DNC convention stance surprises campaigns (Will seat FL & MI)!!!!!!!!

[DerekJ]

The Democratic National Committee said Tuesday that Florida and Michigan members will be seated on the three standing committees — including the critical Credentials Committee—at the party’s 2008 national convention, a position that could affect the selection of the Democratic nominee.

While both states were stripped of their delegates to the convention, according to the DNC’s interpretation of party rules, members from those states will be seated on the Credentials Committee. The Credentials Committee, which can meet prior to convention, resolves disputes over whether to seat delegates at the convention.

“The DNC interpretation is that there are 186 members of the Credentials Committee and both states are seated on the standing committees,” said DNC spokeswoman Stacie Paxton.

Under the DNC's interpretation of the rules, Florida members of the credentials committee would not be allowed to vote on the question of whether to seat Florida's delegates to the presidential nominating process.

But the mere presence of Florida and Michigan on the credentials committee raises the prospect of vote-trading or last-minute maneuvering, creating potential confusion for a convention already shadowed by procedural controversies.

Senior advisers to the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, as well as several party rules experts with experience from prior presidential campaigns, expressed surprise when informed of the DNC’s stance.

---------------------------------------------


More here: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9350.html

Does that mean they will be seating MI & FL as is?

[ossman]

1. Yes. After Obama is still ahead after Puerto Rico, He will seat... still winning... and finish ahead

[DerekJ]

6. How come? MI was declared unconstitutional. It can be contested easily.

And what made them change thier bloody mind all of a sudden.

[ossman]

8. They can still be seated by the winner. After the primaries & SDs... he will seat them both. Done

[joshcryer]

9. Party unity! Duh! WTF!

People really did buy the propaganda by the FL and MI hater here, didn't they?

I predicted they'd be seated before it was even concievable that they would even *matter*.

[papau]

13. unconstitutional.??? - interesting - got a link? - didn't think so

[DerekJ]

17. here

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/judge-rules-michigans-primary-law.html

Now STFU

[Forkboy]

20. LOL

:rofl:

[Diana Prince]

27. Here you go

www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080326/METRO/803260443/1361

www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/27/michigan-january-15-prima_n_93679.html

www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/03/26/politics/horserace/entry3971086.shtml

www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/03/26/michigan/index.html

politicalwire.com/archives/2008/03/26/michigan_primary_found_unconstitutional.html

Google is your friend.

[Johnny__Motown]

54. This was common knowledge.. why didn't you know it? plenty of links if needed

[joshcryer]

56. Yeah, but they imply that MI's election was unconstitutional when it was the law itself that was.

As far as I know there's nothing wrong with the legality of the election itself, merely one small aspect of the law that gave GOP and Dems unequal power over third parties.

[skooooo]

24. The party makes the rules.

The nomination process has nothing to do with the "constitution." People seem to think that there is some kind of legal structure that has to be followed like for an election. There is not. The nomination process is how the party sets it up to work.

[joshcryer]

7. The SDs will need to move in kind, though.

Because seating FL and MI make their delegations matter, and a vote could be made on the floor to pick the nomination.

[joshcryer]

2. I predicted this and posted a comment about it.

[joshcryer]

4. Here's my thread gloating like crazy:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5359972&mesg_id=5359972

[Hawkeye-X]

3. Like I said before - IT WILL be seated - just not now.

And it is ALL up to the credentials committee on how they will be seated.

[DerekJ]

10. What about FL & MI SDs?!!

[Hawkeye-X]

14. Again, that is up to the Credentials Committee

on how they want to proceed from there.

Hawkeye-X

[DerekJ]

19. So they don't interfere with the nomination process?

[joshcryer]

37. "Interfere"? While the DNC is being inclusive, Obama supporters are still rejecting those states!

Amazing!

What do you think would happen if they're sitting there at the DNC and the Credentials Committee doesn't allow a vote to seat them for the nomination process, or it allows such a vote and Obama and his delegation shoots it down?

What do you think would happen?

[ossman]

5. She only won by 10% in both I believe. Not enough to win. He doesnt want the "I won big states" BS.

[Johnny__Motown]

11. I think Fl was 33-51 and MI was 55-40(Uncommitted) off the top of my head

Edwards was still running when FL voted so the anti-Clinton vote was split.

[ossman]

15. MI was 55/45 for sure. I voted uncommitted. FLA I dont know.

[Johnny__Motown]

33. No 55.3 to 40, sorry In MI

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/MI.html

[ossman]

42. Chuck Todd I am not. Same arguement though.

[papau]

16. That is correct - and 40% MI "uncommitted" was split evenly between Edwards and Obama

[Johnny__Motown]

31. It is impossible to know that I also voted Uncommitted on that ballot. no way to determine the

Obama supporters from the Edwards supporters.

[ossman]

36. But they will seat MI with the 55/45 split. Obama will agree after the SDs speak.

[Johnny__Motown]

38. Is this pure speculation ? and where do you get the 55/45 number?

[ossman]

43. Yes, and my ass. Close though.

[Johnny__Motown]

44. HAHA, thanks.. I needed a good laugh....

I thought maybe you new something about the remaining votes that went for Dobbs and Kuch, if maybe those delegates would go to Obama

[Diana Prince]

39. Not to mention

the Edwards & Obama supporters who voted for Romney because they were told the Dems wouldn't be seated.

[Johnny__Motown]

40. Exactly, those are the people who really got screwed, just trying to help our party

[joshcryer]

41. Are you a delegate at the DNC? Then make a proposal.

Or if you know a delegate tell them to make a proposal.

However you think it is fairest to be handled.

But the DNC knows what's best by seating them.

[Johnny__Motown]

48. I am a nobody, but I have suggested the 1/2 vote per delegate solution, with NO SD getting any votes

[joshcryer]

53. Well, the Credentials Committee may do it that way.

Or they might give them a full vote.

We'll have to see.

The important part is that MI and FL are at least being heard at the DNC.

Something people here thought not possible.

[madfloridian]

12. The FL members would not be allowed to vote on the nominee.

"Under the DNC's interpretation of the rules, Florida members of the credentials committee would not be allowed to vote on the question of whether to seat Florida's delegates to the presidential nominating process."

From your link.

[DerekJ]

18. Thanks Madi

The whole article is bloody confusing, I don't think the author himself understands it.

[joshcryer]

23. Did you read what madi quoted and what they claimed the very quote said?

Did you?

[DerekJ]

28. Yah, I did Joshcryer. Why?

[joshcryer]

30. Because what they quote is not the same as what they say.

:hi:

[joshcryer]

22. Distorted, they cannot vote to *seat themselves.* Uh, duh, I said that 2 months ago.

Can you please read what the fuck you wrote? It doesn't say they cannot vote on the nominee, it says they cannot vote to seat themselves for the nomination process!

Holy shit!

[madfloridian]

45. Why don't you alert on me and get it over with.

I quoted from the link in the OP

[joshcryer]

47. I've never alerted on you, I think you're well meaning...

...what you said was not what you quoted.

[madfloridian]

49. You are all over everything I say today. What is going on?

?

[joshcryer]

55. Got tired of the misinformation. The seating must show I get some good karma.

:hi:

No hard feelings but I think the mischaracterization doesn't help the party. Slinging mud and hating on one another cannot achieve anything.

I KNEW deep fucking down the DNC would do the RIGHT THING and they did! Hell I can shut the fuck up at this point beause I was RIGHT.

[madfloridian]

58. I do have hard feelings. I don't like to be called a liar.

The DNC is only seating them, not counting them.

They have said that all along. You are getting overwrought.

[joshcryer]

59. The DNC isn't *discounting* them either, that's the important distinction.

You chose to see things a certain way, but if anyone called me a liar, I would defend myself, not act as if it's not being said. There are comments and distortions that are made which can be interpreted as lies. I personally think your specific quote here is very disingenious, because it says right there in the quote that it is in reference to "seating for the nomination process," not nomination in general. In my FAQs thread months ago I said they could not seat themselves for the nomination but that they could in fact be seated for the nomination by the others.

The end of the article in this thread illustrates how that can happen.

Your quote unfairly characterizes the situation. You know, and be honest with yourself, but once upon a time you claimed the DNC would never seat them.

But it has happened.

[madfloridian]

21. FL members can only vote on some things...not on the nominee.

"Under the DNC's interpretation of the rules, Florida members of the credentials committee would not be allowed to vote on the question of whether to seat Florida's delegates to the presidential nominating process. "

From your OP

I will keep repeating.

All Dean did today was give them seats, say they had hotel rooms, and turn them over to the candidates.

[joshcryer]

26. "vote on the question of whether to seat Florida's delegates"

"vote on the question of whether to seat Florida's delegates"

Of course they can't seat themselves, hahahaha, omfg. Please by all means keep repeating this quote!

[joshcryer]

35. What Dean did today is got them into the doors of the convention where they can be very loud...

...and make very loud arguments about not being able to select the nominee.

And no candidate in their right mind would tell them they can't help the nomination process.

[AX10]

25. But they can't vote on the nominee.

:eyes:

[joshcryer]

29. Uh, no, this gets them further than *anyone* here thought possible.

They're actually being fucking seated no question. Now if the credentials committee desires not to allow them to vote on the nominee, that is another question.

*BUT OBAMA IS THE ONLY ONE WHO COULD KEEP THAT FROM HAPPENING*

[DerekJ]

32. How can he do that?

[joshcryer]

34. The only scenario where it would happen is if it hurt his chances, and he requested to keep them...

...from having a say. Voting on the particular move to not seat them.

[jackson_dem]

46. By ordering his delegtes to disenfranchise 10% of the population (FL and MI)

[Johnny__Motown]

50. Come on. MI and FL broke the rules and MI's was found to be unconstitutional (state constitution)

[joshcryer]

52. MI's law, not election, you might want to read a bit deeper.

What happened was that the law was seen to be wrong. I don't see anything in your innuendo that says that the election itself was unconstitutional and illegal.

Merely the tactics utilized by the law to hurt third parties.

[jackson_dem]

61. Who cares about idiotic rules created for two small arrogant states?

Which is more important: giving Iowa and New Hampshire veto power over the presidency or enfranchising all Democrats? To disenfranchise 10% of voters for two arrogant states makes no sense--especially since we desperately need those states in the general election.

[joshcryer]

51. The link actually explains it very well on the second page. Question is, would that ever happen?

Would Obama ever vote not to seat MI and FL for the nomination process? That's just as bad as not having them there. What's the point to be there unless you have a say in the matter.

[joshcryer]

57. Now some speculation. Maybe they did it because Obama has the nod already.

Perhaps the SDs really are waiting on the sidelines and they're just waiting for the primaries to be over to unleash their endgame.

I think that's what's going to happen.

[joshcryer]

60. Kick