporters and neutral people. I think even Levin is aggresive against Ickles.; May 31, 2008 1:42 PM
RobH said...: Beautiful.

Another powerful, elected representative telling Ickes "you're a simpleton."

"Don't disunify us."

The theme is common. Ickies finds itself having to defend the perception that he represents "dis-unity."

Beautiful.; May 31, 2008 1:44 PM
Unknown said...: Man, I need a nap or something...
Earlier, I mean to say:

Mike in MD, not Jason in MD

I can't even properly cut & paste and delete.

New low!!!; May 31, 2008 1:45 PM
Independent Voter said...: RobH - "I can understand the nominal position of FL Dems who say "It's not our fault, the Repubs did this to us." (even though some Dems in FL were enablers.)"

--------

I have to disagree. There was only ONE Democratic Senator (and one Republican) in the FL state Senate that voted against the measure. And there were zero house representatives who voted against the measure.; May 31, 2008 1:48 PM
RobH said...: I would love to see a video montage of Wexler reaming Ickes with "LET US UNIFY!", and Levin saying "We're trying to keep a state together here, and we've agreed how to do it. Don't Disunify Us!"; May 31, 2008 1:48 PM
greywolf said...: ahhh,, there were a lot of write ins for Obama that were not counted. Now I understand why the fight is so strong by Obama's camp.; May 31, 2008 1:50 PM
Independent Voter said...: greywolf - I didn't realize that until now either; May 31, 2008 1:54 PM
Peter said...: I don`t think Ickles has much to say here, it seems to me that he is the ONLY one in RBC talking 100% pro a candidate. All the other members seems to be more interested in a fair solution.
I think MI will be solved with all delegates seated at 69-59 with a 50% cut in their voting right.
It could be that Levin will take this further, but that has nothing to do with Clinton, I think Levin might support Clinton, but I don`t he is seeking a pro clinton solution.; May 31, 2008 1:56 PM
greywolf said...: I wonder just how many votes were write in's? This is very interesting news, and only goes to show that it is true Hillary is trying steal this.; May 31, 2008 1:58 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Jason said...
First, WOW!
For you to be able to give your explanation with such details... at 4:00 in the morning. I'M IMPRESSED!

Don't be that impressed. I worked for a couple of federal agencies (one appropriated, one non-appropriated) for 33 years, and was tangentially involved in the budget process during most of those years. Thus I have an "insider's" view that most people wouldn't have of the process.

Mike; May 31, 2008 1:59 PM
Anonymous said...: Write in votes don't count, much like caucuses and small states.

I am Hillary Clinton and I approve this message.; May 31, 2008 1:59 PM
Peter said...: 30 000 would actually be close to 5%. It would change the uncomitted VS Clinton and it would also change the exit poll situation with 46-35-12.; May 31, 2008 1:59 PM
greywolf said...: I dont think Levin will take it any further, He was just posturing to keep his seat in DC.; May 31, 2008 1:59 PM
greywolf said...: Mike,

I managed one of those non appropriated and appropriated budgets for a battalion in Korea while in the Army.; May 31, 2008 2:01 PM
greywolf said...: Now she may think a caucus is a flawed product... but that is how those particular states chose to do it. It is Hillary's fault for not campaigning and getting her people into those states. gezz her comments were so empty and lame.; May 31, 2008 2:04 PM
Anonymous said...: "We should honor the integrity of the voters." Except those that wrote in or had absentee ballots. Typical Clintonian logic. And then Reilly redeems herself. Good call lady. I do have to say both Wexler and Bonior have been very good for the Obama campaign today. Very good choices.; May 31, 2008 2:08 PM
RobH said...: I'm not so sure on the 69:59 deal anymore. Too many members questioning whether you should declare results based on exit polls.

Chuck Todd wrote today the latest rumor is it may go 64:64 after all.

In the spirit of "this must end today", I retract my earlier post that "they may not resolve MI today."; May 31, 2008 2:09 PM
greywolf said...: Reilly, wow, a clinton supporter taking the high road. Very commendable and so honest.; May 31, 2008 2:11 PM
greywolf said...: Tina is so stupid, her arguement has no basis. If she had listened honestly to the presentations, she would have had a better understanding of what actually happened.; May 31, 2008 2:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Tina is awful. Every vote should count unless they voted for Obama is her logic. It's ludicrous.; May 31, 2008 2:18 PM
greywolf said...: Has anyone other than me noticed that Hillary presenters have no passion in their presentation and speak so poorly.
Or is it just me; May 31, 2008 2:19 PM
RobH said...: The lady sitting nextt to Ickies is getting under my skin.

