WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com
The RBC has just ruled that Florida's pledged delegates and superdelegates will be seated at 1/2 vote each.
The RBC has ruled the Michigan's pledged delegates be split 34.5-29.5 (69-59 at 1/2 delegate each), and superdelegates will be seated at 1/2 vote each.
Clinton campaign responseToday’s results are a victory for the people of Florida who will have a voice in selecting our Party’s nominee and will see its delegates seated at our party’s convention. The decision by the Rules and Bylaws Committee honors the votes that were cast by the people of Florida and allocates the delegates accordingly.
We strongly object to the Committee’s decision to undercut its own rules in seating Michigan’s delegates without reflecting the votes of the people of Michigan.
The Committee awarded to Senator Obama not only the delegates won by Uncommitted, but four of the delegates won by Senator Clinton. This decision violates the bedrock principles of our democracy and our Party.
We reserve the right to challenge this decision before the Credentials Committee and appeal for a fair allocation of Michigan’s delegates that actually reflect the votes as they were cast.
Obama campaign response“We're extremely gratified that the commission agreed on a fair solution that will allow Michigan and Florida to participate in the Convention. We appreciate their efforts, and those of the party leadership of both states, to bring this resolution about,” said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe.
del.icio.us
128 comments:
Thanks for the update. You might want to mention that it was a unanimous vote of the entire RBC committee to go with the 1/2 vote motion.
Michigan looks like a foregone conclusion 69-59 pledged, unpledged restored, but all have 1/2 votes. Ickes and Clinton aren't happy, but Don Fowler is supporting it.
The conduct of the people in the crowd (as far as I can tell, Clinton protesters, as the Clinton campaign brought them in by the busload, and the Obama campaign ordered supporters not to act out) has been deplorable. And we're supposed to say we're united after this? More and more Obama/Clinton is looking like a nightmare ticket.
Oh dear... She's going to take the Michigan matter to Credentials...
Oh well.
I'll tell you. I am very happy to see that they extended the 1/2 vote to the superdelegates as well since those are the ones that deserved the penalty the most.
In addition, The Hillary supporters there were some of the rudest I've seen, being loud enough to interrupt the progress as well as not going quiet when requested to do so.
Thralen
The committee took this seriously and I applaud their leadership. There was some political posturing by Clinton supporters but it was called on the floor and not tolerated. There was also some heckling, esp after the MI vote was completed....but it was all good.
Let's see if Ickes carries through on his threat. Frankly, his grounds were bogus and I hope that the Credentials committee dismisses the challenge.
Jay, let her. The super's will ALL move in the next few days so there will be absolutely zero argument for her in front of the credentials committee.
I was listening to this online thru C-Span Radio, and I was appalled at the way the onlookers carried on. Never have I heard such disrespect in a meeting in which so much was counted on. Whether they were Obamites, or Clintonites, it was disgusting.
They truly turned this important meeting into a circus. They should be ashamed.
It was unanimous for the Florida compromise, but 19-8 for the Michigan split. There are clearly some, including Fowler, who are not happy with giving the Michigan "Uncommitted" delegates to Obama. There is only one way to stop Hillary's attack dog, Ickes, from going to credentials: superdelegates must step up to the plate Tuesday and go to Obama in large numbers... he must get at least 29.5 delegate-votes OVER the new magic number of 2,118. This would mean that Hillary cannot claim that even if she got ALL of the uncommitted Michiganites to go her way, she would not have the nomination. Once she sees this final math againt her, there is no credible argument to go after the credentials appeal. For God's sake, Hillary, think of party unity for a change rather than your own ambitions.
Watching a little CNN - the fill-in telestrator guy just made a comment that bugged me - basically the super dels will not "make up their mind" until Wednesday morning on who to support. Give it up, you stupid sniveling twits.
Just to be clear, my first comment (at 6:55) about the unanimous vote was made before the update about Michigan. I was only talking about Florida. But I do think it would be better if the post gave the votes for each instead of just saying that the committee "ruled."
Table shows Clinton needing 5240.5 delegates. This is slightly on the high side.
They have very little to gain by going to the credentials committee. Once the decision was made to reduce the MI delegates votes to 1/2, any difference in the number of delegates between what they would get from the RBC and the credentials committees is peanuts. BTW, Hillary's support on the RBc is much stronger than it will be on the credentials committee. It's over.
I live in Florida and I found it deplorable that the DNC Rules Committee could commit such a heinous act that flies in the face of the rules that they so proudly wave before us.
If they 'truly' believed in the rules they should never have seated any delegates from either Florida or Michigan because both states broke the rules. We moved our primaries and we should suffer the consequences.
But instead several of the members acted hippocritically and voted to restore Florida to 1/2 of its delegate voting potential and Michigan to 1/2 of its delegate voting potential and designating delegates to the Obama campaign when he was not on the ballot in the state.
I can understand the 1/2 vote in florida as both candidates were on the ballot but in Michigan that is a different story and it is sad that we witnessed a public 'back room deal' within our own party.
Party unity has been shattered, Florida has just gone to the Republicans once again and unlike those in the party who claim we should come together the acts of the Rules Committee have sealed my decision to remove myself from the Democratic Party.
It is a sad day when you watch a party terminate its chances to restore some dignity to the process but instead flout a flimsy set of motions and proposals aimed at closing a problem caused by the Rules Committee in the first place.
-Philip Slama
wow...hillary just got totally shafted. And to those of you who are upset about the way the protestors acted, how else do you expect them to voice their feelings. They have just been told that their votes are not as important as the votes of others. Reminds me of back when a certain group of people were only coutned as 2/5ths. I'm going to vote for Obama in the general but the DNC has lost a lot of my respect for allowing this to happen.
Obama/Clinton 08
I found it interesting that Harold Ickes declared it "undemocratic" to do anything other than assign delegates based upon an election with basically "one" name on the ballot. Arguing for the validity of the Michigan Democratic Primary election is like the argument Saddam Hussein used to make when he claimed he was an elected president, receiving 98% of the vote. I was just wondering if I'm going nuts or if anyone else out there was asking themselves "WTF?" as well....
Phillip:
They over reacted in the first place. According to their own rules they were only allowed to strip 50% of delegates (If I rememer rightly) so you can view going back to 50% from 0% as them coming in line with their own rules.
Regarding Michigan: Far more tricky there BUT the motion they finally decided on was provided BY the Michigan democrats. You can argue that they would know best the will of the Michigan voters.
Thralen
So who will the Obama and Edwards pledged Florida delegates be? The Obama campaign itself has not yet formally vetted their 67, afaik.
I totally 100% agree with that poster who said that Hillary got shafted today - because she like totally didn't get everything that she demanded! What kind of a party is it where a Clinton cannot get everything and anything that they ask for? This is a travesty!
Thralen -- I'm in total agreement. Philip, there ARE no rules saying states must lose all of their delegates as punishment, the punishment is totally up to the committee you just watched. This decision allows everyone to go to the convention but still sends a message for 2012 that we don't want primaries in December and January. Let's go back to the old days, when primaries were a SPRING event. The vocal Clinton supporters embarrassed themselves today. Micah, I don't see how Hillary got shafted here... she received much more than half of the allowed delegate-votes in both states. Is that really getting shafted?
I just don't get the argument that Florida and Michigan should be counted as if they were just regular old primaries like the other 48 states and territories. The facts on the ground do not support this position, it's an argument that only comes from a "do whatever will get Hillary the most possible delegates" perspective.
I seriously doubt the the Credentials committee will overturn the RBC. It really doesn't make sense to do so. They know that doing so would cause such a rift within the party. The process was fair and just. I'm from Michigan and I agree that we should be penalized. The DNC did everything they could to provide a solution that would bring us to November on a united front. Thank you RBC for your fair hearing and I look forward to seeing the Credentials committee turning Hillary away.
This is a good ruling. Those most responsible for this debacle, elected democrats in both MI AND FL, are held accountable.
I know...yes, I known the mantra spewed by Floridians that their state is run by republicans, but that does not exonerate the democrat legislators for the way they handled the matter.
This is a good day. Now, Sen. Clinton: what say you? Will you move forward toward a general election that brings change? Or, will you challenge these results?
Well said, Paul. As an Obama supporter, I try to put myself into the alternate-universe position. What if Obama were losing by only 150 delegates? Sure, there would be sour grapes, but would I demonize the other side and go to great lengths (e.g. making analogies to the civil rights movement, Bush v. Gore, etc.) to put my candidate on the winning side, no matter how crazy or illogical the arguments sound? The answer is no.
Derek, part of the ruling is that the Obama camp gets to start choosing their delegates from now.
micah, why is it so radical for the DNC to treat Michigan in the same way the RNC has for violating party rules?
It doesn't make any difference anyway. Obama is too far ahead. He would have gotten most of the uncommitted delegates anyway.
Thralen said...
They over reacted in the first place. According to their own rules they were only allowed to strip 50% of delegates (If I rememer rightly)
And you rememer, and even remember incorrect.
The rules state a MINIMUM of 50% reduction.
