DNC Rules Committee Meeting in progress

UPDATE (7:15 AM):
I just emailed rules committee member David McDonald for a comment, and got a quick response: “Very complicated combination of issues. Looks like a long day.” That’s probably an understatement.

UPDATE (7:32 AM):
Florida is presenting its appeal, and I believe they just asked for 50% representation for their pledged delegates, but 100% representation for their “charter” delegates, which I think he is using to refer to superdelegates who are DNC members and members of Congress.

UPDATE (9:01 AM):
US Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL), representing the Obama campaign as an intervenor, has also asked that Florida’s delegation be reinstated at 50% representation, acknowledging that it would mean a net gain of as many as 19 delegates for Clinton. He wants the same for the superdelegates (including himself) as the pledged delegates, asking that they be reinstated with a half-vote each.

UPDATE (9:37 AM):
Despite the fact that Barack Obama was not even on the ballot (because, you know, he followed the rules), the Michigan Democratic Party is asking for their entire delegation to be seated, but to split the delegates 69 for Clinton, 59 for Obama.

UPDATE (9:44 AM):
The rationale for the 69-59 Michigan split (10 delegate net pickup for Clinton) is based on exit polls, write-in votes, results of congressional district conventions, and the fact that there was an official and aggressive effort to have voters cast “uncommitted” ballots.

UPDATE (9:53 AM):
Let me just say, that while Michigan’s proposed allocation sounds fair, and likely representative of the will of the voters, it sets an awfully bad precedent.  I just don’t see how one can argue for the validity of an election, but not the validity of the results.  Michigan is a total muddle.

UPDATE (10:39 AM):
Harold Ickes, a member of the rules committee, in questioning Sen. Carl Levin, makes it clear that he thinks the Michigan delegation should be seated exactly as the results of the election dictated:  73 for Clinton, 55 uncommitted, and zero for Obama.

UPDATE (10:54 AM):
Former Democratic Rep. David Bonior, speaking on behalf the Obama campaign, is asking for the Michigan delegation to be seated in full, but split 50-50 between Clinton and Obama.

UPDATE (11:17 AM):
According to the Huffington Post, an agreement may already have been reached prior to today’s public meeting.  Florida’s delegation would be seated as was argued for above, 100% of the delegates as allocated by the primary results, but with only a half-vote each.  Michigan delegates would likewise be seated along the same lines, but with Edwards, Biden and Richardson agreeing that all 55 uncommitted delegates would go to Obama.  The result?  A net pickup on the day of 28 delegates for Hillary Clinton… not enough to seriously challenge Obama’s lead.

UPDATE (11:30 AM):
Gotta move on with my day… watch it for yourself. 

UPDATE (3:38 PM):
The motion to restore Florida’s delegates to 100% has failed by a 15-12 margin. Disappointed Clinton supporters immediately started chanting “Denver,” apparently calling for the decision to be passed off to the credentials committee at the DNCC.

UPDATE (3:48 PM):
The motion to restore Florida’s delegates to 50% has passed 27-0.

UPDATE (4:10 PM):
The motion to restore Michigan’s delegates to 50%, apportioned along the lines of that proposed above by the Michigan Democratic Party has passed 19-8. 


  1. 1

    ByeByeGOP spews:

    The GOP rules have already been written…

    1) The GOP is pro life, except when it comes to the death penalty, the war, veterans in trouble and funding child/health care for babies.
    2) The GOP believes in the rule of law except when it applies to the GOP.
    3) It’s okay for the GOP to lie, cheat, steal and have secret homosexual affairs in bathroom stalls.
    4) It’s expected that every GOP member will at all times be a complete hypocrite.

  2. 2

    Mark1 spews:

    (Kicks back and watches the Demorats buzz around like ants in a frenzy of incompetence and disorganization)….

  3. 3

    Daddy Love spews:

    2 M1

    I’m guessing that you’re not watching the proceedings, which, even given the high emotions around the poutcome, are a model of decorum and observance of the rules of order.

