The DNC Rules Committee 5/31 Meeting Materials

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:31:00 PM EST
Tags: Florida '08, Michigan '08 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Bump and Update: I just received permission to publish the materials. Here they are. By the way, TalkLeft will have a live-blogger credentialed at the meeting. S/he is BackFromOhio. So we will have two live-blogs going, BTD and I will live-blog together watching tv and BackFromOhio will live-blog from the meeting room.

******

I have just received the 38 page DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee Meeting Materials on Florida and Michigan. The DNC asks that we not publish them so I will honor their request. Here's what their e-mail says about them:

This document contains copies of the MI and FL challenges, a staff analysis of each challenge, and the overall timeline.

The documents are intentionally neutral. They do not make specific recommendations. The analysis seeks to provide a rules framework for each argument and the issues raised within each challenge.

The analysis maintains that the RBC did have proper authority and jurisdiction in imposing the 100% sanction. The RBC had wide latidude in that decsion.

According to the rules, the automatic sanctions was 50%, the RBC has within its authority to impose a sanction up to 100%.

We will go review them and update here with any observations. Here's what Big Tent Democrat wrote this morning on their conclusions. Comments are closed on his post, but you can comment here. [More...]

Big Tent Democrat writes in the comments below:

I can tell you it is an embarrassment. It is not even a worthy legal memo.
It is poorly written, misses tons of issues and simply is utterly unpersuasive. I wonder if the Clinton camp or any other nonintervnor gets to respond to it because I know I would love to offer a reply brief to this joke of a memo. I am shocked at how bad it is.

Update: Also check out StepBeyond's diary on Michigan and Florida posted today.

< About The Obama News Network (NBC) | Pledged Delegate Majority Is Not Enough >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The DNC Rules Committee 5/31 Meeting Materials | 104 comments (104 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Will you reference my post on the subject (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:36:51 AM EST

as it is being misdescribed as some typ e of manual when it is merely a legal brief for what the DNC is planning to do, seat half of the delegates.

I think the DNC is misrepresenting to you what the REAL purpose of this memo is - it is to justify a decison already made.

Again, I ask that you reference my post this morning on this subject.

This bullet pointr is absolutely false (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:38:24 AM EST

"The documents are intentionally neutral. They do not make specific recommendations. The analysis seeks to provide a rules framework for each argument and the issues raised within each challenge;"

I absolutely disagree with your reporting it as such. Indeed, I call it false reporting.


This is also false (5.00 / 3) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:40:44 AM EST

The analysis maintains that the RBC did have proper authority and jurisdiction in imposing the 100% sanction. The RBC had wide latitude in that decsion.

This purposely ignores Florida's safe harbor as provided by the DNC. Indeed, with regard to Florida, the DNC has NO AUTHORITY to IMPOSE ANY SANCTION.

As these bullet points proive, this is NOt a neitral document at all.

This is a butt covering argument ordered for preparation by the DNC. It is a travesty to call this a neutral document.


Finally (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:44:58 AM EST

This so called "neutral" memo said that while the automatic sanction was 50% strip, it aiso says that the DNc was within its authoriuty to fully strip the delegates. I believe that is false. And no neutral memo would flatly state that this is so.\

Indeed, the argument for granting the DNC such power actually contradicts the notion that 50% stripping was in fact the MINIMUM penalty. If you are arguing the DNC had plenary power to ignore the rule, then the DNC could have chosen to not strip at all and could have imposed some other sanction.

Indeed, that is the only way the DNC can possibly defend its inaction regarding Iowa, NH and South carolina.

If this memo is correct, then the DNC would have been obliged to strip Iowa, NH and South Carolina of one half of their delegates.

This memo is not neutral and it does not even make much sense.


the DNC should also strip the candidates (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:50:15 AM EST

who campaigned in Iowa, NH and South Carolina of their dleegates from those states as they were expressly instructed by the DNC rules to NOT csampaign in states that violated the DNC schedule.

So, if the Rules matter and are applied as this memo states, then Clinton and Obama lose all their delegates in Iowa, NH and South Carolina.


Obama should be stripped of his FL (none / 0) (#69)
by MarkL on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:32:06 PM EST

delegates. Why does no one have the guts to say this?


