But let's keep in my mind that a flat out assertion by a Clinton is changeable from one moment to the next.

The Clinton Campaign continues to reveal itself a feckless ball of confusion

That's the most shocking development of this entire campaign.

"I wouldn't use the word you used," Wolfson answered. "This is not about tainting the nominating process. It's about an effort to secure maximum participation from everyone who came out and voted."

Bush/Clinton rules: read that to mean that is exactly what they are saying - that word Wolfson says he wouldn't use.

Yeah, right, Wolfson. You and the rest are masters at Karl Rove-Speak - I get that now. You lying sack of shit.

THen why is Harold Ickes talking about having full seating of the MI/FL delegates along with Hillary Clinton? His words run counter to hers.

Right, he says this now to a bunch of gullible reporters who will dutifully report everything they say.

There are three things in life that are certain: death, taxes, and the members of the American media to believe and dutifully report what they are told.

Watch what Hillary and the Clintonistas do, not what they say. They are going to fight to have Michigan and Florida seated exactly as is, with ZERO delegates for Obama. If they don't get this, then they will file a lawsuit, which will quickly be followed by a class-action suit out of Michigan and Florida.

The goal now is to poison the well to render Obama unelectable. If they can't get the nomination they WANT him to lose this November. How anyone could look at their actions - not their words, their actions - and draw a different conclusion is beyond me.

Happily for the Clinton campaign, they have gullible reporters like John Dickerson who only report words, not actions.

Do not trust anything that Clinton and her campaign say! Let the committee make the decision and let them prove that they will do the right thing here. The Clintons will take and take and take all they can and use it. Obama is the winner and he can go forward but to compromise with the Clintons is a risk and an acknowledgement that she has a case here...

Mr Wolfson, what about the votes of those who did not vote because they trusted the rules? Should they be disenfranchised in favor of those who voted in spite of the rule-breaking in the process?

Greg, why the apologia? Wolfson saying that the process would not be "counterfeit" is not, in Woflson/Clintonspeak, a statement that it would be "legitimate." Clintons have parsed things far more finely than saying that an election can be "illegitimate" without being "counterfeit."

"This is not about tainting the nominating process."

Well, no. It's about Clinton winning the nomination, first and foremost. At its heart, this isn't a voter advocacy campaign.

If those two states aren't seated according to the rules, it would be legitimate, because it follows the rules. It would also mean that two legitimate state elections with certified results would not count. Therefore the official nation-wide totals won't reflect all the votes. That makes the overall results not legitimate. So there is legitimate and there is legitimate.

Wolfson's trying to have it both ways. Maybe Greg is right not to let him.

There was something great about the Clintons. It's very dim, but remember. So long ago...

Sounds like the ol' Good Cop, Bad Cop routine.

Let's all keep in mind what's actually happening here. The LAST think Clinton wants is for the FL and MI situation to be resolved, even if it's in her favor. Even if both delegations get seated as-is she still won't close the gap in delegates. This is about sowing confusion, pure and simple, which is why she continues to stick to only the most unreasonable solution and why she'll fight whatever compromise the RBC comes up with this weekend.

I don't understand what is going on here. If Senator Obama's campaign has won, if it's in the bag, what gives? Why don't they seat the delegations (including Michigan uncommitted for Obama, all of the uncommitted). If it's not going to affect the outcome of the race, then just do it I say. If it is going to possibly affect the race, then we should stop genuflecting to the almight math. Something ain't right here, and it ain't just Clinton the politician being political.

Greg, you have a strange notion of what constitutes a "flat-out assertion". The actual quotes from Wolfson you provide do not support the headline.

He doesn't say it would be legit. And also we know it has nothing to do with maximizing participation because she doesn't want to count a single vote for Obama or Edwards in Michigan, and she doesn't want to count the voters of Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington. She is lying, this is all about trying to make it look like Obama stole the election from her, and her and Ferraro and the rest of them are working overtime to blame in on sexism:

http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/05/hillarys-gender-baiting-campaign-is-in.html

And for Ferraro's most recent paranoid bigotry:

http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/05/geraldine-ferraros-sexism-neo.html

A nice helping of mock concern for all the trolls:

Hey, I thought the Democratic nomination was decided by delegates, not popular vote. Isn't popular vote not really the popular vote during this process because it doesn't include several caucus states? Or does that mean you just choose the popular states. Like California is popular. Seems like a pretty cool state. I guess Iowa, which doesn't count popular vote, isn't cool enough. Poor, nerdy Iowa, Maine, Washington, and Nevada. Not counting popular vote. Sheesh, you'd think they were expecting delegates to mean something. Dumbasses!

