So, whoever has a majority of convention delegates holds all the cards. The only way Clinton can win is if she can convince enough superdelegates to tip the results away from the voters' choice.

Greg,

If what you say is true, then if a majority of the committee (i.e., Obama's people) don't support a proposal to seat the delegation, then the minority do not have the right to a minority report, and can't bring it to the floor.

In other words, #2 above only applies if the proposal is approved. Hillary's supporters can't make mischief if the Florida and Michigan proposals fail.

Do I have this right??

The Election Central Idiot's Guide To The Credentials Committee

I reject and denounce Greg's implication that dembillc is an idiot.

test

(2) If a majority of the committee supports the proposal but 20 percent or more dissent, they get to issue a minority report -- and the proposal goes to the full convention for a vote.

So who wants to start prognosticating on percentages? There are enough delegate calculators out there, I'm sure we can get a rough sense of how many members there will most likely be on the committee from each campaign. 20% seems like an awfully low threshold, though.

Assuming that Dean appointees might be less predisposed to sitting Florida and Michigan on Hillary Clinton's terms, how do the remaining 161 members apportion out among the campaigns?

Please, just settle this already, so that we don't have to spend the months leading up to August parsing these damn rules...Slate's going to have to come up with a credentials committee calculator, pretty soon.

Blech.

And by the way, thanks for looking into this, Greg.

"Twenty five of them are appointed by DNC chair Howard Dean, and the remainder are alloted by state, in numbers based on each state's population and Democratic performance."

A technical correction. Dean nominates the 25 PLEOs (Party Leaders and Elected Officials) and the DNC executive committee elects from Dean's nominations.

From the Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention:
"The members of the standing committees allocated as Party Leaders and Elected Officials shall be elected by the Executive Committee of the Democratic National Committee during the calendar year of the National Convention upon nomination received from the National Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee, after consultation with the State Chairs from those states from which members are contemplated to be nominated. Said members must be elected at a meeting of the Executive Committee or by mail ballot no later than 30 days prior to the date of the standing committee meeting."

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/72b0d4b4a0768275fe_0wm6b3kl2.pdf

The numbers of "standing committee" (there are three, credentials, rules, and platform) members from each state are enumerated in Appendix D of the convention call.

The list below shows the numbers of standing committee members for each state and territory and the numbers of votes each is assigned. You will note that America Samoa, Democrats Abroad, and etc.for example, do not enjoy 1 vote per member.

To further complicate matters for the campaigns, "Standing committee positions allocated to a presidential candidate shall be proportionately allocated, must be allocated to a presidential candidate shall be proportionately allocated, to the extent practicable, to each of the three standing committees. When such allocation results in an unequal distribution of standing committee positions by candidate preference, a drawing shall be conducted to distribute the additional positions." ("Members of the standing committees need not be delegates or alternates to the Democratic National Convention.", by the way)

ALABAMA 2 2
ALASKA 1 1
AMERICAN SAMOA 1 0.25
ARIZONA 2 2
ARKANSAS 1 1
CALIFORNIA 17 17
COLORADO 2 2
CONNECTICUT 2 2
DELAWARE 1 1
DEMOCRATS ABROAD 1 0.25
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 1 1
FLORIDA 8 8
GEORGIA 4 4
GUAM 1 0.25
HAWAII 1 1
IDAHO 1 1
ILLINOIS 7 7
INDIANA 3 3
IOWA 2 2
KANSAS 1 1
KENTUCKY 2 2
LOUISIANA 2 2
MAINE 1 1
MARYLAND 3 3
MASSACHUSETTS 4 4
MICHIGAN 6 6
MINNESOTA 3 3
MISSISSIPPI 1 1
MISSOURI 3 3
MONTANA 1 1
NEBRASKA 1 1
NEVADA 1 1
NEW HAMPSHIRE 1 1
NEW JERSEY 5 5
NEW MEXICO 1 1
NEW YORK 11 11
NORTH CAROLINA 4 4
NORTH DAKOTA 1 1
OHIO 7 7
OKLAHOMA 2 2
OREGON 2 2
PENNSYLVANIA 7 7
PUERTO RICO 2 2
RHODE ISLAND 1 1
SOUTH CAROLINA 2 2
SOUTH DAKOTA 1 1
TENNESSEE 3 3
TEXAS 9 9
UTAH 1 1
VERMONT 1 1
VIRGIN ISLANDS 1 0.25
VIRGINIA 4 4
WASHINGTON 3 3
WEST VIRGINIA 1 1
WISCONSIN 3 3
WYOMING 1 1
PARTY & ELECTED OFFICIALS 25 25
TOTALS 186 183

Not that anybody can be bothered to report this or anything, but Obama won Texas.

Time

Time is saying +5 for Obama.

Gregg, you said, "Hillary will not have a majority on the committee; neither will Obama, though he will have more members than she does".

How do you figure?