It does not state 'a 50% reduction'.
It does not state 'a maximum of 50% reduction'.
The rules state a MINIMUM of 50% reduction. That means a higher penalty can be assessed.
Mike
thralen:
"They over reacted in the first place. According to their own rules they were only allowed to strip 50% of delegates (If I rememer rightly) so you can view going back to 50% from 0% as them coming in line with their own rules."
The base penalty was a 50% reduction with the Rules and Bylaws Committee able to alter that figure as they saw necessary. Outside of a failed vote within the committee there was nothing preventing them from fully stripping the delegations.
Ken, my understanding of what Chris Bowers has said at Openleft, is that Clinton only needs to get 20% of the Credentials Committee vote to submit a "minority report" to the general convention. So I think she can easily continue the debate until then if she wishes.
Mike in Maryland:
Then I rememBer incorrectly. However it would have been quite harsh to continue with a 100% delegate reduction when the republicans were only enacting a 50% reduction. So I stand by my statement that they over-reacted with proposing the 100% deduction. Especially when you would prefer for those states to be active in the general election. The politics of Politics sucks but no-one can deny that it exists.
Thralen
I keep my own spreadsheet, and I plugged in all the changes, and my anticipated Obama delegate count on Wednesday with no further SD endorsements is exactly 2117.
Two good results today. Bit of sour grapes for diehard Hillary supporters. Please, get over it, we've got a Presidential election to win!
Two brief comments:
1) The reactions of Senator Clinton's supporters in the audience today certainly lacked decorum and good taste. However, I would note that the protests both inside and outside the Marriott were limited to less the 500 people. In most cities 500 protesters might be considered a sizable demonstration. However, in DC, our nation's capitol, with Senator Clinton's national HQ in nearby Arlington, Virginia, this is a pitiful showing. These protesters may have seemed loud and obnoxious on CSPAN (and no doubt, they were), but it really overstates what was in fact a rather small gathering of Pro-Clinton supporters.
2) Having just watched Recount on HBO - regarding the 2000 election in Florida, it amazes me that more people aren't considering the possibility that some measure of these protests were fomented not just by Senator Clinton's campaign, but also by agents/actors on behalf of the Republican National Committee, various Conservative PACs ... or even Limbaugh listening "ditto heads" who saw coming to todays RBC meeting to protest as "Clinton supporters" as their way of helping create Rush's so-called Operation Chaos. I wouldn't put it past them.
Micah:
FWIW it was 3/5ths, not 2/5ths.
And the only people that this affects are the delegates. The voters voted, they are even sending the same number of delegates, it is just those delegates have less of a say.
Thee is no hard and fast rule on delegate allocation, look at PR for chrstsakes, a territory that can't vote in the GE and doesn't have a Democrat party has more delegates than nearly 1/2 of the actual States, and it isn't even really allocated population wise.
Even the phrasing used is a little telling, "Clinton got shafted", not the voters of MI and FL.
The Democrats will pay a heavy heavy price for this total disregard for democracy shown today.
This committee shows the same respect for votes that Mugabe and Zimbabwe does. Count votes only if they are convenient.
McCain is now absolutely guarenteed the white house. Way to go Dems, yet again! Oh well, I'm now fully convninced that democrats are too dumb to hold the white house.
There sure are a lot of ignorant people out there that gobble up all the Clinton's alternate reality.
I am happy to say that in 3 to 4 more days, you can stick a fork in Hillary, cause she'll be done.
Question, why didn't anyone address how weak the dems are in Florida? Time and time again we heard that the Republican controlled legislature in FL along with its Republican Gov. mived the date. So, you don't have enough political clout to win local elections and have a voice in your own state but, you expect something different on the national stage? Come on Florida, let's do something different the next time you select your legislators.
Goodbye Hillary, don't get your ass caught in the door on the way out.
thralen:
"So I stand by my statement that they over-reacted with proposing the 100% deduction."
Keep in mind that at the time the decision was originally made, nobody foresaw such a close race that lasted into June. They likely didn't intend of leaving it that way, but certainly wouldn't have imagined it would have turned into such a heated argument when the time came to uphold or reduce it.
Paul Hunt: Table shows Clinton needing 5240.5 delegates. This is slightly on the high side.
You're misreading the table, which has two numbers running into each other. It says she has 1876.5 delegates, and she needs 240.5 for the nomination. (That was before today's resolution of MI and FL, however.)
s.b.
Don't Republicans like you have better things to do? You know, watch Bill O'Reilly and nod in agreement like robots, listen to Rush and pretend you can sabotage things on the other side when really the Rush-ites are following a drug addict hypocrite who only cares about his own fame. We're coming for McCain. None of this matters once Obama gets up and shows what real leaders are supposed to say and do.
Respectfully,
Thralen, while you may find it easy to accept what the committee has done; I recognize that they had the option to give 1/2 of the delegates to the states but instead they chose to strip these two states of all delegates at the onset of this entire process before we were locked into two candidates.
I've watched Florida blow so many elections in the past two decades starting with our 'Dead People Can Vote, Too!' scandal in the early nineties to the recounts of 2000 to our missing ballots of 2004.
We knew we were going to be stripped of all of our delegates but still we had one of the highest voter turnouts for the state for a 'primary' election. Florida is not known for voter turnout and this stunned local leaders that we turned our 1.2 million voters for the democratic primary.
The questions I would have raised to the Rules and Bylaws Committee:
1. How can you first strip two states of their delegates claiming that they have violated the rules and you will be punished and then give them back half of their votes if you have already chosen the harsher punishment instead of the more lenient one?
2. In the case of Michigan where only one candidate was on the ballot how can a formula be designed to 'represent the will of the people' when 40% of them voted uncommitted which is a legal position at the convention come August in Denver and should be represented?
3. If you can determine a formula on restoring the delegates to Florida because all of the candidates were represented why not give them their full delegate vote potential?
(This is with the understanding that the total votes needed to qualify as the presidential nominee would have increased regardless and would still have proportionally represented what happened with the 1/2 vote scenario.)
4. How can 'in the name of party unity' be claimed in both cases of Florida and Michigan when clearly this decision will undoubtedly upset a large proportion of voters and cost the Democratic Party the state of Florida for the third time in a row where their votes (regardless of the candidate) have been subsumed by a higher authority?
5. Even if Clinton had gotten her way in the case of Florida with full reinstatement of the delegates how would it be different than 1/2 reinstatement?
(The understanding of basic math, which is not a strong point in Florida according to our FCAT scores, is a simple concept: If I have 50% of the vote and my opponent has 30% and now delegates are worth 1/2 instead of 1 what percentage of the vote did I get in the end? It's real simple, I still got 50% and my opponent got 30% regardless of breakdown so why not reinstate the full value of the Florida delegates? Both candidates get the same percentage, the number to nominate still increases so no one can win and then there would at least be a chance of claiming party unity with Florida.)
My closing statement would have been simple:
While I am a Clinton supporter it is clear that she can no longer win this scenario regarless of how the math breaks down. What should be addressed is the voters themselves and Florida held a legitimate primary with ALL of the candidates on the ballot. If the math still works out to be the same whether it is 1/2 or 1 vote per delegate why not restore our full delegate voting potential if she still can't win? I understand that Michigan is a different problem and unfortunately by not having all of the candidates on the ballot their situation is much more clouded than Florida but in the name of unity the DNC Rules and Bylaws should have reinstated our state in its entirety as the number needed to become the nominee would have increased proportionaly to the number of delegates included from the state of Florida being allowed back into the delegate count.
P.S.
As a side note to a lower post I just saw, the HBO special regarding the Florida recount is a total mockery of what truly happened here in our state. Seven years after the 2000 election we completed the recount with the help of Florida International University and Gore still lost and Bush was able to widen the gap by 47 votes. The whole problem with the recount was the Gore only selected five counties out of our 68 to be recounted and those five counties are the five most heavily populated by Democrats. He played games just as the Republicans did and the rules imposed by the higher court of Florida and the Supreme Court of the United States made it impossible to complete the recount in Miami-Dade and Broward county in under a week as there were millions of votes to recount with no unifying process on what was considered a vote and what wasn't. Trust me, 'hanging chad, pregnant chad, bulging chad' and all the other whatnot that developed as a result of that fiasco has tainted our state for years to come and has become a mainstay of humor in our political science departments across our universities when it comes to vote regulation and conformity within the state.
Thanks, dsimon. I did misread the table.
The reason that the Clinton supporters and spokespeople's actions are so disappointing, as they have been for the last few weeks on this issue, is that they are sowing dissent and division in the party (and especially in Michigan and Florida, two key general election states) for a proposal that they knew (and admitted they knew) was unlikely to succeed and which would have given Hillary a 0.5% chance of winning the nomination as opposed to the 0.3% chance she has now, or 0.1% chance she had before Michigan and Florida were counted at all.
To me, and a lot of those I know, including former Hillary supporters in New Hampshire, this is proof that the Clinton is in it for Clinton, Clinton alone, Clinton to the exclusion of everyone else, regardless of party or policies.
