We are the 99%

May 31, 2008

Watching the Rules & Bylaws Committee on C-SPAN

Looks like a deal on Florida was made last night. From the Huffington Post:
Two sources, including a high-ranking official with the Florida delegation, have confirmed that the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) reached an agreement last night and will seat the state's entire delegation but give each delegate half a vote. The result would be a net gain of 19 delegates for Sen. Hillary Clinton, though there is no word yet on how the superdelegates from the state will be allocated. It is, the official says, a compromise that Sen. Barack Obama will be willing to make. "There will be theater but not much fight."
Representative Robert Wexler of Florida spoke to the Committee as a representative of the Obama campaign. From Talkingpointsmemo:

It's official: The Obama campaign is supporting a compromise for Florida that would seat all the delegates at half a vote each -- giving Hillary a net gain of 19 delegates.

Obama's representative at the Rules meeting, Florida Rep. Robert Wexler, just endorsed the idea during his presentation.

"Senator Obama should be commended for his willingness to offer this extraordinary concession," Wexler said, adding that he's offering this concession "in order to promote reconciliation with Florida voters."

Now the big issue is Michigan. Looks like there's a deal being made there, too. From The Huffington Post:

Sources with knowledge of the RBC's inner dealings say a compromise is being crafted in which all of the candidates who took their names off of the state's ballot would voluntarily agree that the now-uncommitted delegates would go to Obama, after which the state's entire delegation would be seated.

The proposal, which two sources confirm has been discussed, would stand the greatest chance of passing: it would pacify Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, who has demanded that his state's non-sanctioned January primary be fully honored; and it would circumvent the Clinton campaign's insistence that party rules prevent simply assigning all of Michigan's uncommitted delegates to Obama.

As background, Senator Clinton "won" that "primary." Here are the results from CNN. If the above holds, then Senator Clinton would be given 55% of the delegates and Senator Obama 40%.

I don't know exactly how that would translate into delegates, however.

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm not as up on the math as I ought to be but it seems that the upshot of all of this is that it will put Obama at or near the 'magic number' that he needs to clinch the nomination. Even if he's close, the last primaries and any and all superdelegate support the picks up should be enough to put him over the top.

- Shawn

The Bag of Health and Politics said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Bag of Health and Politics said...

Your co-blogger, who claims it's her job to try and keep the party unified, attended a pro-McCain protest. This is ridiculous, and it is as I said it would be. Hillary Clinton is in the business of spite and revenge at the moment. This whole charade is aimed at undermining Barack Obama in November and ensuring that he can't be elected. Maria, somewhere John McCain is smiling and saying thanks. To see fools like your colleagues at the protest contribute mightily to the overturning of Roe puts a smile on this pro-life Democrat's face.

Anonymous said...

John K. says: Rules Committee is the wrong term. Watched the same and one thing is certain, the Democrats have no rules. If they did have rules this whole hearing would be unnecessary. Not only is McCain saying thanks but so is Rush Limbaugh.

Bram Reichbaum said...

Florida should be given only half its normal delegation, not have its delegation penalized with half-votes. I think this may be the deal I heard.

I had NO IDEA this DNC Rules Committee meeting was going to be on television, with microphones. Outstanding! I would have been much happier with Clinton's early insistence to go to the Rules Committee had I known that.

Eric W said...

Stop the presses. I actually agree with John K. I feel dirty...

Anonymous said...

John K. says: Well there go, Democracy in action. You did not like the manner in which folks voted so you convened a group of elitists and they went into a back room and decided how to handle the vote. That group even devined that some people really wanted to vote for Obama in MI so what the heck, they just gave him some votes. And how can a human being cast a half a vote? What, you walk into the polling place and only look at part of the ballot? Or two people go to the polling place together and vote as one? Ah, the best part was the guy telling everyone that was what was good for them. I just love elitists telling me what is good for me. That is real Liberalism. I swear, that was about the funniest and most clear reason why anyone who votes with these people are nothing but sheep. No fan of Harold Ickes Jr. but in this case he was right.

Bram Reichbaum said...

Both delegations seated, delegates of both to be accorded half-votes. Decision passed 19-8. Five declared Hillary Clinton supporters that were on the committee seem to have accepted the deal.

Clinton campaign is outraged; acknowledging no problems at all with fully accrediting the results of the two renegade elections. Ickes warns he is "authorized" to take this to Credentials Committee. And the beat goes on.....

Anonymous said...

