Skip to main content

We're about to torpedo the Democratic nominee over four (4) delegates?  Really?

It was in stunned disbelief that I watched Mr. Ickes and the Clinton supporters threaten to derail the Democratic Party's nominee (whoever this turns out to be) over a dispute that comes down to four (4) delegates.  Elevating this to a constitutional issue is inflated hyperbole of the highest order.

We'll go the Credentials Committee and maybe trigger a Chicago '68 in the streets of Denver '08 over four (4) delegates?  Really?

I can understand the idea of standing on principle, but come on now.

What about other principles -- like ending the war, addressing the economy, heath care, the basic civil and constitutional rights which have been systematically eroded by the Republicans, global warming, education -- what happens when these principles are in conflict with the question of who gets four (4) delegates?

Do notice, and make no mistake, we are again seeing the process hijacked into irrelevancies.  Instead of addressing substantive issues, instead of pulling together to insure we avoid a third Bush term, instead of talking about the things that actually matter to the public and to the future of our country and of the world -- instead of doing something that matters -- we are talking instead about four (4) delegates.

And we have at least a handful of people willing to work as hard as they can to get those four (4) delegates, even if it means voting for someone who is opposed to everything they say they stand for.

It's enough to make you wonder whether the chants of "Denver! Denver!" weren't organized by the McCain campaign committee.  But no, single-issue zealots have always been willing to stab themselves in the heart for the sake of their single obsession.

A modest proposal -- Mr. Obama, your people get to pick the delegates who are going to the convention in your name.  Announce -- today -- that four (4) of those delegates, from Michigan, will be pledged to Clinton.  Take this absurd discussion off the table.  Force the pundidiots to talk about how classy you are, about your ability to slice through an issue and to offer the other side a reasonable resolution that also pulls the rug out from under them.  

Clinton's supportors want to force us to avoid real issues, want to do damage to the Democratic Party, want to hand the election over to McCain, even want to vote against all their real interests, over the question of four (4) delegates?  Really?

Make the whole thing moot.  Give them what they want.  End the drama, and let's get back to putting a Democrat into the White House.

Originally posted to OutOnALimb on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:34 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  let me repeat a comment I already made (44+ / 0-)

    on another thread about Harold Ickes:

    Harold has an arithmetic problem

    as well as a credibility and an honesty problem

    The Michigan primary did not happen.  Let me repeat - since a judge ruled it was illegal there is NO primary basis for distribution of votes

    Next, even if he assume that HRC should have 73 rather that the 69 in the proposal put forward by Carl Levin, since the numbers were halved he is really talking about 2 delegate+  4/2 = 2

    Next, it was not the RBC that did anything.  They validated what was put forth by the Michigan Democratic party, so if anyone hijacked anything he should be blaming Carl Levin -  oh, wait, that doesn't fit his ridiculous scenario of HRC as victim?

    Next - the RBC unanimously - including Ickes, voted to TOTALLY strip MI of ALL delegates.  So in fact Hillary is getting 34.5  (69/2 delegates to which she is NOT entitled, according to Ickes' own actions in the original ruling.

    We won't even explore the ridiculousness of a paid HRC campaign worker voting on an issue involving HRC's campaign, or the hypocrisy of Clinton wanting to change the rules after the fact.  Ickes condemns himself by his own words.

    SO REMEMBER -  THIS IS NOT ABOUT HRC BEING ROBBED OF 4 DELEGATES - BAD MATH.  IT IS NOT EVEN ABOUT HRC BEING ROBBED OF 2 DELEGATES - GOOD MATH, BUT BAD REASONING.

    IT IS ABOUT HRC GETTING 34.5 DELEGATES TO WHICH UNDER THE RULES AND BY HER OWN STATEMENTS AND ICKES' PREVIOUS VOTE SHE IS NOT ENTITLED.

    And don't let Ickes or anyone else frame it in any other fashion.

    Peace.

    Those who can, do. Those who can do more, TEACH! If impeachment is off the table, so is democracy

    by teacherken on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:37:55 AM PDT

    •  I thank you tk. As I read this comment (4+ / 0-)

      on a different diary and I still agree wholeheartedly and can only add his ability to "refuse to accept" a premise totally based in reality is also a huge problem.

      "The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams."-Eleanor Roosevelt

      by left coast newbie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:41:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Roosevelt said the same thing (4+ / 0-)

      on CNN, "Michigan was an illegal primary" and the rules committee just did their best to find a universally satisfying, and unifying, solution....

    •  4 delegates, 2 votes. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      daddybunny

      Only the votes were halved, the delegates weren't. This was done so that the entire delegation could be seated, even if they only cast one-half vote each. Of course he's framing it as 4 delegates instead of 2 votes because that just puts a little extra torque on the Clinton spin.

      Everything else in your post is absolutely correct and demonstrates the ridiculousness of this primary season.

