Hillary will take Florida and Michigan to the Supreme Court!!!

It's all about Hillary and power....

She'll take the Florida and Michigan debate to the Supreme Court and the right wing pro corporate Supreme Court will gladly hand her the victory!!! Killing the progressive movement for the next 30 years...

Hillary claims that Special Interests would not go down easily, ironically enough Hillary is going to take this thing all the way down to the end....

     

"There is no secret plan.... The Clinton campaign has been vocal in stating that the votes of 2.5 million people must be respected. Hardly a day goes by when a Clinton official doesn't publicly declare that the votes of Michigan and Florida count and that

Even if it means breaking the rules, the Nuclear option will be used, you can bet on this!!!

Hillary is against the ropes as Obama has once again proven his resilience by rebounding after a three front attack from Clinton, McCain and the corporate media

Obama won Guam but the story is "Only by 7 votes".. (If Hillary would have won, the media would have spun the whole Wright thing over and over again....

Obama has taken more Superdelegates since Pennsylvania but the media is mum on this, blatently keeping this contest close making tommorows primary sound like a do or die for Obama (when at worst nothing changes except the psychological headgames the Media will provoke on the Democratic voters).

The tranperancy in the media is so blatent as they reiterate right wing talking points over and over again.  Where is our voice and the voice of the 70% of people who think our county is on the wrong track and our asses should be out of Iraq!! Their actions are pathetic, shameful, and downright disgraceful within journalistic standards.  On the same note, you hardly hear anything negative about McCain even though everytime he opens his mouth, he trips over his own tounge!

If Hillary would have won Guam the media would have made it sound like a landslide to keep the ratings up, the Democrats divided, and the chance to swing more voters to the Hillary camp...

The right supports Clinton as operation chaos continues, Fox news reiterates bitter gate over and over again, and the corporate media cannot mention a positive story regarding Obama without mentioning his whacky reverend....

As Hillary chances fade everyday and she slowly bleeds the party from an victory in Novemeber keep in mind that it was her husbands stupid decision to screw an intern that cost the Democrats congress in the 1990s which lead to the Tom Delay types hammering away at our Constitution, Our Freedoms, and a ramrod to take us into a war!!!

Dig your heals and hold your ground, even if it means fighting through 2012 when the Clintons break ranks with the party and runs with Leiberman as a third party giving McCain an easy win this November!!!

Hold to prinicipal over politics!!!

The Clintons are no friend to the party!!  If you took the Cinton name away and inserted Bush, you would think their antics, their entitlement attitudes and their arrogance are one of the same!!!!

The Clintons are part of the same old same old!!!

•  Hillary won't bow out gracefully (tip jar)

  by NMDan on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:36:21 AM PDT

  •  Yes she will--she'll have to

    I saw her speech at the Indiana J-J dinner last night...all about "a Democrat" in the White House...VERY LITTLE about it being her.

    She's out of money, that's what I think.

    Everybody stop hyperventilating please.  If she takes it to the convention, Barack will get so many superdelegates that he'll be able to HAND her Florida and Michigan if he wants to, and it still won't be enough.

    Ain't gonna happen.  Y'all calm down.  You're scaring the children. =)

    by Initiate Plan B on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:13:13 AM PDT

    •  Don't count on it.

      I have seen her do the "nice" Hillary routine too many times. It might be genuine, but more likely she will be ripping Obama and telling a new whopper on Wednesday.

      by crankyinNYC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:54:45 AM PDT

•  I think Guam was only by

  7 votes, not 7 points.

  by edgeways on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:37:25 AM PDT

•  umm, no - won Guam by 7 VOTES not points n/t

  by teacherken on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:37:54 AM PDT

  •  I changed it, sorry ; )

    by NMDan on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:44:32 AM PDT

•  I posted this elsewhere

  but I repeat:

  Someone I know recently talked to Garin, the strategist who replaced Penn in the Clinton campaign. He asked Garin 'When will this all be over?"

  Garin's reply was:

  August 27th

  This is going to Denver, no matter what.

  by yellowdog on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:39:49 AM PDT

  •  well we lose in Nov if that is the case.

    No time to heal the party prior to the GE.

    I think if she does take it to the convention she will face a stiff primary challenge her next time up for Senate re-election.

    by edgeways on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:48:25 AM PDT

•  She has no shame and will gladly...

  ...take down the party this November if given half a chance.

  I hope that supers are calling her shrieking over this, and I hope they come out in droves to support Obama.

