HeyBozo> Let's just say we outlawed paperless systems.

That's fine. I'm not quibbling: it's an important distinction and it was not apparent from your wording that you understood it.

HeyBozo> Optical scan systems (which my county has used since I moved here, including 2000, until changed to touchscreen) are as reliable as any other system and leave a verifiable paper trail.

Yes, there is a verifiable paper trail, and yes, it's an improvement over DRE touchscreens. No, they are not necessarily reliable, as Harri Hursti and Herbert Thompson demonstrated to Leon County, Florida election officials in 2005.

HeyBozo> And, it's quite lame to blame Florida for other states buying flawed technology. Who are the retards here? The ones who tried it first or the ones who followed along after?

The people to blame are the ones who made such a cock-up of the 2000 electoral process that HAVA was passed the following year. That would be Florida. Florida also pioneered the use of the Diebold TSx and touted it as the best thing since sliced bread. Many other states invested in electronic voting equipment based on Florida's recommendation. Florida gets some credit for finally, in 2007, actually conducting a study of some of the hardware they had been using in the borked November 2006 Sarasota election. But it is thanks to much larger efforts in states such as California that the security of these systems has actually begun to improve.

HeyBozo> When the date is moved back to the ORIGINAL Democrat supported Feb 5th and Florida joins the ranks of Super Tuesday, your candidates will still be forced to spend big bank here and many other Super Tuesday states will then be neglected.

You miss the point. Someone with practically no money to start with can visit a good portion of New Hampshire in person, and get his or her name in the news before any significant coin is required. Iowa as well, with its informal arrangement, is workable on a small budget. The historical progression gives everyone a chance, not just the rich. If the DNC kept allowing states to push primaries earlier, as South Carolina and Nevada had started doing, this system would collapse. Really, it already has; South Carolina and Nevada should also be pushed back to Super Tuesday at the earliest.

Yes, I recognize that the Republicans led the effort to move the date, but they lost half their delegates too as a result, and had just as much reason to move the primary back. Why do Floridians keep pointing at the Republicans as responsible? What advantage did the Republicans gain from this tactic, exactly?

As for "respecting" Florida: as with anyone who makes repeated mistakes, it's going to take time to earn back the trust of the nation. And even then, the primary calendar should be held as close to historical form as possible for the reasons already stated.

HeyBozo> As a final thought: I really hope you're not from Maryland because I'd be ashamed to find out that such arrogant, smug, Jacka-es now live in my former home state.

As a native Marylander, I think I'm far more disappointed to find a fellow Marylander using such an abusive, ad hominem tone.

You could always come back to Maryland, you know, if you want a place in the primary process. Perhaps then you'd be able to perceive how outrageous Florida's behavior has been.

OK, petty man, you want to quibble over the term 'electronic voting' vs 'touchscreen', fine.. Let's just say we outlawed paperless systems. Optical scan systems (which my county has used since I moved here, including 2000, until changed to touchscreen) are as reliable as any other system and leave a verifiable paper trail.

And, it's quite lame to blame Florida for other states buying flawed technology. Who are the retards here? The ones who tried it first or the ones who followed along after?

In any event, the change back to optical scanners with paper ballots wasn't an excuse to move the date ahead, it was a concession to Democrats by the Republicans for agreeing to go along with something that was going to happen anyhow. I suppose they wanted political cover for their own RNC sanctions.

When the date is moved back to the ORIGINAL Democrat supported Feb 5th and Florida joins the ranks of Super Tuesday, your candidates will still be forced to spend big bank here and many other Super Tuesday states will then be neglected.

In any event, at least you're honest enough to admit that you wouldn't respect us even if we had a perfect election process (which NO state does, FYI.)

As a final thought: I really hope you're not from Maryland because I'd be ashamed to find out that such arrogant, smug, Jacka-es now live in my former home state.

I'm not sure why you decided to call this "Rules Committee Delivers Setback to Clinton". Even if she'd received the delegates according to her methodology (ie 3/4 of Michigan approx. and none for Obama), she'd still be behind. This race was over at the end of February. Obama had multiple landslide victories (a total of 10 or 11 in a row although not all of those landslide) remember? There was never any way mathematically for her to make up the difference. And yet, based on headlines like this, it seems that some still think there was a chance for her to catch up in pledged delegates. There wasn't.

HeyBozo> That's exactly what happened when the Democrats in the Florida legislature voted for the (inevitable, Republican-desired Jan 29th) date change in exchange for banning electronic voting machines.

Do I really have to explain out to you that that doesn't qualify as "fixing" your own state's elections system? (And Florida didn't ban electronic voting machines; it banned touch-screen DREs in favor of optical scan machines, which have been demonstrated--in Florida--to have design flaws as well. Yes, this is still an improvement.)

How about the fact that it was Florida's multiple 2000 screwups that caused the entire problem, by leading so many states to adopt untrustworthy and untested hardware for their voting systems; these states are now having to pay $millions to replace the DRE junk they bought on Florida's initial lead.

Yes, it's good that Florida chose to switch to technology that has an actual recount capability. No, that doesn't excuse moving the primary and then complaining that the rest of the country won't accept it.

And even if Florida became exemplary of free and fair elections, the rest of us wouldn't accept it in the lead primary position. There's a reason small states are reserved for that position: it gives candidates with relatively little initial funding a chance to make an impact before the heavy advertising regimen required for the big states begins.

Obviously, your legislature is to blame for the current problem, and the Florida voters, collectively, for electing them. Fault lies squarely in Florida, in every way. Like I say, fix your own house first. Move the primary back--throw the bums out if you have to, and then you get your delegates back. Clear enough for you?

This is not over. Hillary will fight on and on and on... and lose.

The Honorable Senator Clinton should speak with Mr. Ickes and request that he and everyone else should refer to Article IV. Section 2 Paragraph 1 or A, of the Constitution and argue that no state or citizens thereof have privilages over any other, and there are no half people and even before 1868 there were 3/5th people not half wits in Florida. No rulu or contract is binding if it is unconstitutional no matter how uneducated or delusional the judges.

