Will The Democrat Rules Committee Issue A Pardon?

Updates (5), all below:

Increasingly, the members of the Rules and Bylaws Committee seem to be really feeling the heat. They will be meeting this Saturday to decide the "fate" of the Florida and Michigan delegations to the Democrat Convention in Denver.

The 38-page "legal opinion" by Committee lawyers, cited in this AP article by Nedra Pinkler, says that all they can do is seat half of the delegations from Michigan and Florida. That won't likely sell. From the article:

A Democratic Party rules committee has the authority to seat some delegates from Michigan and Florida but not fully restore the two states as Hillary Rodham Clinton wants, according to party lawyers.

Democratic National Committee rules require that the two states lose at least half of their convention delegates for holding elections too early, the party's legal experts wrote in a 38-page memo.

The memo was sent late Tuesday to the 30 members of the party's Rules and Bylaws Committee, which plans to meet Saturday at a Washington hotel. The committee is considering ways to include the two important general election battlegrounds at the nominating convention in August, and the staff analysis says seating half the delegates is "as far as it legally can" go.

But is there a rule, or some sort of a precedent whereby they have "pardon" authority? Or, will this contentious continue to be a huge thorn in the side of the Democrat Party as they show up for their convention in Denver -- a matter that would then have to be directly addressed in a floor fight?

And, what if that floor vote is close, giving Hillary a basis for claiming that it would have been resolved in her favor, if the entire delegations had been seated?

Maybe it would not be quite as bad if this did not involve Florida!

Florida, for crying out loud! Of all places for Democrats to be charged with nullifying election results!

Think about what kinds of comments, and signs and very active street theater will become very public this coming Saturday (a veritable YouTube bonanza, one would think). And you have to believe that it will all, thereafter, be laid directly at the doorstep of Barack Obama, no?

Saturday's meeting is expected to draw a large crowd, with Clinton supporters among those encouraging a protest outside demanding that all the states' delegates be seated. Proponents of full reseating have mailed committee members Florida oranges and pairs of shoes to get their attention.

DNC officials are concerned about a potentially large turnout at the "Count Every Vote" rally outside the event and have asked the hotel staff to increase security to keep everyone safe. The DNC says the roughly 500 seats available to the public inside were taken within three or four minutes of becoming available online Tuesday.

This year seems a little like 1968, but potentially could become worse in terms of public relations. Shrill charges of racism and sexism already fill the airwaves, and could be accentuated as the public pays more attention at the time of the convention.

Almost none of the street protesters in Chicago back in 1968 were actual insiders, or party activists. (I couldn't find what was to me at the time the most graphic image of the street protests -- that of the Chicago Police shoving a crowd up against a plate glass window of the Hilton Hotel, causing the glass to shatter with the shards of glass falling down directly into the crowd.)

But spurned delegations this year could easily organize, and focus their case in a very public way.

Susie Buell, one of Clinton's top fundraisers, has formed a political action committee encouraging women to support full seating of the delegates. The WomenCountPAC has taken out ads in USA Today and The New York Times promoting attendance at the rally.

In 1968, there were a few credentials confrontations inside the hall, including an incident with Dan Rather being shoved around in the hall.

By the way, you can bet the farm that there will be outside agitators present at both conventions this year as well!

Secondly, think about some of the graphic the images of that 1968 convention, and the even greater impact that the constant replaying of YouTube clips might have had then?

Makes you wonder . . . what were the Democrat Party officials thinking when they decided -- upon penalty of complete exclusion of a delegation from the national convention -- that state parties are prohibited, before a certain date, from deciding when they may hold their own primaries?

Update: Yesterday, Roger Simon recognized the extraordinary importance of the topic -- and of the meeting in his, "Democrats Seek To Avoid Meltdown" posted on Politico. Here are the seemingly intractable issues he saw that the members of the Rules & Bylaws Committee were trying to resolve:

But finding a solution will not be easy, and one reason is that there are so many competing agendas.

First, both Michigan and Florida have mounted furious public campaigns to get their punishment lifted, saying the party really has no choice if the Democratic nominee wants to win those states in November.

