Clinton supporters are planning a "Count Every Vote" rally outside.  Where were these people when we needed them in 2000?

Superdelegates, please put the Clintons out of our misery, now.

to shut up and get lost for the good of the country.

that a politician would be nefarious enough to want to construe the rules in their favor, and that this would result in inconsistency in their position as circumstances change.

I guess Harold's idea cupboard was bare this week.

I am sure I am missing all the nuance here, but fixing this problem seems rather simple to me.

Let Clinton make all the arguments she wants. Obama will still win the nomination. A more important issue for Obama and the Party is figuring out how to get these delegations seated at the convention.

Now is the time for the party leaders to step up and say, unless Clinton can demonstrate a compelling claim to the nomination in the absence of Florida and Michigan that they will follow the lead of pledged delegates and vote for Obama. Florida and Michigan can then be seated in a way most favorable to Hillary while still assuring Obama the nomination.

Look Obama is going to take the nomination. The question is not will he but how he willearn it and when and where.

If the Clintons are able to keep it rolling to the credentials in Denver, then regardless Obama wins with a cloud ober the Rockies. The Convention cannot and will not be about "unity" if there is this going on with Clinton or a law suit filed under the same circumstance premise as 2000 in FL regarding equal protection.

Face it folks, its not the will its the how that is the issue.

Exactly what do you think the headlines will be in Denver if this thing goes to credentials?

I am not longer willing to compromise.  The time for compromise is long gone and the steady stream of lies and misleading for self-serving purposes statements has filled me with contempt and disgust.

If the Rules Committee, having stuck to their guns last year, waffles and fails to stick to their guns now, then the Democratic party needs to be replaced.

Frankly the rules suck, and they give unfair advantage to insiders in Iowa, which is pretty undemocratic, but the time to fix that for this election was over a year ago.  Now we need to fix that for the next election; and let this one, once started, play out with consistent rules.

Hell, the whole election system needs an overhaul, not just the primaries; but to tell voters in Michigan and Florida to stay away, and then ignore the ones who did so, even with a compromise, is horribly wrong and broken.  Stick to the rules and fix them.

I am so tired of listening to the continued stream of lies, distortions, flip flops and other nonsense coming from Camp Clinton, I honestly have no more patience for it.  

Are you saying you would not seat Florida and Michigan at all, and thus risk losing both states in November, because of Hillary Clinton's kvetching?

Screw the rules that the Democratic Party adopted last year to stoke the egos of people in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Fashion a solution that serves the interests of the party from this point on -- winning in November. Seating the delegations in some manner furthers this goal.

Can you explain how not seating them, with your only reason being adherence to a rule passed under entirely different circumstances, furthers this goal?

Last point: By not seating these delegations, you will almost guarantee that Clinton starts a floor fight at the convention, no matter how many super-delegates come out for Obama. It feeds right into her argument that she is standing up for principle.

C'mon now, don't put words in my mouth.  Of course we should seat Florida and Michigan, and we're going to, but we also have to take into account that both states knowingly and willfully broke the rules that everyone -- including Hillary Clinton -- agreed to.  And no, I don't agree with you that we should "screw the rules," nor do I agree with you that this means we'll lose Florida and Michigan in the fall.

Again, you're arguing a straw man, because I think pretty much everyone agrees that MI and FL will be seated. The only question is how. One thing's for sure, it's not going to be what either side wants, 100%.

I sincerely misunderstood your position, then. You said you were in total agreement with Scott, and it is clearly his position not to seat MI and FL. I'm glad you clarified it, because what you think carries a lot of weight.

Beyond that, all I care about is that the delegations are seated in such a way that they are satisfied. If they are not, then both those states will be tougher to win in the Fall. Like I said, I'm probably missing a lot of the nuance, but I just don't see how they can any longer affect the outcome of the convention, at least insofar as a nominee is concerned. I suppose a higher percentage of Clinton delegates might be enough to cause more mischief, but 49% matter more than 48%? Given the level of disagreement, perhaps it does.