Why are there delegates anyways? Clearly popular vote is all that matters this year. I mean that's why those four states don't even count it- right? They don't count popular vote because it matters. The do count delegates because they don't matter. Of course, it makes perfect sense. Hello, I'm leaving. Goodbye, do you mind if I come in?

I also thought that the Democratic nominees had all signed a contract that said FL and MI wouldn't count this year and that their delegates wouldn't be seated. I know when I sign something into writing it doesn't mean anything. I mean my lease? Totally not going to follow it. I moving out tomorrow with no notice and I still want my security deposit back. ALL OF IT!

I mean what was the point anyways? I mean it's not like other states would go unchecked and be free to move up their primaries and caucuses at will if there weren't consequences for FL and MI. I mean, FL and MI got to move up, why can't my state of MN. I think we should have our caucus on Jan 2nd. Then we'd REALLY have a say. I think California and all the other states should move ahead of Iowa and have it dead last. Who went and made IA king anyways.

What does "all the votes must be counted" mean? Isn't there many people in those two states who didn't vote because they weren't going to count? How de we count THEIR vote? Also, wasn't Edwards still running during FL and MI? Shouldn't he get some delegates as well. Isn't that fair?

I just can't keep track of all these goalposts. I'm just going to throw them up in the air and see where they land.

So okay trolls, how do you answer these questions?

If I'm following this correctly:
1) The DNC told everyone, and they all agreed, that MI and FL would be straw polls, and the delegates would not be seated, because they jumped their primaries ahead of the official starting date.
2) Everyone agreed not to campaign in those states, and all of them except Clinton took their names off the MI ballot.
3) Clinton wants those results to be treated as real primaries now, because she's losing (not that they'll help her to win, at this point) and she can't stand losing.
4) Ickes and Wolfson have been in on this affair from the beginning and know all this already.

Why should they get what they want? They're the
ones who aren't playing by the rules.

So Wolfson wants to work in the Democratic party again. Good for him, I guess.

It would seem, at best, that the candidate camps would agree to a middle ground.

Clinton wants 100% seated.
Obama wants 50% seated.
Settle on 75% seated.

That would add 235 delegates to the total and make the magic number 2,144.

(The uncommitted MI delegates have already been chosen and from all reports are 95% staunch Obama supporters. Remember that some of those uncommitteds were likely supporting Edwards so it is unreasonable for Obama to insist on 100% of those votes even though he is likely to get all those delegates.)

If Obama cannot agree to that scenario then he is just obstructionist.

The argument that all the votes must be counted, blah, blah, blah; and we cannot disenfranchise the voters blah, blah, blah, is premised on an invalid point.

The FL/MI voters did vote and their votes count. However, in the primary process it is not the votes that count it is the delegates those votes lead to which is really at question. This is also part of the fundamental fallacy of HRC's argument of leading in the popular vote.

In the case of FL/MI the votes cast do exist. They just won't buy as many delegates at the delegate store as votes from other states or caucuses can buy.

Also, I think any resolution before the rules committee should include stripping the super delegates from FL/MI as the penalty for promoting and condoning the unsanctioned vote. The biggest cheerleaders for FL/MI (Wasserman-Schultz, et al) have turned into the biggest whiners.

Obama doesn't want 50 percent seated, as you asserted. He wants 100 percent seated with the delegates distributed 50/50.

Distributing all or half the delegates based on "election results" is the compromise (and too generous a compromise since Clinton will have benefited from violating the Four State Pledge that she signed and Obama will punished for honoring it).

Your 75 percent idea is thoroughly bogus given the compromise already offered by Obama is unfair to Obama, unfair to the states that played by the rules, and unfair to the voters that stayed home because they were told, by Hillary Clinton and others, that their votes wouldn't matter.

To seat MI and FL delegates at this point would be the most tainted solution. It would be like counting the popular vote in WA and not the caucuses, after everyone being told prior to the vote that only the caucuses count. That is the definition of an illegitimate election. Clinton is out of her mind,...rules are rules, count the freaking delegates,..counting anything else is BS! Anyone who tries to change the rules shouldn't be president. Do we want 4 more years of Clinton manipulating and cooking the books like she's doing now? If the roles were reversed,...I would bet the farm(if I had one)that she would have the exact opposite approach. Will the superdelegates please standup and make up their minds ....if your a superdelegate and your not from Montana, S. Dakota or Puerto Rico,...please make a decision before this gets out of hand.

The writer read like he was a dog at a bone, slathering, trying to get a statment that Wolfson was unwilling to give him. When finally he saw that wouldn't happen, he decides Wolfson agree with him anyway. Does this writer have any ambition to be credible, or is he another shil? Forget I asked.