Second, there is the Clinton campaign, which sees the rules committee meeting as its last, best hope to gain significant ground on Obama.

Third, there is the Obama campaign, which does not want to see the gains it has made in primaries and caucuses overturned by a committee vote.

Then, and most overlooked, is the agenda of the committee itself. It is a rules committee, its members believe in rules and that rules must be enforced, even as political realities are addressed.

There is a further complication: Not only does the rules committee have to decide what percentage of the Florida and Michigan delegations to seat (the options run from zero to 100 percent) but what percentage Clinton gets and what percentage Obama gets. Clinton “won” both states, but the contests were controversial: She was the only major candidate on the ballot in Michigan, and everybody agreed not to campaign in Florida.

Stay tuned!

Update II: The Washington Times reports today in "'Chaos' threatens DNC delegate solution" that the Obama campaign is now openly accusing the Clinton Campaign of trying to create a chaotic atmosphere over Saturday's Rules & Bylaws Committee meeting in Washington, with Obama campaign manager, David Plouffe calling it an attempt by the Clinton forces to "create chaos."

Supporter and former Bill Clinton activist, David Wilhelm, said the risk was the creation of a "circus" atmosphere.

In what appeared to be a veiled threat, Plouffe also suggested that the Obama campaign could quickly retaliate by generating "tens of thousands" of counter-demonstrators. That sounds like an unhelpful bluff if, as they say, the avoidance of a circus atmosphere is their goal. But, maybe down deep that is what they all want -- a way to let off steam at one another.

Is that the "Entrance of the Gladiators!" we can hear? Or, for those who might prefer a French version of some clown music.

From the Washington Times story:

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said his boss is being charitable by compromising for some seating of the Michigan and Florida delegations even though those states broke party rules by holding their primaries too early.

"We don't think it's a helpful dynamic to create chaos," Mr. Plouffe told reporters in advance of Saturday's daylong hearing to resolve the disputed contests.

He characterized the planned protests as "a scene" and "a spectacle" while Obama supporter David Wilhelm, who ran Bill Clinton's campaign in 1992, said the protesters risk turning "this thing into a circus."

Mr. Plouffe argued that the campaign has considerable support in the Mid-Atlantic region - Mr. Obama swept the Feb. 12 primaries in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia - and said with the simple "click of a mouse" the campaign could generate "tens of thousands of people" to rally for the Obama cause.

Perhaps in a show of unity they could get together afterward and sing us the refrain from the old circus song!

We are Clowns Now

We are all clowns today
We are all clowns today
Hey Ho the derry O!
We are all clowns today

Update 3: Now, who would have guessed, at least according to Sam Stein at the Huffington Post, that Lanny Davis would volunteer to take the lead . . . and lose his cool?

UPDATE 4: More here from Dan Balz at the WaPo. The Clinton campaign was incensed by the way the Committee determined the Michigan delegate votes were to be split, with Hillary getting 34.5 and Obama getting 29.5.

"This motion will hijack -- hijack -- remove four delegates won by Hillary Clinton," said Harold Ickes, who oversees delegate operations for the Clinton campaign and is also a member of the Rules and Bylaws Committee. "This body of 30 individuals has decided that they're going to substitute their judgment for 600,000 voters."

Arguing that the Michigan compromise "is not a good way to start down the path of party unity," Ickes warned that Clinton had authorized him to note that she will "reserve her rights to take it to the credentials committee" later. Campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson later affirmed that Clinton will reserve her right to challenge the outcome.

The New York Times, per Katharine Q. Seeyle and Jeff Zeleny, reports today that the net gain in committed convention delegates for Clinton was 24, leaving the difference between the two at "about 176 delegates." The story details much of the divisive back and forth among attendees in responding to committee actions or proposals. The following occurred when an Obama member proposed splitting the Michigan delegates evenly between the two:

At that point, Tina Flournoy, a Clinton adviser and member of the rules committee, said Mr. Obama’s proposal essentially called for overriding the will of the voters.

"What is being proposed here is that you go into a voting booth and at some point later down the road, someone decides that your vote is for someone else," she said. "If we’re going to do that, let’s cancel 2012, and let’s divide all the delegates in all the states."

