Hillary campaign says DNC delegates rules are not the rules of her campaign.

[madfloridian]

Does she mean that literally? Am I misunderstanding? And why aren't they the rules of her campaign?

There is a post at Open Left part of which puzzles me. Chris Bowers is speaking of a conference call with the Clinton campaign. They took his question and answered it. It was about the delegates.

I was rather alarmed at the campaign's response, as it seemed to me to say that they did not accept the DNC's rules about delegates. I am sure there are other interpretations, but it does bother me. BUT what bothers me the most is that they are trying to turn the loss of Florida's delegates into a civil rights issues, saying Dean and the DNC are disenfranchising minorities.

I despise that kind of ploy. I really do. It was not about constitutional rights, it was about the leaders of the state Democrats taking matters into their own hands.

Here is the post at Open Left

Here is Chris Bowers' question:

Do you think there is a meaningful difference in the democratic, lower d, quality of super delegates and pledged delegates, or that there could be a crisis of legitimacy in the Democratic nominee if he or she wins the nomination without the support of the majority of pledged delegates?

Here is the answer from the campaign, paraphrased by Chris. It sounds like the campaign is saying that the national party rules do not apply to them.

The rules the party has put in place to choose its nominee are not the rules of the Clinton campaign and, just like the Obama campaign, we are doing what we can under those rules to secure the requisite number of delegates for the nomination. One way to avoid the situation described above is to figure out some way to honor the votes of Michigan and Florida, where there was record turnout. Counting the delegates in Florida and Michigan is a civil rights issue, and a solution needs to be figured out before the convention.

Someone should tell them that Bill Nelson, Alcee Hastings, and Corrine Brown filed a lawsuit They lost.

Sen. Bill Nelson’s (Fla.) office released a statement Monday saying that Nelson, Reps. Alcee Hastings and Corrine Brown and a group of voters are planning to file a new motion in federal court in Tallahassee “seeking a quick decision by a federal judge that Dean and other political party bosses in Washington have violated the constitutional rights of millions of Florida voters.”

They filed it on those very grounds of the constitutional rights of Florida citizens. The judge reached his decision in favor of the DNC with hours.

Judge dismisses Bill Nelson's lawsuit against the DNC.

The Democratic National Committee can penalize the Florida party by stripping the state of its convention delegates because it is holding an early presidential primary, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle ruled in favor of the DNC in a lawsuit by Florida congressmen Bill Nelson and Alcee Hastings. Nelson and Hastings had argued that state Democrats were being illegally penalized for the state having the primary earlier than national rules allow.

But Hinkle said that political parties have a First Amendment right to set their own rules and enforce them. The national party did that, which means that Florida will not have a say in picking the Democratic nominee.

Hillary is wrong to push this issue. I appreciate that Obama is standing down and respecting the rules his campaign agreed to honor.

This statement from her campaign is alarming.

The rules the party has put in place to choose its nominee are not the rules of the Clinton campaign

Why aren't they?

[thunder rising]

1. Hillary is the snake of the past crawling out to keep the nightmare of triangulation and large corp

donations alive.

[madfloridian]

2. A 2nd Florida lawsuit was filed by a Tampa activist. It was dismissed.

The person said he would carry it on, it was just the first bite of the apple. I don't know the status.

Tampa activist lawsuit against DNC to be appealed in Atlanta appeals court

I really should look up the status. But there is a Supreme Court precedence from 1981.

[DebraK]

4. Hillary doesn't play by the rules. She cheats. I thought this was common knowledge

[leftynyc]

29. She does?? Do tell (eom)

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

37. she goes by DLC ruules - pro war anti populist n/t

[papau]

117. It's being appealed to Atlanta - HRC comment refers to way popular vote winner gets fewer delegates

Obama lost by 200,000 nationwide last night and seems to have 5 to 10 more delegates from the evening. Indeed in Nevada Hillary's win was not even close - but Obama got the extra delegate.

