Hillary Will Steal The Nomination On May 31

So I did some research to see what the makeup of the Rules and Bylaws Committee, and I was shocked at what I discovered.

First of all are the two co-chairs. They are seemingly good news:

Alexis Herman    Washington D.C.
James Roosevelt Jr.    Massachusetts

Neither of these two super delegates have declared for either candidate.

Not so with the other 28 members of the committee...

Of the remaining 28, 20 have endorsed a candidate. The following eight have declared for Obama:

Allan Katz    Florida
Thomas Hynes    Illinois
Sarah Swisher    Iowa
Janice Griffin    Maryland
Martha Fuller Clark    New Hampshire
Everett Ward    North Carolina
Carol Khare Fowler    South Carolina
Sharon Stroschein    South Dakota

The following 12 have declared for Clinton:

Alice Huffman    California
Garry Shay    California
Mona Pasquil    California
Michael Steed    Maryland
Elaine Kamarck    Massachusetts
Donald Fowler    South Carolina
Mame Reiley    Virginia
Elizabeth Smith    Washington D.C
Ben Johnson    Washington D.C.
Eric Kleinfeld    Washington D.C.
Harold Ickes Jr.    Washington D.C.
Hartina Flournoy    Washington D.C.

So the decision point basically comes down to the following eight people:

Mark Brewer    Michigan
Yvonne Gates    Nevada
Ralph Dawson    New York
Jaime Gonzalez Jr.    Texas
Jerome Wiley Segovia    Virginia
David McDonald    Washington
Donna Brazille    Washington D.C
Alice Germond    West Virginia

To me, this means Obama has a huge hurdle to overcome the DNC changing the rules after he's already won the race, because make no mistake, under the current rules, he will be the winner on May 20.

Notice too, one of the undeclared members of the Rules and Bylaws Committee is from New York and another is from Michigan. That puts the count to 14 out of thirty for Clinton.

So can they convince two of the remaining eight (counting the co-chairs) to alter the rules? If Michigan and Florida are seated with a half vote each, Hillary stands to gain 89 delegates, and that doesn't count super delegates.

We could see this thing settled by the rules being changed after the game has been played...

•  No tips, CALL THE COMMITTEE! n/t

  - Albert Einstein

  by Walt starr on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:34:24 AM PDT

  •  Not gonna happen.

    To do so would guarantee four more years of McSame, and every democrat knows it.

    by Shelley99 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:40:30 AM PDT

    •  I don't think The Clinton's care

      Nor do those supporters in the tank for her care.

      Ickes certainly doesn't care.

      - Albert Einstein

      by Walt starr on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:45:20 AM PDT

      •  Mark my words

        If the nomination is perceived as stolen in any way, shape or form, neither the city of Denver nor the Democratic party will ever be the same again. Count on it. If Hillary wins this, it BETTER be fair and square.

        by rickpolitic on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:19:04 AM PDT

        •  Or what?

          Seriously: or what?  You'll throw your vote away on a 3rd party candidate?  You'll vote for McSame, or stand by and allow him to get in?

          The DNC know that we don't have any other choice.  Hillary, once she steals it - and she will - will only have to demonize McSame in order for the politics of fear to play out.

          DailyKos is not representative of average voters.

          by DemCurious on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:36:02 AM PDT

          •  DemCuroius

            Will you remove the HR you gave here?  
            The general consensus is that it is uncalled for.

            by donnamarie on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:53:09 AM PDT

            •  I was

              Until the carping about it started.  Now I feel disinclined.

              by DemCurious on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:03:55 AM PDT

              •  Huh

                So people asking you to do the right thing bothers you?   I've run across quite a few of your comments this morning.  Quite the naysayer, aren't you?
                

                by donnamarie on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:32:32 AM PDT

              •  I understand perfectly

                my three year old is the same way.

                by Hprof on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:08:45 AM PDT

      •  several of those declared for Clinton

        are absolutely committed to the process being done right.  Remember, there are electeds who have declared for Clinton who have made clear that if at the close of the primaries and caucuses she still trails in delegates and vote they will support Obama.

        I think it unfair to presume that merely because someone supports Clinton while the contest is ongoing that they would manipulate the rules on her behalf, regardless of how much pressure Bill and Hill put on them.

        I know several of those who are listed as being declared for Hillary, and I am damn sure that at least two of those I know would not act as you imply.

        by teacherken on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:18:51 AM PDT

        •  I wouldn't assume anything at this point

          While I don't assume that Team Clinton will railroad this thing through, I wouldn't assume that they won't, either.  I have no doubt that they'll lean hard on their committee members and, if anything, even harder on the swing voters.  I have no clue as to how members will respond, and, unless you have discussed this specific issue in person w/ members, you probably don't know, either.

          by RFK Lives on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:03:52 AM PDT

          •  in one case have discussed something close

            in a previous cycle, and see no reason to think the person has changed mind

            by teacherken on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:37:05 AM PDT

            •  Harold Ickes voted in favor of stripping

              and now he's all for seating.

              I'm thinking the beating Richardson took was more of a shot across these Super Delegate bows than any other.

