Obama Campaign Supports Florida Compromise That Would Net Hillary 19 Delegates
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."
Though Hillary's team will still insist on a full seating, it's tough to imagine that this compromise won't end up being the final outcome. But again, the real morass is Michigan.















Good language: "extraordinary concession." I bet the man came up with that one. Excellent.
May 31, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
19 down, eleventy million more to go for Hillary.
May 31, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
This makes me smile so much.
LOLOLOL!!! - Look petty, much, Hillary? By comparison, ya know?
LOL!
May 31, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was important for Rep Wexler to accurately represent Sen Obama's role in this mess.
May 31, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wexler just smacks down Ickes on the compromise. It was awesome.
May 31, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"the concept of fair reflection!"
Haha, Ickes looked stupid.
May 31, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was a dumb question. He looks like he is in pain.
May 31, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
What the hell was that?
May 31, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess Ickes himself didn't know.
May 31, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
He literally just left the panel ... just got up and walked off!
That was fun to watch!
May 31, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ugh. Opening this meeting up to an audience has made it pretty painful. The cheering and booing just seems out of place in a meeting like this.
It just makes the politicians grandstand more. Seems like both candidates have a decent amount of folks there, though.
Five bucks Wexler gets called a sexist later for being snide to Flournoy (?).
May 31, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, I'd prefer that they didn't have the audience.
May 31, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. Since when has politics and theatre ever been distinguishable? I would submit that they almost never are--if at all. Besides, I love the fact that the crowd gets to hold their elected officials, as well as the DNC, accountable for what they do. This is real participatory democracy.
May 31, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
How extraordinary of Obama to concede that, yes, FL is a state and its people deserve to be counted too. Hooray for enfranchising every other person!
May 31, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
as opposed to all the voters who were disenfrancised because they thought it didn't count and didn't show up.
May 31, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was an equal handicap to both sides in Florida where Obama was the only candidate to run ads. (Which state was it that he okayed with?)
The voters of Florida gave Hillary a lead of a certain number of delegates and Obama is proposing to steal half of it.
At the beginning of this season I was considering voting in the Republican party primary here in Michigan in order to try and help them elect a candidate who would count the votes. I figured that only McCain or Huckleberry could be counted to do that. I decided to stick with Hillary. It had not yet occurred to me that Obama could not be trusted to count the votes of every citizen in full.
Also,this is typical of Obama emphasis on short term tactics -- absent another Preacher Feature -- he probably has it locked but he is going to steal these votes now to make it easier for himself get the nomination even though the justified resentment of the voters in the two states and of all true democrats (small d intended) everywhere will make it more difficult for him to win in the fall. This emphasis on short term results at the cost of long term resentments is a part of why I am pledged not to vote for him.
May 31, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd be perfectly OK with giving both MI and FL delegates exactly as they were awarded in their primaries. That number would be zero.
May 31, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sen. Obama did not campaign in Florida. He did a regional cable TV buy that, of necessity, covered some part of north Florida. Before making that buy, he went to the DNC (you know, the ones who set the rules) to ask if this would be permitted. The DNC deferred the decision to the SC Dem Committee, because that was the state that would be impacted. They gave permission and Obama made the ad buy. Clinton screamed; Obama explained that he had gotten permission from the body that set the rules. I read at the time (but can't confirm) that Clinton *then* made a similar buy with the regional cable company.
IN THE MEANTIME, when it became clear that she was going to be trounced in South Carolina, Clinton made two trips into Florida -- to private events but with a lot of publicity and pictures of her landing. She also -- which really blistered me at the time -- started mentioning, repeatedly, to the press that she was (suddenly) committed to "seeing that the Florida voters are seated at the convention," etc. etc. How is giving national interviews talking about how nice you are going to be to the voters of a particular state not "campaigning" in that state?
May 31, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hooray!!!
May 31, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ooohh! That Wexler is a little brighter than that mr. ickey guy!
May 31, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know Wexler and I know how much he must have enjoyed the smack down he just gave Ickes.
May 31, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
If he enjoyed it half as much as I did, that's a lot.
May 31, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus, Wexler kicked Ickes' ass off, picked it up and handed it to him.
But I'm not going to be able to watch the Michigan part. My blood pressure is already waaay too hight.