The Honorable Senator Clinton should speak with Mr. Ickes and request that he and everyone else should refer to Article IV. Section 2 Paragraph 1 or A, of the Constitution and argue that no state or citizens thereof have privilages over any other, and there are no half people and even before 1868 there were 3/5th people not half wits in Florida. No rulu or contract is binding if it is unconstitutional no matter how uneducated or delusional the judges.

"...My suggestion to you is that, as a Florida voter, you work to fix your own state first before trying to sway the rest of the country (which is what moving the primary was all about, after all). "

That's exactly what happened when the Democrats in the Florida legislature voted for the (inevitable, Republican-desired Jan 29th) date change in exchange for banning electronic voting machines.

Apparently, the rest of the nation has been too busy wagging their fingers and scolding Florida to understand the underlying reasons WHY the date change happened the way it did.

Fran> As a native resident in the State of Florida, I am absolutely outraged at the outcome of the DNC Rules and By-laws Committee in regards to Florida and Michigan. This is the second time in 8 years that my vote has been taken away from me by politicians.

Your vote was taken away when your state representatives chose to move the Florida primary to a date that violated party rules. They knew this at the time, and they had every opportunity to reschedule the Florida primary to a date that complied. You had the choice as a Florida voter whether to campaign in your state for rescheduling the primary. In fact, the RBC *gave* Florida votes when it deserved none.

Indeed this is at least the *third* time in 8 years that Florida elections machinery has shown itself to be incompetent. My suggestion to you is that, as a Florida voter, you work to fix your own state first before trying to sway the rest of the country (which is what moving the primary was all about, after all). Failing that, try moving to a state that hasn't repeatedly demonstrated that it can't even choose the correct date for measuring voters' intent, let alone pull off the election part properly. (Hint: Michigan is not a candidate.)

Fran> After yesterday's unbelievable determination of the delegates in Florida and Michigan, I have decided that I can no longer be affiliated with the Democratic Party. I will be going to the Supervisor of elections in my county and changing my voter registration from a Democrat.

To what, a Republican? The RNC also stripped Florida of half its delegates, for the same reason.

Frank> I regards to Michigan, I can not believe that people will stand for politicians to literally take away delegates from one candidate and give them to another.

The vote in Michigan was not a measure of voters' intent and should be discounted in full. So I agree with you in part: as with Florida, Michigan's delegates should not be counted at all.

Fran> Not to mention using exit polls to try to anticipate what the voters intended in regards to casting a vote for "uncommitted".

There was no reasonable way to determine voters' intent after the fact in Michigan, which is another reason (besides the fact that they violated party rules, like Florida) it should be discounted entirely.

Fran> After all our Country was set up for those people that are elected are to represent fairly the wishes of those people that they represent (in other words the people that elected them).

If you want a fair election, you have to set the rules ahead of time and follow them strictly until it is complete. Otherwise you end up with people gaming the system, the way Clinton has attempted to do. Everyone knew and agreed to the rules before the primaries began. The only way we would have a fair election is by not recognizing Florida's or Michigan's delegates at all. You got a sweet deal.

Fran> I WANT MY VOTE TO COUNT!!!!! I am calling for a boycott against the Democratic Party, I hope you will join me in sending a strong message to the DNC.

Change starts at home.

What you are just now picking up on, far too late, is that the *rest* of the country has been sending a strong message to Florida that we don't trust you with elections, *especially* after the fiasco 8 years ago, let alone the nonsense that occurred in Sarasota's congressional election just two years ago. For Florida to try to take the lead in the primaries and then to b*tch and moan when the rest of us refuse to kowtow--*that's* the unbelievable part.

If the DNC is claiming that they want party unity, yesterday the just divided the party tremendously (In my opinion). As a native resident in the State of Florida, I am absolutely outraged at the outcome of the DNC Rules and By-laws Committee in regards to Florida and Michigan. This is the second time in 8 years that my vote has been taken away from me by politicians. I have been a registered Democrat since I turned 18 years of age (I will be 45 this year). After yesterday's unbelievable determination of the delegates in Florida and Michigan, I have decided that I can no longer be affiliated with the Democratic Party. I will be going to the Supervisor of elections in my county and changing my voter registration from a Democrat. I do this in protest to the decision that the DNC came to yesterday. To say "my vote only counts 50%? There is no such thing as a half vote. It either counts or it doesn't. I regards to Michigan, I can not believe that people will stand for politicians to literally take away delegates from one candidate and give them to another. Not to mention using exit polls to try to anticipate what the voters intended in regards to casting a vote for "uncommitted".
I encourage all Democrats (not just in Florida and Michigan) to do the same and send a message to the DNC that "WE" will not stand for politicians to do what they want that they should be doing what the voters want! After all our Country was set up for those people that are elected are to represent fairly the wishes of those people that they represent (in other words the people that elected them). This has not happened in many years and I for one have had enough. Until "We the People" stand up and tell the Government what we expect of them, they will only keep doing what they want or doing what the people that keep stuffing money in their pockets wants.

I WANT MY VOTE TO COUNT!!!!! I am calling for a boycott against the Democratic Party, I hope you will join me in sending a strong message to the DNC.

You obviously don't know but Obama had the votes on the committee to cut the Michigan vote in half, that is what they wanted to do . He is the one who said to make an equitable split giving Hillary the majority. I doubt Hillary would have been that nice.

+++++++

I believe the Obama campaign took advantage of the dispute - a dispute which Obama was no part of - for their own self-advantage - it is of concern because Obama has been AGAINST Voting Rights in this dispute.

That is wrong.

Obama must be a sick man

ALSO, the whole way the Obama people have been blaming Hillary for the dispute, somehow she did something wrong by wanting states with high concentrations of WHITES to count.

Sorry, people, WHITES are citizens too, entitled to Voting Rights. Is this a sample of what Obama plans if he makes it?

