[QUOTE=cricetus]
I guarantee you the Republicans are going to make hay out of the mess DNC has made, and McCain is going to mention at every stop in Michigan and Florida that Dems don’t care about them.
[/QUOTE]
For adopting the same 50% penalty that the GOP applied?
If you back up a bit you’ll see the discussion was about why the DNC should give MI and FL any delegates at all.
Harold Ickes is a squishy little toad.
[QUOTE=cricetus]
I generally vote Democrat and will probably continue to do so, but the dysfunction of a group that argues about how best to not follow their own rules seriously troubles me.
[/QUOTE]
I think that’s much preferable to following bad rules blindly. Very few of the people involved in this fiasco have anything to brag on, thats for sure. But the situation stinks, and if it takes rule breaking to get out of it, well, then it is what it is. Best I can tell, the situation can’t be resolved without breaking *some * rule, somewhere along the line.
Just be grateful that the nomination isn’t so close that it might *depend * upon this rules committee decision!
The horror, the horror…
I think Harold Ickes just announced Hillary’s intention to kick the poles until the tent is down.
Yes, isn’t it beautiful?
“IF I CAN’T BE PRESNIT THEN NOBODOY CAN!!!”
[QUOTE=cricetus]
I guarantee you the Republicans are going to make hay out of the mess DNC has made, and McCain is going to mention at every stop in Michigan and Florida that Dems don’t care about them.
[/QUOTE]
Well it’ll give him two talking points: Iraq and the half votes. He gets Iraq wrong half the time.
And he’ll get the RBC’s decisions all wrong half the time. So who cares.
MI just seated at 50%, with 69 pledged delegates for Clinton and 59 for Obama.
Ickes is an idiot.
[QUOTE=Oy!]
MI just seated at 50%, with 69 pledged delegates for Clinton and 59 for Obama.
[/QUOTE]
GOOD! As it should be!
Clinton is going to be pissed, but this is just one more notch on her belt to get the hell out after the primaries are over.
I think it was nice how that one guy reminded Ickes (selective amnesia) of the fact that he voted to strip delegates to begin with.
I’m convinced she’d rather monkey-wrench the whole business that bow out gracefully.
Ickes is the Democratic incarnation of Karl Rove.
How is this decision different than what the Obama camp asked for at the beginning of the meeting? They conceded 19 delegates to CLinton over all and that’s it right?
Yes, this is the outcome that Obama endorsed… so I just wonder why you ask “How is this decision different…”? What has anyone said to suggest there’s dissatisfaction with the outcome by people who supported the Ausman petition at the start?
The only hand-wringing is over Harold Ickes being the sole dissenter, after giving a self-serving speech about unity and what the Democratic party stands for and what its charter says (which didn’t seem to be important when he voted on the original punitive measures), and then sounded the war cry with his promise that Clinton would appeal the decision to a different committee and drag this thing out.
What is the threat with the Credentials Committee about? What can they (the Clintons or the committee) do?
It was fitting that Hillary’s trashy hecklers were scolded by no less than the grandson of Franklin Roosevelt. The utter sliminess of her supporters — with the obvious exception of any Dopers — appears to know no bounds.
Obama needs only 64 to win.
How did the seating of delegates come to be an issue before this committee in the first place? I thought MI & FL broke the rules, and the rules defined the penalty. Why wasn’t that the end of it?
Why didn’t Obama just argue or the 73-55 split that Clinton wanted? It wouldn’t have meant a spit of difference.