Corrente

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

Yikes!

Scary smart Anglachel.

What she said. This whole primary is turning into a series of justice issues for me. Sadly.

0
No votes yet

Comments

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

grayslady-- http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/2008/05/l...

"Ever since I was a little girl, I can remember how, in girls' groups and games, there was always an emphasis on fairness: winning was less important than whether every participant had been treated fairly. Boys, of course, were very different in this regard, because winning automatically bestowed power.

So, naturally, with a woman competing in this campaign, our sensitivities to fair play have been heightened."

Which also goes back to basic principles--like counting every vote, not dismissing whole crowds of people, not insulting those you play with but ensuring that all Americans feel valued and wanted...

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

neither is the outcome.

------------------------------------------------
“The Clintons' biggest failure is that they couldn't get their own party to support them.” - Bartcop

Dennis's picture
Submitted by Dennis on

Since 2002 I have been visiting certain blogs on a daily basis because I thought there was some commonality, some like mindedness. Corrente was one of the sites to visit, so was Bartcop. In the last ten months or so, during the Democratic presidential nomination process I have had to back away from both your sites. Both sites clearly are Pro Clinton and that's fine but you whine endlessly about the unfair treatment that Hillary gets at the hands of Obama supporters. Stop it already! They both have had chances to convince the electorate, It's been a close race but Hillary is nobody's victim. She is a player and she has a hubby who is as good at this stuff as anyone. I'm not an Obama fan but I don't think he is as bad as he is being portrayed. Hillary is my senator. In Oct. 2002 I wrote to her, pleading that she not vote to support the invasion but she did. My opinion is that she is a smart woman, I'd love to see something other than a male Caucasian in the leadership if they represent progressive values, but she was a political coward. I served in the Marine Corps in Viet Nam. We got fucked. The troops in Iraq are getting fucked and that is more important to me than any other issue. She didn't help, she contributed to the fucking and has never been contrite. Doesn't the war matter to you? Ten months ago the dream ticket for the democrats was Gore/Dean. It was just a dream though. Gotta go.

Submitted by lambert on

It's just that I think the whole situation is such a Clusterfuck, and so many lies have been told, that nothing either of them says means anything, and it's a complete wash between the two of 'em, and it's all going to change anyhow if any of the truth starts coming out. OK, Hillary voted for the AUMF -- and her position was identical to Hans Blix. Against that, I've got Obama's speech, which is all it is. And since he's been in the Senate, he's done squat too. I wish it weren't so, but it is.

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

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

Didn't I tell you all that when an Obama supporter can't make an affirmative case for their dreamboat they always go to AUMF? Just like they blame the Clintons for the divisiveness of the 90s (how absurd is that?) they blame the Clintons for George Bush--and it was his choice, no one elses--for going into Iraq. They don't even bother to discuss AUMF fairly.

Xenophon's picture
Submitted by Xenophon on

They broke the rules. For the purposes of the convention their votes don't count. This is a private matter within the DNC. This is not a constitutionally governed election yet. Hillary agreed to abide by the rules of the DNC. Why is she trying to change the rules in the middle of the game. You don't count Florida and Michigan. Why is that so hard?

Submitted by lambert on

Here's the principle at stake. Yes, sometimes politicians, especially good ones, find that appealing to principles that ought to make this country great works for them. Yes, sometimes politics are involved. Where's my fainting couch? But I'm sure the 48-state strategy will work in the general, if you want to go the pragmatic route.

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

corinne's picture
Submitted by corinne on

And how wrong you are, too.

They broke the rules. For the purposes of the convention their votes don’t count.

Their votes do count. Zuzu posted an excellent explanation over at Shakesville:

In other words, it's not that 2.3 million people didn't cast valid votes, it's that the party has decided to punish the state party organization in two states by not allowing them to send delegates selected on the basis of the results of those primaries to the DNC. The votes do not disappear simply because the DNC refuses to allow the state parties to use those votes in order to select delegates to the convention. In addition, if the RBC decides to go with the 50% penalty, that does not change the fact that 2.3 million Floridians and Michiganders cast their votes in accordance with the laws of their states.

I highly recommend reading it.

Hillary agreed to abide by the rules of the DNC. Why is she trying to change the rules in the middle of the game.