She comes off as haughty, scolding, and not open-minded. She's there to "tell me how it's gonna be", not to listen and reflect so much.

She looks like she would simply be the death of any party she might attend.

Maybe that's too harsh....; May 31, 2008 2:20 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; May 31, 2008 2:21 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm surprised this guy isn't arguing the Ickes theory. I'm sure Ickes will point it out during the Q&A section.; May 31, 2008 2:24 PM
greywolf said...: Dnc Leach for Clinton, but how did the state vote?; May 31, 2008 2:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Hahaha... did he just call Obama's campaign a flawed campaign? Who is winning? Who isn't 31 million dollars in the hole?; May 31, 2008 2:31 PM
Independent Voter said...: Robh - "The lady sitting nextt to Ickies is getting under my skin.

She comes off as haughty, scolding, and not open-minded. She's there to "tell me how it's gonna be", not to listen and reflect so much.

She looks like she would simply be the death of any party she might attend.

Maybe that's too harsh...."

-------

Actually I don't think it's harsh at all. I think you were right on the mark.

What do you expect coming out of the "Shame On You Barack Obama" campaign?; May 31, 2008 2:32 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Michigan.

The state that wants the rules changed, and when the appropriate authority won't change the rules, goes ahead against the rules.

Same state that had a state university know about the rules for recruiting basketball players, knew the players were violating those rules, hid their knowledge of those rules violations, then fought the NCAA for years when penalties and sanctions were imposed on the University of Michigan basketball team.

Is it the water?

They deserve to be bluntly told "If you want the rules to be changed, present your case. If the rules are not changed, then SHUT THE F*** UP! In the meatime, obey the rules and try again next time to change the rules."

Mike; May 31, 2008 2:36 PM
greywolf said...: Fowler is stupid. Michigan vote was flawed. Extreemly flawed but then again he is a clinton supporter so what else could be expected.; May 31, 2008 2:38 PM
RobH said...: You know, I'm coming around to the idea that the DNC says "we've considered all your arguments, and guess what, in our deliberations we've got a hung jury, we've decided not to change our mind - MI gets zero."

Under that decision, what leg does Clinton have to stand on, she gonna take on the DNC??; May 31, 2008 2:45 PM
apissedant said...: jason,
No problem. I knew exactly what you meant, but I guess how it could be misinterpreted.

Mike,
Jason has again explained what he meant. The meaning is the exact same that you are saying, just with muddled sentence structure. The basic idea is, say I am the CO of the USS Bob the Builder. This year, our budget was 10 million dollars, and we only spent 9 million. I realize we only spent 9 million because less things broke than normal. I also know next year, that we're going to have to redo the nonskid, which will eat up the extra million dollars. If I give back the million dollars, Congress will more than likely only give me a 9 million dollar budget next year. This will mean I cannot afford to redo the nonskid. In order to protect the money for the nonskid, I simply blow a million dollars on paint, tools, or whatever else I can think of to ensure I spend all 10 million dollars, and get the 10 million dollar budget again next year.; May 31, 2008 2:46 PM
tmess2 said...: While waiting for the end of the hearing portion of the RBC meeting, have been following the blogs on the Maine Convention. Apparently, there have been a lot of no-shows and they are still working on seating alternates.

It's probably still another 90 minutes or so until we have the final delegate numbers from Maine as they have delayed the start of caucusing until 3 pm EDT.; May 31, 2008 2:49 PM
greywolf said...: Wow, Donna Brazile is giving that man a scathing lecture on playing by the rules. Thank you for setting that man straight.; May 31, 2008 2:51 PM
ed iglehart said...: Yo Momma!; May 31, 2008 2:51 PM
Independent Voter said...: GO DONNA! GO DONNA! GO DONNA!; May 31, 2008 2:51 PM
greywolf said...: Im impressed beyond ability to say more.; May 31, 2008 2:52 PM
Independent Voter said...: Great! Ickes - the MORON that voted in favor of stripping MI/FL of all their delegates!

SWEET! SHUT DOWN!!!!!; May 31, 2008 2:54 PM
apissedant said...: where are you guys watching this thing at? I checked cspan and cspan 2 and didn't see it. There was a stupid book club on when I checked.; May 31, 2008 2:56 PM
greywolf said...: apiss...

I have it on Cspan weekend. They are on lunch break now.; May 31, 2008 2:59 PM
Independent Voter said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; May 31, 2008 3:00 PM
greywolf said...: I am not sure who donna is going to support but it sure sounded like she is behind Obama. She really made it clear that you can not go and try to change the rules in the second and third quarter, which what the clinton team was trying to do.; May 31, 2008 3:01 PM
Independent Voter said...: I totally agree with you greywolf. I think that Donna has been behind Obama for quite some time now. She was behind Clinton up until February when she started falling behind.