May 31, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
He really smacked Ickes down. I'm surprised that the chair didn't say DAAAAYYYYYUUUUUUMMMMMM!!!!!!
May 31, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm totally loving Wexler.
May 31, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a way, I think that because it's such a complete mess it will be easier to impose an artificial solution (50/50, 69/59).
May 31, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does the offer include half votes for the Florida Supers as well? I sure hope so b/c a good portion of them votes with the GOP to help cause this mess in the first place.
May 31, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who is this woman who said that she couldn't forsee a primary like this? Wasn't that her job? Didn't she think through the possible consequences of her vote? What a fricking cop-out.
May 31, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
In other words, as a Clinton supporter, she didn't contest it because she thought Hill was going to steamroll the competition and FL ultimately wouldn't matter.
May 31, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
She didn't envision that Obama would win the nomination. She endorsed Clinton on January 14th.
May 31, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Haha, see my post below. I knew it!
May 31, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I bet she's a Clinton shill, so she thought this race was gonna be a done deal. I knew a year ago that Obama would be competitive.
Her defense was silly...
And what was her argument, anyway? That she had messed up so everyone who got screwed should just deal with it?
May 31, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
that she couldn't forsee
This trait indicates someone who is not qualified for the job.
May 31, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not really. Who could have guessed that Puerto Rico would play a crucial role in the primary process--literally giving Hillary Clinton her last legs to stand one.
Yes, we expect that those whom we invest with great responsibility also have great foresight, but we should not expect them to be psychics. Six months ago everyone thought good ole Rudy would steal the show for the Republicans (lol).
May 31, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. I stand by my original comment that it was a cop-out.
So no one ever thought that there might be a close primary that could hinge on unsanctioned FL or MI votes? That's ridiculous. That's the first question that would've gone through my mind when a vote for complete disenfranchisement came up. Worse yet - it's the obvious question.
May 31, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting that Obamites equate shouting with winning.
Ickes point was right. The percentages in FL reflect fairly on the entire electorate regardless of whether the fiction of voters staying home is considered.
Ickes for Clinton, quiet and right. Wexler for Obama, wrong and loud.
Don't get me started on the stereotypes reflected here.
May 31, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like you need a little more fair reflection.
May 31, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! Fair reflection?
Please don't try to confuse me, you sure must be referring to the "concept of fair reflection"
May 31, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh snap, Ickes just dropped the "f r" bomb again.
May 31, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Typical gibberish from you. The punishment is levied on the delegates, not the voters. The percentages are honored in full. All votes are counted. Maybe you should just stop posting now.
May 31, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me just say, I got a man crush on Rep. Wexler afetr a great performance. Clinton's position so more and more stupid the more it is spoken in public and at length.
May 31, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was a needed air-clearing!
May 31, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. Senator Joyner wasn't yelling at all.
May 31, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just don't see how they settle MI at all. I hope they can resolve today, but wow, I just am worried about it.
May 31, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh noes!!11!! fogu2 might "get started."
Run for the hills!
May 31, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wexler was terrible. When asked about seating all delegates he botched it completely. Ickes question specifically about what was the compromise especially. He should have said to the effect - The compromise is in accepting that the results at all should have any bearing in delegate distribution. That Barack Obama and many citizens of Florida listened to and accepted the RBC's ruling and believed them when it was said that the votes wouldn't count and the primary was illegitimate. Barack Obama didn't campaign in Florida, either did Hillary Clinton, but Barack Obama was largely unknown at the time, and polls show that he gains wherever he campaigns - down 20 points in Texas before he campaigned, down 20 points in Ohio and Pennsylvania before he campaigned to close the gap by half. Furthermore one of his strengths is the young vote and many young voters are not home owners thus this block of voter had no incentive to go to the polls at all. Both instances hurt Sen. Obama but as a show of good faith and in the desire for unity he is willing to compromise and accept the Florida vote as legitimate at all. However he feels that granting them full seating penalizes him unfairly because he followed the rules set by the RBC. Furthermore if granted full seating what teeth will any future RBC ruling have?
May 31, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I know it was for the DNC so they would have teeth in the future. But the Obama can not be the water carrier for the DNC. Wexler could only speak for the Obama campaign itself. The DNC knows full well if they seated in full that their rules in the future would hav no teeth. They don't need Wexler to point it out. It was right. Obama has to separate himself as a campaign or it will look like an Obama/DNC coup against Clinton. Paraniod I know, but look at how the Clinton campaign is acting.
May 31, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hate to break it to you, but that's going to happen no matter what.
May 31, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bob Wexler made just as enpassioned plea to count ALL the votes, you wouldn't think he was for the watered down version.
I think he unwittingly made Hillary's case just as well or better as Fl. State Sen. Athenia Joyner's not to punish Fl voters for the actions of a Republican legislature to count all the votes.
She was for the time honored tradition to honor all the voters who came out that day.
I love it!
May 31, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Ausman Plan counts all votes, seats all delegates, but cuts their votes in half. That last part, is the punishment. G-d you folks can be dense sometimes.
May 31, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I, personally, am for the time honored position of following the rules.
May 31, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed, so am I.
The alternative is pretty sucky - rules don't matter, deadlines don't count, anybody can do anything any old time.
May 31, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or, as it is known by its other name "The George W. Doctrine".
May 31, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cats and dogs, living together...
This is the very sand in the air on which Clintonian politics thrive.
May 31, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ms. Huffman from California was full of BS. She didn't care about FL back then because she thought HRC would have the nomination by Feb. 6th.
I wish we could have seen this reversed. Had Hillary been in Obama's position there would be no discussion. She'd be the presumptive nominee by now.
May 31, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
It will also be interesting to see if the Clinton supporters are consistent in that they are pushing the idea that FLA shouldn't be punished at all because the evil Republicans moved up the date. Well in Michigan, the Dems were in power and moved up the date. So will they accept that Michigan should be punished? And if so to what amount considering they agreed to 100% disqualification of their delegates. To try and argue against that now as a committee is ridiculous and blatantly partisan.
May 31, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly you don't know the Clinton supporters very well. They won't let integrity stand in the way of their goal. The ends justify the means.
May 31, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
What else is Clinton's campaign right now other than "ridiculous?"
May 31, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not watching any of this and haven't given it any real thought until now, but it seems to me that since would-be voters in FL and MI knew in advance that those elections wouldn't count (unless somehow validated in the future), huge numbers of them doubtless didn't bother to go vote. Geez, **I** would have stayed home.
Under the circumstances, the only fair way to proceed would be to stick by the rules and not count the results at all. No matter how you slice it, the process was all screwed up. They were botched elections, not some high-and-mighty cause that needs to be honored. All this "controversy" is useless and manufactured.
May 31, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. When Sen Obama goes over the top Tuesday evening, it will become moot. Then, at the convention, FL and MI can be seated as a show of good will.
May 31, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right....but a) your conclusion is too logical; and b)that would mean that Hillary Clinton has lost the primary and that is an unacceptable conclusion.
May 31, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
But you are fogetting the election in November. If we piss off MI and FL voters, we wont have a chance.
May 31, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope that Clinton's loss and Obama's win this year will end the age of the trial lawyer (Clinton) that started under Clinton. Parsing of words and terms, arguing position that favor you even when hypocritical to other arguments simple for arguing sake. I hope it begins the age of the professor (Obama)- thinking through problems, considering all options, and arguing postions one believes in rather than positions of convenience
May 31, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like it
May 31, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah - the Republicans really picked that up and ran with it, too.
I agree with you - we've gotten to the danger point where people are publicly saying it's Orwellian.
I'm usually the world's most flexible person when it comes to arbitrary statements and I've never been a fan of authority. It's just inescapable - I learned that finally in law school - the Rule of Law is the only thing that keeps America what it is meant to be - and the further we get off from that, the worse we get and we're way off.
The Victim's Movement in criminal justice also had a hand in this - it wasn't just the Clintons. It was a whole bunch of factors.
We're way off and need corrections, very badly. Not more of the same - and that is all Hillary offers - More of the same.
May 31, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
A constitutional lawyer will become President in an era when both political parties have been unmade. He's in a prime position to enforce the rule of law. We must demand it of him. Continually.
May 31, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aye, a president cannot make arguments without consequence. Lawyers grant themselves the freedom of making any old argument because there is little peril in doing so.
