the final straw for me concerning Ickes and Clinton....affirmative action

[virtualobserver]

"with the exception of affirmative action, there is no more sacred principle in the Democratic Party than "fair reflection" of the voters' intent."

He said it this way at least three times.

He was clearly attempting to get the listener to connect affirmative action with the Obama nomination.

no depths to which he will not sink.

[LaurenG]

1. He showed his true colors - something Senator Clinton obviously approves of . nt

[virtualobserver]

5. I am amazed that her committed Superdelegates could stay with her, considering that

[roguevalley]

57. An aside from an old dem: It was fascinating to hear Ickes and

Roosevelt yesterday. What a trip.

[boobooday]

2. Yeah, that was really subtle. NOT. n/t

[Cosmocat]

3. Oh, that ran RIGHT through me ...

EVERY DAY I more intensely get that sick to the stomache feeling when I listen to her and campaign that I have gotten listening to the intellectually corrupt crape the right wing has slung for 15 plus years ...

[virtualobserver]

6. One consolation,whether she knows it or not, like Elvis, she has already left the building

[rucky]

4. These people are Orwellian hacks.

nobody buys their bullshit but themselves.

[suston96]

7. "Affirmative action" is part of the "Bill of Rights" of the Democratic Party Charter......

Section 4.

The National Convention shall be composed of delegates equally divided between men and women.

The delegates shall be chosen through processes which:

(a) assure all Democratic voters full, timely and equal opportunity to participate and include affirmative action programs toward that end,

(b) assure that delegations fairly reflect the division of preferences expressed by those whoparticipate in the Presidential nominating process

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:i1Dy8P2UOcoJ:www.democrats.org/pdfs/charter.pdf+Democratic+Party+Charter&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

Please read what this Charter says about "affirmative action" AND about the "delegations fairly reflect the division of preferences....." both statements made by Ickes.

Both based on the Democratic Party Charter violated by the DNC yesterday and earlier by trashing the votes of 2.3 million Democrats.

[virtualobserver]

12. there was no reason for him to mention "affirmative action" in the context of what he was saying

it was a codeword

[suston96]

16. It was not a code word. His "reflection" and "affirmative action" comments were direct quotes...

....from the Democratic Party Charter I quoted and cited.

The Democratic Party Charter I quoted is the Bill of Rights of the Democratic Party.

Read it honestly and without prejudice and you will see, if you are really looking.

[virtualobserver]

20. I am aware of the charter, but there was no reason for him to mention Aff. action over and over

It was a calculated move. I won't find Ickes motives in theDemocratic Party Charter

[suston96]

22. He mentioned "affirmative action" AND "reflections" over and over so that Democrats .....

....would understand the violent trashing of the Democratic Party Charter - the Bill of Rights designed to protect the rights of the members.

Someday your candidate may be on the other foot. Then you will understand the "motives" you are not looking very hard to find.

The language I quoted is very clear.

[virtualobserver]

24. how were "affirmative action" elements of the charter being violated?

[noiretextatique]

64. do you support affirmative action?

many democrats do not. i would consider that a violation of the charter.

[Boz]

39. Ickes was not speaking a codeword, he was quoting the rules and responding to Donna Brazile comments

on the subject and context. This may not have been heard if you were watching on MSNBC, but was clear if you saw he CSPAN feed.

Ickes was right, they were not following the rules on MI and what they did was technically wrong.

It could have been remedied with a few well worded motions in support of the motion to grant Obama any votes which as noted was a conversion of UNCOMMITTED which by the rules is actually a real, almost human contender.

They need 3 votes taken, they took one bypassing a few steps that would have made it legal, this made Ickes right and gave him the ability to appeal, but there is no overturn because they were just technicalities, shortcuts to the same ends from a slightly abbreviated means.

I wish they had taken the few extra steps it would have removed the doubts, but in the longrun Ickes was right and they completely over stepped their bounds, and the ruling is against the very charter of the DNC and bad precedents, but it wont matter.

BTW I am an Obama supporter and love Donna Brazile and think she is on of our strongest democrats, not just strongest female democrats so my agreement with Ickes is based outside the emotion and only on the rules.

THEY BROKE THE RULES AND THREW OUT ALL OF THE CHARTER IN MAKING THAT MOTION FOR MICHIGAN.


They needed a motion to convert from a "court of law" as they were seated to a "court of equity", this required a 2/3 vote, then they needed a motion to classify only two remaindered candidates and that following motions were to divide a third candidates remaindered votes(uncommitted) for the sake of equatorial relief( because Obama did not have his name on the ballot ) again a 2/3 vote and then they could make the motion they made, a 2/3 vote which was 19-8 and a final house keeping vote by non objection to convert back to a seated "court of law".

