• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    lililam on Walk to work music
    william on Today is National Voter Regist…
    jmac on Walk to work music
    pm317 on Today is National Voter Regist…
    pm317 on Republicans #notallRepublicans…
    Earlynerd on Republicans #notallRepublicans…
    Today is National Vo… on Today is National Voter Regist…
    william on Today is National Voter Regist…
    pm317 on Walk to work music
    jmac on Walk to work music
    pm317 on Walk to work music
    pm317 on Walk to work music
    Walk to work music |… on Walk to work music
    william on Republicans #notallRepublicans…
    Sweet Sue on Republicans #notallRepublicans…
  • Categories


  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • Of Course Ted Cruz Should Be Publicly Ostracized
      So, Ted Cruz and his family were surrounded in a Washington, DC restaurant and left. Much hand wringing ensues about civility. It’s bullshit. If you could have only one rule for creating a good society it would be the following: Elites must experience the consequences of their behaviour. The simplest reason the US is a […]
  • Top Posts

  • Advertisements

Documentary proof of RBC “stop Hillary” corruption found

(crossposted at Correntewire)

A document filed as an exhibit in the Nelson vs Dean Lawsuit that was filed in October 2007 in an attempt to force the DNC to seat the Florida delegation provides indisputable proof that the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee singled out Florida and Michigan for sanctions, and ignored violations of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

The document is a tentative list of state primaries and caucuses, and is dated September 13, 2007. The listing for Florida says (“P” designates a primary)

1/29/08 Florida P Date of state primary; date violates rules; Non-Complia

But there are also listings for the four pre-window states, that note that these states cannot move their dates before the date set in the Delegate Selection Rules: (“C” designates a caucus)

1/14/08 Iowa C Allowed to go no more than 22 days before 2/5/08
1/19/08 Nevada C Allowed to go no more than 17 days before 2/5/08
1/22/08 New Hampshire P Allowed to go no more than 14 days before 2/5/08
1/29/08 South Carolina P Allowed to go no more than 7 days before 2/5/08

EXCERPT FROM EXHIBIT B
not_allowed1


(The whole page can be seen here. The entire PDF document submitted to the courts (which includes the DNC and RNC delegates selection rules as Exhibits A and C) can be accessed here.)

This document makes it clear that the “pre-window” states were NOT ALLOWED to move their primary/caucus dates under the DNC rules, and by moving them should have been subjected to the automatic loss of 50% of their pledged deleates, and all of their superdelegates, as required by by Rule 20 C 1 a, which, which states

Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules…the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state’s delegation. [emphasis added]

The words “shall be” means that the penalty is not optional – and the only way that the state can avoid sanctions is by demonstrating that it had taken “provable, positive steps” and acted “in good faith” to comply with the timing provision of the Delegate Selection Rules.

Rule 20 C 1 b, which prohibits campaigning in states penalized because of violations of the timing rule, would also come into play. The rule states:

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

It is clear from the language that the rules is designed to entirely prohibit campaigning in states that violate the timing rules – the “may, however” construction makes that clear.

The rule made it impossible for any of the candidates to win delegates in either Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina, and turning those states into mere “beauty contests” for anyone who campaigned there. (Nevada, which held its caucuses as required by the rules on January 19th, would have been the only “pre-Super Tuesday” state to hold a contest in which delegates were at stake.

It is clear that the RBC violated its own rules for political reasons – to stop Hillary Clinton. Without the opportunity to beat Clinton in one of the early states in a meaningful primary or caucus, Clinton’s advantages going into Super- Tuesday would have been impossible to beat. The corrupt officials of the RBC were part of a “stop Hillary” movement, and chose to ignore their own rules in order to make it possible for someone other than Hillary Clinton to get the nomination, and the complete and utter corruption of James Roosevelt, Alexis Herman, Alice Germond and the rest of Obama’s supporters on the RBC is no longer in doubt.

Advertisements

224 Responses

  1. Paul, I’m so glad you posted this! I was just reading it at Corrente. But it’s much better here (I’m kidding — Lambert, I swear it was a joke!)

  2. what can I say, katie. I love the attention! 😉

  3. Wow. My head hurts.

  4. HI KatieBird, that reminds i should check your blog.

    My question is why, why, why is the DNC so anti-Hillary? Bill Clinton is the only two term president since FDR. YOu think they would go for name brand like the Repugs did with W.

  5. !! Florence — Please do, it’s lonely over there. I’m so used to all the action here that the halls just echo over there. Still it’s had some lurkers…..

  6. Florence, my hunch is that the DNC does not like the power the Clintons hold. What other 2 term president left office with a 76% approval rating?

    And we all know Hillary is even better than Bill.

    Yeah, I think they covet the Clinton power.

  7. Off again, now to dinner.

    Have fun with this one!

  8. My question is why, why, why is the DNC so anti-Hillary? Bill Clinton is the only two term president since FDR. YOu think they would go for name brand like the Repugs did with W.

    because most of the DNC are “Villagers” — people who live and work in Washington DC, and consider themselves ‘the elite’. Bill Clinton never bought into the whole “Village” thing — he didn’t think that David Broder had any more insight than anyone else, didn’t kiss Bill Safire’s ass, etc.

    Because Bill didn’t think the DC media establishment was elite, they went after him — and the rest of the Villagers went along with it because to stand up for the Clintons meant you weren’t part of the “elite”.

  9. I had downloaded the PDF file for the DNC Delegate Selection Rules and studied them prior to the RBC meeting on May 31.
    I was appalled at the rulings they made, and wondered if any of them had actually read the rules. I doubt it!
    The 50% penalty is automatic, per Rule 20.C.4.

    “C. 4. Upon a determination of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee that a state is in violation as set forth in subsections (1), (2) or (3) of section C. of this rule, the reductions required under those subsections shall become effective automatically and immediately and without further action of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, the Executive Committee of the DNC, the DNC or the Credentials Committee of the Democratic National Convention. ”

    This is what I get from that:
    Reductions are required,
    Effective immediately and automatically,
    No further action is needed.

  10. This just makes me sick.

    I have a ten-year-old son, who is very bright and who plays baseball. When I explained what the RBC did, especially with those 4 delegate votes, he said, “They can’t do that, Mom! That’s like giving the other team 4 runs!”

    Indeed.

  11. Most interesting, but why? Why? Do they really believe that rule under Obama’s puppet-thumb will be so much better?

  12. Nice work, Paul (no idea why people call you Paul, but hey, if Kbird calls you that, so can I, right?)

    Completely OT but what the h*ll. Just got back home and find three hundred and sixty something comments in the previous threat. Who can read that?

    Seriously people.

  13. Paul – can you use this in your possible legal action?

    Please tell me it strengthens your POV!!

  14. UpstateNY – Just got back home and find three hundred and sixty something comments in the previous threat. Who can read that?

    Looks like you’re gonna flunk the quiz!

  15. “Florence”,
    They want the POWER!
    When I was campaigning for Hillary the “opposing” side supporters would say,”she had her turn”!
    The “don’t ask don’t tell entry” is spot-on.
    **SUGGESTION!!
    Senator Allen Spector is EXPLORING looking into the
    un-fair democratic primary process.
    He might find this interesting.Also if they took an average of states like WA??; that had a”CACUS” that counted & a “primary” that did’nt BO would LOOSE DELEGATES!!
    WHAT SYSTEM THAT HAS SOMEONE WIN THE POPULAR VOTE & LOOSE IN DELEGATES BE FAIR??

  16. hlr: I know. This blog is becoming a full time job of sorts. Oy

  17. katiebird…what’s your site address? I would love to visit and comment since I have left MyDD and Taylor March…I need new blogs to go to?

  18. Shain…

    I don’t have a possible legal action — I have no standing.

    I do think it strengthens the plaintiff’s case in Geller v DNC (in fact, that’s how I found this…I’m working on a much longer piece, examining the filing in Geller, and in ny research I found this document) which is based on “equal protection” and “due process”. Clearly, the voters in Florida were denied ‘equal protection’ here, because the DNC failed to sanction three states that broke its rules.

    What is key here is that Florida and Michigan had been rendered “moot” — turned into beauty contests by the DNC, and thus there was NO rationale for granting NH, IA, and SC a waiver. In effect, once the DNC had done the 100% sanctions on FL and MI, their primaries didn’t exist.

    I do, however, thinks it strengthens the case of any delegate who wants to make life a living hell for the DNC at the convention — with this document, they can demand that the credentials committee reduce the pledged delegate strength of IA, NH, and SC by half — AND remove the credentials of all of the superdelegates from those three states.

  19. Nice work, Paul (no idea why people call you Paul, but hey, if Kbird calls you that, so can I, right?)

    sure. Its my name… and its a lot nicer than what I get called at the fauxgressive blogs! 🙂

  20. Shainzona, it’s Eat4Today — it’s not political (except for Health Care For Everyone.) It’s a health/food/weight-control site.

  21. Most interesting, but why? Why? Do they really believe that rule under Obama’s puppet-thumb will be so much better?

    well, its not as if these people really care about anything more than maintaining their own positions and status. Obama (supposedly) will make it much easier for congresscritters and state parties to raise cash (of course, the Obots don’t care about anyone but obama, and won’t be opeining their wallets for anyone else….)

  22. Just contributed to HRC to help bring down her debt.
    Please do the same if you can at HillaryClinton.com

    Contribution Details
    Date: June 11, 2008 10:13 PM EDT
    Contact: dwwenz
    Amount: $100.00

  23. I think that the establishment was really terrified by Hillary’s platform. (a) looking into the large govt. contracts (b)universal Health coverage (c) emphasis on alternative energy sources (d) ending the Iraq war which would also have ended the related govt. contracts such as Blackwater (e) tax breaks/iincentives to the middle class (f) reviewing all trade deals (g) removing tax incentives for outsourcing of jobs

    Really, examine her proposed policies: they will benefit the majority of the American people but put a crimp on big business’ unbridled profit making at the expense of the American taxpayers. These are terrifying prospects indeed for those corrupt elements of country.

    Those are the only things can can explain the virulent attacks on Hillary and the all out effort to keep her from the nomination.

  24. why BO? I think the answer can be found in Naomi Klein book about economics Shock and Awe . They don’t want the steady slower robbery of Bush and Cheney any more …it’s gotta be faster! They want someone in who if you complain about Social Security going to Wall St, , a draft, bombing Pakistan , or BO’s Carter retread advisor , Zig starting a war with Russia, then you are a racist, end of story . . On and on. a BO presidency moves the $$$ faster for those scrapping out America. IMO

  25. plukasiak: Obama (supposedly) will make it much easier for congresscritters and state parties to raise cash

    I do laugh at Obama Nation getting hit with every solicitation imaginable — let’s see, there’s races for incumbents, challengers, out-of-staters, party committees/organs, special interest groups, the list goes on 😯

  26. Paul – you are the numbers man.

    It makes no kind of sense WHY 3 states received waivers yet MI and FL were denied.

    Only to suppress Hillary Clinton votes.

    They want “unity” by acting like Republicans?

    THIS is what made me a PUMA.

  27. UpstateNY,

    Sorry about the long thread. I think RD must be busy. Thank goodness Paul posted this.

    We had major Obamabot infestations today, but every thing is cleaned up now.

