If you have "no place to go," come here!

Initial thoughts on RBC debacle.

Iphie's picture

I just got home from DC and I'm going to make this quick because at this point I haven't slept in almost 40 hours, and were it not for the energy derived from my seething rage, I would have collapsed.

I'm sure many of you either watched the sham theatrical event proceedings or were following them as they were being live-blogged on TalkLeft and elsewhere, so I'll spare you the blow by blow and just give you some of my initial notes/observations.

I was immediately struck as I stood in line to get my credentials by how many people were displaying their Obama shirts, buttons, stickers, hats, earrings, etc. This surprised me because I thought that we had been given pretty clear instructions that this was a professional meeting, not a rally and that no signs or banners or disruptive material was to be brought into the room. I interpreted this to mean that we should leave the obvious partisan expressions outside or at home. Very few Clinton supporters initially displayed any outward indication of their preference, so clearly we all came to the same conclusion.

It also surprised me how many more Obama supporters than Hillary supporters managed to get tickets. It was odd given that everyone supposedly had the same chances of getting tickets -- how was it that the Obamabots were so much more successful acquiring them?

I managed to get a ticket by being a squeaky wheel -- I was given a fax number that was available to people who were "unable" to register online, but only after I pushed. Who else was given that number? It was not publicly available, but clearly some people were clued into it's existence, but most weren't. However it happened, more Obama supporters managed to get in. I just found it curious, that's all.

It was very interesting to see the difference in people's reactions and responses to just about everything. First up was the introduction of, and a statement from Howard Dean. At the mention of his name certain people in the room politely clapped. Certain other people were rapturous at his very name.

At one point Dean told us that the time has come for the racism and sexism in this campaign to stop. Oh, reallly? Now is the time for this to stop? And prior to this moment was the appropriate time to vent such hatred? Has Chairman Dean had the power to stop this all along and he just chose not to? This meeting is not getting off to a good start.

The arguments for and against seating FL's delegates came first, and then MI. Each campaign had one representative making the arguments for the candidate for each state. In FL, Hillary chose State Senator Athenia Joyner, and Obama chose Congressman Robert Wexler. If you didn't get a chance to see this bit, try to watch it somehow. The contrast between the two epitomized the differences between the candidates and the campaign.

Senator Joyner was great -- where has she been all this time? She was very effective and very engaging. Her case was built almost entirely on arguments about the voters. Her's was a positive argument -- she never mentioned Obama or criticized the choices he's made regarding the voters in FL, instead she talked about her long history fighting for civil rights and voting rights, both here in the U.S. and also in apartheid era South Africa. One of Joyner's arguments was based on the enormous number of people who came out to vote despite being discouraged by the media and the political establishment telling them that the election wouldn't count.

After she presented her case, she took questions from the committee. One of them was from Donna Brazile (more on her later) who asked that given that it was widely known in FL that the election wouldn't matter, was it then fair to punish those who believed what they were told and thus didn't vote? Brazile wondered how any solution that counts the votes is fair to those who didn't vote. Seriously. We can't count the votes because the people who didn't vote don't have any votes to count. What is this, our democracy in action or a Monty Python bit?

Senator Joyner didn't let us down, though. She had the perfect response. She said that on January 29th, Democrats heeded Maya Angelou's advice when she said "You may think you may not be heard. Speak anyway."

Could anyone better epitomize the most egregious dickishness of the Obama campaign than Robert Wexler? I think not. Things were going pretty well until Wexler opened his mouth. He was combative, belligerent and interested only in defending Obama. He had little to nothing to say about the voters and his presentation was all about defending Obama's good name from all of the scurrilous accusations that he tried to derail any effort at a revote. He was palpably angry. What does he have to be angry about? His candidate is about to coronated, could he be a little gracious? It was at about this point in the day that the Clinton supporters reached their respective boiling points and started to become a little more vocal about the proceedings.

Wexler was asked a couple of different ways whether or not he would oppose seating and counting 100% of the full delegation. He would not answer, he just kept reiterating that the Obama campaign supports a 50% penalty. Which is when people started shouting at him to answer the question, which is when the Obamabots jumped in and tried to silence anyone not singing their song. It was with Wexler's help that things started to get ugly in the room.

I'm going to bed -- I'm about ready to drop. More impressions after sleep.

No votes yet


Swift Loris's picture
Submitted by Swift Loris on

Sleep done good. Look forward to more tomorrow.

CognitiveDissonance's picture
Submitted by CognitiveDissonance on

Thanks for your report. You fleshed out a lot of things that those of us who watched on TV couldn't have known, particularly about more Obama supporters getting tickets, the mood of the room and the speakers, and how you saw the arguments. I'm glad that a few Clinton supporters were there to report, because the MSM sure isn't talking about our feelings of the proceedings.