I remember as recent as December, she too had Hillary all but coronated.; May 31, 2008 3:04 PM
greywolf said...: apissedent

did you find it; May 31, 2008 3:07 PM
greywolf said...: Okay everyone.. whats your take on this.

I think florida will be seated fully at a half vote, and that michigan will be fully seated but at a 69/59 split.; May 31, 2008 3:09 PM
terry72929 said...: I am extremely worried about Barack Obama being the nominee because of his
racist affiliations with the Trinity Church.
He has been a member for over 20 years and it is obvious that the racist
teachings of Rev. Wright, Michael Pfleger and their affiliations with Louis
Farrakhan is not something new.
Mr. Obama and his family have been listening to these teachings for over 20
years and I believe that is evident in the comment that Mrs. Obama made about
this being the first time she has been proud of America.
It will be a pure travesty to have this sort of racist beliefs in the White
House.
If Mr. Obama is the nominee, I will for the first time in my life vote for a
Republican as will my family and friends.
It is not about black or white, male or female, it is purely about Mr. Obama's
racist affiliations and I am sure if their was a white candidate who belonged to
such a racist church against blacks the media, members of congress and senate
would not stand for or support such a candidate.
Please wake up America and do the right thing for our country.; May 31, 2008 3:13 PM
Independent Voter said...: greywolf - I agree with you on FL, I have the feeling MI may be seated in full according to the results, but they will allocate all the uncommitted to Obama.; May 31, 2008 3:14 PM
Independent Voter said...: terry that is the difference between YOU and most of Obama's supporters. We CARE about our country and the appointment of 2 supreme court justices!; May 31, 2008 3:16 PM
apissedant said...: Yes, I did. I don't know why I didn't see it when I first checked.; May 31, 2008 3:23 PM
Emit R Detsaw said...: terry72929, I belonged to a church for over 30 years. The pastor of that church that I was in the pew for almost every sunday for 18 years of the 30 killed his wife and heis secretary's husband.

Does that make me a murder?

Be real - you are a republican, posting on a dem blog to stir up junk. I am an Independent and I clearly see that McCain would be worse for America than Bush has been.; May 31, 2008 3:23 PM
greywolf said...: terry72929 said...
I am extremely worried about Barack Obama being the nominee because of his
racist affiliations with the Trinity Church.
He has been a member for over 20 years and it is obvious that the racist

Terry, you can not hold one person responsible and accountable for the words of others. No can you say that the words of one refect the views of the others even if they sit in that church. I have been in many churches during my military career not because I agreed with the teachings, I was there for my own benefit and that was to worship and maintain my own personal faith. Regardless, just because the speaker sounds racist that does not mean that the listener is. I would hate to be held accountable for the words and teachings of everyone I have known all my life. There are many that I do not agree with but that does not change my friendship. Its part of being America, its freedom of speach and I would hate to loose that also; May 31, 2008 3:24 PM
greywolf said...: If they do it the way CNN spins it, at 50/50 then Obama is just 3 short of being there.; May 31, 2008 3:31 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Has anyone seen the full sermon by the Rev. Michael Pfleger? I haven't seen it, so I'm wondering what context the excerpted words were in.

However, from what I've seen, his tone was EXACTLY the same as Shillery's "The skies will open, angels will descend, blah, blah, blah" speech about a month ago.

Mike; May 31, 2008 3:34 PM
apissedant said...: The most recent sermon, by the white pastor, was 100% correct and not in any way racist at all. That was a great sermon that I, as a white man, as a white man whose family was not even here during slavery, completely agree with. Enough with the stupid church crap. I have friends, mentors, and relatives that have said multiple things that I do not like and that I find offensive. I have personally said things, that looking back, I am offended by. I will not hold 8 minutes of stupid comments against any man, especially a man that did not say those stupid comments.; May 31, 2008 3:36 PM
Independent Voter said...: greywolf - If they do it the way CNN spins it, at 50/50 then Obama is just 3 short of being there.

----

(I am assuming you're talking about seating FL 1/2 and MI 50/50) 3 short of what? Pledged delegate lead? If that is what you are referring to, Option #2 of DCW is the closest to that scenario (69/59 split). According to that scenario, Obama has already clinched the pledged delegate lead. :); May 31, 2008 3:37 PM
Unknown said...: Independent voter said...
I totally agree with you greywolf. I think that Donna has been behind Obama for quite some time now. She was behind Clinton up until February when she started falling behind.

I remember as recent as December, she too had Hillary all but coronated.

