http://www.tbo.com/news/politics/MGBRVGVOO5F.html

Alexis Herman, Washington D.C.
James Roosevelt Jr., Massachusetts
Harold Ickes Jr., Washington DC.
Donna Brazile of Washington, DC
Donald Fowler, South Carolina
Allan Katz , Florida
Elizabeth Smith, Washington D.C.
Mark Brewer, Michigan
Ralph Dawson, New York
Hartina Flournay, Washington DC
Carol Khare Fowler, South Carolina
Alice Germond, Washington DC
Jaime Gonzalez Jr., Texas
Janice Griffin, Virginia
Alice Huffman, California
Thomas Hynes, Illinois
Ben Johnson, Washington DC
Elaine Kamarck, Massachusetts
Eric Kleinfeld, Washington DC
David McDonald, Washington state
Mona Pasquil, California
Mame Reiley, Virginia
Garry Shay of California
Michael Steed, Washington DC
Sharon Stroschein, South Dakota
Everett Ward, North Carolina
Jerome Wiley Segovia, Virginia
Sarah Swisher, Iowa
Yvonne Gates, Nevada
Martha Fuller Clark, New Hampshire

Given the RBC’s composition, it’d have been surprising if the contemporaneous preferences of the Clinton campaign weren’t reflected in the committee’s deliberations on Florida & Michigan. And in fact the campaign was pleased with the rulings at the time they were passed down.

the idea that she’s the first politician EVAH to press an advantage plays right into the concept of women as backstabbing untrustworthy bitches.

Heh. Whereas that’s exactly what I expect of politicians. What I look for in a politician is: a) is she/he good at pressing and spinning advantages and working the system sleazily? and b) will she/he use that talent to advance the issues I care about. I do not want Mr. Smith going to Washington. I want someone who knows how shit works.

Zuzu, I also can’t agree that the two questions (what are the political ramification and was it technically a violation of the rules) are separate. She is doing what she’s doing for political advantage, therefore it seems unreasonable to disregard political questions when analyzing the issue.

Sotonohito, if you’re claiming that Clinton’s evil because she broke rules, then you have to show that she broke the rules. If you’re just saying she did something you didn’t like, even if she followed the rules, then that’s a different story.

Really, the idea that she’s the first politician EVAH to press an advantage plays right into the concept of women as backstabbing untrustworthy bitches.

And yet, when you look at the rules, the ones she’s supposedly violated, you can see that she hasn’t actually broken a single one. Nor has she asked for any rule to be changed, since there are procedures for seating delegates from states that have had their delegates stripped.

So all we’re left with is a sense of “that’s not faiiiiiiir!”

Which, well, when you consider that the Obama campaign (according to my non-Clinton campaign source) orchestrated the withdrawal from the Michigan ballot at the last minute, when the Edwards, Obama, etc. campaigns knew full well that the Clinton campaign couldn’t get the properly-notarized paperwork together in time — knowing that they could spin it as Clinton dissing the Iowa and New Hampshire voters — the whole “I’m going to make a play for the Michigan and Florida voters to make my opponents look bad” really isn’t out of line with what’s already happened with this campaign.

And look at the vaunted PLEDGE itself — it was circulated by the Richardson campaign to make the front-runners look bad. Because the meat of the pledge, the stuff they actually agree to do, is no different from what they’re already obligated to do by the DNC. But Richardson added all the Whereas clauses about the first four states and thus put political pressure on the front-runners to follow suit.

Really, are we all such political naifs that we seriously think that any of this is new, or that Hillary Clinton is the first one to ever do any of this? Come on.

Its like illegal immegration. There’s a huge amount of racism masquerading as concern over illegal immegration, but that doesn’t mean illegal immegration isn’t a problem.

Personally, I don’t care for Clinton’s politics she’s horribly right wing and she brings people like Terry fucking McAuliffe (who I hate with a burning passion), but that has nothing to do with the fact that I don’t approve of what she’s doing re: Michigan/Florida. I also happen to think the current primary system is massively fouled up and needs a fix that none of the politicians have the whatittakes to implement, which still doesn’t mean I approve of what Clinton is doing re: Michigan/Florida.

If Clinton gets the nomination I’ll not only gladly vote for her, I’ll work my ass of campaigning for her and doing GOTV for her. Which also has nothing to do with the fact that I think she’s doing sleazy stuff re: Michigan/Florida. Or with the fact that Rob and Scott behaved in an unacceptable manner.

But, again, just becuase there are some horribly misogynist Clinton haters doesn’t mean I feel any obligation to bend over backwards and attempt to excuse actions that I do think are genuinely sleazy on Clinton’s part.

Zuzu, I also can’t agree that the two questions (what are the political ramification and was it technically a violation of the rules) are separate. She is doing what she’s doing for political advantage, therefore it seems unreasonable to disregard political questions when analyzing the issue.

I agree completely that Clinton is getting unfairly bashed as powerhungry and whatnot. Of course she’s powerhungry, but so are Obama and everyone else running for president. People who aren’t powerhungry don’t run for president. And, again, there’s no doubt in my mind that a huge amount of the “OMG Clinton is powerhungry” crap is motivated by misogyny.

But, still, from my POV what she has been attempting to do is sleazy. You say it isn’t technically a violation of the written rules, and you know more about the written rules than I do so I’ll assume you are completely correct there. But that doesn’t make it any less sleazy.

None of which has anything to do with Rob and Scott, who (as I said previously) not only stepped over the line as far as civilized behavior goes, but apparently joyfully leapt over the line and ran a few kilometers in the direction of “absolute asshole behavior”.

The political ramifications result in the whole “Clinton is out to get Obama and Edwards” hysteria (remembering that Edwards was still in the race at the time). Yet the memo that started this never mentions Edwards or Obama. Its relationship to them is at best ancillary. It essentially asks that, at the national convention, a way be found to have those two states represented so that the party appears whole. How evil is that, she wants the party to represent a united front going into the national race. Now, it sucks for the Edwards and Obama camps that they didn’t think of this first, possibly by a different angle. The problem that I see is that there is an element out there that is so desperate to sell the “Clinton is divisive” meme that they simply cannot allow her to have a gracious thought or to pony up to it. It is absolutely essential for the party to leave the convention united behind a nominee and somehow bringing Michigan and Florida into that would be a huge benefit. If the party doesn’t find a way to do that, then it is conceding some very good electoral strategies.