« CNN: Exits Show That Half Of Hillary's Indiana Backers Say They Wouldn't Back Obama Against McCain | Home | Obama Wins North Carolina, Networks Project »
Obama-Supporter Daschle: Taking It To Rules Committee Would Be "Extra-legal"
An odd moment on MSNBC just now: Tom Daschle, a major Obama supporter, seemed to suggest that it would be "extra-legal" if the Hillary campaign takes the dispute over the Florida and Michigan delegations to the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee.
Asked about that scenario, Daschle said:
"If we have the majority of delegates, and we've got a nominee, [then] all this becomes sort of a moot point. I can't imagine that they would actually consider something that dramatic, something that extra-legal, at a time when we really ought to be talking about uniting the party."
Extra-legal? According to Dictionary.com, that words means "not regulated or sanctioned by law."
Whatever you think of any plans to go to the Rules and Bylaws committee, it's not clear that there would be anything "extra-legal" about it at all, at least according to this rundown on how that committee works.
Advertisement
Decribes the Clinton Campaign pretty well.
May 6, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dead-on accurate.
May 6, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tom is a extrawhiner.
Shoo Tom, you lost your Senate seat loser.
Go away.
May 6, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gota is an extra-weiner.
Shoo, Gota, you lost your mind, loser.
Go away.
May 6, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who are you going to vote for in November?
May 6, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who are you asking?
May 6, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
What happened to the Clinton win in NC you predicted?
May 6, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
NC was called for Obama. Don't need to send you any crow to eat, since there's one perched on your head already! Bon Appetit!
May 6, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
that is an ugly avatar, gota.
May 6, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Troll, isn't there a home for losers like you, try fox news or rush's site. You would have people there who are more agreeable to your B.S.
May 6, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tim Russert and his 'white women' diatribe are on my last nerve already. As a brown bitch, every vote is important for the love of Buddha. I am tired of the talking heads marginalizing everyone but the white folks and primarily the white women.
May 6, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was ugly. He embarrased himself.
May 6, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a marginalized white woman because I won't vote for Hillary.
May 6, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Join the club. Don't let my avatar fool you. I'm a white woman over 40, and I'm voting for Obama in November.
May 6, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You gender traitor.
Join the club!
I'm white, over 40, a woman, and I'm voting for Obama, as well.
May 6, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
White woman, over 30, voting for Obama.
May 6, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
White woman, over 50, voting for Obama.
Do I hear over 60?
May 6, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 6, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I meant to raise my hand, but used the wrong html tags.
Over-60 white female Obama voter here!
May 6, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I'm still trying to figure out is what are "ethnic whites?" While we're at it, why do they keep saying middle/working class and whites like they're interchangeable? Um, hello, there's plenty of black and brown middle/working class folks, too.
May 7, 2008 7:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes That's the point you should be focusing on.
LOL.
Anything to not deal with the reality that she ain't going to get anything overturned, new math, arms-twisted or not.
Yeah, the word Tom used - that's the story.
How crop media of you.
;-)
May 6, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
daschle was referring to the "nuclear option" that's been discussed the last few days.
he wasn't talking about taking it to the rules committee, in fact, he even said the rules comittee would settle fla and michigan.
May 6, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
creative quote editing: no longer restricted to fox news.
May 6, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
the nuclear option is the rules commmittee
May 6, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
So trying to change the accepted rules after the game is underway is not doing something prohibited by official or accepted rules?
May 6, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"With at least 50 percent of the Democratic Party's 30-member Rules and Bylaws Committee committed to Clinton, her backers could -- when the committee meets at the end of this month -- try to ram through a decision to seat the disputed 210-member Florida and 156-member Michigan delegations. Such a decision would give Clinton an estimated 55 or more delegates than Obama, according to Clinton campaign operatives. The Obama campaign has declined to give an estimate.
Using the Rules and Bylaws Committee to force the seating of two pro-Hillary delegations would provoke a massive outcry from Obama forces. Such a strategy would, additionally, face at least two other major hurdles, and could only be attempted, according to sources in the Clinton camp, under specific circumstances."
thats what tom daschle characterized as "extra legal". obviously, he doesn't think merely letting the rules committe settle the dispute would be extra legal, when he himself said the RBC would have to settle it.
