If it looks like a thief...

[wlotus]

I am doing the math, and something is not right, here. Why were the delegates from Iowa (33 delegates to Obama), New Hampshire (9 delegates to Clinton), and South Carolina (27 delegates to Obama) counted in full, when their contests were held outside of the window designated in the RBC rules? And I still do not see how it is fair to give any of Clinton's Michigan delegates to Obama.

I am not misinformed or spreading untruths. I am pointing out discrepancies.

Documentary proof of RBC “stop Hillary” corruption found
Posted on June 11, 2008 by plukasiak

A document filed as an exhibit in the Nelson vs Dean Lawsuit that was filed in October 2007 in an attempt to force the DNC to seat the Florida delegation provides indisputable proof that the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee singled out Florida and Michigan for sanctions, and ignored violations of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

Read the rest...

Addendum: There are further explanations from the author here and from another reader here.

Comments

[aamusedinatx.livejournal.com]

In the case of IOWA, they petitioned for a move up of the date. It was reviewed by Dean and the national party in October of 2007 and approved. You can read here (http://iowademocrats.org/ht/display/ReleaseDetails/i/1116916/pid/315102) for those details.

In the case of SOUTH CAROLINA, again they petitioned, formally for a move up here (http://www.scdp.org/news/newsreleases/51/) and were approved.

Nevada's website is impossible to navigate and so I cannot answer in regards to that state's caucus.

In August of 2006 the Democratic party issued it's recommendations see their press release here (http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/08/highlights_of_t.php) on the agenda and time line for 2008.

Recommendations and approved schedule does not set things in stone when states had over 2 years from that time to petition earlier start dates. Which, obviously, Iowa and South Carolina did. I will not assume Nevada did as well. I don't assume but it has been stated by election officials that Michigan and Florida did not bother. The states simply set their own dates for their own reasons. To my knowledge neither Michigan or Florida petitioned formally to move up their primary date.

Having spent, oh, 20 minutes rooting out this relevant information, which answers your question. I'm not sure I understand the confusion. The answers are out there, when one looks further than the surface for them.

[wlotus.livejournal.com]

I appreciate the information, which I looked for and did not find.

I do not appreciate the condescension and will not tolerate it in my blog. But this time I won't delete the comment, just so I don't get accused of not trying to truly understand facts. (And since when do I fucking care what other people think, these days? Hmmm.)

Yes, ma'am, I am pissed.

[aamusedinatx.livejournal.com]

I accept that you are pissed. I thank you for unscreening my comment in spite of that.

You are reading condescension where there is none. My question was as broad as yours and you were not the target. I posted the exact same query at RiverDaughter's blog.

When it comes to politics I take the long-view and I deal in facts, not emotion. I won't respond in your blog again regarding political issues or other issues.

thank you for your time.

[wlotus.livejournal.com]

I deal in facts as well, including the fact that there are people with valid, justifiable emotions attached to the other side of the discussion. Emotions like the ones that drove you to decide that rather than simply not participating in this issue, you won't participate in any aspect of my blog.