Given the unfair rules that produce that outcome ("agreed to" does not make them fair), Florida and Michigan fighting to be heard seems like something that might have "democratic" concepts behind it. Indeed the Michigan uncommitted can vote for Obama - as can the delegates (that Obama's nationwide ads on cable that could not be removed via regional buys that everyone else was making) he won in Florida.

[Cha]

3. Of course not...hilary and bil don't need no

stinkin' rules..they'll try and slither back in the white house anyway they can.

That's why I'm voting for Obama here in New York, tomorrow.

[still_one]

19. If they win the primary because of MI and FL votes, they WILL lose the GE

If she wins the primary this way, I do NOT believe the other candidate's supporters will vote for her in the general election

However, if they win without doing that, then there won't be a problem

[Cha]

21. clintons are too dirty for

me..if I want dirty I'll vote for a repuke.

[still_one]

23. I won't do that, but if they push this issue, and win the primary because MI and FL

are allowed, they can forget about me in the general election

I hope they don't push it, because I do not relish the thought of mccain

[cooolandrew]

5. I'm all for DNC but not so certain about DLC. May HRC have many blessings to be positive & gracious.

[Az_lefty]

6. Hillary is the monster Politik from the past...

fuck her, lets move on.

[blm]

7. NOW does any HONEST Democrat still think Terry McAuliffe was working FOR US

the entire four years he was letting the RNC gain control of the election process for 2002 and 2004?

These people are not in it for US and the Democratic party. They USE us and our party structure for themselves and will change any rule that doesn't fit into their immediate needs.

This is EXACTLY the way Bush and Rove have worked to benefit themselves at the expense of the Republican party which is in the midst of self-destructing over Bush's excessive powermongering.

Clintons are to Dems as Bushes are to GOPs - parasites on a host.

[ErnestoG]

14. Fuck no. He revealed himself as a greasy shit when he

snarkily replied to people who had questions about PACs and financial chicanery with "Well if you don't like it, move to Cuba!"

That's all I need to know.

[DebraK]

22. Exactly. Hillary is funded by federal lobbyist and PAC money. She will pay back the insurance compan

ies with our hardearned money.

[blm]

89. And when he sabotaged Kerry campaign AND Ohio voters in 2004.

We're supposed to believe it is just a 'coincidence' that Carville called Matalin at WH and told her of Kerry's provisional ballot challenge which Mary told Bush to call Blackwell, and the ballot numbers somehow dropped by 100,000 shortly after.

Just a coincidence, of course.

[BattyDem]

8. "The rules don't apply to me."

We've had seven years of that attitude ... and that's enough.

Will she demand that the people of Michigan get another primary? After all, many voters in that state couldn't vote for the candidate of their choice because there was only one name on the ballot. In a democracy, citizens are supposed to have a choice on election day. They had none. If THAT'S not a violation of their constitutional rights, then I don't know what is.

This issue was already settled in court. If the Clinton campaign had a problem with the DNC rules and/or the way they were being enforced, they should have said something when the decision was made. Better yet, they should have convinced the state party leaders to follow the rules like everyone else because they were the ones who caused the voters in their states to be disenfranchised. Why didn't she put pressure on them? Why didn't she think it was a civil rights issue at the time?

This could be bad for all of us. She's stirring up trouble for the Democratic party that may come back to bite them in the ass in November. If this gains traction and voters across the country believe the Democrats are trying to disenfranchise people, that could hurt the nominee (no matter who it is) in the general election.

[TexasObserver]

9. they LIE

It's a central feature of their campaign.

She pledged to abide by the bans, but that was just to sucker everyone else into non action, all so she could claim to have won two more states. Shady, but that's how they do it.

[Egnever]

10. Wow they really are runing with this arent they.

If they get the nod through florida and MI this party is dead in the water.

[D23MIURG23]

118. That would be the only case where I wouldn't support the nominee

The only insult bigger than being disinfranchised would be to have results of our broken un-primaries counted. I will support Hillary if she wins fairly. But if they pretend our "only HRC Kucinich and Gravel are on the Ballot" un-primary means something then I will totally withold my vote in the general.