Yes technicalities, but crossing your Ts and dotting your Is should be second nature at this level, they didn't and that made Ickes right and opened the appeal, but it wont matter.

[flor de jasmim]

8. that one I missed, but how anyone could think that

ca. 45% of the voters were TRULY uncommitted is truly delusional.

[BlooInBloo]

9. They just can't believe they got beat by a black guy - lol!

[Connie_Corleone]

10. I heard that slimy piece of filth say that too.

The Clintons have shown their true colors. I'm just sorry that it didn't happen sooner. It disgusts me as a black woman that I ever defended the Clintons throughout the 90's.

Looks like that priest Phlegler was right in his parody of Hillary.

[Enrique]

11. Ickes' father was a pioneer in affirmative action

implemented the first affirmative action program in the federal govt. when he was in FDR's administration.

How do you know your interpretation of his meaning is true?

I think he might be expressing something he feels about its importance.

[Exilednight]

13. Those are great accomplishments; for his father. To bad he's not his father. n/t

[Enrique]

15. he himself was beaten by a white mob in the South

working for civil rights in the 60's. Lost a kidney in the beating.

Anyway, I wasn't talking about his accomplishments, I was challenging the interpretation of the OP. It might be wrong.

[virtualobserver]

14. If you don't recognize Dog-whistle politics when you see it....there isn't anything for me to say

He repeated the exact phrasing multiple times, he was on-message.

[Enrique]

19. you're using catchphrases in place of thinking

in fact, you don't know Ickes's motivation.

Which is fine. Speculating is fine. But don't you care if your speculation is correct?

[virtualobserver]

21. It was obvious, because the reference to Aff. action over and over again was unnatural

[Enrique]

25. how do you know you didn't misunderstand him?

maybe he was repeating it for a reason you don't know.

[virtualobserver]

29. I can understand that as a Hillary supporter, this is difficult for you to accept.

if you disagree, that's fine.

[hokies4ever]

18. I agree, let's not vilify him for this. There are other things to vilify him for

[Me.]

23. We're Getting Into Walking & Talking Like A Duck Here

He is not his father and should be ashamed of his performance yesterday. Though stunning, it should've come as no surprise considering the tenor of that campaign. And frankly, trying to convince people they don't know what they heard is one of those 'lying eyes' tactics that has gotten this country into the mess it is now currently in. The progressive community has been told for 8 years they didn't know what they were talking about. Oh those tin foilin' wackos on the left...

[Enrique]

27. did you read what I posted about Ickes's kidney?

for me, that at least causes me to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[Me.]

34. To Quote Condi

Let's be clear. Historically, affirmative action refers to one thing and one thing only, and that was the effort to level the playing field for minorities. And to those who disagreed with it, the charge often was they were handed something without earning it because of their race.

[Enrique]

35. that's both a non sequitur

and a bit of a lecture.

What do those truisms have to do with Ickes?

[Me.]

41. Nonsense

And if you can't get what he was doing, you can't but then don't challenge those who were perceptive enough to recognize what he was trying to do.

[Enrique]

43. there are some informative posts in this thread

you don't have to read them, of course. You can just stick to all the things you know that are so obvious to you.

[Me.]

54. Yaeh, Yeah, Yeah

As I said, it walked and talked like a duck. 'Nuff said.

[Carolina]

53. big woo, children do STRAY

and Ickes the son is a hypocritical pos. He was for the rules and the sanctions against MI and FL UNTIL Billary was losing.

Can you spell SITUATIONAL ETHICS?

[Enrique]

58. maybe so

but the OP doesn't know Ickes mentioned affirmative action in the way he interprets it.

In light of the info people have shared in this thread, I think it's very unlikely he was.

[BklynChick]

17. I noticed that too and had to play it back again. Yes, your analysis is correct and what an asshole

[democracy1st]

26. he's a sick fool,I knew this by the campaign they ran

[suston96]

28. He didn't say affirmative action was being violated. Read your own quote.

".....with the exception of affirmative action, there is no more sacred principle in the Democratic Party than "fair reflection" of the voters' intent."

He was talking about "fair reflection" being violated, which I have been talking about on this board for months.

[virtualobserver]

32. I didn't say that he did. My point is that there was no reason to mention Aff. action..........

over and over again. It was not relevant to the discussion. It was inserted for its code word effect.

[suston96]

37. He mentioned it because IT IS IN THE CHARTER.....Go to that charter and look again...

Section 4.

The National Convention shall be composed of delegates equally divided between men and women.

The delegates shall be chosen through processes which:

(a) assure all Democratic voters full, timely and equal opportunity to participate and include affirmative action programs toward that end,

(b) assure that delegations fairly reflect the division of preferences expressed by those who participate in the Presidential nominating process

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:i1Dy8P2UOcoJ:www.democrats.org/pdfs/charter.pdf+Democratic+Party+Charter&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

What "code word". There is nothing suggestive about what he said. He - and I - quoted the exact words IN THE CHARTER.