I'll let Zuzu answer (why reinvent the wheel?):

And since I'm sure that someone will bring up the "pledge" and allege that Clinton "agreed" that Florida and Michigan would not count: No. First, the only promise made in the pledge was not to campaign in any state that violated the timing rules, and the candidates were already bound by the DNC rules not to do that; there was no promise to withdraw from any ballots, nor did the pledge have anything to do with delegate selection, just campaigning. Second, Clinton did not, and indeed could not (because she did not have the authority) make any "agreement" that the primaries in Florida and Michigan would not count. The most anyone's come up with is some answer she gave to a caller on a radio show, and it sounded to me like a description of how things had already shaken out, not some kind of exercise of authority.

Florida and Michigan will be seated. That outcome is not in doubt. What remains to be seen is the compromise that will allow them to be seated.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

Hillary is right about this, even if you think she is doing it for the wrong reasons. Principles are more important than the rules. We should be governed by the spirit of the law, not the letter of it.

------------------------------------------------
“The Clintons' biggest failure is that they couldn't get their own party to support them.” - Bartcop

Iphie's picture
Submitted by Iphie on

the next step of which is the meeting on the 31st. How are MI and FL breaking the rules by relying on the appeals process as delineated by the DNC in the Delegate Selection Rules?

Do you also believe that it is breaking the rules for a person to appeal an unfavorable court ruling? How about appealing a parking ticket, is that against the rules? If I'm following your logic about rules breaking, I guess so.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

About those rules. They are whatever the people with the power want them to be. There is no fair - any where, any time (Life Rule #1). The disconnect between reality and expecting that fairness and a set of immutable rules actually exist is why everyone is upset. They don't, so relax and watch the play.

Politics, not Monopoly or chess. Rules are made up as you go, by whoever has the other person by the nads. Of course Hillary should push for getting as many delegate votes as she can, and nothing in the rules prevents her from doing so. Of course Obama should push for manipulating the outcome in his favor, and nothing in the rules prevents him from doing so.

Most of all, right in the moment, is that whatever happens with FL and MI (within the bounds of possibility) will have no meaningful effect - in and of itself - on the nomination outcome. This is a sideshow; a political contest of wills, two dogs scrapping over a couple of bones. The remaining superdelegates are the real event and Dean, Pelosi & Reid have the only opinions that matter. Watch them, real close.

cenobite's picture
Submitted by cenobite on

You don’t count Florida and Michigan. Why is that so hard?

Because losing FL and MI to the Republicans in the general election means President McCain. That is the brass tacks reason.

The "rulez" argument you give is also intellectually dishonest, for multiple reasons.

1. The penalty for "sooner" primary states is not required to be loss of all delegates. That is a judgement call, and Donna Brazile (who is an Obama partisan) was instrumental in making that judgement.

2. Sen Obama's campaign made a political calculation that the delegates in Iowa were more important than the delegates in Michigan, and so he took his name off the ballot in Michigan voluntarily. Now that it turns out that Michigan delegates are important, he wants it both ways. He gambled, and lost. Any complaints from his campaign about Michigan are strictly special pleading trying to have it both ways.

3. In Florida, there was supposed to be no campaigning, and Sen Obama ran ads there anyway. We have an election result with both of the nominees on the ballot, and we have a standard penalty of 1/2 voting strength, why is that so hard?

4. Re-votes for both states were on the table, but Sen Obama made sure he shut the doors on them.

See, I've seen sailboat racers like Sen Obama. If they don't win on the racecourse, they take it to the protest room afterwards.

Be a stand-up guy, Sen Obama. Stop the whining.

Xenophon's picture
Submitted by Xenophon on

Did they not agree to this (who would and would not be counted, according to the statement of the DNC) before this (the primaries started)?

Disenfranchise? From what? This is a party fight isn't it? The right to participate in the democratic primary is not guaranteed as a civil right.

I mean shit, once you agree to a set of terms, however arbitrary they may be, shouldn't you follow through?

Nobody has been excluded from the actual state election? Right? We are talking about delegates at the DNC for determining the Democratic nominee. That is a private affair not governed by the constitution, yes?

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

Neither candidate can "agree" to anything, they don't have the authority(Thanks, zuzu).

They both followed the rules(actually not, Obama campaigned to have his supporters vote Uncommitted in MI, and ran ads in FL, but oh well). Clinton is trying to change a ruling.

Your second point is correct, but the principle of enfranchisement is the point, and should be more important than teh rules.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

Iphie's picture
Submitted by Iphie on

that are trying to change a ruling. Clinton is merely making arguments in favor of MI and FL, she is not actually a party to the decision and neither is Obama which is why Howard Dean's insistence that both candidates agree to any re-vote plan was ludicrous. It was a decision to be made by the DNC and the states. The two campaigns could chime in with their opinions, and offer to raise funds, find a solution, etc., but it wasn't ever their decision to make. All that did was give Dean cover and Obama the power to block any resolution because he has always understood that counting MI and FL was going to benefit Hillary more than him.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

And even though it is legal, it's WRONG.

