LOL. Yeah, that'll happen.

Oh please make this bullshit stop.

All the gnashing of teeth over disenfranchising voters is eerily similar to all the republican gnashing of teeth over "activitist" judges. Republicans love activist judges when they're conservative activist judges.

Clinton supporters are all for disenfranchising (by ignoring the vote) all those "uncommitted" votes in Michigan.

She broke her pledge. This is to be rewarded?

And it figures Jim Blanchard is representing Clinton.

See:

Info about Blanchard and other Michigan pols

An entirely hypocritical and disingenuous case on behalf of Clinton.

Blanchard just said that the committee has the discretion to do whatever it is that it's going to do, and that "I intend, I hope, to respect that."

LOL. He hopes to intend to respect. Uh huh.

It was flawed because the RBC said it didn't count and now they are trying to count it. WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?? It's the friggin twilight zone!

Obama blew his argument by contending that Florida's sham could count in any way - that was a flawed primary as well.

I'm not watching the c-span and have a question. Has anyone brought up the fact that Clinton stated that the Michigan primary "wouldn't count for anything"?

That seems like a fairly damning piece of evidence against their camp's current position.

what a crock of shit! Blanchard will probably join Lieberman in voting for mcbush in November. Hypocritical, childish, self-serving: the Clinton campaign continues...

Can I just say that Harold Ickes is an idiot? That's all I have to say about this whole process.

Thank you very much.

Good lord, Tubbs-Jones is a flunky.

Hillary Clinton, 10-11-07:

"I signed the DNC pledge not to campaign, not to spend money in any of the states that did not comply with the rules established by the DNC.... It's clear this election they're having is not going to count for anything."
http://tinyurl.com/5dd2zh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULxxBz-PAjg

so much for the Hillary supporters who went up to protest.

Listening to Tubbs-Jones makes me want to take an ice pick to my eardrums. *God* these people are insufferably sanctimonious and condescending!

BTW, thanks to Donna Brazile and her "mama" comment. She was very good there.

Also, did any of you notice Blanchard saying how the SD's might change their mind between now and August, implying they might go from Obama to Clinton? What a hack.

I think the 50/50 split would be good for the Rules Committee, going forward.

It'd work for Obama as well, I reckon. He shows an olive branch in conceding Florida, as is. But then, being absolutely fair on Michigan.

Then, going forward, there are these two precedents set, by the same committee at the same time, to balance out other disputes in the future. The disenfranchised voter is counted as is (due to that primaries nature9all candiadtes on the ballot)), and not counted based on the nature of the other invalid, disenfranchised primary (Not all candidates on the ballot).

It seems a workable solution. I wonder what they'll do, and how they'll explain their actions. Either stand by your rules and decisions as you set them, or capitulate to a rogue candidacy.

Donna Brazile Rocks!

I loved when she told Blanchard about following the rules and how changing them in the middle of the game was cheating. She is just too cool.

And I am impressed with the short leash they have on Ickes. So far, they look like they mean business.

By referring to Obama's as a flawed "strategy", Blanchard is insinuating that Hillary's leaving her name on the ballot was good "strategy". So, from the outset was she planning on these votes counting, even as she publicly stated they would not?

It is no wonder that Michigan is in the morass that it is in now, having had Blanchard and like-minded people in the governor's seat for many year.

Blanchard's most interesting comment was something to the effect of "the voters were told that if a voter doesn't like the candidates on the ballot, the voter could simply vote uncommitted" (parahprasing). Doesn't that imply that none of the uncommitted delegates should go to anyone that was on the ballot?

Christ, what a whore. "They had a flawed strategy" because they took the DNC at its word that the election wouldn't count?

I so hope they'll come out from behind closed doors and say BOTH primaries were flawed and BOTH will get a halved delegation with a 50-50 split so that the states' voters will have a voice at the convention but NEITHER WILL COUNT towards the outcome, JUST AS THEY WERE TOLD BEFORE THEY VOTED. JUST LIKE THE AGREEMENT THE CANDIDATES SIGNED SAID.

Then let Hillary spin THAT.

Ok, this is hilarious. The clintons were touting that thousands of people would show up to protest. The claims ranged from a couple of thousand to upwards of ten thousand. They were going to bus in from Florida and michigan and from all over the country. And, how many showed? about 500. Too funny.

A little humor on this day of tragedy. Apparently the message from these "hearings" is that rules are for suckers. Rules don't apply and are meaningless. Make them up as you go. Disgusting.