  4. 4


    Just to keep things straight: The rules are that you could not campaign in the state (Florida or Michegan), not that you could not have your name on the ballot. Obama chose not to put his name on the ballot, but Clinton did. So, they both followed the rules.

    And we all know how important it is to follow the rules, don’t we?

  5. 6

    Proud To Be An Ass spews:

    “I just don’t see how one can argue for the validity of an election, but not the validity of the results. Michigan is a total muddle.”

    Hey! Same debate re Iraq elections! Same muddle! This could be yet another ‘turning point’, the start of a trend! I predict this will be over in less than half of a Friedman Unit.

  6. 7


    re 5: Correct. But the rules are also what they said they were at the time the actions in question occurred.

    Just to be the Devil’s advocate though (since it looks like it’s going to be Obama any way), I remember early on in this campaign when it looked like Obama would win the popular vote, but that DNC ‘insider’, Hillary Clinton, would get most of the superdelegates, thereby clinching the nomination, there were dire warnings from the Obama camp that the Democratic Party better acede to the ‘will of the people’ or there would be blood in the streets. Sounded like a threat to me.

    But now that it looks like Hillary may squeek by with a few more popular votes, all I’m hearing from the Obama camp is: “The rules are the rules, and MUST be followed.”

    Nothing against Obama personally, but the people he surrounds himself with are the same sort of manipulative two-faced, fork-tongued bastards he says he’s going to fight against in Washington, DC.

    You can all HOPE all you want, but I’m just old enough to see that an Obama presidency will be flawed in the same way.

  7. 8

    Proud To Be An Ass spews:

    “Well, this is the Rules Committee, so the rules are what they say they are.”

    Unless you take it to a floor fight at the Convention and the Credentials Committee.

    Another lesson is: If you get to pick who sits on the rules committee, you get the rules you want (old Boss Tweed axiom).

  8. 9

    Daddy Love spews:

    This will all be over sometime in the next two weeks, and probably next week.

    And it’s Obama, who may be a flawed candidate, but I think less so than his Democratic or Republican opponents.

    BTW, my choice for McCain VP is: Bob Dole!

  9. 10


    And, don’t forget: Obama was mentored by Joe Lieberman. You can expect the same sort of two-faced ‘liberalism’ from him. He couldn’t vote on the Iraq war when it happened but he ‘says’ he would have voted against it.

    But Obama did vote in favor of that horrible new bankruptcy bill that further kills the middle-class. That’s how Obama’s judgement of things occurs in the real world.

    I’ll stick with the evidence. Obama’s no John Kennedy, either.

  10. 12

    Proud To Be An Ass spews:

    @10…hmm, John Kennedy? That would be the same John Kennedy who used a nonexistent ‘missle gap’ charge to get elected in 1960? Who sent ‘advisors’ to Viet Nam? Who didn’t move boldly on civil rights? Who cut taxes for the wealthy?

    That John Kennedy?

    Other than that, I agree with you.

    My choice for McSame’s VP: Sen. Larry Craig. I hear he’s looking for work.

  11. 15

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @9 Obviously you’re hoping Speaker Pelosi will be the actual president after, oh, give it 6 months. No amount of Viagra could keep those two fossils going longer than that.

  12. 16

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    “Harold Ickes … thinks the Michigan delegation should be seated exactly as the results of the election dictated: 73 for Clinton, 55 uncommitted, and zero for Obama.”

    Ickes is a lawyer who should know better. Representations were made to the candidates that Michigan wouldn’t count. In addition, they all agreed not to campaign there. Relying on these representations, Obama removed his name from the ballot and didn’t campaign there. This is what’s known as detrimental reliance. Now, after the fact, Ickes wants to count Michigan after all, but that’s unfair. The principle of equitable estoppel forbids it. Ickes’ position also would unjustly enrich Clinton with a windfall of delegate votes, as Michigan Democrats obviously do not support Clinton over Obama 100% to 0%. It does not, however, preclude a compromise that allows Michigan delegates to attend the convention and gives them some votes, allocated between the candidates in a reasonable manner. Ickes is merely a lawyer making what’s known in the legal trade as a “frivolous argument.”