Ironically, we will see that it does nothing to draw superdelegates to her side, which is her last hope. Hmmmm...since she surely must know this, the only conclusion is that she is actually trying to sow dissent and division in the party so that Obama loses this fall and she can run in 2012. She's already lost this Democrat's vote for 2012, though, and 2016 too.
s.b.: The Democrats will pay a heavy heavy price for this total disregard for democracy shown today.
This committee shows the same respect for votes that Mugabe and Zimbabwe does. Count votes only if they are convenient.
Count votes only if they are convenient? Seems to me that's exactly what Clinton wanted to do in Michigan (and does when she touts the "popular vote"): all votes for her, and zero for Obama. I don't see how anyone can look at those numbers and say they represented the will of the Michigan electorate. When a voting process is sufficiently flawed, then we violate democratic principles more by accepting the result than by rejecting it.
And I would like an answer to the question: should sanctions never be imposed for breaking the rules and voting early? If there are no sanctions, what's going to happen next time? I can see it now: PA decides to go early, then OH jumps in front, then VA, then PA leapfrogs VA, and so on. Will an even earlier and more drawn-out process be good for the party? How can it be prevented if there are no penalties for jumping ahead? It would be nice if someone from the Clinton camp answered this one, just once.
McCain is now absolutely guarenteed the white house.
Not according to polling these days. By the way the Republicans imposed the exact same penalties on MI and FL, and I don't hear any complaints about it.
KennyB,
In regards to your question over sanctions on a state for voting early:
I would recommend that if you vote early you forfeit 1/2 of your delegates as the rule states and not imposing the harsher 'stripped of all delegates' because had we gone with the more lenient version which the rules allow for we would have avoided this mess all together.
We are on our way to winning the general election. With a STRONG nominee and a republican nominee that doesn't have a real grasp of what is going on in the world this election is ours. Thank God Sen. Obama won... that is,in myview,the only way we could take back the presidency. Finally!
To the guy saying Hillary got shafted, you have to understand...
It's the DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S fault for not settling this till now. If this EXACT SAME decision were made or 4 months ago, there would have been no complaining.
philip slama: If the math still works out to be the same whether it is 1/2 or 1 vote per delegate why not restore our full delegate voting potential if she still can't win?
Because there has to be some kind of sanction for voting early. If there isn't, what's going to prevent even more chaos next time? If there are no penalties, why can't PA decide it wants to vote in December (after all, they were pretty patient this time)? Ohio is a big swing state, perhaps they'd want to jump in front of PA? VA as a new swing state may decide to jump ahead of both. But PA may then reschedule ahead of VA....
Does anyone think this would be good for the party, an even earlier, longer process that has been criticized as too early and too long? If not, how can it be avoided without imposing sanctions, whether or not there's an effect on the outcome?
philip:
"5. Even if Clinton had gotten her way in the case of Florida with full reinstatement of the delegates how would it be different than 1/2 reinstatement?"
Mathematically regarding the selection of Clinton or Obama, it really wouldn't have changed much at all - but neither was that what the decision was about. There needed to be a clear signal to states that the rules set forth for the primary season do, in fact, hold weight. That ignoring those rules carries consequences. Imagine if neither Florida nor Michigan suffered any penalty - imagine 2011-2012 when states are choosing their primary date: why wouldn't they want to jump the list and get to (or, closer to) the all-important first spot? The answer is there would be no real reason at all not to do so, and plenty of reasons to.
I believe the decision, much as it might anger some voters, was necessary to prevent an even larger debacle in four years.
Sure Clinton could appeal this to the credentials committee, but that's almost irrelevant now. The RBC set the numbers that the media will use, the Obama campaign will use, and most importantly, most superdelegates will use in deciding the presumptive nominee (the FL resolution was supported unanimously, the MI resolution seems to have been supported by all Obama and undeclared supporters on the committee as well as about a third of Clinton suporters).
Thus Obama will hit 2118, the vast majority of the superdelegates will say he is the presumptive nominee and most will declare for him. At that point the 4 "stolen" delegates (2 votes) becomes irrelevant. The 1/2 vote each can hardly be a rallying cry against the Democrats in MI and FL since the Republicans did the same to those staes as well as WY, NH, and SC. I wouldn't be surprised for both conventions to restore all states to full status but that will be well after this near universal agreement on the nominee.
@semblence who said
Semblance said...
Ken, my understanding of what Chris Bowers has said at Openleft, is that Clinton only needs to get 20% of the Credentials Committee vote to submit a "minority report" to the general convention. So I think she can easily continue the debate until then if she wishes.
Except that this wasn't the Credentials Committee, it was the Rules and Bylaws Committee. It remains to be seen whether or not she will get 20% of a CC vote.
The unanimity on the 1/2 vote dimension is a clear message to the Credentials Committee : we reached a debatable compromise but there wasn't any doubt about the key rule.
PS : HRC running as an Indy ?
Now that would be the heck of a bang to go with.
For those of you who are stating that the Clinton supporters "acted deplorable" or "rude," I'm afraid you do not understand the scenario.
CLINTON is not dividing the party. The deplorable treatment that Clinton has received throughout this campaign, the sexism, the slurs, the media bias, the DNC bias and gross mismanagement, these are the things that have divided the party. WE are divided because of this.
WOMEN are ANGRY. Politics are neither pretty nor polite. We feel we MUST scream to be heard. We are ENRAGED at how Hillary, as a woman, has been treated. The people yelling at the convention aren't being rude; they are attempting to get anyone to LISTEN to them. They feel discarded, violated, indignant that this could be happening and that is it being ALLOWED to happen.
HILLARY is not dividing us, the party and our disgust are. This won't end if she concedes. For all of those reasons and many more, I am one, FEMALE, lifelong Democrat who:
1 - Will never vote for Obama.
2 - Is reregistering as Independent.
No, I am not a Reagan Democrat or a Closet Republican. I am just a WOMAN with a VOICE that wants to be HEARD. I've had enough.
Ickes said that they "reserve the right" to take it to the credentials committee. That's a common sort of threat; it doesn't commit the Clinton campaign to following through. Maybe they will, and maybe they won't.
The Hillary supporters at the committee meeting who were disrupting the proceedings today should be (but probably aren't) deeply ashamed of themselves. They're no better than the Republican mobs that disrupted the recount in Florida after the 2000 election.
And as far as I'm concerned, if Hillary and Ickes attempt to take this thing to the convention, they have no business calling themselves Democrats. They and their racist supporters need to get over it - they lost.
>1. How can you first strip two states of their delegates claiming that they have violated the rules and you will be punished and then give them back half of their votes if you have already chosen the harsher punishment instead of the more lenient one?
By allowing an appeals process (which is exactly what we saw today). It's not an alien concept. The entire judicial system allows for such things.
> 2. In the case of Michigan where only one candidate was on the ballot how can a formula be designed to 'represent the will of the people' when 40% of them voted uncommitted which is a legal position at the convention come August in Denver and should be represented?
They answered this. The state democratic party conducted polling and other independent research to determine how many voters *really* suport Clinton, and how many *really* support Obama. The Clinton campaign just decided to raise a stink because the polling indicated that she should get a few fewer delegates than the broken MI primary showed.
> 3. If you can determine a formula on restoring the delegates to Florida because all of the candidates were represented why not give them their full delegate vote potential?
Because Florida still needs to be punished for violating the rules. Otherwise it is not fair to the other 48 states who followed the rules themselves.
> 4. How can 'in the name of party unity' be claimed in both cases of Florida and Michigan when clearly this decision will undoubtedly upset a large proportion of voters and cost the Democratic Party the state of Florida for the third time in a row where their votes (regardless of the candidate) have been subsumed by a higher authority?
Because if you look at it from an objective standpoint, what they did was probably the fairest thing that could have been done. Keep in mind that it is their job to be fair not just to the people who voted in FL and MI, but to the other 48 states who followed the rules, to the Obama campaign, and to the Clinton campaign. Their solution made concessions to all of those groups (the people in FL and MI get to be represented at the convention, the weight of the FL and MI delegates is reduced relative to the 48 other states who followed the rules, Clinton gets what she wanted in Florida, Obama gets mostly what he wanted in Michigan).
The fact that there may be a handful of FL voters who are unable to stomach the resolution is really neither here nor there, as far as the committee's decision making process goes. It's really not the place of a few disgruntled voters to be trying to hold the party's nomination process hostage anyways.
> 5. Even if Clinton had gotten her way in the case of Florida with full reinstatement of the delegates how would it be different than 1/2 reinstatement?
The net number of delegates that Clinton would gain over Obama would be doubled if the votes weren't cut in half. For example, if FL normally has 100 delegates, and 60 were going to Clinton and 40 were going to Obama, that's +20 net delegates for Clinton. Cut it in half, and you have 30 for Clinton and 20 for Obama, for only a +10 net for Clinton. And Hillary would rather have the +20 than the +10.
> If the math still works out to be the same whether it is 1/2 or 1 vote per delegate why not restore our full delegate voting potential if she still can't win?