Thanks Pippi! I'm really sorry I missed THAT.

what part of "argue from a strong position" does Clinton and her campaign not understand? she's throwing away whatever argument, however tenuous, she had at the beginning of this process by demanding such a ludicrous allotment. forget everything else; she's just not a very good candidate.

Hey, it's going to be a problem that Florida and Michigan are superficially similar. I would have preferred that the Florida and Michigan were presented as a package, a this-is-as-far-as-we-go offer to avoid toxic comparisons.

I guess the rules didn't allow that. But what good are rules anyway?

Isn't what Blanchard doing is the basics of bargaining -- start out with the strictest demands to skew the final compromise more in his (Hillary's favor)? If they want all the delegates and Obama wants half, won't the final compromise be a majority for Hillary?

But here's what I don't get. What is Hillary hoping to get out of this? She's still behind and the more it looks like she's trying to steal this, I'd think the more undecided Supers she'll turn off, so it's going to be a wash. Are they really trying to set the bar so high that this won't be settled and will go to the credentials committee and possibly the convention?

I have a conspiracy theory I'd like to throw out -- not one I believe, just something to think about. With all the Supers who have committed to Obama or switched from Hillary to Obama lately, any chance this was done to build his delegate lead so he'd be in the position to give in more on Florida and Michigan (why fight for what he doesn't need)? Then after a compromise that's unfavorable to Obama is agreed upon, these Supers switch back to Hillary to close the gap?

Then she could claim the delegate count is practically even, use here flawed popular vote lead argument (as if not a single person in the state of Michigan would have voted for Obama), and then argue that she has the momentum from the Supers switching back and the favorable delegate count from FL and MI to sway the final undecided Supers her way to somehow wind up with the nomination.

I know it's a stretch, but what has Hillary done the past few months that wasn't?

Whether Blanchard or any other VOTER or potential voter in MI "heard" before the MI voting that Clinton had said that the Michigan primary "wouldn't count for anything" is not, I think, the main issue. I say this in part because it seems impossible to know how many people had "heard", and if they had "heard", how they understood, the comment. The critical issue, it seems to me, is that Clinton's camp admits, as they must, that Clinton said it, and the question then arises,did other primary CANDIDATES campaign differently in a contest that Clinton acknowledged "wouldn't count for anything" than they would have had she not said that. That also is a question that cannot be answered with certainty, but it seems that it can be answered with a very high degree of probability that of course other candidates' campaigns were affected by Clinton's statement.

Blanchard is the same clown that dragged the Michigan Dem party down the toilet for John Engler.
He's yesterday's news.

Jim Blanchard was fierce, forceful, and articulate. It was nice to see an unwavering and clear-spoken Clinton supporter be given a chance to speak.

Blanchard explained that MI voters were well-informed in advance about how to vote in the primary: through massive grassroots efforts by the Obama, Edwards, Biden, and Richardson campaigns, as well as through advertising and education efforts conducted by the Michigan Democratic Party. Blanchard convincingly supported the claim that MI's primary was not flawed.

Blanchard also corrected a Donna Brazile insinuation that Clinton broke any rules in MI. Clinton did not break any rules.

Carl Levin was equally foreceful, compelling, and passionate about MI's primary. It's been surprisingly fun to see genuine emotions as well as facts informing the politicians' positions, instead of the vain, misinformed, and dopey spin of the political pundits who have sucked up so much TV airtime during this process.

Levin also explained the DNC-sanctioned rule that a state be allowed to go ahead of New Hampshire. NH got a free pass to break a DNC rule, however, while MI didn't get a pass but got punished instead.

If you haven't seen any of the proceedings, I recommend checking it out. Several misinformed talking points are being corrected for the public record.

Daily Kos just posted this. Kind of funny, as this is what a slippery slope you run into when you change the rules after the fact.

I think for 2012, Californians should unilaterally decide that our state will be worth 5,000 delegates. Sure, it'd be against one piffling party rule, but I fail to see why the voters of California should be disenfranchised by not seating them all.

Blanchard can go to hell. My state's lamest Dem gov... he's sounding like gotalife.

LOL.

Dead-ender.

I just hate it when people are late for meetings.......last minute hash it out?

Chris Matthews just made me laugh for the first time ever.

BILL CLINTON CAUGHT ON TAPE: SEAT HALF THE DELEGATES:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/31/bill-clinton-at-private-f_n_104476.html

Ah we Democrats always have our shit together... now 4:46 EST and the return of the meeting of the RBC after the lunch break at 4:30 EST.

I GOT SOMETHING TO SAY!!! (Jerrie Blank "Strangers With Candy" moment... deep breath... get a grip... ok, won't post in all caps.)