Sen Clinton has learned this the hard way.
May 31, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean like trying to distinguish between preconditions and preparation?
May 31, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since when have we accepted the idea that you should negotiate when you are unprepared to do so?
Better yet, look in Webster's dictionary and see for yourself if the two words mean the same thing or even have the same connotations. Wow, dense aren't we?
May 31, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm aware of the dictionary defintion. Apparently obama isn't, since neither he nor John Edwards -- a man who made millions by parsing words -- can explain the difference.
To re-iterate, what I said in a previous thread:
Thanks for playing.
You've won an autographed copy of The Audacity of Kool-aid.
May 31, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're an ass...as far as I know.
May 31, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would be down for them allowing them a numebr of uncommited votes to go to the convention because I bet most if not all of them would go to Obama.
May 31, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was just thinking the same thing. It's obviously what the Clinton camp wants because they think those voters would go for them, and certainly many would, but it still wouldn't be enough to change the election.
May 31, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
But same with Fla, the Obama camp didn't take part in slating the delegates whereas the Clinton camp did, therefore most of the uncommitted delegates are likely Clinton supporters.
I have a bad feeling about this - it was way too partisan on that panel.
May 31, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Clinton already has 13 of the 28 votes in her pocket.
May 31, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uncommitted delegates would be chosen by the Clinton-backing Michigan party hacks. They wouldn't really be "uncommitted," just not formally committed. Hillary has already grabbed off a chunk of the "uncommitted" delegates chosen for Michigan's shadow delegation.
Still feeling confident about that?
May 31, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
As the son of a Professor of Law I urge you not to forget that they teach those trial lawyers how to parse like that in the first place!
May 31, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
This idiot committee should have decided on a solution on this last year before the voting started.
The RNC had a simple one - certain punishment of cutting delegates in half, and letting the states vote, keeping names on the ballot etc. Threatening to cut in half seems credible, so states can be assured you will follow through on the threat. FL and MI were under the impression - apparently correct - that they could cheat and then bully the DNC into counting them.
You know who should be punished, the idiots on the RBC and the other party leaders who created the mess.
May 31, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love how the RBC member from Florida cannot vote but Harold Ickes, a member of Clinton's campaign inner circle can vote.
May 31, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ickes is doing hit and runs. "Trying to curry favor with Iowa..." Good God.
May 31, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's very true KBLOW but it seems this kind of shifting rationale and parsing of words has been a prominent part of political life by both Republicans and Democrats since the 90's. My hope is that we can end this in favor of more plain English. It seems professors by virtue or their having to relate to students are able ot explain things more simply, while trial lawyers often have a vested interest in keeping things confusing. Of course this may be my own personal bias since I am in a doctoral program to be a political science professor lol.
May 31, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do believe that Obama is doing just that, Invictus06. His campaign strategy looks to me to be built around one principle: Tell the truth.
And it's knocking me out!
May 31, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
All lawyer know there is no such thing as the truth. It's all relative.
Obama's claim at the one and only truth smacks of arrogant condescension.
No surprise there.
May 31, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Study Einstein, and get back to us. You are completely out of your depth.
May 31, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congressman Robert Wexler should have said:
The word of Martin Luther King, Jr.
“I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people will get to the promised land. And I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.”
It so relevant in this case that it can NOT and MUST NOT be ignored.
Right now with Obama as the next Presidential candidate, African Americans stand now on the verge, the very threshold of Martin Luther King, Jr. promise land – to deny them that will undoubtedly so seriously damage the Democratic Party as to make it unviable in coming election, damaging it far more than Hillary’s lie that she won the popular vote will do, even as she fails to rally the party. It simply is not true, she made that up.
Hillary failed the test of character that Martin Luther King, Jr, spoke of in his Letter to a Birmingham Jail. She so often talks about the race card - which Hillary has play every chance she to do it.
May 31, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe he also spoke of content character not color of skin.
Tell that to the 90%+ blacks that consistently voted for Obama based on his skin color.
May 31, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most of whom originally supported Clinton before they decided there was better content to Obama's character.
You're boring.
May 31, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
But but but Bill has an office in Harlem!
May 31, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ickes is a jacka**. I knew that before but I really know that now.
May 31, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
This little hearing is putting it on full display.