[DebraK]

11. why is everybody so suprised? we all knows she doesn't play by the rules

[DebraK]

17. kicked for the truth

[still_one]

12. I said that I would vote for whoever the Democratic candidate is, let me now qualify

if the Clinton camp push this, after it was made very clear to Michigan and Florida what they could and could not do, I will reconsider my position

Hopefully it won't come down to that

I suggest they are playing with fire, and if they believe that the other candidates supporters will not take that into consideration, they will be in for a big surprise

[Cha]

15. Yeah, they can pull

all the shyte they want but not in my name.

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. It's her first signing statement. nt

[still_one]

16. If they push this, and win the nomination because of it, she WILL lose the GE

[ErnestoG]

18. Oh she'll lose it over other stuff than this.

More importantly: GarnishGate, and her IWR vote.

[still_one]

20. That may or may not be, but for sure she won't have a chance without Obama's supporters

and invalidating the DNC rules will do it

[TornadoTN]

33. That would push me over the edge

I'll vote for her if she's the nominee - however I won't vote for her if she bends the rules or pulls some stunt that alienates a sizable portion of the party. Sorry, I don't want Bush-lite just with a "D" stamped by her name.

[GalleryGod]

56. Money, Guns, and Lawyers!

We've got plenty!

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

38. ding ding ding

you are the winner! and very original too!

[AtomicKitten]

75. Yahtzee.

[blm]

100. Now THAT would make a GREAT thread to post describing it EXACTLY like that.

Sharp frame you got there, NC.

[City Lights]

24. So what is she gonna do?

Declare herself Queen and march on to November?

The statement from her campaign is alarming and needs to be explained. Reading your post takes me right back to 2000.

[madfloridian]

25. Well, I wanted someone to tell me I misread it.

But nobody is saying that. I am surprised Chris Bowers is acting like this. He is condemning the DNC for following the rules. He never used to be like that.

[IndianaGreen]

26. Like Bush and Cheney, the Clintons feel they are above the law and rules

Why don't the Clintons release the list of donors to the Clinton Library? Is it the Saudi and other monies they got from questionable characters? Why won't they release Hillary's records as First Lady? What are they hiding? Why do they show such airs of entitlement?

[blm]

28. Jackson Stephens, Marc Rich, Dubai and Saudi royals were GRATEFUL Bill deep-sixed BCCI report

that showed their involvement in many of Poppy Bush's illegal operations that were also funding terrorism, drugrunning, armsdealing and AQ Khan's nuclear proliferation networks.

[TornadoTN]

34. Careful! If you say the "entitlement" word you will get blasted by her supporters

They will claim you to be sexist and afraid of a strong woman. Damn the facts and the evidence, it's all about the genitals to most of them.

[madfloridian]

27. Her statements about FL from Sept, and from last week. Very different.

Comparing two statements

From September:

“We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process,” Patti Solis Doyle, the Clinton campaign manager, said in a statement."

From last week by Mark Penn:

Most of the voters in Florida fully expect that their votes will not be wasted again -- they too have a voice at the convention, and Hillary has asked her delegates to support their being seated.

And Bill Nelson at her rally here offered a direct challenge to the DNC. Guess he learned nothing from the lawsuit.

"In this primary, some even tried to silence our state," Nelson said as he endorsed Clinton from the stage Tuesday night. "Hillary Clinton will never let that happen."

[Maribelle]

31. Yet again, like Obama and Kerry, you are totally confused about the difference ...

between votes and delegates

[madfloridian]

36. I am talking about respect for rules and for the party.

I think you misunderstood me.

[Maribelle]

40. I didn't misunderstand one iota. Not even one.

You're the one totally misunderstanding. You post absolute bunk about Hillary as you loosely attempt to interpret rules to fit your bunk.

[madfloridian]

45. That is an attack on my credibility.

[Maribelle]

48. It's an attack against your twisting of reality.

Please don't take it personally, sugar.

[madfloridian]

50. You just said I lied. Prove it or back off.

And don't call me sugar.

[Maribelle]

54. I didn't say you lied. I said you were confused.

amen

[madfloridian]

60. You need to stop that now.

.

[Maribelle]

77. Here is what you seem to be confused about: "under those rules"

It seems you are totally confused about that.