      John McCain : The kids aren't alright, my friends.

      by differance on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:51:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am aware of diff between delegates and votes (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Involuntary Exile

        but two things to remember

        1. Ickes did not support the halving
        1. his argument seemed intended to give the impression to the viewers that delegates = votes.  That was not clarified in the setup before his assertion that HRC was being robbed.

        Those who can, do. Those who can do more, TEACH! If impeachment is off the table, so is democracy

        by teacherken on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:53:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  It is about (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      maizenblue

      them being completely bugfuck crazy at this point. What I see is a bunch of three-year-olds jumping up and down yelling "Mine-mine-mine-mine-mine!!!" I'm sorry, but I've had just about enough of being governed by three-year-olds, thanks. Eight years in a row is plenty.

      As I have said before, there is a line between being a fighter, sticking with your guns 'til it's done, and being a complete ass. The Clinton campaign has crossed that line.

      The lone and level sands stretch far away. -Shelley

      by justme on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:05:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  ken... (0+ / 0-)

      you should diary this. You get enough traction on the reco list, and this is a solid analysis.

      •  feel free (0+ / 0-)
        1. analysis not unique to me, all I did was combine a variety of observations from others, not all of whom post here
        1. methinks the site has had more than enough diaries on the topic
        1. just because I post it does not guarantee it hits the list.  I go through stretches - after one of 9 conescutive on the list, I have not had one for more than week.. NBD
        1. I really don't feel like tending a diary right now

        peace

        Those who can, do. Those who can do more, TEACH! If impeachment is off the table, so is democracy

        by teacherken on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:45:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ken, I really appreciate your diaries and rec (0+ / 0-)

          them all - or more correctly, I rec all that I read.  While the analysis upthread may not be unique to you, you have a way of expressing things that is cogent, erudite, and is unique to you.

          I want to live in the future, not in the past.

          by Involuntary Exile on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:58:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Give her a hand and she'll want the whole arm. (5+ / 0-)

    You really think giving her the four damned delegates would shut her up? It would be taken as a sign of weakness, and trumpeted as some great moral victory.

    What's so hard about Peace, Love, and Truth and Progress?

    by melvin on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:37:57 AM PDT

  •  Harold Ickes as a boy... (3+ / 0-)

    I WANT MY FOUR DELEGATES...

    Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.

    by Aqualad08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:41:37 AM PDT

  •  And isn't he a member of the same campaign (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chiefsjen

    who insisted that pledged delegates can do whatever they choose??? Hypocracy at its dizzing finest.

    "The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams."-Eleanor Roosevelt

    by left coast newbie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:43:12 AM PDT

  •  4, 40, or 400: it doesn't matter (0+ / 0-)

    Hillary Clinton wants an appealable issue to take before the Credentials Committee and then the full convention. It provides her an excuse to stay in the race and continue to fling poo at everyone who stands between her and the nomination.

    Replete with "misstatements" and elisions and retracted and redacted and revoked assertions.--Carl Bernstein on HRC's record.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:46:30 AM PDT

  •  I really enjoyed the repeat of "four (4)." A lot. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mote Dai, NMLib

    Thank you.

    Calloused hand by calloused hand.

    by PocketNines on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:50:15 AM PDT

  •  NO - don't give them the 4 delegates (0+ / 0-)

    They are using that so they have something to contend about the hearing.

    The four delegates is only being used as a hop skip and a jump to Obama's 59 MI delegates.  

    Tue at the GOP convention hall should be interesting (*.cough cough VP choice /cough)

  •  Call me an optimist (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smileycreek

    Or a guy looking for the ulterior motive, whatever, but I think Ickes did that as much for show as anything else. He's not a fool--he knows it's over--but he and the Clinton campaign can't let it look like they just rolled over at the end. Notice that Ickes didn't say that they were definitely taking it to the Credentials Committee--just that they reserved the right to. He didn't even come out and say definitively that they were going to on MTP this morning.

    So why make the comment? It keeps the meeting yesterday from dissolving into ugly fury, and it gives hardcore Clinton supporters time to calm down between now and the convention. Clinton can bow out on her own schedule, if she chooses.

    I want to die like my grandfather, peacefully in my sleep, not screaming in terror like his passengers.

    by incertus on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:54:13 AM PDT

    •  He is not yet the nominee. So it matters. (0+ / 0-)

      Obama still does not have the delegates to be the nominee.  And we self-congratulate here without facing that.  

      Sure, he's probably going to be.  But as long as this is not decided by the numbers, he is damaged in the GE.  

      Where are the supers today?

    •  Okay, you're an optimist. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gobucky

      It would be nice if you're right, if Ickes was just giving room for Hillary to back out when she chooses.  Frankly, I haven't seen any evidence of such big-picture reasoning from that campaign, but perhaps the metaphorical night is still young.  We'll see how they act once even they are forced to admit that Obama is the nominee.  They say they'll campaign their haerts out for "whoever" gets nominated -- we'll see how hard they work to reign in the past rhetoric of their current supporters.

      And I wonder -- if Hillary does start to act in the interests of the party -- will her militant army call her a traitor and continue to threaten to defect to McCain?  It will be interesting to see how that all turns out.