Party unity? Read the whole account.

Update 5: John Hinderaker at Powerline posted a piece on the demonstrations late yesteday entitled, "Recreate '68" noting the potential for similarities. In particular, watch the embeded video which gives a good taste of the strong feelings of many of Hillary Clinton's supporters demonstrating outside the Rules Committee hearing. You can also find the clip here on YouTube. Note who this woman from California says she'll vote for if Hillary is not the nominee. (Hint: It's not Obama.) Those strong feelings can only have been amplified by her victory in Puerto Rico, announced earlier this afternoon.

Time to "Man Up" Barack!

Below is a transcription of the relevant portion of a Sunday (April 13th) response by Barack Obama, as he spoke to a crowd of steel workers, U.S.W. Local 1688 members, in Steelton, PA.

A video of that response was posted on YouTube by his campaign.

Here it is:



Obama was responding to prior comments he made to a group of well-heeled donors at a private Democrat fundraiser in San Francisco a week ago today. His original remarks, made at that event (which was closed to the press) did not surface until an obviously unofficial audio clip of his comments surfaced, and was linked on The Huffington Post just this past Friday.

Regarding the Sunday response, the AP, per Beth Fouhy and Kimberly Hefling filed a story today -- Obama Lashes Out at Clinton. But it focuses almost exclusively on the political aspect of his Sunday remarks, in which the reporters parsed his attack on both Hillary Clinton and John McCain for their responses to his original speech in San Francisco.

Below is the transcription of first part of yesterday's (Sunday) comments, the portion "explaining" his original remarks.

Over the last couple of days we've seen a whole dust-up, a dust-up about me talking about the frustrations and struggles of workers, not just here in Pennsylvania, but all across the Midwest, including my home state of Illinois.

Now . . . I am the first to admit that some of the words I chose, I chose badly because, you know, as my wife reminds me, I am not perfect. She reminds me of this frequently, and events often remind me as well.

So, I'm not a perfect man and the words I chose, I chose badly. They were subject to misinterpretation; they were subject to be twisted. And I regret that; I regret that deeply. But . . . but . . . but . . . when people suggest that somehow I was demeaning religion, when I know that I'm a man of deep faith, somebody who in my own life has held on to faith, held on to my confidence in God during times of trial and tribulation, then it sounds like there's some politics being played.

When people suggest that I was somehow being elitist in demeaning hunters, when I have repeatedly talked about the tradition that people pass on from generation to generation, hunters and sportsmen, and how I have consistently spoken about my respect for the Second Amendment, when people try to suggest that I was demeaning those traditions, then it sounds like there's some politics that's being played.

And what really burns me up is when people suggest that me saying that folks are mad, they are angry, they are bitter after 25 - 30 years of seeing jobs shipped out, pensions not fulfilled, healthcare lost, the notion that people are surprised and are suggesting that I am out of touch, because I spoke honestly about peoples' frustrations, that tells me there some politics going on.
. . . .

In the first place, note that rather than apologize for his San Francisco statements, he is merely conceding that he chose some words badly, not that he even misspoke (ala Hillary' concession on the non-existent sniper incident). All he is conceding about his choice of words is "[t]hey were subject to misinterpretation; they were subject to be twisted." Are we to conclude, then, that the real fault lies only with those who "misinterpreted" or "twisted" his words? His only real concession, seems to be that he was just not crystal clear.

And, Barack gives the credit for pointing out his lack of clarity to his wife, Michelle! She, whose own lack of clarity on how she generally feels about this country, or on other subjects, e.g., our meanness as a people, are hardly the most instructive examples of lucidity!

Secondly, note also how he has also chosen to utterly ignore a few of the most egregious comments from the relevant portion of his original statement madeout on the West coast.

As a reminder, here was the key portion of the "private" comments to the San Francisco elites -- Barack Obama discussing the bitterness of small town Pennsylvanians:

It's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to their guns, or religion, or antipathy toward people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment, as a way to explain their frustrations.

