Thoughts on the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee Meeting (open thread)

I've been watching Florida state Senator Arthenia Joyner on C-SPAN make the case on behalf of the Clinton campaign for seating Florida's delegation.

My reaction: the Obama folks are definitely in a more difficult situation. I'm not speaking about the merits of their argument. Rather, they are having to respond to a governing body about someone else's complaint. Given the court-like setting, they are cast as the prosecutors when that isn't their role at all. Their task will be to honor Florida and Michigan's voters, reinforce the reasoning behind the DNC rules, and make a gesture toward seating the delegations in some manner that sounds fair and magnanimous.

Congressman Robert Wexler has just begun to make the Obama case. Let's see if he's up to the challenge.

Wexler just made an interesting point: Florida was the only state so far in the primary season where Republican turnout was higher than Democratic turnout, a fact he says that is due to the fact that many Democrats stayed home believing their presidential preferences wouldn't matter. (Actually, Michigan's Democratic turnout was lower than the Republican as well. More here.)

His proposal: that the committee support the Ausman petition that would restore 50% of Florida's delegation and give Florida superdelegates each 1/2 vote.

And on being challenged on "wouldn't unity better be served by seating the entire delegation," he responded with passion that no one supported voter rights in Florida more strongly than he (he championed Florida during the 2000 presidential debacle) but that the rules must be respected.

Shifting to Michigan now...

It's clear that many of the committee members have walked in with their minds made up. Almost half of the 30 are declared Clinton supporters (Harold Ickes is one of her senior advisers!); 8 are in the Obama camp. And the case for restoring Michigan's full delegation is being made by the Michigan state Democratic Party head... who himself sits on the committee!!!

Senator Carl Levin is speaking. I was disinclined to hear him positively given what I already knew about his position, but I have to say he makes a good case. He's clearly articulated the path by which Michigan arrived at its decision to hold an early primary.

One point he's made: the DNC rules were updated in the past few years and actually state that several states should hold their primaries (or caucuses) between Iowa (which should remain first) and New Hampshire, but the RBC gave New Hampshire a waver which allowed it to remain in the second position this year.

Assuming he's accurately reflecting the rules, I understand Michigan's position, not to mention frustration, much better now. And I understand what Senator Levin and the Michigan Democratic Party are trying to do: hold Michigan Democrats together for the sake of what the party stands for. My hat off to them.

(I feel your pain, Sue!)

Former Michigan Congressman David Bonior is speaking on behalf of Obama, arguing for a 50-50 split of the delegates. (The Michigan state Democratic Party's position is 69-59.) Not sure why the Obama campaign isn't just supporting that...

The most complete explanation from Hillary I've found for why she didn't take her name off the ballot last fall is here.

Just read this blog post that suggests what's most important about this committee meeting is not the specific outcome but Hillary's reaction to it:

There’s a lot of bad blood. And what’s really "baddening" that blood for Clinton supporters is the idea that she’s being cheated out of the nomination.

And that’s where Clinton herself comes in. Her supporters will follow her lead. If she acknowledges that her defeat was legitimate (regardless of how much she actually campaigns), then I think the party will unite. If, by contrast, she spends the next few days (or god forbid, months) alleging that it was illegitimate, then that reaction will leave lasting damage. Not just among pro-Clinton bloggers, but among her core supporters, particularly older liberal women.

The perception of legitimacy is essential to party unity. Accordingly, her reaction to tomorrow’s outcome will likely determine how her supporters will perceive her defeat. If she has no intention of going to Denver, then there’s a way of signaling that. She shouldn’t stir up Zimbabwe and all this other garbage strictly to gain leverage to pay off loans or to receive chits. The time for negotiations is over — there’s too much at stake now. The initial reaction is what the supporters will look to. If things have to get settled by superdelegates two weeks from now, or on appeal to a DNC committee, the damage — the irreversible damage — will have already been done.

Florida DNC member Allan Katz, an Obama supporter, just made two great points:

• The Rules & Bylaws Committee (RBC), the very committee that is meeting today to decide the Florida and Michigan disputes, is the one that approved the rules for primary scheduling and that also penalized Florida and Michigan for violating the calendar. And by doing so, they sent a clear message to the candidates. Candidates, like Obama, who acted accordingly should not now be penalized by receiving zero delegates (as the Clinton campaign is arguing for).
• The current situation is not analogous to what happened in Florida in 2000, and suggesting that voters are being disenfranchised in a similar way is disingenuous.

Wow. Donna Brazile, an RBC member and uncommitted superdelegate, is making herself heard now. She cautioned Former Michigan Governor Jim Blanchard not to use the term "disenfranchisement" loosely given the long history of voting rights problems in this country. Blanchard mentioned his mother during his opening statement, and Brazile continued: "My momma taught me to play by the rules." Full quote:

My momma taught me to play by the rules and respect those rules. My mother taught me, and I'm sure your mother taught you, that when you decide to change the rules, middle of the game, end of the game, that is referred to as cheatin'.

She went on to say that when you try to change the rules in the middle of the game, it's considered cheating. She is invoking LBJ and the civil rights movement as the foundation for what the RBC is trying to do: act in good faith to make and enforce rules that support full Democratic participation.

She just earned the longest applause of the day.