  28. This is completely disgusting. It’s hard to fathom the democratic party cheating so much after all that we’ve been thru with Rovian trix. This kinda stuff makes Richard Nixon look like a piker. Creep is beginning to seem like a boy scout troup.

  29. Does the Senate Rules Committee have any oversight in this matter? This outright fraud. The primary season was rigged and gamed.

  30. I wish someone would sue the Democratic and Republican Parties over the innately discriminatory aspects of caucuses.

    It’s amazing though, that the DNC thinks the voters are too stupid to understand the rules.

  31. Katie- I just went ot your blog- NICE! (sorry- I ranted about the salmonella thing- I hate the mega farms- feel free to delete me)

    Does anybody know if any actual voters have filed any lawsuits? I do not live in MI or Fl- (inlaws in Fl but not activist types 😦 If I did live in one of the states I would be looking for an up and coming attorney to help me get my vote back!

  32. I followed one of our trolls home just now (he linked to a post here on his sad little blog). This was the second (and last) sentence of his first paragraph:

    Hillary supporters who are pissed at the DNC and the Democratic Party because their lady didn’t win–which proves that Obama and the DNC are womenhaters and hypocrites and they’ll never vote for Obama (they rationalize it on the excuse that he’s got no experience, but it’s obvious from the tone of the thread that they’re simply angry at him because he got in the way of their big dream), and that they won’t contribute any money to the DNC, and also won’t contribute money to anyone candidate who has supported or will support Obama because the DNC stole the nomination from Hillary.

    yep, that’s all one looooooooooooooooooong sentence. As a teacher, I’m ashamed. no wonder the youth go for obama in droves, they’re all barely literate…..

  33. Paul,

    I asked a friend of mine, who works with our local Dem party–Jacksonville, Fl.,why Fl and not SC or Nevada was hit with sanctions. Basically, she said it was because we moved ours too far up–there was some serious time window -we went into Jan. or something and that the other states didn’t go that far. Does that make sense?

  34. oh He’s talking about you all in his post….if you can make any sense
    of that. longest.sentence.ever.

  35. NotThatStupid: I wish someone would sue the Democratic and Republican Parties over the innately discriminatory aspects of caucuses.

    Don’t think you can because the party is a private entity and your participation is voluntary. Of course, that’s what PUMA is all about.

  36. By October ’07 Obama was poliing badly in Florida and Michigan.
    And they weren’t caucusses.

  37. Gary,

    I went over there too. At the end he complained because his comment was deleted. I was going to leave a comment, but thought better of it. It was a sad little dingy place.

  38. bboomer. that sentence was hilarious….we should set up a playdate for him and “2 old for maxim”.

  39. Thanks for all the insight about the Clintons. That’s so interesting about the Village. Where can I read more about it?

  40. yes, it was obvious they were doing that. That’s why I was mad HRC campaign didn’t fight in the RBC meeting on those grounds. In the conference call with
    media Harold Ickes denied Iowa, Nevada, SC and NH broke the rules as well
    –it was maddening … I still do not understand why they didn’t use the “safe harbor” clause.

  41. Thanks katiebird. I think this may be good for me!!! I’ve spent too many hours and too many glasses of wine at my keyboard!

    Paul: find someone with standing!!! I have family in Michigan….hmmm, I’m going “home” in two weeks, maybe I can convince one of them to file an action.

  42. Re: health insurance…

    You know what Co-Chair of RBC does for a living don’t you? He runs a Health Insurance Company…Tufts Health Plan, which operates primarily in Massachusettes And Tufts was losing members steadily — until Obama’s buddy Deval Patrick’s mandatory medical insurance plan kicked in, and Tufts was named an approved provider…

    Of course, Tufts laid off over 100 people in 2006 while showing a profit of $41 million for the 3rd Quarter of that year.

  43. Felizarte–I think you are spot on. It’s always about the money. It might be interesting for some smart person (not me-with computers) to connect the dots with Excelon and GE–nuclear power industry. I know Excelon (sp?) is or was a big donor to Obama and obviously GE (NBC) loves him-plus, I read somewhere that they make parts for nuclear plants.

  44. so, if everyone was penalized that should be penalized, where would the delgate count be?

  45. Paul,

    That wasn’t Deval Patrick’s plan. That came in under Mitt Romney. But the rest is true. Can you imagine what FDR would think of his grandson? And what about Eleanor?

  46. Lori,

    Hope you are well, the delegate count , without the Uncommitteds going to Obama and without superdelegates, Hillary would be OVER Obama by 100.

    It’s still close, but they did to CHEAT AND STEAL from her.

  47. I asked a friend of mine, who works with our local Dem party–Jacksonville, Fl.,why Fl and not SC or Nevada was hit with sanctions. Basically, she said it was because we moved ours too far up–there was some serious time window -we went into Jan. or something and that the other states didn’t go that far. Does that make sense?

    in a word, no.

    The timing provisions was created to allow four states to go earlier than the rest (which could hold primaries/caucuses between feb 5 and jun 10 only), but not before specific dates and in a specific order.

    One of the keys was the order — it was supposed to be two caucus states (“white” Iowa, and “diverse” Nevada) followed by two primary states (“white” New Hampshire followed by “diverse” South Carolina.)

    SC moved its date to the same day as Nevada, and NH moved its date a week earlier at the same time.(this was before Michigan moved ITS date) The whole point of the timing provision was lost when NH and SC moved their dates — we wound up with two white states first….and the Hispanic and Native American and organized labor communities in Nevada being overshadowed by South Carolina.

    The move also had a very significant impact on the outcome — Edwards was expected to do fairly well in Nevada, and to receive major labor endorsements there (the service workers union – SEIU — had supported him in Iowa, and he was expected to get the national SEIU endorsement before Nevada, and SEIU dominates Las Vegas.) Edwards wasn’t doing well in NH, however — and with Obama’s win in Iowa, and Edwards poor pre-primary poll numbers in NH, SEIU endorsed Obama instead of Edwards.

    Had Nevade gone before NH, Obama probably would have wound up a weak third place in NV, and Edwards would have had momentum going into NH…

  48. OT: Don’t know if y’all saw this already (not that I throw in my lot with Sen. Lieberman, but just thought it interesting)…

    Jewish Dem donor joins McCain team
    By Alexander Bolton
    Posted: 06/10/08 07:30 PM [ET]

    Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is attracting elite Jewish Democratic donors who backed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and are concerned about Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) stance toward Israel, say McCain backers who are organizing the effort to court Democrats.

    McCain has already had several fundraising events with Jewish Democrats in Washington and Florida, say his supporters.

    He also has the backing of Democrat-turned-Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.), who made history as the first Jewish vice presidential candidate and has recently raised questions about Obama’s foreign policy vision for the Middle East.

    http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/jewish-dem-donor-joins-mccain-team-2008-06-10.html

  49. ProudMilitaryMom, thanks for stopping by — it didn’t sound like a rant at all. I thought you were very interesting.

  50. hey captsfufp–glad to catch you here. Mawm and I were just making plans to go to denver in august and lamenting that we don’t have any kind of credentials to get in. Can you as a delegate get guest credentials for certain bloggers who would like to report? 🙂

  51. gary: wow, i give you credit for wanting to sit through the convention. i am planning a vacation that week so i wont be home to watch it on tv.

  52. I just went to this site…and I almost felt like I was opening a porn site, afraid that my parents would walk in any second:

    http://citizens.johnmccain.com/

    As a lifelong Yellow Dog, Democrat, I am NOT pushing Sen. McCain, and my personal intent is to write-in Hillary’s name. And, as an Iraq vet, I just can’t vote for the Arizona senator.

    But…I’ll just say I’m opened to listening to him and leave it at that. But it still feels creepy to go to GOP websites…and websites run by Joe Lieberman. Yick….the things I find myself doing nowadays…

  53. capts: if true, that cannot be good for the DNC.

  54. ben–I wouldn’t miss it for the world. Even if I can’t get in and I’m the only person in the world standing outside screaming and holding a sign in protest.

  55. Gary – I wish I had that kind of pull!!! Best I can promise is buying some t-shirts for people or trying to trip Dr. Dean…

  56. thanks capts. we’re going to go anyway. see what kind of trouble we can stir up

  57. Nobody but Obama is responsible for what happened in MI because he took his name off the ballot. He did the most undemocratic thing of all based on some political strategy. He should have held accountable for that but instead he was rewarded for it. On the other hand Clinton who played by the rules, democratic that is, got penalized.

  58. If SM is still here,

    Did you see the story about the Congressional Latino Caucus meeting with BO today? They told him the he either had to put Hillary on the ticket or do something about illegal immigration or they would go to McCain. Jerelyn posted the story.

  59. I think I will be on a beach in Puerto Rico or in a bar in New Orleans.

  60. pm317—the only reason he didn’t do it in Florida too is because it is illegal there (it’s that anti-democratic). Think if some country like pakistan was holding an election and musharaff pulled his name off the ballot at the last minute and then declared that the election was moot becuase he wasn’t on the ballot. Jimmy Carter would be having an embolism….

  61. captsfufp,

    “trying to trip Dr. Dean…”

    Oh, would you please? And have someone get it on video? That would be excellent!

  62. I went to the citizens for McCain site that capts posts above and it claims to be “for people who put country before political party”

    Ummmh, where have I heard that before?

  63. This document makes this election like the “I know what you did last summer” of all primaries.

  64. Before too long, it will be the “Night of the Living Dead” Democratic Convention.

  65. BB: heh.

  66. You know, not to state the obvious, but this is the weirdest campaign ever. Think about it…two nominees who are NOT wanted by their own party. The fiscal conservatives, the social conservatives, and libertarian conservatives…they don’t want Sen. McCain. And slightly more than half of all Democrats didn’t want Sen. Obama. And the people that don’t like their own nominees find themselves looking at the other party’s nominee!!

    …don’t we all just cancel ourselves out at some point?! 🙂

    I was talking with a GOPer (I assume) today. He knows my Hillary-ness, so asked if I was an Obama supporter. I said, “Um, no.” Heh. But we went into the usual talking points about how he’ll lose to Sen. McCain. In the end…it’s not b/c of any grand strategy, but just b/c the electoral map won’t change (…okay, I’ll give him Colorado…). And, conversely, how weak Sen. McCain is, but how he’ll maintain the Bush “red” map, while Sen. Obama will get the Kerry “blue” map (though, he may lose one or two, while gaining some small ones).

    Heh, will ANYONE be watching this race? This may end up more “boring” than 2000… (Disclaimer: I didn’t think 2000 was boring, but the media did).

  67. garychapelhill, on June 11th, 2008 at 11:15 pm Said:
    —————–

    I agree. DNC shenanigans is one thing but what instigated that further corruption was this man’s shortsighted undemocratic action. Obama should be held responsible and hope MI people recognize this. I don’t know how anyone can accept him as a legitimate nominee.

  68. upstate…im not good with riddles? help.

  69. Ben, I wouldn’t dare drink during the convention. Alcohol wouldn’t mix at all with my expected mood.

  70. maybe that’s the big plan. In late Oct Barry will pull his name from the ballot and declare the elections invalid. He will then claim the presidency because he had more pledged delegates than McCain.

