As I said in this post, I was skeptical that Mark Brewer--the MDP Chair--would be able to make a strong case for the 69-59 split.
I was wrong.
The key to Mark Brewer's success was in stating clearly that there was no way to measure the "fair reflection" of the intent of the voters who participated in the presidential selection process because, as he pointed out, there was no primary, convention, or caucus, that actually measured it.
And that's the fundamental truth that made the Clusterfuck the Clusterfuck it was.
By starting from that premise, Mark managed to undercut the legal problem with the challenge--that the RBC doesn't have the authority to arbitrarily impose a result. Because if the RBC seats a delegation based on the result of the January 15 Clusterfuck, then it will be violating one of its key principles.
This was the first time I've heard anyone from the MDP state that the Clusterfuck was not a measure of the will of the voters. I wish they had said so earlier. But I'm glad they're making that point now.
For those wanting a primer on the fun ironies of those presenting MI's case, btw, don't miss this DHinMI post:
Opening the testimony will be Michigan Democratic Party chair Mark Brewer.
[snip]
I know Mark loved the process we used in 1996 through 2004, which was called a caucus but essentially worked like a closed primary. I’m quite certain that if it had been his decision alone, that Michigan would not have jumped the queue and created the mess that's ensued. As party chair, he has to take strong cues from the governor, and much of this mess goes to Governor Jennifer Granholm. And since Jennifer Granholm has been so strongly supporting Hillary Clinton, it's impossible to think that the Michigan mess wasn't partly attributable to the Clinton campaign.
After Brewer will be Democratic Senator Carl Levin. Levin has been pushing to break the duopoly of Iowa and New Hampshire for years. In the past, Michigan threatened to go early in the process, but it never did. This year, with support from Granholm and other players in the state (who were with Clinton), Michigan finally jumped the queue.
Then, after Levin, we'll have the advocates for the two campaigns, and this is where the dynamics between the players gets fun. In 2002, After three terms of ruining the state, Republican governor John Engler was finally term-limited, and there was a three-way race in the Democratic primary to succeed him. The winner was Jennifer Granholm, who went on to win in November, and is now in her second term as governor.
The second place finisher was Democratic congressman, and recent number two Democrat in Congress, David Bonior. The third place finisher was James Blanchard, the former governor whose horrible, arrogant campaign for reelection in 1990 gave Engler the way in the governor's mansion.
Update: At this point, James Blachard is throwing loads of flying horse shit. He claimed that no one was saying our primary would not count. He must have been on vacation for December and January, because I sure heard--over and over--that the vote would not count.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
((((( Marcy )))))
The best thing I can say about Mark is, hearing his comments, I couldn’t decide which side he’s fighting for … I hope there are more like him willing to be objective and garner a fair result.
Thanks for the update Marcy!
One thing Mark did was to note that the Dem Party has used exit polls in the past to set up targets for affirmative action.
Mark’s a total geek–but it really served the process well.
Marcy, I have to agree; I think Brewer did a decent job. Levin not as much, but not horrible.
Harold is obfuscating that fact …
I liked Levin framing the two sides, effectively throwing out the notion that Obama should get zero delegates …
Levin:
You’re calling for a fair reflection of a flawed primary.
EPU’d, as I said before, go ahead and give her the 4 extra delegates, 73-69= 4, then she can claim a “moral victory.
Ickes: “fair game” stuff - not really fair, since the “uncommitted” where told by the party to vote that way, so he is WRONG. He is a weak presenter.
WOOHOO, Leahy, Ickes is once again mocked.
Please toast Levin for this remark of his, should the opportunity present itself …
Is Harold Ickes usually this annoying? Does he not have any respect for the chair?
Marcy,
As always, thanks for your insight. I thought Brewer made a reasonable compromise. Sen Levin certainly gave me more background on the Iowa/NH has to be first issue. I have always thought this was an unfair process.
The question I have in my own mind is why should the MI delegation be seated in whole with full voting privilege? If (as it seems) the FL delegation will be penalized for not following the rules by seating everyone but giving each delegate only a half vote, then why shouldn’t this be the case for MI as well. And this question applies no matter which HRC/BO allocation you choose.
my thoughts exactly.
I will. One of the things I’m realizing (after some discussions with folks who have been closely involved in this) is that the gang of four have been seriously under-covered. And the party did a stupid thing–which is keeping a lot of this secret, which exacerbated the suspicions and anger on both sides.
There still was a big problem, because people like Jennifer Granholm were almost as bad as Terry McAuliffe in treating the primary as if it were valid.
But one of the biggest problems is that there was not this open acknowledgment–on the part of all involved–that it was a clusterfuck.
Incidentally, Debbie Dingell used the term “fiasco” last night. I’d be willing to give up the term clusterfuck if we agreed that everyone–from Terry McAuliffe on down–had to use the term “fiasco.”
that would be jam on toast, with my very muddy coffee.
And to Petrocelli - I want to clarify, I was not commenting on Levin’s content (and his background arguments re: IA and NH I have always agreed with, not to mention what NH did this year which was also a technical violation); rather, I was simply talking about the effectiveness with which he presented. Kinda shocked considering that it is “some dude” versus a seasoned Senator, but I kind of thought Brewer was more compelling somehow or another.
Marcy (and Jane)
I’m so glad your media passes came through. Thanks for all you do. Truly.
What will happen is that the FL will be seated in half today, and the RBC will do who knows what today (though I think it much less likely, now, that they’ll seat the existing vote).
Then on Wednesday or Thursday, Hillary will concede, based on the new number that comes out of today.
Then on Friday, Obama will seat both at full strength. Obama’s camp came very close to accepting the 69-59 split already, which is why (I think) the MDP is going for everything–because they know they’ll probably get it by the end of next week.
isn’t Bonoir’s proposition similar to what Marcy proposed?
seems familiar to me.
Nooo … clusterfuck is a better description of this mess and I hope it makes ‘the people’ confront those who went along with this stupid idea …
I’m sorry, but McAuliff is going to use either and likely BOTH terms if “hil” doesn’t get the nomination. If she gets it, he’ll be touting the organization and fairness…..
nothing clusterfuckery about it!!!!!
HEAR HEAR!
I’ve seen Ickes live before, although was a long time ago, I think that is just his affect. He is a relentless junkyard dog; great if he is yours, infuriating ass if he isn’t. Heh, pretty much describes trial lawyers eh? He is very smart though.
I agree, Brewer was a better presentation - but then, he probably prepped a little harder than Sen. Levin. I actually thought Sen. Nelson and Rep Wexler were the best presenters.
WOW!!! You really have the inside dope - no wonder this is my favorite site of all.
You don’t seem to get it, this is over; he will be saying exactly what he needs to say and should be said exactly as EW indicated @17.
I agree that Brewer was more compelling and quite objective, given the atmosphere. Levin’s disposition reinforced what many of us, including you feel … the campaign is over, now let’s seat the delegates and fight the General.
I thought that Levin framed two pragmatic options of dividing the vote. What I disagree with is giving the Michigan delegates full votes while the Fl delegates will get 0.5 votes.
why is Obama camp asking for 50/50? Why dont they go along with the 69/59 split?
well, that seemed rude.
i think i’m getting this all pretty well, considering i’m not a lawyer.
Heh, I am pretty sure she has it just about right. And you are right, this is the best joint on the web (of course, I may be a bit biased).
No. The MDP one is. The Obama one is just 50-50.
I give Levin a lot of credit for bringing up NH and IA’s priviledged status and basically calling it a joke. If there is an argument to be made for campaigning in a small state first then there is no reason Maine cannot stand in for New Hamsphire, no reason that Kansas cannot stand in for Iowa, no reason that ONLY NH and IA meet those requirements. That rationale will never fly again.
They came very close to doing so. But I think they won’t do it until Hillary concedes, which makes sense.
I’m curious your other thoughts in the MI presentation? As a FL voter…
sorry,
i need to go back and reread that solution you proposed.
Apologize, did not mean to be rude in the least. Quite frankly, I should have paid attention better to whom I was responding. I am kind of used to the regulars here, and I think (hope) they me, and our discussions are pretty free and direct normally. No offense whatsoever meant.
But that is later, why not let it be concilliatory now? Would 19 FL + 10 MI Clinton be enough to tip the outcome?
Many people feel that Hillary will use her small gain from today to insist on taking this further …
I hope that this plays out as Marcy noted @ 17 but I am a little skeptical …
I find it amusing that Howard Wolfson and a couple of Clinton’s advocates had the chutzpah in arguing about Michoogigan or is it Mishoogigan that the reason Obama took his name off the ballot was that he was frightened of running against Clinton in Mishoogigan (but was not afraid to run against her in every other state). One thing I take away from Hillary Clinton and I’m not sure if it was Emanuael Kant, Judge Jackson of the Supreme Court, or Judge Brandeis who coined the phrase:
“Chutzpah Knows No Bounds.”
sorry if i jumped the gun too bmaz. i AM struggling here, but am getting it all pretty well, i think. it’s frustrating to keep up and i think i reacted in that frustration, not at you personally.
and i’ve been regular here for a long time, just stopped lurking a few months ago.
thanks,
pax
still working on my sermon but I have CSpan on in the background.
I have to say this is far more of a food fight than I wanted to see. So far it looks like it isn’t doing much to heal anything. I hope I’m wrong.
bmaz is many things, “rude” isn’t one of them. He is one of the best minds on this or any other site and speaks frankly, but never disparages (no, I’m not a D’Backs fan *g*).
Heh heh, and that is probably the difference; I am pretty darn sure she is right.
I don’t know. The Hillary-supporting hecklers are getting quieter as we go on.
GAWWWWD! I hope!
This has been just as very crazy making as Bu$hCo.
FWIW, DHinMI has another post on the players worth reading. Lots of background on Blanchard and Bonier et al.
What about the protesters on the street? Are they still out there?
The Hillary-supporting hecklers are getting quieter as we go on.
… same as on FDL … *g*
Blanchard appears to be into revisionist history, excepting of course for his sainted mother.
Okay, I get it, Obama is conceding FL, allowing a 19 add for Clinton, but to prevent any sort of overblown meme about “victory” by Clinton they are holding their ground on MI.
In fairness, I am a little blunt and argumentative sometimes. It is, sometimes unfortunately, what I was trained and conditioned to do. I pretty much love and respect anybody that has the passion to be involved here, even if we disagree every now and then.
Nothing that happens today is going to change that Obama wins the nomination no matter what kind of math you apply. It’s not about taking the nomination away from Obama–the Supers are gonig to show you that in spades on Tuesday night and Wednesday morning. It’s about trying to make the people of Florida and Michigan whose elected officials, just like the Congress don’t give a flying frig about their constituents and screwed them to get a little more limelight for themselves.
Just as the killing goes on in Iraq; Iraq has been politicized first by Bush to achieve “greatness”–that’s one part of Scott McClelland’s book where he’s not lying, and then by your Congress and Senate for their political purposes. With very few exceptions (yeah I know Webb has a son and McBush/McSame/McSugarmama has two) no one in the Congress or the Senate has any skin in the game and they aren’t about to have any sons and daughters in Iraq.
And if generous concessions from Obama allow Clinton to claim some false metric that she won the popular vote that didn’t actually happen, everyone with a brain more evolved than a newt will know this is one more false claim.
This is about the voters in those states, and basically about the DNCs fear that if they don’t do something they might tip needed votes in these two large electoral states to McCain–that’s the only reason this thing has replaced “To Catch A Predator” on MSNBC or whateer else would be on C-Span today.
I frankly hope that Clinton wants to try to go to the convention, because it will stimulate the Super D’s to end it Tuesday and Wednesday–and that’s what’s going to play out.
That’s interesting. Apologies if this was commented on already, but I rrreally tired of “respect” this flawed result from HRC supporters. It’s ridiculous on its face.
Although I do agree that surmising what might have been is kinda crazy.
Pete, give it a rest, Obama has won; the condescending diatribe accomplishes nothing positive.
Got a feeling DH is no fan of Blanchard?
Love ya, bmaz. I don’t often converse on EW’s posts, but I lurk often. your input is much appreciated here!
Dunno. I’ve been in teh hotel since 8:30.
It would seem so.
BTW, Blanchard has made what I consider a couple of false claims. Most disturbing, to me, is the claim that the Hillary campaign didn’t tamper with the Convenions. At least in mine, there was a solid blog of people who were trying to win Hillary votes on the uncommitted line. (They didn’t succeed, at least in our district.)
Well DH has got company there — if Blanchard is the best the Hillary camp has to offer from MI, they are in worse shape in their campaign than I thought.
None of my comments was intended to be incidiary Bmaz, I am happy to turn my attention to McCain. I do believe this thing though is because the DNC is afraid of alieanating Michigan and Florida not because anyone feels the Super D’s there did anything right.
I look forward to learning things from you about McCain I didn’t know, because you have been in the catbird seat to watch him during his career or most of it in the Senate.
WOW, Blanchard doesn’t think the primary was flawed. That is jaw droppingly shocking.
Also, note that the Hillary campaign is backing off its strongest stance–which was to call for 73 Hillary, and 55 uncommitted.
Which is my point all along–that the Hillary campaign is doing real damage with its characterization of the MI primary.