  13. 17

    Mark1 spews:

    @15 Rodent:

    Well as is seems your fat shut-in ass already has one foot in the grave, who the hell are you to talk? I sincerely do feel sorry for your senile old-ass. Truly. Try a clinic. And Pelosi? You mean that tyrannical twat that thinks she can make foreign policy? Har- har. She’s merely a slight pimple on the ass of life, just a hair bigger than you are. (or hare that is….)

  14. 18


    re 12: You raise some interesting points. Too bad you stopped your research on them before obtaining a more complete view of those incidents.

    But, you found enough stuff to support your talking point, so I’m sure you are satisfied with your ‘research’. In that respect you are just like the WingNutz and can be just as obdurately obtuse.

  15. 19


    re 16: I’m still just playing Devil’s advocate:”Representations were made to the candidates that Michigan wouldn’t count. In addition, they all agreed not to campaign there.” What logical sequence would lead you from here to here? “Relying on these representations, Obama removed his name from the ballot….”

    It does not logically follow that since you can’t campaign in Michegan, then you must go to the extra measure of removing your name from the ballot. Since, supposedly, it won’t count anyway, why not leave your name on the ballot?

    Especially if you are confident of winning.

    I think he took his name off the ballot so this could not be counted against him in the future as a loss. And now, Obama can represent himself as the guy who was so goddam honest and rule-abiding, that he took his name off the ballot even though he didn’t have to.

    He’ll probably be the next president, but I’m viewing the man with my eyes wide open.

  16. 20

    correctnotright spews:

    Hey mark-1;
    I feel sorry for you – you obviously have very little cranial material to work with and can’t spell, type or use proper grammar.

    On the lighter side – please don’t threaten Roger Rabbit because I would have kick your weak ass if you do – and I really dislike having to resort to physical abuse of sad sack republicans and their fat asses. They talk big but they don’t show for much.

  17. 21


    …and just to express solidarity with my fellow Democrats, Mark1 is a butt-sniffing ass-master.

    You haven’t a prayer, Mark1, of driving a wedge — so go back to your porn sites and make your keyboard a little stickier.

    I hear Jeff Gannon is back on the web. Enjoy.

  18. 22

    correctnotright spews:

    Hey headless – just remember to get the facts straight.

    Clinton does not “win” the popular vote unless there is creative accounting, like including Michigan where Obama was not on the ballot and Clinton did not take her name off as she promised she would.

    It was Harld Ickes – Clinton’s advisor – who was the leader of the rules committee that stripped Michigan and Florida of their votes initially for setting their primaries ahead – so if you want hypocrisy – the Clinton camp is bleeding from it.

    The bottom line is that Obama is winning the delegate count (pledged and supers), the popular vote and will win the nomination unless there is some “creative” accounting.

  19. 23

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @17 “Well as is seems your fat shut-in ass already has one foot in the grave, who the hell are you to talk?”

    I’m not running for president. I don’t want to be president. I won’t become president. So, it doesn’t matter if I’m on life support.

    BTW, it wasn’t my party that installed a drooling old fool in the White House whose wife ran the country with astrology charts. For that kind of folly, you need Republicans — no one else is stupid enough.

  20. 24

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @19 “It does not logically follow …”

    Yes it does logically follow, because Obama wouldn’t have removed himself from the ballot if Michigan was going to count.

    As I said above, it’s possible to compromise and give Michigan a say if Michigan’s votes are allocated in a manner that reflects the candidates’ actual support among Michigan Democrats.

    But to tell Obama, “this state won’t count” and then after the fact say, “it counts, and we get all the delegates because you weren’t on the ballot” is fraud. And if Clinton wins the nomination that way, kiss goodbye to the White House for another 4 years (and maybe 8 years), because Obama’s supporters will walk out on you. That’s so blatantly unfair that even many Clinton supporters would have a problem with it. It might even permanently split the Democratic Party and create the permanent Republican majority that Rove couldn’t achieve by himself. Why should we do it for him?