By my calculations, the 161 "pledged" credentials committee delegates figures to about 3 per state, with some extra thrown in for American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Dems Abroad, D.C., Virgin Islands, and Guam. If there are only 3 per state, it will be impossible to end up with proportional representation which reflects the delegates won in each state, as the state numbers are generally closer to 50%/50% but the committee delegates would be split 66%/33%.

Doing some back of the envelope math, I come up with something like 85 delegates for Obama and 76 for Clinton. To get a majority on the committee you would need 93. That number is in reach for either one of Clinton or Obama, depending on the makeup of the delegates appointed by Dean. Obama only needs 32% of the appointed delegates to break his way to get the majority. Clinton would need 68%.

Clinton won California so Pelosi should back her.

kevin, what I meant is that neither Obama nor Hillary will have majority of members out of the states, in proportion to their pledged del counts...

We have a situation the leader and elder statesman of the Democratic Party is also the spouse of the candidate at the center of the debate. Bill Clinton should stay out of the debate, but he doesn't, and brushes aside the voices of other part elders such as Sen. Dodd or Speaker Pelosi. Howard Dean is the titular head of the party but doesn't appear to have the stature or the big money connections to pull the levers and make things happen. Democrats are favored to win the White House, not because of anything they accomplished but only because Bush has been a total disaster. Democrats are yet to present a strong and convincing case as to why they should be trusted with the levers of power, when the party cannot even come together to agree on a leader. There is every chance the Democrats will once again let down their rank and file and wind up as a laughing stock!

For a list, and biographies, of those nominated by Chairman Dean to serve on the standing committees go to this site.

http://www.demconvention.com/assets/mainassets/standingcommittees.pdf

Obama's likely to be far enough ahead so that he can afford to be generous. He will be in control.

Options include giving the Florida and Michigan delegations half a vote each, on the condition that the uncommitted Michigan delegates pledge for Obama (which is fair since the voters that chose them explicitly rejected Hillary Clinton). There are other formulations as well. But barring a total collapse of the Obama campaign, it will be possible for Obama to allow Michigan and Florida a vote in some form that still preserves his victory.

Hillary's only path is to win a majority of delegates excluding Florida and Michigan.

I'm sorry: what is Hillary's delegate count when we do count Florida and Michigan? Does Obama's pledged delegate lead actually get eclipsed?

The Credentials Committee needs to ask Obama thesed tough questions.

1. You stated that you were not in the Senate in October 2002 when President Bush rammed through Congress the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. But you also stated that "perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was I didn´t have the benefit of U.S. intelligence." This implies that you might have voted for the war if you had been in the Senate when the vote was taken. Why then do you condemn Hillary Clinton and other Senators who voted for the war authorization resolution when you admit the possibility that if you had been in the Senate you would have done the same?
2. As chairman of the Senate subcommittee on Foreign Relations you could have held oversight hearings, called witnesses and offered alternatives to Bush´s disastrous efforts against A Qeada in Afghanistan. Your subcommittee held none and provided no alternatives to Bush policy that you condemn, why?
3. In the Senate you have one of the poorest attendance records, and you often simply vote present on thorny issues, why?
4. Senate Legislation was proposed to require nuclear giant, Exelon to make public disclosure of its radiation leaks. You did not fully support that requirement. Exelon has been identified as your fourth biggest campaign contributor. Why did you oppose the tougher regulatory proposal for Exelon?
5. Chicago financier Tony Rezko has been accused of numerous financial illicit dealings. You have claimed that you did no political or personal favors for Rezko. Yet as an Illinois state legislator you wrote endorsement letters to government agencies on his behalf, as well as having conducted other documented financial transactions and dealings and with him. Why do you deny that you have no relationship with Rezko?
6. The head of your campaign finance chair is Penny Pritzker. Before taking over Obama´s campaign finances, she headed up the borderline shady and failed Superior Bank. It collapsed in 2002. The bank engaged in deceptive and faulty lending, questionable accounting practices, and charged hidden fees. It made thousands of dubious loans to mostly poor, strapped homeowners. A disproportionate number of them were minority. Why does she still have a principal financial role in your campaign?
7. You have taken money in past campaigns from straw donors. These are donors that have taken money from tainted and dubious sources and then contribute to your campaign under their names. You have talked much about financial openness in campaigns. Why did you take money from straw donors in the past? And do you take money from them now?
8. Following a speech by Hillary Clinton praising Lyndon Johnson for his role in helping pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act, an Obama campaign advisor privately released a four page memo urging hammering Clinton for denigrating Dr. King. Yet, you told reporters that neither you nor anyone in your campaign had made the accusation that Clinton denigrated King. Why did you say that when clearly it was the memo from your campaign advisor that triggered the media and public assault on Clinton regarding King?
9. You have not produced a single public document that would provide the public with greater insight and knowledge about legislation, initiatives proposed, your votes on key bills, and your attendance record during your terms in the Illinois legislature. Why?
10. You have repeatedly charged that Clinton violated a pledge not to put her name on the Michigan Democratic primary ballot. However, neither Clinton nor any other Democratic contender pledged to the DNC not to have their name on the ballot. Three other candidates had their name on the ballot in addition to Clinton. Why do continue to make this claim that the other candidates, but especially Clinton, violated a pledge not to have their name on the Michigan ballot?