This is patently wrong dude. Brazile has been a "unpledged" superdelegate all the time. for the last 6 months people have begun to suspect that she will be voting for Obama based on comments she has made, something which a cnn anchor recently pointed out to her during coverage of NC/IN primaries. At no time has she ever indicated that she would vote for or endorse clinton.
Obama/Clinton '08; May 31, 2008 3:37 PM
greywolf said...: I watched the full surmons of rev wright. Yes, he was passionate about what he was saying, but after listening to what was said before and after those selected sound bites...it was taken and portrayed completely out of context. What hurt the whole thing was when he came back out and started running his mouth again. It became clear at that moment in my mind that he could really care less about obama .. it was all about him..; May 31, 2008 3:41 PM
Unknown said...: "The real budget thing in the Government is, if you don't spend it, you don't get that much the next year."

Yes, that was exactly my point!
That's why I thought the system has to be modified to avoid such waste and make sure appropriation is done based on merit, not just what was historically allocated.

I am saying this albeit my firm belief that it would never happen, because through my experience in Corporate America, I saw that when it's budget time, and through heavy negotiations, bargaining and fighting from both sides (Corporate Finance and the various departments/business units), it is almost impossible to get to a compromise... thus, they fall back on the historical budgets.

I would believe the same thing, although to a much broader extent (in complexity and magnitude), would happen in the government!!!

Too bad; May 31, 2008 3:41 PM
Independent Voter said...: Micah - "At no time has she ever indicated that she would vote for or endorse clinton."

------

My apologies, I didn't mean to imply that she would vote for or endorse Clinton. What I meant by that, is up until February, she kept saying that Hillary will be the nominee. She was basing this on polls which showed that Clinton was ahead of everyone in the race with the closest person (Obama) being 20 points out. That was the intent of my statement.; May 31, 2008 3:44 PM
Unknown said...: Sorry, my previous comment (at 3:41), was in response to:

Emit r d's earlier post; May 31, 2008 3:45 PM
greywolf said...: However they were spinning it independent.. their total was 2118. when they added in the allocated votes of the DNC and figured in PR, MT and SD based on pr at 60/40 and the other two with a 56 for obama, the showed obama only needing a few sd's to seal the deal. Where clinton would need just about all that was left of the SD.; May 31, 2008 3:45 PM
Independent Voter said...: greywolf

Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't sure what you they were saying. Ever since they went back to their old ways of being the Clinton News Network (back in March), I started tuning into MSNBC. :); May 31, 2008 3:53 PM
Squirrel said...: My guess is MI will be seated 64/64, pledged and supers will be allocated 0.5 votes.

Donna was brilliant, all but called him a cheat to his face!

Roll on DONNA.; May 31, 2008 3:55 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Jason said...
I would believe the same thing, although to a much broader extent (in complexity and magnitude), would happen in the government!!!

Jason,

It does, complicated by when a President wants certain programs reduced or eliminated, and other programs initiated or expanded, and Congress won't go along, or vice versa.

The two sides play games, and the agencies can get caught in the middle, especially the career non-political managers.

Thus they protect their current budget by whatever means they can, which means they spend the budget as appropriated.

In an ideal world, the budget would be based entirely on need. Of course, that would mean that budgets would get submitted close to the beginning of the Fiscal Year for which they will operate under. (The federal government's fiscal year runs October 1 through September 30.) The problem is, the White House and agencies are right now planning the FY 2010 budgets (never mind it will be a new President then) to be submitted early next year; Congress is right now considering the FY 2009 budgets; but we still have 1/3 of FY 2008 to go!

Who knows what's going to happen in six months (economic, electoral, world situation or crisis, domestic situation and/or crisis (9-11? Katrina?), etc.), let alone 16 to 28 months from now, and can plan a budget that is almost impossible to change if it is not planned correctly?

Yes, the system needs to be changed, but with all the forces that would need to be realigned to make it happen, the probability is extremely small.

Mike; May 31, 2008 4:00 PM
Markk said...: As a moderate Republican who will be voting for McCain, I still have found this entire process fascinating and this is a fantastically run website by the people here, kudos for making the superdelegate count manageable.

First off, the fact that Senator Clinton hasn't stepped aside yet speaks volumes to me about her priorities being all about HER rather than being about the party. Democrats across the nation clearly do not want her on the top of the ticket and it's very 'Clinton' of her to want to change the rules mid-game to favor her.

While I won't cast a vote for Senator Obama (and it's a moot pt in this state anyways as I'm in Arizona), he at least strikes me as a candidate (and man) of honor. I simply do not think 'honorable' is a phrase that too many people associate with Senator Clinton and her continued attempts to somehow, some way, in some manner, take the nomination from Senator Obama is just nothing short of extremely distasteful...; May 31, 2008 4:01 PM
Emit R Detsaw said...: Markk -

It's never a moot point to vote for the candidate that is best for Americas future. Even though Arizona is the State that McCain is representing, please don't vote for him as President just because he hasn't voted for any earmarks that help your state. ;o) Just Kidding.