  The Clintons have no class. None.

  by Apphouse50 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:40:57 AM PDT

  •  Look at how hard the Clintons campaigned 4 Kerry

    LOL

    by Sharon Jumper on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:00:50 AM PDT

•  Hillary will win IN

  She was always expected to win IN.  Let's remember that and keep repeating it.  Hillary's newest spin is that she was never expected to win IN.  I can't take her lies anymore, I really can't.  

  Our biggest enemy in IN -- Voter ID law.  This thing is a God damn nightmare, and will wreack havoc in the AA community, with the working urban poor and students.  

  This is potentially explosive.  I'll find the link to yesterday's diary.  It's extremely important.

  by 57andFemale on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:41:37 AM PDT

  •  maybe...

    Obama is gaining momentum...

    by NMDan on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:45:03 AM PDT

•  If she loses both on Tuesday....

  she will back out.

  That's my prediction, and we will see if I'm right.

  by arodb on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:41:49 AM PDT

  •  Sadly, we'll never know

    eom

    by Joe Beese on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:47:44 AM PDT

  •  I'll give that a possibility

    1. a credible Republican talking head, with everything to gain from this fracture continuing, has declared vehemently that tomorrow is the day. He doesn't appear often, so I can't recall his name, but he's been adamant about it for a very long time. I think it has to do with the demographics of post-PA being skewed against her.

    2. Wasn't Evan Bayh hinting at it yesterday evening in his speech?

    3. She seemed exhausted yesterday. If she's waiting for another Wright-like episode, she may be watching the details from a hospital room! How much longer can she go on like this? Obama is really getting worn, too, but he hasn't got nearly the pressure she does; he's ahead.

    4. If he's ahead/even with white men in each state (likely), the narrative/focus will shift to why she only does well with "older white women"? Moreover, if she can barely crack 10% of black votes, what does that say about her electability in November? Much as the press loves the horse race, that can't be ignored much longer.

    If he wind NC by single digits and she wins IN by more than a few votes, this goes on to June, barring significant Super announcements, which cannot be predicted now.

    by newdem1960 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:53:15 AM PDT

  •  Sadly, it will be another split

    but if Obama wins NC, it will give an excuse for a few dozen Superdelegates to move his way.

    by Dont Just Stand There on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:59:14 AM PDT

•  Can she control the media though?

  At some point, perhaps as late as June 4th, Obama's going to be declared/seen as the presumptive nominee.

  by newdem1960 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:42:16 AM PDT

  •  Wrong question.

    Can she control the media though?

    Those who control Clinton and McCain also control the media. (Six major corporate owners of the traditional media).

    by MAORCA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:54:39 AM PDT

•  meh, she has the right to compete, Obama isnt

  winning the neccesary amount of del, i think if she loses IN and NC, it will be essentially over because o money, I know I wont support her if she loses both, and shed likely just have to leave, but until then, and if she wins, she has every right to compete, I really don't think going to June is going to kill the part, wed have more time than we've had to split it to  put it back together...

  by rigso on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:43:06 AM PDT

•  Guam Mystery 500 Spoiled Ballots

  I don't think Obama's 7 vote lead in Guam will stand up.
  I think Hillary will win Indiana going away by at least 7 maybe 10 points.
  And I think N.C. is going to be s squeaker.
  Were Obama to lose both and with routs in Kentucky and W.V. imminent I think the narrative will change.
  Also Florida is going to seat delegates and that will legitimize the popular vote.
  This is not the end and to paraphrase Churchill it is not even the beginning of the end, merely the end of the beginning.

  by shamprez on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:43:52 AM PDT

  •  You might very well be right

    Obama has needed a better overall argument than the delegate math; because anything can happen.  

    And may have.  There's also the voter ID law that will cut into Obama's numbers.  

    FL will not be seated as is.  MI may not get seated at all.  

    I'm afraid.

    by 57andFemale on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:46:17 AM PDT

  •  Although to WV and KY count?

    I mean, they're voting red in Nov, so do they count?  

    Just asking.

    by 57andFemale on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:46:59 AM PDT

    •  Exactly! nt

      by MAORCA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:01:22 AM PDT

  •  I think

    you are engaged in wishful thinking.

    by maxxdogg on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:49:34 AM PDT

  •  She will get pounded in Oregon

    and she will lose Montana and South Dakota too. It's very near over.

    by Dont Just Stand There on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:01:29 AM PDT

  •  The popular vote count is not a legitimate....

    metric for the Democratic nomination.  That's a fact.  It's just spin - a talking point.