"...participate AND include affirmative action" in selecting delegates.

You had no idea why he was including "affirmative action" when you made your post. Now you know where it came from. It is part of the principles involved in the "Bill of Rights" of the Democratic party. Read that Charter and you will understand.

[virtualobserver]

38. what relevance did affirmative action have in reference to the motion that he was discussing?

[suston96]

40. Its relevance is as a great principle of the Democratic Party....

...a principle which is stated in the Charter which I quoted and to which he was making reference.

Section 4.

*****

The delegates shall be chosen through processes which: ...... assure all Democratic voters full, timely and equal opportunity to participate and include affirmative action programs toward that end,

You made your original post, I suspect, because you didn't know this. Now you know and constantly repeating the question to me isn't helping your position.

[virtualobserver]

42. no, I did know this....and there was no reason for him to repeat that verbatim, over and over again

[suston96]

47. There IS a reason just as I repeat that Section over and over again....

Section 4.

The National Convention shall be composed of delegates equally divided between men and women.

The delegates shall be chosen through processes which: (a) assure all Democratic voters full, timely and equal opportunity to participate and include affirmative action programs toward that end (and)

(b) assure that delegations fairly reflect the division of preferences expressed by those whoparticipate in the Presidential nominating process

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:i1Dy8P2UOcoJ:www.democrats.org/pdfs/charter.pdf+Democratic+Party+Charter&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

The reason is because the DNC violated the "Bill of Rights" of the Democratic Party Charter. He mentioned "affirmative action" as one of the great principles in that "Bill of Rights" of the Democratic Party.

He did NOT say affirmative action was being violated. But that other principle "reflection" WAS violated:

b) assure that delegations fairly reflect the division of preferences expressed by those who participate in the Presidential nominating process

Carry on. You have a good post but you are avoiding the reasons behind your wrong conclusion over what he said and why he said it.

[virtualobserver]

49. that is how dog-whistle politics is done......with a carefully constructed phrase

that can be explained away

If you don't agree with my conclusion, that is fine with me.

[suston96]

51. Doesn't matter whether I agree with your conclusion.

Your conclusion conflicts with what Ickes said and with the Democratic Party Charter.

Thanks for the conversation.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

30. I heard him making the reference but didn't understand what he was talking about

His comments obviously caused angered the D.C. RBC member (the black man, forget his name). He told the RBC that he was appalled by what appeared to be an attempt to discolor the facts. That's also when Allan Katz squashed the argument that Election 2000 was the same situation as this.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. Lack of context and knowlege

Well how many here can tell me the crux of the affirmative action conflict within our Party this cycle? There was one. There were two sides. My side won. Donna Brazille and her streak of phobia crowd lost.
Within the Party, efforts have been taken to have our delegations be more representative of our voters. Brazille and her group fought tooth and nail against Affirmative Action in the DNC to pro actively include members of the GLBT community.
Just so you know. Affirmative Action is many things in many contexts. In our Party this year, it was a major issue. Bet those commenting here did not know that. Thank Goodness Donna Brazille's atavistic and divisive side was defeated by those who belive in equality, the real and actual Democrats. Brazille can go join up with Hagee and Robertson for all I care. And she can take Ickes with her actually.

I'd have to know the context to judge even a rat fink like Ickes. Was he talking about intra-Party policy or our policy toward National laws? Two different things.

[Enrique]

33. intra-party

thanks for the info. I'm one of the people that didn't know about that conflict.


http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/05/ickes_on_mi_pro.html

Ickes: "I rise in opposition, but I'll sit. ... We find it inexplicable that this body that is supposedly devoted to rules is going to fly in the face of, other than our affirmative action rules, the single most fundamental rule in the delegate selection process, that is fair reflection."

[virtualobserver]

36. If you get a chance , take a look at what he said on C-span and let me know what you think.

[Bluenorthwest]

60. I always destest what Ickes says

Ever since his campaign for Ted Kennedy. That is not the point. The point is that the supporters of Obama openly fought affirmative action within the Party to bring more inclusion to the delegations. So it is the old thing all over again. I acuse my opponent of breathing the exact same air that I breath, may she rot in hell! Hypocrisy is still hypocrisy, not matter how wrong or right Ickes is or is not, claiming to support what your side has opposed is hypocrisy.
If you have a gay bashing preacher you can not point at McCain's gay bashing preacher. If you oppose affirmative action in one case, you can not whine about a possible implication that does not at all oppose it, and behave as if it is the end of the world.
Where was all this faux outrage when our Party was filled with religionists opposing equality and inclusion? It was busy watching Cable news, that is where it was.