There was no compromise! Bo got everything. He was not even punished for breaking the pledge and campaigning in the state. He ran ads and held fund raisers. Dems suck and are sexist. I will not vote for then again. Leave it to the dems to screw things up. I hope the dems lose the presidency in a landslide.

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:57:

If the dems lose, the blame will be for no small part on Clinton's shoulders for damaging her party and her party's nominee.

Her aides were quoted as saying that they knew they'd lost in MID-FEBRUARY.

Everything that came out of her campaign after that was just shameful.

We will have Clinton to thank next January if McCain takes the oath of office. We will have Clinton to thank when the Justices McCain nominates to the Supreme Court overturn Roe.

Don't you see the bigger picture?

Anonymous said...

Always blame Clinton Well we do not accept it. Say it all you want. But we will not back down. I see the bigger picture... this country is SEXIST. This country can not accept that a female could lead HER!!! Good Luck because WE will not make nice We Will Remember in November!!! Don't get me wrong there good men out there and there are mean confused women as well. But the bottom line is that on the whole women are not trusted to lead. And, if you are talking about Pelosi, I agree. Well, I quit the democratic party. I am now a citizen voting my conscience not party. We Will Remember in November. And, just for you to blame Clinton is sexist. Is the maedia somehow not culpable? Oh, they are run by mostly out of control testosterone. The Democratic party and the medis amde up my mind, not Clinton. What, now I can't thinbk for myself? I am not the kool-aid drinker....

The Bag of Health and Politics said...

As a pro-life Democrat, I will really laugh if the militant pro-choicers spite is the reason Roe v. Wade is overturned. Hillary Clinton did not lose because of sexism. A Harvard study found she actually had more success driving the narrative than Obama. And Obama surely had no obstacles of his own to face; yeah right. For those that voted on gender, Clinton usually won; for those that voted on race, Clinton usually won.

Hillary Clinton lost for three reasons. One, she misread the year. She ran as a de facto incumbent in a year where the public is in a gigantic anti-incumbent mood. Two, she thought that she needed to be "strong on defense" to be deemed electable; but 2/3rds of the public is opposed to the war. Her refusal to apologize for her war vote, and her vote for a potential war in Iran--especially her vote for a potential war n Iran, as it showed she hadn't learned anything from Iraq--lost her Iowa and the anti-war states. Finally, her campaign didn't plan adequately for the 12 primary run in February and suffered 12 straight landslide defeats (the closest election was 59-41) because of it. Part of that was because, after Iowa, the Clintons foolishly decided "caucuses are not our thing," and after South Carolina they foolishly decided to write off states with African American populations above 20%--the result, landslides in Washington, Maryland, Virginia, Nebraska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Wyoming, Nebraska, the Virgin Islands, the District, Maine, Wisconsin and Vermont.

Her loss had nothing to do with sexism and everything to do with running an inept and arrogant campaign.

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:45;

And then we'll have you to thank for President McCain as well.

By the way, complaining that the media is run by "out of control testosterone" is in itself a blatantly sexist statement.

Congratulations. You've now become that which you sought to erase.

Let me ask a question. Were there NO women voting for Senator Obama in the primaries?

Anonymous said...

Well, Senator Clair McCaskill (D-MO), Governor Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS), and Governor Janet Napolitano (D-AZ) clearly don't count.

- Shawn

Anonymous said...

John K. says: For the record, I love watching liberals bashing Democrats on C-Span. LOL

The Bag of Health and Politics said...

Nor do Governor Christine Gregorie (D-WA), Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH), Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA), Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), Rep. Elanor Holmes-Norton (D-DC), Rep. Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Rep. Melissa Bean (D-IL), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN), Rep. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (D-SD), Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI), and about three dozen DNC members...

Anonymous said...

I never said that women did follow BO. There are still women who have accepted their own repression.. And, saying that the media is full of T. is sexist? uh... can't you take the truth.. oh yeah BO.. Kool-aid.. truth is relative

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:09;

Yes, it IS sexist because by saying that the media "are run by mostly out of control testosterone" you're reducing the men who are in the media to their biology (ie they're ruled by their testosterone).

If we were to say that a group of women were "ruled by out of control estrogen" we would be as blatantly sexist as you.

Anonymous said...

problem is that the the media is ruled by men. are you denying their biology?

Anonymous said...

I am not sure what you're asking.

Are you saying of the people that run the media that because they're all men they're all corrupted by the testosterone that runs through their blood streams?

Isn't that just like saying that biology is destiny?