TonyRz's picture
Submitted by TonyRz on

You fleshed out a lot of things that those of us who watched on TV couldn’t have known, particularly about more Obama supporters getting tickets,

I thought it was pretty obvious for most of the day that the HRC cheering points were getting less of a response than the BHO ones were, save for some of the more galvanizing moments, such as the chants of "DEN-VER!", when there seemed to be some aural parity; and the very first vote.

So many little moments to love, but I really liked when it was obviously over, but the female co-chair admonished some of the folks in the balcony that they were NOT to open the doors and leave until they had banged their last gavel.

After blowing a Saturday in front of C-SPAN in this masochistic exercise, I just thought, "You've GOT to be kidding me....". If I had been there, and been a Michigan voter, I probably would have gone postal.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

but anyone who watched this knew that there was no feeling of "unity" in that room.

and that is important. Mr Unity Pony has torn this party apart.

koshembos's picture
Submitted by koshembos on

The proceedings you describe are reminiscence of show trials in dictatorships. The pretense of fairness, the pigheadedness of the authorities, the bombastic announcements, etc.

My guess is that this the first presidential election cycle where whiffs of fascism are permeating the air. I don't believe that even the Republicans have stooped that low.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

great reporting...

and I mean that... this is great reporting

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

According to Craig Crawford (emphasis mine):

Make no mistake about it. The decision rendered today by the Democratic National Committee's rules panel showed that Barack Obama has displaced Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, as boss of the party.

The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee gave Obama exactly what he wanted - a firm decision on seating Florida and Michigan delegates. Even though Clinton wins a small net gain in nominating delegates, it is not enough to seriously boost her chances for the nomination.

No decision would have best served Clinton today. Her nomination hopes are dependent on a chaos theory, which would have been best supported by keeping the status of Florida and Michigan in limbo.

Losing what they needed today proves that for the first time in 16 years the Clintons are no longer in charge of the Democratic Party. There is a new boss in town.

What does Obama and his establishment backers gain when if Obama loses in a landslide during a year when the Democratic Party is all but guaranteed to win? What's the point of controlling a Party that will become a delegitimized laughingstock by November?

FlipYrWhig's picture
Submitted by FlipYrWhig on

I know exactly how it will play out if Obama loses -- everyone will say that it's like Goldwater '64, when a humbling loss became the wellspring of a new movement with new leaders.

One Barry to another.

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

I don't doubt that the so-called new "leadership" is arrogant (read: dipshit!) enough to believe that, but it won't work even in the short-term. Hell, look at the failure that is the Obama "movement" already in spite of every advantage possible.

We all know movements are based on ideology. The Obama "movement" is a fad based solely on Clinton-hate (Ever notice how many Obama supporters are anti-Clinton rather than pro-Obama?). Any "ideology" Obama has is bullshit. Read Anglachel's post on their libertarian paternalism. Their theory of power is...uh...they don't have one!

Submitted by lambert on

To begin with, neither Bill Clinton nor "The Clintons" are bosses of the Democratic Party -- last I checked, there were other Presidential candidates in 2000 (a win, though denied) and 2004 (probably a loss), neither of whom were named Clinton. I realize the need for a collective wankfest whenever the Clintons lose anything, but let's keep some sense of historical perspective, here.

Second, Obama may be boss of his faction of the Democratic Party, but he's not boss of the whole party until he succeeds in throwing the rest of us out of it.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

horseloverfat's picture
Submitted by horseloverfat on

Nancy Pelosi, enemy of HRC, stands to lose status and power if HRC becomes President. Hence, all the pressure on the SD's - anything but that. Better to take a chance on Obama, although he probably didn't seem such a long shot when the PTB organized around him.

Horselover Fat

OxyCon's picture
Submitted by OxyCon on

Donna Brazile & Co first vote to disenfranchise all of Florida's voters, stripping everyone in the state of the right to be heard. But now that counting all of the Florida votes would benefit Hillary Clinton and hurt Bwak Obama, Brazile is all the sudden worried about those who did not vote. This is just one of those ridiculous Obama bullshit excuses, used to screw Hillary. It's patently ridiculous on it's own merits, but yet readily excepted by Brazile & Co because they are doing everything in their power to coronate Obama.

To me, it is vitally important that Obama loses badly come November, so that the loser wing of the Democrat party, the Braziles, Kerrys, Daschles, Reids, Pelosis, Wexlers, Deans and the rest of them can be vanquished for good because of their Obama enabling actions.

orionATL's picture
Submitted by orionATL on

first hand reporting.

i enjoyed reading this very much.

hope to hear more when you are rested.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Nice job. I can't believe you sat through the whole thing, non-stop. That's dedication!