  71. Upstate: I almost found myself starting to fill out the stuff on that site instinctively when I saw the blocks for “list your role in the Democratic party” and “list your role in the Clinton campaign.” But I’m just not ready to go to McCain…especially not when invited by Joe (I mean, I get it using him…but do they get that he’s not the best person to use to lure Dems over?).

  72. Katiebird,

    Don’t you want to drink a toast when Hillary makes her acceptance speech?

  73. captsfufp, on June 11th, 2008 at 11:20 pm Said:
    ———————
    They may not like McCain but he at least got there legitimately following party rules unlike Obama.

  74. Kos picked Lamont and he picked Obama.

  75. captsfufp, on June 11th, 2008 at 11:23 pm Said:
    ——————————-

    Did you see Alegre’s post on the previous thread? She was looking for Clinton delegates.

  76. OT: I’ve just seen my tenth McCain ad tonight. Is there a primary I don’t know about here in Kansas City? There are a couple of them in rotation. National Security / kind-compassionate human is the theme of them.

    Why, though. Are they showing all over? The most recent was local news. But, it’s been on Network TV all week.

  77. Sure, Puerto Rico sounds good. I just finished watching Top Chef (which was filmed in PR).

  78. Obama will be faithful to the specific interest groups that supported him. I have no doubt. And you know michelle will make that her cause.

  79. BB, If there is the slightest hint that Hillary could pull this off, well — I think we should meet in Denver and Dance in the streets! I’ve got a friend I know we could stay with. And I’d be so happy nothing else would be necessary!!

  80. and a WOMAN finally won on Top Chef! I was so excited for her.

  81. Ben, do you mean the causes that made her yard bigger or the one that gave her a 300K job?

  82. katie and BB–MAWM and I are going. Hopefully there will be a large vociferous pack of PUMA’s there.

  83. Katie: is he trying to get those disaffected hillary voters in that swing state? Get them now why they are vulnerable.

  84. kbird: my guess is that you get most of your TV stations from the MO side.

    Remember that MO is a swing state and R’s will try to carry it in November.

  85. bostonboomer: They told him the he either had to put Hillary on the ticket or do something about illegal immigration or they would go to McCain

    So the obama troops have stormed the barrios demanding loyalty, right?

  86. I didn’t put that too artfully. I remember during the love affair when different media people said that obama wouldn’t punish the delegations or the groups that didn’t support him because he wasn’t like that. I thought…what a f’ing joke.

  87. ben, I don’t know… I’m on the Missouri, Kansas border. But, Obama won Kansas City, MO pretty handily. So it’s NOT everywhere then.

  88. HLR, are you kidding me? Those sissy boys will get chased out with baseball bats!

  89. capts: “but do they get that he’s not the best person to use to lure Dems over?).”

    He may not be all that attractive to either you or me, but many D’s will have no objection.

  90. clarify: is this a true story about the Hispanic caucus??? i’m skeptical

  91. hlr,

    They are probably having a letter writing campaign telling them they are racists.

  92. Ben, “I remember during the love affair when different media people said that obama wouldn’t punish the delegations or the groups that didn’t support him because he wasn’t like that. I thought…what a f’ing joke.”

    I remember that too and I thought — well who would? Why are we hearing this even discussed?

    This is a horrible election.

  93. ben: read Jeralyn’s thread at TL.

  94. upstate: exactly…you see for too long all of us have been indoctrinated by the daily kos. ondce you step away from it you realize that the general public doesnt have a problem with lieberman, or FISA, or Plame gate. They are so out of touch with middle America and apparently Connecticut.

  95. Katiebird,

    I can pick you up on my way to Denver. It’s right on the way.

  96. SM: Pumas Latinos, heh.

  97. I want to go to Denver. Are y’all going?

  98. Here’s a New York Times story about the campaign. I guess I should have looked before…

  99. SM and Upstate NY,

    From that chart at Charles’ place, it looks like NY could be in play if the Latinos switch to McCain.

  100. I heard Hill and Bill are on a mini-vacation, do we know where? Or, when she will be back?

  101. BB are you going for sure? Or just IF?

  102. UpstateNY

    PUMAs Latinos! You know we throw down!

    I love it that the Latino Congressional Caucus stood up and said “Unity? We don’t need no stinkin’ Unity! What’s Obama going to do about Immigration? Hillary knows, McCain knows too. What does Obama know?”

  103. SM–wouldn’t pumas latinas also be jaguares?

  104. #
    ben carlson, on June 11th, 2008 at 11:28 pm Said:

    and a WOMAN finally won on Top Chef! I was so excited for her.
    —————————-

    Yea, Stephanie! She was my favorite and I was afraid they would give it to Lisa (I didn’t like her attitude, seemed confrontational)

  105. after this talk about the hispanic caucus and my phone call with the ohio democratic party tonight i sense there is some trouble in DNC city. As I go to sleep I will leave you with a video I posted earlier. It is absolutely perfect.

  106. ben: remember also that Lieberman could help McCain carry places like FL.

  107. pm, where are you? Mountain & Pacific time zones don’t see shows at the same time as Eastern & Central.

  108. Katiebird,

    I don’t think I could handle it. I don’t like big crowds. But you never know.

  109. If you’re in dire need of a laugh, I suggest you go to
    LBJ’s Love Child’s site and see what he did with his DNC Survey…..

    Here’s the URL: http://penitent-thief.blogspot.com/2008/06/vox-populi.html

    Thanks for the laugh LBJ

  110. bostonboomer, on June 11th, 2008 at 11:39 pm Said:
    SM and Upstate NY,

    From that chart at Charles’ place, it looks like NY could be in play if the Latinos switch to McCain.

    Boston, any state that have at least 8-10% of the Latino population will be in play.

    Obama will LOSE California just with the Latino vote alone. The rest will be a Domino effect because one thing I know about us is, even though we come from various nations/customs, we stick together when it comes to Immigration.

    I was lucky to be born here, but my parents are immigrants, they came in the 1950s from Dominican Republic fleeing Trujillo’s dictatorship. To this day, I have cousins & family that have come here to the USA for a better life.

    And like me, there are MILLIONS of Latino voters that think about their grandmother, their cousin, their best friend’s brother who came here to work for a better life when they go into the voting booth.

  111. BB: I do not know about NY and latinos…I really do not know that they will make the difference…

    SM: “What’s Obama going to do about Immigration? ”

    Copy H’s plan?

  112. SM,

    I wonder if they are the ones who are threatening to boycott the convention? I would like to have been a fly on the wall at that meeting.

  113. BB, I’m the same way. I don’t think we could actually get near the place anyway so there’s probably no point in going.

  114. I guess BO has belatedly realized that he can’t win with just “AA’s and eggheads.” I guess it’s up to Hillary to get the women in line. Over at MyDD today a lot of commenters were saying they couldn’t understand why were were resisting after Hillary had “instructed” us to help Barry. TM said something similar.

  115. BB, SM, You worry too much about the latino vote. O will do a little bit of merengue/rancheras and everything will be OK. Por favor!

  116. garychapelhill, on June 11th, 2008 at 11:41 pm Said:
    SM–wouldn’t pumas latinas also be jaguares?

    YEAH!!! But PUMAs are all up & down North & South America.

    Actually, the name “Puma” is the Quechuan name (Native American tribe in Peru) for the mountain lion.

    Jeez – Riverdaughter’s sino-peruvian lesbians were PUMAs to begin with!

    OMG – Sino-Peruvian PUMAs!

  117. UpstateNY,

    Latinos are 16% of registered voters in NY. That’s quite a lot when you add on all the angry women.

  118. Crud I’m in the spam filter again. I send a comment linking to the site of one of the commenters here. He’s got a good funny about what he did with his DNC survery. If someone wouldn’t mind pulling my comment out of the spam filter, I’d appreciate it.

    I’m too cold to find the link and compose the comment again only to have it disappear into spam land again. I’m gonna go huddle under my quilt. Brrr. I can’t wait until summer.

  119. BB: “TM said something similar.”

    I noticed. She went all klingon on us.

  120. Teresa,

    You’ve been released. Yuck! That’s some nasty company in there. I hope you aren’t bruised.

  121. UpstateNY, on June 11th, 2008 at 11:50 pm Said:
    BB, SM, You worry too much about the latino vote. O will do a little bit of merengue/rancheras and everything will be OK. Por favor!

    UpstateNY: Or take a picture in front of a Taco Bell.

    Did you see that ridiculous ad with Alejandro Sanz & Paulina Rubio supporting Obama? Alejandro & Paulina live in Miami, Spain & Mexico, but they are not US citizens – like that’s going to convince us!

  122. Teresa,

    That’s a funny one. Thanks!

  123. bostonboomer, on June 11th, 2008 at 11:46 pm Said:
    SM,

    I wonder if they are the ones who are threatening to boycott the convention? I would like to have been a fly on the wall at that meeting.

    WHAT?? I didn’t hear this! I’ve been on a no-MSM diet. If they do…..the reprecussions will be FATAL for Obama.

  124. “BB”
    I’m from NY we will do all we can to turn this “always” BLUE st “RED”!
    Don’t forget Rudy G. our former (poupular & beloved )mayor is a “HUGE”
    McCain supporter.

  125. LULAC has never bought into the ‘Big Tent’ BS. Wonder why they don’t want to join the losers’ club w/ NARAL, Emily’s List, etc.

  126. bostonboomer: we are supporting BO, because we have critical thinking skills; something that is sorely lacking in the BO camp. If Hillary asked me to jump off a cliff, into a snake pit, would I? NO.

  127. I saw a poll somewhere that said Latinos heavily favor Obama. Of course, it was a Gallup poll and I don’t trust them since they changed their averaging methodology to give Obama a “bounce”.

    And I went to link to it and I can’t find it now.

  128. SM,

    Did you see how many Latinos New Mexico has? 43.3%! Even Conn. has 10%. This is gonna be a bloodbath. I guess Donna was right when she said “there will be blood.”

  129. BB: “Latinos are 16% of registered voters in NY.”

    Yes, but I just do not see it happening. The DNC will try to use the whole immigration boogie man and…voila.

    I would like to see what McCain ends up doing during the GE, before I get too Cassandraish.

  130. LULAC has never bought into the ‘Big Tent’ BS. Wonder why they don’t want to join the losers’ club w/ NARAL, Emily’s List, etc.

    Just guessing: brains and instinct for survival?

  131. BB: Thanks for releasing me. I’m frozen, so I don’t bruise.

  132. OOPS: post at 11:58 should say: “are NOT.”

  133. bostonboomer – Just guessing: brains and instinct for survival?

    Perfect. I hope to have a post up tomorrow about the rewards of the Big Tent.

  134. MS: Yo quiero Taco Bell!!!!

    BB: you may be right, we’ll see.

  135. SM,

    Jake Tapper reported that a group of Congress men was threatening not to go to the convention, and they were Hillary supporters. He didn’t give names.

  136. UpstateNY,

    I’m just babbling. I didn’t get much sleep the past two nights because of the heat.

  137. I think I’d better hit the hay, as we used to say in Indiana. Good night all.

  138. kc
    I’m delighted that someone else sees things the way I do. Retail politics is so cluttered; there are so many things that have become the focus of much consternation and on the larger scheme of things, can’t really be explained except if assumptions are changed. I think that for democrats, Obama has been an effective distraction from the real issues at stake. We should really look at all the big boys who are the real puppeteers and who are pleased as long as voters do not look in their direction.