[madfloridian]

80. Here is the quote again. You are not reading it.

"The rules the party has put in place to choose its nominee are not the rules of the Clinton campaign and, just like the Obama campaign, we are doing what we can under those rules to secure the requisite number of delegates for the nomination. One way to avoid the situation described above is to figure out some way to honor the votes of Michigan and Florida, where there was record turnout. Counting the delegates in Florida and Michigan is a civil rights issue, and a solution needs to be figured out before the convention."

The issue was settled in two lawsuits and a SC precedent.

[dionysus]

62. i don't think you want to go there.... mad is VERY informed on this issue...

watch out, you'll get schooled bot...

[joshcryer]

65. madfloridian has shown their lack of understanding of this subject on several instances.

They seem obsessed with one very unique scenario that is so highly unlikely to matter that it's just a joke.

[madfloridian]

74. Who is "they". What do you mean by "their"? Who do you mean?

It sounds like Hillary is planning not to follow party rules. You sound ok with that.

I did not say anything about scenarios.

[joshcryer]

81. I would not be OK with Hillary going to court over a 50 delegate spread, no.

It is more likely that she would in fact want to go after a brokered convention at that point, and no doubt superdelegates on both sides would abstain and cause a big ruckas.

But I see no evidence here that Hillary isn't planning on following party rules.

The scenarios are invoked because the only way anything you are posting here matters, I mean this, is in the scenario that I am presenting. Otherwise you are just throwing completely ridiculous comments out there.

[jackstraw45]

30. Taking another page from the Bu$h administration...first fear-mongering, now this...

Ugh.

Rules are rules.

[blm]

103. Take it easy, this is only Hillary's first signing statement.

.

[Araxen]

32. Setup for an Independent run?

Scary thought...

[Name removed]

35. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[joshcryer]

39. What is the actual response? I don't want a "gist." I want a response.

[madfloridian]

42. Ask Chris. It was his question and he was on the phone.

.

[joshcryer]

44. So he didn't record it or write it down verbatim? I highly doubt his analysis then.

[madfloridian]

55. That is your right. .

[TexasObserver]

41. Rules? Ain't no stinkin' rules.

Not in campaign Clinton. Anything for an edge, fair or not.

[joshcryer]

46. DNC rules can be changed at the convention, everyone knows this.

[MethuenProgressive]

43. "Here is the answer from the campaign, paraphrased by Chris" < That's not her answer

Only a fool would get worked up over this OP.

[joshcryer]

47. I fully agree, "gist" does not make a proper statement.

[rodeodance]

51. I read down the comments after ignoring this for a few days-If there is a post

that says a Clinton lies--or even a post that puts the idea is someones mind--you can bet--lie lie lie----all the way down. No thinking--just eager to jump on the wagon with -she lied!

[BootinUp]

49. Clearly an attempt to distort what the campaign said. nt

[madfloridian]

53. Chris is a supporter of hers I think.

Why would he do that?

[BootinUp]

58. You added a nice touch of spin. nt

[madfloridian]

61. Oh, Jim4wes....I could say the sky was blue...

and you would tell it wasn't. My post is fair, I asked a question. You are not answering.

[BootinUp]

87. Clearly the meaning is "We did not make the rules" Thats why it says later

that they will comply with the rules.

Like I said, nice touch of spin.

[madfloridian]

90. Show me where it says they will comply.

[BootinUp]

91. ok

...we are doing what we can under those rules to secure the requisite number of delegates for the nomination.

[madfloridian]

92. including going after Florida delegates.

If they win by doing that, it will not be considered a win. She agreed to abide by the rules. FL delegates are off limits for choosing the nominee.

[BootinUp]

93. They can't "go after them" without an agreement.

Any agreement reached will be sanctioned by the party and the DNC or it wont be an agreement.

[madfloridian]

96. They are planning on it.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

[BootinUp]

97. Sure, they will "try" to get an agreement.

[GalleryGod]

52. "TRIANGULATION Part III"

Gimmee a break, Terry & Mark!
You're surrounded...Coast to Coast !