Independent for Obama!; May 31, 2008 4:08 PM
Amot said...: tmess,
I agree with everything you wrote today on all threads. However there is something I want to ask: If Obama gets control at the FL slate, will Edwards do the same? Because if he rechose his slate he can actually deliver 13 to Obama guaranteed.
The DA thing was just a funny question but I raised it in order to show that the Chapter does not state supers receive full vote under any circumstances.

Finally, MI state party said they will work to deliver all uncommitted to Obama - wich makes him 49 guaranteed. Sorry, Hillary, put the sore loser mask :); May 31, 2008 4:09 PM
vwis said...: All,

One thing I noticed was that (I believe it was Katz would not be able to vote for FL because he was from FL.) If that constitutes a conflict of interest then doesn't being Chief Strategist for a campaign? It's different than just endorsing in that he actually is paid for his position. I'm sure Ickes is like a Supreme Court Judge and able to rise above it.; May 31, 2008 4:10 PM
vwis said...: Kick Ickes out and give him zero votes. Since he feels that is fair.; May 31, 2008 4:12 PM
greywolf said...: saw part of the interview with Hillary... she said she will have the popular vote at the end of the primaries (using her fuzz math again) and obama has only a slight lead in delegates. Only a slight lead?; May 31, 2008 4:14 PM
RobH said...: Chuck Todd said earlier that Ickes will be one of the LEAST influential people today in deliberations, precisely because all the RBC mainstreamers KNOW how he basically stands for intransigence, and thus is lilely to be largely ignored.; May 31, 2008 4:16 PM
greywolf said...: sorry ikes is an idiot and has no idea what he is saying. Most of clinton supporters do not voice the same position as Ikes, nor did clinton's presenters. Thus i think Ikes is hmmm just a puppet that has no meaning.; May 31, 2008 4:17 PM
apissedant said...: That black lady on the council is a douche. She doesn't want to disenfranchise Florida voters by penalizing them by one half. However, one year ago, she had no problem penalizing them by 100%, completely disenfranchising them. Her excuse is, that she didn't know that the election would be so close, and apparently in a lopsided election, it is completely ok to disenfranchise voters. NICE.; May 31, 2008 4:18 PM
RobH said...: The image of the two campaigns stands in such stark contrast today.

Every time something looks like it's an advantage for Clinton, her representatives treat it as "look, we've won, we've picked up something, we've proved we're right." They don't even GET IT that the reason for their advantage is the statesmen-like, considered, consessionary, problem solving, unifying behavior of their opponent.

One is little, one is big.; May 31, 2008 4:22 PM
Markk said...: Emit,

Don't get me wrong, I'm not NOT voting for Senator Obama because he has little or no chance to win Arizona. I'm simply very comfortable with Senator McCain and voted for him even back in 2000.

But as a 'good American' I want a good president, even if 'my guy' doesn't win. An Obama presidency, even with his liberal views, would be FAR more preferable to the Clintons re-taking the White House.

On a side note, watching these proceedings, Howard Dean seems like a very abrasive and dislikable person for a party leader...; May 31, 2008 4:22 PM
vwis said...: tmess,

Where are you watching Maine Convention?; May 31, 2008 4:22 PM
Hippolytus said...: Ickes is doing a lousy job for Hillary today. While I lay the MI mess largely at Carl Levin's feet, I must say that he got the better of Ickes today. Ickes is so obviously two-faced that he is not a credible rep for Clinton.
Donna Brazille was incredibly effective in reminding the Clinton campaign to play by the rules, and that anything else is a cheat.; May 31, 2008 4:24 PM
greywolf said...: okay.. i understand more of what cnn is saying... if they give a 50% cut to both states the number goes to 2118, giving pr a spilt of 60/40 and a even split of MT and SD, Hillary would need over 90% of the remaining 284 SD based upon the way CNN see's it. Not going to happen unless she can convince the remaining SD's that her fuzz math of having the popular vote makes her the best candidate.; May 31, 2008 4:24 PM
greywolf said...: CNN is in florida and according to all the people they are talking to ... they just want this over. They also the majority of such belive that if there was a real election with campaigning,the results would be completely different. Sounds to me like the people of florida do not have the same view and opinion as clinton.; May 31, 2008 4:29 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Some of the good stuff is on YouTube already:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3_nlw2I6MoQ

Includes Donna Brazile talkin' about her mamma, the rules, and cheating.; May 31, 2008 4:34 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: And here's Wexler at the RBC:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=by4Zn8OUQh8

OBAMA '08; May 31, 2008 4:35 PM
greywolf said...: youtube doesnt waste any time do they... wow. LOL

I really liked donna's comments about her momma and cheating. She made sure it was on the record to, a very pointed and scathing rebuttle to MI; May 31, 2008 4:42 PM
greywolf said...: according to my caculations

Obama will need 25 sd's after it's all over to reach the 2118 number if that is what it is.