    Hillary has been criticized for not mounting a more effective rationale at the RBC meeting on May 31. But the facts that are beginning to surface indicate that the outcome was predetermined before the meeting. Hillary must have known this beforehand. Her next option was to take it to the convention; but even in this she has been blocked, pressured, etc.

    It is a sad, sad, state of affairs for the American people who are being played for fools.

  139. bostonboomer: group of Congress men was threatening not to go to the convention, and they were Hillary supporters.

    So the Obama troops have stormed their offices demanding loyalty, right?

  140. BB: good night.

    Me too. It is past midnight in the East Coast!!!

    Buenas noches.

  141. That’s ok birdgal, I thought it was funny:

    “we are supporting BO, because we have critical thinking skills; something that is sorely lacking in the BO camp.”

    I just figured you were one of the super literate trolls that have been hanging around!

  142. Bostonboomer: Awww, people with spine. I love them.

    Vertebrata: Members of the subphylum of vertebrates are characterized by having vertebrae – the spinal column of bony disks that form what is also known as the backbone.

    Are you listening, Nancy?

  143. Oh I forgot, hlr, don’t you ever sleep?

  144. felizarte: that’s what I’ve been thinking. Hillary wouldn’t be allowed to win under any circumstances.

  145. Isn’t it a bit late for you, too, Upstate ;).

  146. UpstateNY — Oh I forgot, hlr, don’t you ever sleep?

    Oh stop, I slept 2 hrs last nite and will get at least 4 tonight. That’s not including the hour I put in at a meeting today 🙂

  147. KC
    I think that until the Dem convention is over and Hillary is dead and buried (politically at least for 2008) then the powers that be can sit back and let things unfold. They then would have two candidates, either one of them wins, is o.k. by them. We, the people, can just continue paying taxes that companies like Halliburton can leech; and providing the profits for the oil companies, through high gas prices; insurance companies through uncontrolled premium raises or less coverage; banks that can charge whatever interest they want. And the people will never know the truth because these same companies also control the media. I grieve over the death of the democratic party as we knew when it was the party of FDR.

  148. It will be interesting if our revolt spread to the down ticket Dem office seekers. I mean would YOU want to run with Barry at the top of the ticket? It’s a freaking disaster . Both PA and OH governors publicly said they don’t want to be considered for the VP. Pretty amazing, with months to go.

  149. hlr, on June 11th, 2008 at 10:18 pm Said:
    plukasiak: Obama (supposedly) will make it much easier for congresscritters and state parties to raise cash

    I do laugh at Obama Nation getting hit with every solicitation imaginable — let’s see, there’s races for incumbents, challengers, out-of-staters, party committees/organs, special interest groups, the list goes on
    ================

    It’s their party, now; they should be the ones funding it.

  150. jmtacoma, LOL! When I re-read that sentence, I started laughing. I have been lurking, but I am not a troll.

  151. rojo7449: It’s their party, now; they should be the ones funding it.

    The next DNC initiative to rake in the ‘small donations.’

  152. Well, it would have been priceless for a troll comment.

  153. Obama had a quiet meeting with many leaders of many religious denominations yesterday, and plans to open the Denver convention with a big religious event.

    It’s as though Dean and Obama have a plan to steal the religious right/moral majority and make the DNC the soul of a new America.

    I am beginning to see what influence Rev Wright and friends have had on Obama over the past 20 years. This just keeps getting more creepy.

  154. UpstateNY: Exactly! I can totally see Obama holding a press conference in front of a Taco Bell holding a Chalupa with Bill “Sellout” Richardson standing next to him.

    We saw our power where in every major city, we marched for Immigration reform. I marched in Tampa, and we were about 4,000. There were millions who marched in the US.

    Imagine if Obama screws up his response to the Latino Congressional Caucas how unified we’ll be to bring him down?

  155. rojo: it would expain the woman, gay & lesbian, poor / blue collar marginalization. It is just kind of weird, but maybe Brazile was serious when she said the “old” party could just stay home…

  156. rojo: That is very creepy. What about the separation of church and state? This is the democratic GWB, only on steroids. How can he do this? Nevermind, he can do anything, he wants.

  157. Would any of the large corporations hire Obama as CEO? Yet they want to force him on the American people to run the country. But I suppose, after the huge profits that corporations earned under Bush/Cheney, the W-type president is going to be the trend from here on.

    I remember in the sixties, Sister Corita had a hit poster which read: “Suppose they gave a war and nobody came?”

    Mine would read: “Suppose they sold something and nobody bought? I wonder what the effect would be if people, as a protest, refused to buy anything for even just two days?

  158. Charles! Again, you rocked it out the ball parl.

    if you scroll above, we’ve been discussing (O/T) your article “Obama tiene un problema bien grande.”

    Thank you!

  159. Felizarte, very true, it reminds of the movie “A Day without Mexicans.

  160. If Dr. Demento Dean and BZero are looking for the same group of religious zealots I read today to set the stage for the Denver convention, I can assure you it will get wide teevee coverage.

    7 — Prayer

    7:30 Public floggings

    8 — Instruction on long skirt wearing and a woman’s place in the home

    8:30 — Sermon on blessed are the red state caucuses

    9:00 — Sermon on the evils of public schools

    9:30 — Burings at the stake — depends on which time zone who gets roasted

    10 — Every night — reenactment of Moses coming down from the Mount with Moses being played by BZero

    11 — Late night floggings Roman arena style

  161. *ball PARK

  162. Paul – did you email your post to Jeralyn for a diary entry on TL? I would think BTD would love to read it.

  163. Prolix – you forgot the 11:30 “Jericho Walls are Crumbling” presentation with the Joshua/Obama kicking them down in a loincloth.

  164. Perhaps OT, but a must read from a32 year old man on how HIllary’s campaign has changed his life toward public service:

    http://hillbuzz.blogspot.com/2008/06/there-is-little-bit-of-hillary-clinton.html

  165. felizarte, on June 12th, 2008 at 12:32 am Said:
    Would any of the large corporations hire Obama as CEO?
    =============

    He’s not qualified to CEO in a small company, even. His resume is empty. I cringe when I hear people who are supposed to be smart claim, “we had an embarrassment of riches in our candidates this year”.

  166. I tried to link a post that is at hillbuzz but I think my post got caught in the filter. But if you like, it is a must read, very inspirational from a 32 year old man on how Hillary’s run has changed his life and attitude toward public service.

  167. SM, I thought they might do that as morning exercises.

  168. Prolix, HA!!

    Morning activies (for the Ladies only) include “Former Hillary Supporters reenact Mary Magdalene’s Conversion” with real tears washing the feet of a Plastic Jesus/Obama.

  169. #
    katiebird, on June 11th, 2008 at 11:43 pm Said:

    pm, where are you? Mountain & Pacific time zones don’t see shows at the same time as Eastern & Central.
    ——————————–
    KB, you must be referring to Top Chef. I am on Eastern. This was at 10pm tonight on Bravo. But they repeat it multiple times in the next few days.

  170. SM — LOL — we might have a future in programming.

  171. Prolix: LOL!

    At lunchtime, all will gather at the foothills of the mighty Rockies, with a special Fishes & Bread dish* provided by Whole Foods Inc., blessed with a Sermon on the Mount by the Jesus/Obama.

    *Arugula is optional at $30.00 extra per person

  172. SM — LOL — they might just have a laying on of hands exhibit for all those sinners who want to go to church but not hear the sermon — one application $2,300, but it lasts for 20 years.

  173. Prolix, you are too much! I ran out of ideas – I’m going to bed, it’s 1:20 on the East Coast.

    Thanks for the laugh – I needed it!

  174. Before you go, did you hear the funniest thing today about George Soros’ first wife?

  175. Very interesting post, Paul. The evidence just keeps adding up that this whole election was corrupt and fraudulent. I just read another post today that presents some other evidence that everyone also might like to look at. It particularly talks about disproportionate delegate allocation, which we haven’t heard as much about. He shows how discriminatory allocation of delegates led to a 100 delegate swing in Obama’s favor. If all delegates were allocated evenly, his pledge delegate lead would have been just 27. And this doesn’t include the FL/MI mess. So there is just total fraud and disenfranchisement in just about every aspect of this whole election. And it seems that if you go back and look at when some of this was instituted it looks extremely suspicious.

    Democratic Disenfranchisement: The Final Report

  176. It is so boring to watch this moronic back and forth between Barry and McCain. Uggghhhh no one ever wins the debate decisively or outright sweeps the floor with the other.

    I can’t do it! And you know what? People are still talking about Hillary.

    At least if it was between Clinton and McCain we would be engaged– I love watching Clinton debate others, she is amazing.

  177. This post really reinforces why Hillary supporters are angry (like me). Add the MSM bias to the mix, and anyone (who deals in facts and reality) who has closely followed this primary season should be appalled. What a tragedy for our country, to be denied a Hillary Clinton presidency at this critical time in history.

    I’m not giving up on Hillary. It’s still a while until August, and you never know how things might change. My focus is on the Rezko conviction. The Chicago corruption connections might get interesting, and attract some attention, if Patrick Fitzgerald is able to “flip” Rezko.

  178. Busy day and I only have a moment. Wanted to comment on an earlier blog when someone commented on adults (?McCaskill, Caroline Kennedy, Maria Shriver, etc) endorsing supporting Obama because their teenagers said they should. I have been amazed from that from the first mention. Who are the adults in this country. Pleased that your children are involved yes, encouraged to vote yes, follow their advice blindly? I feel like Alice in Wonderland

    Health Shuler is my representative. I called him when he endorsed (Bill attended church services and shared a hymnal with him on Sunday before NC primary) and thanked him for taking a stand. Western NC went for Clinton but not big enough to carry the state.

    I think Carville was just throwing out a comment re Gore about Obama needing someone of substance (Gore/environment) to be VP but Gore has been quoted quite a while back as saying he would NOT be interested in VP if he ever got back in politics.

    I have heard Biden’s name a couple of times in the last couple of days. I checked a couple of sources. I think he is still uncommited. Thought it was interesting that he reacted so differently after leaving the race than Dodd. If anyone knows his current position, I am curious.

    Regarding Hillary’s debt, I am making a list of all the women who have influenced me to be a strong, independent thinking woman and including them in my thank-you contribution to Hillary. One way of honoring my deceased mom who stood in line to vote against 1st Bush when she was fatally ill with heart failure so she could “vote” in person.

    Polls are being quoted tonight that Obama’s problem is with white men and that the only thing that might help is a strong man as VP??????? Evidently bump in polls is because older women have substantially moved to O???? Am not sure if I am “older” but I’m not moving. Determined as has been said by several of you.

    Won’t be able to finish reading all your informative comments tonight. Busy next couple of days and need some sleep.

    Am still getting the hang of this blog thing. I keep trying to read from early in the day to catch up and run out of time but feel so much better after doing so.

    Re: religious right. It will be interesting to see if leadership can be bought with continued financial advantages. I have been getting emails from family members for months who are religious conservatives (threatened to wear shirt to reunion stating “token liberal–every family needs one) and they will never support O but not as sure about youth vote among them.