Oilbama's "victory" will be completely bogus unless the voters in Florida and Michigan are counted. Of course as Oilbama and his Oilbamabots are completely bogus they will try and steal the election.

Ah but don't forget, just like Armando, after the call was completed, he added: "Speaking Only for Me."

It won't be the first time or the last that a candidate has exercised the option of taking the nomination to the convention.

Care to place a bet? I do not believe this is going to a fight at the conventio, and I'll bet you $250 that it doesn't.

You can make that argument about Michigan which is why I have conceded split the vote 50-50 (worse than the Obama campaign's original offer).

You cannot make that argument about Florida because the party didn't set the date - the republican legislature (which has almost a 2-1 majority) and governor did. Yes the democratic state sneator cosponsored the bill to move the primary up from March, but they did not have a definitive date set when he did so. when the legislation by republicans set the date in violation of DNC rules, florida democrats attemtped an amendment which failed. Again - the party is not responsible for an election date set by law. Did florida democrats support the law - absolutely as it had other election reforms like paper trail of voting etc. It was an all or nothing bill and they didn't have the leverage to change the date. In addition since SC moved their primary up, the rule of the 4 first states was upheld. Both candidates were on the ballot. Record turnout. Caucuses are nice, but they are harder to participate when you are older, working class/blue collar etc vs younger folks and college students who turnout enforce in a caucus. Are you going to discount an election with 1.7 million people for a caucus of 500,000 to be generous and consider that fair? I certainly don't.

FL & MI are two very different cases and the only people refusing to see it are people so blinded by backing Obama that they can't see the basic principle of what is right anymore. Breathe & take a step back. What is the right thing for the PARTY not what is right for Obama or Clinton. FL & MI are almost a moot right now since the obama campaign has been content to kick the can down the road until they nbelieve they see victory. So now they can focus on the right thing to do vs justifying the disenfranchsement of millions of voters.

WRONG what he says in public and does behind the scenes are two very different things. His MI campaign chairman acknowledged Obama was against the revote and the Michigan democratic party wasn't going to support something without both candidates in agreement:

I would send links but sadly I am at work and should get back to working :(

Down, girl!! :-)

I have always maintained, and I still do: without a large, paramilitary force, deputized by the Congress to blow down Karl Rove's front door with explosives, shoot and kill everyone who tried to stop them, and drag him out in chains, it isn't going to happen.

And do not think for a moment that if a smaller contigent of the constabulary were dispatched to his house to retrieve him by normal law enforcement methods, THEY would not be met with either Secret Service or National Guard troops, sent by the Bush administration to keep that from happening.

Would Cheney actually bring us to a second armed Civil War, over the Unitary Executive?

In. A. Fucking. Heartbeat.

Best suggestion I've heard (by a poster on the New Republic's The Plank):
--- Seat the pledged delegates exactly as the voters voted them, including 0 for Obama in Michigan.
--- Penalize the states by not seating the super delegates.

Not only would it penalize those who were in some sort of position to affect the decision about when to hold the primary, but -- since this wouldn't give Clinton enough votes to make any difference -- she'd have to SHUT UP about "I'm in this for the people - democracy must prevail - one person one vote - etc." This would be giving effect to those voters, so what's her problem now??

sounds like Gregg put words in Wolfson's mouth tho I didn't listen to the recording.

In any event, if Mi. & Fl. are NOT counted then Obama's victory is NOT LEGIT...

And we aren't going to support him if he's nominee.

Reconciliation with these people may be the challenge of all challenges. They really don't want to reconcile, but to overturn the results of their failed campaign. All of their demands are self-centered. First give me the presidency, now it's give me the vice-presidency or else. I'd take my chances with the else.

By now, Hillary has lost any argument on electability, but she continues to argue against Obama's electability. She will never be elected President without the black vote, the youth vote, or the intellegent vote. Her future is forever lost, but what about her campaign staff. Who is going to want these losers on their staff in the future?

The stains on the linen thou shed ...Only for another day of bread. Oh take this stench of a wench off my smell!

mischief:" Obama is not stealing this election. He successfully campaigned and has won the majority of pledged delegates based on the rules that EVERYONE agreed to at the beginning of the process."

Wow, I love it! Common sense rings sooo true, doesn't it? It's so simple, balanced, and pure and It roars like a Ferrari at 9000 rpm and echoes in your diaphram when challenged with stupidity!

Thank you for making my day. We should copy and save this single quote to post anytime this issue is being twisted around with "pretzel logic" from "camp loser".