And clinton would need 205.

so how many sd would be available after the dust settles?; May 31, 2008 4:51 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: In today's proceedings, it is obvious to me that the grandson (James Roosevelt) learned a lot more than the son (Harold Ickes) from their respective famous 'New Deal' ancestors.

Mike; May 31, 2008 4:54 PM
RobH said...: Hey Greywolf,

don't know how you got to 25 to go unless you've given Obama ALL the uncommitted (which may in fact be sensible.)

But listen. The Pelosi Cub w/ 5.5 is likely to go on Weds. and Add-ons in remaining state conventions will net him 21 of 30 (by my calculations.) I'd prefer to not have to wait until 6/21, but if I do, it's in the bag anyway.; May 31, 2008 4:55 PM
RobH said...: Chuck Todd just floated the idea that the RBC might elect to recognize the MI Dem party's proposed partitioning of the delegates (69:59) NOT as a result of the primary, but as the best estimation of how the delegates should be apportioned IN THE FACE OF the idea that the Primary CAN NOT BE RECOGNIZED.

As ahey say in thos Guinness ads:

BRILLIANT!!!

End it. Kill the discusion of the MI Primary in totality. Kill the discussions of 328K votes to Zero.

BRILLIANT!!; May 31, 2008 5:00 PM
greywolf said...: I just hope there is a flood of SD/s going to obama after this RBC vote. once that is settled, and it goes the way we think, it is in fact all over except the SD votes.; May 31, 2008 5:00 PM
greywolf said...: discovery just launched...; May 31, 2008 5:03 PM
greywolf said...: what kind of "G's" do you get at 6000 mph?; May 31, 2008 5:08 PM
suzihussein22 said...: greywolf-There's got to be a few astronauts that can't wait for it's arrival...would that be away goes trouble down the drain or plop, plop, fizz, fizz, what a relief it will be?; May 31, 2008 5:08 PM
greywolf said...: can anyone imagine traveling at a rate of 5 miles per second?; May 31, 2008 5:12 PM
greywolf said...: That is very interesting. They are staying behind closed doors.; May 31, 2008 5:18 PM
Independent Voter said...: Hey you guys, read this article and tell me what your thoughts are (especially the LAST paragraph). Does it NOT sound like there is already a decision, even though the RBC meeting has not even reconvened?; May 31, 2008 5:20 PM
suzihussein22 said...: Is it possible they know anything already?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/31/sources-dnc-florida-compr_n_104456.html; May 31, 2008 5:21 PM
Emit R Detsaw said...: I thought the original schedule was a public hearing this morning and then closed door deliberations this afternoon, but the chair confused me when she said they would come back after lunch. ;o); May 31, 2008 5:21 PM
Hippolytus said...: It's a shame that they seem to be trying to work this thing out behind closed doors, rather than having an open process. What's happened to the idea of transparency?; May 31, 2008 5:23 PM
Independent Voter said...: Sorry I should not have said that they have not reconvened, I should have said "publicly reconvened."; May 31, 2008 5:26 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Party rules state that the decision 'shall' be made in public. That does not mean that closed-door discussions cannot take place, but the actual vote on the decision 'shall' be in public.

Mike; May 31, 2008 5:27 PM
greywolf said...: soft ...

That compromise article from the Huffington post has been there most the morning.

That article is not coming up independent, unless it is the same one soft istalking about; May 31, 2008 5:29 PM
greywolf said...: Those are the RBC did not seem to be aware of those 30,000 write ins that were not counted to that could impact and push them to the 50/50 for michigan; May 31, 2008 5:31 PM
Vicki in Seattle said...: greywolf, G's aren't calculated by speed (eg, miles (or feet) per second), but by acceleration (feet per second per second - not a typo).

to escape earth's gravity requires a consistent minimum of just slightly more than 32 feet per second per second - number of seconds needed depends on the degree to which you exceed this amount. Because that is the pull of earth's gravity at mean sea level.

said the daughter of the Boeing engineer (and an engineer in her own right, too).; May 31, 2008 5:31 PM
Independent Voter said...: my bad sorry grey. It's not the same one. I'll try it again.