    Thanks for all the data. Was sharing some of this today with my husband. Told him they think we are all just having an illogical, hormonal, emotional rant and that we will calm down, shut-up, and get in line. He said, guess they haven’t lived with you. Thanks for making me feel supported in my DETERMINATION. Started to stop and say hello to another rural citizen who still has their Hillary sign up on the way home today to see if they knew about you and PUMA.

    If anyone is from WNC and planning to go to Denver, please let me know.

    Is it practical to get shirts mass produced as money raiser and to help elicit conversation? Is this already being done? Have not checked the websites in last couple of days.

    Good night all. Again thanks for the info and support. Will have to find out how to do this and get sleep. Ha.

  179. Good grief. I need to learn how to edit myself

  180. HILLARY OR MCCAIN…For anyone who wonders why Hillary supporters are supporting John McCain now read this.

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/mccain-clinton.html

  181. What is the timeline on the Geller lawsuit? is it anticipated to resolve before August?

  182. plukasiak: At the bottom of the DNC document you cited is a disclaimer saying it is “unofficial” and “subject to change.” It is titled “tentative.” How do you know this document was not later changed in some manner to be consistent with the later situation in which Iowa, NH and SC were (perhaps) within schedule guidelines and thus not in line to be sanctioned? If this was “tentative” document, what was the “final” document and any way to access it?

    Thanks for the great work you’re doing, BTW. Greatly appreciated.

  183. Hello! I am visiting family abroad right now and I just wanted to check in and see how things are going. Glad to see the P.U.M.A efforts are still going strong, I am proud of Strickland for taking a stand, I was happy to see the efforts of the Hispanic Caucus in making sure that Obama actually addresses the concerns their community has instead of just assuming everyone will fall in line behind him. Frankly, I wish the Women’s Caucus and groups like Emily’s List and NOW would also make policy demands of him before giving him their precious endorsements. This is why women have not experienced radical gains in status – we play nice and don’t prove ourselves to be a force to be reckoned with. Also, I am disgusted by all the religious pandering going on in the Obama campaign right now. Yet one more thing that makes me think he is the Dem GWB…I didn’t even think that was possible until this year. It bothers me when the right panders to religion, and it bothers me now that we have someone on the left doing it yet. Reason 1 million why I won’t fall in line.

  184. We are winning the Obamans are whining loudly, they thought they did not need us and now realize their error. They see the red states lining up on the wall for november.

    The Republicans do not listen to MSNBC and CNN. Some how they are feeling more confident. THey pulled Senator Boxer out to whine abt party unity. Well, as i will continue to say you reap what you sow.

    Looking for someone to blame for the comming November Landslide? Look no further than the mirror.

    Keep up good work

    Fuzzybeargville

  185. Hillary has been criticized for not mounting a more effective rationale at the RBC meeting on May 31. But the facts that are beginning to surface indicate that the outcome was predetermined before the meeting.

    There were reports of long private meetings the night before the RBC meeting — and that no deal had been reached.

    If you listen to the questions asked in the morning session, the nature of the ‘deal’ that team Clinton wanted seems to be evident. The Michigan compromise as proposed would be accepted in principle — delegates would be seated as elected at full strength, but Team Clinton would not compete for the uncommitted vote, and submit the names of four Obama supporters as part of their at-large delegation. Seating Michigan at full strength would make it impossible to seat Florida at 50% voting strength.

    But no deal was struck the night before, which is why an illlegitimate closed meeting was held for two hours in the middle of the public meeting that saturday. (see my post on this subject https://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/06/06/the-rbc-violation-of-dnc-sunshine-rules/)

  186. sorry the DNC pulled out Senator Boxer to bleat like a sheep for party unity and use the Roe v Wade nuclear option to bring us to heal-no coffee this morning

    fuzzybear

  187. At the bottom of the DNC document you cited is a disclaimer saying it is “unofficial” and “subject to change.” It is titled “tentative.” How do you know this document was not later changed in some manner to be consistent with the later situation in which Iowa, NH and SC were (perhaps) within schedule guidelines and thus not in line to be sanctioned? If this was “tentative” document, what was the “final” document and any way to access it?

    My best guess is that the document is related to rule 1 E which states “The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee shall act on the proposed plans as soon as practicable, but in no case later than September 16, 2007, or four months before the respective state’s first determining step, whichever is earlier. Its decision shall be final and binding.”

    The Office of Pary Affairs and Delegate Selection is the “RBC staff” — and my guess is that this document was prepared for the final RBC meeting held before the September 16 deadline. (I can’t find any mention of such a meeting, however. But the wording “anticipated or approved” suggest that it includes dates for states whose plans had not yet been officially approved.)

    While September 16 is the ‘drop dead date’ for approval of state delegate selection plans, states could still submit amendments to their plans and get those changes approved after September 16, which is why the document is described as “tentative”.

    As to accessing a ‘final’ version — my guess is that there is no “final” version of this document — as noted above, it appears to me to be a ‘working’ document for a meeting. And my guess is that the only way to get subsequent versions of the document would be through the “Office of Party Affairs and Delegate Selection”… and lets just say that they aren’t going to give ME anything at this point! 😉

  188. I am having a hard time understanding this post. Since Hillary won New Hampshire, are you saying that there was an anti-Hillary conspiracy which resulted in Hillary winning delegates?

  189. You don’t seem aware that Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada all successfully petitioned the DNC to move up their primary dates, and the petitions were granted. Neither Florida or Michigan petitioned to move their dates up, which is why they were penalized.

    Additionally, the “documentary proof” you provide is from an exhibit in the Nelson, et al. v. Dean, et al. lawsuit, which was dismissed, and as the document itself is clearly labeled as a
    “tentative” schedule and was “subject to change,” I’m not sure why you feel the DNC was bound by it.

  190. And we thought only Sean Hannity had a “Stop Hillary” effort.

    Further evidence of the DNC gift to Obama – and the end of its legitimacy as a political institution.

    Dr. Dean, the party is terminal.

  191. It is useless to try and get any intelligent message through to any bho supporter. The ignorance level is just to high. The idea is branded in their minds that any Hillary supporter is just angry, sour grapes etc… It really would be quite insulting from anyone with some intelligence. However when you consider the source its quite comical. Grow up obamabots. What bho needs he can’t get. He needs the core of the demo party. Can’t wait until this whole process is over so he can go away.

  192. You don’t seem aware that Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada all successfully petitioned the DNC to move up their primary dates, and the petitions were granted.

    you seem to unaware that there was no basis in the rules for granting those waivers — which is the whole point of this post.

    As to the “tentative” nature of the document, it was “tentative” insofar as dates could change — but it wasn’t “tentative” in terms of the rules. The document recognizes that Florida was in non-compliance with the timing provision AND that THE RULES required Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina to abide by the dates found in the same rule that Florida was found to be non-compliant with.

    The RBC ignored its own rules — and the unambiguous intent behind those rules, which was to stop the monopoly of Iowa and New Hampshire on determining who was a viable candidate. NEVADA was supposed to go SECOND — and the reason for that was its very diverse population and signficant labor presence. (the caucus participants were 65% white, 15% Hispanic, 15% Black, 3% Asian, 3% other (native ameican) , and 29% came from union households).

    Had the RBC not ignored its own rules, Edwards would have been able to gain considerable traction — he was expected to win the endorsement of the national SEIU (service workers union), but because of his poor showing in New Hampshire pre-primary polls, that endorsement went to Obama.

    *********
    Since Hillary won New Hampshire, are you saying that there was an anti-Hillary conspiracy which resulted in Hillary winning delegates?

    gotta love these Obots.

    here’s a clue. If the RBC had enforced their own rules, there would have been only one pre-Super Tuesday state in which candidates could campaign (Nevada). Clinton’s advantages in name recognition, etc, would have made it impossible for anyone to get close to her on Super-Tuesday, and she would have emerged as the ‘presumptive nominee’ on ST.

    Or, IA, NH, and SC would not have moved their primaries — and Edwards would likely have emerged as the “not Hillary” from Nevada, stopping Obama’s momentum in its tracks, and giving Edwards a considerable boost going into New Hampshire.

  193. Gives me to much to think about this early, just makes me want to be sick.

  194. You don’t seem aware that Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada all successfully petitioned the DNC to move up their primary dates, and the petitions were granted. Neither Florida or Michigan petitioned to move their dates up, which is why they were penalized.

    Kathryn, each state, including Michigan and Florida asked to receive clearance for their primary/caucus. As each state is required to provide their plan for clearance. These states all went before the RBC because their dates were not according to the schedule set in the rules. That Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina were cleared and Michigan and Florida were not was in no part because they asked permission and Michigan and Florida did not. They all did when they submitted their plan and when they went before the RBC.

    The problem is that the RBC did not follow their own rules. The rules clearly give a schedule of dates allowed for each state, including the 4 early states. And they give an automatic punishment for violating the schedule, which 5 states did. The only way that punishment can be waived by the RBC is if the Dems in that state:

    the state party and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith to achieve legislative changes to bring the state law into compliance with the pertinent provisions of these rules and determines that the state party and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith in attempting to prevent legislative changes which resulted in state law that fails to comply with the pertinent provisions of these rules

    There is no other exception if other states move their date. No exception if they felt provoked. No exception to maintain an order (which wouldn’t apply anyway since New Hampshire didn’t maintain their order). By their unequal application of the rules, the RBC violated the rules.

    Also, if you read the 2008 Delegate Selection Rules you will see that the schedule of the states is clear so you do not need to rely on that chart from the evidence.

  195. Thank You so much Paul. I’ve been trying to collect everything you’ve been researching and writing on this topic of the RBC, and your comments. Now if I can find some time to get a couple of blog posts together…

  196. Prolix, on June 12th, 2008 at 1:23 am Said:
    Before you go, did you hear the funniest thing today about George Soros’ first wife?

    Prolix: I’m sorry I missed your comment – I shut down immediately last night. What’s the funniest thing?

  197. Wow, such blasphemy to speak ill words of the messiah…
    Dont know why everyone is “bitter” or clinging to Hillary as a last ditch “racist” effort to discredit BHO..
    He is absolutely deserving of all the biased media attention, blatent rule bending, and selection by the few at the expense of the MANY….
    Because.. (sorry CANT FINISH THIS ONE.. its making me throw up a little in my mouth just writing it)

    Obamabots.. im sure you’ll be able to come up with some BS to fill that section in as always!

    I just cant believe that this is only coming out now..
    Is it just me or are the pieces of the puzzle coming together for everyone. The perception of Clinton having secured the nomination prior to ST was all media/OB camp propaganda, used quite effectively to “slay the clinton’s” in true Chicago political style.. Ironically transforming “The peoples favorite” into a sore loser at the end, for not quitting a race she was in many ways WINNING sooner???? This all, despite the MILLIONS, upon MILLIONS he spent to buy all the votes in final states that still failed to ride the wave, as Clinton handily won 6 of the last nine contests, by record breaking numbers… Maybe some voters were trying to say something before the DNC (Dean, Brazille, and Pelosi) wrapped it up??

    NONE of these people, I believe, have ever come close to winning the 18 million votes Sen Clinton secured in one election, including BHO!

