Sounds like any solution for FL delegates is going nowhere fast.

[madfloridian]

I keep reading different views about it, and I have been watching for the outcome of an appeal filed by Jon Ausman to the Rules Committee. I don't think that has been really considered by that committee yet, though they have talked about it.

It is confusing and frustrating. I think there have been so many efforts at propaganda to shift the blame that people are getting suspicious of all of it.

Here is something tonight from Adam Smith at the St. Pete Times blog. Not really that encouraging.

Solving Florida delegate dilemma not so simple

There are two major vehicles for resolving the Florida delegate issue: the DNC's credentials committee, which would be made up mainly by appointees of Clinton and Obama and has responsibility for the matter starting June 29, and the DNC's rules and bylaws committee, which has the authority to resolve the issue anytime before June 29.

Dean appears to be suggesting that the credentials committee would make a final decision, which would have to be ratified at the national convention in Denver.

But two pending appeals to the rules committee by Ausman could offer an opportunity to end the controversy well before the convention. Ausman contends in his challenges that the rules committee overstepped its authority in stripping away all of Florida's delegates last year, and many observers think he makes a credible case.

I disagree with him on letting the Florida superdelegates vote. They are responsible for all this trouble.

I doubt that is going over with the rules committee very well. They did not overstep their power no matter what Ausman says.

In the event a state shall become subject to subsections (1), (2) or (3) of section C. of this rule as a result of state law but the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, after an investigation, including hearings if necessary, determines the state party and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith to achieve legislative changes to bring the state law into compliance with the pertinent provisions of these rules and determines that the state party and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith in attempting to prevent legislative changes which resulted in state law that fails to comply with the pertinent provisions of these rules, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee may determine that all or a portion of the state’s delegation shall not be reduced. The state party shall have the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that it and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith to achieve legislative changes...."

Voting yes 115 to 1 for the early primary is not showing good faith.

Florida knew they could keep their delegates if they acted in good faith. The RBC most definitely had the right to strip ALL of the delegates to keep the primary season from ending up in 2007.

Here is more from Adam C. Smith. It indicates the rules committee is not seriously hurrying on this.

The rules committee has wide authority to resolve the Florida delegate issue, including the power to split the Florida delegates between Obama and Clinton. It would also have the advantage of letting Democrats avoid leaving such a potentially volatile issue unresolved until the convention.

But as with most everything about this primary, there's no consensus.

It's unclear whether the rules committee has the appetite to tackle the issue without agreement by Obama and Clinton. Committee co-chairman Jim Roosevelt wouldn't discuss Ausman's challenges, but he said it could be weeks before the committee considers them, if at all.

But he says there's no effort to stall in hopes that a nominee emerges.

"I'd love it if that happened," Roosevelt said, "but I am not planning to wait around for that to happen."

I have tried to figure why the actions of the Florida Democrats have angered me so from the beginning. It always comes down to the fact that they knowingly and intentionally broke the rules, and then blamed the national party for it. It was deliberate and planned.

There have always been rules in a party. Something odd is going on this time. Very odd. People have tried to break rules before, some have succeeded some have not. But this does not let up. It is like a constant thing, like a dull toothache that is always there.

The newest effort to sue the DNC and Dean for doing what Democrats do, promoting racial diversity....is probably the worst thing of all. They are actually hoping to get a conservative judge to come up with a decision that is anti anti-discrimination. They will sue Dean because NV and SC were included to give more racial diversity. Just let that sink in a minute.

Floridians are suing Dean for trying to promote diversity.

What an interesting turn of the worm. Sometime next week, we may have democrats suing democrats for carrying out a very democratic policy of advancing minorities. Steinberg and DiMaio acknowledge with a grin that their reverse racism accusation will ruffle feathers, but hope the conservative judiciary will be delighted to strike a blow against affirmative action and rule in their favor. Their only objective, they claim, is to see all of Florida's delegates seated based on the January 31st primary election.

And even people who have not taken sides on this were stunned by Bill Nelson's offer to spill some blood on the floor in Denver.

Rules committee, maybe. Agreement between the two candidates...doubtful. Credentials committee later most likely.