What The Clinton And Obama Camps Said About MI/FL

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:10:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

On MTP:

[Clinton Supporter] GOV. RENDELL: . . . [L]et's revote in Michigan and Florida. Let's end all the suspense. If our campaign is wrong and we are not going to be the strongest in those states, let the voters choose it. . . . Let's revote, and let's see how we do.

MR. RUSSERT: So you would be open to primaries in Michigan and Florida?

[Obama Supporter] FMR. SEN. DASCHLE: Oh, of course. Absolutely. We would be.

Clinton surrogate demanding revotes, Obama supporter ACCEPTING revotes. It seems clear what the positions of the campaigns are. More . .

And Daschle was the only Obama surrogate even positive about revotes. On Face The Nation, John Kerry could not hide his distaste for the idea. Bill Nelson talked about the voters. Kerry talked about "the rules." See for yourself.

On CNN, the exchange went thusly:

BLITZER: Let me talk about -- let me ask both of you about the possibility of Michigan and Florida having a second set of primaries, coming up, presumably, in June. And I want to put some numbers up on the screen to give our viewers in the United States and around the world a sense of what we're talking about.

Without Michigan and Florida in the equation, and they were both punished for moving up their primaries to January, there are 4,047 delegates that would go to the convention in Denver; 794 of them, the so-called superdelegates, the magic number need get the Democratic nomination, 2,024. If there are makeovers in Michigan and Florida, then the numbers change dramatically. We'll show you what they are: 4,409 delegates would be at the convention. The superdelegates would go up to 843, and 2,205 delegates would be needed to clinch the nomination.

Should there be a do-over, in effect, Senator McCaskill, in Michigan and Florida? Should the Democrats in those two states be allowed to have primaries in June?

[Obama supporter] MCCASKILL: Well, certainly Barack Obama wants the people of Michigan and Florida to be heard from. . . . Now, we can't change those rules in the middle of this process. But if the people of Florida, the states of Florida and the DNC come up with a fair way to redo this, whatever they decide, the Obama campaign will respect . . . So I think some kind of do-over is appropriate. I think the Obama campaign is anxious to follow the rules regardless of what these states decide and the DNC decides, whatever the rules are, he'll follow them.

BLITZER: All right. What about that, Senator Menendez?

MENENDEZ: Well, Wolf, Senator Clinton has been on this for a good time now saying, look, they needed to be seated. The Florida and Michigan delegations need to be seated. A way needs to be found to do so. . . .

The Obama camp on its heels preaching rules while the Clinton camp is preaching let the voters vote and decide. Advantage Clinton.

< When Satire Misses the Mark | Guantanamo's Child: The Story of Omar Khadr >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

What The Clinton And Obama Camps Said About MI/FL | 35 comments (35 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I think (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Claw on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:46:16 PM EST

Obama may actually do better in a revote. Having his name on the ballot in MI will probably help, and more republicans than democrats voted in the FLA primary...unlike almost every other primary.

His window of opportunity is slipping away... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by goldberry on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:05:40 PM EST

The longer he holds out, the less kindly FL and MI will think of him. The message he is sending is they only matter to him if they don't matter to him. Otherwise, they didn't follow the RULZ. If I were him, I'd waive the damn rules, take a temporary loss, regain the goodwill of the voters and get it off of the evening news.
But if he wants to drag this out, that's OK. I'm a Clintonista and it's a no-lose scenario for her.


Ha (none / 0) (#14)
by Claw on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:12:44 PM EST

I don't like the term Clintonista any more than I like the term Obamabot;-) But I think he's doing okay so far...he should probably start ramping up the "let's have a redo" rhetoric pretty soon but I don't think he needs to promise to fund it yet. I think saying "look, we'll follow whatever rules we get from the DNC whether or not that includes revoting, seating, etc." is still politcally savvy of him.
Don't forget, many dems stayed home on primary day because they thought they knew it wouldn't count.


: It has not been proven (none / 0) (#19)
by Joan in VA on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:59:52 PM EST

that Dems stayed home because there was also a property tax amendment to be voted on.

What makes you think (none / 0) (#32)
by cal1942 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:23:23 AM EST

that Obama would win or do better in Michigan?

Did you not see the results in Ohio?

I'm a lifelong Michigander and I have to say that a strident supporter of "free" trade like Obama would fare poorly if the Clinton campaign is able to drive that point home.

Spotlighting Obama's Friedmanesque economic team of Cutler, Goolsbee and Liebman will make many Michiganders see Obama as a Republican.

Obama has even less chance in Florida. If you don't believe me go read the GE match-up polls.