  21. 25

    Proud To Be An Ass spews:

    headless @ 18: Research? Hell, anybody halfway familiar with US history knows these things. I’d be happy to be filled in on the more complete view….

    Was the alleged ‘missle gap’ real or not?
    Did Kennedy, despite indications of a later policy reconsideration, expand the Eisenhower-Dullus policy in SE Asia or did he not?
    Was he a bit hesitant (esp. wrt his pending re-election run)to take the lead on civil rights, or was he not?
    Did he cut marginal tax rates that mostly were a benefit to the rich, or did he not?

    Certainly, some of his rhetoric was soaring and inspirational…in fact, much like Obama’s. I find that ironic.

    I share your concern about Obama…we’ll see, but asserting “a Kennedy he is not” is somewhat inacurate and misleading. I see similarities, and am just trying to be realistic. Camelot was not wholly the shining moment of liberalism it has been all too readily viewed as through the mists of history.

    As for arguing like a wingnutz, well, it’s a tough world out there, and I have a bigger adam’s apple than that creature, A. Coulter.


  22. 27

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @25 You’ve done a fine job of selectively citing facts to misrepresent history, Ass. I’ll only touch on a couple of cases in point.

    Kennedy sent 3,000 troops and 400 federal marshals to enroll 1 black man at the University of Mississippi. Later, he stared down Alabama’s segregationist governor, George Wallace — again with troops and federal marshals. Kennedy was the president who proposed what became the Civil Rights Act.

    Kennedy inherited a recession from Eisenhower and used tax cuts to stimulate the economy. Marginal rates were far higher in those days, and even after his cuts, tax rates were higher than in 2001. And unlike Shrub’s tax cuts, Kennedy’s tax cuts were actually stimulative because they went to the middle class. The Bush tax cuts had almost no stimulative effect and went almost entirely to the richest 1% of the population. Even worse, Bush borrowed money from foreigners to give tax breaks to billionaires who didn’t need them, making everyone else poorer in the process. (See, e.g., inflation.)

    The Vietnam War became the overshadowing issue of that generation. LBJ, not Kennedy, committed the U.S. to a ground war in Southeast Asia. To pin that on Kennedy is just plain lying.

    But then, lying comes naturally to you wingnuts because it’s the only arrow in your quiver. When people speak the truth, you’ve got nothing.

  23. 28

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    As for the “missile gap,” if Nixon had been president in October 1962, we’d all be dead.

  24. 29

    Mark1 spews:

    @20 Incorrect:

    There was no threat there dumbass, and if you were half as intelligent as you fancy yourself, you would have seen that. I was merely pointing out poor Rodent’s situation and lifestyle. And I’ll have you know, I am neither fat, nor the least bit intimidated by people who hide behind the anonimity and safety of the keyboard, such as yourself. Good day punk. As for you headless lucifer, talk about the irony in your statement. I beleive one that goes thru life headless as a result of your cranimum being jammed into the most unpleasant of orifices should be careful about references to a smelly butt. The proper medical term for that is rectal-cranial inversion FYI. Bye for now my dear.

  25. 30

    Daddy Love spews:

    17 M1

    Nancy Pelosi is the person who will be president if–perish the thought–something unforeseen and terrible somehow results in the deaths of our terrifically unpopular president and vice-president.

  26. 31

    Proud To Be An Ass spews:

    Gaaawwd damn, Roger. I point out a few not so great things about Kennedy, and you go off like a fucking bottle rocket. Get a grip.

    1. Eisenhower also sent troops to the south to enforce integration. As a general rule I despise republicans, but I certainly don’t hold that against him. Kennedy certainly supported civil rights, but he did agree with Hoover to wiretap King. He was not very fond of CORE, even though he sent marshalls to provide protection during the freedom rides. He thought the movement was ‘going too fast’ (sound familiar?). He tried to talk King out of holding the march on Washington. I’m not saying he was some kind of reactionary, I merely assert that the all too standard liberal hiagraphy is not the whole picture.