[blm]

104. More like Arrogant Signing Statements Part2

.

[SoxFan]

57. L'etat, c'est moi

[Maribelle]

64. gros jeu, potiron

[madfloridian]

59. The quote is still on Chris's website. To those attacking me go there.

To those who are unable to see what was said, or unable to believe it....go ask him.

Here is the quote directly from his website...he says he wrote it down from a phone conference. Chris is a respected blogger.

"The rules the party has put in place to choose its nominee are not the rules of the Clinton campaign and, just like the Obama campaign, we are doing what we can under those rules to secure the requisite number of delegates for the nomination. One way to avoid the situation described above is to figure out some way to honor the votes of Michigan and Florida, where there was record turnout. Counting the delegates in Florida and Michigan is a civil rights issue, and a solution needs to be figured out before the convention."

Two lawsuits have already said it is NOT a civil rights issue. It was knocked down in court.

There are two in this thread who call me a liar no matter what I post.

They need to examine their own motives.

[joshcryer]

63. You're the one parroting his comments as unadultrated truth. You should be all for...

...correcting your statement and verifying the veraicty of it rather than posting it as truth and then making all of this spin.

You start off saying "Does she mean that literally?" then say at the end of your post, "This statement from her campaign is alarming."

You've already concluded that's what she stands for, when she's never come out and said that.

[madfloridian]

67. You don't know that.

Chris is pretty accurate in what he posts.

Sounds like you are in denial and want it to be my fault.

[joshcryer]

69. I am not in denial, I think Chris merely misunderstood what was being said to him.

Until it comes out of Hillary's mouth directly you are fucking full of shit, and you know it.

[madfloridian]

73. You THINK? Sorry that is not good enough. You tell me you want facts

but you go by "think". That is not enough grounds for going through this thread trying to discredit me.

I asked a lot of questions, and I want answers.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Two Americas]

106. mf was honest and clear

Madfloridian was honest and clear throughout the thread. Telling a person that they are "fucking full of shit" is way over the line.

[workinclasszero]

66. Leave the DLC and all that ancient

crap in the 90's, where it belongs.

Americans are demanding change! These tired old pols just don't get it. But they will, soon when the people rise up and retire them finally!

It begins today!

[suston96]

68. I don't care how many courts dismiss or rule against the voters in those states. It is wrong and...

...unless the DNC or whoever is in charge fixes this, the convention in Colorado will be a disaster, if the rest of the delegate count is tight. See 1968 and 1972 - where after such disruptive disunity Democrats lost the general elections.

When political parties turn their presidential nominating process over to the rank and file membership they assume the obligations of the same voting rights as in regular elections. Too bad the plaintiffs in these cases did not appeal. There is plenty of time to get this before the USSC.

[joshcryer]

70. Those delegates will be seated, both Obama and Hillary have said as much.

The OP is trying to stir up controversey by posting misleading information, and referring to a scenario that is highly unlikely to occur.

[milkyway]

71. The Clintons have no shame. Strong-armed, machine politics is all they have to offer.

[joshcryer]

72. Please read the thread, the information posted is misleading and wrong.

[madfloridian]

76. Then you are saying Chris Bowers lied as well.

You need to back off. Every thread. You just keep on.

[joshcryer]

82. No, he's misled, not lying. There's a difference.

[madfloridian]

83. He was the one on the phone with the Hillary campaign...NOT you.

I very much resent that you keep on with trying to discredit me here.

[joshcryer]

84. I'm only pointing out your reasoning, you start off asking if something is true and then conclude...

...that it absolutely is. That's dishonest, you know it, but you refuse to admit it.

[suston96]

85. Yeah! Shame! Shame! Shame! How dare they support: all votes by ALL Dems will count?

Don't they know that the Democrats rejected that democratic principle as way too inclusive. Only real Democrats should have their votes counted. The DNC will decide who the REAL Democrats are.

[dchill]

78. "We are the Cleentons..."

"We don't need no steenking rules!"

[madfloridian]

86. I really do get it now.

I did not get it that much before. But I do now.

If you question the tactics of the Clinton campaign, you will get told you are posting misleading stuff, you are not being honest.