Actually (none / 0) (#85)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:57:36 PM EST

Craig Crawford has said this! I don't have a link so you can either trust me or find it at his web site.


: Here ya go (5.00 / 1) (#90)
by kenoshaMarge on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:02:54 PM EST

Craig Crawford on the roolz
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/

: Oh good. The final decision may (none / 0) (#87)
by MarkL on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:58:31 PM EST

be otherwise, but if the DNC doesn't even hear arguments that Obama should be stripped of his FL delegates, they have even less credibility than already.

Glad to (none / 0) (#17)
by Andy08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:51:20 AM EST

agree with you 100% on this one BTD.


This is only one side (none / 0) (#24)
by Mike Pridmore on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:55:00 AM EST

of the debate I thought the meeting was supposed to include, not a neutral presentation of the facts. If these are the "facts" then why even have a meeting except to announce a decision that has already been made?


this is part of (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:57:16 AM EST

the making the media accept the already made decision.


And it will work, of course (none / 0) (#30)
by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:59:01 AM EST

Unfortunately (none / 0) (#32)
by txpolitico67 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:00:54 PM EST

it will cost the Dems FL and MI.

Their moral victory with regards to rules will be a vacant attempt to seem high-minded.


Only if Obama is the candidate (none / 0) (#51)
by JavaCityPal on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:14:34 PM EST

they would have to vote for. No one is holding Clinton responsible for this. In fact, it becomes more and more apparent that the entire fiasco is an effort to keep her from gaining a stronger argument for the nomination.


: Oh you bet! (none / 0) (#64)
by txpolitico67 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:29:53 PM EST

Clinton is on the side of the angels: "COUNT EVERY VOTE"

I think I could defeat this (none / 0) (#40)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:08:27 PM EST

PR wise.


: Then do it! (none / 0) (#67)
by txpolitico67 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:31:33 PM EST

You know we gotcher back BTD!

BTD, I absolutely agree (none / 0) (#26)
by befuddledvoter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:56:13 AM EST

Memo is not neutral at all. While the DNC has wide discretion, there was no reason to absolutely strip FL and MI while allowing other waivers. Of course, FL has a formidable argument and should have been granted an outright waiver to start with. As to the punishment/remedy? Absolute discretion, they say?

Has anyone ever heard about ABUSE of discretion?

Absolute discretion really means there are no rules at all. That is a more apt description of the DNC.


: Thanks for your critiques (none / 0) (#100)
by BackFromOhio on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:15:54 PM EST

Absolute discretion also means, at least to me, that the rule of law & respect for process do not exist.

Indeed it is. (none / 0) (#23)
by Andy08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:54:20 AM EST

I reported it as what their email said (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Jeralyn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:08:50 PM EST

it's a direct quote.


: your reproting is true (5.00 / 3) (#44)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:10:30 PM EST

Their characterization is false.

You are (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Andy08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:53:27 AM EST

absolutely correct on this:

sure, I'll add a link (none / 0) (#7)
by Jeralyn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:39:06 AM EST

I am anxious (none / 0) (#31)
by txpolitico67 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:59:46 AM EST

to hear what you and BTD think about this memo.


: I just read it (5.00 / 0) (#39)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:07:49 PM EST

As a laywer, just on craftsmanship, I am embarrassed for the authors.

So, the latest SurveyUSA has Obama losing (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by tigercourse on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:38:37 AM EST

Michigan by 4 points. 4 out of the last polls taken in the past 3 months have Obama losing. The DNC better figure something out and kiss some Michigan @$$ if they don't want to be one of the reasons Obama loses in November.

: O/T (none / 0) (#71)
by txpolitico67 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:32:29 PM EST

but if Romney's the VP, MI is done.

Ok (5.00 / 4) (#63)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:29:35 PM EST

I am writing a reply brief then that I will publish tomorrow.

: Stay tuned! (5.00 / 1) (#68)
by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:31:55 PM EST

heh.

: Ugh (none / 0) (#76)
by txpolitico67 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:37:02 PM EST

I leaver for DC to fight tomorrow. I will have to catch up when I can. MAN I hope the hotel I am going to be staying in has WI-FI!

Heh (none / 0) (#1)
by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:35:19 AM EST

I want an explanation for how there can possibly be an "automatic sanction" of 50% for breaking the rules, no exceptions, given that IA, NH and SC received no penalty at all.