I still wish I could understand the dynamics and resons for this large uncommitted vote unless it was that these people were saying “Look we passionately wanted to participate in this process” and it’s been totally wrecked and so the only way we feel we can be heard, is to not back away so we’ll vote uncomitted.
Before this year, I would have failed the question on a multiple choice quiz that people could vote uncomitted in a primary or caucus (Michigan had both if I remember correctly).
If I hear that again, I’m going to need a new TV.
Blanchard said something I agree with for a change–the Democratic Party should rotate which states vote first
i’ve not been impressed with ANYONE from “hil’s” campaign. Not even Nelson, and I LIKE Nelson. And this is not cause I’m not a Clinton fan, it’s cause these people there for her have been wrong and disingenuous. imho. but my o is supported elsewhere in live comments elsewhere today.
Blanchard blaming Obama for a flawed campaign adds nothing to the discussion, but he keeps doing it.
he has a governor’s ego and likes the sound of his own voice
Does anyone have a link to an audio or vid stream?
Do what I do … use socks … *g*
Once upon a time Granholm looked like a rising star. Now, not so much, eh?
lol
good idea.
i use pillows here and that’s not safe either.
tho the dogs love it.
CSpan here.
fully compliant with rules of the Party?
Pillows knock down plants … got a time out for doing that, from my wife once ..
This should work for you, they’re streaming it over at C-span. If it doesn’t I’m watching it on C-span 1.
Pop down one thread to More from the RBC Meeting — the video there is a lovely little live stream from justin.tv
Yeah, how she is going to resolve her “kitchen sink” should be interesting.
Haha, clean ones I hope.
Donna Brazille looks like she’s throwing up a little in her mouth.
Oh, oh - food fight coming!!!!
it is comforting to read here that others do actually throw things at the teevee, and get in trouble for it.
it is a good thing to know that i am not the only one and i appreciate that! Petrocelli.
I know. But you’ll have to come all the way to Austin to get your coke!
She or Wexler is going to pummel Harold sumthin’ fierce after …
Only once…?
I don’t know EW, Blanchard is sure making it sound like Hillary is not going to concede by the end of the week. Sounds like she’s planning to work the supers until the bitter end. Emphasis on bitter.
Gracias!
Found part of the wexler presentation at MSNBC website. wow. you could practically feel the adrenalin coursing through his bad self. it rocked.
don’t think I’m going to make it this year. Still on the fence, but leaning away from it.
Is that Clinton bitterness, or Michigan bitterness speaking?
Allan Katz is kicking some rears!
Video stream available via cnn … better than CSpan, IMO …
Seems like there is plenty to go around ; )
Perhaps Clinton-Michigan-won’t get to serve in a Clinton candidate bitterness?
can someone explain why write in votes were not counted?
sorry, Clinton cabinet
((( CT )))
She only caught me once … rest of the time I blamed the kids/drapes … *g*
Eureka–
Live Stream of RBC
CSpans going out here.
what’s that about?
Bad Weather outside the meeting Siri.
That he was able to control his emotions and use it constructively speaks to the kind of people who’re in Obama’s camp …
CNN has a better stream …
HEAR HEAR!
to both of you!
I usually keep a pair of rolled up socks nearby. Feels really good to throw and doesn’t (usually) break anything. :]
Michigan law.
thank you, you are right!
i just hoped to avoid the comments from the bobble heads.
thanks Petrocelli.
I was wondering about that too, I had to switch to CNN… I don’t like to because of Wolfie’s love of hearing his own voice…
Someone had to run a write in campaign, and notify the state. Otherwise, write ins aren’t counted.
Donna Brazile invokes her mama
No, not on TV, online … which is bobble head free …
Applause for respecting rules. and for mamas!
Crooks and Liars has a live stream but the audio sux.
Brazille is smacking this guy down!
Would somebody please turn down the governor’s mic when he’s not talking? His heavy breathing is really annoying.
In negotiations you start with your strongest argument, not the position you think will be accepted as the final compromise. 50-50 is actually fair, but it isn’t a compromise that Clinton is likely to accept.
Phred, it’s a public show; there can be no admission nor concession otherwise until the last votes are cast and counted; but it’s over.
RIGHT ON!
I DO really think donna brazille is way kewl!
Incidentally, if I’m reading Carl Levin’s face correctly, he’s not so happy with Jim Blanchard’s contention that there were no representatives from the Hillary campaign in the execuive committee that approved this compromise.
My mama is bigger and badder than your mama!
loving it.
rules vs. cheating! wowwwww!!!!!!!