My post was about a simple statement...that the party rules for choosing a nominee were not the campaign's rules. That infers that the campaign will do its own thing. I asked why not. That alarms me.

I should have expected the attacks and put downs, but the ones in this thread were overwhelming.

That's kind of sad. I posted a sensible post. Either a campaign follows rules or it doesn't. Either a state say FL or MI follow rules or they don't.

One apparently does not get off unscathed for posting criticism of the campaign. Whether truth or not, doesn't matter. Must not be said out loud.

[AtomicKitten]

88. Thank you for your post.

While some will continue to try to bury the truth like a cat burying poo in a litter box, this bit of nastiness is a window into how the Clintons "do" politics. It reeks of Bush v. Gore wherein power is viewed as something to be taken, not won, much less earned.

In a nutshell, Howard Dean and the DNC set the rules, the rules which all the candidates signed on to, and that's that.

K&R

[BootinUp]

94. Another typical thread by madfloridian, lol.

[madfloridian]

98. Jim, I won't play your game. You should know better.

[BootinUp]

99. I see that. nt

[Two Americas]

107. tremendous contributions

Madfloridian makes tremendous contributions here, and without her many important issues would never come up. I object to the attempts at character assassination and insinuations.

I don't find anything to be "typical" about her threads, other than that she is passionate about democracy and protecting the people's voice. If that happens to occasionally reflect badly on a candidate that someone is (temporarily, always temporarily, we should remember) infatuated with, so be it.

[madfloridian]

108. A nice word, thanks.

I do appreciate that.

[Two Americas]

109. keep up the great work

You have a lot of fans out there, and we should probably be a little more vocal in your defense. I have no idea why you have to endure so many malicious attacks, but you handle them brilliantly.

[BootinUp]

119. My take is she twists words to change the meaning

of peoples statements. But opinions vary.

[milkyway]

95. This forum has become ridiculous. Any substantive post critical of Hillary is met immediately by

a series of posts that frequently ignore the substance of the original OP.

Obviously, the same can be said about Obama supporters, but the sheer volume, both in quantity and loudness, of pro-Hillary posts is hard to explain, as is the almost irrational hatred of Obama.

It's also hard to understand how DU became so vociferously pro-Clinton. For years the majority of DU has always seemed against Clinton/DLC-type democrats.

[madfloridian]

101. Chris continues.

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3658

Should get interesting.

I am used to being attacked here, but Chris is a good blogger. I may not like what he says, but he contacts people and gets all the info he can.

[madfloridian]

102. Sounds like Clinton will get her way?

Just got in and haven't had the TV on. Someone called me and said she would get her way about Florida. Don't know what they meant, said it was on CNN.

Oh, well. Guess rules don't matter after all.

[K Gardner]

110. I posted about this earlier, when Wolfson was on CNN and said she intended to have her

delegates seated from MI and FL, and I was promptly attacked personally.

This was only about the 3rd HUGE shout out to the world that Hillary and Bill will do anything, say anything, break any promise, use any dirty trick, to gain the nomination. It is yet another shout out that they are no better with integrity and morality issues than the thief sitting in the WH right now. I feel very strongly about this. No one with such lack of dignity or self-respect should hold the highest office in the land. If she does this, she will fracture the party and the people will NOT stand for it.

My point is that if HRC insists on renigging on her pledge, then new ELECTIONS should be held in MI and FL.. elections where both parties know what the rules are and Hillary isn't making hers up as she goes along and flying in under the radar to declare victory in a state where there was "nothing at stake". I detest liars and cheats. We have had 8 years of that. No more.

[iamjoy]

105. She's Full Of It

If the party rules aren't her rules, why did she sign the Four State Pledge?

I know, I know, the pledge was something state parties from the Anointed Four put together, but if Hillary didn't agree with the DNC sanctions for Florida's rogue primary, why did she wait until after the South Carolina primary to speak out against it?