Did the RBC somehow misplace its penalty-waiving authority in the last few months? Has it checked under the sofa cushions?

The emk is a bad joke (none / 0) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:47:29 AM EST

: the memo (none / 0) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:47:52 AM EST

I mean. It is an insult to the intelligence of all.

I've read some of it (none / 0) (#2)
by Step Beyond on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:36:10 AM EST

And there are mistakes. Like when they said most of the candidates removed themselves from the Michigan ballot. Or when they said that Florida law doesn't allow a candidate to remove their name from the ballot without declaring themselves not a candidate.

As I said in the other thread, if they don't get the these facts right then how can I trust anything else they say?

Looking forward to your comments (none / 0) (#4)
by mogal on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:37:48 AM EST

Any mention of Obama ads running in Florida? (none / 0) (#9)
by herb the verb on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:41:34 AM EST

Nobody else did it, why did he get to?

Obama "campaigned" in both MI and FL (none / 0) (#34)
by befuddledvoter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:02:12 PM EST

We all know about the Obama ads in FL. He also "campaigned" in MI. Through his surrogates and those of Edwards, websites, emails etc advertised that MI voters needed to vote "uncommitted" to vote for Obama. Local and state politicians even posted the notice on their websites. This was extensive advertising in violation of the pledge.

If you violate, you forfeit.


Not really (none / 0) (#41)
by Step Beyond on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:08:30 PM EST

It doesn't specifically mention them, but it says that the no campaigning rule was inapplicable because there were no delegates per their ruling.

Of course it goes much later on to say that that the rules are automatic and they can't change them so that implies that the campaigning rule was automatic and beyond their ability to alter.


Illogical (5.00 / 2) (#50)
by herb the verb on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:12:48 PM EST

So the candidates then were free to campaign in those states because they were stripped of all delegates?

That is the most preposterous argument I have ever heard. Laughable!


Yes (none / 0) (#54)
by Step Beyond on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:17:57 PM EST

But we should have all been aware of that. When Obama may or may not have violated the campaigning ban people turned to the 4 state pledge writers NOT the DNC to see if it counted. When Obama sought clearance for the national ad buy he went to the 4 state pledge writers not the DNC. When the FDP wanted the candidates to get a waiver to appear at the state convention, they went to the 4 state pledge writers (and were denied) not the DNC.

The DNC has never said the candidates couldn't campaign. But their ruling, if they take the automatic punishment route may open that can of worms. Especially since they can't grant a waiver of it since they are claiming they can't grant a waiver for the 50% reduction.


That is still nonsensical (none / 0) (#59)
by herb the verb on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:24:18 PM EST

What would have been the penalty for breaking the "pledge"? Not getting delegates that weren't there in the first place? When is campaigning not campaigning? When Obama does it?

The only sanction was to lose delegates when/if they were reinstated. Now they will be reinstated, now the sanctions should be enforced.


: DNC didn't create the pledge (none / 0) (#70)
by Step Beyond on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:32:14 PM EST

The pledge was not from the DNC.
The pledge writers (dem leaders in 4 early states) had said they were not enforcing the pledge that it would be up to their voters to decide if a candidate had broken the pledge and then, presumably, not vote for them.

Sounds like a really weak (none / 0) (#47)
by JavaCityPal on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:12:11 PM EST

argument.

The ONLY person who benefits by the dismissal of that rule is Obama. Seems the only rules that should be considered for striking are the ones that ALL candidates benefit equally by.


: Actually (none / 0) (#52)
by Step Beyond on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:15:03 PM EST

I've been saying all along that the DNC was ok with campaigning. The problem is that the DNC now seems to want to say that the punishment in the rules is automatic and beyond their control. If they give ANY delegates back then the campaigning rule comes back as well. And then people can argue over violations of it.
They shot themselves in the foot. So now it appears they intend to shoot their other foot as well.

BTD spots the lies (none / 0) (#10)
by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:42:17 AM EST

so we don't have to. . .

I have not seen the memo (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:46:52 AM EST

But each and every bullet point presented as absolutely NOT neutral and indeed, in may ways, contradictory.