    Realistically, Kennedy was in a political bind because of the entrenched and powerful Southern Democrats, especially in the senate. It took the on the ground civil rights demands by black activism, the political landslide of ’64, and LBJ’s mastery of Congress to get Kennedy’s civil rights legislation passed.

    2. Tax cuts. You’re saying a 20% cut in marginal rates was a middle class tax cut? You’re kidding, right? Actually, Kennedy started out proposing a balanced budget. True story. The debate was between tax cuts or classic Keynesian spending increases (which, in fact Kennedy, ultimately, favored). 45% of the cuts went to the wealthy, and lefty critics, like Michael Harrington criticized it on this aspect. Admittedly, he had political opposition in Congress and the business community, and the stimulus was gussied up to appease them.

    3. Viet Nam. I merely stated that Kennedy expanded the Dulles-Ike policy. You deny this? He ramped up the US “advisors” from a few hundred to nearly 12,000. There is a great deal of historical controversy regarding whether or not he would have expanded the war like LBJ did. We shall never know, but I’d say he would not have been driven like Johnson to expand the war. Who knows? That Kennedy shared the permanent quasi-war mentality of the “cold warriors” there is no doubt.

    All I’m saying is this: From a lefty progressive prospective, Kennedy was no saint. OK?

    But calling me a wingnut?* Now that’s funny. Hillary Clinton’s impending loss of the nomination must really be affecting you.

    Take two aspirin, kiss mrs. rabbit, and go out and enjoy some fresh air. You appear to need it.

    *from what I’ve seen of your admirable comments, I put myself considerably to the left of you, on just about any issue you could name.

  27. 32

    Proud To Be An Ass spews:

    roger above: As for the “missile gap,” if Nixon had been president in October 1962, we’d all be dead.

    There was no ‘missle gap’. In 1960, The US had a significant advantage in deliverable nuclear warheads (and never lost it). The charge was basically untrue.

    Nixon, the fucking scum, was elected twice, and we’re still alive. That may be due to divine intervention, however. Proofs like that for the existence of God are indeed rare.

  28. 33

    Proud To Be An Ass spews:

    @29 your bravery in the face of anonymously levelled scorn is truly admirable. “Mark1″ is your real name, right?

    Your fascination with HL’s anatomy bespeaks a deep psychological problem. Say a few ‘seig heils’ for us as you depart, and please consult a psychiatrist.

  29. 34

    Peter spews:

    I don’t see the rationale for splitting the delegates equally between Clinton and Obama. Why not instead have an even split among the eight January candidates (Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, Gravel, Kucinich, Obama, Richardson)? The candidates no longer running can direct their pledged delegates to vote for someone else.

  30. 36

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @31 You posted insinuations, and I debunked them. If you are not a wingnut, then I confused you with one. So many trolls pass through here it’s hard to keep track of them all. And I am, according to Mark1, a senile old bunny on his deathbed, which makes it even harder to sort out the passing trolls. As for Hillary, I stopped defending her some time ago, and stopped supporting her last week — she went a gaffe too far. I’ve decamped her camp and recamped in Obama’s camp.

  31. 37

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @35 Well it looks like they’re gonna split up Florida’s delegates according to the primary results, but are still wrangling over whether the Florida delegates get a full vote or half vote. Hillary won 55% of the votes in Michigan and shouldn’t get more than 55% of that state’s delegates, max, although even that result is skewed in her favor. Obama was sandbagged in Michigan. The party told him Michigan wouldn’t count, so he didn’t run there. To change the rules now should invalidate that election. Of course it’s too late to hold a contested primary in Michigan, so they’ll have to figure out some other way to allocate Michigan’s delegates. Clinton’s argument that Obama shouldn’t get any at all just doesn’t hold water. I doubt the Rules Committee or the Democratic Party will go along with that, not only because it’s unfair and perpetrates what amounts to a fraud against Obama, but because they’ll be throwing away the November election if Hillary gets the nomination by that means.

  32. 38

    Proud To Be An Ass spews:

    @36: Welcome to the (cautiously optimistic) Obama camp. We do not need another presidency that throws organized labor and the dirty fucking hippies under the bus. We shall see. It will be an exciting time.

