Ickes was not speaking a codeword when he was talking about affirmative action,

[Boz]

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.

On one last note as an Obama supporter I have to say on the race issue GET OVER IT Obama is a strong cadidate for president I support, not a strong african american candidate I support and the race issue is a glass jaw issue for that candidate if you dont realize that race is division and a crutch, and your incessant protection of Obama over race is just as racist as those idiots that will use it against him.

We will now have a strong democratic candidate and I will do everything I can to support him and that first step is to understand that hes got it covered when it comes to his perceived weakness, we dont have to protect him on it because it doesnt really exist, in a form that matters or we can change.

[hokies4ever]

1. This is what happens when your candidate has no credibility

People will automatically assume the worst when they hear anything that might be construed as controversial. The truly disturbing thing is not the assertion of ill-intent, but the fact that it would surprise nobody if that's what Ickes was actually trying to do.

[dsc]

2. translation

we have lied about Hillary so much that when we lie about her now we know we will be believed so we will lie about her now.

[hokies4ever]

4. translation translated

When people think of you as a liar, they think of you as a liar. :rofl:

[KittyWampus]

3. If Ickes was intellectually consistent, he'd have insisted on splitting MI 50/50 since the election

wasn't valid. Either noone's votes count or votes are split as a concession with no bias toward either candidate.

But no, he argued the untenable position that HILLARY'S votes were a singularly valid occurance in an otherwise invalid election and any other voters' intent was irrelevant in determining the process.

Ickes had a good point, but he then beat it to death with his own dishonest self-interest.

[K Gardner]

7. "HILLARY'S votes were a singularly valid occurance in an otherwise invalid election "

Sums it up in a nutshell !

[BlooInBloo]

5. Ickes doesn't have a leg to stand on....

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/1/72643/08080/210/526590


I won't bother getting into the "plausible deniability" of Ickes dogwhistle - that's old & boring.

[Boz]

6. While that is a strong set of points, it really doesnt take the rules into account

They have not read the rules the RBC was bound by, and while the ruling benefited my candidate and my preference, the ignorance of the rules could have just as easily gone the other way against us and would have been just as wrong.

The constitution Ickes was referring to was the the constitution of the RBC not the United States.

I am not defending Ickes as a person or messenger, I am defending his points on the rules.

If you ignore the broken rules that go in your favor you chance the broken rules that don't, so you therefore have to fight neutrally for the rules to be correctly used and applied or they mean nothing.