But what really burns me up is the presentation of this document as "neutral." It is not. the DNC RBC is a party to this action trying to justify its atrocious actions.


: I'm reading it (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Step Beyond on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:52:29 AM EST

and I agree it is not neutral.
They are justifying giving all the uncommitted votes in Michigan to Obama. That is if they give any delegates because they decided they are allowed not to give any. Oh but they have to take half because it is automatic.
I can't get past that they are wrong about removing their names from the Florida ballot and wrong that "most" of the canidates removed their names from the ballot in Michigan. Half is not most. Half is half. This is not an opinion of lawyers but hatchetmen.

: Not that it really matters (none / 0) (#19)
by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:51:54 AM EST

But I hope someone puts the memo up on Wiki Leaks.

Why is (none / 0) (#15)
by Andy08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:49:29 AM EST

the DNC sending these documents now?

It sounds more like documents the Obama campaign should file (should have filed ?)

Is Saturday a show down only between the DNC & the HRC campaign?

Is Obama satying out leting the DNC do the work for him (a la Pontius Pilate) ?

I don't follow....any of this, really.

You got it (none / 0) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:51:33 AM EST

and it is a mistake UNLESS Obama is planning to swoop in and argue against the DNC. In which case, I think it is cool politics.


He's asking his people not to protest (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:52:34 AM EST

the meeting. I'm thinking he wants it to be ignored.


: Why protest? (none / 0) (#94)
by santarita on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:10:03 PM EST

The fix is in and it favors Obama. So why should his fans protest?

Cool politics? (none / 0) (#33)
by sister of ye on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:01:36 PM EST

Maybe if anyone buys it. Some will, I'm sure. Not this MI voter.

Though it is curious that he plans to be in MI Monday. Probably to brag about how he helped us get half our delegates.


Do you (none / 0) (#36)
by Andy08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:04:22 PM EST

think he'll do that?

I don't know ...but seems more like `anagarden' says here that he prefers the meeting to be ignored and be perceived as HRC against the DNC.

How can they make such a charade out of FL & MI..?


The info I read on his campaign (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by JavaCityPal on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:08:57 PM EST

instructions to supporters on not protesting at all this Saturday was because they "have already won this battle" and they want them to go register voters in VA instead.


What (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by Andy08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:15:12 PM EST

because they "have already won this battle"

could mean other than saying the DNC RBC made up
its mind already and are doing BO's work for him?


Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by JavaCityPal on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:22:12 PM EST

I think the way MI & FL have played out from the beginning of this fiasco is highly suspicious that the DNC has been using them as they needed to in order to either make sure Obama got the nomination, or Clinton didn't (if Obama hadn't been the one to get this far).

The way Obama has gone into GE mode with such casual confidence just feels like he's been told to do it and not worry...someone's got him covered.

Perception is everything in politics. It's why the DNC is losing party members at the same rate Obama is losing voters.


: JaveCityPal (none / 0) (#65)
by Andy08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:30:28 PM EST

Your analysis is spot on. Exactly right. Thanks.

JavaCityPal (none / 0) (#55)
by Andy08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:18:32 PM EST

where is he putting this info.?

Do you have a link?

Thanks.


It's on dKos (none / 0) (#61)
by JavaCityPal on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:26:02 PM EST

Fair notice, it's dKos you will go to.

Ugh! (none / 0) (#66)
by Andy08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:31:17 PM EST

Can't go there; I have avoided it thus far.
Won't give them my traffic ...

But thanks for the reference !


A more acceptable link (none / 0) (#81)
by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:52:53 PM EST

HERE


: Thanks Steve M (none / 0) (#99)
by Andy08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:10:33 PM EST

Yes, a bit more acceptable ... sometimes ;-)
Thanks again.