    May all your stock picks prosper, sir. I sincerely hope that, on your deathbed as you may be, you treat your all too numerous heirs fairly and with compassion.

  33. 39

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @38 “May all your stock picks prosper, sir.”

    I’ll do very well if oil goes to $200. As for my heirs, I’ve got so many they’ll need to hacksaw pennies into pieces, for everyone to get a share.

  34. 41

    His Steveness spews:

    Oh, this has been the funniest day.

    Haven’t heard that kind of language used against anyone but Cheney!!!

    And, they seem genuinely irritated that people are shouting THEM down like they were evil Republicans!

    How’s that “unity” thing going for you guys these days?

  35. 43

    His Steveness spews:

    Oh, this is shaping up to beat the 68 convention.


    Out of control!

  36. 45


    No really, Ickes, a man who has set the tone for the Clinton campaign as much as anything is obviously hell bent on continuing it.

    The decisions just made were fair and he is pouting. End of story.

  37. 46

    His Steveness spews:

    Oh, this gets even better. The next meeting of the rules committee is going to be held as a private teleconference. Roosevelt just said it!

    Now, there’s NO way for people to register their views and dissension..

    And now, they want to bring these worty principles nationwide!


  38. 47

    Politically Incorrect spews:

    As long as Hillary doesn’t win the Democratic nomnation in 2008, I could care less.

  39. 48


    Oh please ,”His Steveness”, this was an extremely fair and measured process and with the exception of a few hecklers, which one would expect in such a circumstance, orderly.

    Ickes will discover the scorched earth approach will not work anymore, and that the Michigan compromise, put forth by Michigan, not the Obama camp, is going to be accepted by the party as the appropriate one.

  40. 49

    His Steveness spews:


    Hey, no worries…

    Glad you said that it was fair and measured. The leadup to the meeting today DID indicate “open” and “transparent.” Move the goalposts, I do not care.

    I have had a wonderfully entertaining day with no chance that it’s about to let up.

    Man, Wolfe Blitzer JUST giggled with anticipation of this going to the credentials committee!

    I have never liked Blitzer or Ickes this much EVER.

  41. 51

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @41 What are you talking about? This is normal for us. And we’re immensely enjoying (a) the rats ratting on Bush and (b) the GOP’s impending implosion — gonna go WWWHHHOOOMMMPPP!!! like the Kingdome, the GOP is.

  42. 52

    His Steveness spews:

    Hey Roger!

    To be honest, I have never seen that behavior before, not in the years that I have been watching CSPAN. Nothing like that! Ok, during WTO, I saw protesters doing a little bit of it with Clinton and Seattle City Leaders. But nothing like this!

    Hey, enjoy the rat(ting). I am enjoying that as well. Of course, I haven’t seen a bit of that today since the Ickes show. And with the threat of the credentials committee conflagration, isn’t it likely that McClellan will be yesterday’s news and relegated to obscurity?

    And, I particularly agree with your Kingdome analogy. Sure is going to implode just like the taxpayer financed old Kingdome to make room for an even more expensive and unwanted taxpayer funded government project!

    You are wise and accurate beyond your years Roger.

    Thank you

  43. 53

    gs spews:

    Hill Billy Hillary will have to step down, but she will do so calculating the demise of Obama. No VP slot for her, she wants to come back in 2012 and say I told you so to the Dems.

    So look for her exit but watch her machine after that day. It will be actively working!

    Welcome aboard Hillary and her voting fans to the John McCain team! You’ll have it all to yourself in 2012!

    True Hillary supporters are not going to vote for Obama and ruin her chance to run in 2012.

    I mean really, there won’t be many Hillary democrats joining hands and singing around the Obama campfire, especially if it ruins her 2012 “See I told you so campaign”.

  44. 54


    re 29: I did not say you had a smelly butt. I said you were a butt-smelling ass-master. It’s a compliment. It’s sort of like being a ‘black-belt’ butt-smeller.

    Butt, I digress…