              - Albert Einstein

              by Walt starr on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:00:59 PM PDT

    •  And some super ds

      would lose their elections. They know about blowback. Obama has coat tails. Clinton has baggage.

      by kitebro on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:47:54 AM PDT

      •  None of the Super Ds on the R&BC are elected

        Their jobs do not depend upon silly elections.

        - Albert Einstein

        by Walt starr on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:51:27 AM PDT

        •  They're all elected to the DNC.

          I know people don't like to count that, though. because figuring out how to have a voice in those elections is, you know... hard.

          by Kagro X on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:51:56 AM PDT

      •  that would make a great

        political cartoon.

        by AlyoshaKaramazov on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:33:54 AM PDT

      •  This says it ALL:

        Obama has coat tails. Clinton has baggage.

        by Wee Mama on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:21:50 AM PDT

        •  My new sig line.

          by kitebro on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:54:20 AM PDT

    •  FAIL

      What every Democrat knows is that not voting for the Democratic party candidate will guarantee four more years of McSame.

      Rant and rail about it all you like now, but come November, you'll fall in line just like the rest of us to vote for the second worst candidate.

      by DemCurious on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:37:52 AM PDT

      •  You're deluded

        by Craig Hickman on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:46:18 AM PDT

        •  You're going to let McSame get in?

          Inaction means you've voting for more war.

          by DemCurious on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:03:08 AM PDT

          •  If Hillary can only win by changing the rules

            I see no reason to ever trust anything from the Democratic Party ever again.

            - Albert Einstein

            by Walt starr on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:07:19 AM PDT

          •  Bomb Iran, is not war?

            by redtex on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:21:01 AM PDT

  •  Walt, some of us in Michigan are on the case

    I smell a rat the size of a mastodon. The Clinton forces are trying to ram through a "seat-Michigan" proposal and they think no one is on to them. We're looking at the prospect of grand theft of the nomination.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:09:24 AM PDT

    •  Most people missed how she picked up

      additional delegates ampongst the "Uncommitted" delegates.

      - Albert Einstein

      by Walt starr on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:11:04 AM PDT

  •  Several are

    Clinton/McAulliffe appointees. Like Alexis Herman, Ickes,ben johnson and others...We need to get to the committee, ASAP.  McAuliffe , as head of the DNC, stacked the deck for clinton as planned..They just did not plan on OBAMA!!!

    by docb on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:36:44 AM PDT

•  Harold Ickes vs Donna Brazile

  WASHINGTON—Harold Ickes, a top adviser to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign who voted for Democratic Party rules that stripped Michigan and Florida of their delegates, now is arguing against the very penalty he helped pass.
  more stories like this

  In a conference call Saturday, the longtime Democratic Party member contended the DNC should reconsider its tough sanctions on the two states, which held early contests in violation of party rules. He said millions of voters in Michigan and Florida would be otherwise disenfranchised -- before acknowledging moments later that he had favored the sanctions.

  http://www.boston.com/...

  by Scarce on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:41:29 AM PDT

  •  With twelve members in the tank for her

    It's close to being guaranteed, they will steal the nonmination with the same committee that gave the rules Obama played by.

    - Albert Einstein

    by Walt starr on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:43:03 AM PDT

    •  If they do...

      They destroy the Democratic party, and we all start over anew.

      But they also destroy themselves, and I don't think they are gonna do that.

      by The Infiltraitor on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:45:38 AM PDT

      •  Again, I don't think they care

        Twelve out of thirty are in the tank out of the starting gate.

        Another is from the same state as Hillary.

        Another is from one of the two states challenging the rules.

        That leaves two more to obtain a majority on the committee.

        That's not going to be too tough to come up with.

        - Albert Einstein

        by Walt starr on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:53:11 AM PDT

        •  Mark Brewer (Michigan) is the chair of the

          Michigan Democratic Party. At the December DNC meeting, he spoke to the rules committee and tried to get them to change the sanctions against Michigan. The rules committee didn't budge. I don't recall the final vote. He will no doubt be a vote for seating the delegations. What a mess.

          by greenchiledem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:38:12 AM PDT

      •  media loves " low dirty stories"

        Sure Hill and Bill have to steal to get what they want, but the media also loves a "dirty story" and they know darn well what is going on and they will turn on the Clinton's and expose them for who they are. The media will do this not because they care about the Clinton's stealing the election from Obama who earned it, no it will make a good story that will last a long time. The destruction of the Democratic Party. The media does not report that Obama has won although he needs SD to get to the magic number, Clinton would have to overturn the will of the voters. It really would be the end. I am pretty sure Dr. Dean and all the big wigs in the party know this. The $109 million couple cannot take it away from a man who was raised by his mother and grandparents and earned his way into college and think that we, wink, wink, do not see what they are doing. Stealing the election. How Republican!

        by peacefully on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:47:25 AM PDT

    •  Change the rules in midstream?

      If you think that will happen --as in seat the FL adn MI delegates, as is-- then you're quite cynical about the process.

      They're not going to blow up the democratic party to feed the Clinton's ambitions.

      by Scarce on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:46:31 AM PDT

      •  Aren't they?