Here's a reprint for you :) (none / 0) (#83)
by JavaCityPal on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:55:41 PM EST

The Obama Campaign has maintained a remarkable amount of message control through-out their campaign, a trait that has earned them a lot of respect from media and pols alike for their ability to stay on message. This also has the advantage of preventing wild-card flaks (Geraldine, we're all looking at you) from embarassing the campaign, giving them more control over the money by funnelling funds away from the 527's, and most importantly, allowing them to set the tone. You know, Obama's tone.
In line with their belief in message control, in this last leg of a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad campaign, they are asking us to stand down. Don't do it. Don't yell at the Committee. Don't mock the people who've come to yell for Hillary. Don't wave "Obama '08" signs in the faces of the DNC R&B Committee members. Don't make a fuss they say--go register voters, in Virginia.
Excerpt from the email:
I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade, but under direction from
Chicago HQ we are being asked NOT to hold any events like this. For
several political and media reasons, I have been asked to relay the
message that only those Obama supporters who obtained tickets to sit
inside the meeting should attend. No outside
protests/rallies/gatherings, no matter how
peaceful/positive/well-intentioned.
If you would like to be involved in the counter-event (voter
registration in Northern VA) please let me know.

Yes, that's right, the Obama Campaign's neverending playbook of electoral aikido says don't protest, we've already won this fight. Go prepare for the next fight: register voters in Virginia, the traditionally red state that recent demographic shifts and Obama-Mania have put into play, the 13 Electoral College Votes that we can take from the Republicans.


: Thank you JavaCityPal !! (none / 0) (#98)
by Andy08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:53:47 PM EST

"Justice" (none / 0) (#25)
by HenryFTP on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:55:00 AM EST

One day, someone will take a look at this time in the history of our Republic and wonder how it is that so many people can so passionately argue that obscure Party Rules should be enforced to the letter, even if it disenfranchises voters who had no ability to prevent the Rules from being violated, while at the same time the United States Government is actively engaged in serious violations of the Constitution, solemn Treaties with the force of American law, and statutes, in torturing prisoners in our custody and in eavesdropping on Americans without warrants, and only a comparatively small number of people make respectful arguments about that.

As an old Washingtonian, I can only say that our Party Elders have such a bad case of Potomac Fever that they should be hospitalized immediately and hopefully for the duration of the 2008 campaign.

BTD (none / 0) (#27)
by txpolitico67 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:57:11 AM EST

Is Jeralyn giving you access to the docs?

Yes I just read it (5.00 / 0) (#38)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:06:51 PM EST

And let me say it is a ridiculously bad document.

I could make a MUCH BETTER case for the DNC than is made by that memo.

As a lawyer regarding the craft, I am shocked at how bad it is.


: Wow (none / 0) (#60)
by txpolitico67 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:24:42 PM EST

I'm a law school dropout. But I can discern legal documents to a certain degree. From what you are saying sounds like it's nothing more than a sham. This document was put out there to assuage the restless. It was a foregone conclusion what the RBC had already decided.
The rest is just window dressing.

Something is going on (none / 0) (#28)
by americanincanada on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:57:13 AM EST

The Clinton campaign sounds far too confident on their conference call and they spoke directly about the memo as well. Or should I say has tina Flournoy, an RBC member, speak to it.

They insisted they will accept nothing less than 100% seating of the delegations and that they believe this will be resolved on Saturday.

it's interesting. I don't know what to expect other than if they are not happy we are going to Denver.

Then ON to DENVER (none / 0) (#35)
by txpolitico67 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:03:43 PM EST

just like Napoleon once said about Russia: "we will discuss peace in MOSCOW!"

GO Hillary!


Ahh (none / 0) (#92)
by kenoshaMarge on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:08:06 PM EST

Maybe that's not the encouraging reference for Hillary supporters to think about.


: Sorry kenosh (none / 0) (#95)
by txpolitico67 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:14:25 PM EST

I was being snarky.

: It may be apt. (none / 0) (#96)
by cannondaddy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:19:26 PM EST

Could it be (none / 0) (#79)
by Makarov on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:50:10 PM EST

the Clinton campaign intend to use the RBC decision (as it appears now, to not fully seat MI and FL according to their vote) as "justification" to go to the convention?

In my view, Clinton requires no justification to go to Denver. She's earned several times more delegates than past candidates who've stayed in.

There's definitely something weird going on, as you note. Maybe this memo was produced by Brazile et al in favor of Obama, while behind the scenes the votes are already there to seat 100% of the delegations.

Books are going to be written about this.


Memo (none / 0) (#84)
by Step Beyond on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:56:32 PM EST

The writing of this assessment was part of the process. The interesting part, to me anyway, is that they have just now released it.