May 6, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who will be the first to call it for Clinton?
Fox News?
May 6, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't know....but MSNBC just called North Carolina for Obama, and the polls just closed.
May 6, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
And that's just another way of saying "Big win in NC!"
May 6, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ouch. Too close to call in IN, Obama cruises in NC.
May 6, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
It wouldn't surprise me if FAUX was your favorite channel, gotalife.
~
May 6, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know. Considering that the rules at the beginning of the contest, which both candidates agreed to, stated that Michigan and Florida would NOT count, I think you can make a very solid argument that trying to seat their delegates would, indeed, be extra-legal.
May 6, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you hate those pesky little details?
May 6, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"extra legal"? That is an odd choice.
Maybe he meant "divisive", instead of "extra legal".
Because it wouldn't really be "extra legal" if the Clinton campaign attempts to strongarm the committee, would it?
Repugnant, divisive, yes, of course.
May 6, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps Tom was referring to the fact that political parties are private clubs.
Haven't the courts refused to rule on any intra-party squabble because each party gets to make up its own rules?
By that measure I think that anything that happens would be 'extra-legal' because its not likely to be decided in the courts.
Just a thought.
May 6, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
N.C. called within 5 seconds.
May 6, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
OT: With 16% reporting in IN, 1 in 4 GOP voters are voting for someone other than McCain.
May 6, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone wonder if the results of Operation Chaos will be fully explored someday?
May 6, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dunno, but that has little to do with the fact that 25% of GOP voters are not backing McCain and instead voting for OTHER GOP candidates on the ballot (Paul, Huckabee, Romney)
What I was pointing out is 1 in 4 GOP voters are voting for some other GOP candidate on the GOP ballot than McCain. Granted the number of GOPers voting for Clinton in "Operation Chaos" may be causing the number still voting on the GOP ballot for someone other than McCain to show an exaggerated impact because many of Clinton GOP "chaostician" would vote McCain instead in the GE, but I find it funny that McCain is getting so little love by the GOP voters still.
May 6, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
NC for Obama as soon as the polls closed!
May 6, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Early on BO is getting killed in IN. If his margins are low in the big cities, this could be a blow out in IN
May 6, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah... too bad his margins aren't low in the big cities, at least judging from those who have reported so far.
And too bad that the turnout in the cities is so high!
May 6, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Woo Hoo, that means a big win for him.
Indiana still looks like a low single digit Clinton victory. Looks like jack-ass Wright cost Obama Indiana but will take solace in a nice NC win and the fact that ms HRC is really running out of field to move the goal posts to.
May 6, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
She'll be happy to move the goalposts all the way to the Moon. Just watch.
May 6, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell y'all what - if she pushes that button, she can never go back to the Senate.
I mean she can, but it won't be pretty.
So she runs one hell of a risk.
May 6, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
What makes you think she gives a shit how it looks . . . She has already filed the paperwork.
May 6, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg - never quote a dictionary in public. It makes you look like an elitist.
May 6, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on.
No one has done more for Tom Daschle than Barack Obama.
May 6, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Harold Ickes and James Carville have worked with Hillary on an appropriate decision. Who cares what economists think? Liberals are all elitist snobs. When Hillary is in charge, they will be gently "re-educated." Great leaders are great rule breakers. So the Democratic Party rules say x or y, and if everyone agreed to and in some cases supported these rules, that still leaves one rule that can never be broken: The Clinton Rules. Rule One: There is only one rule. We win. End of discussion.
May 6, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
White woman over 60, voting Obama!
May 6, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Advice to candidate Clinton, from candidate Obama: "If you can win, you should win and get to work doing the people's business." This, according to an April 3, 2007, "Chicago Tribune" article, was how Senator Obama defended his decision in 1996 to use ballot maneuvers (hyper-legal petition challenges) to remove Democratic challengers from the Illinois primary ballot. Well, I guess as long as the right person wins.
May 23, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink