[Updated 6/1 AM] Watching the Rules and Bylaws Committee!

Today, the Democratic Party's Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) met in Washington, DC to discuss delegate allocation for the Florida and Michigan primaries. At the end, the RBC unanimously decided to penalize Florida only 50% of their vote, compared to the 100% penalty imposed in 2007. This applies to all delegates, pledged and unpledged. The delegates will be allocated based on the January primary.
As for Michigan, the RBC passed a motion (by 19-8, or over 2/3 the RBC size) proposed by Mame Reiley (VA), a Clinton supporter, to also halve the Michigan delegates' votes, keeping the delegation the same size (128 pledged delegates). But the delegates will be divided 69-59 in favor of Senator Clinton - as suggested by Senator Carl Levin on behalf of the Michigan Democratic Party, and opposed to the 64-64 split proposed by the Obama campaign and the 73 Clinton, 55 uncommitted ("up-for-grabs") take of the Clinton campaign.
I am glad the 50% penalty was imposed; there must be some sanction for violating the rules. However, I didn't like the RBC saying the Michigan delegates should be divided 69-59; the RBC probably should keep out of delegate division, and leave that to the State Democratic Party. But seeing this was the position of the Michigan Democratic Party, I suppose I am just splitting hairs.

Bottom line - Senator Clinton gains a total of 87 delegate-votes (52.5 FL + 34.5 MI), while Senator Obama gets 63 delegate-votes (33.5 FL + 29.5 MI). Senator Edwards gets 6.5 delegate-votes out of FL (DCW post). Leaving out the Edwards delegates (which likely will go to Senator Obama), this means Senator Clinton gains 24 delegate-votes. Definitely ain't closing the 150+ pledged delegate gap by much.

Since the solutions proposed were very close to what the FL and MI Democratic Parties proposed (with perhaps the exception of superdelegates getting only 0.5 vote each and the MI delegation's vote halved), hopefully this means there is no challenge or appeal to the full Democratic Convention, and the Democratic Presidential nominee will be known within the next week. And presumably, that will be Senator Barack Obama.

Yay!

UPDATE 6/1 AM: Dana Milbank, echoing Harold Ickes and Clinton supporters, says: "The panel went on, by a vote of 19 to 8, to give Michigan half of its votes -- and to give Obama the gift of delegates that the voters of the state had not given him."
I suppose Ickes and the Clinton camp are enraged that Clinton did not get 73 delegates and the chance to go after 55 "uncommitted" delegates, which would have helped them close the delegate gap. Never mind that the 55 were AGAINST Clinton. Or, apparently, that 30,000 write-in ballots were discarded (Michigan does not recognize write-ins; via DCW). And the uncommitted and write-ins were probably almost all for Obama (mostly) and Edwards, and John Edwards says the "uncommitted" should go to Obama.
Yeah, well - the RBC ruling also gave Senator Clinton 69 delegates she had not won, because the primary did not count. As Chuck Todd suggests, the Obama camp had the votes for a 50-50 MI split, but agreed to a 69-59 compromise to gain a wider majority of the RBC.
Here's some interesting analysis by fivethirtyeight's Poblano, aka Nate Silver, on Michigan - his analysis of the exit polls suggest a 69-59 MI split is fair, while his demographics-based model (which has had some success) says Obama might have even won Michigan.

I am furious!

[Not that I can do much about it.]

This morning's news brings the story of folks in Santa Barbara forced to live in their cars in parking lots, after losing (in some cases, jobs and subsequently,) their homes. [CNN story, via LAT.] This, in the USA. Amazing! So the possibility that the next President would be someone who self-admittedly doesn't know much about economics, and is advised by lobbyists and ex-legislators who have played a major role in precipitating the current home foreclosure crisis and have been lobbying Congress on behalf of the affected banks... is downright scary. [MSNBC story, via TPM.]

And that brings me to this morning's news about the seemingly-endless Democratic primary season. Democratic legal-beagles have put forth a 38-page memo which states that the Rules and Bylaws Committee, which meets May 31, cannot award more than 50% of the delegates from the disqualified FL and MI primaries (how to apportion them is another matter altogether). HOWEVER - the Credentials Committee, whose decision have to be approved by the Democratic Convention, can restore 100% of the FL and MI delegations.

What does this mean? Of late, Senator Clinton has been positioning herself as the new MLK, fighting for the civil rights of Florida and Michigan voters, and demanding that the full delegations be seated (never mind that FL/MI broke the rules, and she herself said - at a more comfortable position in the race - that the FL/MI elections would not count.) The Democratic legal memo says this cannot happen before the Convention. Ergo, she can fight all the way to August if she wants.
[UPDATE: Just saw this NPR story that describes Senator Clinton's turn-about on FL/MI.]

People who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. Three elections in recent memory have gone to the convention - Dems in 1972 and 1980, and the GOP in 1976. In 1972, the anti-McGovern forces tried to change the allocation of California's delegation (which at that time was winner-take-all). This movement was apparently spearheaded by now-ex-President Jimmy Carter. In 1980, Senator Ted Kennedy fought President Carter all the way to the Convention. In 1976, President Ford had more delegates than now-ex-President Reagan, but not enough to secure the nomination; hence, they fought it out on the Convention floor.

If you haven't figured out the trend already - the eventual nominee lost all three times. Now, in two of those elections, the opposing candidate ran again the next cycle, and won. So... is that what Senator Clinton has learned from these events - destroy Senator Obama's chances for this November, so she can run in 2012? Never mind that in the interim, the country will be governed nominally by an economic novice and in reality by unaccountable, behind-the-scenes lobbyists and ex-lobbyists, who couldn't care less about the rising unemployed and homeless?

If that is indeed the case, then I seriously doubt Senator Clinton will have the luck of Presidents Carter and Reagan. Not by pissing off the most loyal Democratic voting block (African-Americans vote 9:1 for Democrats, compared with 3:2 or even 1:1 for Women), and not by turning off younger voters who prefer Senator Obama 3:1.

After all (as I have said before), Senator Clinton can continue to blame sexism and misogyny for her loss this year, but the fact is, her own campaign mismanagement screwed up her chances. And no matter who is to blame - Penn, Solis Doyle, President Clinton, whoever - the buck eventually stops with Senator Clinton.

Some interesting reads:
Roland Martin says that for the ClintonS, it is the ClintonS first, the Party be damned.
Marjorie Valbrun (agreeing with other XX-ers) over at the XX Factor on Slate.com says that Senator Clinton knew exactly what she was saying when she mentioned Senator Robert Kennedy's assassination. Melinda Henneberger says Americans tend to see no evil, even if the intentions were not good. (I myself was willing to give Senator Clinton the benefit of the doubt - but there is a pattern here of saying things first and asking forgiveness later. That seems to be the Clinton way.)
Lawrence Bobo at TheRoot.com says Senator Clinton should learn about the function of the hook at the Apollo.
Finally, for all those who say there will never be another female candidate for POTUS - Dahlia Lithwick presents an excellent rebuttal.

Senator Clinton's campaign finances - and Texas excuse?

The NYT has an article about how the Clinton campaign appears to have mismanaged its finances. The more I read it, though, it appears Senator Obama spent more, but since he also raised more funds and is winning, he appears to be off the hook. Jim Jordan, a one-time Kerry campaign manager, says as much at the end of the article.
However, there are a couple of differences between the Clinton and Obama campaigns:
1. The Obama campaign was better prepared for post-Feb 5 races, and also organized well in caucus states. Grass-roots support has been crucial to Senator Obama's success.
2. Mark Penn, Senator Clinton's strategist and pollster, has raked in about $10 million so far. For the Obama campaign, David Axelrod and four polling firms together have collected ~$4 million.
Well, we definitely know who's getting the most bang for the buck!

In an interview with Texas Monthly, Senator Clinton says Texas doesn't factor into a Democratic winning strategy, unlike... Florida and Michigan! So if recent trends hold and Senator Obama wins Texas, will this be Senator Clinton's new excuse?