I posted this up there a bit, but I'm posting it again. I hope we see some hearts bleeding about Michiganders like myself who would be disenfranchised up the ass if any of those Uncommitted delegates went for Clinton or were otherwise shunted away from our desire that they go for Obama (and/or Edwards).

I hope we see some hearts bleeding about the disenfranchised who sat at home thinking that it wasn't going to matter.

I hope we see some hearts bleeding about the disenfranchised who couldn't make an informed decision since the candidates weren't campaigning in the state.

With that said, I'm so damn happy to see all the caring words coming from the Clinton people who care so damn much about Michigan's disenfranchised voters.

You know what these hearings needed? ME.

I'm the person who used to go up in committee meetings at the state legislature and say exactly what it was that everyone already knew but for reasons of political decorum would not say out loud. The reaction was always the same - shock as if I had jumped up on to the table, squatted, and dropped a humongous turd in the punchbowl. But you know what? It always worked to make them do what they knew was the RIGHT thing to do - the thing they could only avoid doing if no one just out and out said the thing that was the real heart of the issue and that for reasons of political decorum they themselves would not say out loud.

What I would have said today, had I been given a spot as designated punch-bowl crapper, is this: Drop the bullshit about "disenfranchising" Democrats in Florida and Michigan. Do you REALLY expect anyone to believe that Democrats in either of these states will just sit home on election day, or vote Republican, simply because their primaries didn't count towards selecting the nominee? Nigga, please. You are going to sit there with a straight face and not gag on the BS issuing from your mouth, knowing full well that if your pitiful excuse for umbrage on the part of FL and MI voters had any validity at all, then Democrats would NEVER win in states that fall so late in the primary schedule that the winner has already been decided?

This issue is being debated for one reason only: we have a candidate who is behind, who can only narrow the gap if we throw out every rule and every ruling and change the rules after the fact. And we're being told that we must do this in order to avoid offending the Democratic voters of FL and MI. Apparently the offense this will inflict upon the voters in the other 50 primaries, those that were conducted within the rules, is immaterial. Apparently the offense this will inflict upon the voters of FL and MI who either didn't vote, voted uncommitted, or crossed over to vote Republican because they were told their vote in the Democratic Primary wouldn't matter, is immaterial. Apparently the offense this will inflict upon the idea of democratically selecting our nominee, by engaging in this after-the-fact crystal ball gazing and divination, is immaterial. And apparently the offense this will inflict against this very committee's authority to make and uphold the party's rules is also immaterial. All that is material, apparently, are the desires of the candidates, not those of the voters in either state, not the authority of this committee, and certainly not the notion of a democratic and fair solution.

This thing is pretty easy to solve if your concern lies in serving the interests of the voters in these states, rather than the interests of one candidate or the other. You know what to do - the only thing you CAN do without completely surrendering the notion that you have any authority whatsoever to set the rules. Take the solution that allows voters in these states representation at the convention without allowing them to impact the outcome. The same solution that, coincidentally, upholds your authority to make and enforce rules. The only solution that doesn't make this committee into a joke.

Lamont Williams,

Thank you for expressing my thoughts exactly.

Could use a laugh. What did Chris say? Missed it, storms here, no cable.

Is this being broadcast on anything but CNN? I'm getting sick of Wolf Blitzer.

The channel listing for CSPAN just says "CSPAN Weekend", and they seem to be showing the shuttle launch, but maybe that's just because of the lunch break.

MSNBC, on the other hand, lists some sort of "To Catch a Predator" marathon, and I refuse to actually change to that to see whether that's mistaken or not, on the off chance that they actually are airing that godforsaken show.

Does anyone else see that the HRC campaign is using this RBC meeting as an PR opportunity to further galvanize this myth that HRC is 'the' Democratic populist, and with that that they have every intention of going to the convention floor?

btw...

"It's perfectly legitimate and legal for her to do so."

It's currently "legal" to torture folks and bar them from legal representation in the name of the U.S. citizenry, with habeas corpus effectively neutered.

That still doesn't make it right.

I witnessed what Clintons' lawyers attempted to do in Texas, and it forced me to reconsider the respect I held for Hillary for so many years.

So now, what is the opposite of civil disobedience?

Hang in there Zell..C-Span's been covering the hearings all day. But apparently while waiting for the Committee to come back from luch (trying to herd cats?) they switched to the shuttle launch.

And now CSPAN is playing Bush's weekly radio address...I can't think of something the predominantly Democratic audience right now would like to listen to less.