Personally, I couldn't have done it. I have very little patience for lying, stupid people, and intellectual dishonesty, all of which were on display throughout the day. I wouldn't have changed "Den-ver, Den-ver", I would've chanted "bullshit, bullshit."

And I hope Carl Levin takes the fight over Michigan all the way to Denver.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

sometimes of think that the belligerence of the OFB comes from the knowledge that they are wrong about MI and FL.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

it is not Clinton hate, it has to do with anger over the war, that war is focused on Hillary because they voted for it.

For all the smears that have been directed at HRC, it is not remotely as hidieous as that Clinton helped to bring down on the Iraqi poeple.

I am not happy about how this has all played out, but there is a reason people are angry with Clinton.

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

First, I said it was based solely on Clinton hate, but not that it couldn't include other factors like, for example, feeling as if you're voting for history by nominating a black man. Second, her position was the same as Hans Blix (i.e. she did not vote for a damn invasion). Third, Kerry voted for AUMF and there wasn't nearly this much rage at him--not even close. Fourth, Obama is no better than Clinton--at all--on this goddamn issue when push comes to shove. Fifth, tell the Iraqi women and girls that a society that openly celebrates violent anti-female hatred doesn't matter in a war zone. Lastly, if they truly cared about Iraq they would be fighting for the Democrat with the best, if only, chance to beat McCain.

Iraq, just like false charges of racism, is largely used as a cover to justify the (misogynistic) demonization of Clinton.

Submitted by hipparchia on

i'm angry with clinton over that aumf vote too. it's killed a couple of people i used to know.

sure, obama spoke out against the war back when it was politically safe for him to do so, but everything he's said and done since then has suggested he's not going to end it. and i've still got friends over there and family in danger of being sent over there.

john edwards admitted he was wrong and apologized for his vote, but none of the rest of them are getting a pass from me on the war.

Submitted by lambert on

And looking forward to the followup -- I think Iphie's sleeping late. And she's earned it.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

leah's picture
Submitted by leah on

I'd like to add my thanks to Iphie for gifting Corrente with this first-hand reporting, and I, too, look forward to hearing more.

I wish to disassociate myself from the comment of OxyCon, in particular this part.

To me, it is vitally important that Obama loses badly come November, so that the loser wing of the Democrat party, the Braziles, Kerrys, Daschles, Reids, Pelosis, Wexlers, Deans and the rest of them can be vanquished for good because of their Obama enabling actions.

Every single one of the Democrats you apparently feel should not be Democrats happen to be liberal/progressive members of the Democratic Caucus. Because you have disagreements with them does not make them rightwingers, nor does it make them not Democrats. Wexler, in particular, is one of the more liberal members of congress. You can have a disagreement with someone without wanting your side to lose. And don't tell me they aren't on your side, or, okay, tell me that, but understand that my response is that you don't speak for all Democrats, all liberals, or all progressives. And the worst possible way to influence people who care about both politics and democratic governance is to tell them that because you have a disagreement with them, you want them to lose an election.

Submitted by lambert on

Modifying what Leah wrote slightly:

The worst possible way to influence people who care about both politics and democratic governance is to tell them that because you have a disagreement with them, you want them to lose an election. they're racist, that their candidate wants to assassinate yours, and that hating your candidate is OK because she's a woman. How can progressive policies come from such a base?????

Yet again, Obama had a chance to unify. Did he take it? No. So, why do we believe that he wants what he doesn't take? I've had seven years of a President who was "my way or the highway" 24/7. That he was selected by disenfranchising the voters of FL is, I am sure, just an unhappy coincidence.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by hipparchia on

is currently one of my very favorite persons in congress.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

thinks that Latinos, and women, and Jewish retirees should be treated as HALF HUMAN.

Wexler is scum. I don't care if he grandstands for people like you in a quixotic effort to impeach cheney. Yesterday, Wexler showed his true colors --- those of an oppotunist willing to disenfranchise WOMEN, HISPANICS, AND JEWISH RETIREES THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF FLORIDA to advance his OWN PERSON POWER.

There is NO EXCUSE for what he did. NONE. I don't care if a pederast gives to charity -- he's still a fucking pederast. And Wexler is still COMPLETE SCUM.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

Every single one of the Democrats you apparently feel should not be Democrats happen to be liberal/progressive members of the Democratic Caucus.


Everyone of them them doesn't give a flying fuck about progressive values --- they care first and foremost about their own power.