  •  NOT about the 4 delegates.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dump Terry McAuliffe, gobucky

    It's ALL about having MI unresolved until the convention.  

    That's what all this is about, and no matter what was decided yesterday short of Hillary getting credit TODAY for all her votes and Obama getting no credit until the convention, there was going to be a challenge.  

    They even admitted it, her surrogates yesterday.  They even stipulated that of course the uncommitteds would go to Obama at the convention; but that there was no mechanism to "assign" those delegates now.  

    They are actually, literally setting out to make sure we have no nominee until August 26.  That is their intention.  They actually believe it will be Obama (unless "something happens"), so they are actively working to destroy his chances in November.  

    What Mr. Ickes in his parade through the talk shows this morning neglects to say is that the DNC did not "assign" any delegates.  It accepted the proposal of the MDP (who has every right to allocate their delegates) and reinstated their delegation at the convention with 1/2 vote.  

    But we wouldn't want the truth to get in the way of Clinton derailing Obama so that the party cries "uncle".  

    That's what's going on here.  That is their intent.  

    The only way to stop it:  superdelegates.  Today and tomorrow.  

    How many today:  One.  One God damned superdelegate endorsed Obama today.  

    How do you not get frightened that she has them banked until she "wins" the popular vote today in PR, which is looking increasingly likely.  

    Give me a reason the superdelegates are not coming forward that can put my mind at rest.  I dare ya.  Because I can't come up with a God damned thing.

    •  I think you're worrying unnecessarily... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clyde the Cat

      ...if Hillary had a lot of supers ready to pledge to her she would have got them out by now as she desperately needed to change the "Obama is inevitable" narrative that's built up over the last few weeks. I simply don't think they're there, and by this time next week I expect she will have withdrawn. If she hasn't, and is still threatening to take her petty complaints to the credentials committee and beyond, then it really will be time for the party's big guns to train themselves on her and let her have the full blast. But I think she knows she's lost, and will bow to the inevitable without the need for that.

    •  Supers (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clyde the Cat, sneakers563, shayshay

      I think the supers are waiting until after the primaries are over -- or at least until after PR -- to avoid getting accused of influencing the final primaries.

      I expect a few more to come out tomorrow, before Tuesday's votes -- just enough so that Tuesday's votes puts Obama over the top.  That way it can be said the the supers did not force the decision, it was the elected delegates who put him over the top.

      At least' that's my happy path scenario.  We'll see.

    •  Obama wants to see how many delegates they get (0+ / 0-)

      today.

      Once they know that number, they'll release as many as they need to so that SD and Montana put him over the top.  It will look better if he goes over the top based on a primary, as opposed to a flood of Super.s

      If Hillary had SDs waiting in the wings, there's no rational reason why she'd be delaying their announcements.

      Obama will be content today to announce at least one more Super than Hillary.

      We should see some fireworks tomorrow.

      "This is not Nam. This is bowling. There are rules." -- Walter Sobchak

      by Clyde the Cat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:09:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think they just want to wait (0+ / 0-)

      until all the primaries are over.  Why end it with 3 to go?  He's close enough that pledged delegates can put him over, and that's probably better from a PR point of view.  

      She'd have to have around 150 out of the remaining 200 banked for it to make a difference.

    •  Dare taken. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ggrzw

      Because many are waiting for the primaries to end on Tuesday.  After Tuesday if none come forward, you will have justification to worry. It will also be time to slam the remaining cowards for not committing, whether they are for Clinton or Obama.

      Read this morning that a uncommitted SD was approached by Richardson who told him the endorsement will count for more with Obama before June 3rd.  The SD is sticking by his decision not to commit before the primaries are over. I suspect that is the stand many have taken. After Tuesday we can rip any uncommitted SDs apart as feckless cowards.

      Note: Some of the more cowardly won't endorse until Clinton concedes. They want to be everybody's friends but usually end up being nobody's because they won't take a stand.

      "Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." Mark Twain

      by mentaldebris on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:10:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  they can't go to the credentials committee (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    myrealname

    they need a michigan delegate to file a challenge, which is hard since the entire MI delegation agreed to the allocation of delegates last night.

    •  is that really true? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DocGonzo

      They need a Michigan RBC member to file a challenge? I hadn't heard that - can you refer me to your source? This would make Ickes's performance yesterday even more comical if true.

      •  I think what Slinkerwink is saying is (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        slinkerwink

        that a Michigan delegate needs to challenge the RBC ruling, not that a Michigan RBC member needs to challenge the ruling. I think there was only one Michigan member of the RBC, and he was the one who proposed the compromise that was approved by the RBC. Wouldn't make much sense for him to challenge his own proposal.

        I was drawn to the flame because of the light, but got lost in the smoke.

        by maizenblue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:40:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Link? (0+ / 0-)

      Do you have a link to some definitive evidence of that requirement?

      And what about the (typically Clintonian) possibility that even if that is the rule now, Clinton will just get it changed later?

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:19:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site