    You can't look at popular vote numbers without adding the raw caucus vote numbers.  If it's now popular vote, you have to count all the people who voted, and how do you do that without counting the people who caucused?

    Popular vote is not a metric.  It's just a talking point.  It's nonsense.  It's bullshit.

    by landrew on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:23:46 AM PDT

•  Link re IN Voter ID law

  This sucks:  

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

  by 57andFemale on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:44:26 AM PDT

•  The "nuclear option" is only a fig leaf ...

  ... to give her an excuse to stay in until the Convention, in the hope something terrible will happen to Obama in the meantime.

  The short version is that any FL/MI seating plan she manages to get through the Rules and Bylaws Committee on May 30 won't go into effect unless approved by the entire convention - where Obama will have a sizable majority.

  If you're not convinced, read the long version here:

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

  by Joe Beese on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:46:47 AM PDT

  •  She's never going to admit defeat....

    It's like 2000 all over again and the Clinton supporters will talk about how they were cheated out of an election....

    by NMDan on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:48:06 AM PDT

  •  Important to remember

    If she seats MI and Fl as is, there's more at stake than whether or not we vote for Hillary in November.  

    The party will implode.  People will see the party as complicit in stealing the election for her, breaking rules to favor her and only her.  It's one thing for supers to vote as they see fit; it's another to break rules, call it a win and have the party give it to her.  

    They lose the party if they do this.  But they seem to cave to the loudest, bullying voice in the room.  The cowards.

    by 57andFemale on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:48:59 AM PDT

    •  She can't seat anyone

      In order for FL/MI to get seated, both of the following have to happen:

      1. She convinces at least 3 of the 10 neutrals on the Rules and Bylaws Committee to give her a majority vote for their inclusion.

      2. She gains a majority vote among the entire convention. It such a vote was held today among pledged delegates and declared superdelegates, Obama wins 52-48.

      For proof, see:

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

      by Joe Beese on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:53:07 AM PDT

•  Bye Bye Democratic party...

  by NoCryingInPoltics on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:47:55 AM PDT

  •  People will still vote in Congressional races...

    Just take a look at what happened in Lousiana!!!

    McCain (if he wins) will only be a one termer...

    by NMDan on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:49:25 AM PDT

    •  I'm not sure

      plenty would be discouraged by the whole process.

      by maxxdogg on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:50:11 AM PDT

•  Does the SC have any jurisdiction?

  I don't think that the Supreme Court has any right to hear any case like this.

  Primaries are a function of the political parties, which aren't even mentioned in the founding documents of our country.

  Any ConLaw specialists out there?

  by Brooke In Seattle on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:48:41 AM PDT

  •  I believe that's the case

    I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that political parties are allowed to come up with any method they choose to select candidates.  There is no reason for any US court to be involved, and they haven't at any level.  They only get involved if it's a case of violating election laws.

    by Caelian on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:54:05 AM PDT

    •  It is my understanding...

      The Democratic Party could have a simple spitting contest to determine it's nominee. I won the Libertarian Party (please don't hit the hide button. I was young and naive then. I've matured in my political views at least) nomination for Ann Arbor, Michigan city council by a bowl-off back in the 1990's. We didn't need an official primary or caucus. We just bowled. Parties can do the same thing. Didn't Humphrey skip the primaries in '68?
      If the DNC rules are that beer pong determines the presidential nominee and a wet t-shirt contest chooses than vice-presidential nominee, then so be it.
      Am I right, or wrong here?

      Not an expert in political party laws.

      P.S. Oh yeah, I lost that city council race, pretty handily.

      by The Mort Man on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:10:18 AM PDT

  •  Brooke, that certainly didn't stop them in 2000.

    The Supremes decision to stop the recount in Florida was UnConstitutional and has provided this country with the worst regime possible.  

    If Hillary's supporters (Rethuglicans) decide to help her out of her loss to Obama, I have no doubt they'd use their Supremes to seat delegates at our convention.

    If Superdelegates all defect to Obama right after Tuesday's primary, then he'll have all the delegates he needs to be our nominee in November, whether or not Michigan and Florida are seated.

    GOBAMA!!!

    by Little Lulu on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:58:32 AM PDT

    •  ahem

      but the recount in Florida was for the general election which is controlled by Constitutional law (although I'm not saying the ruling fit the founding father's intent) not a primary run by a political party.