        On this one I'll judge when the whole affair is past. No-one knows how many favours the Clintons are owed... or how many buried bodies they know about.

        by Dauphin on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:48:13 AM PDT

    •  Dean gets to appoint 25 members so

      I think it would be very hard for her members to have enough to overrule the decision.

      by ronnied on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:38:19 AM PDT

      •  This is NOT the Credentials Committee

        It's the Rules and Bylaws Committee.

        Two different workarounds to stealing the nomination.

        - Albert Einstein

        by Walt starr on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:02:32 AM PDT

•  Stupid rules all around

  in this mess.

  We need real primaries and a rotation of states at the front so that people don't feel disenfranchised by Iowa and NH always hogging the front of the line.  

  I hope these clowns don't just leave this mess behind after the convention, though the last giant debacle (McGovern) led to this mess.

  by HiD on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:42:22 AM PDT

  •  I agree the rules were stupid

    bu they were the rules everybody agreed to play by.

    Now they are going to change the rules after the game has been won by Obama to insure he doesn't get the nomination.

    - Albert Einstein

    by Walt starr on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:44:32 AM PDT

    •  Which rule would have to be changed?

      Can you provide a link or something other than an opinion that if the superdelegates vote for Hillary they are somehow "changing" the rules?

      by skohayes on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:48:34 AM PDT

      •  The rules which stripped Michigan and Florida

        of their delegates. The rules which required nobody participate and no delegates would be seated.

        It was the Rules and Bylaws Committee that set that standard at the outset of this race.

        And it will be the Rules and Bylaws Committee which will alter those rules on May 31, handing the election to Clinton.

        - Albert Einstein

        by Walt starr on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:55:52 AM PDT

        •  Well, nothing in the rules

          states that the offending states have all their delegates stripped.
          The rules say that half the delegates and all of the supers are stripped.
          If we were going to follow the rules, New Hampshire should have had their delegates stripped as well.

          Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party
          provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes
          the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior
          to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the
          event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after
          such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to
          the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by
          fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty
          (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National
          Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from
          that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state’s delegation.

          by skohayes on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:18:00 AM PDT

          •  If you had kept quoting

            You'd have got to the part where this is the minimum sanction according to the rules, and that the rules allow the committee to levy additional sanctions.

            But that would have been intellectually honest.

            by Robobagpiper on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:25:00 AM PDT

            •  Are you talking about this?

              Nothing in the preceding subsections of this rule shall be construed to prevent the
              DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee from imposing additional sanctions,
              including, without limitation, those specified in subsection (6) of this section C.,
              against a state party and against the delegation from the state which is subject to
              the provisions of any of subsections (1) through (3) of this section C., including,
              without limitation, establishing a committee to propose and implement a process
              which will result in the selection of a delegation from the affected state which
              shall (i) be broadly representative, (ii) reflect the state’s division of presidential
              preference and uncommitted status and (iii) involve as broad participation as is
              practicable under the circumstances.

              Can you tell me when there was a committee meeting of the DNC to establish a "broadly representative" delegation from both states?

              by skohayes on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:32:49 AM PDT

              •  Nothing prevented them from setting one up

                Which is irrelevant; that's enumerated as a subset of "imposing additional sanctions".

                by Robobagpiper on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:41:49 AM PDT

    •  I don't like this sort of change...

      but it should also be admitted that one of the rules everybody agreed to play by is the rule about how rules can be changed.

      by Kagro X on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:54:44 AM PDT

•  Not gonna happen.

  If it is stolen... and if it is, it will be transparent... the party splits. Guaranteed.

  Dean isn't going to let the party dissolve. He said yesterday it's the delegates... PERIOD. Even with Florida and Michigan, she can't catch him in delegates.

  It's over. He's won. There's just the sound of Bill and Hillary screaming left to endure.

  by chicago DEM on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:45:19 AM PDT

  •  Dean has no say on the rules committee

    and as I showed, 12 out of 30 are definitely in the tank for Hillary.

    Ickes, who was one of the straongest FOR stripping the delegates has already stated he'd go back on that now.

    - Albert Einstein

    by Walt starr on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:47:38 AM PDT

    •  I can't find the article now

      but there was an article on these folks & the premise of the article is that they are all Dean loyalists.  They will follow his lead.

      Maybe.  

      Even if they give MI & FL delegates, doesn't he still win?  They can't give him zero delegates out of MI - people would go ape-shit.

      by aimeeinkc on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:09:30 AM PDT

      •  You're thinking the Credentials Committee

        That's a different committee.

        This is the Rules and Bylaws Committee that stripped the delegates to begin with.

        - Albert Einstein

        by Walt starr on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:11:54 AM PDT

•  Sometimes I feel like the Democratic

  Party just doesn't want to win this election.

  Why? Look at all of Bush's blessings: Debt, trade deficit, a nasty war, torture and other human rights violations, paranoia, loss of face in international affairs, a recession... a task and a half for any party.

  So, now Bush will prance away to his ranch and let the Democrats clean his mess, while Republicans will obstruct, decry, and abuse the Democrats' every reform for their political gain.

  If McCain wins it will be disastrous for the United States - but, one might reason, beneficial for the Democratic Party, since then it will be obvious even to a child what inept twits the Republicans are.