Let me put it this way, if the "rules" said black peoples' votes didn't count, and all the candidates agreed, would that make it right? No it wouldn't.

Now in that scenario, the logical result would be that black people would leave the party and would not support the eventual nominee.

So isn't that the logical result in Florida and Michigan too?

------------------------------------------------
“The Clintons' biggest failure is that they couldn't get their own party to support them.” - Bartcop

Xenophon's picture
Submitted by Xenophon on

Rules, Bylaws, Delegates, Who, What, Where, When and Why Democrats have all the fun - BIO's post trying to figure out this quagmire.

Submitted by lambert on

The word is Clusterfuck.

Let's work on our cliches!

To me, there's a justice level. And why not? That's why I don't buy that "private" thing. Lots of things go private to hide abuse, right?

NOTE Make sure you check all his posts though -- great resource, but it evolves as we learn more.

Also, check my revote wrapup. BIO's more authoritative, but I've got a different view of what's at stake. And, on re-reading, that's a damn good post. If I called my shot (and we won't know til 5/31 at least) we are not on the road to Happyville. Rather, we are on the road to Pain City.

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

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

But that’s another story.

The FL/MI deal is done, insofar as they’ll be seated. It will be interesting to see if Clinton muscles her way to get a delegate total better that what MI is offering, but now I think not. Reviewing the bidding to this point, smells to me like the deal is already done.

All the supers go at full strength. (No way are they going to agree to show up as half a vote, too embarrassing.)

The pledged delegates take the 50% penalty hit, getting 1/2 votes each, because they are relatively little people and somebody has to pay.

The reason that only one proposal/appeal is going to be heard from each state is because those are the deals that have already been agreed to; no point in letting other proposals get on the table, who knows what might happen then. Democracy? Please.

So a long day of Kabuki followed by an expensive meal and some fine wine on the DNC credit card, everybody is happy and Westward Ho! Onward to Denver, and the party; more food, more booze, more hos, shake it to the left, shake it to the right, do the Hokey-Pokey and turn yourself around, that's what it’s all about.

Submitted by lambert on

... how the pledged delegates are allocated?

And have I missed the two proposals? That seems right, BTW, from the Committees I've been on. What's on the agenda will be agreed to. Can I have a review of the bidding? And is one of them this shitty 50/50 deal -- in FL now, not MI -- where Obama gets to take votes that weren't, er, his?

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

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

although from mulitiple sources now it appears that the insurgent challenge from Michigan has been withdrawn - another sign the deal is already done.

How the delegates get sorted - within the bounds of reason - doesn't matter from a nomination standpoint as much as it does from a political posture standpoint. The meeting process matters, the material outcome will not.

Clinton will pick up more votes than Obama from both states, but will not catch him. End of the day she'll still be 150 or so behind and he still won't have enough to clinch; he'll lose ground on that, because he'll net less than 50% of the total new delegates seated from FL and MI. Not a good day for Barak, but he can still claim to be ahead in delegates.

So, no, actually, the delegate seating is all about getting this particular kerfuffle done with and behind the Party; it won't do anything to settle the nomination.

After June 3, that's when the real fun begins. Obama ahead in delegates, Clinton ahead in popular vote, neither one with a majority of all delegates. Good old-fashioned back-room politics, and interesting too; what do Dean, Pelosi and Reid want for their block? Reid doesn't want money and Pelosi doesn't need it; Dean wants a job; HHS or Surgeon General maybe. (Unless he wants VP, and wouldn't that be a kick?)

All three want a winner, and that's what Clinton has to sell them on. If they go with Obama and he loses those three look like chumps; Dean doesn't get his job and both Pelosi and Reid will get challenged for theirs. You think things are bad now, try President McCain and Speaker Hoyer.

The (Electoral) map, not the (primary) math - pass it on.

Submitted by lambert on

Works for me! (And at least the netroots would Shut The Fuck Up.)

Hillary has the majority on Teh Rulez committee. Yes?

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

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Don't get me confused again. Clinton has 13 of the 15 she needs to control the votes, with 6 still uncommitted, but I think this deal is already cut and what we'll see is a lot of posturing from the various factions allowed to speak in the morning, a long and tasty lunch, and an afternoon of speechifying for the media.