      This is apples and oranges.

      by artmartin on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:07:17 AM PDT

      •  Agree 100%

        Big difference

        by SheLawyer on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:19:33 AM PDT

    •  Federal election law versus party nomination n/t

      by Kab ibn al Ashraf on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:46:27 AM PDT

  •  It has jurisdiction

    as the claim would be presented as a due process/ equal protection claim, thus presenting a consitutional issue.  However, I doubt the Court would accept the case for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it is well settled that the political parties control their own nominating processes.  There is not even a requirement that  anyone be allowed to vote.

    by Same As It Ever Was on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:35:22 AM PDT

    •  No it doesn't.

      Justice Antonin Scalia's succinct 12-page opinion for the court was dismissive of what he characterized as the lawsuit's premise. ''None of our cases establishes an individual's constitutional right to have a 'fair shot' at winning the party's nomination,'' he wrote.

      The fact that the party leadership ''effectively determines the nominees'' at the nominating conventions, Justice Scalia continued, ''says nothing more than that the party leadership has more widespread support than a candidate not supported by the leadership.''

      He added, ''Party conventions, with their attendant 'smoke-filled rooms' and domination by party leaders, have long been an accepted manner of selecting party candidates.''

      This was from a voting group that challenged NY nominating procedures.  The ruling was 9-0.

      A party can pick a name from a hat if it wants.

      by Kab ibn al Ashraf on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:49:12 AM PDT

      •  Jurisdiction and

        are not the same thing.  The Court has jurisdiction to hear the case, as demonstrated by the fact that they heard the case you cite to.

        But the passage you quote agrees with my point:

        However, I doubt the Court would accept the case for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it is well settled that the political parties control their own nominating processes.  There is not even a requirement that  anyone be allowed to vote.

        by Same As It Ever Was on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:42:15 PM PDT

      •  That's

        "jurisdiction and the plaintiff having a case" are not the same thing.

        by Same As It Ever Was on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:43:03 PM PDT

  •  No jurisdiction for the Supreme Court

    You are right.  Political parties are private entities and can make their own rules.  I believe the courts have already decided on this.

    by Fabienne on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:41:37 AM PDT

  •  of course not

    That's the fatal flaw in NMDan's hyperbole.

    by N in Seattle on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:48:43 AM PDT

•  Very unlikely she loses IN, but if she does..

  It's an interesting question to predict what HRC will do if she loses NC by more than 7% and IN by any amount(I think those are the threshold margins which leave her little spin room. In such a case, I  think she will officially suspend her campaign.  Yet, at that very moment, she will unofficially commence her covert efforts to undermine Obama.

  by JCPOK on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:48:44 AM PDT

  •  I hate these "if's"

    I've gotten sucked in with every election.  "If" Hillary wins or loses by "x" points......

    I get my hopes up.  My fears overtake me.  We have two major polls, totally on opposite sides of the Wright issue and the strengths and weaknesses of both candidates.  Taken at the same time.  

    It's making me crazy.

    by 57andFemale on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:50:50 AM PDT

    •  People are deluded about IN

      Early voting SUCKS for Obama - the newspaper accounts are simply misleading that he's doing great in his 3 stronghold counties (22% of Hoosiers live in these 3 counties and the early vote from these 3 is only 20% of the statewide total early vote).

      The voter ID law is going to cost Obama a LOT of votes - wouldn't be surprised if that factor alone eats up a double digit level of votes.

      I would be thrilled if he loses IN by single digits.

      by MAORCA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:59:45 AM PDT

  •  Covert efforts?

    Yet, at that very moment, she will unofficially commence her covert efforts to undermine Obama.

    That's a whole lot better than the overt efforts she's using to undermine Obama right now!

    by SLKRR on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:50:59 AM PDT

  •  Since elected delegates no longer matter

    He's going to win that. She can suspend, and still get something (perhaps as much as 1/3 remaining electeds by being on the ballot), while working openly "Michigan! Florida!" and not-so-subtlely with the Supers. It would mean the end of active campaigning, which she can't really afford anyway.

    Make sense?

    by newdem1960 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:58:19 AM PDT

    •  Odd that there's been no mention of $$$ raised...

      ... in April.  By either camp.  There was that cryptic report on April 20 about March, from which no one could quite figure out how much of the Clinton donations were available for the primary (as opposed to restricted to general only).  This month, neither campaign has uttered a word.

      God, I wish the TV would quit leading every Obama story with Rev. Wright.  It's beyond ridiculous now.

      by Land of Enchantment on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:02:41 PM PDT

•  Funny You Should Post This

  I was actually thinking the same thing as I went for a nice, fast drive on a rural road (just cause it is fun) today. I was thinking about the Moore interview on Larry King that I watched rerun last night. And I started to think to myself, "how long, or how far will Hillary go."