  Of course, I do not support such a strategy, but this line of reasoning has occurred to me. Perhaps I'm just good at thinking like a calculating bastard.

  Of course, such a plan, if it exists will fail because of the Democratic control of Congress; the Democrats haven't turned the PR situation to their advantage.

  by Dauphin on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:45:42 AM PDT

  •  Party mandarins are willing to tank the election

    The Clintons, the DLC faction, the fat-wallet donors, and the inbred Beltway consultants and pundits would rather lose the 2008 election than lose control over the party.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:52:09 AM PDT

    •  As I've said,

      such a move might be politically beneficial for the party, but if that's their plan, the presentation has been so thoroughly bungled that it cannot succeed, barring a Republican-caused complete collapse of the country's institutions.

      And, all in all, quite harmful to the United States.

      by Dauphin on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:56:33 AM PDT

    •  It isn't a matter of tanking the election.

      They would tank the party.

      by NWTerriD on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:15:39 AM PDT

      •  So what?

        They keep their jobs.  What changes for them?

        by DemCurious on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:39:24 AM PDT

•  But the Rules & Bylaws Committee

  makes a recommendation, correct? It's vote is not determinative?

  Following their recommendation it goes to the Credentials Committee, then to the Convention floor?

  by Elwood Dowd on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:46:39 AM PDT

  •  It's definitive

    They accept or reject the challenge as presented.

    They've even been given a "Solomon solution" of seating half the delegates as is to save face by changing the rules.

    End result, Hillary wins.

    - Albert Einstein

    by Walt starr on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:50:41 AM PDT

    •  That's not actually true

      The credentials committee actually only makes recommendations. Provided Obama has at least 20 percent of the votes on the credentials committee, of which he has substantially more from pledged delegates alone, he can issue a "minority report" and have the issue voted on the floor of the convention.

      http://www.politico.com/...

      Also... Since Obama appears to have claimed the bulk of the uncommitted delegates in Michigan, the most She can get from seating the delegates in full is approximately 60 pledged delegates.  If they were seated with half a vote each that would fall to 30.

      by okiedem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:59:19 AM PDT

      •  This IS NOT the Credential Committee

        This is the Rules and Bylaws Committee.

        Two different animals.

        The Rules and Bylaws Committee is hearing a challenge to the rules they set whereby Florida and Michigan were stripped of their delegates.

        - Albert Einstein

        by Walt starr on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:01:43 AM PDT

        •  That is true but..

          He can still challenge the delegates in the credentials committee at the convention if need be. If it comes to that, the vote would go to the convention floor in likelihood.
          Still the damage isn't as bad as it could be.  With seating at half a vote, it's only about 30 net delegates for her

          by okiedem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:03:58 AM PDT

•  Not gonna happen.

  If it appears that Clinton wants to spark a credentials fight, look for the Supers to break heavily towards Obama, thus rendering the issue moot.

  by GermanAmericanDem on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:55:17 AM PDT

  •  This is not a credentials fight

    This is a challenge to the rule that stripped Florida and Michigan of their delegates.

    The credentials committee hasn't even been seated yet, and if Hillary wins on May 31, there is no longer any controversy as the committee which stripped the delegates will have reversed itself.

    - Albert Einstein

    by Walt starr on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:57:14 AM PDT

•  fyi, 3 of the reamining 8

  are African-American, plus co-chair Alexis Herman (who was Clinton's Secretary of Labor).

  by Erik W on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:00:02 AM PDT

  •  *remaining (sp)

    by Erik W on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:01:44 AM PDT

  •  That last bit may be bad news

    They may steal it by committee.

    - Albert Einstein

    by Walt starr on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:03:07 AM PDT

    •  Keep in mind

      Clinton's first term Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, endorsed Obama.

      So, things don't always play like you're thinking they do.

      and Ralph Dawson (of New York) is African-American.

      by Erik W on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:07:41 AM PDT

      •  I'm also thinking along those lines

        These folks may have pledged for Clinton before it was clear she was trying to destroy Obama's chances; the loyalty to the party and country may trump their loyalty to an individual.

        by jiffykeen on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:43:10 AM PDT

•  In Florida,Hillary got 49.8% of the vote

  with Obama getting a little less than one-third,Edwards got around 14% so if you seated the entire delegation on that basis,I am certain the Edwards delegates would go for Obama overwhelmingly,so she would wind up with a net gain of less than 10.

  Similarly in Michiga,she got 55% with no one else on the ballot,if you let her have 55% of the delegation,the gain would net out at less than 20.

  By the end of the last contests on June 3,Obama's lead will be insurmountable even if you seat Florida and Michigan.

  by Litvak36 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:02:25 AM PDT

  •  Dodd and Kucinich

    were also on the ballot in Michigan. Obama, Edwards and Biden were pandering to New Hampshire and Iowa, there was nothing in the rules that required them to take their name off the ballot.

    by skohayes on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:20:45 AM PDT

    •  Florida law prevented them from taking their name

      off the ballot.

      by Robobagpiper on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:27:11 AM PDT

      •  There is nothing in the DNC rules

        that said that the names were to be removed from the ballot.

        by skohayes on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:37:10 AM PDT

        •  They were told not to participate n/t

          - Albert Einstein

          by Walt starr on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:03:57 AM PDT

          •  Was there a penalty for participating?