LINK; May 31, 2008 5:32 PM
suzihussein22 said...: I couldn't link to that article independent voter.

greywolf-Oh, I was on CNN live this morning.; May 31, 2008 5:35 PM
Independent Voter said...: Ok,soft try this one http://tiny.cc/DzHhV; May 31, 2008 5:39 PM
greywolf said...: I would say that pretty much spells it out Independent. That statement would make one think that they have already made up their minds and are just going through the formality. Very interesting. Also very interesting that he appears to be supporting Obama; May 31, 2008 5:40 PM
Independent Voter said...: grey-I thought so too. Yes it does look like he is leaning toward Obama. Oreo didn't find it enough to call it an endorsement - which I agree with, but I figured I would throw it out there for them to make the decision.

I guess my question though is why are they being so wimpy and not coming out now? They have supposedly been in meeting for about an hour and a half now - is it just for "show" at this point to make it appear as though they are still working it out at this point? Or are they just being wimpy and grudgingly not coming out because they are afraid of how the people in the audience are going to react?

I sure hope security is tight. Because I think all those women in the room and outside are going to be.....well lets just say....not happy?!?; May 31, 2008 5:45 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Who is the lady dressed in tan/brown with her brown hair pulled back and black glasses sitting low on her nose? She is the one that was saying that the RBC had said that the votes weren't going to count and that it would be wrong now to say that they would count - and I think she said she was from California.

Anyone know her name?

.; May 31, 2008 5:47 PM
Independent Voter said...: Leah, her name is Alice Germond (DC) - DNC Secretary; May 31, 2008 5:50 PM
greywolf said...: independent...

From what I am hearing on CNN, there looks like there will be two different rulings today. One for Florida and one for Michigan, they need to confir with staff lawyers and the rules/bylaws people which are different from this group.

if that is true, then it is possible they are going to go with a 50% reduction in florida, and giving MI a full seating as the situations were completely different.; May 31, 2008 5:52 PM
greywolf said...: who knows im just speculating on this.; May 31, 2008 5:53 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Independent-

Thanks!

I actually fell asleep 'twice' during the RBC - once this morning and once early afternoon - now I am trying to piece together what I missed LOL !

OBAMA '08; May 31, 2008 5:53 PM
suzihussein22 said...: independent voter-Just what do you think a few women could do, eh?:D; May 31, 2008 5:53 PM
Independent Voter said...: greywolf - I agree with your assessment, but I think what all of our curiosity is how will MI's delegation be allocated.; May 31, 2008 5:54 PM
Peter said...: Obama has resigned from his church. It would be interesting to see how this plays out.

Personally I don`t care which chuch he attends or what he believes in, but I think this is a good move for the long run. It would prevent further focus on wright etc in the fall. It could create som turbulence in the short run though.; May 31, 2008 5:54 PM
Unknown said...: So I am now assuming that Florida will get seated at 1/2- which then gives HRC a net of 19 delegates- so Obama would need 60 delegates....In this scenario, it seems like it is still mathematically over- because Obama figures to get around 41 delegate in PR, MT, and SD- and the remaining add-ons I project him to win around 19 of based on states he firmly controls...So at this point Obama has Clyburn, Edwards (the Wynn replacement from MD), Gore, plus the Pelosi club, as a built in buffer in case Mi is not split 50/50....Of course Clinton may net out a few extra supers in MI and FL....Obama then has a few more of the Edwards delegates in his hip pocket...

And of course the big trump card Obama has is one Nancy Pelosi...who could likely sway the remaining uncommitted house members by potentially punishing them with crappy committee assignments should they not fall in line...and of course Reid could do the same in the Senate, which of course explains why HRC has been hitting the bottle this weekend....looks like HRC and Betty Ford may have more in common than just their former address...; May 31, 2008 5:55 PM
greywolf said...: Clinton News Network is praising his decision to resign.; May 31, 2008 5:56 PM
Emit R Detsaw said...: IndepVote,

The line I started to laugh at from your link was: "I was invited to meet Hillary Clinton for the first time in early April at a hotel in Washington".

Clinton's using between the sheets politics?

;o); May 31, 2008 5:57 PM
greywolf said...: independent...

I actually belive it may go 50/50, if not it will go 69/59. They just cant go any other way when they now know that there were over 30,000 obama write ins that were not counted at all. I do not believe they were aware of that as several so stated.; May 31, 2008 5:58 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Peter-

Where did you hear that Obama has resigned from his church?
I don't see anything online about it yet - unless I'm just missing it.; May 31, 2008 5:59 PM
stopOBAMAnow said...: Hello there:

Very sloppy organization by the RBC. They started late in the morning, and now they are sleeping after the lunch!