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | June 1, 2008 7:26 PM

I believe the Obama campaign took advantage of the dispute - a dispute which Obama was no part of - for their own self-advantage - it is of concern because Obama has been AGAINST Voting Rights in this dispute.

That is wrong.

Obama must be a sick man

ALSO, the whole way the Obama people have been blaming Hillary for the dispute, somehow she did something wrong by wanting states with high concentrations of WHITES to count.

Sorry, people, WHITES are citizens too, entitled to Voting Rights. Is this a sample of what Obama plans if he makes it?

.

Who else had withdrawn from the Michigan Ballot?

http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/pdf/mipp108.pdf

Yes, the LEADERs of the Democratic Party - Joe Biden, John Edwards, Bill Richardson and Barack Obama - i.e. all the REAL candidates.

Think about it ... winning WITHOUT competition and then BRAGGING about it / DEMANDING power because of it - that's what PETTY DICTATORs do.

Come on HRC folks, I know you are smarter than that - set aside your emotions for a bit and look at the full picture.

Orion, please do not feed the troll.

Orion

All four of those candidates were off the ballot - however the Michigan democrats gave ALL of the uncommitteds to Obama PLUS extra for exit polling PLUS extra for 5.000 write-ins that were never even READ.

This is INSANE

If someone wrote in Micky Mouse in Michigan this year, the DNC Rules Committee just said that vote was for Obama AND GAVE HIM THE DELEGATES.

.

The creepy Ickes says this is no way to build party unity - the chilling thing is that even though he is creepy, he is right about the Obama people.

What did Obama gain by not giving Hillay 70 more delegates out of these two states?

Pretty much nothing, however he risked party unity and he offended the people of Michigan - not a good move for a person claiming he should be President.

.

The creepy Ickes says this is no way to build party unity - the chilling thing is that even though he is creepy, he is right about the Obama people.

What did Obama gain by not giving Hillay 70 more delegates out of these two states?

Pretty much nothing, however he risked party unity and he offended the people of Michigan - not a good move for a person claiming he should be President.

.

For a fair writeup on yesterday's proceeding and impact, see:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Comparison/Maps/Jun01.html

Watching Ickes on MTP this morning simply served to confirm just how shameless and desperate the Clinton campaign is.

They have cynically used the voters in Michigan and Florida to advance her increasingly futile campaign, irresponsibly stirring up their resentment while claiming -- falsely, IMO -- they were advocating those voters' interests.

Likewise, they have created this phony sexism issue as a scapegoat for their own miscalculations and mismanagement, and also cynically fanned the flames of her women supporters' disappointment at the imminent failure of her campaign.

Harold Ickes' phony outrage and indignation yesterday and today, because the Clinton campaign didn't get exactly what they wanted out of MI and FL, were the last straw. They didn't want anyone to notice that, before yesterday, NEITHER candidate had any delegates from those two states, and they were lucky to get the numbers they got. Ickes had no answers this morning when Tim Russert challenged him on what changed from the time he voted to strip MI and FL of their delegates.

Clinton's threat to go to the Credentials Committee is the height of irresponsibility. She has lost my respect -- and I did respect her and would still vote for her if she were the nominee -- and the respect of all fair-minded Democrats. And she has forfeited any claim to the Vice Presidential nomination.

In my opinion, if she doesn't bust her a-- to get Obama elected, she's finished in the Democratic party (and she may be anyway).

As an "Older Woman Hillary Clinton Supporter"; if Hillary is not the Democratic nominee in November, I will be writing in Hillary Clinton on my ballot in the General Election. I encourage all others to do the same instead of not voting at all or voting for McCain or Obama. Let us send a clear message that we will not let sexism in America over shadow the best candidate to be President of these United States.

The truth is that the NET EFFECT of this ruling is to DIMINISH THE VOTING STRENGTH OF WHITE VOTERS

Chris you may disagree now - however someday you will realize what is going on.

Last summer this rules committee voted to EXCEED its authority and penalize Michigan and Florida 100% - this was done in full knowledge that it would dilute the strength of WHITE VOTERS.

TAKE A LOOK AT THE DELEGATE TOTALS - come on - THIS WAS A SET UP.

THERE IS NO ACCIDENT THAT THE DEMOGRAPHICS BROKE THE WAY THEY DID - THERE IS NO ACCIDENT THAT THE DEMOCRATS DIMINISHED THE WHITE VOTING STRENGTH.

"Ding, dong, the witch is dead... but let's burn down Oz anyway, just for fun."

--Me

It's a basic rule of elections, and of any statistical sampling process, for that matter, that once voting begins, you don't change the rules. The ideal sampling process is instantaneous; the closer we can get to this, the better we measure voters' intent. When you change the rules in the middle, you lower the quality of your statistics, and widen the opportunity for fraud and injustice. Anyone who would argue on behalf of changing the rules for elections that have already occurred would undermine the democratic process.

Imagine that on election day, exit polls show one candidate is behind. That candidate's supporters push to get out a last-minute surge of voters, and lobby the Board of Elections to keep the polls open an extra hour so that surge has a chance to vote. If the BoE agrees, it is a fundamental subversion of the electoral process.

And that's what we have here; it's a subversion of the process designed to favor Clinton. No doubt the RBC decided to go ahead with this because it causes less rancor than actually preserving the electoral process, and doesn't change the ultimate outcome. But the fact that this question of whether to count MI and FL has even existed all this time is a perversion that has corrupted the measurement of the voters' intent during the primaries ever since.

To people who would rig the electoral process after the fact because they can't have their own way, and, when the rigging fails, would then compound this attempt at inequity by deserting the party out of childish spite, I say: good riddance! I hope you don't vote at all in November, because neither party needs your karma. I hope even more that you come to your senses and stand up for a fair electoral process that involves setting rules and sticking to them, and abiding by the outcome even if it's not the one you wanted.