            If not, then they were asked, not told.

            by Kagro X on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:01:40 AM PDT

          •  By New Hampshire and Iowa, not the DNC

            Even Kos made a comment about it back in January:

            What's more, Clinton was the only top-tier candidate to refuse the ultimate Iowa and New Hampshire pander by removing her name from the Michigan ballot. That makes her essentially the de facto winner since Edwards and Obama, caving to the cry babies in Iowa and New Hampshire, took their name off Michigan's ballot. Sure, the DNC has stripped Michigan of its delegates, but that won't last through the convention. The last thing Democrats can afford is to alienate swing states like Michigan and Florida by refusing to seat their delegates.

            So while Obama and Edwards kneecap their chances of winning, Clinton is single-mindedly focused on the goal.

            http://www.dailykos.com/...

            by skohayes on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:31:40 AM PDT

            •  It's not the Soviet Union.

              Candidates must have their names on the ballot and campaign in the state for the election to be free and fair to all parties.

              The DNC said they would not count.  HRC agreed.

              Until she didn't.

              Quoting Kos doesn't change that, nor does spamming the thread with comments like "well, he could have kept his name on the ballot."

              She lost.  Get over it.  Moveon.org.

              by Kab ibn al Ashraf on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:06:15 AM PDT

•  Hillary will un-Steal it

  You are openly promoting the idea to prevent counting of votes from Florida and Michigan - shame on you!
  Rules created by DNC are wrong and stupid and they have to be changed and they WILL be be changed by "Rules and Bylaws Committee", regardless of their personal preferences.
  If Florida and Michigan will not be counted than nominee will be illegitimate.

  by marx00 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:03:17 AM PDT

  •  Ridiculous

    The rules were set.

    Do you honestly beleive Obama would not have campaigned in Michigan and Florida or removed his name from the Michigan ballot had he not been guaranteed they would not count?

    Get real

    Your girl is about to steal the nomination and destroy the party.

    - Albert Einstein

    by Walt starr on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:05:31 AM PDT

  •  This Michigander says you're full of prunes

    The cementheads who run our state party openly defied the DNC and its agreed-on schedule and gave the middle finger to the 48 other states that played by the rules. Worse still, they insisted that everything was hunky-dory even though the primary was about as democratic as the sham election in Pakistan.

    If the national party seats Michigan, it will reward our aging, blundering party hierarchy for its arrogance and incompetence, also reward the Clinton campaign for a campaign of lies and threats--not to mention its bald-faced hypocrisy, and send a message to state parties that it's okay to defy the rules so long as you have powerful friends.

    No sale.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:07:31 AM PDT

    •  48 states followed the rules?

      What about Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina?

      No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in
      the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the
      first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the
      second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention.

      Iowa caucus: January 3
      New Hamspshire: January 8
      Nevada: January 19
      South Carolina: January 26

      by skohayes on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:25:04 AM PDT

      •  Those States Requested Permission...

        And it was granted. The question is, did you knowingly omit that, or do you just figure you can toss out any argument that supports your point of view without actually fact checking it?

        by CTPatriot on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:43:39 AM PDT

        •  What's the point of having rules

          if the states can change them?

          "It's unconscionable that we continue to grant special treatment" to the two early states, Michigan Democratic Party chairman Mark Brewer told fellow committee members.

          New Hampshire moved their primary and was criticized by Donna Brazile, but not sanctioned?
          Is this about fairness or what?

          by skohayes on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:39:27 AM PDT

          •  Your intellectual dishonesty and lack of

            integrity are quite amazing.

            by Kab ibn al Ashraf on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:07:38 AM PDT

          •  Before you argue about the rules

            Take the time to make sure you understand them first.

            by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:15:09 PM PDT

  •  you think the ruling was STUPID?

    tell me, how does the idea of Super Tuesday in December sit with you?

    by terra on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:19:08 AM PDT

    •  The ruling was stupid

      Both states should have been penalized 50%, nobody should have removed their names from the ballot (of course, nobody had to - Obama and Edwards did it to curry favor with Iowa), and move on.   Penalize the parties, but still give the voters a say (this would have been a particularly good idea in Florida, given the change in the Florida primary date was not the party's fault, but was forced on them by the Republican legislature).  Most people, frankly, wouldn't have noticed.  Going the route we took is going to cost us both states in November, and is going to make it all the harder, in the long term, for us to ever again say with a straight face "Count every vote".

      Frankly, after this election is over, regardless of who wins, the party needs to do a bottom-up reform of the entire nominating process.  Abolish caucuses, set regional primary dates (rotate every cycle which region goes first), eliminate the superdelegates, etc.  This nominating process has been a farce, and while I certainly hope it doesn't cost us the general election, I'm not holding my breath.

      by Curufinwe on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:46:23 AM PDT

  •  Hillary illegitimate

    If Florida and Michigan will not be counted than nominee will be illegitimate.

    No, if the rules are not followed then the nominee will be illegitimate.