Bush = No Experience = Disaster

Obama = No Experience = Disaster

Bush = Obama

Stop Obama Now. No No ObaBush! No.; May 31, 2008 6:00 PM
Independent Voter said...: ss - LOL! I'm just saying, you never know. Look at the "freedom trashcans" from the late 60's and early 70's.

Hillary has started a new type of strategy of throwing kitchen sinks, using Tonya Harding strategies...I'm just sayin'....LOL today they would be throwing those "freedom trashcans" instead of just putting their aprons, bra's, hair rollers etc. in them.

Please DON'T take my all of these statements seriously, I do have a sense of humor. Well, ok I was just joking unless of course Geraldine Ferraro is present :( then I'd really be scared. LOL; May 31, 2008 6:00 PM
tmess2 said...: sorry figuring I had 90 minutes to kill, did errands and stuff like that so have been away.

As far as Maine, I have been following it on Turnmaineblue.com and politickerme.com, both of which are blogging from the Convention. Apparently, they are done now with credentialling and are trying to make sure everyone has their ballots and that the optic scan machines are working (but that is about 2 hours ago, no updates since); May 31, 2008 6:00 PM
greywolf said...: as one clinton supporter stated that no knowing that there were in fact over 30,000 write in votes for obama; she would support a 50/50 split. STating that this primary in MI was obviously flawed.; May 31, 2008 6:00 PM
Independent Voter said...: Sweet, they're coming back in! FINALLY!!!!!!!!; May 31, 2008 6:02 PM
greywolf said...: roland martin received that information from the church and Obama him self. CNN is talking about it now.; May 31, 2008 6:02 PM
Peter said...: I think it was a wise move.
I think it is sad that he had to do it, but I think the gaffes have taken to much focus away from the campaign.

The timing is also good. Today we have the RBC meeting, tomorrow we have PR, so I don`t think it would get that much focus and I am not sure that it is going to be a negative factor. It could actually be that this helps him both in the short run and long term.

I am convinced that this helps him in the GE because republicans loves to turn the election into a campaign about small issues. It is better to have some media focus on this now rather than october or november.; May 31, 2008 6:02 PM
Vicki in Seattle said...: yep, and Donna Brazile is smiling!; May 31, 2008 6:04 PM
greywolf said...: I lip read and I just saw several say michigan 50/50 was the way to go.; May 31, 2008 6:05 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Chuck Todd on MSNBC reported that both states will get a 50% penalty, Fl per this morning, and MI at 69-59 (before 50% penalty).

Also, apparently, full delegation, 1/2 vote per delegate.

Mike; May 31, 2008 6:06 PM
tmess2 said...: now that they are coming back in, I expect quick resolution of Florida, main motion to grant Florida all of its delegates with half-votes. Two amendments to motion -- one to seat all at full, one to seat unpledged at full. Both amendments will fail and the main motion will be adopted.

Depending on what happened in back, Obama (and maybe Edwards) to decide by (maybe) Tuesday which districts need to recaucus to choose Obama or Edwards delegates. District meetings to be called for (maybe) June 12th. If state needs to pick new statewides, state meeting for June 21st.

Michigan, I am less sure of. My hunch says, 69-59 with half votes. District delegates seated as chosen, Obama to have review over the state-wides. But the resolution may depend on the sequence of motions. If new district meetings are required in Michigan, same time table as for Florida.

NOTE: Proposed time table based not on inside information, but on requirement for seven days notice of meetings and time to know who was chosen at districts before state meeting.; May 31, 2008 6:07 PM
Emit R Detsaw said...: I find it interesting that the Ickies and other Clinton backers are the ones not yet to the table....; May 31, 2008 6:08 PM
greywolf said...: if that is true, Hillary will NOT be happy at all. But she did say she would accept what the RBC said in an interview earlier today.; May 31, 2008 6:09 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Also, Chuck Todd is reporting that Obama will get the two Michigan add-ons.

The MI settlement will net Clinton 5, less 2 if the MI SDs get full vote, or 1 if MI SDs get 1/2 vote each. Apparently no one has hinted if the SDs will be given full vote or 1/2 vote.

Mike; May 31, 2008 6:12 PM
greywolf said...: I bet that there is some desenting votes on michigan they do not all agree on michigan.; May 31, 2008 6:13 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 3401 – 3600 of 4317 Newer› Newest»

Welcome to Democratic Convention Watch

Blog Archive

Democratic Convention 2008

Democratic National Convention History

Denver & Colorado Democrats

DCW in the News

Friends of DCW

2008 Republican National Convention

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Open Thread

4317 comments:

Tags