The DNC has allowed Obama to steal the nomination just like the Chicago power brokers let him steal the Senate seat from his mentor and friend Alice Palmer.
I and millions of others are done with the DNC.

Hillary nets 24 delegates - HOWEVER if the delegations were fully seated it would have been a net of perhaps 56

BUT remember the Superdelegates were also halved -

That cuts off opportunities for Hillary to catch up - a total of 183 delegates vanished into thin air when one includes the Superdelegates.

Then they used fantasy numbers to give Obama delegates based NOT ON VOTES - and based on WRITE IN BALLOTS THAT WERE NEVER EVEN READ TO SEE WHOSE NAME WAS ON THE BALLOT.

I hate to say it, but it appears that this sort of stuff is OK when it benefits a BLACK candidate against a WHITE candidate -however, if this benefited a WHITE candidate against a BLACK candidate, these kind of actions would never be considered.

One must think about it.

THE RESULT IS STILL THAT 183 DELEGATES FROM WHITE STATES HAVE VANISHED - SO THE NET AFFECT IS TO INCREASE THE BLACK VOTING STRENGTH AND DIMINISH THE WHITE VOTING STRENGTH -

IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE ONLY WAY A BLACK CANDIDATE COULD HAVE WON.

ONE MUST FIND THE VOTE OF THE RULES COMMITTEE TO HAVE A DE FACTO RACIST EFFECT - AND ONE MUST FIND THE RESULTS RACIST AGAINST WHITES.

,

Star of the Show: Sen. Levin for correctly pinning the blame for the problem on the egotists in New Hampshire.

Until the parties learn to discipline the spoiled brats in New Hampshire and Iowa, all of the others states are less than equal in this process.

The only thing Sen. Levin missed was describing Michigan's actions for equalt treatment as "Civil Disobedience." Which is exactly what it's been.

It would have been a stretch to liken it to Ghandi or Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights activists, but it has been Civil Disobedience of a sort.

Way to go Carl!

It is extremely wrong to have this dispute develop into something that affects the outcome of a close race.

We have a situation in which one candidate is working one side of the issue, not because of the merits of the issue, but to take advantage of the dispute for the benefit of the campaign.

That is not how this dispute should be handled - now Hillary is losing delegate strength from voters who are legitimately on her side - for the REASON THAT THE REFUSED TO GO ALONG WITH THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN.

At this point it is still a mess.

Politically, the party missed a chance to settle this issue and get it behing them, instead they chose a course which will get more people angry and get more people talking about it - and CONCLUDING THAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS A BUNCH OF IDIOTS UNWORTHY TO RUN THIS COUNTRY.

.

Interesting reading for Clinton lovers.

==========
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/07/clinton200807

Hell, she should lose them just because she is married to a rapist. Can you believe any woman with an self respect would support Hillary?

======
Hillary should be penalized 100 delegates just on principle alone, since she voted for Bush's war. She should consider herself
fortunate that she's coming in second.

Posted by: what4 | June 1, 2008 1:40 PM

This is a great chance to break this horrible 2 party system.HRC should run as an independent or form a third party-masses who made her the candidate who got most popular votes in a primary ever will support her.Democratic party has been hijacked by extreme antiamerican elements.

Yet another stupid decision from the Democratic Party. There were only two options here...1) redo the primary in both states with both Obama and Clinton on the ballot (the thing shouldn't have been moved up but you can't take away the voter's voices because of that, this should never have happened in the first place).
2) No delegates count- this result sucks but at least it follows the rules already set out, and it's better than using some stupid logic to split the delegates...

Bah, whatever, the result is still the same...Obama, the better candidate, will get the nomination and despite all the bad blood will win the general election because he offers something a lot of people, Democrats and Independents included, will go for. McCain will get a lot of Republicans and some right-leaning Independents who like his image, but he won't muster enough to win because he simply does not have the excitement and enthusiasm from voters that is needed to draw people to the poles and win. A good chunck of people who voted for Bush will probably stay home this time.
In other words, the end result of Michigan and Florida from yesturday means nothing (and I'm sorry to the Michigan and Florida voters as I do not mean to offend you and I have always felt you were shafted from the start, I am just stating what I see as the inevitable truth).

Hillary should be penalized 100 delegates just on principle alone, since she voted for Bush's war. She should consider herself fortunate that she's coming in second.

Chris

The entire proceedings - the making of the rule, the penalty - the crazy attempts at enforcement - has as its objective - to decrease the strength of the large white states.

Hillary was PLUS 18 out of Michigan, that gets cut to 10 and then halved to 5.

Meanwhile, the voting strength of the heavily black districts around the country stays the same.

This is what has happened to affirmative action

The affirmative action people want MORE than their fair share - they figure that affirmative action has gotten them what they've got, now they want affirmative action - change the formula, penalized them for not agreeing - and then there is more.

To lhen1:

Didn't Clinton supporters ask why didn't Obama already wrap up the nomination? So why does Hillary have to go back on her word not to include Michigan and Florida when she was leading? Why does Hillary even need Michigan and Florida now? Why don't you accept and admit that the majority of Democratic delegates from primaries and caucases went to Obama? Why don't you accept that the superdelegates aren't now going to massively vote against the results primaries and caucases to give Clinton the nomination? Finally, who do you think Clinton is going to vote for after Obama is nominated? You think Hillary wants her supporters to vote McCain?

Bush may be stupid and easily duped by those around him, but I think Hillary may be even worse because she is actually evil. We just don't know to what extent. I think we may have really lucked out because she ran such a bad campaign she may have won otherwise. Can you imagine her in the white house, the lies and deception and cover up's? God all mighty did we get lucky.

++++++
What more proof is needed that a Clinton presidency would be more of the same. Clinton's unrelenting attempts to change the DNC rules to suit her own desires scream of the same methods used by President Bush for the past 8 years!

No more!

Posted by: Jay Greaves | June 1, 2008 11:50 AM

The wisest thing for the American people to do is to keep the democratic party as far away from the White House and as far away from our National Security as possible.