I voted for Obama. I want him to win in November. How does the OP help that happen? How is it even honest?
What Ickes says is of no meaning. Of no interst. Who cares? I am not so intersted in the faults of the rival as I am about perfecting my own skills. That Iceks is a rat is not news to me. I know his objective without listening, it is to win somehow. What is the objective of the OP, do you think?

[Onlooker]

44. Is this thread anti-affirmative action?

I did not think anything of Ickes comment. Are we going to treat affirmative action like a dirty word, jut as liberal was treated like one for quite awhile? I think it's perfectly okay to acknowledge affirmative action as a way of respecting Obama's influence in increasing the black vote, especially given that the quote will by and large only be seen by liberal and Democrats. A Google search only turns the quote up at DU, nowhere else.

[virtualobserver]

46. on multiple levels they have tried to de-legitimize the process as Obama is seen as the inevitable..

nominee

they are running the "she was robbed" campaign. This was just one more way to label it as unfair, by putting "affirmative action" in the air.

[Onlooker]

48. I don't agree

I thought he was trying to acknowledge it in a positive way so as to reach out blacks. Clinton doesn't have a shot in hell at winning the nomination, but she'll have even less of a shot if she loses any more of her black delegates, and some of them are wavering. By acknowledging affirmative action, I think it was a way to honor the ongoing struggles of the black community. Let's remember Ickes was talking to a politically savvy audience.

[virtualobserver]

50. there were people sitting near him who do not share your view

There was nothing about his speech that I would interpret as reaching out. Striking out is more like it.

[noiretextatique]

45. it's only a problem if you oppose affirmative action

and clearly many democrats do.

[K Gardner]

52. I noticed that, too.. another Rovian slime tactic by the Clinton campaign.

[klook]

55. No.

His point was to elevate "fair reflection" to the level of affirmative action, to say that it belongs on the Mt. Rushmore of Democratic Party values.

What's idiotic about it is his assumption that anything about either the Florida or Michigan primaries represents "fair reflection."

[Laura PourMeADrink]

56. I just heard him on CNN - She will not get out ! Not until MI

is appealed to Credentials. That was my take on what he said. Anyone know when they meet?

[KaptBunnyPants]

59. Oh, they are so clever at the Clinton HQ.

I can't believe her supporters here are even going to try and pretend they don't see what he is doing. But then I don't expect honesty from them, so I can't be that surprised. Of course, Ickes was merely supporting affirmative action, that argument makes total sense in the context of his statement. He would never make the more obvious and relevant argument that in the opinion of the Clinton camp Obama is an affirmative action candidate who is unworthy of the nomination.

[unblock]

61. declaring affirmative action to be a sacred principle of the party is RACIST!!

:wtf:
:eyes:


come ON people, get over the in-fighting and let's get on the same team!

affirmative action is a core principle of the democratic party and specifically so EVEN WHERE IT RUNS COUNTER TO A FAIR REFLECTION OF THE VOTERS' INTENT! kudos for ickes or ANY politician these days recognizing that there are some things more important than pandering to the majority. keep in mind that the majority would overturn nearly all the bill of rights if given the chance.

i didn't hear the speech, so there might have been something untoward that didn't translate to the written quote in the o.p., but i'm not hearing anything problematic at all.

and by the way, no one needs to do any fancy orwellian anything to remind people that obama is black. duhhh.

[guruoo]

62. So, who's really doing the race baiting here?

(on edit: I realize that this may have been unintentional on your part,
and merely a hyperpartisan misreading of Ickes' motivation)

"In 1961 Ickes enrolled at Stanford University, where he fell under the influence of Professor Allard Kenneth Lowenstein, known as the "Pied Piper" for his ability to seduce idealistic young students into the New Left.

At Lowenstein's urging, Ickes spent the summers of 1964 and 1965 registering black voters in Mississippi and Louisiana respectively, for the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) in Vicksburg, Mississippi and for the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) in Tallulah, Louisiana. White vigilantes in Louisiana beat Ickes so badly in 1965 that he lost a kidney.

Undaunted, Ickes went that same year to the Dominican Republic, where — according to the Boston Globe — he sought to “help deposed leftist president Juan Bosch return to office.”

Ickes subsequently left the country and began “touring Latin America,” until his mentor Lowenstein summoned him back to New York to begin work on the anti-Vietnam War movement. Returning to the USA in 1966, Ickes joined Lowenstein in New York. Lowenstein, who was then running for Congress, introduced Ickes to New York politics."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_M._Ickes

[Emit]

63. I caught him saying that once and didn't follow what he was meaning

I, too, wondered why he threw that in there. What other reason would he do that?