    We DONT want OBAMA
    And now.. we DONT want the DNC

    INDEPENDANT 08
    Hillary 2012

  198. Nope, sorry, this doesn’t hold.

    It was BECAUSE Michigan moved their primary forward that New Hampshire moved theirs forward. New Hampshire has a state law that their primary must be held one week before any other primary (note, specifically primary, not caucus), When Michigan moved their primary to January 15th, New Hampshire’s state law REQUIRED them to move their primary to January 8th at the latest. New Hampshire was granted a waiver accordingly;

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/17/321548.aspx
    http://www.gwu.edu/%7Eaction/2008/chrnothp08/nhdp112907pr.html

    Something similar applies to Iowa. Their state law actually requires them to be eight days before any other primary, but obviously they worked something out there to avoid having it in December as was being reported back in August last year:
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0807/5328.html

    To put it simply, Michigan and Florida were penalized because they’re not permitted to hold their contests before the first Tuesday in February. Full stop. The others were not penalized because, a) they are permitted to hold contests before that date, and b) they only moved the dates of their contests forward because of Florida and Michigan’s actions.

    The idea that the DNC didn’t penalize those four states in order to ‘stop Hillary’ doesn’t hold up.

    And incidentally, using a document with ‘TENTATIVE’ in bold capital letters at the top and ‘UNOFFICIAL’ and ‘SUBJECT TO CHANGE’ as indisputable proof is a bit daft. 🙂

  199. This is my first time looking at this blog, and I truly admire your understanding of what is happening. Thank you all so much. I am especially thrilled to hear about the Latino Congressional Caucus. I was hoping beyond hope that this would happen, and it has. Latinos will not vote for Obama. If we organized just the latino vote against Obama he would be dust in front of our eyes. Let’s write the Latino Caucus and tell them we will support them.

  200. Millions of us would love to know when in the history of campaigns someone running for the nomination/presidency was ever treated in the manner Senator Clinton has been treated thus far? Even Mr. Dean with a paltry 5.7% of the vote showed up on the convention floor in the last nomination cycle. He did not hand over his 103 delegates until the first day of the convention:

    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P04/D.phtml

    Putting the mute button on voters does not bode well for August or November.

  201. […] Quarter USA, piggy-backing off The Confluence, reminds exasperated voters that the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee selectively enforced […]

  202. plukasiak, thanks for reply to my Q about ‘tentative,’ ‘subject to change’ etc. on the document you cite as ‘proof.’ Not to rain on your presentation but need better than your guesses as I was ready to fire off letters to DNC officials and my Reps and Senators. Then read Aengil’s comment (just a couple comments up from here):

    >>Aengil, on June 12th, 2008 at 8:15 pm Said:

    >>Nope, sorry, this doesn’t hold.

    >>It was BECAUSE Michigan moved their primary forward that New Hampshire moved theirs forward. New Hampshire has a state law that their primary must be held one week before any other primary (note, specifically primary, not caucus), When Michigan moved their primary to January 15th, New Hampshire’s state law REQUIRED them to move their primary to January 8th at the latest. New Hampshire was granted a waiver accordingly;
    >> etc etc

    Need your response to Aengil, if you can, so that I can evaluate the situation and decide how to act upon it. Also curious that media have not picked up on what you’re speculating happened here, not that media are anything but [words that cannot be uttered in civilized company] but still curious.

  203. here’s my response to aengil..

    It was BECAUSE Michigan moved their primary forward that New Hampshire moved theirs forward. New Hampshire has a state law that their primary must be held one week before any other primary (note, specifically primary, not caucus), When Michigan moved their primary to January 15th, New Hampshire’s state law REQUIRED them to move their primary to January 8th at the latest. New Hampshire was granted a waiver accordingly;

    in a word, “bullshit”.

    the DNC rules include no reference to an exception for New Hampshire (or Iowa) state law. The only standard for a waiver is that party officials and elected Democrats take “all provable, positive steps in good faith” to abide by the timing schedule — and Florida’s considerable efforts to take such steps set the bar VERY high in that regard. None of the states in question (IA, NH, SC) came close to doing what Florida did.

    The bottom line is this — New Hampshire should have (and could have) been sanctioned in the same way that Florida was — while NH may have been compelled by its state law to hold a primary election eight days before anyone else’s primary election, the DNC RULES require that the primary NOT be used as part of the delegate selection process if that primary violates the timing provision.

    NH could (and should) have been told “submit a plan for caucuses or another primary that is consistent with the timing provisions, or lose all your delegates — that is what happened with Florida, and with Michigan.

    Party caucuses can be held at just about any time — Iowa Democrats cannot be compelled by the state to hold their presidential preference caucuses on a given date under Supreme Court precedent.

    And unlike Florida, which has no recent history of caucuses (Florida’s elections page goes back as far as the 1980 presidential preference primary), South Carolina only recently adopted the “primary” system for choosing delegates — it only adopted a “primary” for the Democratic party in 2004 (in 2000, it was Democratic caucuses, and a Republican Primary). In other words, there was no real impediment to requiring South Carolina to abide by the timing provisions — its primary could have been considered non-binding, and a caucus system could have been substituted.

    And New Hampshire, with its long history of ‘direct democracy’ via ‘town meetings’ would have had no problem with organizing caucuses as a substitute for selecting delegates.

    For Florida to do what was demanded of it would have been impossible — the DNC wanted Florida to hold COUNTY and US DISTRICT caucuses (i.e. not precinct caucuses) with a budget of $880,000.) Florida is far more ‘spread out’ that New Hampshire, and such caucuses would have a a SEVERE discriminatory impact on poor voters, disabled voters, and other categories of votes (not to mention being in violation of Federal ‘pre-clearance’ election law provisions in 16 Florida counties.)

    In other words, ‘state law’ is simply not an excuse for a state to violate the timing provisions — it was the obligation of EACH state to create a delegate selection plan that was consistent with all the rules of the Democratic Party. Florida did not do so — and politically, historically, and financially once the GOP legislature set the date it was impossible for Florida Democrats to come up with a plan that was consistent with ALL the rules of the RBC.

    But given the history and nature of NH, IA, and SC, there was no reason whatsoever not to treat those states the same way that Florida was treated, and insist that they abide by the same rules that Florida was required to abide by.

  204. Rubbish.

    The difference between Michigan and Florida and the other states is glaringly obvious. Michigan and Florida moved their contests forward, into the early window, with no real justification for doing so. The other states had initally set dates fully in accordance with DNC rules, and only moved them slightly forward subsequent to Michigan and Florida’s actions, in accordance with their state laws, and in discussion with the DNC (e.g.
    http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/ia08/idp102807pr.html ), to preserve the agreed upon order.

    If you can’t see the difference there, you’re blind.

    As for there being ‘no reference to an exemption for state law’, there is: Rule 20) c) 7 :

    “In the event a state shall become subject to subsections (1), (2) or (3) of section C. of this rule AS A RESULT OF STATE LAW … the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee may determine that all or a portion of the state’s delegation shall not be reduced.”

    Even if you could put forward a strong argument that the rules make no provision for a waiver – and I don’t think you can – even then it doesn’t follow that those states were granted a waiver regardless “to stop Hillary”. It seems far more likely they were granted a waiver for the simple reason that they, unlike Michigan and Florida, weren’t trying to jump the queue.

    It’s also glaringly obvious that Michigan and Florida HAD to be penalized – unless you want the whole process to start in December next time around.

  205. To put it simply, Michigan and Florida were penalized because they’re not permitted to hold their contests before the first Tuesday in February. Full stop. The others were not penalized because, a) they are permitted to hold contests before that date, and b) they only moved the dates of their contests forward because of Florida and Michigan’s actions.

    You need to read the actual rules. Every state had a date before which they could not hold their primary. 5 states held primaries BEFORE they were allowed.

    From the official rules:

    Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February.

    Yes they could go before Feb 5, but they were still restricted as to when they could go and still violated the rules with their moving up of their primary/caucus.

    The had no pre-approval to move their dates. And there is NO exception for being provoked in the rules. Florida held its primary on Jan 29th because that is the STATE LAW. Most states have their dates set by state law and there is no exception in the DNC rules for the state law making them hold their primary/caucus before their allowed date.

    You said:

    As for there being ‘no reference to an exemption for state law’, there is: Rule 20) c) 7 :

    “In the event a state shall become subject to subsections (1), (2) or (3) of section C. of this rule AS A RESULT OF STATE LAW … the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee may determine that all or a portion of the state’s delegation shall not be reduced.”

    But what you left out was the actual only reason delegates may not be reduced. Let’s show what the actual rules states when you don’t edit it:

    In the event a state shall become subject to subsections (1), (2) or (3) of section C. of this rule as a result of state law but the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, after an investigation, including hearings if necessary, determines the state party and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith to achieve legislative changes to bring the state law into compliance with the pertinent provisions of these rules and determines that the state party and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith in attempting to prevent legislative changes which resulted in state law that fails to comply with the pertinent provisions of these rules, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee may determine that all or a portion of the state’s delegation shall not be reduced. The state party shall have the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that it and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith to achieve legislative changes to bring the state law into compliance with the pertinent provisions of these rules and that it and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith in attempting to prevent the legislative changes which resulted in state law that fails to comply with the pertinent provisions of these rules.

    It isn’t an exception due to state law despite your careful editing or every state would be exempt. The only exception is if the state Dems tried to fix the state law to come into compliance. Iowa, NH and South Carolina did not make any attempts to comply with this rule. And no one even asked them to do that. Florida did. So how did Florida not earn its exemption and those states did? Certainly not based on any rules.

    BTW, NH jumped the queue.

  206. I didn’t ‘carefully edit’, I simply left in the part relevant to the point. New Hampshire’s state law isn’t new, and indeed is incorporated into the DNC rules (Where do you think those dates you quoted come from, hrm? Note that the New Hampshire primary date was 7 days before the South Carolina primary date which was 7 days before the first Tuesday in February? Why do you think that was?).

    You’re also not interpreting the rules correctly. They don’t require the state Dems to try to ‘fix the state law’ – they require them to make ‘all provable positive steps’ and ‘act in good faith’. There’s a significant difference.

    What steps, exactly, should the NH Democrats have taken that they didn’t? The answer is: none. It’s simply not reasonable to expect New Hampshire to change their long-standing and recognized state law due purely to Michigan’s unapproved actions. You may disagree on that if you disagree with New Hampshire’s status to start off with, but it’s a valid argument nonetheless. Hence, it can be argued that New Hampshire did indeed act in good faith and take all provable postive steps and bam: there’s their exemption.

  207. Kathryn, each state, including Michigan and Florida asked to receive clearance for their primary/caucus. As each state is required to provide their plan for clearance. These states all went before the RBC because their dates were not according to the schedule set in the rules. That Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina were cleared and Michigan and Florida were not was in no part because they asked permission and Michigan and Florida did not. They all did when they submitted their plan and when they went before the RBC.

    I’m not Kathryn, but I’d like to respond to your comment to her.

    If you read the Order allowing the Defendants Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment in the Nelson, et al. v. Dean, et al.- which is here, the Court makes it clear that Florida did not apply to be one of the states allowed an early primary or caucus, although 11 other states did so apply. Nor, when the 2006 rules were adopted did Florida dissent, although NH did.

    In the Florida legislature, there was only one “nay” vote on the proposal to move up the primary. While the FL legislature is controlled by the GOP, there is more than one Democrat in the legislature, and apparently, almost none of them thought to object to a primary date that did not conform to the DNC rules. So the Florida Democrats did not meet the standards set forth in the section 20 of the rules you are citing.