.

At the committee meeting yesterday Harold Icky started using foul language when he saw he was going to lose on Michigan. Other Hillary supporters tried to disrupt the proceedings with boos and chants, while Obama's supporters graciously accepted a much more damaging decision on Florida.

Hillary's people know no compromise. When they get one, they try to compromise the result with their original position. At each new step they try to re-interpret the rules a different way for their own benefit. They won't admit that a process is fair unless it gives Hillary an unfair advantage. She's starting to look like Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction.

What more proof is needed that a Clinton presidency would be more of the same. Clinton's unrelenting attempts to change the DNC rules to suit her own desires scream of the same methods used by President Bush for the past 8 years!

No more!

Oh, and to all the HRC supporters who are now sputtering about voting for McCain: exactly why are you a Clinton supporter? You don't seem to give a damn about her positions.

AND THE WINNER IS: JOHN MCCAIN

.

The rules committee may have deliverd a setback to Clinton, but they delivered a suicide blow to the Democratic party. If they don't think my vote counts in full in the primary, then they can watch how it counts for McCain in the general election. And there will be many more like me. They are so busy trying to ram Obama down everyone throats that they overlook the permanant damage they are doing the party. Obama will not win in November. They took the qualified deserving candidate and threw her to the wolves to make way for the sneak in wolf's clothing because they got caught up in his star image. The DNC will never regain the support of fair and sensible people.

Chris, you refer to "the state" of Puerto Rico. In what sense is PR a state? Island Puerto Ricans do vote in the party's primary, but PR has no electoral votes.

Many Puerto Ricans want statehood as one of the United States. Some want independence. At present, however, PR holds the distinctive status of Commonwealth.

"Setback to Clinton" is a thoroughly deceptive headline.

The default position of the DNC had been to seat no Convention delegates from FL and MI. The state committees and the candidates did not favor that default position. The two state party committees gained from the day of negotiation; neither lost.

The only candidate who gained was HRC, who could not have captured enough delegates to win the nomination, according to the MSM, in any event. That she did not get everything she asked for can hardly be called a "setback".

Even within the mechanics of the vote split, giving each state all its delegates each with one-half vote, was favorable to HRC, as compared to halving the number of delegates.

Better headline: HRC Gains From
Rules Committee's Decisions, But Not Enough

NoVAMatt's report from the meeting actually sounds like how most of the precinct conventions were conducted in TX.

There were exceptions among the 8000+ conventions, but in the vast majority, the HRC and BHO voters got along fine. Of course they were neighbors - but that could have made for a worse scene, too. Come to think of it, it probably did, in the exceptional cases.

i was disappointed how harold ickes handled himself. the posturing came off like a little boy who didn't get to win the basketball game on HIS terms. If each of the states of fl and michigan provided their own solutions for THEIR state which was agreed to, it appears that the hillary campaign now wants to claim they know (better than the state officials) what is best for the people of those states.

i am all for a woman as president - just not hillary. her campaign forgot to check their OWN ego at the door during this campaign. this is a glimpse about how health care and other important measures will be handled if clintn got into WH. we must have some compromise if we as a country wants to progress. hillary campaign and how they handle setbacks is a true signal to what we can expect in her WH. remember the Cooper healthcare plan? if that had been implemented during clinton WH years (instead of being buried by HRC), by now we would be looking to enhance it in 2008. that's the problem with this woman candidate -- it's my way or no way!

Harold Ickes is little more the a paid mouth piece who will say anything. He is like a lawyer who represents a rapist who he knows is guilty, thats his job. He will be up Obama's @ss soon, that is also what those Washington types do. They are parasites. He knows it's over and the Clintons have just seen their washington power brokering come to an end when the supporters they thought they had in their pockets voted against her. The Clinton era is over.

++++++++++
Some one needs to explain to Harold Ickes that compromise means you have to give something up to get something in return. He and the radical few Hillary hot heads who insisted on complete capitulation yesterday should take their fight to the convention in Minnesota. I'm sure they will be more at home with the Republicans their actions are surely trying to elect.

Posted by: Steve O | June 1, 2008 9:53 AM

"Not A Sucker" posted at 10:43AM:

"In an email I got from the Clinton campaign she is telling people to not send any money to the DNC but to send it to her."

Can anyone else confirm that Sen. Clinton has asked supporters to NOT contribute to the DNC, which is strapped for cash as Democratic Party donors have been giving to presidential candidates?

I was one of the lucky 125 public "guests" at the RBC meeting yesterday, and let me offer a couple of observations about the proceedings.

The vast majority of people there, including Hillary supporters, behaved with dignity and respected the proceedings. I obviously didn't see how it looked on tv, but in the ballroom people were applauding, sometimes loudly, when they agreed with something, but the booing and hissing and heckling came from maybe a dozen or so people. It's a little disappointing (but not surprising) to see the Milbank and Balz pieces in the Post this morning that make more of the vocal few than their numbers or arguments deserve.

There was never any personal animosity at all that I saw between Obama supporters and Hillary supporters. It had the feel of a high school basketball game between intense rivals, but when the game wasn't on, the rivalry switch was turned off. At various times I found myself in clusters of Hillary supporters, but the banter and the conversations were cordial (if somewhat guarded haha) to enthusiastic when we turned to non-presidential political talk. The hecklers aside, I have more respect for the Hillary supporters now than I did before the meeting. It was a tough, close campaign, and I feel for their disappointment.

The committee itself made the best of a bad situation. It's unfortunate that it came to a May 31 meeting. The issues involved should have been resolved long ago. The entire nominating process needs reform. The national party needs more authority to control the calendar and to ensure a fairer delegate selection process. I trust that the next time we have a competitive nomination contest, the process will be more transparent and more straightforward than what we've endured these last five months or so.

Let's recap --

The rules committee reached a unanimous vote to seat the Florida delegates and super delegates with 1/2 vote each.

They reached a 19-8 vote in favor of the recommendation of the entire Michigan Democratic Party - which concluded that the state's primary was too flawed to use as a basis for vote apportionment. Instead they apportioned the delegates based upon their own compromise worked out in Michigan and presented to the Committee.

Harold Ickes (Clintons top campaign aide), an author of the original rules that were adopted last year to stop chaotic jostling for primary position, was very angry and expressed his disgust over the Committee's ruling that reduced Clinton's Michigan delegates from 73 to 69 --- a difference of 4 delegates.

This delegate difference was then reduced to 2 delegates when the Michigan delegation voting strength was reduced by 50% as a penalty for running an illegal primary.

Question: with Clinton behind Obama by more than 180 delegates why is Ickes threatening to go to the credentials committee in July -- over a 2 delegate loss?

Or, could it be that Ickes is angry because he helped to run Clinton's campaign into the ditch. Could it be that he is mortified that his "leadership" will go down in history as one of the most inept and "out of touch" in a team of "flaks and hacks" who took the sure thing candidacy of the best known political brand name in modern times and screwed it up so badly that Hillary is $36 million dollars in debt and has lost the nomination?

Now that might make someone pretty mad! So...who does Ickes blame? Everyone else! Where did he learn that behavior? The Clintons!!

Hillary has blamed the vast right-wing conspiracy as the scourge of her husband's political tenure. Now he is blaming a vast left-wing conspiracy as the scourge of his wife's campaign disaster.

Let's see --- at last count, their continuous string of failures were the fault of the media, sexism, the left-wing, African Americans, the right wing, the Obama campaign, misogyny, poor staff decisions, the caucus states, cable pundits, and the star-struck voters of America.

I'm so glad that they had nothing to do with the collapse of their political plans and rabid ambitions. As usual, they so are totally blameless.

And, clueless.

Oh, and to all the HRC supporter who are now sputtering about voting for McCain: exactly why are you a Clinton supporter? You don't seem to give a damn about her positions.

In an email I got from the Clinton campaign she is telling people to not send any money to the DNC but to send it to her. I think she is doing nothing more then running a scam now and committing fraud. It is all about the money now and milking her supporters for every last dime they can get.

Stick a fork in it, baby, the Clinton campaign is done :)

Some one needs to explain to Harold Ickes that compromise means you have to give something up to get something in return. He and the radical few Hillary hot heads who insisted on complete capitulation yesterday should take their fight to the convention in Minnesota. I'm sure they will be more at home with the Republicans their actions are surely trying to elect.

starting tomorrow florida and michigan democratics will be changing to the independents by the millions...goodbye democrats...you lose.....blame it on the dnc....

blert and Alan in Missoula -

pls contact me at

mark_in_austin@operamail.com

all will be explained

come november obama and the far left wing will be history..enjoy it while you can....

It is goodbye Hillary and hello Barrack...
the interesting thing is that Hillary has just been dying the death of a thousand self inflicted cuts.
She has been beaten fair and square....
Stitched up.........

Now bring on Mc Cain...

The Clintons are now a part of History...

To all of you that say only a Clinton can win for the Dems, I ask you if Hillary is going to bring Perot with her? I also want to know, why all of the FL and MI Democrats would be leaving the party when the Republicans cut their delegation for the states in half as well? Time to take down McCain. Forthunately, he is doing a great job of doing that to himself. I just hope his meds can carry him to November alive.

The Fl & MI delegations are being penalized for moving their primaries up by getting half vote too, you don't hear MI & FL Republicans crying foul.

Ickes has an evener huger ego than Hillary Clinton and that is saying something...phew, what a hypocrite.

That meeting was a Zoo..I haven't seen so much heifer dust kicked up since I visited a barnyard.

Since someone has referenced Hillary's unbelievably dispicable comment on assassination, here's my take. If I owned a gun (which I don't) and if I had only one bullet (which I don't) And if someone was forcing me to aim it at a candidate, (which they're not), Barack wouldn't be the target of choice. Every time the shreiking zealots for Hillary start screaming about their entitlement I have to turn down my hearing aid. I'm old and I forget to turn it back up. Given a choice, I'd opt for some peace and quiet.

Anyone who thinks this is over is sadly mistaken.

Posted by: Jaxk Straw | May 31, 2008 8:18 PM
_______________________________________

*LOL!* That's a good one! You should go up on stage and do that act... very, very funny.

...oh wait...

You're SERIOUS?????

That's even funnier! *LOL!* You are a laugh riot!

'I will be very happy to see Hillary give that final consolatory speech with the tears and sobs. I hope she has a complete mental break down after this.'

____________________________________________

Isn't that going to be just wonderful? I'm very psyched up about seeing it. It should be hilarious. I haven't really seen those crocodile tears since NH's grassroots campaign - it'll be good to see them again. *sniff*

I'll bring the candy and drinks, you bring the popcorn.

Down in front!

It's going to get a little more difficult now for stealth McCain-ites to pose as disgruntled Democrats. For one thing, soon there won't be any more primaries for Rush's legions to game, only the Big One in November. For another, old Grump McCain's minions have come out of the closet and identified themselves in the heat of the Democrats' nomination battles.

But it's true there is an outreach operation underway by Obama, and it's possible as the dust settles we will be proved wrong in identifying the allegiance of voters who discover where their interests truly lie.