Oxycon is 100% right. A nice big repudication of the scum that run the Democratic party is the only thing that can save the party.

leah's picture
Submitted by leah on

I am just as angry as you are at the resurgence of every bald-faced lie and ever bald-faced distortion that was used in the nineties against Bill and Hillary Clinton. And there is no doubt that the Obama campaign sought to use that media hatred of the Clintons to their own advantage, in ways that I feel highly critical of.

But it is ridiculous, and not particularly helpful to Hillary, or to an on-going critique of aspects of the Obama campaign to insist that it lacks any legitimacy, and that anyone who who feels committed to Obama is a fool and a knave.

Hillary's vote on the AUMF is a big deal, and sadly, she has never found a way to talk about it that works to assuage the distrust that vote engendered. And speaking of engendered, I do recognize that the task of moving away from her previous position was made a hundred times more difficult than for either Kerry or Edwards precisely because she is a woman, and also a Clinton. If she had ever uttered the words, "I was wrong," she never would have heard the end of it, and have got little praise candor. And yes, that is the result of pure sexism, as well as the burden of being Hillary Clinton, someone the media simply can't get right.

I should make clear that my remarks are actually more a response to Davidson than to Amberglow, but I directed them at her because I have more hope of reaching her than I do Davidson. And I'm making clear that I agree with DCBlogger in rejecting this impulse to act as if Obama is somehow an illegitimate candidate, and his possible win based on illegitimate means. Let me hasten to add, that I recognize that it has been an aspect of Obama's campaign, once he had a lead in delegates at a point still early in the primary season, to pretend that Hillary's refusal to admit she'd been beaten and drop out made her an illegitimate candidate.

I resent that they did that; I more than resent that the media fell into line and helped enormously to undermine her legitimacy. But that is, in part, why I voted for Obama on Super Tuesday, because I feared that no matter the 12 year vetting process both Clintons had endured, they have never found a way to stop the media from undermining them; they managed to keep the media at bay, they continued to wrack up successes, against the constant predictions of the rightwing noise machine which is almost indistinguishable from the SCLM, but I worried, and still worry both forces will find it less difficult to get in the way of a President Clinton than of a President Obama. Let me also add that were the California primary being held next week, I'm pretty sure I would be voting for Hillary.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

that's the whole underlying problem so many of us have with Obama.

And why shouldn't people and politicians fight for what's right NO MATTER WHO GETS IN THEIR WAY?

Why have someone who's not gonna fight for anything, just because he'll have more support? it's nonsense.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

i'm a him--it's my old drag name.

: >

Submitted by lambert on

.... because of my well-known teddybear personality.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

if HER vote on AUMF is such a big deal, shouldn't Obama disassociate himself from every senator and congressman who voted for it.

Can't you come up with a SINGLE positive reason to vote for Obama?

OxyCon's picture
Submitted by OxyCon on

I use this wonderful tool beneath my fingertips to investigate George W. Bush and discover that he was a danger to our country for many of the reasons that have been borne out. I then spend the next seven years pounding him and his Repub enablers into submission, and now all the truths I did my best to expose are becoming ingrained truths.
Same thing, only this time I look into Obama and discover that I believe he is an even bigger danger to this country than Bush ever was.
I chop up my Dem registration card and send it to Howard Dean. I love this country alot more than I love either political party. I'm a registered Independent now, and will remain so until the day I die. There is a faction of the Dem party that I now despise as much as, or in some ways more so than the right wingers who I beat the living hell out of these past years.
I hope Independents like me are still welcome here. If not, this isn't the first place in the past few moths where I am now unwelcome because of Obama. But I have enjoyed my stay.
As for the Dem party leaders I mentioned before...all losers. Big, giant, magnanimous losers. You may think they share your values, but when was the last time they enacted anything that was important to you? Wexler? He was a total disgrace yesterday, and has earned my ire.

jackyt's picture
Submitted by jackyt on

"Her nomination hopes are dependent on a chaos theory,..."

No, chaos is what her campaign has been battling against since Iowa.

This whole exercise... from the bogus racism charges, to the rampant glorying in misogyny, to the WWTSBQ, to the refusal to acknowledge Clinton's 2002 speech which laid out her rational for the AUMF vote, to the willful disregard for Obama's electoral map weakness... has been more crazymaking than watching Nixon in 1972, standing on the lawn of the White House, saying, "This president is not a crook!"

And Leah, how do we ever get back to any modicum of sanity if we throw our hands up in the air and vote for INSANITY because it has a better chance of winning?

"Losing what they needed today proves that for the first time in 16 years the Clintons are no longer in charge of the Democratic Party."

Only Rip van Winkle could have authored that statement!

Submitted by lambert on

... took the Greyhound all the way to DC wearing Obama earrings?

Somehow, I don't think so.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

TonyRz's picture
Submitted by TonyRz on
Oxycon is 100% right. A nice big repudiation of the scum that run the Democratic party is the only thing that can save the party.

Unfortunately, losing Presidential elections, and being powerless against the least-approved and worst President ever does nothing - nothing - to clean these people out and send them packing. They're poison, and if someone has a strategy, I am all ears.

I'm trying to wrap my head around how we get a genuinely liberal party going which is powerful and viable through, say, my retirement. I decided long ago that the Dems being remade in the image of ChicagObama is not it.

I had originally planned to simply undervote this November, leaving POTUS blank because, of course, I COULD NOT vote for McCain, but since Saturday's debacle, I'm genuinely worried that such a vote - counted by Democratic ward leaders here n Philly - could just be stolen without me having a clue. Too risky.

The DNC just made me decide to vote for McCain. What kind of sick reality are we in??

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

of the ticket--McCain doesn't need encouragement to be an ass--the GOP (and Obama) will see any win as a "mandate" (and not the fun kind).

SunnyLC's picture
Submitted by SunnyLC on

’m not even going to waste my time discussing the Democrats’ RBC performance. I’ll just say that this party is no longer my party. The whole exercise was despicable. As has been the entire primary season.

So, the one bright spot of the last week has been the fact that I went out and bought a new car. It’s bright red. I’ve never had a bright red car before and never would have considered it (heavy foot = tickets) except for the fact that the deal was too good to pass up. A few people have said that red matches my personality, which they claim is lively and outgoing. I’m thinking I’m one of those “older, undervalued women voters” who has become so fed up that she just had to break loose!

First, here is a picture of my new car!

MORE…take a break and let me tell you about my passion for VWs since I no longer have any passion for the Democratic Party!!

PS...for the person who thinks Hillary's plan is based on "Chaos theory." I think that's more apt for Obama...the initial threats about the convention by his supporters, never commented on by Obama, are one example...inciting race divisions is another...

Submitted by hipparchia on

i've owned two red cars, never got pulled over.

the gold car, the silver car, the other gold car... different story. ;)

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

or young guys? My brother's best friend had one in HS, and he was pulled over all the time for no reason, and others have told me the same about 20somethings-- and just last year one of my best friends (40s, like me) got a red car just as a loaner while they fixed his regular (dark blue) one, and he got pulled over on the LIE a bunch of times only while in the red car--he was really shocked.

I think they're much more visible in the crowd of silver/blue/dark cars, and i guess guys violate more laws/regs so cops look for guys driving too?

RealityCheck9's picture
Submitted by RealityCheck9 on

I was there too and what you described about Wexler, the pins, the 2 to 1 supporters of Obama and Joyner was perfect. I thought it was a great experience though even being angry most of the time you stated.

Wexler is my Rep in South Florida and I saw him after his media interview and told him how disappointed I was in his statement. He gave me a line....blah blah but at least I said what I needed to say.

Thanks for the summary.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

And the worst possible way to influence people who care about both politics and democratic governance is to tell them that because you have a disagreement with them, you want them to lose an election.

Like, I don't know, threating a primary challenge against civil rights hero John Lewis if he didn't knuckle under and vote for Obama? That sort of thing?

Incitatus's picture
Submitted by Incitatus on

That's right, man. I'm off to cackle while I polish my jackboots right now. Then I intend to break out the Bic and work on my head stubble. I also need to buy some lotion, because all this wanking is beginning to chafe the Old Fella.

But enough about my vanity... It was our plan all along of course. None of us are even registered Democrats. We're just a gigantic sleeper cell sponsored by Saudis. We have a common hatred of women, freedom and America. Don't listen to Leah. She doesn't know what's really going on.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

The GOP will be impressed with a lot of your platform, but using French disposable pens?

They're gonna hit you hard on that in November!

Submitted by lambert on

But everybody should listen to Leah; she's got one generation more experience than even oldsters like me.

I understand her point on AUMF, though I don't agree with it. And, of course, the OFB have helpfully rewritten history so that people actually believe Obama voted against the AUMF, which of course he did not. (Yet another argument to vote the base when the candidates are close.)

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by hipparchia on

that wouldn't surprise me, if it's the combination of the two factors. especially teenagers.

also, it's possible that speed freaks buy sportier cars, and that non-sporty cars are less likely to come in red. i can't recall seeing any candy apple red dodge caravans, for example. maybe it's the sporty cars that are being 'profiled' and the 'red' part is just accidental.