Because the math isn't exactly the same (as described above), but ignoring that, also because regardless of the math, Florida still needs to be punished for violating the party rules. To not do so is unfair to the other 48 states who followed the rules.
la: We are ENRAGED at how Hillary, as a woman, has been treated. The people yelling at the convention aren't being rude; they are attempting to get anyone to LISTEN to them.
I think if one looks for unfair treatment, one is likely to see it whether it's there or not. I think both candidates have been treated unfairly at times. But I think calls of bias are unwarranted. Sure, there may be some people in the public who are biased against Clinton, but there are some biased against Obama as well. These people should not be confused with the campaigns.
And today's meeting had nothing to do with sexism or racism. It had to do with enforcing party rules. I have yet to hear from anyone how a failure to impose sanctions would not lead to complete chaos next time around--an earlier and longer nomination process that is universally decried as already too early and too long.
I think that if you believe in what Clinton stands for, you would be doing irreparable harm to those values and policies if you did not vote for Obama in November. I can assure you that Clinton does not want McCain to continue the war in Iraq, allow private industry to manage health care, or appoint two or more justices to the Supreme Court. I expect she will say the same when the nomination process is over.
la - please don't speak for all women. We are not a united front, and many, many of us do not agree with your analysis or your position.
I respect your right to leave the party. I ask you to seriously reconsider voting for Obama.
LA,
My wife and my daughter both disagree with you. Sen. Clinton has fueled a great deal of anger--not because of the way she has been treated, but because of the way she treats others, specifically, Sen. Obama and his supporters
la could not be more out of touch. It is you who do not understand. Claims of sexism are ludicrous, and an example of yet another thing that shows just where the true media bias is. Obama would never, ever be able to get away with saying he is losing something because of his race, but the media allows Clinton to get away with alleging sexism. This is how there is media bias in favor of Clinton, an inherent, subconscious bias: if the roles were reversed, the race would never have gotten this far. Obama would have been buried, whereas Clinton has been given every benefit of the doubt.
And yes, it IS Senator Clinton and her surrogates, including the former president, who are dividing the party. Every week there's a new charge they are leveling either against Obama or against mainstream media that is just designed to drive a wedge between those who support Obama and those who are undecided, in order to bring the undecideds over to her. It's disgusting, and it's been this disgusting since South Carolina.
"WOMEN" shouldn't be angry. They are not ENTITLED to the nomination. Hillary has not been treated a certain way because she is a woman, and if you feel she has been portrayed negatively in particular, it is because her actions and her character have merited it.
It really unnerves me just how much Clinton surrogates can get away with. A few weeks ago, Senator Feinstein was on Meet The Press, and she OPENLY said that Democrats should vote for Hillary because this is our best chance at having a woman president. This is outrageous, and it is the kind of conduct that has been typical of Hillary campaigners and supporters, and Senator Clinton herself. The idea that a candidate's gender should be a factor in determining whether or not he or she is qualified for the job is idiotic at best. I won't even go into detail over how much a slap in the face the statement that Hillary Clinton is the best shot women have at a female president is to leaders like Kathleen Sebelius and Sarah Palin.
The only thing that has been ALLOWED to happen is the division of our party due to Hillary Clinton's refusal to concede that she has lost the nomination, not because of underhanded party insider tactics, not because of a flawed system, and MOST CERTAINLY not because of sexism, but because the voters said no. Her stubborn ambition has hurt the party, and the only thing she can do to help it heal in time for the general election is to concede. I say this not only as an Obama supporter, not only as a Democrat who wants to see a candidate with decent coattails for our brethren running for other offices, but as a citizen of this country and a human being on this planet who is terrified of that four more years of neoconservatism could do to our country and this world.
That you are so fervent in your support for Senator Clinton that you would "never vote for Obama" only shows just what effect Hillary has had on this campaign and the party. It's what she was, in my opinion, banking on, because it, combined with a mainstream media machine that couldn't imagine her out of the race, is the only thing that has given her anything close to a shot at the nomination.
She has lost. And in my opinion, she has handled herself in a way that shows that she does not deserve even your support, but of course, you are free to do with your vote what you will.
Philip,
Nothing personal, dude, because math can be hard, but you're mistaken--
Let's use simpler numbers.
100 delegates in question at stake in, oh, let's call it Florchigan. Current count: A has 1600, B has 1800. 2001 wins a majority of 4000 total delegates. 600 remain unallocated, not counting the 100 at stake.
Candidate A: 50% of vote
Candidate B: 25% of vote
Others: 25% of vote
Candidate A: 50 delegates
Candidate B: 25 delegates
Full delegate vote: 50 vs. 25, narrows B's lead by 25. Count is now 1825 to 1650, lead is now 175 delegates. B previously needed 201 of 600 remaning delegates to clinch, or 33.5%. Now, though, he needs 226 of the remaining 600, or 37.7%, to reach the new number of 2051.
Half delegate vote: 25 vs. 12.5, narrow's B's lead by 12.5. Count is now 1812.5 to 1625, lead is now 187.5 delegates. Again, B previously needed 201 of 600 remaning delegates to clinch, or 33.5%. Now, though, he needs 213.5 of the remaining 600, or 35.6%, to reach the new number of 2026.
So, with an allocation of zero votes, Candidate A needed 201 delegates. With 50% allocation, he needs 213.5, and with 100% allocation, he would have needed 226. They are NOT the same.
My opinion here: Note I'll probably get flamed for it.
Those Hillary supporters who claim they will never vote for Obama are most likely one of three subsets. The first is those voting for her solely because she is a woman. The second subset is racist. The last is those who are gullible enough to believe the emails and rumors that abound about Obama.
The rest of her supporters (who will vote for Obama in Nov.) are those who support her due to her stances on the issues. Since their stances on the issues are so similar, these above three subsets are the only breaking point I can envision. Ok so there are probably more but I would bet dollars to donuts that the majority that won't fall into those subsets, in priority of the same order that I listed them.
This actually amazes me, since you would guess that those voting for Hillary because she is a woman would NEVER vote for McShame due to his stances on women's rights and his (documented) poor verbal treatment of his wife.
Thralen
Am I, Lou?
Or is the Democratic party just looking pathetically undemocratic. They don't represent me anymore. But your acerbic comment definitely represents the vitriol I see continuously spewed by Obama supporters. Your candidate is ahead - why always so hateful? Why so much hate for the Clintons and their supporters?
Dsimon,
I don't really care if Hillary would like me to vote Obama. He and his values do not represent me, nor do his divisive politics. I left that off my first post as I obviously don't want to get into that here.
And for the record, because I know it's coming, I'm not racist nor am I uneducated, thank you.
By the way, Philip,
I agree that the initial 100% sanction was foolishly harsh. It was meant to send a message, but it ended up having the effect of introducing uncertainty into the nominating process, giving the Republicans, who also penalized MI and FL (and NH, SC and WY), but by less, and letting Hillary drag this process on even longer. Of course, Ickes himself advocated for the harshest punishment, so it's his fault as much as the others. Of course, to be fair, no one thought it would matter at the time, and the chances it would matter were pretty slim. In fact, it still need not have mattered, but Clinton saw it as one last shot to marginally increase her miniscule chances or getting the nomination by drawing out the process, hoping for some big scandal to break.
HIS VALUES?!?!?! Yes I should say they don't represent you!! I am PROUD of Barack Obama's values!! He could have called out Hillary Clinton on so things but has stayed classy. It is so sad what Hillary Clinton has done to many democrats and how she has divided this party. I was for her before the better candidate came along, and IF she had won out I would have voted for her - no question! Because I believe in the democratic party and it's more important than what I want. The Supreme Court is at stake here!!
> Or is the Democratic party just looking pathetically undemocratic. They don't represent me anymore. But your acerbic comment definitely represents the vitriol I see continuously spewed by Obama supporters.
Surely you can appreciate the hypocrisy and the irony inherent in your complaints about acerbic and vitriolic comments. If you can't then you shouldn't be using clever words like "acerbic" and "vitriol". And if you can then you should know better than to post such a thing, when you know full well that you are responsible for the initial aggressive comments. People only gave you back exactly what you put out. Seems fair to me.
> I don't really care if Hillary would like me to vote Obama. He and his values do not represent me, nor do his divisive politics.
His policies are almost no different than Clinton's. If he doesn't represent your views, then how the hell did Hillary? Or perhaps what you really meant was "Hillary represents me because she is a woman, while Barack is not"? You've got some explaining to do.
And I'm not even going to dignify your "divisive politics" remark with a reply. If you seriously think that Obama is the more divisive candidate, then you've been living in a cave for the past three months.
la:
Your candidate is ahead - why always so hateful? Why so much hate for the Clintons and their supporters?
All I can say, la, is don't confuse some of the candidates supporters with the candidate. I've heard equal vitriol from some Clinton supporters, but I don't equate them with Clinton.
I don't really care if Hillary would like me to vote Obama. He and his values do not represent me, nor do his divisive politics.
I don't know what divisive politics you're referring to. To the extent there may have been divisiveness, I don't think he's been any worse than the other candidates.
But if Clinton represents your values, I don't understand how you can support at least four more years in Iraq, no steps towards universal health care, and two or more additional justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade. The fact is that Obama and Clinton are close on most major policy issues.
If the situation were reversed, I would have voted for Clinton over McCain because the alternative was just unacceptable. I don't see why Clinton supporters would want to share responsibility for the loss of lives in Iraq, loss of lives due to the inadequate health care system, and loss of reproductive choice that would be sure to occur in a McCain administration. If values are important, isn't it a greater violation of those values to permit that outcome?
la, what the hell are you talking about. What about Obama's politics are "divisive"? Surely you do not buy into the "Rev. Wright is divisive=Obama damns America" nonsense, anymore than you buy into the "Bill Clinton exploits women=Hillary Clinton is a misogynisty" nonsense. What "values" do not represent you? Universal health coverage? Support of women's right to choose? Support of the environment and slowing global warming?
LA,
I think our overall point here, is that the language that you have used in your posts ARE divisive politics at their best. In every instance that Obama has suffered attacks from the Clinton campaign, he has responded by defending himself, NOT by going on a counter-offensive.
Many Hillary supporters suggest that sexism and a biased media are the cause of her current position, but back before the Iowa Caucuses, CLINTON WAS THE FRONTRUNNER. That was the message being portrayed by the media. And it remained the case until Super Tuesday. As far as sexism goes, I won't comment on that because I haven't seen it (but I have not been looking for it either), but the same goes for racism. A case could be made both ways.
Now on to the the whole "I WILL never vote for Obama" thing. If you truly believe in the PLATFORM of Hillary Clinton, then this position is one of just utter stupidity. The platforms are nearly identical with only slight variations in the implementation of the big plans of both candidates. This leaves only two options for this kind of language:
1) that the supporters that say this have been so drawn in by the cult of personality surrounding the Clinton campaign (a charge leveled against most Obama supporters)
2) that it is angry feminists who don't seem to understand that being a woman is not an entitlement to preferential treatment.
Hillary ran a race, and is losing (I avoid saying "lost" because she has not done this yet). Wanting to change any aspect of the process in her favor because she is a woman is preferential treatment, which goes against the idea of equal treatment spouted by most feminist movements.
LA: please respond because I would love to discuss this with you further on facts, and not emotional outbursts.
Michael,
I think you and others who think sexism has had no place in this campaign should just take a step back. Just take a breath. Think...isn't there just a chance...the smallest chance...you are wrong?
There are many people in America that do not believe sexism exists anymore, or if it does, it is slight. Many of those people are women. Many of those people are young.
It's been everywhere in this campaign and no one has seen it. No one is watching for it. Racism, we know what that looks like, we know what that sounds like, but sexism? Is it even recognizable anymore? Yet, women still make less than men, black men too. The glass ceilings aren't being broken. Say what you what...I just hope we, as a country, can recognize what is and what is not sexist again soon and maybe that will begin to heal this great divide.
Thralen and Me:
I was never voting for Hillary simply because she was a woman. I think she is the best candidate. I'm not voting for Obama because of his values and his personality, not his policies.
LA: I rescind my request that you respond to my comment. What you just posted about not voting based on policies has shown me that it is not possible to have an intelligent conversation with you. You are the type of person that would vote for Ryan Seacrest as president ahead of a distinguished public servant because the former seems "cooler" to you. I apologize for any misunderstanding.
For the rest of you: Voting for policy is how this country gets better. Voting for personality and values is how we ended up with Bush in the White House
La:
So what I am understanding you to say is that you didn't care about what your candidate was going to do in the whitehouse but were voting for them because you thought that they, as an individual, were better?
Now this is only my opinion again but shouldn't a vote be cast for the person you think can most closely guide the country in the direction you think it needs to go and not based on personality?
If not, what direction do you think the country needs to go in that Hillary was going to take it in?
Thralen
LA -
Unfortunately your comment represents the fallout from this whole nominating process we have (let's forget proportional delegate allocation -- it just does NOT work when the race is close, as this one is).
I respect your right to believe that sexism is the reason Clinton has lost. I don't agree with it, but I respect your position. I would just ask that you direct your rage and anger not at Obama, who did everything he could to avoid the brand of sexism that inevitably would come his way, but at McCain and Bush, who are the real perpetrators of evil here. I do not think your protest vote in 2008, whether you go for McCain, a Green Party candidate, or some other third-party candidate, sends the right message. Please consider helping us get a Democrat into office. Obama supporters, on the whole, do not hate Hillary or attack her for being a woman. The same, I think, applies for Hillary supporters in how they feel about Barack. Divisive politics? He is the epitome of exactly the opposite.
> I'm not voting for Obama because of his values and his personality, not his policies.
Personality is one thing (though I don't think it's necessarily a good criteria to evaluate when choosing who to vote into public office), but generally speaking, a candidate's policies are a reflection of his values. Given that, and given the stark similarities between Obama's and Clinton's policies, it would seem to me that their core values are probably fairly similar. What specific differences do you see?
la -
I am a young woman, and I have seen examples of sexism in this campaign, and generally. Again: stop with the generalizations!
I second the call - what values of Obama upset you so much?
You've admitted that it is a matter of personality, but I posit that this cannot be the only basis for your presidential vote in November. Please. (If he's the nominee)
la-
It is clear that you have serious feelings on this issue. Yet, that being said, I find your anger and frustration hard to understand.
How is penalizing Florida and Michigan - as is called for by DNC rules - a sexist slight against Senator Clinton? In what specific ways has Senator Obama himself or his campagin acted towards Senator Clinton in a sexist manor? Why would you withhold your vote for him in the Fall?
I am not doubting that there hasn't been sexism or racism at points in the media's coverage of this primary season, but it is to me unrealistic and flat untrue to claim that Senator Clinton has somehow been defeated by these forces alone. And further, it disingenuous to claim sexism against Senator Clinton, but somehow discount the racism faced at points by Senator Obama. They both had significant obstacles to their candidacies.
If not sexism alone, then what? Doesn't Senator Cliton herself bear any responsibility for where she finds herself? She came into this primary season back in 2007 favored by over 40% in most polls. She had every institutional advantage - some of her key supporters were also lead members of the DNC itself . (Harold Ickes, Terry McAullife, etc.) She also had a huge advantage in fund raising - as Senator Obama only began netting his huge donation totals in January and February.
In listening to the RBC meeting (and especially Harold Ickes) today and in reading comments such as yours, I begin to get the feeling that I'm in some Orwellian rewrite and alteration of history.
Hillary Clinton has not been the victim of some coordinated attack. And by no means was she the underdog in this process - "screaming to be heard" - as you put it. Given her many advantages - her loss was the result of an inferior campaign strategy. She lost fair and square.
You can vote in November however you see fit. Or even stay home if you so-choose. Me - as a life-long Democrat myself - will be voting for the Democratic party nominee, Senator Obama.
I don't really see how Hillary is a great opportunity for the advancement of women's rights, at least compared to other potential choices for female candidates. Granted, none of them are running this year, but the only reason that Hillary is running is that she was first lady. Add to this the irony of her husband's treatment of women on a personal level, and one can understand why some feminists think Hillary's candidacy sets the cause of women's rights back several years. I don't really buy that, but I do think that most of these sexism charges are sour grapes, at best.
Me:
By the way, again, I didn't start with divisive language. The third post in was divisive. Mine was a follow up to that.
Fidelus21:
Yes, that's it. You got me figured out. Ryan Seacrest for President.
We cannot have McCain as a president - if you are decrying sexism than surly you can understand that a democrat ANY democrat is better than that!!
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) skipped the vote on the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which “restores the longstanding interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act,” overturned last year by a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling. In New Orleans, McCain explained his opposition to the bill by claiming it “opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems.” Later in New Orleans, he added that instead of legislation allowing women to fight for equal pay, they simply need “education and training“:
“They need the education and training, particularly since more and more women are heads of their households, as much or more than anybody else,” McCain said. “And it’s hard for them to leave their families when they don’t have somebody to take care of them.
“It’s a vicious cycle that’s affecting women, particularly in a part of the country like this, where mining is the mainstay; traditionally, women have not gone into that line of work, to say the least,” he said.
The issue is not “education and training.” When denied equal pay by her supervisor, Lilly Ledbetter was doing the exact same job as her male counterparts and received numerous performance-based awards. McCain has a long record of failure on women’s issues, earning him a 0 percent rating from NARAL ProChoice America six years in a row, from 2001-2007. (HT: TortDeform)
la: I was never voting for Hillary simply because she was a woman. I think she is the best candidate.
And I, and many others, did not vote for Clinton because we thought she was not the best candidate, not because she was a woman.
I'm not voting for Obama because of his values and his personality, not his policies.
I'm not sure how "values" are expressed outside of policies. We're electing someone to do a job, not on their moral purity. Someone can have the greatest values in the world, but if their actions don't do any good, then what's the point of putting that person in office?