  My next thought was she'd go as far as Bush and take this to the courts if she can't get the rules changed, which she agreed too when she was "leading" to lean in her favor.

  I cold chill when up my spine and I tried to expel the thought from my mind as quickly as possible ......

  by webranding on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:49:14 AM PDT

•  If Hillary cheats and wins

  there's no fucking way I'm voting for her.

  i'm not voting for her if she doesn't cheat and win cause she's worse than John McCain.  He may bomb Iran but at least he won't nuke them.

  I can see it now... Hillary is President and asking for Congress to support war with Iran "you are with me or against me, you are with America or with the Terrorists, if you don't vote for me than the Terrorists will win".

  Hillary is a fucking Republican in Democratic clothing.

  She is fucking Mary Matlin and Bill is James fucking Carville.

  They all make me sick.  

  by AntonBursch on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:49:49 AM PDT

•  Your title has no basis

  There is absolutely no basis for your titular claim that Clinton plans to take Michigan and Florida to the Supreme Court.  Your link points to an effort to do so at the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee.  Which is surely not the same thing at all.

  Even if she were so foolish as to try to take it to the Supreme Court, there's absolutely no way they would intervene.

  They have always ruled (most recently, I think, this year) that the political parties are private organizations and can set their rules as they like.  I see absolutely no chance that they will change all this precedent to help Hillary Clinton, of all people.

  by jlkenney on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:50:07 AM PDT

•  Supreme Court? No.

  The courts will almost certainly not become involved in the party nominating process.

  by winsock on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:50:12 AM PDT

•  The DNC will not let that happen

  They are waiting for the primaries to be over, then they will seat the delegates in Fl and Mi in a way that doesn't disrupt the election. Hillary won't like it, but by then Obama will have the delegates to be the nominee, so there's basically nothing she can do about it. Fl and Mi will not be allowed to break the rules and then decide the nominee.

  by atlliberal on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:51:10 AM PDT

•  Where is there anything about the Supreme Court?

  I don't see that anywhere.

  Isn't this about the DNC rules committee?  

  I'm no Hillary fan, but she has every right to go to the rules committee and state her case to include the states that broke the rules.  That's why there is an appeals process. I fail to see where the Supreme Court is involved.  This seems more than a tad of the "sky is falling" mentality.  

  Do you think she is going to storm in there and get whatever she asks for handed to her?  I think not.

  by Pennsylvanian on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:52:31 AM PDT

•  Federal Question

  In order to sue in the federal courts there must
  be a federal question.  It is hard to see one here.
  A lawsuit was brought in Florida to challenge the
  decision of the D.N.C. and it was dismissed.
  Since Florida is a stronger case for her than
  Michigan I see no chance of court intervention
  here.  This opinion is based on a discussion with
  several lawyer friends.  

  by Saggio on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:57:34 AM PDT

  •  Exactly..

    I don't even see an Equal Protection question in state primary's.

    by bdr4981 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:09:52 AM PDT

    •  It would be brought as a due process claim

      thus providing a prima facie claim to federal jurisdiction.  but the case would be a lost cause.  The Court's have been clear on this.  The Party controls its own selection process.

      by Same As It Ever Was on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:46:17 PM PDT

•  It will NEVER make it to court! She pledged,

  in writing, not to participate or campaign in MI and FL!  There is a signed contract; it will not be overturned, even in the lower courts.  She doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.

  by PittsburghPete on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:57:44 AM PDT

•  How could this be taken to the Supreme Court?

  They have no jurisdiction over internal party rules and procedures.

  by artmartin on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:05:20 AM PDT

•  You are just panicking! Nowhere in your

  diary is any information as to how this could go to the Supreme Court.

  by Sophie Amrain on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:07:07 AM PDT

•  Here's the plan

  Help Hillary exit the race with dignity and grace. Do not alienate her supporters.

  by londubh on Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:19:44 AM PDT

•  The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction

  Not over how the party does stuff.  Particularly since they are trying to discard rules they signed on to in the first place. It wouldn't even get a hearing, not even in a lower court.

  by Land of Enchantment on Mon May 05, 2008 at 11:54:51 AM PDT

•  The Supreme Court won't interfere

  Now, they might have if it was a Democratic versus Republican race, but they let the Democratic Party run itself.

  by metal prophet on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:16:53 PM PDT