So . . . what happened to his explanation for his comment about the bitterness of the Pennsylvania voters harboring, "antipathy toward people who aren't like them?" That one sounded to me like the Senator was telling the San Francisco elites in "code" that small town Pennsylvanians are a bunch of bigots. Where am I wrong? Where is Barack's explanation? And, I might add, his context was what can be deemed pure Marxian analysis -- they harbor these feelings, according to Barack, arising out of their economic frustrations.

And, why has he offered no explanation of his comment about their "anti-immigrant sentiment?" Funny, over the past few years I thought the public debate in this country was focused throughout pretty exclusively on peoples' concerns about "illegal immigration," not on "anti-immigrant sentiment." It was a long and instructive public debate; and one in which the balance of persuasion has clearly came down on the side of those who have urged the implementation of measures protecting our borders prior to providing, in federal law, for a process of possible absorbsion into our society of those who are here, many quite unlawfully.

Therefore, his characterization of the issue as "anti-immigrant sentiment" simply sounds like another unfair accusation of bigotry on his part, and is not a fair comment about peoples' feelings on the topic. Where am I wrong?

Finally, what about his reference concerning "anti-trade sentiment?" This is the really strange one. I thought he and Hillary are both "anti-trade," or at least they are both telling us they are -- at least this week! So why was he raising that point with the San Francisco crowd? Was it more "code" message for a rich crowd hailing from a major United States port . . . as in, don't worry about that! We'll deal with the issue your way once we get this election out of the way!!??

Why should we not conclude that Obama is really talking very quietly one way to a group of well-heeled folks, many of them very interested in free trade, and quite another way to manipulate union voters in Pennsylvania who are upset over outsourcing of jobs?

After the comments written above, he then went on to attack both Hillary Clinton and John McCain. The attacks on Clinton were especially belittling, even asking rhetorically and quite sarcastically if she thought she was some kind of "Annie Oakley," arising out of her sudden gun-hugging tendencies?

But the upshot is that Obama has clearly not adequately answered for what people are seeing as his stereo-typing elitist comments to the San Francisco fundraiser crowd. Recall that this is a guy who just recently called his own grandmother a "typical white person." That, incidentally is another comment he has not been called to account for by anyone.

He made the comment the day after his speech on race relations, in a radio interview. During the interview, he referred to his Grandmother, the woman who raised him, as a "a typical white person." It was his phrase. Makes you wonder . . . what exactly is a "typical white person" in the mind of Barack Obama? Should he not have to answer that question?

It seems that the time may be fast approaching -- or probably has already arrived -- when Barack Obama is going to have to "man-up" and directly address several of the things he has been saying, ones that he has been getting way with so far.

Snippets of explanation in politically-laced speeches to supporters will simply not do any longer.

CNN Meltdown, Part III, "Stonewall !"

Hugh Hewitt highlights more on the CNN "meltdown," drawing from his interview with Tom Brokaw, and linking to the latest from Mark Steyn, Powerline, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Reynolds, and others (other links in Hugh's original).

Hugh also quoted from our own Update posted last night (thanks, Hugh) about the total disconnect between what CNN senior executives, including David Bohrman, were publicly pitching prior to the debate, and what actually unfolded at the event.

Hugh concludes:

"CNN is of course going to the mattresses, just as every MSMer does when the collision with their own bias and/or incompetence arrives. But like Rathergate, the YouTube/BoobTube debate is already a major milestone in the accelerating collapse of credibility of the MSM."

Right to the nub, Hugh.

Except that CNN, unlike CBS, will likely do little if anything in the way of a "self-examination" or investigation of what happened to try to restore their credibility, other than the Anderson Cooper "mea culpa," which was limited to the exposure about General Kerr's connection to the Clinton campaign.

Will CNN just take The New Republic approach to rooting out those serious research and credibility problems? "Moving right along . . ."

So far, their site suggests just that. A quick search of the CNN main website page, or of their politics page, reveals little or no recognition at all of the brewing controversy about their debate.
Elsewhere on the CNN site, CNN Investigates caught our eye for a second, but it's about candidate "attack ads" and who is this year's Willie Horton, not about "ambush questions" and who is this year's Dan Rather!