WSJ light reading.

Submitted by lambert on

Do you know who the 6 are (I think you said, but I do need a review of the bidding... The fumes... The fumes...) Surely one of them is not 2008's Katherine Harris, Donna Brazile?

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

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

My opinion on a couple of them. I assigned Brazille to Obama; even though she keeps insisting she's undeclared, I am not fooled.

To be clear, six members who have not made a public declaration, plus the two co-chairs who won't declare reagardless of personal opinion. One of them is a long-time Bill Clinton hanger-on.

You really do love this inside hard-ball stuff, don't you? :-)

Submitted by lambert on

I don't especially love it, no. Here's the list, from your post:

Mark Brewer (MI)
Ralph Dawson (NY)
Yvonne Gates ( NV)
Alice Germond (DC) - DNC Secretary
David McDonald (WA)
Jerome Wiley Segovia (VA)

Which is the Clinton hanger on? I wish I could say NY (Clinton), NV (Reid) and so on, but I bet it's not that simple...

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

Submitted by lambert on

See above.

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

elixir's picture
Submitted by elixir on

Dean and his history up to this point and how he's affected this primary. I've read a little into his 2004 campaign and how he started DFA, and the Dean Dozen. Is there a definitive piece looking at how he gained so much power and influence in the party over what appears to be a relatively short period, politically?

I love this job!

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

lots of links, work out from there. Dean was Lt Gov, then Governor of Vermont, two five year terms. He does well because he's a nice guy, he's very smart, he's fair and decent and dedicated. Honest, he seems to have earned it by his good works. Hard to believe, I know.

corinne's picture
Submitted by corinne on

Dean was elected to the Vermont House of Representatives as a Democrat in 1982 and was elected lieutenant governor in 1986.

He became governor of Vermont in 1991 when Gov. Richard Snelling died in office.

Dean was subsequently elected to five two-year terms, serving as governor from 1991 to 2003. Under his leadership, Vermont had a balanced budget 11 times. Dean also oversaw the expansion of the "Dr. Dynasaur" program, which ensures universal health care for children (under 18 I think) and pregnant women in the state.

Dean served as chairman of the National Governors Association from 1994 to 1995.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

According to my “expert” tally, Clinton is two short of having her supporters control the committee:

Co-Chairs - no endorsement
Alexis Herman (co-chair, D.C.)
James Roosevelt, Jr. (co-chair, MA)

Members - no known endorsement (6)
*Mark Brewer (MI)
Ralph Dawson (NY)
Yvonne Gates ( NV)
Alice Germond (DC) - DNC Secretary
David McDonald (WA)
Jerome Wiley Segovia (VA)

Members - Clinton supporters (13)
Hartina Flournay (DC)
Donald Fowler (SC)
Jaime Gonzalez, Jr. (TX)
Alice Huffman (CA)
Harold Ickes, Jr. (DC)
Ben Johnson (DC)
Elaine Kamarck (MA)
Eric Kleinfeld (DC)
Mona Pasquil (CA)
Mame Reiley (VA)
Garry Shay (CA)
Elizabeth Smith (DC)
Michael Steed (MD)

Members - Obama supporters (9)
Donna Brazille (DC)
Carol Khare Fowler (SC)
Martha Fuller Clark (NH)
Janice Griffin (MD)
Thomas Hynes (IL)
*Allan Katz (FL)
Sharon Stroschein (SD)
Sarah Swisher (IA)
Everett Ward (NC)

*members from MI and FL cannot vote on issues concerning their own state, but they can vote on each other's. That makes a total of 29 voting members on either FL or MI issues, so a block of 15 votes controls.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Great huge buffoon Steve Geller, Dem minority leader in the FL Senate, filed a lawsuit today in Federal court asking the judge to order the DNC to seat all of the FL delgation as-is at full strength.

Why would Geller do this, in the face of a SCOTUS ruling from 1981 that explicitly gives all candidate selection rights to the Democratic Party including:

Held: Wisconsin cannot constitutionally compel the National Party to seat a delegation chosen in a way that violates the Party's rules. Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U. S. 477, controlling. Pp. 450 U. S. 120-126.

Answer: Because he is a great huge buffoon.

Nothing more complicated than that.

Submitted by lambert on

surely "violates the Party’s rules" is by now a rather elastic concept?!

Jeralyn seems to think the case is without merit, however.

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

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

About sums it up; the lawsuit, the plaintiff....

Submitted by lambert on

Everybody has their own voice.

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