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

Hillary, From Sea to Shining Sea

Americans love Hillary from one end of the country to the other. Take a look, this map looks like a great big smiling face:

What I like about this map is that it fills in Florida, Michigan and Texas as hers. It’s amazing the number of sites that put those states into some strange holding zone. One site put Texas in stripes (giving undue validity to Obama’s caucus win) . . . .

Well, there’s not much we can do about Texas (until time to rewrite the rules for next time) but, we CAN take action on the Florida and Michigan situation.

Florida

It’s easy to do the right thing and be on the correct side of the issue in this case even if you don’t stand to gain anything from it. The punishment was unusually harsh, the voters had nothing to do with it and the Democrats really need them in November. But more than that, it’s just a good thing to count every vote, let Floridians have some weight in determining the nomination and to respect their intentions, which were fairly clear. If it turns out that Florida’s votes when added to the mix do not sway superdelegates to vote for Clinton, well, at least they tried. But if they are never counted at all and Obama wins, then Floridians will be left with a mystery. Could counting all of their votes have lead to a different outcome? Deja vu. Not a good feeling when you thought you’d been pre-disastered. What’s worse is that it is at the hands of the “good” party this time. Who can you trust?

Obama made a decision a couple of months ago to not waive the rules and to obstruct revotes. Florida Democrats filed a petition to get at least half the delegation seated. A couple of months ago would have been an optimal time to settle the matter. Obama could have been magnanimous and agreed to seat all of the delegates and take a small hit to his delegate count. Or he could have taken the Florida Democrat’s compromise of half delegate seating. He chose not to do either. Now, I don’t think any solution he proposed short of seating all of them would be acceptable to Floridians.

For a guy with self-proclaimed good judgment, he has boxed himself into a corner. With his lead in the delegate count, he comes off looking petulant. If he’s the presumptive nominee, if he can not lose under any circumstances, where’s the harm of seating all of the delegates? What is he holding out for? Surely he needs to smooth the waters with the voters of this state so the holding pattern is inscrutable. He could be afraid the delegates lend legitimacy to Clinton’s popular vote and he may lose. But the longer he holds out the greater the possibility that he will permanently alienate the voters of Florida. And it won’t look good for him no matter what the Rules and Bylaws committee decides. If he prevails, there goes Florida. If Clinton prevails, Obama doesn’t score any points with them either. If it’s a split decision, Floridians may resent having to still endure a punishment they didn’t deserve when one of the candidates had the power to prevail over the committee and waive the rules.

A leader would just agree to seat them. A man who is confident of winning would just take the hit and make peace. So, are we to conclude that he is not a leader or not confident of winning? Or both? And what is that saying to the superdelegates?

So, did anything happen last night?

Oh, yeah. Neener-Neener-Neeeeeeeennnnerrr!

I would personally like to thank all of the Republicans who overcame partisanship and voted FOR Hillary because of who she is and what she stands for.

Now, the delegate math might not have shifted much but the mental math certainly has. I’m going to work my ass off for Hillary in PA and so are my mother, my aunts and my sister. We are going to make history because we have the best candidate.

All the Big Blog Stores and the pundits can spew whatever crap they want. They are not seeing what the rest of the country is seeing. The media has lost credibility and people are paying attention to what the candidates say and their resiliency in the face of adversity. And what can we expect at the convention? Here are some possibilities:

• The superdelegates will have the final word and they’re going to be looking at who won the most Democratic votes, who won the popular vote and most importantly, who won the most crucial states. The electoral college map will become very important. And that leads to…
• Florida and Michigan. Now, the DNC and the Obama campaign want do-overs (hmmm, a common interest?). I’m all for a do-over in Michigan. Hillary’s name was the only one on the ballot and voters felt a little cheated so, fine, have a mail-in primary. She’s got her footing back, she can win MI or at least come close. But Florida? I see no reason to redo Florida. Neither candidate was *supposed* to campaign there, but in fact Obama spent $1.4 M on cable TV ads and who knows what else. Clinton had a couple of fundraisers. In any case, she won a solid victory and that isn’t going to change. The Obamaphiles can scream do-over all they want but the reality is this: making Florida do a primary again is very expensive for a state this size. The money wasted on one would impact other races in congressional districts and would take away funds for the general. The voters have spoken, decisively. They want their votes counted as they stand without having to go through the motions. For the Obamaphiles to insist on a do-over in Florida is something they have not asked of any other state that has run a contested primary. The only reason to ask for it is if there is some expectation that the vote will change, assuming the voters didn’t know what they were doing because they didn’t have the benefit of obnoxious campaigning. I think that will backfire badly on Obama. It would be like saying, “I’m going to make you spend money to vote again. Did you REALLY want Hillary to win?” And insisting upon a pointless primary because “they violated the RULZ!”, looks petty and spiteful, considering that NH, IA and SC broke them too and didn’t suffer. It smacks of voter suppression and when it comes to Florida, you don’t want to go there. Florida adds a critical mass to Clinton’s column and leaving it out diminishes the voters of NY, CA, NJ, MA, AZ, TX, OH. That’s one set of constituents that no one can afford to diss going into the fall campaign. The Florida dilemma is a no win for Obama but it could be worse if Floridians vote to blame him for it. The only outcome I can see from a do-over is that Obama will have proven conclusively that he alone of all primary candidates is capable of losing in Florida- twice. Bite the bullet, Barry. Urge the DNC to seat Florida without any pre-conditions. It’s the only way to keep Floridians from turning their backs on the Democratic party in disgust this fall.

Now, I am not going to make any predictions about who will win the convention in August but Hillary has a much better case for taking it than Obama at this point, delegate math or not. And I think as her campaign further adjusts to its new environment, freeing itself from the past election strategies to take advantage of new technologies and outwitting the opponent in clever ways, she will do better in the remaining states.

It is not inevitable. It never was. But by August, no one will be able to say she didn’t earn it.

One more thing: I found this disturbing yesterday but merely amusing this morning. (Ok, it’s *still* disturbing) I find this line particularly funny:

But if she leaves after winning a couple states, she leaves on a high note, magnanimously ceding the race to the better candidate running the far better campaign.

So.lemme get this straight, if she *wins*, she should concede defeat and gracefully exit because she would have been beaten by the “far better campaign”. My, my, I guess Kos and I have different definitions of the characteristics of a “far better campaign”. Like winning big primary states, for example. Well, that was a good morning chuckle.

I think Kos even predicted that Clinton would lose Ohio or Texas by 15 points. It must have been my imagination though or one of those newfangled editors. They’re so tricksy and everything. Things just disappear from the posts. It’s like magic!