I enjoyed his exchange with Levin. Perhaps Ickes should avoid public discussion of important issues with intelligent people.
May 31, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
When I lived in Michigan I used to really dig Levin. But he's an integral part of this mess. His Super vote should be halved.
May 31, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see that same 'Tell the truth' thing with Obama as well and am optimistic in what this would mean for his administration. I think a great example of how different he views these things is how he told his supporters not to demonstrate outside the RBC hearing while Clinton attepted to make it a circus.
May 31, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The requirements of a confidence man are to tell you what you want to hear and to make you believe he is telling the truth.
May 31, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama puts himself through college, first black editor of harvard law, becomes community organizer, begins a life of public service in politics, Impresses Senators like Kennedy, and Hagel, and Biden, former presidents and foreign leaders. Has a smart wife and strong family.
That would be very the definition of "the long con".
May 31, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Especially since it's still going.
May 31, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I always liked Levin too. But he really messed this up and now he's trying to blame New Hampshire.
May 31, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It must be exhausting fogu to 'hate' on Obama so much and so frequently. your attacks are presonal and petty. When I see someone with such visceral hatred for someone they dont know I suspect they are have issues they have nothing to do with the candidate and much to do with themselves.
May 31, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You would be right in the first case and wrong in the second.
May 31, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the Dems should have 4-5 regional primaries (NE,SW,SW,NW)maybe Midwest. With the order of each regional rotating ever 4 years. This whole Iowa & NH thing is antiquated and silly. the primaries could be a month apart and start in mid to late January and end by April.
May 31, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm watching CSPAN and not the cable channels who are taking sides no doubt but I'm for fairness to the voter and its not about the candidate, its about the country.
Too much has been made to play fair to Obama, lest be labeled a racist.This hand can be overplayed in view of the diversity on the committee.
I'm seeing an attempt to fairness at the meeting.
Snarky comments honestly were coming more from the Wexler's comments. And he sounded more like a Clinton supporter than Obama, and you wouldn't think he was for the Ausman solution.
This tells me Wexler would like to have ALL the votes count as he said it is the committee's power. Let them use it!!
May 31, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
invictus06, i agree with you 100% after this mess.
at least the Republicans know how to run campaigns and win. Even though they suck at governing! oh the irony!
May 31, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh man, Ickes is trying to save his "fair reflection" moment...
May 31, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least he explained it this time.
May 31, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, after he went and looked it up...
May 31, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
not a good day for Ickes
May 31, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is because he is an as*hat and his true nature is showing.
Desperate people are rarely attractive or do things that help their interests.
May 31, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh damn, Ickes is getting f-ed today
May 31, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ickes is really taking it on the chin today.
May 31, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"a fair reflection on a flawed primary"
awesome
May 31, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ickes looks like he has a migraine.
May 31, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Levin looked like he wanted to throttle Ickes.
May 31, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
This Levin-Ickes moment is priceless.
May 31, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Furthermore, if a person from Florida/Michigan and on the RBC, they can't vote? Yet Ickes can? Who's more nakedly partisan?
May 31, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just got back from lunch - what happened with Ickes and Wexler?!?!?!
May 31, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ickes asked him to comment on "fair reflection." Wexler asked him to explain just what the hell he was talking about. Ickes couldn't do it and got up and walked out.
May 31, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's not get overly ebullient over the generosity of allowing Hillary to have half her votes.
May 31, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Considering she has none of them right now, you shouldn't be so dismissive either.
May 31, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aw, what's the matter, Otto? You're not having fun?
May 31, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
May 31, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's extremely fortunate that she gets the chance to count any, considering the utter hypocrisy of her position.
May 31, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ickes is hilarious! He is pissed that the Michigan proposal takes four delegates from Hillary and gives all the uncommitted to Obama. Levin is now pissed at HIM, saying "you are trying to get a fair reflection of a flawed primary".
The Hillary people, of course, do not acknowledge the obvious: Obama would be fine if NOTHING HAPPENS. It is Clinton who needs a change in the current status quo. For Ickes to get on his high horse and be so outraged that Obama would get delegates from Michigan is simply laughable and the height of arrogance. Let's look at the current Michigan polling.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/michigan.html
Both Hillary and Obama run about the same against McCain at the moment. The idea that, out of a hard Dem state with a sizeable Black and college age population, Obama should get credit for ZERO VOTER SUPPORT is idiotic. But what should we expect from the Clinton campaign. They need a rule change to help them, but would not even agree to a rule change that would hep both parties to some degree. That, my friends, is the entitlement mentality that angers me and many other Obama backers.