From St. Pete Times April 22, 2008

"Under the process, staff had two weeks to make their recommendation to the co-chairs, which they have done. The co-chairs are now reviewing the recommendation. When they decide how to proceed, it will be made public,'' said DNC spokesman Luis Miranda.

So this document (none / 0) (#89)
by Makarov on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:00:55 PM EST

was written and distributed 3 weeks ago?

Maybe my guess about the committee makeup looking like Clinton had enough votes was accurate. Maybe they will ignore the tainted document, and vote to seat 100%.


: Longer than that (none / 0) (#93)
by Step Beyond on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:09:25 PM EST

The Florida part would have been written and distributed by March 31, 2008 - 2 weeks after receipt of the appeal by Ausman.
The DNC then dragged their feet until there was enough pressure on them to schedule a meeting but they still refused to release this memo at the time.

Or we're now in the kabuki part of this. (none / 0) (#91)
by Llelldorin on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:03:24 PM EST

If we give the Dem leadership wildly undue credit for clever politics, it's possible that one of the two candidates has already quietly won, based on unannounced superdelegate commitments. If that's the case, and if a compromise has been made between the two campaigns (if one or the other Unity Ticket has already been proposed and accepted, for example), then we could be in for a few weeks of kabuki theater culminating in a dramatic rapproachement between the two campaigns (Say, if Obama suddenly and dramatically demands that the DNC seat everyone as slated. That'd leave the uncommitted MI delegates technically uncommitted, but in fact Obama supporters.)

All that's nonsense, of course—if we were that good we would have avoided Bush. It's much more likely that both sides are believing their own press to such an extent that they assume the other side will immediately rally to their side once they get a majority of delegates. I don't see a real plan on either side to win back the other—the Obama campaign seems to believe that Clinton supporters will come around because he's just that damned good, while Clinton supporters seem to have no plan whatsoever to avoid the inevitable blowback from Obama supporters if Clinton pulls out a win.


It sounds like nothing is (none / 0) (#97)
by cosbo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:30:11 PM EST

going to be settled on Saturday. Sounds like we are going to the convention.


: There is an appeal process (5.00 / 1) (#101)
by Cream City on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:59:28 PM EST

in DNC rules, if the decision Saturday (or perhaps a delayed decision, as the committee does not have to rule Saturday) is not to the liking of the states, and they wish to pursue it.
So that could be another step before the convention and its credentials committee. Btw, as I read it, the credentials committee is the final arbiter and thus even could overrule this decision? Yikes.

I have now read the memo (none / 0) (#37)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:05:35 PM EST

And I can tell you it is an embarrassment. It is not even a worthy legal memo.

It is poorly written, misses tons of issues and simply is utterly unpersuasive. I wonder if the Clinton camp or any other nonintervnor gets to respond to it because I know I would love to offer a reply brief to this joke of a memo.

I am shocked at how bad it is.

I wonder if we are allowed to write about it in specific terms beyond what has leaked to the Media.

Why not? (none / 0) (#45)
by Step Beyond on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:10:37 PM EST

They didn't give it to me so there is no requirement saying I can't write about it. I'm confused as to why y'all can't quote it.


Unless you're afraid of pissing off (none / 0) (#46)
by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:11:18 PM EST

the DNC, do it and let them be upset.

The higher principle of democracy makes it seem worthwhile.


If (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by Step Beyond on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:12:29 PM EST

BTD or Jeralyn are ok with it, I can link to where I got my copy.


It's linked all over the (none / 0) (#57)
by americanincanada on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:21:49 PM EST

tubes.


: where is it? (none / 0) (#73)
by Andy08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:33:40 PM EST

: Yep (none / 0) (#74)
by Step Beyond on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:33:54 PM EST

Yep. I had no problem finding it. But I still wouldn't put up the link until they said ok since they specifically aren't quoting it themselves.

Also (none / 0) (#49)
by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:12:40 PM EST

I can tell you from personal experience that if people in the media want to write about something that's embargoed, they'll find a copy from someone who broke the embargo, and quote from that.


BTD!! (none / 0) (#62)
by txpolitico67 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:27:55 PM EST

Respond to it in a diary! I would LOOOOOVE to hear your full blown response.


BTD please do (none / 0) (#72)
by Andy08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:32:34 PM EST

it here.