I am a registered independent who converted to Dem for the PA primary to vote for Obama. I think Obama lost out in this ruling as he gave up delegates that he shouldn't have. He did what he was supposed to do in Michigan and that not only ended up costing him delegates, but now Clinton supporters want to leave the party rather than voting for Obama. What's up with that? I cannot comprehend when someone says they will vote for Republicans rather than vote for Obama. I begin to wonder what is their motivation. How bad a guy do you believe Obama is that you'd rather vote for a man who will cost this country more lives in Iraq? As a true independent, I can go with the best candidate. Obama has showed me through his intelligence, compassion, willingness to compromise, willingness to negotiate with people we consider enemies, and his policies that he is the better candidate, and therefore I chose to support him. Unforunately, Hillary has showed me some very negative points. For instance, when she was first lady she urged her husband to bomb Serbia over Kosovo to get back at Milosevic. Instead of going after Milosevic, she didn't mind bombing civilian targets? I never heard her appologize for that. She lied about her record, faking a sniper attack in Bosnia. She's played the race card and tore America apart. We all know that African Americans are excited about Obama, the first legitimate African American candidate for president. We also know that African Americans have voted for white candidates for ever. I have no problem with them supporting Obama, just as I have no problem with women supporting Hillary. I do, however, have a difficult time understanding how Hillary courts white working class voters, refusing to tell those who refuse to vote for a black man that they should not be stupid racists. Finally, here bringing up Kennedy and all sort of historical problems to support her case is unbelievable. Ok, some people are willing to believe anything, and would follow her passionately even if she started saying even more horrible things; perhaps they'd believe her even if she said Obama followers eat babies. These individuals would fight hard to have her beat McCain. How is it then that they would join McCain if Obama gets the nomination? This is sickening and a sign of poor mental health. Wake up or go see a psychiatrist.

Why doesn't FORMER President Bill Clinton

stand and do what's right for the party?

Oh yeah he OWES his wife.

Can someone remind the morons in Florida who are crying foul that the Republicans were ALSO docked half their delegates for holding their primary early...

All this B.S. about voting for McCain because you feel unloved... enough already.

Attention Clinton supporters who will support McCain if Obama is nominated:

Attention Clinton supporters who will support Clinton running on an Independent ticket if Obama is nominated:

Attention Cynthia Ruccia, organizer of a national group called Clinton Supporters Count, Too has said, "If Hillary Clinton isn't going to be our nominee, then we are going to actively campaign against (the Democratic Party) and vote for John McCain." :

Who do you all think Hillary Clinton is going to vote for if Obama is nominated?

Do you think that she as a Democratic candidate wants to see a Republican in the White House?

Do you think the Democratic Party is going to help Clinton fund a run against their own nominee to help a Republican win the presidency?

One final question is for Hillary Clinton: Why aren't you strongly taking the position against your supporters who threaten a Democrat becoming the next President?

I will accept any DNC decision as long as its in my favour !

Senator Clinton shows more and more where she stands. She wanted a decision on Florida and Michigan and she got one. Unsurprisingly (...) she is not satisfied again, along the line "Only decisions in my favour are acceptable!". Her stand is getting tiresome and does not reveal her readiness for presidency. It sheds light on her ability to compromise and bipartisanship.

Poor Democrats if she is going to continue down that road...lucky McCain !

I thought the Rules and By-Laws Committee did a pretty good job yesterday.

The situation as I understand it involved 2 states which broke Party rules by scheduling their primaries earlier than allowed. They were stripped of their delegates, the vote was to be non-binding, and all the candidates signed off on the sanctions.

Hillary Clinton reneged on that agreement when she fell behind in the delegate count to Barack Obama. I don't believe Michigan or Florida would have been an issue had Clinton not fallen behind in the primary contest. All the arguments her supporters are making about "counting every vote" are the result of a frenzy bordering on anarchy - a frenzy Clinton intentionally stirred up, just as she chose to alienate black voters for political gain.

From Geraldine Ferraro's op-ed Friday - Healing the Wounds of the Democrats' Sexism - to the interviews of the crowd outside the Marriott today, Clinton supporters have coalescesed around the theory that Hillary lost because of sexism. It has become THE issue with her supporters and they seem prepared to go to the mat for her because of it.

I personally don't think that's an accurate reflection of why Hillary Clinton's campaign failed. Hillary is a terribly flawed feminist candidate. Her entire political career has come via Bill's coattails, both the good and the bad, and it is likely she wouldn't be where she is without him. The other problem is Hillary herself, unfortunately. She calls herself a fighter - and she's entirely correct: she IS a fighter - but the presidency requires skills beyond bare-knuckle fighting, skills Clinton just does not possess. Her entire campaign is testament to her utter lack of skill in planning, strategy, budgeting, and monitoring her staff. She is dishonest, calculating, and unable to think outside the box. These same deficits were on full display in 1993 when she attempted to stiff-arm her health care plan through Congress.

I was particularly offended at the way she (and Bill) alienated the black community. South Carolina and the Dr. King-LBJ remark were bad enough but what I saw here in Ohio was more blatant and it continued on through Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Indiana, and Kentucky. She associated the Democratic Party with the race-baiting tactics that have long been associated with Republicans. This was arguably a good move on her part, if you look at her victories in those five states, but as a strategy it served only to (a) cleave the Party in two; and (b) turn the Party elders - the very people she needed yesterday - against her. That's as good of an example of why fighters, as Hillary understands the term, don't make good executives.

If I had my way, I'd give her to the GOP.

BOB,

You can blame Republicans, but the people of Florida elected those officials, and when the decision was made, nobody had any idea how these primaries would turn out. At the time, Hillary Clinton looked like a shoo-in, and the Republican race seemed mired in uncertainty with no clear front-runner. How the Republican Party in Florida came upon a crystal ball that could tell them that Clinton was going to implode and leave the race in a complete free-for-all is a little murky to me.

What is even more convoluted about your claim of Republican conspiracy is that Michigan made the same decision as Florida...under a Democratic legislature and governor. Were they conspiring against their own party in this case?

Face it, these two states wanted to boost their influence in the primary calendar. It backfired.

All you Clinton crybabies who say you will vote republican in nov;

Go ahead, who cares? McCain will need all the votes he can get since he will get trounced by Obama. Don't forget to open your wallets and donate some money to his campaign (or are you people all talk and no action?)