Well (none / 0) (#35)
by Claw on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:17:13 AM EST

Having his name on the ballot in MI would probably help. FLA and MI held their primaries early, as you're well aware. Way before Obama's 12 state win streak, popular vote lead, delegate lead, and actually before many AA's were convinced that he was viable. Also, voters were TOLD that their votes would not be counted. Who knows who stayed home? The fact that voters did come out in such great numbers shows us two things--

We need to have a revote and legitimize this thing.
The only thing that can stop the dems in November is the dems.

I really like... (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by OxyCon on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:49:54 PM EST

the way Rendell made the case for primaries over caucuses, then Daschle, in a display of complete ignorance gave evidence which backed up Randell's argument by mentioning how, even though Hillary won the Texas primary handily, she'd be getting less delegates because of the unfair and disenfranchising caucus system.

Ouch (none / 0) (#1)
by Daryl24 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:41:26 PM EST

This on top of the 15 million Carville gotcha. I think Obama knows he's going to lose any do over and probably in a big way. Looks like he's stalling for time.

BTW I wish Wolf had followed up by asking McCaskill why the rules don't apply to Iowa, New Hamshire and South Carolina.

Also Worried About Popular Vote (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by BDB on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:02:24 PM EST

Also from Daschle's appearance on MTP, when is the Will of the People not the Will of the People, apparently if it results in someone other than Obama being the nominee):

MR. RUSSERT: Should the candidate who has the most elected delegates be the nominee?
FMR. SEN. DASCHLE: Absolutely. I don't see how we could possibly do anything other than respect the will of the people who have voted in caucus and primary states all over the country. And what it would say to the world, to the country that we'd overturn the verdict of those, of those elections would be travesty for, for the party and for the country.
MR. RUSSERT: So if Hillary Clinton had more elected delegates, you, as a superdelegate, would vote for Hillary Clinton?
FMR. SEN. DASCHLE: I have said that I think the superdelegates ought to respect the vote of the elected, the pledged delegates. And I'm prepared to do that, even if Hillary is the nominee.
MR. RUSSERT: What if Hillary Clinton wins the popular vote, cumulative popular vote?
FMR. SEN. DASCHLE: Well, again, I think it's the delegates at the convention, they're going to be the ones who are going to be making the rules for the convention. They're going to be deciding, ultimately, who the candidates are going to be. It really ought to be the, the pledged delegates, the committed delegates, the people who are there who were elected to take that, that position. We want to--I'm from a smaller state. Obviously, I've benefitted over the years from having equal representation in the Senate. I think delegates really are the ones who ought to set the criteria and make, ultimately, the, the final judgment as to who the nominee's going to be.

So, Democrats can't do anything other than respect the will of the people who have voted in caucus and primary states all over the country, unless more of them prefer Hillary Clinton and then we should look at pledged delegates and not those pesky voters and caucus participants.


: wow I'm surprised that Daschle actually pointed (none / 0) (#29)
by tandem5 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:09:58 PM EST

out the state power vs. the power of the individual voter dilemma. How can he make a "will of the people" argument one minute and then turn around and explicitly argue for states' rights?

: Daschle (none / 0) (#33)
by cal1942 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:35:33 AM EST

actually, without realizing it, made an argument against the primary/caucus system.
For many reasons I agree but not in the way that Daschle stumbled into.
Under the pre McGovern Commission selection method Obama wouldn't have a prayer. He wouldn't have had the independents and crossovers that warp the post McGovern Commission process that's given us two winners and five losers since 1972.

Advantage...how? (none / 0) (#2)
by Claw on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:43:02 PM EST

Does anyone seriously think that HRC would be fighting tooth and nail to get MI and FLA seated if their votes weren't critical to her nomination? She accepted the stripping of their delegates because she didn't believe she'd need them. Just as BO isn't campaigning as vigorously for a redo because he knows it doesn't help him, she is simply doing what is in her political interest. She happens to be right. We need to figure out how to get these delegates seated, but I can guarantee you she wouldn't be pushing this nearly as hard (or at all) if, say, Wisconsin and GA had been stripped of delegates.

Does anyone seriously think EITHER (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Anne on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:00:40 PM EST

of the candidates would be haggling over these two states if one of them could have won the required delegates without them? This isn't - or shouldn't be - just about Clinton's political calculation, because he doesn't have the delegates he needs, either.

I think he was hoping for a knock-out punch on March 4, with a tidal wave of heretofore uncommitted superdelegates coming to his side, rendering the whole re-vote question moot. It has to be killing him that they might have to go hat-in-hand, begging for votes from these states - and with Michigan, he will have to have a "story" for why he took himself off the ballot in the first place.

The less interested he seems in advocating for a re-vote, the more of a poor sport he looks to be, and the harder it is to imagine that this is the candidate who not only wants to bring the nation together, but can bring it together.


: Nope (none / 0) (#13)
by Claw on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:05:45 PM EST

That's my point exactly. There wouldn't be any stink about leaving FLA and MI stripped if they didn't have a potential part to play.