A post-debate Podcast analysis piece with Lisa DesJardin and John Lisk contains not a single word about the controversy. It's all just a, "he said, he said" recap of the candidates.

The only thing we could find on their entire site was two comments here buried among a total of 28 in what was a quickly closed thread. They were posted by Justin and Michael as reader comment on the post-debate wrap-up. Here are the two comments:

Justin

I also was disturbed by how little work seems to have been done to check the backgrounds of those asking questions. (Or was a lot of work done to make sure they were really from a narrowly focused group of people?!) I also was disturbed by how little work seems to have been done to check the backgrounds of those asking questions. (Or was a lot of work done to make sure they were really from a narrowly focused group of people?!) With what was supposed to be a good sampling of Americans, I found simple web searches of those asking questions bringing up facts that seemed to show these particular individuals were only coming from select political views and caused me to lose faith in the validity of the whole debate. CNN-The Most Trusted Name in News...REALLY?????

. . .

Michael

YouTube either forgot to or chose not to vet their guests last night. Keith Kerr, Leann Anderson, and David McMillan are all *publicly* tied to current Democratic campaigns but were passed off as "civilians" when their questions were aired.

Good for them! But not a very good beginning for CNN!

Finally, the CNN link to their partner communication, Time, Inc. is to a video post grading the candidates' performances.

The CNN/YouTube Debate: Outsourcing Journalism by James Poniewozik, author of Time's Tuned In blog, put up a post-debate analysis on the 29th, also studiously avoided the controversy. The whole piece is about the "refreshing" uniqueness of having "citizens" ask the questions.

In fact, here's a bit of irony for you from James!

But the better questions to come out of YouTube were ones that mainstream journalists wouldn't have asked, for fear of seeming biased (as I said last time, bias produces some of the best questions) or because they strayed from the standard campaign-2008 talking points.

Really? So . . . the only reason certain reporters don't ask certain questions, is to avoid appearing biased? Well, we knew that, James. But, it is nice to hear it coming from you!

Or how about his finisher:

In the end, CNN didn't "give YouTubers a voice." The YouTubers gave CNN one.

Sure did! And a rather distinctly Democrat one at that!

The CNN/YouTube Debate Update

As has been duly noted elsewhere, here is a CNN story, "Funny, poignant questions pour in for GOP debate" dated just this past Monday (11/26), in which CNN Vice President, David Bohrman made it quite clear that the specific intention of the hosts of Wednesday night's debate was for Republican questioners to ask the Republican candidates questions.

Here is exactly what Bohrman said on topic in the story, just a few days ago:

"This debate is to let Republican voters pick from among their eight candidates," said David Bohrman, Washington bureau chief and senior vice president for CNN. "We are trying to focus mostly on questions where there are differences among these candidates."

Bohrman also told "The Caucus (ht: ProteinWisdom)," the blogger for the New York Times that they would weed out any "gotcha" questions.

Both claims were utterly and completely untrue.

We now know that a significant number of the few selected questioners, from as many as 5,000 YouTube video submissions, were submitted by out-and-out Democrat plants, and even one aired question was by a former CAIR intern, all with no other purpose than to hurl ambush questions at the candidates, and that a minimum amount of research on the part of the CNN producers and researchers would have quickly revealed those connections to them.

At Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds correctly calls it "a failure of professionalism," noting, as others have, that YouTube is, after all, owned by Google!

So, what happened, Dave? Who in production and/or research dropped the ball? Who, if anyone, was uhhhh . . . Googling?

Over the years, we have seen CNN in various outrageous iterations, including having experienced the disgusting accusation by the former President of CNN news, Eason Jordan (in Davos) -- who ultimately had to resign -- over falsely accusing the U.S. military of intentionally killing reporters in Iraq out of anger! Now CNN has attempted to skew the nomination process on both sides, within two weeks.

Are they trying to outdo Dan Rather?

The CNN story on Monday ended as follows:

CNN's political unit is keeping the questions a secret, but those selecting them say viewers should be prepared for presentations that are funny, questions that are poignant and a format that is unprecedented for the GOP.

Yep.

Hey, maybe what they really meant to say was "funny" questions, and unprecedented presentations.

(Our original post, here.)