    It must be noted that, after the Florida legislature adopted the date in violation of DNC rules, the DNC offered to assume the cost of a Florida primary that would be in compliance with the rules. This, as the Order states, was unprecedented, as the states are to pay for their own primaries. Florida did not accept this offer.

    Additionally, the Order makes it clear the early dates for IA, NH, etc. were established in the 2004 rules. In March of 2006, it was reaffirmed that only IA, SC, NV and NH would be allowed to have early primaries, and this is when the other states were invited to apply to be allowed to hold an early primary- as I mentioned above, Florida did not apply, and this plan was adopted in August of 2007.

    The bottom line seems to be Florida made the same argument you are making here before the Florida District Court, and they had their suit dismissed. This means it is inherently problematic to use the exhibits from the failed lawsuit to support your argument- unless you are trying to suggest the Florida District Court is part of this “conspiracy.”

    We may not necessarily like the rules, but it seems pretty clear the DNC did not violate them. Had they done so, the Nelson, et al. v. Dean, et al. suit would not have been dismissed.

  208. The rules ask that “Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith to achieve legislative changes to bring the state law into compliance with the pertinent provisions of these rules” or in other words, try to fix the law. Not fix it. TRY. NH, SC and Iowa made no attempts.

    State law is not an excuse. Those provable steps are the ONLY reason. NH had none. Florida had some that the RBC decided weren’t enough. So how can none be enough and some not enough?

    Acting in good faith is not an acceptable excuse. There is no exception in the rules for that. There is no exception in the rules for a long standing law. There is no exception in the rules for intent. It doesn’t matter how valid you think their argument is, the rules do NOT allow it.

    If the DNC wanted to follow NH’s law it should have written it into the rules. They didn’t. The RBC violated the very rules it was sworn to uphold. And they did so with no excuse and no justification. You do not have fair and free elections when laws/rules are not applied equally.

  209. Firstly, acting in good faith is right there in the rules – you quoted it yourself! It’s not an acceptable excuse in itself, but it’s an essential part of one.

    Secondly, long standing laws, etc., are also inherently in the rules – it hinges entirely on what ‘all provable positive steps’ constitutes. If it’s unreasonable and/or impractical to change a long-standing state law, that can’t be considered a positive step that must be taken. In New Hampshire’s case, their state law is accepted and already implicit in the rules (that’s where that initial date in the rules comes from). Crucially, NH didn’t change their state law. Michigan did. NH should not have to change their (previously accepted) state law due to Michigan”s unapproved actions. The list of ‘positive steps’ that NH can be expected to take in that situation basically amounts to ‘ask Michigan to stop messing around’.

    Basically, ‘all provable positive steps’ is subject to the particular context. There is no formal definition in the rules of what all ‘provable positive steps’ is. It’s reasonable for NH to argue that they did take all provable positive steps, which weren’t many due to the nature of the situation (it being caused by Michigan’s actions, not their own). Thus, if that argument is accepted – which is entirely up to judgement of the RBC – NH took all provable positive steps and acted in good faith, and there’s the exemption.

    It’s fully within the rules, depending on how you interpret them. But so long as there’s at least one valid interpretation you can’t say it was a violation of the rules.

    You’re not a lawyer, are you. 😉

  210. jesus…these obots are stupid…

    I didn’t ‘carefully edit’, I simply left in the part relevant to the point.

    you’re correct, only insofar as your editing wasn’t careful. Only an idiot would attempt to take a SINGLE portion of a rule completely out of context…

    you also ignore THIS part of the rule….

    You’re also not interpreting the rules correctly. They don’t require the state Dems to try to ‘fix the state law’ – they require them to make ‘all provable positive steps’ and ‘act in good faith’. There’s a significant difference.

    do you know what the word “CHANGES” means, in the sentence….”acted in good faith to achieve legislative CHANGES to bring the state law into compliance with the pertinent provisions of these rules ”

    the rules DO require the Democrat to try and CHANGE THE LAW — and the RBC set the standard for what constitutes “positive, provable steps”, “acting in good faith”, and “elected officials” with its decsion with regard to Florida. In other words, ONLY if Democrats in IA, NH, and SC went BEYOND what was done by democrats in Florida — and only if ALL democratic officeholders marched in lockstep to try and get the law changed, could those states be granted a waiver.

    FURTHERMORE — in NEITHER the case of Iowa or SC was there any need to change the law. The state of Iowa CANNOT COMPEL the Iowa Democrat Party to hold its caucuses on a certain date. And in SC, the GOP held its primary on January 19… the Dem primary was a week later — there was NO NEED to change the date in SC to comply with state law.

  211. It’s fully within the rules, depending on how you interpret them. But so long as there’s at least one valid interpretation you can’t say it was a violation of the rules.

    what an idiot. You cannot interpret the same rule in two different ways depending upon the situation. There can be only ONE interpretation of the rules. Words can only have ONE meaning. And PRECEDENT establishes the meaning of the words.

    If you are a lawyer, you should have your license revoked …

  212. I’m not an idiot. You, however, are evidently not as smart as you think you are.

    That unpleasantness out of the way, back to the point:

    The rules require them to make ALL PROVABLE POSITIVE STEPS … to achieve legislative changes.

    If it is NOT POSSIBLE to achieve legislative changes there ARE NO STEPS that can be taken. New Hampshire’s legislature are NOT going to change their laws because of another state’s unapproved actions. It’s never going to happen, nor is it reasonable to expect it to.

    As I said, it depends on the definition of ‘all provable positive steps’ which IS naturally going to depend on the exact situation and is not formally defined in the rules. The steps you can take in one situation are not going to be identical to the steps you can take in another. In this instance, it depends on the exact state law (or laws), the nature of the conflict, how it came to happen, etc., etc.

    Context is a very simple principle. It’s not really something you can argue about.

    And this: “There can be only ONE interpretation of the rules. Words can only have ONE meaning. And PRECEDENT establishes the meaning of the words.”

    That’s just so absurd, I’m going to give you a chance to reconsider it. Perhaps you didn’t realize what you were saying.

    Finally, once again, EVEN IF you could argue they waived the penalty against their own laws, it DOES NOT follow they did so to ‘stop Hillary’.

  213. Firstly, acting in good faith is right there in the rules – you quoted it yourself! It’s not an acceptable excuse in itself, but it’s an essential part of one.

    They didn’t act, much less take all provable, positive steps. Remember it says (emphasis added) “all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith”. NH didn’t act at all. And I like the way you ignore Iowa and South Carolina since they don’t have your personal state law exception. NH could have held a caucus, just like the RBC decided Florida should in order not to conflict with state law. Florida Dems tried to change the law and that wasn’t enough. So how can not doing one damn thing be all provable, positive steps when actually taking action isn’t?

    BTW, do you know next presidential election Florida will still be holding an early primary. Now since the law will be older then, do they get a pass? Can any state pass a law now declaring they should be first and then when 2012 rolls around declare it an old state law so their hands are tied? Of course not. Which is why when the rules were written no exception for having a state law was made. You have to do everything and anything to comply with the DNC rules, including holding a separate primary/caucus (that is how the RBC interpreted all provable, positive steps).

    Basically, ‘all provable positive steps’ is subject to the particular context. There is no formal definition in the rules of what all ‘provable positive steps’ is. It’s reasonable for NH to argue that they did take all provable positive steps, which weren’t many due to the nature of the situation (it being caused by Michigan’s actions, not their own).

    Caucus. Since Florida Dems couldn’t change the date, the RBC demanded a state party funded caucus. Why wasn’t that demanded of NH? What about SC and Iowa?

    Nope not a lawyer. Not a person so loyal to a candidate I would lie or distort the truth or sell out my beliefs in order to benefit them either.

  214. […] Saturday, May 31, 2008. It’s made all the more haunting in light of the June 11 disclosure by plukasiak, cross-posted at The Confluence: A document filed as an exhibit in the Nelson vs Dean Lawsuit that […]

  215. Step Beyond: Let me spell it out one more time.

    If there are no steps that can be taken, doing nothing is taking all steps. If there are many steps that can be taken but only some of them are, that is not taking all steps.

    If the RBC decided – as they are entitled to do, whether you personally agree or not – that NH could not be expected to abandon 33 years of tradition and change state law due to Michigan’s actions, then they can rule that NH took all steps. If they decide – again, as they’re entitled to do, whether you agree or not – that Florida did not, then they can penalize them. It’s entirely up to their definition of what positive steps could be taken.

    You can disagree with that on the basis of personal opinion, but not on a legal basis (well, not successfully at any rate).

    Also, note that originally scheduling their primary in full accordance with DNC rulings could be taken as acting in good faith. Essentially, the NH argument could be boiled down to a simple “It’s Michigan’s fault”. NH Democrats didn’t do anything to cause the situation – Michigan did. Whereas Florida’s argument boils down to more “It’s the Republican-dominated Senate’s fault” – but it probably didn’t help that the Florida Democratic legislators supported the bill, and introduced their amendment like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r25wUeMAwdE

    As for why I’m focusing on New Hampshire, that’s in part because I’m more familiar with their situation and their state law is quite clear. I’m less familiar with the state law and DNC rulings regarding Iowa, Nevada, and South Carolina (although, see the links I provided originally for some detail there). That’s part of why I’ve repeatedly pointed out (and you’ve ignored every time) that EVEN IF you can make an argument that the DNC bent their own rules to waive penalties, it DOES NOT follow that they did so to ‘stop Hillary Clinton’.

    Finally:
    “Not a person so loyal to a candidate I would lie or distort the truth or sell out my beliefs in order to benefit them either.”

    And you feel the need to point that out, why?

  216. You focused on NH because you think, incorrectly, you have a case there and nothing in Iowa and SC.

    There is no exception for 33 years of history. None. That is a fact. If you disagree point out where the rules give the RBC the right to decide if they don’t need to require “all provable positive steps.” It isn’t up to the RBC or you to feel that the length of time that law existed should be a factor, it was NOT a factor per the rules. At no point do the rules say that no steps could be required if you feel you couldn’t have done anything. You HAVE to try per the rules. And lets remember from the original Florida RBC meeting that the lovely committee members were deciding that EVERY state Dem had to have acted.

    I’m not arguing whether the rules are fair or not. I’m arguing the rules were clear. And once the RBC drew the line of how they defined all ‘provable positive steps’ that line could not then be altered for other states. If the law couldn’t be altered a state funded alternative primary/caucus HAD to be implemented.

    Keep ignoring that NH could have had a separate caucus. Keep ignoring Iowa and SC. Keep ignoring the rules. But don’t lie about the rules. Don’t edit out the parts you don’t like and insert rules and interpretations that don’t exist.

    BTW, the RNC did sanction NH. They applied their rules equally to every state that violated their rules. What special kind of shame have we earned when the Repubs follow the rules/laws without bias and we don’t.

    Finally:
    And you feel the need to point that out, why?

    You seemed to care about whether I was a lawyer, so I figure you’d want to know that my problem was not from the perspective of a lawyer nor someone who was blinded by loyalty to a candidate. The RBC actions should have upset people who supported any of the candidates and people who lived in any state. When laws/rules are applied capriciously, injustice occurs. Progressives used to care about that.

  217. If there are no steps that can be taken, doing nothing is taking all steps. If there are many steps that can be taken but only some of them are, that is not taking all steps.

    except that New Hampshire has a Democratic governor, and Democratic Majorities in both its House and Senate.

    Unlike in florida, where the governor is a republican and dems are outnumbered by 2-1 in both legislative houses. New Hampshire DEMOCRATS had the power to effect change. Florida was penalized because SOME Democratic office-holders who had no power over Florida’s legislative agenda supported the date change.

    New Hampshire’s legislators were required, UNDER THE RULES, to do everything in their power to make “legislative changes” consistent with DNC policy. THEY CHOSE NOT TO DO SO — they did not take the “provable, positive steps” in good faith that would have made them eligible for a waiver.

    It’s entirely up to their definition of what positive steps could be taken.

    you really are an idiot.

    Florida established the baseline for what state parties and democratic officials had to do to get a waiver — i.e. they had to do MUCH more than Florida, because Florida was originally subjected to not just the automatic penalty, but a 100% disenfranchisement of its citizens.

    “we don’t feel like it” and ‘we have a tradition’ are not reasons to ignore the rules Its as simple as that. If the DNC WANTED to include a special exemption for New Hampshire, based on its legacy, it could have — it chose not to do so — and New Hampshire was the ONLY state that objected to the timing provision of the DNC delegate selection rules.

    Finally. because Michigan had been COMPLETELY DISENFRANCHISED, there was absolutely no rationale for NH to move its democratic primary — New Hampshire remained the first official democratic primary once Michigan was disenfranchised.

  218. That’s part of why I’ve repeatedly pointed out (and you’ve ignored every time) that EVEN IF you can make an argument that the DNC bent their own rules to waive penalties, it DOES NOT follow that they did so to ’stop Hillary Clinton’.

    that would have been a credible argument prior to May 31st. Now, not so much.

  219. *sigh* Florida don’t get to ‘establish a baseline’. That’s fundamentally not how it works. And Michigan’s contest was still a contest – New Hampshire law doesn’t say ‘a week before the first contest that’s currently ruled as having seated delegates to the national convention’.

    But look, I don’t think getting bogged down in the state law issue is productive, particularly since it’s a moot point since the Iowa, NH, and SC contests weren’t even ruled a violation of timing anyway. Let’s try it this way:

    Read rule 11. Note the use of the term ‘may’, as opposed to ‘shall’ or ‘must’. And again, as I previously pointed out, consider the origin of those dates for the Iowa, SC, and NH contests.

    Now, again, consider the fundamental difference between making changes to ‘preserve the spirit and intent of the goals of the early pre-window period … necessary because other states had scheduled events in the pre-window period.’ and actually being those other states scheduling events in the pre-window period.

    The RBC has the power (yes, they do) to rule that the Iowa, SC, and NH changes, still in the early January window, were within the spirit of the Committee’s original ruling – which they quite clearly were – and hence not a violation. That WOULD stand up in a court of law. That’s a fact. And that’s what they did. No violation of their rules, simply an application of the spirit of the rules in line with the Committee’s original ruling. That’s legally valid.

    But Florida and Michigan had no such defense. A move prior to the first Tuesday in February is clearly not even remotely within the Committee’s original ruling – the ruling, note, that Michigan and Florida agreed to. There’s no ‘within the spirit of the agreement’ justification (and again, that is a legally valid justification) for allowing the move. Hence, no move is allowed and the violation of timings rules are triggered.

    Again, the difference between Iowa, NH, and SC and Michigan and Florida is glaringly obvious.

    Now let me sum up your argument “No! They HAD to apply those dates! And they ignored their own rules to STOP HILLARY CLINTON!”.

    No. They accepted the Iowa, NH, and SC changes as being within the spirit of the Committee’s original ruling. Do you really think they weren’t? Hence they were NOT held as being in breach of rule 11. Michigan and Florida were. There’s no justification for a “it was to stop Hillary Clinton!” argument there.

    You can argue that Florida and Michigan were hard done by, but certainly in Florida’s case, when they’ve got the democratic legislators supporting the bill and sarcastically introducing an amendment just so they can say they did it, they were never going to meet the requirements for a waiving of penalties.

  220. *sigh* Florida don’t get to ‘establish a baseline’. That’s fundamentally not how it works. And Michigan’s contest was still a contest – New Hampshire law doesn’t say ‘a week before the first contest that’s currently ruled as having seated delegates to the national convention’.

    Florida didn’t set the baseline — the RBC did when it completely disenfranchised Florida.

    As to New Hampshire’s law… the wording is “similar election’. Since Michigan’s primary was not recognized as binding by the RBC, its was not a “similar election’ — it was just a beauty contest…. and if you botheed to check the DNC rules, you would note that beauty contests ARE ALLOWABLE at any time.

    And, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, New Hampshire law is irrelevant — New Hampshire democrats had an obligation under the DNC rules to CHANGE THE LAW if it conflicted with the DNC rules.

    Read rule 11. Note the use of the term ‘may’, as opposed to ’shall’ or ‘must’.

    christ, you really are an idiot. In this instance, the phrase is “may be held no earlier than’ — in other words, it provides the option to hold the election prior to February 5th, but not earlier than the specificed date.

    And THE DOCUMENT I CITED is proof that was the interpretation of the rules when Florida was sanctioned. “ALLOWED…NO MORE THAN”.

    The RBC has the power (yes, they do) to rule that the Iowa, SC, and NH changes, still in the early January window, were within the spirit of the Committee’s original ruling –

    Find me one FUCKING PLACE where the rules talk abut enforcing ‘the spirit’. IT ISN”T THERE. You’re both a liar and an idiot.

    THE SPIRIT of the rules was not to completely disenfranchise all the voters in the state — READ RULE 20 C 1 a AND b. The SPIRIT of the rules was to provide a strong disincentive to elected officials to violate the timing provisions (while VOTERS lose 50% of their voting strength under the rules, superdelegates lose 100% of their votes) and COMPLETELY DENYING delegates to candidates who campaign in states sanctioned under the timing provision.

    You can argue that Florida and Michigan were hard done by, but certainly in Florida’s case, when they’ve got the democratic legislators supporting the bill and sarcastically introducing an amendment just so they can say they did it, they were never going to meet the requirements for a waiving of penalties.

    Geller knew that the amendment had no chance of passing — and the only reason he offered it was to meet the requirements of the DNC rules. Of course he was being sarcastic — it was a complete waste of his time, and the legislatures time.

    HAVE YOU TALKED TO GELLER? BECAUSE I HAVE.

  221. “Find me one FUCKING PLACE where the rules talk abut enforcing ‘the spirit’. IT ISN”T THERE. You’re both a liar and an idiot.”

    You have trouble discussing things in calm and rational terms don’t you?

    You also really are clueless about this subject, but since you’d apparently prefer to throw insults about rather than actually consider that maybe, just maybe, you’re wrong, I suppose that’s only to be expected.

    Of course the rules don’t talk about enforcing the spirit. That’s because it’s implicit in any agreement!

    In simple terms, a formal agreement is intended to reflect a ‘meeting of the minds’. If everyone involved agrees to something, but then draw up a written agreement that mistakenly does not reflect that agreement, that written agreement can be reformed. That’s a basic principle. The conditions under, and extent to which, the agreement can be modified does depend on the nature of the agreement, but that’s the general principle.

    In other words, in situations like this, if rules are drawn up, but a situation arises in which the exact wording of the rules (the letter) conflicts with the intent of those rules (the spirit), the spirit can be applied rather than the letter. Again, the extent to which this is true depends on the exact nature of the rules and situation in which the conflict arises, but that’s the general principle. Obviously it’s essential in any situation to be able to prove what the spirit of the agreement was.

    Note at this point that ‘political parties have a constitutionally protected right to conduct and manage their own internal affairs’.

    Now in this specific situation, the principle that was agreed to by all states was the order of the early window. (note: Nevada chose not to move their contest, but supported the actions of Iowa, SC, and NH). The actual dates specified in the rules were a reflection of this. But those dates were established under the erroneous belief that all other contests would be, at the earliest, the first Tuesday in February.

    Hence, it can be ruled that a changing of the dates of the contests within the early window is in accordance with the agreement, the agreement being primarily as to the order of the contests rather than the specific dates. And in this particular situation – the rules of the DNC and the power of the RBC – this is wholly acceptable. They are fully entitled to make that ruling.

    In theory, a party involved in the original agreement could attempt to mount a legal challenge to that, but all that would have to be demonstrated is that the dates for Iowa, NH, and SC were set on the principle of establishing the order of the early window, to which all parties agreed. A party would have to counter that by proving that they did not agree to the principle of the order, but only to those specific dates. That would not be possible. Hence, the challenge would fail.

    Summary: the moving of the dates of the contests of Iowa, NH, and SC was within the rules. Any challenge to that would inevitably fail. You can deny that and insult me all you like, but it won’t make it any less of a fact.

    The same principle cannot be applied to Florida or Michigan. There was no intent to allow Florida and Michigan to schedule contests prior to the first Tuesday in February.

    “Geller knew that the amendment had no chance of passing — and the only reason he offered it was to meet the requirements of the DNC rules. Of course he was being sarcastic — it was a complete waste of his time, and the legislatures time.”

    Yes… do you know what ‘good faith’ is? I’ll give you a clue – it’s not embodied in going through the motions. The Florida Democrats were certainly in a tough position, but they needed to oppose the initial bill, not support it, and make a genuine (if doomed) attempt to introduce an amendment if they were going to get an exemption.

    Incidentally, I believe there are some absurdities in the delegate selection rules – not least is the idea that you can hold a recognized (albeit at 50% strength) contest, but forbid any candidates to campaign in that contest, even though it’s going to count. I think it’s partly that absurdity, but mainly the DNC/RBC’s strong belief in the importance of the early window that led them to imposing the additional sanctions on Michigan and Florida. Forbidding candidates to campaign in a contest that’s not going to count at all makes sense. Forbidding them to campaign in one that’s going to half-count doesn’t.

    The Florida and Michigan situations were not well-handled, but I don’t believe there is any good way to handle such a situation. Allowing the contests to stand in full would have destroyed any principle of establishing the order of the contests. Allowing the contests to stand at half strength but forbidding campaigning is inherently flawed. Not allowing the contests to stand at all creates the situation where voters are disenfranchised through no fault of their own.

  222. For those who wish to stay together in a long term commitment to the ideals and rinciples that Hillary Clinton has spent a lifetime promoting, http://Together4Us.com offers access for activists, funders, students, policy-makers and ordinary people to come together in support of each other and their goals for America. Please come to our website and join, use the code below to put our linked logo on your website and distribute our message and this code to all your network. Spread the word. We will be happy to put up a reciprocal link, your own co-branded web page on our site, or your own blog.

    Thanks so much,
    Gretchen Glasscock,
    Together4Us

  223. […] went against the Family. You think you can be head of the Democratic Family? That means you gotta have respect for the rules. You gotta keep your promises on the issues they care about. You gotta adhere to the traditions. […]

  224. […] went against the Family. You think you can be head of the Democratic Family? That means you gotta have respect for the rules. You gotta keep your promises on the issues they care about. You gotta adhere to the traditions. […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: