Make no mistake: Barack Obama and his campaign opposed counting 100% of Florida’s Democratic primary vote. At the same time, the campaign wants public relations points for appearing to want to enfranchise Florida — enough points to get Floridians’ votes if Obama becomes the nominee.

This I learned from watching the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee hearing today (part of it anyway, as the live video streaming conked out several times).

At one point, RBC member Tina Flournoy point-blank asked U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler whether the Obama campaign supported making100% of Florida’s primary vote count (instead of 50%). Wexler was the Obama campaign’s chosen representative for that hearing. A simple “yes” or “no” would have sufficed.

Did Mr. Wexler directly answer the question? No. Instead, he said:“…We are here to argue for the maximum number of delegates that this committees’ rules allow.”

Given that Mr. Wexler had earlier claimed that the RBC has authority to restore only 50% of Florida’s vote, it’s obvious that Mr. Wexler was essentially saying “No, Obama’s campaign does not support restoring 100% of Florida’s vote.”

For some reason, Mr. Wexler had trouble uttering that simple, one-syllable word “No” — in front of all the media folks, anyway.

Noticing that Mr. Wexler had failed to directly answer her question, Ms. Flournoy asked it again. And again, Mr. Wexler made a similar statement that didn’t include the word “No.”

But we viewers (and Ms. Flournoy) clearly understood the Obama campaign’s position: don’t count all of Florida’s votes.Not only did Mr. Wexler tap dance like a young Buddy Ebsen, but also his argument was flawed.

A key argument of us Floridians was that the RBC never should have punished Florida Dems, because Florida’s overwhelmingly Republican legislature had moved the primary election to a date earlier than the DNC’s rules allowed.Did I mention that Wexler is an Obma-supporting, U.S. congressman who represents Florida’s voters? With friends like Wexler….

Incidentally, here’s the current breakdown of Florida’s legislature: House, 76 Republicans to 43 Democrats; Senate, Republicans 26 to Democrats 14. The numbers have been roughly the same since at least 2001. In short, Florida’s Democrats have no power to block or pass any legislation. It’s numerically impossible.

Moreover, the DNC’s own rules [e.g., 21(c)(7)] allowed the RBC to not strip any of Florida’s delegates if it had found that Florida’s Dem leaders had acted in good faith to stop the moving of the primary date.So, why did Obama’s campaign object to counting 100% of Florida’s votes (aside from the fact that doing so would have given Hillary Clinton more delegates)?

Here’s Obama’s basic argument: none of the candidates campaigned in Florida; thus, it was an unfair election. One Obama-friendly RBC member projected that if candidates had campaigned in Florida, as many as 3 million Floridians would have voted (instead of the record-high 1.7 million that actually did vote).

Yes, that RBC member pulled the 3 million out of her… ear.

Did Obama’s campaign representatives really believe that Florida’s voters were in a vacuum? We get newspapers, Internet, radio, the cable channels…. We saw multiple televised debates involving all the Dem candidates before our January 29 primary.

Furthermore, why does the Obama campaign think that Obama was disadvantaged from not having campaigned in Florida? It’s equally possible that if Hillary had campaigned in Florida, she would have won by an even bigger margin than she actually did?

And if Florida’s primary election was truly unfair because no candidates had campaigned in that state, then is it any fair to count even 50% of Florida’s vote? If the election were truly unfair, than none of the votes should have counted — by the Obama campaign’s logic, anyway.

And yet, Obama’s campaign pushed for the counting of only 50% of Florida’s votes. Sometimes, logic takes a back seat to self interest.

In short, the Obama Campaign’s argument was unpersuasive and based on something even less substantive than marshmallows.

Another thing that bothered me about the hearing was the crowd. People actually interrupted with applause (and hoot and hollers and whistles) whenever a witness or committee member said something in favor of not counting Florida’s or Michigan’s votes (i.e, a pro-Obama point).

It sounded like a sporting event or a kegger at a frat house. I half expected the camera to zoom in on a young, rambunctious lad lighting his own farts.

I’m not saying that more Obama supporters were in the audience than Hillary supporters. I have no way of knowing. It might have been that the Hillary supporters in the audience were simply more accustomed to conducting themselves in manner appropriate to such a hearing.

One other thing bothered me regarding the unruly audience: the RBC co-chairs didn’t insist that the audience settle down. Given that the DNC is a private body (which allowed citizen spectators as a courtesy), I suspect that the committee co-chairs easily could have told the audience that if it continued to erupt in hoots and hollers, the RBC would clear the room of spectators. Judges make such threats all the time, and they usually work.

Perhaps those RBC co-chairs enjoyed having pro-Obama outbursts interrupting both witnesses and committee members.

The bottom line is that Sen. Obama got what he wanted: only half of Florida’s votes will count in the (not so) Democratic nominating process. His campaign pushed for this, purportedly to promote party unity — i.e., to get votes in November if he becomes the nominee.

If Obama wants only half of Florida’s vote, then he shouldn’t expect more than half of Florida’s Dems to get behind him. At this point, frankly, Obama would be lucky to get even half — given that he got far less than half of Florida’s votes during the primary.Memeorandum has commentary.

They manhandled and bruised a teacher and a Democrat of over 40 years for feck sake..

Harold Ickes - who serves on the RBC and is widely recognized as an expert on the DNC rules and their history - talked about Michigan’s delegates during yesterday’s press conference call when an AP reporter asked him if it’d be acceptable to Hillary’s campaign if BO got any delegates from Michigan’s primary.  Here’s what he had to say…

AP - is it acceptable to you if BO gets any pledged delegates from MI?
Harold - Uncommitted status is considered as a presidential candidate. Closed in and given the same rights and protections as a named presidential candidate. There were 4 candidates who VOLUNTARILY took their names off the ballot. She [Hillary] didn’t - there was no requirement that she do so. Some 238,000 people voted for uncommitted - no way to discern the wishes of those voters. Our view is that while delegates who fill out those 55 slots have the absolute right to go and support whomever they want. They must be certified to the convention as uncommitted delegates. The RBC has no right to award those delegates to another candidate any more than they’d have the right to award any of her 73 delegates and give them to another candidate. Short answer - NO.

Giving away some of her delegates.  How prophetic that one turned out to be.
I’m too pissed and disgusted to really go into all the ways in which the RBC screwed over 2.35 million people today.  I’ll just let Harold Ickes sum up what I’m thinking right now.  What follows are my notes, taken as he spoke prior to a vote on the motion to seat all 55 uncommitted delegates as Obama’s delegates (which is illegal according to the DNC’s rules that folks have been blathering on about for the past few months).  On top of that injustice, the motion involved stealing 4 of Hillary’s delegates and giving them to Obama.
He spoke of the audacity (my word not his) of the RBC in thinking that the judgment of 30 people should take the place of the 600,000 voters in MI…

Was the process flawed?
You bet your ass it was flawed.
I’m stunned that we have the gall and the chutzpah to substitute our judgment for that of 600,000 voters.
…
You can not take delegates from one candidate and give them to another.
Not only will this motion hijack 4 delegates from Mrs. Clinton, it will take 55 uncommitted delegates and give them to Obama.
I submit that hijacking 4 delegates… is not the way to start down path to party unity.
Finally - one final word - we are … Mrs. Clinton has instructed me to reserve her rights to take this to the Credentials Committee.
- Cheers -

Here’s what Hillary’s campaign manager - Maggie Williams - had to say a little while ago…

Decision on Florida and Michigan
Hillary has consistently stood up for the voters of Michigan and Florida.  She, like you, has insisted that the voice of all Americans be heard.  Today, the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee announced their decision on seating Florida and Michigan’s delegations. In recent days, almost 350,000 of Hillary’s supporters wrote in to the committee to make clear what an important principle it is for our party to count every vote.
Our campaign has released an official statement about the results of the Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting and I’d like to share it with blogHillary readers. I know how passionate Hillary’s supporters are about the importance of counting every vote cast in Florida and Michigan and I hope that they continue to express their feelings with the respect and thoughtfulness they’ve shown during the course of this campaign.

Harold Ickes and Tina Flournoy made the following statement:
Today’s results are a victory for the people of Florida who will have a voice in selecting our Party’s nominee and will see its delegates seated at our party’s convention.  The decision by the Rules and Bylaws Committee honors the votes that were cast by the people of Florida and allocates the delegates accordingly.
We strongly object to the Committee’s decision to undercut its own rules in seating Michigan’s delegates without reflecting the votes of the people of Michigan.
The Committee awarded to Senator Obama not only the delegates won by Uncommitted, but four of the delegates won by Senator Clinton. This decision violates the bedrock principles of our democracy and our Party.
We reserve the right to challenge this decision before the Credentials Committee and appeal for a fair allocation of Michigan’s delegates that actually reflect the votes as they were cast.

The RBC, in their infinite ignorance, stole delegates from Hillary and gave them to her opponent - a guy who saw the polls in the lead-up to the MI primaries, knew he was going to get his ass handed to him, and took his name off the ballot in order to kiss up to the voters in IA.  
And his little stunt worked.
IN other words - he told the voters of MI that their votes didn’t count and used his gigantic FU to them to win votes in another state.
And it worked.
Adding insult to injury… when the folks in Michigan tried to cure the problem (as seen by the DNC) by holding a new election - a plan that was signed off on by the DNC, the state leaders AND Hillary - BO told the voters in MI to eff off again by refusing to face the voters in that new primary.
There was even a plan in place to PAY for this new election AND - if memory serves - polls at the time were showing a much closer race in MI then than back in January.  He stood a chance of it being a wash so what was he afraid of?
BO couldn’t be bothered to face the voters of Michigan not once - BUT TWICE!
And now he’s rewarded for his refusal to face those voters with FIFTY-NINE DELEGATES?
This makes absolutely no sense.  None whatsoever.
BO and his supporters on the RBC might be celebrating folks - but they’ve just handed Hillary a damn fine reason to keep fighting at least through to the meeting of the Credentials Committee.
If they’re so convinced that BO has this locked up - that there are scads of super delegates waiting in the wings to help him claim “victory” in a day or three then why couldn’t they have just followed their own rules and left Hillary’s delegates alone and sent those 55 delegates to the convention as uncommitted delegates?
The RBC has just violated their own rules here by stealing 4 delegates from Hillary and giving them to a guy who couldn’t be bothered to put his name on the ballot so please spare us any more talk about your precious rulz .  
They’ve completely ignored their rules in giving BO any delegates from MI.
They’ve completely ignored the fact that people - in good faith tried to cure the situation by holding new primaries and that it was BO who stood in the way of that cure.
I’m beyond disgusted by this whole fiasco and I lay a lot of the blame at Dean’s feet for his complete and utter failure to lead us through this mess that he and Obama have created.  The only people who are paying for their failure are my family back home, and the 600,000 voters of Michigan.
Florida voters didn’t fare so well either.  Half a vote.  Is that all Florida is worth to us in the general election?  
Well I’ve got news for you guys - if the votes of my family are only worth half a vote, don’t be surprised if our party loses a lot of support over this come November.  I’m already hearing a lot of Democrats talking about leaving our party over this shite.  
This is NOT the way to bring a fractured party back together guys.
Not even close.
If you’re as pissed as I am over the way they’re railroading our party toward defeat in November, you know what to do dammit…

U P D A T E
Wow - I went poking around Jane Hamshire’s site a little more and found this other video she grabbed and posted of another women who’d been ejected from that RBC meeting. And boy is she PISSED

Seriously - the Credentials Committee had better find a way to clean up the mess the RBC made today. Donna Brazile and crew didn’t fix the problem - they threw gas on the flames.

Next. Watching the Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) today, I was strongly reminded of two things. First, when I lived in a condo in San Diego I attended Homeowner’s Association Meetings where, I swear to God, the same bunch of rule-happy, petty tyrants were in charge. Second, this brought back ugly memories of court arguments in 2000 where fancy BS was being used to disenfranchise voters.

Thank God for Harold Ickes, Tina Flournoy, and the others who stood with them today when they tried to stop democracy from being hijacked. Here is Mr. Ickes expressing his outrage at the impending vote to strip 4 of Hillary’s delegates in Michigan and hand them to Barack — even though he wasn’t on the ballot:

I am angry, and I am in complete agreement with the protestors who were shouting in the back of that meeting room — “Den-ver, Den-ver Den-ver!” It turns out that I’m not the only one. Here is my friend speaking his mind about it:

I will vote for Hillary. I will never vote for Obama. Never. Unity my ass.

Hillary is poised to be one of the greatest presidents in the history of this nation — and we will not let anything stop her from realizing, for us and for her, the job she can do better than anyone else in the entire nation. She may be the 45th president, if not the 44th. And please donate tonight: with .44. It will LIFT Hillary’s heart, and steel the resolve of her exceptional team of FIGHTERS!

Today’s results are a victory for the people of Florida who will have a voice in selecting our Party’s nominee and will see its delegates seated at our party’s convention. The decision by the Rules and Bylaws Committee honors the votes that were cast by the people of Florida and allocates the delegates accordingly.

We strongly object to the Committee’s decision to undercut its own rules in seating Michigan’s delegates without reflecting the votes of the people of Michigan.

The Committee awarded to Senator Obama not only the delegates won by Uncommitted, but four of the delegates won by Senator Clinton. This decision violates the bedrock principles of our democracy and our Party.

We reserve the right to challenge this decision before the Credentials Committee and appeal for a fair allocation of Michigan’s delegates that actually reflect the votes as they were cast.

Obama’s argument hinges on a series of hypotheticals, none of which can be substantiated with incontrovertible evidence. So now we are in the territory of known knowns (votes actually cast), known unknowns (we know people did not cast votes, but we do not know how many there are or why they chose not to participate), unknown knowns (we know write-in ballots exist in Michigan, but we do not know the desires of those voters) and unknown unknowns (the number of people who do not vote for whatever reason in any election). If the Committee restricts itself to evidence that can be viewed and analyzed, they will side with the Clinton campaign. If the Committee chooses to dwell on hypotheticals and on imaginary scenarios, they will side with Obama. Either we uphold democracy, or we undermine it in the name of Obama’s political fantasies.

[UPDATE]: Video of protesters outside the meeting

This is the 3RD THREAD covering the committee hearing. The SECOND THREAD IS HERE, and the FIRST THREAD IS HERE. Comments in earlier threads are closed.

[Truthteller]

5:17 PM EST - Why are they over an hour late? Back room deals of career politicians?

6:04 PM EST - Members of the Rules & Bylaws Committee are slowly filing into the conference room.

6:10 PM EST - Alexis Herman is now present.

6:15 PM EST - The meeting has resumed.

6:17 PM EST - Discussion of FL first. Then a vote. Debate to be limited to 10 minutes per motion.

6:18 PM EST - First matter on FL is Ausman challenge. Alice Huffmann speaks. She asks for full seating of FL.

6:21 PM EST - She desires to uphold the principle of counting every vote. She emphasizes how this is a result of Republican mayhem. she also believes voters in FL were victims, as they are simply people who cast votes in good faith. She understands the rules, but she also understands the importance of Party unity and the importance of motivating Florida Democrats. She desires a full vote for FL without penalty, and she submits her motion.

6:25 PM EST - Uncommitted superdelegate David McDonald disagrees. He cannot claim that the case of good faith of Florida cannot be made to other states and to the DNC. But again, it is not Florida’s fault. His argument is somewhat contradictory. Expect a lot of sanctimony during this debate. He cares about FL, but he does not believe they deserve representation.

6:27 PM EST - Yvonne Gates, also uncommitted, will not support the Huffmann motion. But again, it is not the voters’ fault. Rules are rules, she says, and she invokes the trope of “chaos.”

6:29 PM EST - Flournoy notes that the Huffmann motion will not pass, as the DNC should be the Party of inclusion.

6:30 PM EST - Alice Germond discusses the rules, and she emphasizes their importance as a result of the time and effort invested in their drafting. She believes a 50% penalty is required. She does not support a 100% sanction. She refers to Florida as a “beauty contest.” And now she is attempting to inscribe herself in the Civil Rights tradition. She now claims all 50 states should be respected, including the 48 who adhered to the rules. She regrets that FL and MI cannot gain full representation, but she believes the rules define us as a Party.

6:34 PM EST - Mona Pasquil now speaks. She discusses how rules must be challenged in the name of the family. She fully supports Huffmann, as she desires to be responsible to the FL voters. Now the vote.

6:36 PM EST - Donna Brazile did not vote for it. 12 voted in support. 15 are opposed. Brazile was opposed. Hillary supporters promise to take it to Denver. Motion fails.

6:38 PM EST - Now a vote on the Ausman challenge. Ralph Dawson speaks on behalf of the Ausman challenge. And he cites the Obama campaign as justification of the Ausman challenge. Delegates entitled to cast 1/2 vote.

OBAMA SUPPORTERS APPLAUD DISENFRANCHISING FLORIDA VOTERS.

Clinton 52.5 delegate votes
Edwards 6.5 delegate votes
Obama 33.5 delegate votes

unpledged entitled to cast .5 vote at convention. Rules 5,6,7,12 must be followed.

6:41 PM EST - Huffmann supports the Ausman challenge. “The world is not perfect, but it is good.” And she invokes Party unity. I am not sure if this will unify the party. I am not excited. Someone screamed “you took away votes,” and she responds “we gave you some back.” This is a mess, and no, we will not be unified.

6:43 PM EST - Huffmann: “This is the next best thing to democracy.” That is telling. Welcome to Obamatopia.

6:45 PM EST - Vote on Ausman challenge: 27 votes in support. The vote is unanimous.

6:48 PM EST - To attribute half delegates to each candidate, with Obama receiving all uncommitted delegates. Fowler will support it. He thinks we should support this compromise resolution.

6:50 PM EST - Ickes is opposed. He believes the DNC is violating the rule of fair reflection, which to him is analogous to the First Amendment of the Constitution. It will remove four delegates won by Hillary Clinton, and it not reflect the votes of 600,000 Michigan voters. A body of 30 individuals will substitute their judgement for 600,000 voters. He does not think this is democracy. Ickes is stunned at the gall of the DNC to substitute its judgment for 600,000 voters. “You bet your ass the process was flawed.” All election in US are flawed. “You bet your ass a lot of people did not vote.” The US has one of the lowest participation rates. But this is not an excuse to overturn an election.

Fair reflection is in the Charter: we cannot hijack four delegates from Clinton, and we are converting recognized uncommitted delegates to Obama delegates. According to Ickes, this is a violation of the Constitution of the Party.

And then they invoke unity. Hijacking four delegates to him will not establish Party unity. AND HE IS RIGHT. And Clinton reserves the right to take this to the credentials committee.

6:56 PM EST - Obamabot Hynes gratuitously insults Ickes, and now he claims it is fair. He says it fairly reflects MI. And then Roosevelt claims supports dishonor “their candidate” when they interrupt. Thank you for telling us who “your candidate” is, Roosevelt. And then Hynes congratulates Obama for “making this happen.” WHAT A JOKE.

6:58 PM EST - Mr. Ward now speaks. He supports Obama. And now we move on to autobiography. And we move to 1964. Somehow disenfranchising Clinton voters and the state of Michigan is the latest instantiation of Civil Rights. He cites the rules. And now the rules are irrelevant, for he and others were “locked out of the process.” He now attacks Ickes. And he now claims this is an “opportunity” for Michigan. His logic is tortured, and I do not believe he should have dropped the race card. Someone needs to ask Ward to read the Charter. This man is ridiculous.
And he says Ickes is politically posturing. And what did he just do?

7:03 PM EST - Ms. Smith now speaks after BEGGING for time from Roosevelt, who obviously supports Obama. Machine politics in play. She cannot support the Brewer motion, as the allocation of delegates is flawed. She is a Democrat with a capital D and a small d. The voters rule, as they are the highest government. The compromise, according to her, ignores the will of the voters. This is not unity, she says. But we will be unified at some point. This compromise, for her, will not create unity. GOOD FOR HER.

7:07 PM EST - Now vote on the Brewer compromise. 19 votes in favor. 8 against. Brazile voted for disenfranchising Michigan and Clinton voters in Michigan.

Delegates 34.5 Clinton
29.5 Obama

7:09 PM EST - Obamabot Clark could not hear the vote. She is attempting to make the Clinton supporters in the audience appear unruly.

7:10 PM EST - Fowler thanks the committee for a “job well done.” And now Democrats are cheering for no real reason. They are celebrating disenfranchisement. They are celebrating the violation of democracy. He is not pleased, but he claims this is in the best interest of the Party. Whose Party?

7:12 PM EST - I prefer not to listen to Roosevelt. I guess a report will be issued to the Credentials Committee by 29 JUN.

MACHINE POLITICS WON TODAY. THIS IS THE OBAMABOT PARTY, NOT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

7:14 PM EST - Herman offers platitudes of “common ground” and “unity.”

Now they are thanking each other for disenfranchising voters behind closed doors. Allow me to vomit.

FINI

This is the 2ND THREAD covering the committee hearing / the FIRST THREAD IS HERE but comments in that thread are now closing.

[UPDATE]: COMMENTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW CLOSED. PLEASE VISIT THREAD #3.

[Truthteller]

12:38 PM EST - We are now discussing uncommitted delegates, and we are now citing exit polls. I guess Obama supporters organized at the Congressional level to adopt 30 of 36 uncommitted delegates. Brewer wants uncommitted to be allocated to Obama. But what of the other 6? And now Clinton’s delegates in MI are overstated? And we are citing exit polls as evidence? This Brewer’s argument is ridiculous. A 69/59 split is unacceptable.

12:41 PM EST - And now write in ballots no one saw are for Obama? And now they are all suddenly Obama supporters? And there is no evidence? The Obama campaign is basing another argument on no evidence? And somehow a 69/59 split will magically resolve all these problems? And data not relevant to the primary is suddenly relevant? These are specious arguments, and the Michigan Compromise should be rejected on those grounds.

12:44 PM EST - Flournoy correctly notes that exit polls are questionable. Now Obamabots suddenly support exit polls. OUT OF TOUCH.

12:45 PM EST - Kamarck, a Clinton supporter, notes that Uncommitted is an option and a preference. Just look at the rules, Brewer. It is a preference. It is in the ROOOLZ. She refers to Brewer’s argument as a willy nilly, arbitrary assignment of delegates. And she is correct. State parties, she says, cannot choose what they want from a primary. She also tells Brewer that his proposal sets a very dangerous precedent. And again, she is correct.

12:48 PM EST - Notice that Brewer hinges his entire argument on “I believe.”

12:49 PM EST - Don Fowler of SC, Clinton supporter, notes that exit polls would result in a Kerry Presidency. Only “HARD votes” should be accepted. And now the 30,000 write in votes that no one saw should suddenly be granted to Obama. And why? “I believe.”

12:51 PM EST - Katz and Fowler now “believe” this or that with a complete ballot. They have no arguments, and now they are resorting to their warped “beliefs.”

12:52 PM EST - Name the provision that allows committee to allocate delegates. And he notes that Rule 13, which notes uncommitted is a voter preference. And “shall” is not “may,” according to McDonald. AND NOW THE MICHIGAN PRIMARY IS NOT A PRIMARY ACCORDING TO BREWER. McDonald - Are you relying on any rule? Brewer admits that he is not. Voilà!!!

12:54 PM EST - Ickes reminds Brewer of the voluntary decision not mandated by the rules of Obama and others to remove names from ballot. And the desire to “curry favor with the likes of Iowa.” It was VOLUNTARY. No rules required them to remove from ballot. But now suddenly Brewer claims this is about the will of voters. Will from exit polls? Take a hike.

12:56 PM EST - Obamabot Hynes of Illinois now claims Michigan voters did not have a real election. Says Hillary vs. Uncommitted is not an election. And now exit polls are discussed again. Obamabot Hynes is programmed and ready. Not reliable numbers, but “the best we have.” This is a joke. Oh, and now a 4th category: voters who did not vote. Yes, MORE NEGATIVE EVIDENCE. I love how that which does not exist suddenly gains importance. This is specious argumentation by Team Obama. What a joke. Since when are hypotheticals evidence? Who are these people? Is this how our Party thinks? No wonder why we lose.

1:01 PM EST - Real data is not data, and hypothetical evidence that does not exist is somehow accurate. Let us turn the world upside down. This is a joke. OUT OF TOUCH.

1:02 PM EST - Senator Carl Levin now speaks. The bottom line: unity. All delegates with full voting rights. And that, Levin says, is unity. The disagreement is on allocation. And it is imperfect. There is no scientific way, he says. But somehow an argument predicated on negative evidence is rational and “unifying.” Obama wants 64/64. No thanks. Clinton desires 73/55, representing the vote as it was cast. Now it is an argument of Michigan vs. Obama vs. Clinton. Levin knows it is a flawed primary. But he wants it seated in full. SEAT THEM IN FULL WITH FULL VOTING RIGHTS. Levin calls the Brewer proposal unified allocation formula. And now Levin says he is “on the ground.” Whatever.

1:10 PM EST - Now Levin engages in a diatribe against NH and IA. Good. I agree. Opening up the process: an additional first tier caucus between IA and NH. IA and NH as a sign of a party of privilege. Michigan accepts the proposal, and applies to be one of the early states, pre window states. Michigan accepted, but said Michigan would only accept if NH accepts. Then NH Secretary of State unilaterally acted by moving the date, and MI could not gain an answer regarding the action of the NH Secretary of State. He now cites the Commission’s findings on the impact of early states. And IA and NH not representative of the county, according to the Commission. NH to be third, but NH acts unilaterally.

1:16 PM EST - NH issued a waiver. And integrity of the rules, but NH not penalized. If you give NH a waiver, then give MI a waiver. Levin says MI would accept rules if other states accepted. Since NH violated, they decided they too would violate. He reminds the Committee of the sequence. He asks the Committee not to punish MI for defending a principle. Unity, again, is the seating of the full delegation with full representation.

1:21 PM EST - Ben Johnson reminds the Committee that Brewer voted to penalize FL.

1:25 PM EST - Germond refers to Michigan as an “event.” And she cites the notion that some voters did not participate, as the “believed” the DNC. And she is also citing the write-in votes. How did MI arrive to 69/59.

1:27 PM EST - Levin insists it was flawed, and the plan of Brewer is the compromise formation of two opposed positions.

1:30 PM EST - Steed, Clinton supporter, is concerned about precedent. Good. He reminds everyone that uncommitted is a choice. And he notes that the precedent of removing delegates from one candidate and arbitrarily allocating them to some other candidate is one we should avoid. The precedent of rewarding a candidate who removed his name from a ballot is dangerous.

RETURNING IN ONE MOMENT

1:50 PM EST - Bonior is shilling for Obama. Now we understand the Edwards endorsement. And what is with the gratuitous citation of exit polls involving African-American voters and young voters? And notice that he misquoted the transcript from NH Public Radio.

1:52 PM EST - What an odd argument: it is illegitimate, but we desire full representation. The argument itself is flawed. And he too is citing negative evidence. So now we have to respect something that may or may not exist.

1:53 PM EST - And once again: it is not Bambi’s fault that his surrogates lobbied against a second primary in Lansing. Obama is never responsible. Do not blame Bambi. Leave Bambi alone!!!!!!!! Take a hike, Bonior.

1:55 PM EST - Obama wants an even split, and he does not care if the MI delegation gains full representation. It is official: OBAMA SUPPORTS DISENFRANCHISEMENT AND BACK ROOM DEALS BY CAREER POLITICIANS. Our votes mean nothing. If Obama wants votes, he will simply steal them.

1:57 PM EST - No says Obama did not participate in delegate selection process. But were not Obama supporters at the Congressional district conventions doing exactly that? The lack of consistency is breathtaking.

1:58 PM EST - Bonior and Obama want “unity.” Facts do not matter; only “unity” as Obama understands it matters. And what do Obama’s rallies in MI have to do with the delegates? What a joke.

2:00 PM EST - Elizabeth Smith, Hillary supporter, does not understand why someone would remove his name from a ballot. And this is an expression of preference, she says. And how can write in votes for Obama count if Obama did not authorize them? She also coquettishly invalidates the formula predicated on exit polls. She also notes that the caucus process is FLAWED. She also wonders how a Democratic Party can be a party of unity by overriding the vote. Good job.

2:05 PM EST - More concerns about allocation. Mame Reiley, Clinton Supporter. The integrity of the vote should be honored. Although it may be flawed, it is a vote. She may recognize 100%, but the integrity of the vote must be recognized. But Bonior says the integrity of those who did not vote or failed to vote correctly should be honored. What a joke, this Bonior. And notice again how the delegate advantage from PA and OH is cited. That is irrelevant.

2:09 PM EST - The Michigan Debacle: The Politics of the Unknown - known knowns, unknown knows, unknown unknowns, known unknowns.

2:13 PM EST - Flournoy notes how the Michigan DEMOS acknowledge the primary they say is illegitimate. She uncovered the founding contradiction that undermines their argument. And she notes how dividing the delegates arbitrarily renders all elections inconsequential.

2:15 PM EST - Obama campaign refuses to admit that they do not support full representation. Notice the verbal gymnastics whenever they are cornered.

2:18 PM EST - Governor BLANCHARD, Clinton supporter - Notes the record turnout in Michigan, and notes that Michigan has been a reliable state. WE NEED A NOMINEE OF 50 STATES.

2:21 PM EST - Notes that candidates who removed names had a flawed strategy. He has the affidavits. Notes that four candidates did leave their names on the ballot. He also corrects the record: the NH public radio statements never appeared in Michigan. Also asks committee to consider how uncommitted votes may have been the result of a protest against the entire process.

2:23 PM EST - Explains how Richardson, Edwards and Obama distributed handbills for uncommitted to the suburbs and to Wayne County. Inner city voters and suburbanites were urged to vote uncommitted. HONOR, RESPECT AND COUNT OUR 600,000 VOTERS. Michigan is pivotal, and the DNC should not punish them anymore.

2:26 PM EST - Democrats do not disenfranchise votes. That is not the Democratic way; that is not the American way. WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT NOVEMBER. TURNING A BACK ON FL AND MI IS COQUETTING WITH A McCAIN VICTORY. And Democrats in 2008 should not appear to be the Supreme Court of 2000.

2:28 PM EST - Scary and out of touch Obamabot Hynes asks if they support Brewer proposal. We support 73-55. No more, no less, no disenfranchisement. Blanchard does not view it as a flawed primary. Reminds Hynes of cost of primary and record turnout. Obamabot Hynes is not pleased he is forced to deal with facts. Now scary and out of touch Obamabot Hynes, who I am convinced is a recipient of Rezko cash, claims the Clinton campaign is responsible for the lack of unity in MI. He is an idiot. Hynes implies Blanchard does not respect rules. Blanchard’s riposte: I do not agree with rules that disenfranchise voters. Fuck you, Obamabot Hynes. Go play with your Rezko cash, you old fart from hell. The ROOLZ, the ROOLZ.

2:36 PM EST - Rule 20c1a: violation of order and consequences. What other rules did Michigan violate? Fowler notes that Michigan was legitimate, and referring to the primary as flawed is not appropriate. Good for Fowler. Fowler notes that Section 4, Article 2, of the charter requires the DNC to honor the legitimate primary of MI.

2:40 PM EST - Obamabot Katz is now claiming Obama followed the DNC. That is not true, for the DNC did not ask anyone to remove their names from the ballot. And now Obamabot Katz is sanctimonious: Florida in 2000 is not comparable to Michigan in 2008. Did he discuss Auschwitz with Obama? Blanchard responds: the right to vote is sacred.

2:43 PM EST - Obamabot Martha Clark does not want to disrespect those who did not vote. Thanks for the talking point, Martha. And now she is citing write in ballots no one has reviewed. She is not very bright. Thank you again for mindlessly repeating the notes the campaign sent you, Martha. I hope you enjoy the money you were handed, Martha. I am sure she is looking forward to lunch. Write ins cited again, but no one knows for whom those votes were cast. No evidence, just talking points.

2:46 PM EST - Obamabot Brazile now thinks we are not allowed to use the word “disenfranchise.” And she too is suddenly concerned about write in votes no one has reviewed. What if all those votes are for Mickey Mouse? And Brazile desires a “political” compromise? She is not concerned with the voters? Thank you, Donna. Now we know counting votes for you is political.

2:48 PM EST - Brazile: My momma told me to play by the rules. And now she is telling him that the Clinton campaign has cheated by “changing the rules.” And she cites the “spirit of unity.” Thank you for telling us you support Obama, Brazile. And thank you for your partisan interpretation of history. And again, let us respect voters we do not know exist. Let us respect imaginary voters.
DONNA BRAZILE IS OUT OF TOUCH.

2:52 PM EST - Blanchard reminds Brazile that Clinton did not change the rules. This is about voters, not a political candidate.

2:54 PM EST - Is his humiliate Ickes hour?

WE WILL RETURN AT 4:15 EST

Louisiana Automatic Delegate Endorses Hillary: Louisiana automatic delegate Buddy Leach announced his support for Hillary Clinton today. Leach is a former Congressman and 2003 gubernatorial candidate.

Reports: The committee generally agreed Friday evening to seat half the states’ delegates, but details must still be hammered out.

MORE:

Read a Q&A here.

Who’s who on the committee.

WashPost’s Balz: Democrats talk up compromise to seat half the delegations.

USA Today: The committee’s 30 members have donated nearly $30,000 to the two candidates– most to Clinton. Permalink

GOOD MORNING ALL! GO HILLARY! (LIVE on C-Span.org and WaPo online)

I’m checking media sites:

Halperin links to WSJ:

“Garin: Not So Fast: “Even though voting ends Tuesday, Clinton’s top strategist says “it’s very unlikely the nomination will be secured.”

RIGHT ON! Craig Della Penna’s notes below:

6:44 AM Well, as expected, the DNC ‘rules’ and bylaws committee met to anoint The Hallowed One.

Alexis Herman was Shocked, shocked – at the apparent interest of the public at large.

Quorum established, pledge of allegiance, complete with the ‘under god’ clause,

7:02 AM The Dean himself arrives – praise all around, even a few ‘Huzzahs’

Dean proffers the desultory faint praise for HRC, oh and of course glowing words for BHO…

Looks like they’re treating this as an opportunity for advertising, blah, blah, blah…

Dean reflects on how angry he was with the Dems and how Al Gore talked him off the ledge… are you listening, HRC?

Dean: “It’s not about BHO, it’s not about HRC, it’s about our country.”

Oh for goodness sake, this is stroke city, Dean the uniter, this is all about calming down that hysterical woman so they can show the bitch the door.

“Must respect the voters of Fl and MI, but must respect those who followed the rules and the 48 states that were good little children.”

Go, Party Unity, Go

…can you tell I’m a little cynical about this?

This is complete bullshit – these people are engaged in a complete justification dance. The fix is in.

7:20 AM To hell with these poltroons…

[Truthteller]:
10:55 AM EST The presenter for the Florida DEMOS is schooling the DNC. How refreshing. They have already been punished, he said. He is now explaining how Republicans have defrauded Florida again and again since the late 19th century. This is a Republican game. Now Herman ridicules him about the number of emails she has received.

10:58 AM EST Senator Bill Nelson speaks on behalf of the Florida DEMOS. He acknowledges Wexler, although Wexler supports Obama, who has disenfranchised Florida. Two questions: Count the 29 JAN primary and uphold one person one vote? And then how does one apportion the delegates, which is the purview of the committee? Seat the entire delegation, he says. Reinstate the highest number of delegates.

11:03 AM EST He reminds them of the sensitivity of the problem, the historical precedents. Corrine Brown gestures in support. Reminds Committee of how voters wanted to cast a vote for a Democratic nominee.

11:06 AM EST The “people of Florida took it to the streets.” Voters rally on behalf of candidates, even though candidates did not campaign in Florida. Nelson discusses the grassroots efforts in FL. He urges them to recognize their votes.

11:09 AM EST “This is not about a candidate.” This is about the hope of 1.75 million who cast their votes. He gestures toward the committee, signifying that Florida’s fate is in their hands.

11:11 AM EST Obamabot Janice Griffin is now claiming that misinformed voters who thought their votes would not count were disenfranchised. And the Obamabots in the crowd cheer. Nelson disagrees, but he notes that the turnout was twice what is was ever before. It is in your hands to change the disenfranchisement, Griffin. We shall see, for she is an Obamabot equipped with Obama talking points.

11:13 AM EST DNC member McDonald does not understand the Florida legislature and the politics of the paper trail in Florida. Nelson is now disabusing him of his misconceptions. Nelson explains how the paper trail was used as blackmail by the Republicans. How can someone as misinformed as McDonald sit on committee? Nelson also tells committee that they must acknowledge that they must recognize a certified and legitimate election.

11:17 AM EST McDonald is attempting to understand the legislative debacle in Florida. Nelson also explains to committe that $800,080 thousand could never fund a caucus in a state such as Florida: it is too large, and the state has never had a caucus. Corrine Brown reacted adversely when the word caucus was mentioned. Nelson is now explaining how Florida proposed solutions such as the mail in ballot, but parties could not agree. Tells McDonald that Florida tried over and over and over to satisfy the DNC.

11:21 AM EST State Senator Arthenia Joyner speaks on behalf of the Clinton campaign. This is a wise choice. She reminds that Florida voters are no different than other voters. She also offers her autobiography. Emphasizes the need to count every vote, and now she discusses the legislature and the Republican manipulation of the paper trail provision. She also notes that Florida Democrats in both houses of the state legislature to amend the bill to restore the correct date of the primary. But in the end they had to vote for the bill, as they needed a verifiable paper trail. She outlines the quandary of Florida Democrats well. She now cites Maya Angelou: “you may not be heard, but speak anyway.”

11:31 AM EST She reminds committee that OUR PARTY would always include Florida Democrats, who never thought THEIR PARTY would abandon them. “My state has already suffered enough.” Notes that they were already deprived of retail campaigning.

11:34 AM EST The outcome of the election is our responsibility. Florida Demos demand that votes be counted, and it is the DNC’s responsibility to honor their vote. She also notes that we are responsible for electing Democrats from President to the bottom of the ticket. Now subsumes all this beneath the notion of “making America better” by seating the whole delegation at “OUR convention.” And to do it TODAY in the name of unity.

11:36 AM EST Now cites Dean: you cannot win a state if you do not show up. Herman interrupts Joyner. Now the constitution and the “right to be heard.” Reminds the committee of the potential theft and the silence.

11:38 AM EST They have the right to bring FL back into the Democratic fold. Let’s count every vote and win in November. Her impassioned presentation was received well by the audience.

11:39 AM EST Obama supporter Katz of FL tells Joyner that her words should be universally accepted. “Seat all delegates,” and now moves toward compromise: we can seat in multiple ways. And now Obamabot Katz claims 3 million would have voted, and Joyner agrees. Katz attempted to invalidate her.

11:41 AM EST Yvonne Gates, uncommitted, notes that Joyner wants all votes to be counted. Joyner wants it all. A full vote is what she wants, not a compromise.

11:42 AM EST Donna Brazile “uncommitted” showers her with pleasantries. Donna reminds her of 2000 and of disenfranchisement. Brazile cites the “voices that were not heard.” That is an Obamabot talking point. Remember Katz. Rules 6 & 7 - affirmative action and inclusion. Did we meet these criteria? And did we engage in full participation? Was diversity reflected? Again, she and other Obamabots are citing negative evidence.

11:46 AM EST Joyner reminds Brazile that Florida has met the requirements of Rules 6 & 7.

11:47 AM EST Clinton supporter Flournoy invalidates the Obamabot argument of “silent voices.” You count what have you have, Joyner says. All votes should count, whether it be 1 or 1 million. I am glad Flournoy undermined the Obamabot argument that is predicated on negative evidence.

11:49 AM EST Obamabot Wexler is now representing the Obama campaign. I guess we will see what money can buy.

11:53 AM EST OBAMABOT TALKING POINTS: Cites the rules, and now mentions the pledge. He also says Clinton says the primary would not count. Refers to the primary as abnormal. Obama “not was well known.” And those commercials in FL? And the press conferences? Obama respected the pledge, and mindless audience cheers.

11:55 AM EST Now claims people in Florida should not blame Obama for the debacle. And now he is misrepresenting the position of the entire Florida Democratic Congressional delegation regarding their decision to not hold a second Presidential primary. He is attempting to invoke a false sense of unity. And again, Obama is not responsible. Is he admitting that Obama is responsible? And now he is screaming. Someone ask him to calm down. High theatrics are not needed.

11:57 AM EST Wexler supports Ausman petition. And he cites the Republicans as justification. Should Democrats follow Republicans. And we should commend Obama for offering this concession? And why is someone in the press core clapping? Obama can kiss my ass. He also desires partial votes for superdelegates. Somehow this will restore unity in his small and venal mind.

12:00 PM EST Ausman for him is dignified. His presentation is weak, for he offered no specifics on Florida politics. Lots of histrionics and no substance.

12:01 PM EST Alice Germond, uncommitted, asks about the votes and those who did not vote during the “event” in FL. She is now concerned that the notion that there is a nonbinding vote may have affected turnout. She is now citing the property tax as the cause for turnout. This is another Obamabot talking point. Germond now claims so many more would participate if their vote would count. She desires to reconcile hypotheticals with fact. Remember, the Obama campaign is predicating its arguments on a hypothetical scenario we do not know exists. Again, everything the Obama campaign says and does is baseless.

12:05 PM EST Wexler: compromise, unity, etc. etc. And he thinks this will help Democrats win in FL.

12:07 PM EST Flournoy will ask him about his position on full restoration. Wexler cites rules, but he misunderstands the rules. He is citing an interpretation of the rules that is contested. And he is citing a petition as evidence. “Let us unify.” But he assumes the petition unifies. Always follow their assumptions. Now Flournoy asks again, do you oppose full restoration? Wexler dodges the question. He says the question is unity. He refuses to answer Flournoy’s very simple question. Flournoy now clarifies a point on 5 OCT memo. “Do not have to,” not “forbidden.” In other words, one can or cannot participate in the slating process.

WEXLER DID NOT ANSWER FLOURNOY’S QUESTION. HE WILL NOT SAY WHETHER OR NOT HE SUPPORTS FULL RESTORATION.

12:12 PM EST: Ickes asks him to explain what the compromise is, and what the other option would be. Wexler responds disrespectfully. Again, reiterates support for Ausman petition. And he cites PA and OH delegate victories for Clinton as justification? What does Ohio and PA have to do with FL? And what does this have to do with “unity?” Or are we to accept Obama as “unity?” This seems divisive to me.

This Wexler is hostile and obnoxious. He has no respect for the law. He is a typical Obamabot.

12:16 PM EST: Review slate after petition, for Obama did not have the opportunity to review slate in the past. And now he claims that Obama should not be punished for following the rules.

12:17 PM EST: Alice Huffman, Clinton supporter. Now Wexler is blaming the committee. Again, high theatrics. Again, assumes petition is unity. And she notes that Wexler did not answer her question. And she notes that we do not have to follow Republicans. I LOVE IT.

12:21 PM EST: Now Wexler claims he is a champion of voter rights. It is all about Wexler. ME ME ME. He says he is most committed, and that is why Obama chose him. This is ridiculous. Now Obamabot Katz claims Wexler is the champion of voting rights in FL.

“I thought our country was founded on the principle that people should have DIFFERENT views and be for DIFFERENT people and ideas,” she said.

I thought about it for a second, and replied:

“Maybe that’s why our founding fathers created different branches of government …”

My daughter interrupted:

“YES, mom! So they could have different views and disagree with each other and keep each other from having absolute power!”

… I dunno. I just thought I’d mention that my daughter has figured out that unity is not all it’s cracked up to be. That in fact DISunity is what makes this country greater than most.

And the last time people tried to shove that UNITY B.S. down my throat, it was the pro-war Bush-supporters of the Iraq war who said it was unpatriotic not to be united entirely behind our president and to support his elective war.

Which makes the Obama followers pretty much like the lockstep Bush followers. In my book.

GIVE ‘EM HELL, HAROLD ICKES and ALL OF HRC’s EXPERTS! DON’T GIVE ‘EM AN INCH! FIGHT ALL THE WAY! FIGHTING is what makes us GREAT Americans. And UNITING behind an empty suit without the experience or knowledge to be president — who consorts with extremist, anti-American, racist radicals — is just about the most UN-AMERICAN thing I can imagine doing in my entire lifetime as a LOYAL American citizen.

THREE MUST-SEE VIDEOS BELOW (the last tears at my heart every time I see it):

“The one thing his voters can count on is that they will ultimately be disappointed.” Der Spiegel has it exactly right.

AND, from the incomparable Flineo:

AND the one that BREAKS my HEART, from the incomparable Flineo:

UPDATE: A directly-relevant must-read is Anglachel’s “Legitimacy, Not Unity.”

UPDATE #2: BELOW THE FOLD IS Fox News’s “Clinton Camp Says 2026 Number No Longer Relevant For Nomination.” (A GREAT SUMMARY OF THE CALL, per usual — these days — thanks to Fox News’s fair and balanced reporting!)
_______________________

::::::::::::::::::::

Via Halperin, Time’s The Page blog:
        Senior advisor Harold Ickes and spokesstrategist Howard Wolfson hold morning media call. Ickes reiterates position that the Clinton camp wants all delegates from both states to be seated with a full vote. … Also defends voting for the Florida, Michigan sanctions as a DNC member in the first place, says punishment was imposed and it’s time to make sure the two states are included in general. … Wolfson points to Axelrod NPR interview, says both campaigns agree the status quo is unacceptable. … Plus: Clinton, Obama offer lengthy interviews to the St. Pete Times … mostly on seating Florida’s delegates. Read more. … More: NY Daily News says “busloads” of Clinton supporters plan to swarm the DNC’s May 31 meeting on seating the delegations.

NO QUARTER READERS: CLICK ON AD TO YOUR RIGHT — OR HERE — FOR MORE INFO ON HOW YOU CAN JOIN THE PROTESTS!

And: DNC members are getting packages containing oranges with the words “Count Florida’s Votes” on them from individual voters.

:::::::::::::::::

UPDATE #2

Clinton Camp Says 2026 Number No Longer Relevant For Nomination

Clinton delegate master Harold Ickes says now that the Obama campaign has declared its willingness to seat delegations from Michigan and Florida at the Party Convention in August, the number of delegates once thought to be required to win the nomination is no longer operable.

“There’s an unwritten assumption that 2026 is the number to get the nomination. That could not at this point be further from the truth,” Ickes told reporters on a conference call. “Obama seems to have crossed the Rubicon, and is in favor of some resolution of Michigan and Florida. Until they are fully resolved, there is no fixed number for the nomination.”

“2210 is the high mark,” he said — referring to the number of delegates needed if the Michigan and Florida delegations are seated fully — “and it appears 2026 is the low mark. But that low mark is no longer in my view a reasonable number to even talk about.”

The DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee meets on May 31st to decide what to do about the two states. But Communications Director Howard Wolfson acknowledged that even if the Clinton campaign gets everything it wants from the committee, her path to the nomination still relies on convincing uncommitted superdelegates that she’s the stronger general election candidate.

“Senator Clinton is ahead in the popular vote. Senator Clinton has won the key swing states a Democrat has to win, she’s ahead in the key swing states in polling,” he said — pointing to new Quinnipiac polls showing her beating John McCain in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania while Obama wins only Pennsylvania and by a lesser margin. “She runs better against John McCain than Senator Obama in rural areas, and all of this adds up to the stronger candidate. And that’s a case we’re going to have to make.”

Wolfson also called Obama’s initial steps to being the Vice Presidential search “premature in the sense there’s no nominee yet,” and said he was unaware of any similar effort in the Clinton campaign.

Check out my notes on the rest of the conference call below.

-DNC vet Ickes says the campaign has been talking with the cochairs of the rules and bylaws cmte of the DNC that will decide whether and how to seat the delegates from MI and FL, but said he wouldn’t talk about the nature of those discussions. Called for all delegates from the states to be seated with a full vote, and for the “uncommitted” delegates from MI (where Obama was not on the ballot) to be seated as uncommitted, not as Obama delegates. “All delegates should be seated and all delegates should have a full vote each. With respect to Michigan, it is our view that the uncommitted delegates, of which there are 55, should be seated as uncommitted delegates.”

-asked later whether that was a change in position, Wolfson and Ickes stipulated that most uncommitted delegates would likely vote for Obama, as is their right — but Ickes said “It is however presumptuous to assume that each and every one of those delegates is an Obama supporters… It may well be for Senator Obama, but it should not be for the the campaigns or the rules and bylaws committee to force delegates to be in a category or supporting a candidate ,including uncommitted unless of their own free will.

-Wolfson brought up the new Quinnipiac polls in OH, FL and PA that show HRC beating McCain in all three while Obama wins only PA — and wins there by a smaller margin than HRC. “11:42:21 look at the map, Senator Clinton has the winning map against Senator McCain. We would win the states that John Kerry won in 2004. we would add AR and West Virginia and Florida and Ohio. And we would certainly be competitive in states like NM and NV, and Iowa that Senator kerry lost. if you look at Obama, he is hanging on narrowly in Pennsylvania, our margin of victory is umuch greater in Pennsylvania, and he’s losing Florida and Ohio.,” he said. “It becomes very difficult to get to 270. He is losing NH. He is losing West Virginia. So the combination of states one would need that doesn’t include Florida and Ohio becomes very very difficult.” Wolfson said that’s the case they’re making to superdelegates.

-Wolfson was careful not to suggest that Obama COULDN’T win, just that HRC had a better chance. “11:43:53 not to say that if Senator Obama is the nominee he couldn’t win these states. Not that he wouldn’t be our next president. But who’s won these states, won them in primarym, would be the strongest possible nominee against John McCain. “

- he also said Obama appeared to have written off WV. “11:41:52 An AP article said Senator Obama’s team has written West Virginia off. I remember the days of the 50 sate strategy. That strategy may not include West Virginia or Florida or Michigan, depending on their positiotn on seating them,” he said.

-said he had no reaction to the Obama VP search. “11:55:36 it is clearly premature in the sense that he is not the nominee. But far be it from us to tell him when to begin a process. He presumably could have begun the process last year for all we know.” denied there were any similar processes underway in the clinton camp. Also denied that there were any discussions underway with the Obama camp about HRC joining an Obama/Clinton ticket.

-Ickes defended voting for punishing FL and MI by pulling all their delegates while he’s now in favor of seating all of them by saying the DNC wanted to send a message to other states wanting to move up, and that that message was received. He also claimed the states have been punished even if their delegations are now seated, since they were deprived of the money and prestige that comes with candidates campaigning in the states, arguing that the party must now look ahead to the general election and decide what’s best if they want to win the WH.

-Wolfson wouldn’t clarify HRC’s statement to the AP that she might take things to the convention if MI and FL aren’t seated to her satisfaction, saying “we’ll have to wait and see what happens.” said Clinton would look to the voters and leaders of MI and FL after the rules cmte makes a decision and take her cues from them. Of a possible appeal to the credentials cmte at the convention, Ickes said “it is our expectation that the rules and bylaws committee will decide based on full vote. We’re not prepared to cross bridges we may not have to cross.”

-Wolfson says even the Obama campaign now agrees that the “status quo” must change and is in favor of seating MI and FL delegates in some fashion. “both sides have taken the position that the status quo was untenable, not tenable to ignore the votes and the states, he said. “so what we’re arguing about is ignore them halfways or fully honor them. But lets be clear, the rubicon has been crossed by the Obama campaign. They now believe the status quo is untenable

-Ickes followed up to say that that fact means the number 2026 is no longer operable. “There is an unwritten assumption in the fourth estate that 2026 is the number to get the nomination. That could not at this point be further from the truth. Obama seems to have crossed the rubicon, is in favor of some resolution of Michigan and Florida. Until they are fully resolved, there is no fixed number for the nomination,” he said. “2210 is the high mark , and it appears 2026 is the low mark. But that low mark is no longer in my view a reasonable number to even talk about.”

-Wolfson says one reason HRC didn’t speak out about the importance of voting rights in FL and MI until it actually mattered to her electoral hopes was bc no one expected people to come out for the penalized primary. , there was every expectation that these votes would not be consequential in terms of turnout, because of the DNC rules. And I think what we saw surprised everyone… we have a harder case to make if 5000 people came out.”

-he also outlined the path to the nomination - which is difficult since even if they get everythign they want out of FL and MI they’ll still trail by 60 delegates or so. It basically involves making the case to superdelegates that she’d be the best president and the best candidate against john mccain by looking at polling and primary results in swing states and districts. “Senator Clinton is ahead in the popular vote. Senator Clinton has won the key swing states a Democratic has to win, she’s ahead in the key swing states in polling. Shre runs better against John McCain than Senator Obama in rural areas, and all of this adds up to the stronger candidate.”

“We run stronger in swing districts. We run stronger in swing states. And swing districts and swing states elect presidents,” he said. …