FOOLS THE PRIMARY WAS DECIDED BY THE REPUBLICAN LEGISLATURE! LIKE WITH R.B. HAYES AND GORE -THEY WILL STEAL THE ELECTION AGAIN- AS OBAMA IS WEAK LIKE CARTER. ONLY CLINTON WON RE-ELECTION SINCE FDR. DNC & OBAMA HAVE BLOOD ON THIER HANDS I'LL WRITE IN HILLARY OR NADER! FORGET PARY CONGRESS WILL WATCH MC CAIN.

The Clinton supporters should be celebrating! They started from zero, and got a reasonable compromise. If they want to oppose the compromise, then they go back to zero and start over. That's the way it works.

Florida seems to be a "done deal," since the motion passed unanimously [which includes all the Clinton supporters]. On Michigan, if Clinton wants to oppose the compromise, then she's up against (1) the DNC, (2) the Michigan Democratic Party and (3) the Obama campaign; all of whom signed off on the compromise.

As the saying goes, "Sue and be damned!"

Key Messages to all -

1. RULES are for suckers - agreeing to them and then changing them mid-game is the NEW WAY.

2. If you cannot win on merit, whine, backstab, spread rumors / untruths until victory is yours.

3. Threaten to scuttle the ship if you are not made captain. That shows your deep love for the ship.

These edifying precepts (and I could go on) will do wonders for our society and economy.

Talk about a LEGACY - without even becoming the president!

could not have said it better myself. vote republican, your vote will count. see ya democrats.

To Opa2,

Did you really fall for that Lakisha thing?

Lakisha is what's commonly known as a troll. She is a plant to fire your fears and try to get you to vote Republican.

Ignore this drivel. I try to, but I didn't this time. Oops!

The Rules Committee decided this matter just as Clinton had asked them to do...Bill Clinton that is.

Barely a month ago, Bill Clinton advocated precisely this resolution of halving the votes of the delegates as the only reasonable solution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uluCnBctpHU

It's really hard for Hillary to argue her position when her husband is undercutting her at every step.

Also, listening to the comments of Clinton's supporters/protesters at the meeting, I'm more and more convinced that these people cared very little about voter enfranchisement, which was the noble cover for their argument, and more simply for pushing Clinton into the White House. A chant of "Madame President"? What does this have to do with anything related to the question of seating these delegates?

I was impressed, too, with the handful of Clinton supporters on the committee who remained committed to the rule of law and tried to work out an objective compromise rather than sticking to partisan talking points. Don Fowler and people like him deserve a medal of some sort.

For all the Clinton supporters, your leader signed off on not counting MI or FL. IN WRITING. So, does this mean you say anything she signs in invalid when it suits her? Kind of like... signing statements?

So tell us, did she lie when she said the MI and FL exercises did not count, or is she lying now in saying they do.

The net is she lied. Then or now.

Yup, she's ready to be Commander-in-Chief, with all the morals of Dubya. Super choice.

So now the Clintonistas are explicitly threatening to rip apart the party if they don't get their way. It's like when her backers threatened to stop funding the DNC if they didn't give her a crown.

This egomaniac must be stopped. It's Clintons against the world- and the world must win. It's time for the superdelagates to come in and throw her out on her pantsuited rear end. They have to do it so obviously that they drive the message home: Clinton's personal ambitions are not as important as the party and the country.

Obviously she'll do anything to win, so they had better do it fast...

Incredible the animosity from the supporters in the gallery. The threats to tear the party apart, vote for McCain etc. Just because Clinton lost. They talk about democracy, but refuse to abide by a democratic decision.

Sasha,

Well put -- I couldn't agree more.

I confess I'm bewildered by the number of women who are voting for Clinton simply because she's a woman and for no other reason. She has a sense of entitlement which her supporters accept without question. Why? Why exactly is she entitled to country-wide acceptance as THE Democratic candidate? Why should she be allowed to break rules that she herself signed up for? What exactly is so extraordinary in her CV that, after more questionable gaffes concerning truthfulness and integrity that I can count, those who question her abilty for the job are fanged as followers of the anti-Christ? I believe a lot of people who are not going to vote for her would love to see a woman President, but not this woman. The turn-off is not what sex she is, simply what she is.

The Clintonites are such blatant hypocrites. They initially supported party rules, not to count the Florida and Michigan primaries. Then when the Clintons are desperate to win the nomination, despite rules they had agreed to, demand the rules be changed. They sought to steal the nomination, flouting party rules, maintaining the pretense no one supported Barack in Michigan. With this perverse "logic," they would have been comfortable in the old Soviet style of elections, with only Senator Clinton's name, as a major contender, on the ballot.

What incentive does any state henceforth have to follow party rules? By precedent, any state which goes against future party rules about primaries and caucuses knows they can, at least to a large extent, get away with doing so, with only a partial penalty.

Good article from Chris Cillizza!

Thanks Chris for clearing up for us what those Clinton supporters were yelling back there. I couldn't make it out.

Well, I'm glad that's over.

A nice compromise, and a good job by the RBC!

all white folks is racist. we are taking over the white house and they can't stand that. just like the inventor of the peanut said, george washington carver, black men will be free once they live in the white house.

Well put Sasha, HRC is 'almost' evil. Thank God that we had teh chance to see just how plain self centred and unsparingly ambitious this vikle charachter is, Walt Disney couldnt have created a more sterotypical and obvious self obsessive who will trip over anyone to get what she wants. Remember her comments just last week about Bobby Kennedy? Pure Vile....

Comments by "Lakisha" and others like her make me more determined than ever to head the "Democrats for McCain" campaign in my city and perhaps in my State. We do not need all this hate and destruction and while I do not fancy voting for a Republican, this country can not survive another President who does not know his a** from a hole in the ground. We are at the end of one such Presidency and it has severely damaged this country. Let's face it, we are broke and the rest of the world knows it and would like to destroy us. Iraq has cost us not only our blood but our fortune. We have gone from a balanced budget to great and almost insurmountable debt. Only someone who understands this and understands diplomacy and foreign affairs can maybe rescue us. It is by no means a sure thing but if we elect this empty suit called Obama we will truly be lost in the wilderness.