If you thought Clinton was the best candidate, wasn't it because of the things you though she'd do if she were president? And if those actions she would take were important to you, how can you justify helping McCain to become president when Obama's actions would more closely reflect what Clinton would have done? I just don't get it.
Whatever sense of mistreatment Clinton supporters may fee, rightly or wrongly, can those feelings possibly be worth the harm to what Clinton stands for that would be brought on by four more years of Republican control of the executive branch?
Really, folks, think about it.
LA: You simply came right out and said that you were picking candidates based on personality more than policy. I stand by my words on this issue. Votes should be cast on policy because voting on personality is what has brought our country down to where it is today
There was a moment - seems a very long time ago - when Hillary sat next to Obama in a debate and said how proud she was to be sitting next to him (or some such high praise). The room erupted in applause and those of us watching at home were spellbound, because for that fleeting moment, you could see an Obama/Hillary ticket and a chance to bring two very powerful, capable people together who would make the Dem win in Nov. child's play. That moment now is lost forever, and Hillary can take most of the credit for that lost opportunity.
The women who spew such anger about how Hillary is treated seem to be taking this as their own personal loss. Wake up, my fellow female friends! Hillary is no victim, and neither are you! You do yourself, and other women, no service by vowing to vote against your own best interests!
> By the way, again, I didn't start with divisive language. The third post in was divisive. Mine was a follow up to that.
Fine. So what specific value differences do you see between Clinton and Obama? As I said before, their similar policies would seem to imply that they share similar values, so if you disagree with this, then what are the specific differences?
Daniel,
I appreciate your well thought and reasonable response. I never said sexism has to do with today's decisions. Today had to do with the DNC's ineptness and the fact that they should have long ago dealt with MI and FL like the Republicans did.
I also believe racism has played a part in this campaign. However, the racism is talked about...it's seen and heard. People don't know what sexism looks and sounds like anymore.
I don't believe Hillary has run a great campaign. Of course that hurt her. But even when she wasn't the underdog she and President Clinton were treated so badly by the media and Democratic leaders. They were like the red-headed step-children the DNC wanted to lock in a closet. Hey lady, shut up! We got this guy everyone likes and he's getting us new voters and bringing in lots of money! So ready to throw them under the bus. "President Clinton wasn't that great of a President for Democrats anyway" I heard one say. What?
Why I'm not voting for Obama is my business and not for these boards. But I never said I was voting for McCain.
la: The third post in was divisive? Because it used the word "deplorable" to describe conduct by HRC protesters that was, in fact, overtly divisive? How ironic. Go look at the comments written in the national media web sites if you want to see stuff that is really divisive and deplorable. I take that back. It's really just disgusting, in general.
And a warning for all of us who might, even subconsciously, let our feelings about any candidate be influenced by so-called supporters on anonymous internet web pages: Don't be so naive to think that is beyond the intelligence or below the moral floor of Republican operatives to post among us in an attempt to sow dissention in our party.
I think Harold Ikes behavior was a positive for the Obama campaign - he probably gave clarity to the super delegates watching into the negativity of the Clinton campaign. He said he was speaking of behalf of Hillary Clinton - so that should seal it. That proved that it is all about her ego and not the democratic party.
la, regarding sexism, I saw a lot of women on the RBC committee today, and a lot of male supporters of Clinton.
There is no evidence of sexism in today's vote.
As an Obama supporter, I of course would vote for Clinton if she won the nomination. I can't understand why the opposite is so difficult. I can't understand why you blame Obama for all the difficulties faced by Clinton. Obama didn't create the media or the country.
he's getting us new voters and bringing in lots of money
...ummm, I believe these are signs of a successful candidate.
The Clintons have not cornered the market in being "mistreated" by the media. Obama, McCain and all other politicians get tackled unfairly, too. It's just tough out there, when you are newsworthy. No need to be distressed on the Clintons' behalf, though - they have survived the onslaught of good and bad media coverage for decades and are likely to survive it for several decades more!
La-
To your point - that the Clinton's were thrown under the bus - I can agree with this, but only up to a point.
If one takes in a full picture of how the media (print, radio, blogs, tv, etc.) covered both candidates over the course of the campaign, I would suggest that both Clinton and Obama received fairly equitable treatment.
Sure, some media has had a thinly veiled bias. If you'd only watched MSNBC and read HuffPost, then it would be easy to believe the Clinton's were under that bus you described.
However, if you watched CNN and read TalkLeft it might be Obama who'd be the one you thought was under the bus covered in tire treds.
Neither candidate has had a free ride. From Wright-gate to Bosnia-gate and on and on, the media has gone back and forth favoring and frowning upon the two candidates. The horse race has helped their ratings.
Maybe I'm wrong, and the Clinton's didn't get a fair shake. Given the evidence though, I just don't buy it.
It KILLS me, the uneducated response that Clinton supporters take when they scream that they will not vote for Obama. So they will write her in, vote for McCain, or not at all. It is likely during these next few years that the Pres will choose two justices. If a Dem doesn't get into office due to these emotional and illogical responses to Hillary's losing, then we get a Republican who will seat justices and threaten my civil rights and those of my daughters, and I take great offense to this! For the sake of making an emotional declaration, a dramatic and quite narcissistic take, you mock those of us who take this seriously! The protection of my daughters' rights come first, and you threaten that, and I don't appreciate that! A little bit of education goes a long way, and self-gain has no place in public service!
la, you sure have an interesting take on all this. I submit the following: There is overt racism and hidden racism at play in politics. There is hidden sexism at play in politics. Not so much overt sexism, though, since one-half of the electorate is women and it would be pretty stupid to run against women overtly. As for the DNC being against the Clintons, that is just nonsense. The Clintons were the ones with the party establishment and big Democratic money connections when this campaign started. Ickes voted for the full sanction against MI and FL. Hillary STILL has more endorsers on the RBC. As for the media, calling someone the "presumptive front-runner" for years is hardly harsh press. And the comments about Bill Clinton not being good down the ticket comes from the loss of Congress in 1994 for the first time in decades, a loss that was in part due to Hillary's health care reform failure.
As for why you won't vote for Obama being a private matter, I respect that, but then you have to expect that we will, in turn, heavily discount your reasoning behind it.
la - "There are many people in America that do not believe sexism exists anymore, or if it does, it is slight. Many of those people are women. Many of those people are young."
-----
Nobody is doubting that sexism has played a role in the campaign. Do you not recognize that racism has also played a role?
I say both have played in this campaign.
My question to you however is that if there is so much sexism that has taken place (and as you seem to believe more than racism) how can you believe that she would be a stronger general election candidate? After all, she does have the highest negative than ANY other candidate in the race. Republicans will come out in droves to vote against her and we all know that 90% of Republicans are in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade - which will make her a weaker general election candidate.
I'm not saying I wouldn't vote for her, because when all the dust settles I probably would have, and I probably still will if she somehow gets the nomination at this point. Would I be angry about having to vote for her? Absolutely, but I would NEVER sacrifice this country by helping John McCain win in November.
If 90% of republicans were in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade it would be overturned by now. Republicans are not all faith-based Pat Robertson or Rush lemmings. I know plenty of democrats who own guns and plenty of republicans that are pro-choice. Generalizing an entire group of people isn't good no matter what your criteria is.
What kills me over the last three or four weeks are people that think those "hard working white voters" in WV, KY, PA, IN, or OH are going to vote for either democratic candidate in November.
'daniel' wrote:
"even years after the 2000 election we completed the recount with the help of Florida International University and"
GORE WON. By any of SEVEN different ballot standards, if you counted all ballots consistently, GORE WON in the recount.
You can only make Bush win by using an INCONSISTENT ballot standard. Admittedly, Gore failed to ask for a consistent ballot standard, but that's rather beside the point -- the Florida Supreme Court *did* call for a consistent ballot standard.
Your statement claiming that Bush won the recount discredited you completely. It makes you seem like a Republican operative.
Please go back and read the actual newspaper articles from the time -- not the headlines, which lied and claimed that Bush won (bizarre), but the actual articles.
daniel, sorry to get so irritated; reviewing your post, I see that you do know the facts. It's very annoying to see a claim of "Gore still lost", when the will of the voters was entirely obvious -- and would most likely have been enforced had the Florida Supreme Court ruling been followed.
For what it's worth, most of the hissing and booing and catcalling came from maybe a dozen Hillary supporters. I found myself embedded with a bunch of Hillaryites in the second session, and they were obviously disappointed, but they weren't being disruptive about it.
From what I could gather during that interminable "lunch" break, most Hillary supporters are pretty well-grounded. We'll be okay once the process moves forward.
Back to the numbers:
Based on today's decisions and a split in the remaining 3 primaries of 44 for HRC and 42 for Obama (based on most recent polls), Obama would need 22 additional delegates to clinch the nomination, or 10.1% of the remaning undeclared superdelegates and 12.5 uncommitted Edwards' delegates. Hillary would need 196.5 additional delegates to clinch or 90.3% of the remaning undeclared supers and uncommitted Edwards' delegates. That's where we were about 2 weeks ago.
Personally I am glad Obama will be our candidate. His strategy was just superior to Clinton and Clinton did not figure it out in time.
Obama saw the weakness of only paying attention to the large states (which is still Clinton's basic arguement). Becuase of this he already has orginizations in all 50 states. He will be much better for the down ticket candidates because of this.
I believe Dean and Obama are correct on a 50 state strategy. Right now we are poised to take up to 10 seats away from the Republicans in the Senate and this is much more likely to occur with Obama and his grassroots approach than Clinton focus on the large states only.
As far as all the heat Clinton has been getting for staying in the race. Well she is in the same place Huckabee was earlier this year. He was running with a very small chance of winning. Just like Clinton has been doing since North Carolina. The biggest difference though is Clinton has been more devisive than Huckabee was.
As far as how the RBC came out. Well if they had really followed the rules, they should not have used the election results at all. As someone here pointed out rule 13f basically says, those votes were suppose to have no bearing at all in the division of delegates. The fact Clinton was given more delegates than Obama in both states shows the RBC was trying to come up with something acceptable to Clinton and what they considered fair. She just wanted a lot more than the RBC was willing to give.
I do not see it going to the convention, especially if Obama has over a 200 delegate lead. All it would do is alienate the party and hurt her chances if she ever runs for President again. Well at least those of us that do remember things like this.
Video of one of the people that got tossed out of the RBC meeting:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE3s
Now ain't that somethin'.
My question to all of you is:
Won't you think the fire of Harriet Christian, the woman who left the Session cursing the RBC, engulf the heartland of America?
Think:
W Bush = Inexperience = Incompetence = Disaster.
Obama = Inexperience.
Obama = W. Bush
Stop Obama Now. He is ObaBush!
Gotta love Clinton Zealots: "Clinton got shafted!" Umm... How exactly does giving her a net gain of 23* delegates that she didn't have yesterday equal "shafting" her? 23 delegates that the rules say that she shouldn't have at all? 23 delegates that, arguably, she doesn't deserve? Shafted? Really? I mean, I can almost see how you can make a poor but not completely unreasonable case that Florida was fair (ignoring the fact that she has the name recognition of 16+ years on the national stage and he has that of a well-known first-term senator), but how can any reasonable person make the case that Michigan was fair? Especially after hearing the testimony of the Michigan party chair today.
No, Hillary didn't get shafted, but America's Democrats just might have. If she follows through on her threat to take it to the convention, she just might enable McCain to win. Now that would be a shafting. Thanks, Hillary.
* I think that's the right number, but I could be off by one or two.
Stopobamanow:
One minor problem with your analogy:
Abraham Lincoln = inexperienced
In no way does
Abraham Lincoln = George Bush
so why do you think Obama does? Please, give a real reason now, be honest. Stop throwing around hype that has no logical basis and is misleading.
To the rest of you, sorry for feeding the troll...
Thralen
i really think hillary has let herself down throughout the course of her campaign. In a similar sense to Obama, i think she could have a positive impact upon how your country works and its relations with the wider world. However, today is just another example of not only her unwavering stubbornness, but also a worrying unwillingness to do the bravest thing and admit that she has lost. This allowing the party to move on to the real fight. Although i am an outside observer watching from across the pond it is my belief that Clinton's blind stubbornness and determination is negatively spilling into her supporters, like that of the somewhat humorous remarks of LA. It seems to me that they are grasping at straws and getting increasingly nasty in their rhetoric. Comments that try and compare this current election season to Mugabe in Zimbabwe or the Civil Rights movement are offensive to those affected and involved in such places or issues, grow up.
p.s. don't hate the player, hate the game, politics will always be politics.....
Nathanael ... just wanted to make sure I wasn't associated with any silly notion that Bush won Florida in 2000 ... by any reliable recount/audit that has been conducted in the years since. I was a volunteer for the Gore campaign back then and was outraged by the antics of the Republican Party at the time.
The person whose quote you accidentally attributed to me was actually Philip Slama. Check the above posts again.
On a tangentially related line of discussion - some people have expressed outraged that the "will of the voters" is somehow being distorted. One thing to keep in mind however, is that in our political party's (both Democratic and Republican) primaries and in our presidential elections themselves, people's votes do not directly elect candidates. We do not live in a direct democracy. People elect delegates. People elect electors.
This is the system we have. If you don't like it - work to change our party's charter - and work to change the US Constitution to replace the Electoral College. Until then though, this is the system we've got, and this is the system we have to live with.
In our current system, having an effective strategy to win delegates/electors is what matters most. Obama's campaign understood this from day one. I think it's not a giant logical leap to assume this organization and targeted strategy will translate for Obama in the general election.
I'm wondering why the anger from the Clinton campaign, specifically Ickes. The whole basis for the Clinton argument was let every vote be counted, let every voice be heard. To suggest taking this to the credentials committee leaves speculation that the fight was ambitious and not for the voice of the people. It is very transparent that the "fight" is about the Clintons. Obama asked his supporters to refrain from any haneous behavior at RBC meeting today. While I understand the passion the Clinton supporters had for their candidate, I think a little more restraint should have been exercised.
harriet christian's explosive video was very inspiring to me, i am very glad i have seen it.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE3s
it has inspired me to do everything i can in years to come to make sure that a woman is never president of the united states as long as i am alive.
thanks, old broad. you're a true leader.
la-
Thank you for your considerate response. But I hope you'll forgive some additional comments.
I don't think the DNC was inept at all. I think the rules called for a meeting of the Rules and Bylaws Committee on this date. If the meeting had been held earlier, they could have been accused of not giving the states enough time to correct their errors.
I just don't see the media bias that you have seen. Any candidate's supporter is more likely to pay more attention to criticism of their own candidate than of the opponent. Also, the alleged adoration of Obama has been well spoofed and publicized by the media itself.
As for the comments of some that "President Clinton wasn't that great of a President for Democrats anyway," I think the criticism is that he left no lasting Democratic structure in place, no enduring coalition that outlived his own personality while office. I think he did a very good job overall, but he did have early blunders that probably helped lose congressional majorities which forced him to (successfully) ward off Republican initiatives instead of enacting his own.
Why I'm not voting for Obama is my business and not for these boards. But I never said I was voting for McCain.
It seems to me that a Democrat who does not vote at all is in effect helping McCain win, unless one is in a state that is without question not in play. I cannot comment on your motivation without more information, which is of course yours to divulge or withhold.
ray: it has inspired me to do everything i can in years to come to make sure that a woman is never president of the united states as long as i am alive.
Really? There are plenty of women who would do a good job. Clinton would probably do a good job--certainly better than McCain.
Again, don't confuse the candidates with some of their more eccentric supporters. I'm sure there's video of an Obama supporter saying equally ridiculous stuff.
SayHillary, now that you won't be needing it anymore, may I borrow Karl Rove's playbook?
stopobamanow: There are several flaws in your point of view. First off, Bush actually had several years in office as Governor of Texas before running for president, so he was not completely inexperienced as you suggest. Secondly, inexperience does not necessarily lead to disaster. We can cite Kennedy, FDR and Lincoln as presidents viewed very favorably that had very little experience prior to taking up the office of the presidency.
Leah Texas4Obama,
That was both powerful and distressing, thank you for the link.
I mentioned one republican, never referred to the whole, thus, no generalization possible. And YES, two more conservative justices COULD overturn a lot more than R v. W!
There are hard working white folk in 45 other states, too, so I see no purpose in listing five.
StopObamaNow,
The fatal flaw with Bush wasn't his lack of experience; rather, it was his lack of morality and intelligence.
As a former republican who switched over to an independant two years ago, and someone who nows supports Obama for president, I've got to say that the democratic party, and especially the Hillary Clinton side of it is seriously just beyond pathetic. She's done nothing but play tawdry political games the whole time. She is constantly disingenuous and fake. She's a HUGE hypocrite, and she and her idiotic supporters have proven that they would rather look like ignorant douchebags than meet the other side halfway, even when it is their arguments that are completely illogical. The fact that everyone knows that they know they are full of BS, but don't care as long as they can get their candidate selected just shows immense disrespect to close to 20 million voters, and the rest of the rational thinking world. This has been Clinton's whole game: try to paint as many BS negative political points against him as possible, then go back to superdelegates saying, 'see, he's gonna have a hard time in November because he has too much baggage'. When superdelegates obviously knew those assertions and games were ridiculous, and continued shifting to him, her new game was to start encouraging her supporters to basically try and blackmail the party with a completely assnine and flat out immature strategy that only a bunch of sore losers would do, by trying to pressure superdelegates into supporting her, or else they were going to switch over and vote for McCain? Seriously? No, seriously, that's the level that these people are playing at? Threatening to vote for McCain? Next, the whole Michigan/Florida debacle is the worst, most in-your-face disingenuous, playing dumb strategy game that they have tried to play. So it's completely fair to greatly punish Obama, and effectively steal the election from him by fully seating Florida and Michigan? These people seriously believe that a fair solution would be to give Hillary Clinton 73 delegates in Michigan to zero for Obama? Even though he took his name off AFTER the party stripped the state of their delegates, and Hillary Clinton herself agreed to it. Too funny. I'd love to see any Clinton supporter address this, because they conveniently won't even try to address how illogical their whole argument is. Again, they insult everyone else by even trying to argue for this solution. That wouldn't disenfranchise over 17 million Obama voters? If somehow Michigan and Florida both counted fully, and Obama was awarded zero delegates in Michigan, and somehow she was able to squeak it out, it would be far more damaging and disenfranchising to voters, especially black voters, than Florida being stolen by the republicans was. Their whole story is that they blatantly and openly DO NOT CARE about anything other than their candidate "winning". There's more. That's just the beginning. He whole existance and support is based on these two factors: racial prejudice toward him being a black guy, and a feminist movement that is backing her for no other reason than them wanting a female president. Experienced? That's a riot. How is she so much more experienced? She was a first lady. She used that "brand recognition" to vault herself to a senatorial seat. The whole time, she has proven to be nothing more than a person who plays political games. And like the old and rural hicks aren't going to come out for McCain anyways. That's the funniest thing about the whole situation. Her support is mostly coming from prejudiced older white people that are more voting against the young black guy than for her. McCain would have easily walked with her main voting group anyways, had they met in November. Here is the breakdown of her voters: latinos that are also voting against the blacks. Women who just want a female president, period, and people going by brand recognition from Bill Clinton. Hardly indicative of the varying cultures and backgrounds of the 300 million people in this country.