Claw, I'm not sure what your point is? (none / 0) (#4)
by Kathy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:46:41 PM EST

That Clinton is being a good politician, and that in her shoes, Obama would be doing the same?

There is no way to come out of this without a revote.


: Kathy (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by auntmo on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:21:22 PM EST

Especially since the voters of Florida saw Obama (in that illegal press conference he held) SUPPORT reinstating their votes.
He really doesn't have any other choice, given what he already told them, if he wants to be believable in the GE.

Both HRC And Obama would want them seated (none / 0) (#5)
by catfish on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:50:05 PM EST

if they were the presumptive nominee. We want Florida in November.

Obama said a while ago he would want Florida delegates seated:

By WILLIAM MARCH and ELAINE SILVESTRINI The Tampa Tribune
Published: September 30, 2007
TAMPA - Barack Obama hinted during a Tampa fundraiser Sunday that if he's the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, he'll seat a Florida delegation at the party's national convention, despite national party sanctions prohibiting it.
Obama also appeared to violate a pledge he and the other leading candidates took by holding a brief news conference outside the fundraiser. That was less than a day after the pledge took effect Saturday, and Obama is the first Democratic presidential candidate to visit Florida since then.

Yes. But do note (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:56:47 PM EST

. . . "if he's the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee." Now, that is not a quote from him, so perhaps the reporter was presumptive, too. Therefore, your emphasis makes sense on the next phrase, on the spirit of what he said -- and, I suspect, that is how he wanted Floridians to hear it.

Otherwise, if it is only if Obama already is to be the nominee, then what he was saying is that he would work for Floridians' votes to count for the record, only when they no longer mattered.


Read that statement closely (none / 0) (#6)
by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:54:50 PM EST

If he has already won, i.e., he is the presumptive nominee, he would want them seated. It's an empty sentiment and Floridians will see through that.


: That was many months ago (none / 0) (#8)
by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:58:03 PM EST

-- in his press conference in Florida that broke the pledge he had signed the day before, as I recall.
So the question is: Did Floridians already see through that, do you think?

Either (none / 0) (#9)
by Claw on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:59:41 PM EST

would want them seated as long as it didn't take away their shot at being at the top of the ticket. I think Obama does want the delegates seated but he isn't going to work for it as vigorously as Hillary because it doesn't benefit him as much as it benefits her.
And my point, Kathy, is that there seems to be a sense at TL that Hillary is simply fighting for FLA and MI because of her love for democracy. She happens to be on the right side of the issue but I'm arguing that an interest in democracy has much less to do with that than her victories in both states.


I suspect (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:17:06 PM EST

none of us are under the illusion that Hillary loves democracy so much that she would be making the exact same arguments if the roles were reversed.

Be that as it may, she has cleared occupied the moral high ground on this issue, whatever her motivation may be.


You (none / 0) (#17)
by Claw on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:27:37 PM EST

Don't seem to be under that illusion but some do seem to be.
--Clinton's trying to save MI and FLA because she wants every American to have a vote and a voice
--Obama is terrible democracy-stifler because he isn't fiercely campaigning to get these delegates seated

Nope, they're both just trying to win the nomination. It doesn't change the fact that Hillary's right about this...I just want us to keep the fact in mind that they're both really just trying to win.


No (none / 0) (#21)
by BDB on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:10:39 PM EST

Clinton wants the delegates seated and votes counted because she won Michigan and Florida.

Obama opposes it because he lost Michigan and Florida.

In the end, however, Clinton will probably win this one - either with seating or, more likely, a re-vote - because what is good for her also happens to be good for the party and good for democracy. But recognizing why Clinton will win does not equate to believing those are her motivations.


Oops Not No (none / 0) (#22)
by BDB on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:11:29 PM EST

I changed some words in my post and didn't change the title, a longer but more accurate title would've been "Yes".


: Right (none / 0) (#24)
by Claw on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:27:37 PM EST

And I'm not implying that recognizing their respective motivations implies swallowing the rhetoric. I just think it--this is putting it lightly--is conveniently glossed over by many HRC supporters. Same with BO, though we should acknowledge that he hasn't opposed revoting.

Good for democracy, Dems in Nov., AND Hillary (none / 0) (#26)
by catfish on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:55:53 PM EST

But no, I am under no illusion that Hillary or Obama is motivated to redo Florida or Michigan out of altruistic pursuit of pure democracy.


Obama On His Heels (none / 0) (#16)
by BDB on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:25:55 PM EST

Obama needs to find a way to deal with this issue. It isn't going to get better over time. The longer he's on the defensive, the worse it's going to be.