    What do you think when your Hillary include her votes in Michigan when she claims that she is winning in popular votes? How you can possibly defend her acting like a Soviet dictator where they also enjoyed the one party ballot? If she is this nonchalant about rules now, how can you with confidence say that she will ANY different than George W Bush when it comes to obeying laws when she is President? She just terrifies me.

    by mnguy66 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:28:14 AM PDT

  •  How do you count MI

    when Obama wasn't even on the ballot? How many Obama supporters didn't bother to go to the polls, or voted for Romney (remember Kos' efforts to get MI Dems to cross over and screw over McSame)?

    These rules were set in place a couple of years ago -- and everyone knew them. If you seat them as-is now, with no restrictions, have fun with the Iowa primaries of July 2011 (at least the weather will be better).

    FL and MI already lost out on all those reporters coming through to eat in local restaurants on expense account -- but the party leaders of those states have to learn that there are consequences for their actions.

    If Obama wasn't doing so well in the rest of the campaign, do you really think Clinton would be fighting so hard for the "enfranchisement" of these two states?

    by Cali Scribe on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:37:26 AM PDT

    •  Oct. 2007

      >>>Five individuals connected to five different campaigns have confirmed -- but only under condition of anonymity -- that the situation that developed in connection with the Michigan ballot is not at all as it appears on the surface. The campaign for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, arguably fearing a poor showing in Michigan, reached out to the others with a desire of leaving New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as the only candidate on the ballot. The hope was that such a move would provide one more political obstacle for the Clinton campaign to overcome in Iowa.
      http://iowaindependent.com/...

      by katz5 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:48:52 AM PDT

      •  exactly

        Obama was stupid or coward enough (or both) to withdrew from Michigan - it is his fault entirely

        by marx00 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:58:03 AM PDT

        •  Copy that. It's Obama's fault he didn't compete

          in a state that did not count.

          So he's stupid and a coward.

          And you value cheating and winning at all costs, like Cheney and Addington.

          by Kab ibn al Ashraf on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:09:15 AM PDT

          •  are you whining?

            Obama did it to himself. so stop whining and start supporting Hillary if you want a real Democrat in White house.

            by marx00 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:18:18 AM PDT

  •  As a floridian let me just say

    Piss off. Our election was a load of horse shit, and we all know it.

    by discocarp on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:00:21 AM PDT

•  Wrong

  first, the word "rule" does not mean what you think it means.  Florida and Michigan were not excluded by a "rule."  They were excluded by a DECISION that set the punishment for violating a rule.  And therein lies the distinction.  You see:

  a. both violated the RULE by setting early primaries;

  b. the RULES set a presumptive PUNISHMENTof 50% of the delegates;

  c. the RULES allowed for a PUNISHMENT of as little as zero loss to as much as all delegates;

  d. the preliminary DECISION was to strip them of all votes;

  e. the RULES require the Committee to review the earlier decision;

  f. that is going to be done May 31.

  Do you see the difference between "rule," "punishment," and "decision"?  It is crucial.  Why? Because the "rules" allow the Committee to seat both delegations, and such a seating would merely change a decision, not change a rule.  In fact, other than here at Daily Kos, most people have expected some decision to allow some seating of the delegation, the only question being how many and how.  The most likely possibility is that they return to the presumptive punishment of 50%.  In fact, had Donna Brazile not worked so hard to "make an example" of Florida and Michigan, as if millions of voters were a two-year old to be put in time-out, we would have danced by this whole problem a long time ago.

  by dhonig on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:10:59 AM PDT

  •  Down to PArsing

    Now I know the Clintons will steal it.

    - Albert Einstein

    by Walt starr on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:13:38 AM PDT

    •  Not parsing

      you are using the word incorrectly to perpetrate a lie, then attacking somebody who points it out.  If what you fear comes to pass (and it won't), it will not be a rule change, because what you present as a rule never was. I merely point out your error, that the very heart of your argument is false.  

      by dhonig on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:31:22 AM PDT

      •  Do the rules say no Super Del's for FL and MI?

        I most fervently pray that they do. Can you provide a link to that which you are referring?  I have always believed we should only get half here in FL, but MI?  No way.  She pledged not to participate, then stayed on the ballot.  Because all of this was pre-planned to thwart the will of the dem primary voters, I am really beginning to believe that.

        by godislove on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:50:06 AM PDT

        •  There is a long and detailed discussion

          HERE

          by dhonig on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:24:06 AM PDT

•  Why give this diary such an emotive title?

  I don't understand why you titled this diary "Hillary will steal the nomination on May 31".  It makes it sound like you know something for certain, when in fact you don't.  You have presented for us some good info, well articulated, but what it adds up to is that Hillary could, feasibly, if certain events go certain ways, attempt to 'steal' the nomination at May 31st.  

  I wonder if you titled it like you did to snag our attention or to give us a fright so we would read it and be as alarmed as perhaps you are about the possibilities you describe, and therefore more likely to act or respond.  

  Whatever, exaggerating headlines, especially in a fear-begetting way - however well-intentioned - contributes to distortion and, ultimately, to cyncicism.  

  Chill out, friend :-)

  by Wingman 3 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:11:22 AM PDT

•  I don't get this

  If Michigan and Florida are seated with a half vote each, Hillary stands to gain 89 delegates,

  Half of Michigan chose to vote for 'nobody' rather than the only name on the ballot, Clinton.