As for "screw the rules," I got a little carried away. All I was trying to express was that we should not adhere to a set of rules that diminishes the party's prospects in the general election solely for the sake of following the rules.

Okay, I'm going to spend my time more productively and go read the McEachin live blog now.

What about voters in all the states that played by the rules? Should we worry about whether they're satisfied?

Michigan in particular was directly disrepecting Nevada and South Carolina by making its move, because the Rules and Bylaws Committee considered lots of states (including Michigan) for the early slots to supplement Iowa and New Hampshire, and they specifically chose Nevada and South Carolina. Michigan decided it was too important to pay attention to the party's decision, so screw NV and SC, it was going to jump the line.

The fact of the matter is that because the DNC carried on like FL and MI wouldn't count, NV and SC got what they wanted: a lot of attention paid to them by the media and the candidates, and influence in the nominating process (at least for SC) that was arguably beyond their importance either in terms of their size or significance to a Democratic victory in the Fall.

In fact, virtually every state benefitted from the way things turned out -- except FL and MI. Seating their delegations now, especially since the race has been decided (more or less)  won't change that.

The real argument is that if the RBC or, later, the convention, seats FL and MI, what credibility will they have in 2012 when this same problem arises? I guess you need to balance that out against the risks of not seating them, which would be:

1. Greater chance of losing FL and MI in the general
2. A potentially bloody floor fight at the convention
3. Permitting Hillary to remain in the race as a crusader for "disenfrachised" voters.

If states can just do whatever they want, why have rules at all?  The DNC might as well just throw in the towel and allow anarchy to rein.  Is that what you're advocating for future elections?  I hope not.

I mean, as long as it's well organized.

I hear what you are saying. I would prefer a balancing act here of some kind.

I think the argument is that for all intents and purposes, the nominating process is complete and a candidate has been chosen without counting FL and MI, so now we can welcome them back as full participants in the convention.

But I would restate what I said above. This only works in the context of the key superdelegates making it clear that they will support the candidate with the most pledged delegates.

Obama gets what he wants, Clinton get what she wants (sort of), the party gets what it wants and the FL and MI delegations get what they want.

If rolls were reversed would we asking or demanding Obama to get out graciously or would there be elements that would highten the racial card if he were?

Clinton are making a case no more or no different in principle than Obama would be making if he was in that position. Obama is smart enough to realize this which is why he has been as gracious as he has and as patient.

My only concern is the lack of outrage when these rules were first created. Did know one else the potential for conflict? or did we just simply not care because at the time we were too busy annoited Clinton to the nomination?

while it is mathematically still possible for her to get the numbers needed, she ought to stay in the race; but she should discourage her supporters from telling lies and from using Rovian/Republican talking points.

Alleged Democratic Bloggers who use said talking points in a misguided attempt to support a candidate who is losing by his or her own actions, will be ignored.  I have already cut one prominent Virginia blogger out of my daily reads because they insisted to continue to use crap from right-wing blogs to smear Obama.

So until the number of remaining uncommitted delegates remains larger than what she needs to win, Clinton should stay in; but once those number flip, she should get out.

According to most of the trackers, she needs 245 delegates to win, and there are 283 delegates still uncommitted...  so it is unlikely, but possible.  Not tolerating stupid smear campaigns though.... not for one instant.

Now please, do we have to keep listening to the self-serving nonsense emanating from Team Clinton?

Yes. And if the RBC decision is not exactly what Hillary Clinton wants, we're going to keep hearing this all summer. In the minds of the Clinton campaign, anything that doesn't benefit her candidacy never really happened. See, for example, the current spin that she won the second "half" of the primary season, wherein Camp Clinton defines "half" as the thirteen states between Ohio and Oregon.

http://tomjoadsplace.blogspot....

At least someone has a sense of humor...

Was this on TV?

n/t...