May 31, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I my gosh - is anyone watching C-Span, this DNC Bylaws and Rules committee is working like CONGRESS should work - but never does - mostly because Republicans alway inject alot of BS. They make shit up and throw the whole process into a shitpile.
It such a pleasure watching the real work on honest brokers, seriously intent on solving an issue. It's great.
It should show the whole nation how nasty and unrealistic Republicans have been, how wasteful they have been with taxpayer money.
May 31, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent point.
May 31, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is the rules committee expected to issue a ruling today?
May 31, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, although it may not be until tomorrow - but before they adjourn the meeting.
May 31, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've yet to see one giant foam finger in the crowd thus far. I'm disappointed.
May 31, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I missed it too,but my understanding is that Ickes was blabbering on and being his usual, offensive self, and Wexler got up and walked away. He may have needed to take a pee or something, I don't know, but the MSM is calling it a huge slight.
May 31, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was under the impression Ickes walked away and didn't answer Wexler when he asked what "fair reflection" is.
May 31, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I think this is basically what happened:
Ickes asked Wexler about or if he believed in the Democrats' "Fair Reflection" Doctrine and Wexler replied that Ickes would have to explain to him what that was. Well, apparently Ickes didn't know because he didn't answer. Then right after that Ickes got up and left.
Someone else can fill in any other details if they remember, but basically Ickes looked like a complete ass.
May 31, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
David Bonior speaking for Obama's decision not to hold another primary.
He had opportunity to right a wrong. He should be treated accordingly and should accept that he had a chance at fairness but declined.
May 31, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you not listen to what Bonior said?
May 31, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
obviously not
May 31, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since I was unfortunately watching MSNBC - I missed it. What did he say?
May 31, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
That all this talk of it being Obama's fault that there wasn't a second primary in Michigan is bullshit. That it was the MI Senate and House that killed the last-minute proposal and Obama had nothing to do with it.
May 31, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
you aren't actually "live blogging" after all.
what's with the link on the front page?
May 31, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Elizabeth Smith, condensed: "The votes that didn't count have to count now, Barack took his name off the ballot because he knew the votes didn't count so therefore his votes don't count, so therefore Hillary should get 100%. And caucuses really, really suck."
May 31, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was Ickes.
May 31, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
RBC Clintonites don't seem to respect their own ruling that the primaries wouldn't count. It's insanity. This governing body disqualified the two primaries, but want the non-binding illegitimate beauty contest result to have complete bearing on delegate allocation.
I simply am dumbfounded that these people can ascend to the positions they currently fill. I honestly hope they don't believe what they are arguing and just playing partisan games, otherwise the country is in more trouble than most realize.
May 31, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Their position seems to be that, yeah, we said that this primary would not stand. But, now we're saying that it should. So there.
I don't see their position standing. Any compromise position that Obama is willing to accept is honorable and not something that can be seriously open to challenge.
May 31, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree.
Is it just me or are the HRC people the ones with all of the questions - and asinine posturing questions at that.
May 31, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You must have missed last weekend's coverage of the Libertarian Convention....that was good TV!
May 31, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jonze - thank you. I have been sitting here wondering the same thing. They are undermining their professed goal of unification!
May 31, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The way the Clintonites are arguing, it looks like Bill Clinton's phone calls paid off. If a mere two undecided members side with the Clintonites, Clinton could get 100% what she wants here - 55% of the Michigan delegates and 40% uncommitted - which they are fighting for of course because it would mean they cannot be counted to any delegate math until the vote at the convention.
The partisan-ness of this RBC is astounding. It's saddening and embarrassing.
May 31, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Translation: Clinton's argument is prevailing.
May 31, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
With the committee, perhaps. With the American public? She's already lost. You'd better hope the Clinton campaign finds a way to compromise here, or there's gonna be hell to pay. I guaratee, if she steals this, there's gonna be hell to pay.
May 31, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is a class act. Hillary is a classless ass.
May 31, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink