they could have done the right thing and Obama would have retained his lead.

they could have done the right thing and Obama would have retained his lead.

But Donna Brazile wouldn't have had her "fuck-you" moment then, would she.

lambert,

in his initial comment on iphie's post,

"DNC legitimacy crisis (6-2/11:32)

cites anglachel:

“Think about this. Really think about this. A committee of people, behind closed doors and under pressure from a specific candidate to shore up his crumbling support, has functionally declared Michigan’s votes null and void and has reallocated the delegates to suit themselves.”

anglachel’s statement can serve as a summary of what has been happening in the democratic party this campaign season.

the rbc decisions were typical political decisions.

politicians are not accountants;

politicians FORCE the rows and columns to add up.

they make things come out the way they want them to come out - always.

they can bend laws and customs. they can misrepresent and misdirect.

and they do; it’s their job, their talent.

this is the lesson in spades of the cheney presidency.

it was clear at least from late march - and probably earlier than that to people who really knew what was going on (not me) - that senator obama was going to be the candidate for the dems.

why clear?

arguments against his candidacy were ignored, completely ignored,

electibility arguments like paul lukasiak’s were ignored.

electoral college voting arguments were ignored,

pledged delegate gains for obama from manipulated caucuses in small population states was ignored

racial prejudice was ignored, except to scold about it’s presence,

obama’s inexperience was ignored,

clinton’s experience and years in the party were ignored.

clinton’s very strong showing in all the big population states except illinois was ignored

one could say the fix was in, but that would be banal. the fix is always in in politics.

what the rules and bylaws committee meeting demonstrated was just this - politicians bend rules to make happen what they want to happen.

to clinton supporters,

the real revelation from the rbc decisions should be that:

the same favoritism shown obama, the same bending of rules to help him in every way,

COULD have been applied in seantor clinton's favor by democratic leaders at the state and national levels

had there been the will to do so.

there was no such will.

that lack of political will was the relentless current that clinton had to navigate against this primary season.

the more clinton won,

the stronger she got as a campaigner,

the more impressive her victories,

the LESS support she received for the democratic leadership at state and national levels.

had she overwhelmed the party with delegate votes, they would have ben compelled to award her the nomination, though reluctantly.

when she did not do that,

that created the opportunity for the very strong anti-clinton current in the party to push obama’s bark over the finish line.

we need a boat load of women candidates for 2010.

But, yes, even more in 2010 would be nice. A lot of women did win their primaries this year, however, and I don't think that's a coincidence. That's one reason why I laughed when Aravosis ranted about all the money Clinton was forcing Emily's List to spend. Well, Emily's List candidates won primaries in several late voting states, such as Indiana and North Carolina. Although as an Emily's List member and donor, I appreciate Aravosis' concern.

I'm going to the big D.C. meeting of Emily's List next week. It will be interesting to see what the mood of its donors is. The organization will back Obama if he's the nominee, they've made that clear (not with money, but with GOTV efforts). What its donors think will be more interesting. I have a great deal of respect for Ellen Malcolm, so I'm looking forward to the entire thing. Should be very interesting. And I get to see and talk to a whole lot of women candidates, including some shoe-ins like Donna Edwards. So it should be quite good. I've never been before and I'm looking forward to it.

BTW, this year, I've decided no donations unless they are to female candidates. Not because there aren't deserving men out there, but because symbolism is particularly important this year and because I have limited resources and if the choice is between two good candidates of each sex, I'm going with the woman. This misogynistic bullshit I've had to sit through wouldn't happen if 55 members of the Senate were women.

may I recommend Andrea Miller of VA's 4th CD? Anti-war and pro HR 676.

She is considered a long shot.

I've been thinking about doing a series of posts on women candidates like you do on healthcare. So far, however, real life is intruding.

at Talk Left

jeralyn merit has a post entitled

"Updated Primary Statistics:..." (6-2/1:06p).

in that post she points to a report (14pp) by one peniel cronin "Primary vs Caucus...".

the report compares primaries and caucuses in the dem 2008 campaign

it doesn't stint on criticism of caucuses.

it is very readable and interesting.

I’ve been thinking about doing a series of posts on women candidates like you do on healthcare. So far, however, real life is intruding.

that is a great idea, esp if you drill down to the state legislature level. Today's state senator is tomorrow's congressional or senate candidate

Most of the Emily's List meeting is of a non-confidential nature. There's only one closed session, IIRC. But the most interesting discussions will probably be around the edges and what individual donors talk about and say at the breaks (e.g. how angry are they?), which mostly won't be confidential as well.

given the betrayal of DNC principles by women like Brazile, Herman, Godwin, etc. etc. that we saw at that meeting, thinking that electing more woman is an answer is silly.

As a non-vagina-American, there is some comfort in knowing that corruption and venality is not a function of gender.

Electing more women won't end corruption. There will always be women, just as there will always be men, who are out only for themselves. Just as there will always be women who are stupid, have lousy political judgement, etc.

But there are a couple of things electing more women could do, if we do it right - 1) help change the culture to one that's less misogynistic (we'd all be better off if Tucker Carlson had more reasons to cross his legs); and 2) elevate so-called women's issues such as healthcare and education, which should be national priorities for all people, but which are often higher priorities of women voters, who are more likely to form a critical part of a woman candidate's coalition.

Finally, I think we'd be better off generally if our elected officials were at least closer in demographics to the populations they serve. There is one African American in the Senate and 14 white women and, historically, those are pretty good numbers. I don't think one has to be crazy to think our society would be less racist and sexist if its ruling class weren't so overwhelmingly one race and one sex. I don't want to be a society where identity is the only thing that matters in politics, but it would sure be nice if we could get to a point where our ruling class isn't almost entirely chosen from one pool of people. And don't kid yourself, the way some women and people of color act within the political system is influenced by the fact that they do not have the same power within the system.

But, yes, you're right, electing more women isn't some panacea that will solve all the problems of the Democratic Party. And obviously there are male candidates who are better than their female competitor (I'd rather a progressive man than a Blue Dog woman). Indeed, a number of women in the Democratic Party are corrupt hacks who should be removed. But that's a different problem that calls out for a different solution. If nothing else, this primary has highlighted a whole lot of ways in which our culture and political system is failing.

The post talked about the DNC Diebolt voting by the RBC. We all agree that is fine in nondemocratic environments and I guess we finally arrived there. The Democratic party left the word democracy in 2008.

One looks at the comments and realize that some shed tears and some hope for women to rescue us. People, no one will rescue us; it's our job. Concretely, what are we planning to do from now until November to rescue the part of the ruined Democratic party from the earthquake rubbles?

I don't think any delegates should have been awarded. I agree the Michigan ruling was arbitrary, but the Ickes proposal was worse. No result from such a flawed result could be used. If you want to be fair, the original penalty should be upheld.
The fact that this is in essence a private election , awarding delegates for political reasons can be done. But the numbers in Ickes formula are just as illegitimate as the ones used.
I am not posting this to pick a fight with anyone, I just believe you cant change the rules after the race begins. And pairing that with both surviving campaigns having been completely on board with the original penalty, it is a mistake to cave.

-- http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/...

"... Asked if Obama would wait to get a concession call from Clinton before claiming the nomination, Dunn said the onus was on Clinton now that the Democratic Party has firmed up the number of delegates needed to claim the party's nod.

"He's not going to wait by the phone like a high-school girl waiting for a date," said Dunn. "That's not Barack Obama."

"After Tuesday," Dunn added, referring to the final contests of South Dakota and Montana, Clinton "can decide how united she wants this party to be." ..."

There's that "bringing people together" thing he's so great at, no?

surprised he didn't win the election.

Of course, that's all divisive and pre-post-partisan thinking n' stuff 'n junk.

Hell, we don't even let the football boys get away with stuff like that in high school down here in Texas.