  Obama can't be given half the delegates in any sort of 'compromise', because he wasn't even on the ballot. How can the spin of splitting the delegates between Clinton and Obama even be taken seriously at all?

  Hey, I wasn't on the ballot either, so I'll do a deal and split the delegates with Clinton! And you can too! You too! And you! And you! Everyone can! If you're not on the ballot, Clinton will broker a deal with you! A totally silly absurd situation to even waste time thinking about.

  Seriously though, 'Nobody's' supporters will be up in arms at being unfairly stripped of his/her/its Michigan's delegates to the convention. There'll be riots!

  by The Australian on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:18:31 AM PDT

  •  On a less serious note

    There were four candidates at the time of the Michigan and Florida primaries. Or was it still six?

    So any brokered deal over these two states would have to include Edwards, Kucinich and the other two lawyers in the six-lawyer Demcratic field at the time in a four or six way split of the delegates.

    by The Australian on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:24:33 AM PDT

    •  Edwards wasn't on the ballot either

      I believe Richardson, Dodd, Biden and Kucinich were the four Democrats who were on the ballot along with Clinton. (Oh, and don't forget Gravel!)

      by Cali Scribe on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:40:45 AM PDT

  •  Michigan's election was ruled illegal

    and therefore there ARE no results.  I can't quite figure out why the DNC doesn't start talking about that.

    by KS Rose on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:31:18 AM PDT

•  It would be Illegal

  The decision not to seat florida was challenged
  in the courts and the action was dismissed.  I
  am not a lawyer but isn't it illegal to change
  the rules after parties have relied on the
  the change.  In other words, Obama relied on the
  decision and enforcement of the rules and took
  his name off the ballot in Michigan and did not
  campaign in Florida.  Therefore, no court would
  allow this.  I believe that the seating of the
  delegations will require the agreement of both
  Clinton and Obama otherwise this will spill over
  into the courts.

  by Saggio on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:21:25 AM PDT

  •  No

    In fact, the rules anticipate this decision, as well as another at the convention.  The court did not get involved because the courts stay out of party decisions.  a reversal would most definitely NOT invoke new court authority.

    by dhonig on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:38:12 AM PDT

•  Now Who Steals if the Rules are Changed?

  Seems to me that changing the rules to effect the outcome would be stealing. Shouldn't there just be a re- vote in both states? Seems a fair solution but the Obama team has steadfastly opposed this. Of course they oppose it because they know that irrespective of the number of delegates everyone will be watching those popular vote totals.

  by shamprez on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:32:53 AM PDT

•  I keep thinking it's all been a set-up.

  They always had this planned, along with elected Dem party members in FL and MI. knowing it to be a way to change the rules after the game, modify the final score.  Remember: "I will be the nominee, katie." Afraid you may have nailed it, WaltStarr.  

  by godislove on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:33:57 AM PDT

  •  I wonder if We The People have changed the game

    enough they will have to obey our will.  They may have had a change of heart, or will after Indiana and N.C.  Let's keep pushing back, full on, til they all fall down.  

    by godislove on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:41:32 AM PDT

•  Emptywheel at Firedoglake

  had this proposal:

  My proposal is this: you seat the 83 delegates selected (plus alternates) on April 19 with full voting strength. That would net Hillary 11-16 delegates from having won the Clusterfuck in January. It would also ensure that the only reasonably democratic vote Michiganders got to cast this year--April 19's district caucuses--counts.

  You treat the PLEOs (spots for locally elected officials) as is. This would net Hillary another 3 delegate advantage from the primary.

  You split the At-Large delegates 50-50 (that is, 14 each). This would give Obama the opportunity to influence the selection of 14 of the delegates in Denver (his campaign did not vet any of the people who ran as uncommitted delegates on Saturday and at least some of the delegates selected are not solid Obama supporters). It would also partially incorporate Obama's demand that the delegation be split 50-50.

  You do not seat the super-delegates, at least not as super-delegates. The campaigns are perfectly free to use their 14 At-Large delegate slots to give to the people who would otherwise be super-delegates, but they will be delegates just like any other.

  This solution accomplishes everything everyone has said they want to do. It would give MI's voters--the people who will do the grunt work to get our Democratic nominee elected in the fall--a say at the Convention. It rewards Hillary, slightly, for having won the Clusterfuck. It penalizes Obama, slightly, for taking his name off the ballot in January. And it penalizes MI, 28 total delegates, for having broken DNC rules and moved its primary up.

  But it focuses that punishment on those who played Chicken with the votes of MI and lost, last year, rather than punishing those who had no choice in the matter and lost their ability to cast a vote in a truly fair election. It penalizes the super-delegates, many of whom were instrumental in the decision to defy the DNC and many of whom are engaging in the worst posturing right now.

  Even I don't love this solution. I consider it simply less terrible than all other solutions. But I find it far preferable to continuing to treat MI like a political football for the next two months, all at the expense of the great grassroots work MI has done in recent years.

  http://firedoglake.com/...

  by skohayes on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:39:16 AM PDT

  •  Why reward Clinton for flouting the rules?