BTD. Please respond officially (none / 0) (#78)
by befuddledvoter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:47:21 PM EST

You can be an amicus. No DNC "rule" prohibits that.


I am sure (none / 0) (#80)
by Andy08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:51:29 PM EST

the author of such document was Donna Brazile.

That would explain its quality and fake-neutrality.


I say go and fight for it at the convention (none / 0) (#56)
by Saul on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:19:49 PM EST

Whats wrong if we take the nomination decision to the convention. Hilary's got nothing to loose. She's come this far and fought so hard what's a little more time

Does (none / 0) (#75)
by cannondaddy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:36:17 PM EST

the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee have to resolve the issue on 5/31? Could there be a second meeting or is this it?

: MHO (none / 0) (#77)
by Step Beyond on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:40:39 PM EST

I doubt there would be another meeting. They have to fly in for the meeting from across the country. Also I read that this was the first time they were asked specifically to come a day early and not plan to leave until the day after. Which the RBC member who relayed that info took as an implication they would be settling this.

: I've read (none / 0) (#82)
by Makarov on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:54:13 PM EST

that the RBC's jurisdiction ends on some arcane date "56 days before convention". After that, it goes to the convention Credentials Committee.
If true, this is likely the last meeting. The credentials committee membership isn't finalized yet, and probably won't be until July or August - but I can't recall where I read either of these, so I could be wrong.

From what I have read (none / 0) (#86)
by flyerhawk on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:57:44 PM EST

the two complaints deal specifically with seating Florida supers and giving back 50% of the Florida pledged delegates.

I don't have time to read the entire brief but does it deal with Michigan at all?

: Yes (none / 0) (#88)
by Step Beyond on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:00:37 PM EST

Politico, the plan to seat uncomitted (none / 0) (#102)
by fctchekr on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:10:27 PM EST

Buried on page 29 of the DNC memo is a novel -- and Obama-friendly -- solution for seating the "Uncommitted" delegates for Michigan.

The basic issue is that party rules leave little room for granting the uncommitted delegates to Obama, because there's no way to verify that the voters were specifically voting for him.

But, the memo argues, "it can be argued that the voters expressing the 'Uncommitted' were expressing a preference for at least one of the candidates whose names did not appear on the January 15 ballot, rather than rejecting the entire field.
Entire article at:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/ObamaEdwardsRichardsonBiden_Michigan_delegates.html

RE: It gives Obama.. Biden, Edwards and Richardson (none / 0) (#103)
by fctchekr on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:14:24 PM EST

Obama/ Edwards/ Richardson/ Biden Michigan delegates

(Right of approval is the mechanism that campaigns use to ensure that their delegates are actually supporters.)

And because Richardson and Edwards have endorsed Obama, he'd be able to ensure that the Uncommitted delegates sided with him versus Clinton.

If this happens it will ENSURE that many of Hillarys's supporters will bolt.

DNC Roolz (none / 0) (#104)
by Amiss on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:37:55 AM EST

I noticed that BTD was discussin the CNN "error" in advertising that BO made, He also according to a reporter from the Tampa Tribune made some in Florida.

By WILLIAM MARCH and ELAINE SILVESTRINI The Tampa Tribune
Published: September 30, 2007
Fundraising Totals | Primary States | Where They Stand
TAMPA - Barack Obama hinted during a Tampa fundraiser Sunday that if he's the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, he'll seat a Florida delegation at the party's national convention, despite national party sanctions prohibiting it.
Obama also appeared to violate a pledge he and the other leading candidates took by holding a brief news conference outside the fundraiser. That was less than a day after the pledge took effect Saturday, and Obama is the first Democratic presidential candidate to visit Florida since then.
Obama and others have pledged not to campaign in Florida until the Jan. 29 primary except for fundraising, which is what he was doing in Tampa.
But after the fundraiser at the Hyde Park home of Tom and Linda Scarritt, Obama crossed the street to take half a dozen questions from reporters waiting there.
The pledge covers anything referred to in Democratic National Committee rules as "campaigning," and those include "holding news conferences."
Obama seemed unaware the pledge he signed prohibits news conferences. Asked whether he was violating it, he said, "I was just doing you guys a favor. ... If that's the case, then we won't do it again."