Suburban Guerrilla

Jun 2nd, 2008 at 6:24 am by Susie

Kagro X at Daily Kos departs from the all-rules-favor-Obama fantasy and tells the truth: “I’m wearing armor right now. And Harold Ickes was right.” The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee can rule within the rules, but it can’t go outside the rules to create a desired outcome. And there’s nothing in the rules that permits them to award uncommitted delegates to a particular candidate - but that’s what they did. Turkana: “I want you to show me the rule that says a candidate who was not voted pledged delegates from a state can simply be awarded pledged delegates by the DNC. Because the rules were changed, today, in the middle of the game, but not by Hillary Clinton or her supporters.

Posted in General

13 Responses to “New Rules”

on 02 Jun 2008 at 9:07 am1Joe

“”Because the rules were changed, today, in the middle of the game, but not by Hillary Clinton or her supporters.”"

Since when did hrc and co even pay attention to rules??? that is rich! an hrc surrogate laying claims to rules and if they are broken or not. hrc made it clear months ago that rules and promises-made matter NOT.
on 02 Jun 2008 at 10:13 am2TJ

Well, as an alternate to nobody getting any delegates at all I thought Hillary made out well on the deal. And I thought this deal was proposed by the state itself, and not the RBC.
on 02 Jun 2008 at 10:51 am3madmatt

Hillary clinton got votes in michigan because she was the only candidate who decided that the rules didn’t apply to her and left her name on the ballot…and now she gets rewarded for making her own rules…show me anything that cyynical coming from the obama camp.

I am a Michigan dem and I don’t want her to be rewarded for trying to game the system…why do you?
on 02 Jun 2008 at 11:05 am4atalex

I’m curious. If 90% of the Michigan voters had voted “Uncommitted” and only 10% of them had voted for Hillary, what percentage of the delegates should she have gotten in that case? If there’s no mechanism for recognizing that a significant percentage of voters simply do not want a particular candidate, then what’s the point of allowing them to vote “uncommitted” in the first place.
on 02 Jun 2008 at 11:57 am5steveeboy

howard dean is a hack democratic machine politician!

obama is a secret fascist!

mccain would be better for the country than obama!

all obama supporters are sexist pigs!

all women support hillary!

now, latte time!!!
on 02 Jun 2008 at 12:12 pm6zuzu

Hillary clinton got votes in michigan because she was the only candidate who decided that the rules didn’t apply to her and left her name on the ballot…

Which rule required that? The RBC members agreed there was none, so can we drop this already?

I’m curious. If 90% of the Michigan voters had voted “Uncommitted” and only 10% of them had voted for Hillary, what percentage of the delegates should she have gotten in that case? If there’s no mechanism for recognizing that a significant percentage of voters simply do not want a particular candidate, then what’s the point of allowing them to vote “uncommitted” in the first place.

10%. She’d only get the percentage of delegates who reflected the percentage of votes she got. And the rest would be seated as uncommitted delegates, free to vote for anyone they wanted to. The rules specifically state that votes for “uncommitted” result in uncommitted delegates.
on 02 Jun 2008 at 12:27 pm7madmatt

zuzu…
I am aware there was no rule…I am merely saying that leaving her name on was a cynical and manipulative ploy on her part and she should not be rewarded for it…and I asked you why you are pro cynical and hypocritical behavior…I notice you didn’t answer that part….you cherry pick like a rethug or hillary for that matter!
on 02 Jun 2008 at 12:37 pm8Avedon

“because she was the only candidate who decided that the rules didn’t apply to her and left her name on the ballot”

No she wasn’t, and it wasn’t a rule.

This is the kind of nonsense that has made this whole primary such a pain in the ass. Everyone seems to have their own rules.

Here’s the rule: The rules and decisions were open to challenge. It was not outside of the rules for Hillary to challenge the allocation of delegates - which, by the way, the rules said were 50%, not 0%, as Donna Brazile decided to make them when she decided to change the rules.

Both campaigns have been playing the rules. Both campaigns have been doing obnoxious things.

Now stoppit.
on 02 Jun 2008 at 12:38 pm9zuzu

I am merely saying that leaving her name on was a cynical and manipulative ploy on her part and she should not be rewarded for it

So just leaving things as they are is a “cynical and manipulative ploy” yet actively removing your name in order to kiss up to Iowa and New Hampshire is not?

Ho-kay.
on 02 Jun 2008 at 12:49 pm10sister of ye

I voted in MI, and there were more names than Clinton’s on the ballot. I know, because I voted Kucinich - I was trying to juggle work and physical therapy and didn’t have the time at that point to do the research that later led me to support Clinton. I figured Kucinich was the least unpalatable of a slate that didn’t excite me, and that applied to those whose names weren’t on the ballot, too.

As for the “compromise,” I don’t know what insanity led Levin to propose it, but it certainly didn’t represent my opinion. But then, Levin voted for the Military Commissions Act, so there are a lot areas he’s fallen short in the last few years.
on 02 Jun 2008 at 1:01 pm11steveeboy

so, when hillary agreed to the rules that states would be punished if they moved up their primaries she was NOT trying to “kiss up to iowa and new hampshire”???

“Ho-kay” yerself.
on 02 Jun 2008 at 4:16 pm12coldH2Owi

6zuzu -
You assume, of course!, that the 10% all supported Sen. Clinton. A little documented proof please.

I just do not understand how you refuse to see that Sen. Clinton tried to game the system by keeping her name on the ballot. Every person in the sensate universe knew those votes wouldn’t count. Sen. Clinton pulled a fast one on the Democratic Party & we are now reaping the sad harvest.
on 02 Jun 2008 at 8:10 pm13snuzy mandrake

Both campaigns have been playing the rules. Both campaigns have been doing obnoxious things.

Now stoppit.

i couldn’t have said it better myself.

Comments RSS

New Rules

13 Responses to “New Rules”

Leave a Reply

My Liberal Identity:

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Tags

Pages