    Most years only a few states get to choose the nominee and then the delegates are awarded based on the early states.  Award Michigan and Florida delegates based on the ratio that the nominee secures the nomination with and then limit what they can vote on at the convention.  

    by hopeward bound on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:48:41 AM PDT

    •  Clinton didn't flout the rules

      That's the whole point. New Hamsphire and Iowa requested that the candidates names be removed from the ballot, not the DNC.

      by skohayes on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:41:05 AM PDT

  •  What about the pledge Clinton signed

    NOT TO PARTICIPATE n FL and MI?  (Sorry for yelling.)

    by godislove on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:56:11 AM PDT

    •  She did not participate

      anymore than any other candidate.

      There is a new rule that imposes new sanctions on presidential candidates. If a state, any state, violates the rule on timing/the window, presidential candidates will face sanctions if they campaign in that state. Examples of campaigning include: making personal appearances in the state, hiring campaign workers, and buying advertising and so on.

      The Democratic Party

      by skohayes on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:43:21 AM PDT

•  To stay in the race she needs.....

  MONEY..   she's broke and won't have a nickel past may 6

  by Shayle on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:00:10 AM PDT

•  Have to agree...

  ...with the commenters who are arguing that this just isn't going to happen.

  No, I'm not naive.  I do agree with the concern that the Clinton's will employ their "do anything to win" strategy.  I also recognize that the committee leans Clinton.  I also recognize that they are "party bosses", not elected officials... and, so, have less fear of "blowback".

  But let's not be naive in the other direction either.  These committee people are still beholden to both the DNC and the Democratic Party.  They are NOT, necessarily, beholden to Hillary Clinton, even if they have come out publicly in support of her.  Will some of them go to mat for her?  Sure.  But I'd virtually guarantee they won't all do that.  I know amongst all the vitriol, it's hard for we Obama supporters to see this, but believe it or not, some Hillary supporters do have standards and ethics.  In fact, many "support" her merely because they came out and announced early, before most people expected there to be a real race.  As such, I don't believe most of these people want to be spearhead the effort to subvert the Democratic Party.  As such, I doubt even all Hillary "supporters" will vote in her favor.

  Moreover, it probably won't matter.  Hillary's only chance is if Florida and Michigan are seated as is, in full, and Michigan's "uncommitted" delegates NOT given to Obama.  Even then it's no sure bet for her.  And, like I said, I just don't see the committee allowing for this.  Hillary may get a majority of her supporters to back her position, but there will almost certainly be either a few defections or a few who will vote for a "compromise" (which won't be nearly enough for Hillary).

  In short, I'm not concerned.  My only real concern is that Hillary leaves a bloodbath in her wake.  But one thing is clear to me, she's not getting the nomination.  No matter what stunts she pulls.

  by millwx on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:05:14 AM PDT

•  Hillary is done

  She knows it, and it's why she asked for another debate, hoping to get a shiv into Obama before the IN and NC primaries.

  He's declined that and is dedicated to pounding the pavement in both states over the next week. Pending an act of God, he wins NC. Making Indiana close or winning it outright only furthers the point that Hillary can't catch him and that he will close out the primary season with the most delegates.

  The Democratic Party does not want this thing to end in anyway that can be perceived as unfair.

  MI and FL will be seated, I'm certain of that, but not BEFORE the nominee has been determined.

  by griffon2k on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:51:24 AM PDT

  •  I agree if the world were rational.

    But a win in Indiana means the media will have another 5 day cycle about Obama's inability to "close" and his "problem" with white, blue-collar voters. This, plus Clinton spin will drive another couple million in donations to her and keep this travesty going.

    The solution is for party leaders to tell Clinton in no uncertain terms to pack it in. But this is the Democratic party, a party wherein "leaders" write strong letters and say "gosh, if you don't cut it out, I am going to be so mad".

    by crankyinNYC on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:04:27 AM PDT

  •  100% agreed

    I have made this argument all along.  You're absolutely right - I believe.  The FL/MI delegates will be seated AFTER the nominee is known (which, frankly, it already is... but they're just letting the process play out at this point).

    The manner in which they will be seated will be determined after most or all states have voted.  That way they can be seated in a way in which they will not impact the outcome of the race.

    This is the ideal scenario, and that's why that's how it'll be done.  The "powers that be" will have it no other way... they're not stupid.  You seat the delegates, so there can be no cries of disenfranchisement, but you do so in a way that doesn't swing the election (give them half a vote and the undeclareds to Obama if his lead without FL+MI is small, give them half a vote and leave the undeclareds alone if his lead is moderate, and just let them get seated in full if Obama's lead going in is large enough to offset FL+MI+a-just-in-case-a-few-supers-flip).  Then everyone, except the most hardcore Hillbots, is happy.  This is the "fairest" solution.  No disenfranchisement, but punishment is maintained by assuring no impact on the outcome.

    Simple, effective, and minimal "damage" to the party.

    by millwx on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:20:09 AM PDT

•  Like i've been sayin'

  This thing is far from over. The behind the scenes shennanigans is where Clinton's perform best!

  by riverdan1900 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 06:04:59 AM PDT