Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

To be a Witness to the Destruction of the Democratic Chances in November.

Iphie's picture

a.k.a. the RBC meeting in DC tomorrow morning. I just got my ticket and am wondering if anyone else from the NYC area is attending. If you are, what are your travel plans? I'm taking the train and in order to get there in time to pick up my credentials, it looks as though I'll be boarding a train leaving Penn Station at 3:00 am.

Which means I'll be spending time at Penn Station on a Friday night at around 2:30 in the morning. Which oughta be only slightly less odious than the Port Authority at the same time. Perhaps it will prepare me for the considerably more odious Donna Brazile just a few hours later.

Anyway, anyone else making the trek? Let me know if you'd possibly like to meet up and travel together.

0
No votes yet

Comments

shystee's picture
Submitted by shystee on

It is teh awesome to have someone on the inside.

Will you be able to liveblog?

Can't make it myself because I live in San Fran now, but from my days in DC I can recommend the pupusas at Ercilias on Mt. Pleasant and Irving.

Iphie's picture
Submitted by Iphie on

I won't be able to liveblog, but I'll be taking notes.

I can recommend the pupusas at Ercilias on Mt. Pleasant and Irving.

I don't know that place and I used to know someone who lived right around the corner! Sounds good, though. I always try to get Ethiopian food when I'm in DC -- that is one thing that NYC is sorely missing and I try to take advantage of the good stuff whenever I can.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

you won't have to worry about anything there...

have a great time, and yell and chant for me!

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Via Talk Left, the Clinton campaign this morning apparently made clear on its conference call that it isn't going to argue that NH, SC, IA, and NV also broke the rules and if the RBC has no ability to fully reinstate Florida and Michigan, it also had no ability to grant other states "waivers."

Not surprisingly since Clinton is, at heart, a good Democrat, but they won't be arguing to seat Florida and Michigan or other states have to be stripped of delegates, too. Understandable as a political matter, but the lawyer in me is pissed because there is no rule permitting a "waiver" that I can find and it would seem that if the DNC has no choice but to punish all rulebreakers, then that's what it should do. And all rulebreakers include the other four states. It's particularly galling because NH - not MI or FL - jumped first and set off everybody else. But, of course, NH only has 4 EVs and cannot severely cripple the Dems' chances in November and so it was excused.

It should be noted that while Clinton is not making this argument, she continues to push for the full seating of Florida and Michigan. I'm still hoping Michigan and Florida will make this argument because the Dems are trying to have it both ways - pretend the rules are ironclad when they're not, but only enforce them against two states and not all six. If the Rules are the Rules and must be enforced, then I see no reason why they shouldn't be enforced against everybody. If the party has no choice but to penalize any state that jumped the gun, then there could be no waivers. If they are not ironclad and political realities come into it, which I think is the right answer, then say that and enfranchise the two swing states for November.

Iphie's picture
Submitted by Iphie on

but I would have to leave a couple of hours earlier, have a longer ride and wind up with more time to kill in DC before the meeting. At least on the train I'll have more leg room and can try to get some sleep.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

oh, well--the train's expensive now tho, no?

(and bring an umbrella)

Iphie's picture
Submitted by Iphie on

But I figure it's the money I'm saving from the donations I won't be making to the DNC this election cycle. ;-)

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

look forward to your blogging!

Submitted by lambert on

If so, I'd gladly post for you...

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Iphie's picture
Submitted by Iphie on

I've just never set it up -- I always end up texting people.

Lemme play around with it and see what I can do.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

how did you manage to get a ticket...the were all gone in THREE minutes.

I mean, I went to the site at 9:15, and was told they were out...

**********
The most entertaining part will be trying to figure out what team clinton is doing.... there are three possibilities.

1) Team Clinton is filled with people who are dumber than rocks -- starting with their supporters on the Rules committee, who don't seem to have the slightest familiarity with the rules at all.

2) The deal has already been sealed -- part of which is that Team Clinton doesn't make the kind of valid argument that proves the entire Rulez committee is dumb as rocks, and submit a completely bogus and easily rebutted argument about what has to be done to qualify for a waiver.

3) Team Clinton is sharp as tacks, and the dumb as rocks argument they are going to offer is merely a ruse to expose what a bunch of dumb as rocks hypocrites the rules committee is -- which will go something like this...

    Brazile or somebody points to the appropriate rule that rebuts the dumb as rocks arguement

    Clinton rep asks if it was applied to Iowa,

    Response is no, that it didn't have to

    CLinton rep asks under what authority?

    etc, etc...

    Unfortunately, I have the feeling that the answer is number one -- there is playing dumb, and then there is just dumb, and the woman on the call (Flourney) actually said that there was no rule that prohibited candidates from campaigning in states that had been sanctioned for violating the timeline. That rule doesn't merely exist, it directly its part B of 20 C 7 -- and part A of the same rule is about the sanctioning states themselves which violate the timeline.

    The woman is a moron. And Ickes didn't bother to correct her...which means HE'S as big a moron as she is -- and these are the people advising Team Clinton about what to do in the rules committee...

Iphie's picture
Submitted by Iphie on

I was all ready to go with my little "Party Builder" ID at 9:59 and at 10:00 on the dot I clicked on the register button which promptly redirected me to a page with registration directions and a url leading me back to the first page. Wha? I did this again to make sure this little circular loop was not something I did, and then I called the DNC headquarters. It's not quite 10:02 yet, and the receptionist who answered the phone was already flustered -- she gave me the party line (literally!) about the enormous number of people trying to get tickets, blah, blah, blah, and then tried to get me off the phone.

I didn't want to get off the phone until she found someone who could explain to me what the problem was, how many tickets were available, who planned to hold the meeting in such a small place given the enormous interest and what percentage of tickets were actually given away to people online. I got passed around to many different people until someone dumped me into someone else's voicemail with a message detailing the registration process -- at the very end of the very long message, I was told that if I was unable to go online to register, I could fax in my request. I could fax in my request? Who else knew about this easy, straightforward process?

So, easy as pie, I faxed in my request. Something tells me that there are very few Joe Public types who managed to successfully register. I'm guessing that for the most part, that fax number was given to people who know people, and if it weren't for my pathological insistence that I get satisfactory answers to my questions, I wouldn't have gotten it either.

As to your question about what Team Clinton is doing -- I think (I hope) that they realize that if they don't get everything they want tomorrow it strengthens their argument to take this all the way to the convention. They have a strong moral argument that all votes need to be counted. Period. If they get some sort of compromise deal based on adherence to the rulz I think that could be a good thing -- people understand "count all the votes." People don't understand all the RBC arcana that's being used to justify half measures. It seems to me that if the DNC were smart and really wanted to end this they'd give Hillary everything she wants and take away her strongest argument. If the DNC were smart.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

are they going to present their cases there too, or just reps for Clinton and Obama? I read there have been multiple lawsuits filed in both FL and MI, no? Were they all dismissed?

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

So sadly true. I'll be wearing my Dukakis button tomorrow in honor of how--in spite of the monumental odds--the Democratic tradition of picking an epic failure lives on!