"DSimon - don't confuse the candidates with some of their more eccentric supporters."
Harold Ickes is one of those eccentric supporters. And he apparently "speaks on behalf" of Hillary. And I have also heard that "monster" speak herself.
The anger that women, especially Hillary, have displayed in this matter reminds me of the disgraceful, divisive and unnecessarily hurtful behavior of African Americans during the OJ trial and the final, awful, unjust verdict in that case.
Get a grip people. We WILL hate "your kind" if it matters so much to you that you pour unmittigated hatred our way. We WILL defend ourselves by hating back.
My new American Bumper sticker: "White American males. We really aren't all that bad. Honest."
Shame shame shame on the rules committee. In moving primaries many states were saying we are sick and tired of the liberal white states going first every time and we aren't going to wait another decade to fix this. In their rulings 'Not to punish New Hampshire' and 'to punish florida and Michigan' the ultra liberal rules committee have said loud and clear we have your party in a strangle hold and we are not going to let go. Since the Republican party cannot get control from thier very active conservative side and this last ditch effort to pry the liberals fingers off the Democratic party moderates like myself see no other solution but to try to peel off the moderates from both parties and try to form a new centrist party. I cannot imagine punishing Florida for something the Republicans did and I applaud Michigan for standing up to the status quo. I end as I started shame shame shame on the rules committee.
ray: Harold Ickes is one of those eccentric supporters. And he apparently "speaks on behalf" of Hillary.
He's got a job to do. I see no way this is going all the way to Denver. I think it's posturing to keep Clinton's base happy until the Michigan numbers become irrelevant. And Ickes is not a woman.
And I have also heard that "monster" speak herself.
Yes, that's one woman candidate. I've heard Madeline Albright speak too. She's brilliant. Or should she be disqualified from high office because she's a woman? By all accounts, Pelosi is doing a good job too (she's third in line for the to job, by the way).
The anger that women, especially Hillary, have displayed in this matter reminds me of the disgraceful, divisive and unnecessarily hurtful behavior of African Americans during the OJ trial and the final, awful, unjust verdict in that case.
And lots of women support Obama. Should that disqualify his candidacy?
Again, I think it's a mistake to take the views of the most passionate supporters and campaign insiders for one candidate, and the candidate himself or herself, and generalize those qualities to an entire category of people.
modarate steve: I cannot imagine punishing Florida for something the Republicans did and I applaud Michigan for standing up to the status quo.
Just because Republicans controlled the date in Florida doesn't mean Democrats opposed it. The a spokesperson for the FL Democratic party said they were "all for" the early date. Legislators didn't offer any serious opposition. DNC rules require it to ask whether the state party did what it could to stay within the rules. They concluded that the party had not.
As for fighting the status quo, I agree that some changes should be made. But those changes should be handled within the party. If there are no sanctions for breaking the rules, how is chaos to be avoided next time?
Oh, and I don't see how Iowa and New Hampshire qualify as "liberal white states." White, yes; but liberal? I don't think so.
Iowa and NH go early because they are small states where candidates without huge amounts of money can engage in retail politics and have a chance to compete. I think other states could play this role (Delaware, Rhode Island). But I don't see it as having anything to do with the political leanings of Democrats in those states.
dsimon - "DNC rules require it to ask whether the state party did what it could to stay within the rules. They concluded that the party had not."
I'm sure this didn't help Florida's argument
DSimon...
Ickes isn't a woman? wow.
fighting fire with fire. it's not logical, but sometimes necessary, especially with women.
trust me on this one. or don't and suffer the consequences yourself one day.
DSimon: "Yes, that's one woman candidate. I've heard Madeline Albright speak too. She's brilliant. Or should she be disqualified from high office because she's a woman?
No, but she should be disqualified because she's legally ineligible to be the President since she wasn't born a US citizen. Other than that minor nitpicky irritation, she would be an excellent President.
By all accounts, Pelosi is doing a good job too (she's third in line for the to job, by the way).
By all accounts? You didn't do much research, did you? Pelosi has done a dreadful job as Speaker. She's blocked the Democratic congress from doing any meaningful investigations of the Bush administration, and has unequivocally taken impeachment off the table. By all accounts? Certainly not by my account.
There certainly are women who I would vote for for President. Unfortunately, you just chose two pretty dreadful examples.
By all accounts? You didn't do much research, did you? Pelosi has done a dreadful job as Speaker. She's blocked the Democratic congress from doing any meaningful investigations of the Bush administration, and has unequivocally taken impeachment off the table.
You're right, I overstated. By most accounts, she's done a good job.
The two items you mention will not help Democrats get elected. Impeachment proceedings can only harm the party in November. There will be time to investigate and repair the damage after this administration is gone. But impeaching Bush and Cheney would give us President Pelosi--an outcome that would have little support in the nation and harm Democratic chances to regain the White House.
My understanding is that Democrats in Congress, and even some Republicans, have been satisfied with her job performance. Trying to keep the House on the move probably makes herding cats look orderly.
And I don't see why Madeline Albright is a dreadful example. I was just pointing out women who were good at their jobs in high office. The fact that she's barred from the presidency on a technicality doesn't bear on the argument that she shouldn't be barred from high office because she's a woman. (I don't know if she'd be a good president, but she certainly was a good Secretary of State.)
ray: trust me on this one. or don't and suffer the consequences yourself one day.
Well, I don't know if Madeline Albright would have made a good president (had she been eligible), but I'm pretty sure she would have been better than Bush. If you would have voted for Bush anyway in that match-up, or for Bush against someone else like Albright, I suppose you'd be glad to accept responsibility for the consequences.
That there was one woman candidate you didn't like is hardly a reason for disqualifying half the population. Merkel seems to be doing OK in Germany. Golda Meir apparently did a good job in Israel. The more we evaluate people as individuals rather than members of groups, the better off we'll all be.
Impeachment proceedings can only harm the party in November.
That might be true. What would absolutely help the Dems, though, would be active investigations. Why has nothing happened about the fired prosecutors? Why has nothing happened about... There are so many scandals that I can't even remember them. We don't have to be actuvely pursuing impeachment to be investigating the criminal activity of this administration. Once the evidence is in, then a decision can be made as to whether impeachment should be an option or not, and if the evidence is strong enough, the American people would absolutely support impeachment. Taking impeachment off the table without investigating is the same as saying that Bush did nothing wrong.
Madeleine Albright is a dreadful example because she can't legally be president. If the best example you can come up with to support your argument is someone who can't legally hold the job, it's a pretty dreadful example.
DSimon...
i agree with you, of course.
but, in my best Bush impersonation, i must question your naivete here. i'm just not sure you know what you're up against in being so rational.
having said as much, i would still vote for Mrs. Clinton if, with Mr. Ickes supprot, she somehow managed to hijack the nomination.
Why has nothing happened about the fired prosecutors?
Things happened. Meiers and Rove have been subpoenaed. They've refused to show up on grounds of executive privilege. The question is in the courts. It takes a while.
Also, harping on these few (though important) issues doesn't take into account the many day-to-day issues that have gone well. Plus the House finally stood up to the White House on telecom immunity. People may have complaints, but a person's job evaluation should hinge on the totality of the work, not on a few things we might (rightly) disagree with.
Madeleine Albright is a dreadful example because she can't legally be president.
But that's not the point. I never asserted that she should be president; I used her as an example of a woman who held high office successfully. If she can do that job well, surely there are others who could be good presidents.
Moreover, the question was whether she should not be considered for the job because she's a woman. The fact that she can't hold the job because she's not a "natural born" citizen isn't relevant to that issue.
Post a Comment