Clinton has successfully moved him onto the defensive generally since March 4.* This is the biggest issue, IMO, but Clinton's folks have also played the Obama as VP card smartly, IMO. The latest Survey USA poll finds that while just 24% of Democrats think Obama and Clinton should unite right now for a joint ticket, if they run a joint ticket, Democrats prefer Clinton/Obama to Obama/Clinton by 12%, 48-36. Interestingly, even 18-24 year-olds are tied 43-43 on this issue. The only demo that seems to clearly prefer Obama on top is African Americans. Although 1% more of indys prefer him at the top than Clinton. In addition, a full 50% now say that Super Delegates should be free to choose who to support and do not have to be bound by some criteria.

I can't help but wonder if the FLA/MI stuff isn't hurting Obama more broadly. And, also, whether all the screwy delegate math coming out of March 4 isn't giving people pause over the pledged delegate stuff. The Obama folks have been preaching pledged delegates uber alles for awhile now, but based on that SUSA poll, it looks like a lot of people still aren't buying it.

* The one issue where Obama has tried to put Clinton on the defensive is with her CinC remarks about McCain. He's succeeded somewhat at this, at least when his advisors aren't stepping in it by saying something stupid. Now the Clinton folks are pushing back and it'll be interesting to see if it works. If it does, then I think that's a potentially bad sign for Obama, that the defensiveness he has on other issues (like FLA/MI) is hurting his ability at going after Clinton. It's hard to play offense if you're tied up playing defense.

Anyway, via Turkana at The Left Coaster, on the conference call today

Wolfson said Senator McCain's stand on Iraq, including the "100 years" comment, is enough, in itself, for Senator Clinton to prefer Senator Obama to Senator McCain. He also very pointedly made clear that if Senator Obama wins the nomination, Senator Clinton will "enthusiastically support" Senator Obama. That's it. He also pointed out that Obama campaign manager David Plouffe has called Senator Clinton "one of the most secretive politicians in America today," and said that she will "say-or-do-anything-to-win. In other words, this is campaign season, and the candidates are hitting each other hard- both candidates are hitting each other hard- but that should not be misconstrued or misinterpreted."

I'd say. (none / 0) (#20)
by Arbitrarity on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:03:03 PM EST

That it's not a bigger issue because it's little more than a semantic difference.

Hillary demands a new vote, Obama accepts one. Largely the same, to most voters.

Probably the same difference between 'denounce' and 'reject.' Which to some, maybe be a huge difference. But to most, is largely inconsequential.


Do the math (none / 0) (#27)
by 1jane on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:59:05 PM EST

Clinton desperately needs the FL and MI revote to try to win the nomination. Last week Oboma picked up seven new delegates, unofficially 8. Clinton lost 4 delegates.

There is no higher ground on the FL and MI revote. She wants to win.It's just campaigning people. Tomorrow Barack Obama will win in Mississippi and we can count delegates again.


: Its the new math (none / 0) (#28)
by Marvin42 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 04:53:56 PM EST

The math (delegate anyway) doesn't matter. The new math says: who knows.
Tomorrows delegate math: unimportant. PA delegate math: marginally important (unless Obama wins, then VERY important).

: Higher Ground (none / 0) (#34)
by cal1942 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:53:01 AM EST

"There is no higher ground on the FL and MI revote
The higher ground is either seating the delegates as the people in MI and FL voted in January or a revote.
That it happens to be an advantage for Clinton is not relevent.
It's still the high ground.
I was an Edwards supporter and voted uncommitted in the primary. I'm now a Clinton supporter but had Obama won the original primary I'd still support seating the delegates or a revote because it's the right thing to do.
It's the high ground.

Demanding a solution is not appropriate (none / 0) (#25)
by s5 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:30:13 PM EST

The only good-faith position to take is that they'll accept what the states and the national party agree to, within the bounds of the rules.

The campaigns are motivated by self-interest only, not by fairness, no matter what they say to the contrary. So it's up to the neutral players (neutral on paper, at the very least) to push for one solution or the other. It's completely inappropriate for either campaign to weigh on this.

Obama's position is exactly correct: that he'll support a revote but he'll leave the push for it to the neutral players. Clinton's position, on the other hand, is opportunistic: she'll support any plan that might potentially increase her delegate count by bringing in MI and FL, while actively opposing any plan that might favor Obama.

You're not listening to the DNC (none / 0) (#30)
by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:21:34 PM EST

which says, correctly, that the candidates have to actively take part in this with the states to come up with a proposal for the DNC to approve.

That means Obama is supposed to be PART of the push for a plan, not leave it to others.

This is not encouraging behavior, not by someone who has to show us he can be president. This is not the way a president ought to behave, saying let others do the work. I am so unimpressed by him in this.

We have had enough of a president who doesn't want t to the harrrrrd worrrrk.


: Yup (none / 0) (#31)
by tree on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:20:59 AM EST

This is the perfect opportunity to Obama to show us what a uniter he is and how he can transcend politics. Truly a perfect opportunity. And so far he's blowing it. Looks like his "new politics" is really just old politics done incompetently.