(Updated) Saturday: A Mess in the Making?
As I assume most of you know, the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) will meet Saturday to help decide the fates of the Florida and Michigan delegates and hence the fates of the campaigns of Senators Clinton and Obama.
Along with others, I predict Saturday’s meeting will end not with a resolution but with a non-conclusion, a mere speedbump on Clinton’s push to the August convention. Here are my top five reasons why:
(1) The members of the RBC are already being warned that the meeting could go into Sunday. When you’re confident about reaching a durable solution, you usually don’t extend the meeting before it even starts.
(2) The Clinton camp has pre-defined absolute success via four criteria, the third of which (seating all delegates) the RBC has signaled it will likely ignore.
(3) Michigan DNC leaders are pushing a solution wherein their state’s “delegates get seated with a 69-59 Clinton-Obama split — halfway between the vote results and a fifty-fifty split.” That solution could conflict with the Clinton camp’s second criteria (split reflects popular vote).
(4) Also from Michigan, there’s the Edwards/Richardson/Biden factor.
(5) Florida DNC leaders have essentially thumbed their noses at everyone, bolstering their proposal with the ever-resilient mettle of diversity.
Then again, all hope is not lost; there’s still a chance lemonade could result from these lemons — thanks in large part to two moves by the Obama campaign, namely its reported:
(a) Admonition to supporters to refrain from making this event more of a circus than it already promises to be
(b) Willingness to give Clinton a net gain from the disputed states.
Of course, some will argue it’s easier to take the high road when your lead is all-but-gauranteed. Regardless, Obama leaning in Hillary’s direction without capitulating may be the best approach to resolving this matter pre-August.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
11 Responses to “(Updated) Saturday: A Mess in the Making?”
I think the “winner” will be the group who fights the hardest, longest and nastiest.
There's no good reason that I can see why the rules committee should change the rules to benefit HIllary when Obama (and other candidates) followed them from the beginning.
Much has been said about Hillary's disorganization in the campaign and I think that disorganization is probably why her name remained on the MI ballot. In the meantime Obama and some of the other candidates respected the DNC and removed their names from the MI ballot.
I don't think democracy is about changing the rules (that everyone agreed on) in order to favor a failing candidate.
I also understand there will be a group of protesters made up of Hillary supporters in front of the building where the rules/bylaws committee is meeting on Saturday. That should be interesting….
I pray that Hillary wins flat out. Obama removed his name off the ballot in MI so, there is no vote there for him. Doesn't matter what the reason was, he removed it.
It was even said when he did this by the “media” they felt it was not “wise or smart” move on his behalf, that he should of left it on the ballot.
So here we go again? It's just sad to see. I do know that I will never vote for Obama, or McCain no matter what. I will write her in, or Al Gore, or not vote at all as it clearly doesn't matter what happens, the media already choosed for the USA.
What ever happen to the good ole days, when the Media reported good and bad on both sides. All I see and hear about is how much one press to another can trash the Clintons. Which isn't necessary at all.
I do know one thing, we DO need someone like her in office, she has GUTTS! These other two who want the same office, are depending on everyone to give it to them, [what are the backers hiden agendas? ] They both will do nothing more then what we have in office today, I dont' believe there will Ever be a CHANGE! I am clearly loosing HOPE!
I fear for my children and my grandchidren.
I'd like to see Hillary win the argument myself; she'd still be behind in pledged delegates, so what does it matter? Granted, the conversation would then move on to explaining why none of the caucus states should count as much as, say, Puerto Rico or Guam. Man, would it make everyone's lives easier!
Unfortunately, I don't want the 2012 primary season to begin Tuesday before Thanksgiving, so I believe there should be some sort of sanction.
The delegates have no right to be seated and if the DNC caves, it is standard “We are the Dems, laws and rules never matter” usual mischief. Something will likely be done given that these are two megastates. (I doubt there are going to be many in these states who will stay home or vote for McCain or for Nader if the delegates aren't seated.)
There may be a legal restriction that even the DNC may not try to violate,
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalin…
and I'd like to see it announced that there will be zero tolerance for junk lawsuits; any filing would result in guaranteed 100% exclusion of the delegates from not only formal seating but from admission to the convention in any role whatsoever and no admission to the premises. That is probably expecting too much, though.
Or if Hillary is really serious about the presidential bid she could run a third party nomination and take her case to the people.
Neocon, exactly right.
Hoo, hoo, hoo…………………………..Lieberman as VP choice once more!
Then go after the many waffling, nose-holding McCain voters…
(C&W, all you far-lefties. Cringe 'n' wince.)
Well as I see it if they seat Florida. Clinton gains about 20 delegates. Shes still over 100 short. They take an average of the poll numbers that were run just prior to the Michigan delegation and divide the delegates according to that poll. Hillary again gains a few delegates and everyone gets seated and Hillary is still behind by about 100 delegates and the popular vote in still slightly in Obama's favor.
Whats the big deal. Obama is still going to get the nomination.
The thing that puzzles me. Actually angers me the most about this is that after the 2000 Fiasco in which the democratic rallying cry became “EVERY VOTE SHOULD COUNT” now turns around and axes that in favor of “Insert your own stupid slogan here”
Zooom, here's what Clinton's campaign chair Terry McAuliffe said about breaking the rules (when he ran the DNC):
“I’m going outside the primary window,” [Michigan Sen. Carl Levin] told me definitively.
“If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses,” I [McAuliffe] said. “We will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost.”
He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.
“You won’t deny us seats at the convention,” he said.
“Carl, take it to the bank,” I said. “They will not get a credential. The closest they’ll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it.”
We glared at each other some more, but there was nothing much left to say. I was holding all the cards and Levin knew it. [Source: McAuliffe, Terry. What A Party!, p. 325.]
And neocon, both parties have rules governing their primaries, and both require the states and the candidates to follow them. If the rules committee decides to cave in to Clinton on these rules, they may as well disband. The party rules will mean nothing from now on. And the “every vote should count” argument is a red herring. My state has a caucus, not a primary. Regardless of what we may think of that, I spent three hours engaged in the political process, not 5 minutes filling out a ballot. My vote, according to Clinton would not count, because our caucus's goal is to pick DELEGATES ! That's how the nominating process works. I played by the rules, so did Obama.
Clinton wants to be rewarded for thumbing her nose at the party, and I hope they thumb their noses right back.
I'm familiar with the Marriott Wardman, where the Committee meeting will be held. It's a singularly poor place to stage a “protest” it seems to me. It's partially hidden from the street, and up a steep hill – relatively isolated for the area it's in (a fun neighborhood). Any protestors will have to get their licks in at the street level I'm guessing, since the Marriott folks aren't going to allow them to protest on their property. And having climbed the drive up and down the hill on foot myself a few times, it's difficult for me to see Hillary's base, that is, women of a certain age, making the trek.
It could make for an entertaining spectacle though, if they try! Oh, the humanity!
Full disclosure – I'm getting to be “of a certain age” myself these days, so my words are not meant to be entirely unsympathetic!
And neocon, both parties have rules governing their primaries, and both require the states and the candidates to follow them. If the rules committee decides to cave in to Clinton on these rules, they may as well disband.
Which is exactly why im encouraging Hillary to run as a 3rd party candidate. Time for this country to break up the two party system.