Greg puts forward that neither of the two remaining candidates will get half or more of the positions on the credentials committee.

But he also puts forward that the number of positions on the committee which those candidates will get to place IN TOTAL is way more than the positions which neither one controls.

so there are THREE groups in descending order as to size:

Type "O" positions, controlled exclusively by Obama

Type "C" positions, controlled exclusively by Clinton

Type "N" positions, set by the DNC [Howard Dean et al], not controlled by either Obama or Clinton, but definitely motivated to obtain a result that holds the most promise to benefit the DNC, being:

A: getting whichever candidate is nominated elected as president

B: gaining as many seats as possible in the Senate from the one third of Senate seats up for election at the same time [Right now it appears the Dems certainly will gain at least 4 & possibly up to 9 - & whatever the number turns out to be one should add in the contingency of a recall of Senator Lieberman, in my opinion is a strong possibility given the nature of the state he only notionally represents.}.

C: gaining as many seats as possible in the House, in which the advantages of incumbency typically are nearly overwhelming, in an election where the GOOP Party is losing 3 to 4 times as many incumbents as the Dems through actual & notional retirement.

Goal "A" is in the eye of the beholder with valid sounding arguments all over the place. "America has never elected a black man as president"; "America has never elected a woman as president"; "no candidate endorsed by a party in the doldrums as deep as the GOOP are right now has ever won". One could go on & on & on, but the bottom line is that none of the "head to head" mythical polls that the polling orgs have been running for months now means a damn thing in a contest that is not yet being run "head to head".

Goal "B" is going to be achieved no matter which candidate is chosen.

Goal "C" has accumulated two recent pieces of evidence: Donna Edwards in Maryland & Bill Foster in Illinois. That's one NOMINATION of a strongly progressive BLACK WOMAN - which is pretty much a wash when it comes to arguing for one of these two presidential candidates and against the other - versus one ELECTION OF a WHITE MAN running [a] as a progressive & [b] on Obama's coattails. Not exactly a large & representative sample but in the circumstances that is all the DNC has to work with & that last point is something Type Os can say to Type Ns & expect to be heard.

But forget all of that nuanced stuff & look at this way: Type C is not the ONLY minority group; there are THREE minority groups, and ALL THREE are large enough to urge a "minority report" onto the floor of the convention.

Unless the Clinton campaign falls apart or withdraws [which remains a distinct possibility depending entirely on the reality of what happens with the primaries into June] it seems HIGHLY LIKELY that Type C WILL urge a minority report onto the floor regardless of whether the committee comes to a majority determination.

So that leaves Type O to:

[1] urge its own minority report onto the floor or

[2] join with Type N to form the majority, leaving the Type C-sponsored minority report to be defeated on the floor,

which further empowers the Superdelegates to vote first on the minority report and second on the candidate, with Obama controlling more delegates both times even if no more Superdelegates jump ship on Clinton [though more jumping ship on her seems overwhelmingly likely].

I don't see either the reality or the need for the Superdelegates to hold a pre-convention convention in June after the primaries are all done. All this is going to take is for the Type O group to make an alliance with the Type N group & the Type C minority report will be doomed.

Thus it will be written.

Except that Obama wouldn't be filing a Minority Report.

Because Obama's position is already the rules. It's the status-quo.

For Hillary to win, she has to overturn this rule.

dembillc:

This isn't a high school election and the Credentials Committee isn't going to be asking Obama lame questions that you can find on Taylor Marsh's blog. Just like they won't be asking Clinton about why she lied about running from sniper fire. Let's be serious. LOL.

"Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author, syndicated columnist, political analyst and commentator.
He has been a frequent guest on Hannity and Colmes, The O´Reilly Factor, The Big Story, EXTRA, and numerous CNN News and Talk Shows."

At one time, these tactics amazed me; now it's just the same, boring, win-at-all-costs strategy.

At one time, I really wanted to see a contest, e.g., "may the best candidate win." It's just nauseating at this point.

At one time, I wanted to pay attention. It was interesting. I felt a sense of engagement, as though I could make a difference.

I walked out of the caucus last Saturday when about a dozen people started screaming at once.

Something seems to be very fundamentally screwed up. I wonder whether we as a culture have crossed a line of demarcation. Is there a way to go back?

The problem with winning at all costs is in the presumption that victory will cure bankruptcy.

Those Jackson kids are adorable! What! No mention of Pink's outstanding performance--twirling and splashing water on all the celebs (help I'm melting) Her voice never quivered. Unlike, Taylor and Stevie--never liked Stevie I think her voice is awful. I do a great impersonation film izle kinda Katherine Hepburn and Joan Rivers mixed together --volatile.