[K Gardner]

111. She's not full of it. She's just desperate and amoral and has no integrity or shame.

[droidamus2]

112. Don't agree

I guess we all have our interpretation of these kinds of comments but I have a different read on what Clinton said. She is saying we don't make the rules, the DNC does, but we are living with them and where we think they may not be fair we are trying to change them within the processes allowed by the party. I am not aware that the Clinton campaign has filed any suits, have they? I don't need the typical pundit answer of 'oh that person that filed must be connected to Clinton somehow' but an actual suit under their name. I have mixed feelings about Florida and Michigan. I think the party must have the ability to set and enforce their own rules but disenfranchising all the Democratic voters of a state just because the party leaders of that state are idiots seems to me to be a little extreme. In the end all I have to say is vote Democrat for president whoever the nominee is!!!

[bookweight]

116. Resident of Michigan checking in with a comment

Wonder why this can't be a discussion about WHY Michigan and Florida wanted earlier primaries, rather than back-and-forth attacks on Clinton?

Michigan has been lobbying for a Rotating Regional primary system, rather than New Hampshire and Iowa always get to be the first, since around Y2K. The Michigan Dem leadership was promised by DNC that concerns would be addressed - and DNC did not keep their promise in 2004, and they ignored us again in prepping for 2008. The DNC and all the campaigns bowed to the old-school powers that be in NH and Iowa. Forgive me for asking, but how does ALWAYS having the candidates focus on the same small, rural states of Iowa and New Hampshire EVER get the unique concerns of OTHER states the attention they deserve? Doesn't it make sense to break the country into 5 regions, and each national election cycle, allow the states in a different region to be the leadoff primaries?


So now all Democrats in Michigan have been disenfranchised. Law suit or not - YES, this is viewed by the rank and file voters as a civil rights matter. And did the DNC really think through their action - pissing off the biggest LABOR state in the country?????

[Time for change]

113. I agree

I'm voting for Edwards anyhow, so in some sense it doesn't matter, but this issue has decided for me that Hillary is my last choice.

[JeanGrey]

114. Look, Hillary isn't going to LOSE, she will whatever she has

to, I'm shocked that anyone else is shocked.

[rniel]

115. more evidence

Clinton is more and more like Bush. "Those are not the rules of the clinton campaign"

[angrypoet]

120. How very strange

First, that there is so much debate about this seems very absurd. The statements from her campaign seem very clear and with very little room to take those statements in any other way that how they are stated.

Second, The lawsuits by Nelson and the others and the premise behind those lawsuits make it very clear how they and the Clinton campaign feel on this matter.

Third, the fact that the DNC made several attempts to come to an agreement with FL and MI is public knowledge. The penalty for having early election dates was stated in VERY clear terms and if they thought they were being dis-enfrachised they could have attempted to settle the issue before super Tuesday's vote, they did do that.

Lastly and MOST IMPORTANTLY, to retroactively award those delegates to HRC at this point would be very unfair in the larger political process in play here. Because of the agreement between the candidates, NO ONE in the Democratic party went there but HRC and therefore doing so would give her an unfair award for something that no one was supposed to get in the first place. Doing so would put into question her morals and sense of fairness that she campaigned in a state with no delegate value in order to take a win that would not have otherwise mattered in order to file lawsuits to gain those delegates out from under her opponents who made no honest attempt to get their message to that state.

At this point it is a “lose/lose” situation for HRC. Her campaign and her surrogates in FL and MI need to drop the issue and move on.

On the other side of it though, to be fair, I think that the DNC needs to have an open and frank discussion with MI and FL and address their concerns and make some concessions themselves for the next election cycle.

[madfloridian]

121. Thanks for the sensible post.

To the best of my knowledge they get bent out of shape if Dean even tries to hold fundraisers to benefit Florida. They just laugh him off now when he tries to negotiate. There are a few sensible folks among them, but not that many. Most have no clue of the power grab going on, and they don't see the danger.

I appreciate your post.

[Myrina]

122. Sounds alot like ol' GW, doesn't she?

The rules are only rules if they like them.
Otherwise they're just 'a goddamn piece of paper'.

I cannot for the life of me see how any Democrat with 3 active brain cells would want this candidate and their machinery in power.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss ...